Unconscious Bias Report
2016
Executivesummary
AsProfessorStevenSchwartzstatedinhislandmarkreport‘FairAdmissionstoHigherEducation’(2004)‘a
fairadmissionssystemisonethatprovidesequalopportunityforallindividuals,regardlessofbackground,
togainadmissiontoacoursesuitedtotheirabilityandaspirations.’
Ashighereducationproviders(HEPs)areresponsiblefortheirownadmissionspoliciesandprocesses,the
challengeistoensurethatadmissionsare,andareseentobe,fairforallstudents.
Inresponsetoconcernsaboutpersistentobserveddifferencesintheheadlineofferratestodifferent
ethnicgroups,theGovernmentaskedUCAStoconsultwiththeHEsectoraboutthefeasibilityof
introducingname-blindapplications,recognisingthatthisapproachhasbeenusedsuccessfullytoaddress
therisksofbiasingraduaterecruitment.
Inapproachingthistask,wehavelookedatthechangingnatureoftheundergraduateadmissionsmarket
andtheevidenceofbiasinadmissionstoHE,examinedhowHEPsseektominimisetherisksofbias–in
comparisonwithothercountriesandgraduaterecruiters–andhavesoughtfeedbackfromHEPsabout
differentmodelsforintroducingname-blindapplications.
Inplacingthisworkintocontextit’srelevanttohighlightthecomplexityoftheadmissionslandscape.HEPs’
decision-makingprocessesarecloselycoupledwithinstitutionalmissions,andassuchpoliciesand
practicesvarybetweenproviders.Forexample,applicationprocessingandadmissionsdecision-makingis
undertakencentrallyatsomeproviders,andinadistributedwaybyacademicsinschools,departmentsor
facultiesatothers.MixedmodelsoperateinmanyHEPstoaccommodatethedifferentadmissions
requirementsofcertainsubjects,andadmissionsfordomesticandinternationalstudentsareoften
handledseparately.
WhenUCASprovidesdataandinformationfromstudents’applicationstoHEPs,thedataandinformation
fromapplicationforms,referencesandcontextualdataistypicallytransferredintouniversities’admissions
orstudentrecordssystems,andisusedformultiplepurposes.Inadditiontoadmissionsdecision-making,
datamaybeusedtocontactstudentstoofferservicesandsupport,determinefeestatus,ortoverify
qualificationsandotherinformation.Theseprocessesoftenruninparallelwithadmissionsdecision-making
tospeedthetimefromreceiptofapplicationtoaninitialdecision.
OursurveyofHEPsfoundthatalmostallareveryawareoftherisksofbiasinadmissionsdecision-making,
andemployawidevarietyofgoodpractice,includinghavingandapplyingclearadmissionscriteria,
ensuringthatmorethanonepersonisinvolvedindecision-making,andrequiringequalityanddiversity
training.Therearealsoanumberofsafeguardsbuiltintotheadmissionsprocessitself,asUCASdoesnot
shareinformationaboutapplicants’ethnicity,religion,sexualorientation,genderidentity,parental
educationandparentaloccupationwithHEPs,untilafteradmissionsdecisionshavebeenmadeorwhen
thecyclehasclosed.
Withafallingnumberof18yearoldsinthepopulationandpressuresoninternationalstudentrecruitment,
HEPsareinamarketwhichencouragesstudentrecruitment,andactstocounterrisksofbias.Thisis
reflectedinincreasinglevelsofoffer-makingtoallstudentgroups.Forexample,in2015,93percentof
studentswhoappliedbefore30June,andmadefiveapplicationchoices,receivedatleastoneoffer.
1
Additionally,UCAS’analysisonoffer-makingandofferratesbyethnicgroupfindsnoevidenceofsystemic
biasintheadmissionssystem,althoughwedididentifyanumberofinstanceswhereofferratestocertain
groupswereoutsideofwhatmightbeexpected,ifoffersweremadesolelyonthebasisofpredictedgrades
andthecourseappliedto.
Inexaminingthepotentialforintroducingname-blindapplicationsUCAShasexploredtwooptionswith
HEPsandHEtechnologyvendors:amodelwhereUCASwithholdsinformationsuchasapplicants’names
centrally,andamodelwhereHEPscanmaskinformationlocallyfromthoseindividualsinvolveddirectlyin
admissionsmakingdecisions.
IntheirfeedbackHEPswereconcernedthatifUCASwastomasknamescentrally,thiscouldaffecttheir
abilitytodevelopandmaintainrelationshipswithprospectivestudents,hamperverificationactivities,and
undermineeffortstowidenparticipation.Equally,technologyvendorsindicatedthatsuchanapproach
wouldrequireredevelopmentoftheirsoftwareproducts,ontopoflocalimplementationrequirementsat
HEPs.
AmoreattractivesolutionisforHEPstoemployaname-blindapproachatlocallevel.Thiscouldenable
applicantcommunications,verificationandwideningparticipationsupportactivitiestooperateeffectively,
whilstwithholdingnamesfromthoseindividualsinvolvedinadmissionsdecision-making.However,thistoo
wouldrequireredevelopmentbyanumberofthemajorHEtechnologyvendorsaswellaslocalprocessreengineeringandimplementation.
AllHEPsrecognisetheimportanceofdemonstratingthattheiradmissionspracticesarefairand
transparent.Ourevidencegatheringexercisegeneratedagroundswellofcommitmenttoimproveand
extendunconsciousbiastrainingtoallindividualsinvolvedinadmissionsdecision-making,andtoidentify
andpromotegoodpracticeinminimisingtherisksofbias.Toinvestigatetheextenttowhichaname-blind
approachcouldcomplementtheseactivitiesweareencouragingHEPstorunname-blindprojectsto
evaluatedifferentapproaches,andidentifythechallengesandcostsofwiderimplementation.Inaddition,
UCASwilldevelopaninformation-maskingcapabilityforthoseproviderswhouseitsweb-linkserviceto
supporttheiradmissionsmanagement.
