Unconscious Bias Report 2016 - UCAS
Transcript of Unconscious Bias Report 2016 - UCAS
Unconscious Bias Report
2016
1
Executivesummary
AsProfessorStevenSchwartzstatedinhislandmarkreport‘FairAdmissionstoHigherEducation’(2004)‘afairadmissionssystemisonethatprovidesequalopportunityforallindividuals,regardlessofbackground,togainadmissiontoacoursesuitedtotheirabilityandaspirations.’
Ashighereducationproviders(HEPs)areresponsiblefortheirownadmissionspoliciesandprocesses,thechallengeistoensurethatadmissionsare,andareseentobe,fairforallstudents.
Inresponsetoconcernsaboutpersistentobserveddifferencesintheheadlineofferratestodifferentethnicgroups,theGovernmentaskedUCAStoconsultwiththeHEsectoraboutthefeasibilityofintroducingname-blindapplications,recognisingthatthisapproachhasbeenusedsuccessfullytoaddresstherisksofbiasingraduaterecruitment.
Inapproachingthistask,wehavelookedatthechangingnatureoftheundergraduateadmissionsmarketandtheevidenceofbiasinadmissionstoHE,examinedhowHEPsseektominimisetherisksofbias–incomparisonwithothercountriesandgraduaterecruiters–andhavesoughtfeedbackfromHEPsaboutdifferentmodelsforintroducingname-blindapplications.
Inplacingthisworkintocontextit’srelevanttohighlightthecomplexityoftheadmissionslandscape.HEPs’decision-makingprocessesarecloselycoupledwithinstitutionalmissions,andassuchpoliciesandpracticesvarybetweenproviders.Forexample,applicationprocessingandadmissionsdecision-makingisundertakencentrallyatsomeproviders,andinadistributedwaybyacademicsinschools,departmentsorfacultiesatothers.MixedmodelsoperateinmanyHEPstoaccommodatethedifferentadmissionsrequirementsofcertainsubjects,andadmissionsfordomesticandinternationalstudentsareoftenhandledseparately.
WhenUCASprovidesdataandinformationfromstudents’applicationstoHEPs,thedataandinformationfromapplicationforms,referencesandcontextualdataistypicallytransferredintouniversities’admissionsorstudentrecordssystems,andisusedformultiplepurposes.Inadditiontoadmissionsdecision-making,datamaybeusedtocontactstudentstoofferservicesandsupport,determinefeestatus,ortoverifyqualificationsandotherinformation.Theseprocessesoftenruninparallelwithadmissionsdecision-makingtospeedthetimefromreceiptofapplicationtoaninitialdecision.
OursurveyofHEPsfoundthatalmostallareveryawareoftherisksofbiasinadmissionsdecision-making,andemployawidevarietyofgoodpractice,includinghavingandapplyingclearadmissionscriteria,ensuringthatmorethanonepersonisinvolvedindecision-making,andrequiringequalityanddiversitytraining.Therearealsoanumberofsafeguardsbuiltintotheadmissionsprocessitself,asUCASdoesnotshareinformationaboutapplicants’ethnicity,religion,sexualorientation,genderidentity,parentaleducationandparentaloccupationwithHEPs,untilafteradmissionsdecisionshavebeenmadeorwhenthecyclehasclosed.
Withafallingnumberof18yearoldsinthepopulationandpressuresoninternationalstudentrecruitment,HEPsareinamarketwhichencouragesstudentrecruitment,andactstocounterrisksofbias.Thisisreflectedinincreasinglevelsofoffer-makingtoallstudentgroups.Forexample,in2015,93percentofstudentswhoappliedbefore30June,andmadefiveapplicationchoices,receivedatleastoneoffer.
2
Additionally,UCAS’analysisonoffer-makingandofferratesbyethnicgroupfindsnoevidenceofsystemicbiasintheadmissionssystem,althoughwedididentifyanumberofinstanceswhereofferratestocertaingroupswereoutsideofwhatmightbeexpected,ifoffersweremadesolelyonthebasisofpredictedgradesandthecourseappliedto.Inexaminingthepotentialforintroducingname-blindapplicationsUCAShasexploredtwooptionswithHEPsandHEtechnologyvendors:amodelwhereUCASwithholdsinformationsuchasapplicants’namescentrally,andamodelwhereHEPscanmaskinformationlocallyfromthoseindividualsinvolveddirectlyinadmissionsmakingdecisions.IntheirfeedbackHEPswereconcernedthatifUCASwastomasknamescentrally,thiscouldaffecttheirabilitytodevelopandmaintainrelationshipswithprospectivestudents,hamperverificationactivities,andundermineeffortstowidenparticipation.Equally,technologyvendorsindicatedthatsuchanapproachwouldrequireredevelopmentoftheirsoftwareproducts,ontopoflocalimplementationrequirementsatHEPs.AmoreattractivesolutionisforHEPstoemployaname-blindapproachatlocallevel.Thiscouldenableapplicantcommunications,verificationandwideningparticipationsupportactivitiestooperateeffectively,whilstwithholdingnamesfromthoseindividualsinvolvedinadmissionsdecision-making.However,thistoowouldrequireredevelopmentbyanumberofthemajorHEtechnologyvendorsaswellaslocalprocessre-engineeringandimplementation.AllHEPsrecognisetheimportanceofdemonstratingthattheiradmissionspracticesarefairandtransparent.Ourevidencegatheringexercisegeneratedagroundswellofcommitmenttoimproveandextendunconsciousbiastrainingtoallindividualsinvolvedinadmissionsdecision-making,andtoidentifyandpromotegoodpracticeinminimisingtherisksofbias.Toinvestigatetheextenttowhichaname-blindapproachcouldcomplementtheseactivitiesweareencouragingHEPstorunname-blindprojectstoevaluatedifferentapproaches,andidentifythechallengesandcostsofwiderimplementation.Inaddition,UCASwilldevelopaninformation-maskingcapabilityforthoseproviderswhouseitsweb-linkservicetosupporttheiradmissionsmanagement.Wealsorecommendfurtherresearchintounderstandingifthereisbiasinadmissions,andencourageHEPstoregularlyscrutinisetheirownoffer-makingandadmissionsdata,andaddressanyunexplaineddifferencesbetweenexpectedandobservedoutcomes.WeareextremelygratefultoalloftheHEPs,technologysuppliers,andstakeholdersintheUKandoverseaswhohavesharedtheirviewsandinsightwithus.InparticularwewouldliketothankSupportingProfessionalisminAdmissions(SPA)forundertakingaliteraturereviewontheevidencebaseforname-blindapplications.UCASAugust2016
3
Contents1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..42. UCAS’evidencegatheringexercise……………………………………………………………………………………43. Findingsfromtheevidencegatheringexercise………………………………………………………………….53.1 Theundergraduateadmissionsmarket……………………………………………………………………………..53.2 Theevidenceofbiasinhighereducationadmissions…………………………………………………………73.3 HowHEPsseektominimisetherisksofbias……………………………………………………………………10 3.4 HowHEPsinothercountriesminimiserisksofbias…………………………………………………………103.5 Comparisonswithemployeerecruitment…………………………………………………………………………113.6 Evidencegatheringonthepotentialfeasibilityofname-blindapplications………………………114. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………145. Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………………………………………15 6.AppendixA………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18
4
UNCONSCIOUSBIASINADMISSIONSTOHIGHEREDUCATION:EVIDENCEGATHERINGONTHEUSEOFNAME-BLINDAPPLICATIONS1. Introduction
