Widening Participation/Contextual Admissions

[SometimesRavenSometimesParrot]

Hi all. I’ve seen quite a lot of posts lately where people seem a bit confused about different widening participation initiatives and contextual admissions, either how they work, why they work or why they’re even done... and some people asking questions about them and not getting anything resembling an accurate response.

I’ve worked in a WP team for seven years now (with a couple of short stints in admissions), so since I have often had excellent advice from Mumsnet and my questions answered, I thought I’d offer myself up to answer anything in this area someone might want to know.

I be name changed so I can be a bit more honest and I know there are several other posters who work or research in this area who might want to chip in!

Standard disclaimer of every uni works slightly different, so answers will be broad ranging - feel free to PM me if you’ve got a specific q!

I do not think in a profession like law or medicine for that matter it is safe for the public to let anyone quality however. We need it to be difficult and only those up to standard passed. Other than that I could not care less whether they are white, black, blue, posh, rich or not well off as long as they are good at the job

You seem to be assuming that applicants who gain their place through WP schemes are

• less qualified
• get lower grades during their course and in exams
• do not require to meet the standards set by the general medical council, general dental council etc

You are wrong on all these counts and such lazy thinking is rather unworthy of you @Xenia.

Every single medical applicant in the UK today probably has better A levels grades and a higher entrance test score than you father did. Would you say he was a sub standard doctor ? Were they scraping the bottom of the barrel when they let him in ?

I haven't read the whole thread, but am not surprised many don't understand how contextualisation or widening participation schemes work. I certainly don't!

Ds is on FSM and was at an SS throughout secondary. He joined a mainstream FE and is studying A levels. He received offers from RG unis but they were all standard offers. Oh, and he has a number of SEND.

SometimesRavenSometimesParrot Is it unusual for someone like him not to receive a contextualised offer?

@PresentingPercy

As so few grads get a 2:2 these days, the entry to law tends to limit itself. Around 6000 training positions (probably less now) and 450 barrister pupillages limits aspiration. 18,000 students study law every year. Plus grad level training is open to all-comers with any suitable degree. So do we really need all these law courses?

Of course 50% to university was going to make the divide more obvious. The 50% might feel a bit lowly. The demise of the colleges of HE has led to this. It has also led to many professions requiring degrees. Some, to their credit, have realised that degrees at 21 should not be the only route. Degree apprenticeships are often taken by the very best candidates: not ones who cannot get into university by the standard route. They can be hugely competitive. So who is successful getting these apprenticeships? They might be a better proposition for poor DC as the earnings roll in earlier, but do these DC get them?

I heartily agree that there should be targeted support for some children pre school. Sure Start was flooded with DC who did not need the interventions. The hard to reach parents were still that: hard to reach. There are still lots of DC who never get near a nursery, let alone have interventions before the age of 3. We are so "nice" that we never target limited resources. We go for scattergun and hope the DC that need the help get swept up.

We have been banging on about this for generations. All my working and volunteering life in education. It seems we cannot solve it but early intervention is better, in my view, (disclaimer - not a researcher so obviously I am wrong) but when DC are homeless, parent in prison, DC prone to running away, parents taking drugs/alcoholic or DC in care or abused, or there is parental violence, FGM, or a lone child with parents abroad, the outcomes are dire due to instability. As you might expect. Often refugeee children do better IF they are with their supportive intelligent parents. The supported child will do better but the very worst situations facing DC are often ignored because "nice" poorer children are seen as more deserving of support. Lots of the children I have referenced need family mentors and school mentors. The money we need to spend is vast but it needs to be targeted and not spent on families who do not need it but engineer themselves into a position to get it.

I agree with you about degree apprenticeships. They’re a fantastic opportunity and we need more, but they’re not widening access as much as people thought. Not least because there as SO many steps to get on them (application, 4 x online test, one written piece of work, one phone interview, one assessment centre, one panel interview was the process at one I saw not long ago!) they vastly favour students with a LOT of school and parental support to prepare them for the process.

@DelBocaVista

We have been banging on about this for generations. All my working and volunteering life in education. It seems we cannot solve it but early intervention is better, in my view, (disclaimer - not a researcher so obviously I am wrong) I agree. I'm working on a project that is pushing for statutory careers education in primary school.

Lots of the children I have referenced need family mentors and school mentors. The money we need to spend is vast but it needs to be targeted and not spent on families who do not need it but engineer themselves into a position to get it.

The problem is the lack of joined up thinking and funding. Connexions tried to address this but only the careers service really ran with it when we needed all services to be fully on board.
WP is only one part of a very big jigsaw.

My institution is trying to cut our primary work :(

I’ve seen a few threads on MN where it is assumed that a contextual offer means a place (and with a lower offer at that!) is going to a ‘less academic’ student. Not the case- Dc has contextual offers and has predictions of all A*s and got all 9s (bar 2 8s) for gcse .

