UCAS Personal Statements and AI

[Ceramiq]

I don't really understand how universities are going to be able to use Personal Statements in future: it is so easy to write and/or improve a fantastic PS in minutes using Claude. Any thoughts?

UK universities should individually be explicit on their communications about this. Some students could then avoid writing a PS

UCAS applications apply to all uk universities so some require it and some don’t. But I see no reason why you are only allowed one PS which can be harmful if applying for different courses (you may be allowed to submit a second but universities will still see you have a primary interest in another subject). In my day they photocopied the forms and sent the physical copy out, but now they could quite easily have university-specific PS only for those that use them. I agree it is unethical to require students to devote time and share information that won’t be used (and possibly against GDPR)

Yes, UCAS has a good section on the appropriate and inappropriate uses of AI. In a nutshell, editing rather than writing. I did not mean LLMs use templates as such (that was sloppy), just that there may be repetition at scale and the similarity detecting software UCAS uses is pretty good. (Teachers should nor be writing, either, though in both cases correcting SPAG is obviously a good idea)

The new-ish wrinkle is in the chances of similarity detection if large numbers of applicants do turn to AI for writing, against guidance. However this has always been something of a problem. Several applications are withdrawn from my own School most years, sometimes because UCAS cancels them entirely and sometimes because we are warned of similarity by UCAS that does not quite rise to the cancellation threshold. There is no right of appeal.

A more important issue is that it is bad for students’ self confidence to wonder if they were only admitted by breaking the rules. Especially when this is very unlikely to be true!

University assessments are being adjusted to minimise inappropriate use of AI. Both being terrified of a level playing field and being exposed as a cheat are miserable experiences. The path to avoiding them starts with following UCAS guidance.

Edit: my message above was in response to @Kiminki

I am on the fence about this. @parietal mentioned Special Circs and she was right about that. Our admin team always flag Special Circs from the PS that were not mentioned in the Referee Report, so we can follow up with the Referee. Very occasionally there will be something the school doesn’t know about, to deal with unofficially.

Otherwise, and aside from informing the interview, I am not clear on ethical ways to use the UG PS when applicants have access to differing levels of support resources. A first gen HE applicant from a school in a deprived area isn’t likely to write with the fluency (or knowledge of what’s helpful) as someone with an Oxbridge library named after an ancestor. If contextualisation in this area could be formalised it might work but that sounds tricky.

To be clear, this isn’t so much an ethical objection as a practical one. For example, in contrast it is relatively easy to contextualise an interview - to look for the best in each applicant in light of their background - and I think most of us do that.

Except applicants apply to 5, and none know who the other 4 are. So if Poppleton Uni is the only uni that asks for a PS, and Swindon Uni see a PS on one of their applicant’s UCAS applications, they’ll know they’ve applied to Poppleton.

How is providing a PS GDPR-non-compliant?

I suspect the way forward is for more individualization in the information required on the UCAS form. A PS for each course applied for sounds like a good idea - each course could specify how long it wants its PS to be and some could be well under the 4000 character limit.

Why is that the way forward - what problem are you thinking needs solving? We’ve already said most uni courses don’t look at the PS, and those that do it’s more about the content, or unusual circumstances - not how well written or exaggerated it is.

Yes I agree with @titchy - there isn’t really a problem that needs solving tbh.

Of course a PS should be well written and accurate but most unis don’t use it. And I honestly doubt that for those that do, AI’s rewrite wizardry will bring an offer where one was not forthcoming before (which it feels like you are saying it would - apols if not).

A PS for each uni would be an extra piece of work (well, four) at a time when no 17yo needs such a thing.

Competitive courses have additional entrance requirements lnat, ukcat, bmat etc as well as SAq’s and specific work experience forms. The personal statement is very outdated now and really doesn’t carry much weight in the majority of institutions. It’s all about contextual criteria (which varies between institutions) and predicted grades now. Many universities are clear they don’t review the PS at all.

I disagree - far easier to write a short PS targeted to a specific course/university (as Masters applications require) than a PS that has to cover several universities in cases where students know that universities look at PSs. And in any case, PSs need to be carefully crafted as they also provide extra information after results day when admissions may have to choose between applicants who have missed their offer.

I agree that there are ever more entrance tests for competitive courses and that the entrance test landscape is becoming more legible and uniform as standards rise.

You have to have a legitimate reason to hold personal data, if a university doesn’t use a PS then there is no legitimate reason to have the personal data within it.

Medicine applicants are only allowed to apply for four medical schools. Their fifth choice must be somethings else but for many competitive courses universities will automatically reject an applicant with a personal statement that is clearly written to apply for medicine.

Banning AI does seem more likely to impact exactly the sort of students already disadvantaged - those without the advice, experience and support of teachers with hundreds of students applications under their belts, or schools with specialist advisers, or parents and family who have attended university.

I should add, PS may well contain special category data (eg health) that requires significant extra protections, and in the majority of cases it will also require specific enhanced protections as it is children’s data.

many people put their own writing into AI detector and were told this is highly likely to have been AI generated. I wonder if UCAS uses similar tools? It would be very difficult for everyone then

Did not one such detector recently decide that the start of a chapter of Shelley’s Frankenstein was definitely written by AI?

Presumably then applicants should also not submit their GCSE grades, addresses, ethnicity. Job applicants similarly should not submit covering letters?

The PS MAY be used to highlight unusual circumstances - submitting one, even though it won’t form part of the offer decision, is absolutely not GDPR non-compliant. UCAS are very (very!) hot on such things believe me.

GCSE grades, addresses, ethnicity = legitimate data because required to assess applicants.

PS = not legitimate data if university does not use it

I think UCAS use more sophisticated software. I think word would be circulating on the academic grapevine if UCAS were wrongly cancelling applications on the grounds of false accusations.

I can’t know for sure, though

Ethnicity to assess applicants I can’t believe anyone actually thinks that.

GCSE grades and addresses and ethnicity and sexuality are not required to assess applicants. (GCSEs aren’t usually.)

Legitimate interest and public task btw.

They have legitimate reasons for GCSE data - they use that data for assessing applicants.

They have legitimate reason for ethnicity and addresses - equal opportunity monitoring and widening access.

If the university are not using the personal statement, what legitimate reason do they have for holding the Children’s data, including potential special category data, held therein?

I have serious doubts about the ability of software to detect AI assisted writing where that writing is a proper collaboration between human and AI.

I posted that after the post you quoted.