Joiningadiversestudentbodyisanessentialpartofthehighereducation(HE)experienceintheUK.Beingpartofastudentcommunitydrawnfromabroadrangeofbackgroundsencouragesstudentstoexploreandunderstandwhyothersholddifferentopinionsandperspectives,andtolearnhowtoexamineandsolveproblemsindifferentways–essentialskillsforemploymentandcitizenship.Giventherangeofcareersandemploymentopportunitiesadegreeopensup,andthefinancial,social,andwellbeingbenefitsofhavingstudiedatahigherlevel,itisimportantthatopportunitiesareopentoallwiththepotentialtosucceed.Assuch,universitiesandcollegesmakesignificanteffortstoensuretheiradmissionspoliciesarefairandtransparent,andgiveallapplicantswhocandemonstratetheyhavethepotentialanequalopportunitytosecureaplace,regardlessoftheirbackground,sex,orethnicity.However,thereareconcernsingovernmentthatwell-qualifiedpeoplearenotgettingoffersfromuniversitiesandcollegesbecauseofbiasinhighereducationadmissions.TheRtHonDavidCameronMP,whenPrimeMinister,raisedconcernsinaGuardianarticleinOctober2015aboutthedisparityinofferratestoblackandwhiteapplicants.Henoted:‘Thereasonsarecomplex,butunconsciousbiasisclearlyarisk’.Thegovernmentnotedthatresearch,primarilyfromtheUnitedStates,showedthatwherethereappearedtobeevidenceofbiasinemployeerecruitment,usinganame-blindstrategycouldhelpemployersbuildamorediverseworkforce.Asaresult,thegovernmentannouncedthatacohortofmajoremployers–includingtheBBC,NHS,Deloitte,andKPMG–wouldbeimplementingname-blindrecruitmentsystems.ThegovernmentthereforeaskedUCAStoconsultwiththeHEsectoraboutthefeasibilityofintroducingname-blindapplicationstoHE.Thiswouldinvolvemaskinganapplicant’snameduringtheinitialstageoftheadmissionsprocess,priortomakingadecisionaboutwhetherornottoinvitesomeonetoaninterviewortomakethemanoffer,asapotentialmeansforreducingtheriskofbias.Thisreportpresentsthefindingsfromthisevidencegatheringexercise,andmakesanumberofrecommendationsfortakingthisworkforwardandaddressingtherisksofbiasinadmissionstoHE.2. UCAS’evidencegatheringexerciseThroughacomprehensiveliteraturereview1undertakenbySupportingProfessionalisminAdmissions(SPA),anationalsurveyofuniversitiesandcolleges,onlinefocusgroups,stakeholderdiscussions,andworkshopswithhighereducationproviders(HEPs),UCAShassoughtfeedbackfromuniversitiesand
1SupportingProfessionalisminAdmissions(SPA)istheindependentandobjectivevoiceonUKHEadmissions.SPApromotesprofessionalism,fairadmissions,andaccesstoHEbydevelopingandleadingonevidence-basedgoodpracticeintherecruitmentandselectionofstudents.SPA’sname-blindevidencereportcanbefoundatwww.spa.ac.uk/resources/name-blind-applications.
5
collegesandtheirtechnologysuppliersaboutintroducinganame-blindapproachtoadmissions.Alongsidethis,UCAShassoughtfeedbackonhowHEPsalreadyseektominimisetherisksofunconsciousbiasinadmissions,andexploredwaysofstrengtheningthis.120HEPstookpartinthesurveyandtheresultsfromthis,togetherwithfeedbackfromstakeholdersandtechnologysuppliers,aresetoutinthisreport.Itcovers:• theundergraduateadmissionsmarket• theevidenceforbiasinadmissions• howUKHEPsminimiserisksofbias• howHEPsinothercountriesminimiserisksofbias• comparisonswithemployeerecruitment• thefindingsoftheevidencegatheringfromHEPsandHEtechnologyvendors• conclusions• recommendations
3. Findingsfromtheevidencegatheringexercise3.1 TheundergraduateadmissionsmarketSincetheremovalofstudentnumbercontrolsinEngland,HEPshavehadtheabilitytorecruitasmanyundergraduatestudentsastheywant,asidefromtocourseswherenumbersremainregulated(suchNHSprofession-basedcoursesandveterinaryscience),andsubjecttopracticalconstraintsonteaching,laboratoryandperformancespace,studentfacilities,andaccommodation.Many,althoughnotall,HEPshavesoughttotakeadvantageofthisfreedomtogrowtheirstudentnumbers,increasingthecompetitionforwell-qualifiedstudents.CoupledwithfallingAlevelattainmentanddemographicchanges,thishascreatedanenvironmentwhereamajorityofHEPsareactivelyrecruitingstudentstoamajorityoftheircourses.Typically,thismeansthatstudentsapplyingtothesecourses,whomeettheirminimumentrycriteriaintermsofpredictedgrades,willgetanoffer.Italsomeansthatprovidersaremoreabletoacceptmore‘nearmiss’students,contextualiseoffers,andofferstudentsaplaceonanalternativecourseorfoundationprogrammeifthecoursethestudenthasappliedtoisoversubscribed,orthestudentdoesnotsecureanofferofaplace.Whileallcoursesatasmallnumberofhighertariffuniversitiesarecompetitive,selectivityisnotthepreserveofthehighertariffproviders.Acrossallkindsofuniversitiesandcolleges,selectionoperateswhere:• numbersremaincappedinspecificsubjects(NHSprofession-basedprogrammesandveterinary
science)• professionalbodiesrequirethedemonstrationofspecifictraitsorcompetenciesforadmission(NHS
profession-basedcourses,psychology,physiotherapy,andsocialwork,forexample)• therearespecificdegreeprogrammeswhicharehighlyspecialistand/orhighlyvaluedbygraduate
employersEvidenceforthiscomesfromUCAS’offer-makinganalysis.In2015,thetotalnumberofoffersmadetomainschemeapplicants(thoseapplyingonorbefore30June)increasedby81,000(+4.5percent)to1.9
6
million,thehighestnumberrecorded.Thiscontinuesthetrendseensince2013ofanincreasingnumberofoffersmadeeachyear.Thenumberofoffersmadetoapplicantswhoreceivedoffersforallfiveoftheirchoicesincreasedby41,200(+6percent),andthetotalnumberofoffersmadetoapplicantswithfourorfiveoffersreachedarecordhighat1.3million2.Thismeantthatin2015,93percentofmainschemeapplicantswhomadefivechoicesreceivedatleastoneoffer,and56percentoftheseapplicantsreceivedfourorfiveoffers3.Overall,in2015,offerratestoUK18yearoldapplicantsfromEnglishprovidersincreasedto78percent(+0.9percentagepoints),thehighestlevelrecorded4.Theseincreasesinoffer-makingareasaresultofHEPsmakingmoreofferstoensuretheyrecruitsufficientnumbersofstudents.ThiscanbeseeninthehighofferratelevelsseeninthetransparencydatapublishedbyUCASinJune2016,withtheofferrateatmostproviderstypicallyinthe70to80percentrangefor18yearoldUKapplicants5.Table1:2015OfferratestoUKdomiciledmainschemeapplicantsbytariffgroup
For18yearoldapplicantswhoapplywithAlevelresultspending,itispossibletolookatofferratesbytheprofileoftheirpredictedgrades.ThedataforthemostableEnglishdomiciledapplicants,whowilllargelybeapplyingtohighertariffproviders,showsthatofferratevariesconsiderablybypredictedgradeprofile.Forexamplein2015,applicantspredictedAABhadanofferrateof88.1percent,higherthanthosepredictedABB(86.3percent),orBBB(84percent).However,applicantswithhigherpredictedgradeshadalowerofferrate,withthosepredictedthreeA*shavinganofferrateof79percent,andthosepredictedA*A*A,anofferrateof77.7percent,reflectingcompetitionforthemosthighlyselectivecourses6.Despitecompetitionforplacesamongthemostable,almostallwillreceiveatleastoneoffer.In2015,99.7%ofEnglish18yearoldAlevelstudentspredictedtoachievethreeA*sreceivedatleastoneoffer,with98.5%ofstudentspredictedBBBreceivingatleastoneoffer7.