@Unformidable

I haven't read the whole thread, but am not surprised many don't understand how contextualisation or widening participation schemes work. I certainly don't!

Ds is on FSM and was at an SS throughout secondary. He joined a mainstream FE and is studying A levels. He received offers from RG unis but they were all standard offers. Oh, and he has a number of SEND.

SometimesRavenSometimesParrot Is it unusual for someone like him not to receive a contextualised offer?

It would depend on the institutions he applied for! Not every university offers contextual admissions, or contextual admissions for every course, or uses the same criteria.

It may be his institutions focused on school for contextual offers, and his school didn’t meet the criteria (which is usually based on low performance compared to national average)

My institution is trying to cut our primary work :(

My project is with the CEC - unfortunately my university doesn't do much primary work anymore. The education liaison team just can't afford it.... unlike the Aimhiger days!!

Iona I don't think I said those getting places were less good. I just said we need to be careful that we don't lower standards and it is the same at the upper end - that we don't let people in thick as a brick because their father went to the college (doesn't happen these days but probably did in the past). it is just something that needs to be watched in case not very bright but very clued up middle class posters' children manage to work their way round the contextual admissions systems to get places compared with very bright true contextuals (bit like grammar school places going to the tutored only who can afford tutoring).

Sometimes on efforts to get onto apprenticeships as people know better than I do on this thread the process of applying for some graduate jobs is so time consuming it puts people off - so much that one big law firm (I have forgotten which) found certain groups of people were not prepared to put in all the effort for such a slim chance of making it through each round (bit like Oxbridge applications where loads of effort is needed with not much chance most people get in) that that law firm has cut down the effort needed. Even so it is hours of time with tiny chances for most people.

I don;'t think dragging my father into it is worth anything much. When I went to university 15% of people went and one third got a 2.1 or higher - the requirement for my first job so 5% in a sense - top 5% - were getting those jobs. I presume it was fewer than 15% in my father's day of people going so probably his standard and exams were higher in terms of position in the age 18 cohort (and he read a physics degree before medicine - one reason they put off babies into their 30s as he did 3 years physics then 5 medicine, then became a consultant, doing exams until he was 30 !!)

@DelBocaVista
Vocational degrees are not the same thing as getting a job. My DH did Engineering. The idea of not doing engineering as a job didn’t enter his head. Likewise my friends who did English, History and Geography and MFL. They needed jobs after university. Loads of my friends came from families where no one had gone to university. It was utterly elite. Vast changes were made in the 1960s. New universities and polytechnics.

I do suspect the best apprenticeships have an onerous application process. But the DC is being employed. It costs to have an apprentice. Firms want the right people.

It comes back to mentoring really. Personal guidance. However in the end, the DC must be able to shine.

Xenia, surely all you can say re those statistics is that the top 33% or so of graduates were eligible for the 'top' jobs.

It's one hell of a leap of logic to go from there to claiming that the 'top' 5% of the population (of that age) were getting those jobs. That figure is dependent upon your implicit assumption that it was the 'top' (most academically able) 15% of the cohort that were going to university in the first place, which is almost certainly not the case.

@DelBocaVista
The big issue is: are the projects successful? There might be hundreds of them, but what are the results? What does success look like? Is the local HE provider good enough or should the students aim much higher? I see lots of local action but the DC stay local. Working class dc are also more likely to drop out. So who follows up on success or otherwise?

4% of dc went to university in the early 1960s rising to 14% at the end of the 70s.

Throughout that period many professional jobs could be accessed without a degree. Those with a degree would be fast tracked. Some employers put in ceilings for non degree holders. Advancement to professional level pay/jobs wasn’t possible. I couldn’t become an Education Officer in my LA when I joined. Eventually recruitment was widened but not until the 1980s when not being a teacher was seen as useful - in HR, buildings, finance etc.

Vocational degrees are not the same thing as getting a job. My DH did Engineering. The idea of not doing engineering as a job didn’t enter his head.

There are three types of courses:

Purely vocational course where you are training to do a job ( eg. Nursing)

Vocational related courses (like engineering, computer science ) which prepare you to work in that particular sector but don't necessarily train you to do a specific job

Non vocational courses such as history, English and MFL which are not training you for a specific job or sector but are valued by a range of employers for the skills you develop.

Likewise my friends who did English, History and Geography and MFL. They needed jobs after university.

Yes, however my point was that these degrees lead on to a range of jobs and different groups have different reasons for attending university. There is a lot of evidence to support that.

Loads of my friends came from families where no one had gone to university. It was utterly elite. Vast changes were made in the 1960s. New universities and polytechnics.
I am fully aware of this. I teach higher education policy and practice.