2Figure24UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.3Figure26UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.4Figure28UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleRepot2015.5Source:www.ucas.com/corporate/data-and-analysis/ucas-undergraduate-releases/ucas-undergraduate-reports-sex-area.6Figure32UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.7Figure33UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.
2015offerrate AllUKmainschemeapplicants
18yearoldUKmainschemeapplicants
Highertariff 63.0% 73.3%Mediumtariff 66.5% 77.5%Lowertariff 67.6% 79.6%
7
3.2 TheevidenceofbiasinhighereducationadmissionsChangesintheundergraduateadmissionsmarkethavecreatedanenvironmentwheremanyprovidersareincentivisedtomakemoreoffers,andaredoingso.Thisreducesthelikelihoodofbiassincetheimperativeistofillplaceswithstudentswhohavetheabilitytocompletethecourse.Asaconsequence,thenumberofUKstudentsadmittedtoHEhasincreasedsince2012.Againstthisbackground,entryrateshaveincreasedforallethnicgroups,reachingtheirhighestrecordedlevelsin2015.However,therearelargedifferencesinentryratestoHEbyethnicityfor18yearoldEnglishschoolstudents.Since2006,theBlackethnicgrouphasrecordedthelargestincreaseinentryrates,risingfrom20.9percentin2006to36.7percentin2015,aproportionalincreaseof75percent.Bycomparison,entryratesforyoungpeoplefromtheWhiteandBlackethnicgroupswereequivalentin2007,at22.2percentand22.5percentrespectively.However,by2015,theentryratefortheWhitegrouphadincreasedto27.8%,aproportionalincreaseof25percent.Today,theWhitegrouphasthelowestentryrateofallethnicgroups8.Thereisadifferentpatternathighertariffproviders.Whileentryratesarehighlydifferentiatedbyethnicity,andtheentryratesfromtheChineseethnicgrouparethehighest(26.5percent),thelowestentryratestohighertariffprovidersaretheBlackethnicgroupat5.6percentin2015.TheentryratefortheWhiteethnicgroupis8.1percent,thesecondlowest.YoungpeoplerecordedintheBlackethnicgrouphavehadthelargestproportionalincreaseinentryratestohighertariffprovidersovertheperiod,increasingfrom2.9percentin2006to5.6percentin2015,aproportionalincreaseof95percent.Despitethis,theentryratefortheBlackethnicgroupremains2.5percentagepointslowerthantheWhiteethnicgroupathighertariffproviders9.FurtheranalysisshowsthatthisdifferencereflectsAlevelattainment,sincethepatternofentrytohighertariffprovidersforEnglish18yearoldstateschoolstudentsbyethnicity,mirrorsthepatternofentryforthesamegroupbyAlevelattainmentatABBorabove.Forexamplein2015,theentryratefortheWhiteethnicgroupholdingABB+was7.8percent,andtheBlackethnicgroupwas4.5percent10.Otherfactorssuchascombinationofsubjectsandgrades,admissionstests,interviews,andcontextualfactors,mayalsoplayapartinentrytoHE.UCAShaslookedindetailatoffer-makingto18yearoldAlevelapplicantsbyethnicgroupathighertariffprovidersforboththe15Octoberand15Januarydeadlines(overtheperiod2010to2015).CourseswithanOctoberdeadlinearebytheirnaturehighlycompetitive,coveringallprogrammesattheuniversitiesofOxfordandCambridge,andapplicationstostudymedicine,dentistry,andveterinaryscience.Whiletherearemanyfactorswhichmayinfluencethedecisionofwhetherornottoofferanapplicantaplace,suchasrelevancyofsubjectstoentryrequirements,thetwodominantfactorsaretheirpredictedgradesandthecoursetheyhaveappliedto.DifferentgroupsofapplicantswiththesamepredictedAlevelgradesmaymakedifferentpatternsofcoursechoices.Thiscanresultingroupsreceivingverydifferent
8Figure88UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.9Figure92UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.10Figure93UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.
8
levelsofactualofferrates,mostlyreflectingtheirparticularcombinationsofcourses,andstrengthofpredictedgrades.RecentUCASanalysisenablesacomparisonbetweentheactualofferratestodifferentethnicgroupstotheofferratewhichmightbeexpectedgivenapplicants’predictedgradesandthecourse(s)appliedto.Observeddifferencesbetweentheactualofferrateforagroupandtheaverageofferraterepresentadifferenceinoffer-making,specifictothatgroup,whichcannotbeaccountedforbythechoicesmadebythatgroupandthestrengthoftheirpredictedgrades.Table2:SummaryanalysisofofferratestoOctoberdeadlineapplicantsfromtheUCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015(highpredictedgradeAlevelapplicantsonly)
Octoberdeadline(2010–2015)
Asian Black Mixed White
Offerrate 47.6% 45.2% 63.6% 66.7%Averageofferrate 49.4% 47.6% 63.0% 66.1%%pointdifferenceinofferrate
-1.8 -2.4 +0.6 +0.6
Asmightbeexpected,offerratesfortheOctoberdeadlinearehighlydifferentiatedbypredictedgradeprofile11.Overall,offerstotheWhitegroupwereclosetoexpected.FortheBlackgroup,theoverallofferratewas2.4percentagepointslowerthanexpected,andfortheAsiangroup,1.8percentagepointslower.Table3:SummaryofanalysisofofferratestoJanuarydeadlineapplicantsfromtheUCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015(highpredictedgradeAlevelapplicantsonly)
Januarydeadline(2010–2015)
Asian Black Mixed White
Offerrate 75.2% 75.4% 80.7% 84.0%Averageofferrate 75.2% 75.9% 80.6% 84.0%%pointdifferenceinofferrate
0 -0.5 +0.1 0
ThesefindingsshowthatofferratesfromhighertariffproviderstodifferentethnicgroupsattheJanuarydeadlineareclosetoaverageofferrates12.UCAShasalsorecentlypublishedafirsttrancheofdataexaminingapplications,offers,andofferratesbynamedindividualHEP.Thishasbeenaccompaniedbyafurtherpublicationoftimeseriesdatabytariffgrouping.ThetablebelowshowsthedataforUK18yearolds,whosubmittedtheirapplicationsbeforethe30Junedeadline13.
11Figures41&43UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015(NB:figuresfortheAsianandMixedgroupsarenotintheReport).12Figures36&38-40UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.
9
Table4:Summaryanalysisofapplication,offer,andentryratesbyethnicgroupfromUCASUndergraduatereportsbysex,areabackground,andethnicgroup(allUK18yearolds)
Highertariff(2015)
Asian Black Mixed White
Applicantsper10kofpopulation
2,599 2,081 2,162 2,029
Acceptsper10kofpopulation
911 530 994 955
Offerrate 62.2% 60.9% 73.0% 75.5%Averageofferrate 63.7% 63.8% 73.0% 75.1%%pointdifferenceinofferrate*
-1.5 -2.9 0 +0.4
*Takingonlypredictedgradesheldandthecourseappliedtointoaccountreducesdifferencesinofferratesbetweenethnicgroupstomuchsmallervalues,indicatingthattheoffer-makingprocessoperatedbyuniversitiesisbroadlyfair.SmalldifferencesremainfortheBlackandAsianethnicgroups.UCASconcludesthat,acrosstheUCASadmissionsscheme,thereisnoevidenceofsystemicbiasintheadmissionssystem.However,thereareproviders–fromthehigher,medium,andlowertariffgroups–whoseofferratestocertaingroupsareoutsideofwhatmightbeexpectedifoffersweremadesolelyonthebasisofapplicants’predictedgradesandthecourse(s)theyappliedto.Althoughvariationinofferratesisseenamongallgroupsofapplicants,offerrateslowerthanwhatmightbeexpectedaremoreoftenthannotseenintheoffersmadetotheBlackandAsiangroups.Itisimportanttoemphasisethatvariationinofferratesoutsideofwhatmightbeexpectedisnotinitselfevidenceofbias.Thereareotherfactorswhichmaybetakenintoaccountwhendecidingwhetherornottomakeanoffertoanapplicant,forexample,thesubjectsandsubjectcombinationoftheirAlevelsorotherqualifications(especiallyforSTEMsubjects),interviewsandadmissionstests(foranumberofmedical,nursing,andsocialworkcourses),andpriorexperienceorcontextualfactors.ThesefactorsarenotcontrolledforinUCAS’analysis.Also,universitiescannotmakeoffersifstudentsdonotapply,andUCAS’equalitiesdatashowsthatcertainethnicgroupsaremorelikelytoapplytosomeHEPsthanothers,andthatgeographicalproximityappearstobeamajorfactor.Finally,itisworthnotingthatifallHEPsmadeofferstoallgroupsexactlyattherateexpectedbasedontheirpredictedgradesandcourseappliedto(therebycorrectingforconcernsaboutunconsciousbias),modellingshowsthatwouldnotmakeamaterialdifferencetotheentryratesofunderrepresentedgroupsinHE.
13Source:www.ucas.com/corporate/data-and-analysis/ucas-undergraduate-releases/ucas-undergraduate-reports-sex-area.
10
3.3 HowHEPsseektominimisetherisksofbiasUCASaskedHEPswhatstepstheytaketominimisetherisksofbiasinadmissions.ItisevidentthatthevastmajorityofHEPsthatrespondedtothesurveywerewellawareoftherisksthatunconsciousbiascouldposetofairadmissions,andwereemployingarangeofmeasurestominimisethese.Commonexamplesreportedfromthesurveyincluded:• theconsistentapplicationoftheHEP’sadmissionspolicy,theuseofpredefinedselectioncriteria,and
cross-checkingofdecisions• havingteamsofwell-trained,professionaladmissionspractitioners–thisprovidesconsistency,
promotesgoodpractice,andenablesdecisionstobemadeorreviewedbymorethanoneperson• havingasecondpersonreviewapplicationsthatdonotreceiveanoffer• providingequalityanddiversity,interview,andunconsciousbiastraining–71percentofrespondents
saidthatsomeformoftrainingwasmandatory,althoughmostHEPsreportedtheyoffergenericequalityanddiversitytrainingratherthantrainingaboutdealingwithunconsciousbias
• usingcontextualdata• usingEqualityImpactAssessments,internalauditsofprocessesandprocedures,andrandomsampling
ofadmissionsdecisionsAdditionally,asmallnumberofHEPsoperateinternalprocesseswhichmaskinformation(suchassex,nationality,homeaddress,dateofbirth,andcriminalconvictions,butnotname)fromthosemakinginitialadmissionsdecisions.However,responsesfromaverysmallnumberofHEPsindicatedalackofawarenessoftherisks,mistakingegalitarianviewsandadiversestudentintakeassufficientmeansforaddressingrisks.WhilesuchprovidersmaybeadmittinglargenumbersofdisadvantagedorBAMEstudents,theymightstillnotbemakingasmanyoffersasmightbeexpected,orbecontributingasmuchastheycouldbetowideningparticipation(WP).3.4 HowHEPsinothercountriesminimiserisksofbiasThereissignificantliteratureabouthowothercountriesseektowidenaccesstoHEforunderrepresentedgroups,particularlythosedefinedbyethnicityandsocio-economicbackground.Forexample,universitiesinboththeUnitedStatesandAustraliausecontextualdataandinformationtoplaceacademicachievementinthecontextoftheeducationalenvironmentinwhichstudentshavestudied,andadditionaltestsandinterviewsareusedforhighlycompetitivecoursessuchasmedicineanddentistry.However,thereislimitedinformationaboutpracticesusedtominimiserisksofunconsciousbias.WenotedgoodpracticeintheUniversityofCalifornia’ssystemwherethereismandatoryannualtrainingforallstaffandreviewersinvolvedinadmissions,includingonunconsciousbias,andallapplicationsareconsideredbyatleasttwopeople.Wedidnotfindanyexamplesofuniversitiesusinganame-blindapproachtoadmissions.
11
3.5 ComparisonswithemployeerecruitmentThereisgrowingevidencethataname-blindorCV-blindapproachtograduateandemployeerecruitmentcandeliverpositiveresults.WhileparallelscanbedrawnbetweenselectionforadmissionstoHEandrecruitmentforemployment,theseareinherentlydifferentactivitiesforanumberofreasons.• Employeerecruitmentisusuallyfocusedonasingle,orasmallnumber,ofvacancies.Itisahighly
competitiveprocessbetweenindividuals.Asoutlinedat3.2above,admissionstoHEisnowprimarilyacompetitiveprocessbetweenprovidersseekingtoattractandrecruitstudents.Wherethereiscompetitionamongapplicants,thisistypicallyforoneofalargenumberofplaces.
• Employeerecruitmentgenerallyinvolvesaninterviewasthefinalstageoftheassessmentprocess.SelectioninterviewsareonlyusedforaminorityofHEcourses,andwhentheyareused,willformpartoftheoverallassessment,ratherthanbeingusedtomakethefinaldecision.