I do suspect the best apprenticeships have an onerous application process. But the DC is being employed. It costs to have an apprentice. Firms want the right people

Often young people are expected to find their own employer. Much easier if you have the contacts..

It comes back to mentoring really. Personal guidance.
Good quality careers education and guidance is key.

The big issue is: are the projects successful? There might be hundreds of them, but what are the results?
Every project I've ever worked on has been evaluated- it's usually part of the funding process.
I would say yes but one of the issues is they are hard to evaluate. It's hard to say for sure that your intervention is the one that made a difference.
However, we are constantly working on improving evaluation and monitoring

What does success look like? Is the local HE provider good enough or should the students aim much higher? I see lots of local action but the DC stay local.
Good question. My PhD specifically looked at this issue. At first it was about widening access to HE in general. Now it's about access across the whole sector and looking at why certain groups are less likely to apply to elite universities.

Working class dc are also more likely to drop out. So who follows up on success or otherwise?

Retention is a big thing at universities. It's monitored closely. At my university it's forms part of our annual evaluation process. You have serious questions to answer if retention is poor.

I do suspect the best apprenticeships have an onerous application process. But the DC is being employed. It costs to have an apprentice. Firms want the right people

Actually it costs even if they don't have apprentices thanks to the apprenticeship levy. The actual cost of having one is marginal.

[quote PresentingPercy]@DelBocaVista
The big issue is: are the projects successful? There might be hundreds of them, but what are the results? What does success look like? Is the local HE provider good enough or should the students aim much higher? I see lots of local action but the DC stay local. Working class dc are also more likely to drop out. So who follows up on success or otherwise?[/quote]
Each project is evaluated, based on an evaluation plan outreach teams set up at the beginning. Successful ones continue and are tweaked. Unsuccessful ones are scrapped. But evaluation is really bloody hard.

Results are individual to the projects, as is success. I’ve run ones where success was increased attainment at GCSE, increased confidence or increased progression to HE. Whether the local HE provider is good enough is individual to the student and their circumstances - part of WP is helping students to make the best choice for them, their profile and their confidence level.

Student success is a metric that universities are measured on, so they are required to follow up on success.

Loon - well when my fatgher went the UK had the grammar school system so it probably WAS the case that the few who passed the 11+ and the few of those who went to a good university (he went to Durham) were in the top as it were and rightfully so even from very poor homes which may parents were - no one in their areas really was well off so the grammar system worked as originally intended. the coal miners of that generation in our family might have had a few amongst them who ought to have passed the 11+ but were put off, I agree but that would not be so vast a pool that the top of the top who got to university and who did very well in exams there were likely to be not as bright as the other 95% who either did not go to university or did not get the rare upper seconds +. So i certainly remain fairly of the view that my father and I were indeed in the top 5% probably in terms of IQ, exam results, in how we did at university etc. There would be plenty not however eg Prince Charles got to Cambridge and probably would not have got in other wise. Prince Harry of course did not go and his mother had about 2 CSEs despite her rich background.

But xenia, this is just more anecdote. Not saying it's not interesting but it doesn't go any way at all to prove the hidden premise in your initial argument - ie. that the 15% of 18-19 year olds who entered HE in x year were also the top 15% in terms of intelligence/academic ability.

If we are doing anecdotes, though, I'll offer a counterpoint from my mum's family. She was one of 8 children, all born between 1930 and the mid 1940s; their dad, my GF, was a farm labourer and the family was poor, especially in the early years of GPs' marriage.

My mum and uncle B were the only ones to pass the 11+. Were they the brightest? They were both intellectually able, but so were other siblings. But they benefited from being the youngest two, not called upon to babysit siblings, and from a less precarious financial situation by the time they were born.

I'm not denying that the 11+ was an agent of social mobility for some young people in, say, the 1940s-'60s, but there were obviously limitations.

My uncle B still had to leave school at 16. GP couldn't support him through 6th form, let alone beyond. He became an accountant eventually - no idea what route to qualification he took, but I know he worked first - and did very well for himself; but he was very intelligent, extremely numerate and literate, and I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have been in the top whatever % of his cohort if there had been an objective way of measuring them at 16.

My mum was the only one who got to even stay on at school beyond 16, and that was because her headmistress literally visited my GP at home and begged them to let mum stay on, offering financial support from the school.

All my aunts and uncles were intelligent, though, and my GP for that matter (they both had to leave school at 13/14). They were, however, all born poor, in a part of the country with few opportunities outside farm work for their class, and that significantly impacted on their educational chances.

This seems so utterly, utterly obvious to me that I can't quite get my head round the idea, xenia, that you honestly believe that the most able young people always miraculously rose to the top and ended up at university in these generations.