• Employeerecruitmentandstudentrecruitmentaresubjecttodifferentlegalconsiderations.Forexample,studentsareviewedasconsumersbytheCompetitionandMarketsAuthority,andthevastmajorityofstudentrecruitmentisnotsubjecttoemploymentlaw,althoughbotharesubjecttotheEqualityAct.
• Studentsaregenerallyrecruitedontheirpotentialtosucceedonacourseoveraprolongedperiod,takingintoaccountthecontextoftheircurrentachievements.Employeerecruitmentismorelikelytofocusoncurrentability,withlessemphasisoncontext.
3.6 Evidencegatheringonthepotentialfeasibilityofname-blindapplicationsTounderstandthefeasibilityandpracticalityofintroducingname-blindapplications,UCAShasengagedwithHEPsandthesector’smaintechnologyproviderstoexploretwomodels:onewheredataismaskedcentrallybyUCAS,andonewheredataismaskedlocallybyHEPs.Toputthefeedbackintocontext,itisnecessarytounderstandhowadmissionsworksinpractice.Thereareanumberofsafeguardstominimisebiasbuiltintotheadmissionsprocess.UCASdoesnotshareinformationaboutapplicants’ethnicity,religion,sexualorientation,genderidentity,parentaleducation,andparentaloccupationwithHEPsuntilafteradmissionsdecisionshavebeenmade,orthecyclehasclosed.Whilethisinformationisusedtomonitordiversity,itcannotbeusedtoinfluenceoutcomesforindividuals.Itshould,however,benotedthatUCASdoesprovideinformationaboutanapplicant’snationality,asthisisnecessaryhelpdeterminefeestatus.WhenUCASprovidesdataandinformationfromstudents’applicationstoHEPs,thedataandinformationfromUCASapplicationforms,references,andcontextualdataistransferredintouniversities’ownITadmissionsorstudentrecordssystems.Thesesystemsaretypicallyprovidedbyoneoffivemaintechnologyvendors(Capita,Ellucian,Oracle,SAP,andTribal),oraretheHEP’sownin-housesystems.ManysmallerHEPsandcollegesuseUCAS’web-linkservice.ThedataisdistributedacrossHEPsandusedformultiplepurposes.Inadditiontoadmissionsdecision-making,thismayincludecontactingstudentstoofferservicesandsupport,determiningfeestatus,theverificationofqualificationsandotherinformation,counterfraud,DBSchecks,etc.Theseprocessesoftenruninparallelwithadmissionsdecision-makingtospeedthetimefromreceiptofapplication,tomakinganofferorotherdecision.
12
Theadmissionsmanagementanddecision-makingprocessisdifferentateachHEP.Admissionspoliciesandprocessesaredeterminedbytheinstitutionalmission,strategicobjectives,andcourseportfolio,andarealsoinfluencedbyorganisationalstructureandtheirunderpinningtechnologicalcapabilities.Forexample,applicationprocessingandadmissionsdecision-makingmaybeundertakencentrallybyadministrators,orinadistributedmodelbyacademicsinschools,departments,orfaculties.MixedmodelsoperateinmanyHEPs,andadmissionsfordomesticandinternationalstudentsareoftenhandledseparatelyandsubjecttodifferentpoliciesandprocesses.Fordegreeprogrammeswhichareaccreditedbyprofessional,statutory,andregulatorybodies(PSRBs),admissionspoliciesanddecision-makingcriteriaareinpartdeterminedbytheseorganisations.PoliciesandprocessesarelikelytodifferasmuchbetweendifferentprogrammesofstudyatoneproviderasbetweendifferentHEPs.AppendixAhighlightsthemultiplestagesinadmissionsmanagement.3.6.1 Optionone:UCASmasksnamescentrallyandwithholdsthisinformationfromHEPsuntil
aninitialadmissionsdecisionismadeUCASisabletodevelopandimplementthecapabilitytowithholdnamesfromtheinitialdatasupplytoHEPs.ThiscouldbedevelopedforinclusioninthenewUCASUndergraduateapplicationserviceanditsassociateddatatransferservice.However,HEPrespondentstothesurveyhadreservationsaboutthisapproach.Theprimaryconcernexpressedbyproviderswasthepotentialdetrimentalimpactonthepersonalrelationshipstheyhave,andwanttobuild,withapplicants.ItwasfeltthatifUCASwastowithholdanapplicant’sname,evenforashorttime,thiscouldhaveasignificantnegativeimpactonthestudentexperienceandconversion,asitwouldpreventHEPscommunicatingdirectlywithapplicantsonapersonalbasis.HEPswereespeciallyconcernedaboutthepotentialimpactonWPapplicants,aswithoutaname,theycannotidentifyapplicantswhohavebeenpartofoutreachactivitiesandwhotheywanttowelcomeandofferadditionalsupportto.Itwasfeltthatwithholdinganapplicant’snamecouldhampermakingcontextualisedoffers,offeringalternativecourses,orofferingsupporttoapplicantsatriskofdroppingoutoftheprocess.
‘Webelieveanyremovalofnameswithintheapplicationprocessislikelytohaveadetrimentalimpactontheseactivities[aimedatsupportingthetransitiontodegreestudiesforapplicantsfromdisadvantagedgroups].Statistically,thisgroupofstudentsislesslikelytoconvert,sopositiverelationshipbuilding,wherestudentsareseenasanindividual,ratherthananumber,iskeyforthisgroup.‘It[name-blind]mayhaveunintendedconsequenceswhichwouldimpactdetrimentallyonpreciselythegroupswhichitisperceivedwouldbeassisted.Forexample,contextualfactorscouldnoteasilybetakenintoaccountandcorrespondingpositiveactionimplemented.’