The main point that comes across to me from this thread, though, is that we don't need to rely on these kind of anecdotes when looking at more recent history. Raven and DelBocaVista have repeatedly explained that good quality data exists showing that participation in HE is still affected by socio-economic and other factors and doesn't just reflect ability. That's literally the evidential background to the whole thread.

I like reading about other people's experiences and family histories, but surely we can all accept the fundamental difference between anecdote and data - especially if we belong to the top 5% (or whatever!) ;)

@SometimesRavenSometimesParrot

It would depend on the institutions he applied for! Not every university offers contextual admissions, or contextual admissions for every course, or uses the same criteria.

It may be his institutions focused on school for contextual offers, and his school didn’t meet the criteria (which is usually based on low performance compared to national average).

I know the institutions DO offer contextual admissions. If they're looking at the school, it's a special school which has an Inadequate Ofsted. Most students don't sit GCSEs.

I can only assume the institutions' criteria is postcode related only, which doesn't seem quite fair.

I don't disagree. However on the whole if you were top of that cohort because you passed the 11 plus, did A levels, got into university when most people even if they tried did not, got into a better university and were top of that university you probably are pretty bright. I was not really the one who suggested my father was not that bright so I was only trying to show he was.

If we can help children better aged 3 years or if we must aged 11 years was it better to have grammar schools to put those bright not so well off children into that academic environment at 11 years rather than try to make up for the disadvantage at 18 years? England decided comprehensives were just as fair and in fact I think the Sutton Trust following outcomes found areas with comprehensives only like my native Newcastle since about 1970s compared with those who kept them - very little difference in the percentages who do well.

I can see people have very strong views on these topics which is a very good thing. We all also agree at heart. I want everyone to have a fair and equal chance both at university entrance and at getting jobs after that.

Does it ask on the UCAS form, unformidable, if a student is in receipt of FSM? I can't remember and was just wondering if it was left to the school/college to state this in a student's reference.

Is there any way your son's application might have slipped through the net, where eligibility for contextual offers is concerned?

Just checked a few RG universities' info at random, though, and while Durham and Leeds include FSM as a criterion, Bristol, Nottingham, Sheffield and Manchester don't mention it. Quite surprising.

[quote Unformidable]@SometimesRavenSometimesParrot

It would depend on the institutions he applied for! Not every university offers contextual admissions, or contextual admissions for every course, or uses the same criteria.

It may be his institutions focused on school for contextual offers, and his school didn’t meet the criteria (which is usually based on low performance compared to national average).

I know the institutions DO offer contextual admissions. If they're looking at the school, it's a special school which has an Inadequate Ofsted. Most students don't sit GCSEs.

I can only assume the institutions' criteria is postcode related only, which doesn't seem quite fair.[/quote]
If the institutions have contextual offers, the qualifying criteria for these should be published on their websites, or if you can’t find them you can request from admissions. You can definitely ask why he didn’t receive a contextual offer. I know some institutions don’t include special schools on their lists as a rule, so it could be something to do with that.

Again, contextual offers are relatively new and the process is being refined all the time.

@LoonvanBoon

Does it ask on the UCAS form, unformidable, if a student is in receipt of FSM? I can't remember and was just wondering if it was left to the school/college to state this in a student's reference.

Is there any way your son's application might have slipped through the net, where eligibility for contextual offers is concerned?

Just checked a few RG universities' info at random, though, and while Durham and Leeds include FSM as a criterion, Bristol, Nottingham, Sheffield and Manchester don't mention it. Quite surprising.

Students don’t declare their FSM status on UCAS, although there are plans for them to do so in future.

A lot of students don’t claim FSM because of the stigma, so there is an argument it’s not the most useful criteria.

Thanks, *sometimesraven, that's interesting: sad that fsm are still seen as a stigma by some though.

Schools are desperate to ensure parents do claim fsm due to PP funding. In fact that is often used to promote university entrance to the brighter dc with PP funding - eg paying for visits etc. Few people these days see it as a stigma. Most schools have promoted the need to claim. It is one of the main criteria for PP funding plus forces DC.

Grammar schools lucked up most bright DC years ago but definitely not all. It is known parents would not send DC in some areas - above their station. Could not afford the uniform. Not wanting the jibes at work etc. I have relatives who didn’t go because a sibling didn’t go. Decades ago but people thought differently then.

Loads of grammar dc left school at 16. Yes, you would work up to be an accountant! Only the university stream stayed on and they were a handful. Even from some (now) very sought after grammars.

We have the school magazine from DHs very good grammar in the early 70s. Around 1/3 of boys only did 2 A levels. I was amazed but there were the results in front of me. However there were polys, there were professional training schemes. You could enter local government, teach, be a nurse, go into a management training scheme (M&S) and there was a wide world of opportunity underpinned by employers.

I sometimes think it was better then!