Otherconcernscitedwiththisapproachwere:• riskofinabilitytofulfilconsumerprotectionresponsibilities• inabilitytocarryoutidentitychecks,orverifyqualifications,fee,andimmigrationstatus• increasedlikelihoodoferrors
13
• thatmaskingthenameoftheapplicantwouldn’tinitselfbesufficienttoachievethestatedaimbecauseoftheotherplaceswhereanapplicant’snameappearsintheinformationprovidedbyUCAS(e.g.someone’semailaddress,personalstatement,and/orreference),andbecauseethnicitycanbeinferredfromotherinformationprovided(e.g.nationality,thequalificationssomeonehastaken,suchasaGCSEorAlevelinanativelanguage).Otherinformation,suchassexandage,couldalsogiverisetounconsciousbias
Inaddition,conversationswiththemaintechnologyvendorsidentifiedthatitwouldbetechnologicallycomplex,expensive,andtimeconsumingforthemtoredeveloptheirsoftwaretoaccommodateUCASwithholdingdatacentrally.ItwouldalsothenrequireHEPstoinstallnew,upgradedversionsofvendorsoftware.OnesaidthatitwouldtakeuptotwoyearstoupdatetheirsoftwaretoaccommodateadatasupplyfromUCASwhichexcludesanapplicant’sname.TwoothersindicatedthatifUCAScouldnotprovideaname,itwouldnecessitatemajorre-engineeringoftheirsoftware,asnameisusedasakeyfeatureforindexingandduplicatehandling.Anotherprovider’ssoftwareisdesignedsothatitiscustomisablebyHEPs,andtheyindicatedthatHEPswouldneedtoundertakeconsiderableworktorealisethissolution.Giventhelikelycostsinvolvedandotherbusinesspriorities,softwarecompanieshavesaidtheywouldbereluctanttoembarkonthisredevelopmentunlessmandatedtodosobygovernmentoraregulatorybody.3.6.2 Optiontwo:UCASsuppliesnamestoHEPsandHEPslocallymaskthenamefrom
decision-makersuntilaninitialadmissionsdecisionismadeThesecondoptionistoencouragetechnologyvendorstoprovidesoftwaresolutionswhichgiveHEPsthefunctionalitytomaskinformation,suchasname,onalocalbasis.ThiswouldgiveHEPscontrolofwhatinformationwassharedwithwhomandwhen.Forexample,namescouldbeprovidedtothosestaffresponsibleforapplicantcommunications,WPsupport,verification,feestatus,andcounter-fraudactivities,whilethenameiswithheldfromthosedecidingwhetherornottomakeanofferorinvitationtointerview.Thisismoreattractivefromanadmissionsmanagementperspective,giventhedifferentpoliciesandproceduresemployedbyHEPs,andthiscapabilityalreadyexistsinsomeversionsofsomeexistinguniversityadmissionssystems.Forexample,thelatestversionsofsoftwareofferedbytwoprovidersalreadyprovideHEPswiththecapabilitytomaskinformationlocally,includingname.However,thelargestsectortechnologyvendordoesnotoffermaskingcapability.Toofferthisfunctionality,theybelievetheywouldneedtomakechangestotheircoresoftwareapplication,whichHEPswouldthenneedtoapplyviatheirbiennialupdates.Itmaytakeanumberofyearsforallproviderstomovetothisnewversion.Providersthatalsousetheirwebinterfacemayalsoneedtoredevelopthisthemselves.Althoughthisapproachwouldaddresssomeoftheconcernsraisedaboutcommunicationswithapplicants,consumerprotectioncompliance,andfraudandverificationactivities,atmostprovidersitwouldlikelyrequiresubstantialprocessre-engineeringandITredevelopment,designandimplementationofnewversionsofstudentrecordsandmanagementinformationsoftware.Thecostofthiscouldbesignificant.
14
Thisislikelytobeparticularlyproblematicforsmallerproviders,whereadmissions-relatedtasksmaybeundertakenbyoneortwopeople.Concernswerealsoraisedaboutthefairnessofsuchasystem,giventhatsomeinternationalstudentsarerecruiteddirectly,andthatatClearing,theuseofaname-blindapproachwouldnotbepracticalgiventhespeedatwhichthesystemoperates.Itisalsoworthflaggingthatneithersolutionaddressestheriskthatanapplicant’snamealsooftenappearselsewhereintheirapplication–forexample,intheiremailaddress,personalstatement,andreference–andthateliminatingthisislikelytobenearimpossible,especiallywithregardstoemailaddresses.Anapplicant’sethnicitymayalsobeinferredfromtheirnationalityorqualificationstheyhavetakenoraretaking;informationwhichisessentialtotheirapplicationandassessmentoffeestatus.4. ConclusionsAlthoughthereisevidencefromresearch,particularlyfromtheUS,ofunconsciousbiasoperatinginemployeerecruitmentandthevalueofusinganame-blindapproach,itcannotbeassumedthateithertheproblemorpotentialsolutionaredirectlyapplicabletoadmissionstoHE,givendifferencesinpurposeandlevelsofcompetition.ThemarketinundergraduateadmissionsmeansthatmanyHEPsareseekingtorecruitratherthantoselectstudentsforadmissiontotheirmostoftheirprogrammes.Thisisvisibleinsignificantlyincreasedlevelsofoffersmadetoallgroupsofapplicants.In2015,93percentofstudentswhoappliedbefore30Juneandmadefivechoicesreceivedatleastoneoffer.Thisenvironmentdrivesabusinessimperativetofillplaces.UCAS’analysisonentrytoHEbyethnicity,offer-making,offerrates,andaverageofferratesallpointtowardsadmissionstoHEbeingfairatanationallevel.Whiletherearelargedifferencesinofferratesbyethnicgroup,inmostcasesthiscanbeattributedtheapplicant’spredictedgradesandhowcompetitivethecourseisthattheyappliedfor.ThisisbackedupbyUCAS’mostrecentdataonapplications,offers,andofferratesbynamedproviders.Whilethisreinforcestheevidencethatoveralladmissionsarefair,italsosuggeststhatasmallnumberofprovidersneedtoexaminewhytherearesignificantdifferencesbetweenobservedandaverageofferratesforsomegroups.Thereareover380HEPsusingtheUCASUndergraduateadmissionsserviceforrecruitmenttofull-timeundergraduate-levelprogrammes.Havinglookedatthefeasibilityofintroducinganame-blindapproach,itisevidentthatHEPsandtechnologyvendorshavesignificantconcernsaboutamodelinwhichUCAScentrallywithholdsnames.Asoutlinedabove,HEPsareconcernedthattheywillnotbeabletomaintainpersonalcontactswithapplicantsandsupportWPstudents,aswellaswiderriskstoverification,compliance,andoperationalefficiency.Technologyvendorshavesignalledthatmajorre-engineeringoftheirsoftwareproductswouldberequired.Althoughahighereducationprovider-levelimplementationaddressessomeoftheseissues,itwouldstillrequiresoftwareredevelopmentbysometechnologyproviders,requireproviderstoimplementsoftware,andnecessitatebusinessprocessre-engineeringandtechnologyinvestment.
15
Thereisasensethatthereisinsufficientevidenceofaproblemtowarrantthescaleofinvestmentandbusinesschangethatwouldbeneededtoadoptname-blindapplications.ThisisparticularlythecaseforHEPsthatarerecruitingtoall,ormost,oftheircourses,andforsmallerandspecialistcourseproviders.MakingthecaseforinvestmentislikelytobeequallyproblematicforHEPswhoseequalitydatashowsthattherearenosignificantdifferencesintheirofferratesagainstexpectedofferratesfordifferentethnicornationallyunderrepresentedgroups.AtypicalHEPcommentfromtheevidencegatheringsurveysaid:‘Theuniversityrecognisesthatunconsciousbiasmayexistincertainsituations,althoughthereappearstobeverylittleevidencethatthistakesplaceinthecontextofuniversityadmissions,particularlyforrecruitingproviders’.DrVikkiBolivercommented:‘Ifadmissionsdecisionsareinfluencedbyconsciousorunconsciousbias,thenthesolutionisnottoremoveinformationthattriggersthosebiases,buttodevelopprocessesandfosterculturesinwhichsuchbiasesarerecognisedandredressed’.5. RecommendationsBasedontheevidencegatheringworkandconversationswithHEPs,technologyproviders,andstakeholders,UCASproposessevenrecommendationstodeveloptheevidencebaseonunconsciousbiasinadmissions,promotegoodpractice,andencourageHEPstoundertakename-blindapplicationprojectstobetterunderstanditsapplicabilityandpotentialuseinadmissions.Recommendationone:HEPsshouldrunname-blindadmissionsdecision-makingprojectsatalocallevelThereissupportfromtheHEsectorforconductingprojectsusinganame-blindapproachatalocallevelinthe2017admissionscycle,totestitsapplicabilitytoHEadmissions,itsefficacyinaddressingconcernsaboutunconsciousbias,andtobetterunderstandthelikelycostsofawidespreadimplementation.HEPsareencouragedtoexploreusinganame-blindapproachfordifferentsubjects,typesofcourses,andforthoseusingdifferentrecruitmentandselectionmethodologies.Tosupportproviders,UCASwillcoordinateprojectactivities,assistwiththedesignofdatacollectionandanalysis(whererequested),andcollate,analyse,andpublishthefindings.SPAwillalsooffersupportandadvicetoHEPspilotingthisapproach.Recommendationtwo:SPAshouldtaketheleadonthedevelopmentofgoodpracticeandenhancementofunconsciousbiastrainingforthoseinvolvedinadmissionsThereiswidespreadsupportacrosstheHEsectorforthedevelopmentandpromotionofgoodpracticetominimisetherisksofbiasinadmissionsanddevelopment,andpromotetrainingspecificallyinrecognisingandaddressingunconsciousbiasinadmissions.AtypicalquotefromtheUCASsurveysaid:‘[x]wouldwelcomeasector-widecommitmenttoprovidetrainingonunconsciousbiasandculturalawarenessforallstaffinvolvedintherecruitmentandselectionofstudents.SPAcouldleadonthedevelopmentofthistrainingtoensurethereisconsistentaccesstogoodqualitymaterialsandresourcesacrossthesector’.
16
WewouldalsoencourageHEPstoworktowardsECU’sraceequalitychartermark.Recommendationthree:HEPsshouldregularlymonitorandreviewtheiradmissionsdataandaddressanyunexplaineddifferencesinoffer-makingoradmissionsoutcomesItisgoodpracticeforproviderstomonitorandregularlyreviewtheiradmissionsdatatoevaluatetheefficacyoftheiradmissionspoliciesandprocedures.Thisenablesswiftactiontobetakenatanystageoftheadmissionsprocessifevidenceofbiasisfound.SPAhasrecentlypublishednewgoodpracticeonmonitoringandusingadmissionsdatatoevaluatethefairnessofadmissionspoliciesandcriteriainthecontextofprogression,retention,andoutcomestrategies.HEPsareencouragedtoengagewithandusethisgoodpractice.Tosupportproviders,UCASwillcontinuetopublishandexpandequalitiesdata,whichincludesdataonapplication,offer,andacceptanceratesbysex,ethnicity,andareabackground.Recommendationfour:HEPscouldconsiderintroducingareviewofapplicationsmarkedforrejectionAtitssimplest,initialadmissionsdecision-makingresolvesapplicationsintooneofthreegroups:thosetowhomtheuniversitywishestomakeanoffer,thosewhoseapplicationsarerejected,andthoseapplicationswhichrequirefurtherconsideration.Eventually,allapplicationsresultineitheranofferorarejection.ManyHEPsalreadyhaveprocessesinplacetoenableareviewofrejectedapplicationsagainsttheiradmissionscriteria,coveringeitherallorasampleofthesedecisions.Theuseofareviewstage,oftenconductedbydifferentindividuals,enablesadmissionsteamstoprovideasecondcheckagainstentrycriteria,includingmakingsurecontextualinformationanddatahavebeenappliedinlinewiththeHEP’spolicy.Ifnotalreadyundertaken,considerationcanbegivenforachangedcourseoffer.Involvementofdifferentadmissionsstaff,wherethishasnotalreadyhappened,mayalsohelpreducetheriskofbias.HEPsthatdonotalreadyusesomeformofreviewareencouragedtoconsiderdoingso.Inaddition,HEPscouldbeencouragedtoreviewtheirdecision-makingprocessannuallytoensurefairandequitabletreatment.Suchareviewshouldinformadmissionspoliciesforthefollowingyear.Recommendationfive:ThereshouldbefurtherresearchintounderstandingifthereisbiasinHEadmissionsThereissupportfromHEPsandstakeholdersforfurtherresearchtounderstandifthereisbiasinadmissions.UCASwillsupportthisrecommendationthroughthepublicationofequalitiesdata(recommendationthree),andbymakingarichersetofindividual-leveldataavailabletoauthorisedresearchersviatheAdministrativeDataResearchNetwork(ADRN).
17
Recommendationsix:UCASshouldimprovesupportforHEPsusingcontextualisedadmissions
Theuseofcontextualdata,whichseekstoputanapplicant’sacademicandotherachievementsintowidereducational,socio-economic,orgeo-demographiccontexts,isawell-establishedmeansforaddressingfairadmissions,andmayaidHEPs’wideningparticipationobjectives.
Contextualdataandinformationmaybeusedinnumerouswaysandplacesduringtheadmissionsprocess.Forexample,thismayincludetoflaganapplicationforfurtherconsiderationratherthanrejection,toguaranteeanintervieworaudition,ortoinformthedecisionwhetherornottoacceptsomeonewhohasnotmetthetermsoftheirconditionaloffer.Inaddition,asmallnumberofHEPsusecontextualdatatomakelowerofferstoapplicantswithcertaincontextualcriteria.Theuseofcontextualdatamaytakeaccountofeducational,geo-demographic,and/orsocio-economiccontext,aswellasotherindividualaspectsofeducationaldisadvantage.
UniversitiesandcollegesemployingcontextualdatauseinformationprovidedbyUCASfromtheapplicationform,abasketofcontextualdataofferedthroughUCAS’contextualdataservice,theirowndata,suchasiftheapplicanthassuccessfullytakenpartinawideningparticipationactivity,andinformationtoprovidesupporttoapplicants(suchascareleavers)throughtheadmissionsprocessandbeyond.Thirdpartydataservicesmayalsobeused.AnumberofHEPsrespondingtotheevidencegatheringsurveyaskedUCAStostrengthentheservicesitprovidestosupportcontextualisedadmissions.
UCASwillreviewwithHEPswhatdataandservicestheyneedtoundertakecontextualadmissionsmoreeffectively,andwilldeliveranychangesaspartoftheredevelopmentoftheUCASUndergraduateapplicationservice.
Recommendationseven:Thoseresponsibleforfairaccessandwideningparticipationshouldconsiderwhatfurtheractionscouldbetaken
UCASinvitesOFFA,HEFCW,theScottishFundingCouncil,andtheDepartmentfortheEconomyinNorthernIrelandtoconsidertheevidenceandfindingsinthisreportinrelationtoguidancetheymayissuetoHEPs,inrelationtoaccessandoutcomeagreements.
UCASinvitesthoseresponsiblefortheregulationofHEtoconsiderwhethertherewouldbevalueinestablishingarequirementforregulartrainingonunconsciousbiasforthoseinvolvedinadmissionsdecision-making.
PRE-
APPL
ICAT
ION
A
PPLI
CATI
ON
POST
-APP
LICA
TIO
NTR
ANSI
TIO
N
Early
eng
agem
ent w
ith H
E Ra
ising
HE
awar
enes
s an
d as
pira
tions
Prep
arat
ory
enga
gem
ent w
ith H
E Co
nsid
erin
g H
E st
udy
Pre-
HE
acad
emic
/ vo
catio
nal /
exp
erie
ntia
l lea
rnin
g
Appl
ican
t eng
agem
ent w
ith H
E En
terin
g H
E st
udy
Info
rmat
ion,
adv
ice
& g
uida
nce
from
sc
hool
/col
lege
, car
eers
ad
viso
rs, f
riend
s, fa
mily
Gai
n ba
ckgr
ound
un
ders
tand
ing
of H
E an
d w
hat i
t offe
rs
Expe
rienc
e H
E en
viro
nmen
t (v
isit a
n H
EI; H
E ‘ta
ster
’ mod
ules
; su
mm
er sc
hool
s on
HE
cam
pus)
Visit
pot
entia
l cho
ices
at
open
day
s, re
view
thei
r w
ebsit
es, a
sk a
ny q
uest
ions
UCA
S se
nds
ackn
owle
dgem
ent f
or
appl
ican
t to
chec
k
Rese
arch
pot
entia
l ch
oice
s
Com
plet
e ap
plic
atio
n to
UCA
S w
ith u
p to
5 c
hoic
es
UCA
S se
nds c
opy
of
appl
icat
ion
to e
ach
choi
ce
Inst
itutio
ns c
onsid
er
appl
icat
ions
aga
inst
thei
r in
tern
al a
dmiss
ions
crit
eria
Inst
itutio
ns n
otify
U
CAS
of d
ecisi
on, w
ho
info
rm a
pplic
ant
Inst
itutio
n fe
edba
ck
to a
ny u
nsuc
cess
ful
appl
ican
ts
All c
hoic
es
unsu
cces
sful
Cond
ition
al
and/
or
Unc
ondi
tiona
l off
ers
Post
-app
licat
ion
visit
s
Addi
tiona
l cho
ice
via
Extr
a
Seek
alte
rnat
ive
Firm
pl
ace
via
Clea
ring Uns
ucce
ssfu
l at
new
Firm
pla
ce
Uns
ucce
ssfu
l at F
irm
plac
e; In
sura
nce
plac
e be
com
es n
ew F
irm
Acad
emic
supp
ort
(e.g
. fina
lised
mod
ule
stru
ctur
e;
timet
able
s; pe
rson
al/s
ubje
ct
tuto
r inf
orm
atio
n, p
re-s
essio
nal
and
in-s
essio
nal m
edia
tory
ed
ucat
ion)
Past
oral
supp
ort (
e.g.
fina
lised
ac
com
mod
atio
n; e
nrol
men
t in
form
atio
n; st
uden
t ser
vice
s aw
aren
ess;
fees
supp
ort;
orie
ntat
ion
and
indu
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es; d
edic
ated
men
tors
; N
US;
inde
pend
ent
on-li
ne fo
rum
s)
New
Firm
pla
ce
reco
nsid
ers
appl
icat
ion
Dec
line
all
choi
ces
Cond
ition
s no
t mee
t
Cond
ition
s m
eet o
r ex
ceed
ed
Firm
pla
ce
reco
nsid
ers
appl
icat
ion
Cond
ition
s no
t met
Unc
ondi
tiona
l Firm
Cond
ition
s m
et
Cond
ition
s ex
ceed
ed
No
new
acc
epta
nce;
ap
plic
ant s
tays
with
or
igin
al F
irm p
lace
New
inst
itutio
n ac
cept
s app
lican
t
Appl
ican
t ch
oose
s to
ente
r ad
just
men
t
Acce
pt 1
firm
and
1
insu
ranc
e pl
ace,
de
clin
ing
all o
ther
s
Cond
ition
al F
irm w
ait
for e
xam
resu
lts o
r ot
her c
ondi
tions
Poss
ible
requ
ests
fo
r add
ition
al
info
rmat
ion Po
ssib
le in
terv
iew
s, in
tern
al a
dmiss
ions
test
s, po
rtfo
lio su
bmiss
ions
Chec
k co
urse
and
in
stitu
tion
data
av
aila
ble
via
UCA
S Com
pact
/Pro
gres
sion
sche
mes
Read
UCA
S on
-line
in
form
atio
n on
the
adm
issio
ns p
roce
ss a
nd
dead
lines
car
eful
lyRe
fere
nce
adde
d (u
sual
ly b
y sc
hool
/co
llege
)
Poss
ible
ext
erna
l ad
miss
ions
test
s re
quire
d
HE
stud
ent
The
Appl
ican
t Exp
erie
nce (
via
UCA
S)
This
char
t rep
rese
nts t
he p
roce
ss fl
ow fo
r the
app
lican
t exp
erie
nce:
all t
he st
ages
an
indi
vidu
al m
ight
go
thro
ugh
to b
ecom
e a
full-
time
unde
rgra
duat
e st
uden
t at a
UK
high
er e
duca
tion
inst
itutio
n.
The
gree
n ar
eas d
enot
e th
e se
quen
tial s
tage
s of t
he a
pplic
ant e
xper
ienc
e, w
hilst
pur
ple
area
s den
ote
the
proc
ess s
teps
oc
curri
ng w
ithin
, and
ove
rlapp
ing,
thos
e st
ages
. Eac
h st
ep in
the
proc
ess i
s an
oppo
rtuni
ty fo
r app
lican
t and
inst
itutio
n to
in
tera
ct: t
he q
ualit
y of
that
inte
ract
ion
will
dict
ate
whe
ther
or n
ot th
e m
ost s
uita
ble
stud
ents
for i
nstit
utio
ns p
rogr
ess o
nto
the
mos
t app
ropr
iate
cou
rses
for t
hose
app
lican
ts. C
o-or
dina
ted
activ
ity a
cros
s all s
teps
is th
eref
ore
vita
l in
man
agin
g th
e flo
w o
f pot
entia
l int
o hi
gher
edu
catio
n. P
ale
purp
le a
reas
do
not c
onst
itute
ess
entia
l ste
ps w
ithin
the
appl
icat
ion
proc
ess,
but a
re e
lem
ents
that
may
enh
ance
inte
ract
ion
with
in a
step
and
enr
ich
the
appl
ican
t exp
erie
nce.
Indi
vidu
al in
stitu
tions
may
wish
to m
ap th
eir o
wn
proc
esse
s aga
inst
this
flow
cha
rt to
revi
ew w
here
staff
with
diff
eren
t re
spon
sibili
ties c
an b
est c
o-or
dina
te e
fforts
to m
axim
ise th
e po
tent
ial o
f att
ract
ing,
nur
turin
g an
d re
crui
ting
the
mos
t ap
prop
riate
stud
ents
to su
ccee
d at
thei
r ins
titut
ion.
Supp
ortin
g Pr
ofes
sion
alis
min
Adm
issi
ons
18
Appendix A
RosehillNew Barn LaneCheltenhamGL52 3LZ
t: +44 (0) 1242 222 444www.ucas.com