Wealsorecommendfurtherresearchintounderstandingifthereisbiasinadmissions,andencourageHEPs
toregularlyscrutinisetheirownoffer-makingandadmissionsdata,andaddressanyunexplained
differencesbetweenexpectedandobservedoutcomes.
WeareextremelygratefultoalloftheHEPs,technologysuppliers,andstakeholdersintheUKandoverseas
whohavesharedtheirviewsandinsightwithus.InparticularwewouldliketothankSupporting
ProfessionalisminAdmissions(SPA)forundertakingaliteraturereviewontheevidencebasefornameblindapplications.
UCAS
August2016
2
Contents
1.
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4
2.
UCAS’evidencegatheringexercise……………………………………………………………………………………4
3.
Findingsfromtheevidencegatheringexercise………………………………………………………………….5
3.1
Theundergraduateadmissionsmarket……………………………………………………………………………..5
3.2
Theevidenceofbiasinhighereducationadmissions…………………………………………………………7
3.3
HowHEPsseektominimisetherisksofbias……………………………………………………………………10
3.4
HowHEPsinothercountriesminimiserisksofbias…………………………………………………………10
3.5
Comparisonswithemployeerecruitment…………………………………………………………………………11
3.6
Evidencegatheringonthepotentialfeasibilityofname-blindapplications………………………11
4.
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………14
5.
Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………………………………………15
6.AppendixA………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18
3
UNCONSCIOUSBIASINADMISSIONSTOHIGHEREDUCATION:EVIDENCEGATHERINGONTHE
USEOFNAME-BLINDAPPLICATIONS
1.
Introduction
Joiningadiversestudentbodyisanessentialpartofthehighereducation(HE)experienceintheUK.Being
partofastudentcommunitydrawnfromabroadrangeofbackgroundsencouragesstudentstoexplore
andunderstandwhyothersholddifferentopinionsandperspectives,andtolearnhowtoexamineand
solveproblemsindifferentways–essentialskillsforemploymentandcitizenship.
Giventherangeofcareersandemploymentopportunitiesadegreeopensup,andthefinancial,social,and
wellbeingbenefitsofhavingstudiedatahigherlevel,itisimportantthatopportunitiesareopentoallwith
thepotentialtosucceed.Assuch,universitiesandcollegesmakesignificanteffortstoensuretheir
admissionspoliciesarefairandtransparent,andgiveallapplicantswhocandemonstratetheyhavethe
potentialanequalopportunitytosecureaplace,regardlessoftheirbackground,sex,orethnicity.
However,thereareconcernsingovernmentthatwell-qualifiedpeoplearenotgettingoffersfrom
universitiesandcollegesbecauseofbiasinhighereducationadmissions.TheRtHonDavidCameronMP,
whenPrimeMinister,raisedconcernsinaGuardianarticleinOctober2015aboutthedisparityinoffer
ratestoblackandwhiteapplicants.Henoted:‘Thereasonsarecomplex,butunconsciousbiasisclearlya
risk’.
Thegovernmentnotedthatresearch,primarilyfromtheUnitedStates,showedthatwherethereappeared
tobeevidenceofbiasinemployeerecruitment,usinganame-blindstrategycouldhelpemployersbuilda
morediverseworkforce.Asaresult,thegovernmentannouncedthatacohortofmajoremployers–
includingtheBBC,NHS,Deloitte,andKPMG–wouldbeimplementingname-blindrecruitmentsystems.
ThegovernmentthereforeaskedUCAStoconsultwiththeHEsectoraboutthefeasibilityofintroducing
name-blindapplicationstoHE.Thiswouldinvolvemaskinganapplicant’snameduringtheinitialstageof
theadmissionsprocess,priortomakingadecisionaboutwhetherornottoinvitesomeonetoaninterview
ortomakethemanoffer,asapotentialmeansforreducingtheriskofbias.
Thisreportpresentsthefindingsfromthisevidencegatheringexercise,andmakesanumber
ofrecommendationsfortakingthisworkforwardandaddressingtherisksofbiasinadmissions
toHE.
2.
UCAS’evidencegatheringexercise
Throughacomprehensiveliteraturereview1undertakenbySupportingProfessionalisminAdmissions
(SPA),anationalsurveyofuniversitiesandcolleges,onlinefocusgroups,stakeholderdiscussions,and
workshopswithhighereducationproviders(HEPs),UCAShassoughtfeedbackfromuniversitiesand
1
SupportingProfessionalisminAdmissions(SPA)istheindependentandobjectivevoiceonUKHEadmissions.SPA
promotesprofessionalism,fairadmissions,andaccesstoHEbydevelopingandleadingonevidence-basedgood
practiceintherecruitmentandselectionofstudents.SPA’sname-blindevidencereportcanbefoundat
www.spa.ac.uk/resources/name-blind-applications.
4
collegesandtheirtechnologysuppliersaboutintroducinganame-blindapproachtoadmissions.Alongside
this,UCAShassoughtfeedbackonhowHEPsalreadyseektominimisetherisksofunconsciousbiasin
admissions,andexploredwaysofstrengtheningthis.
120HEPstookpartinthesurveyandtheresultsfromthis,togetherwithfeedbackfromstakeholdersand
technologysuppliers,aresetoutinthisreport.Itcovers:
• theundergraduateadmissionsmarket
• theevidenceforbiasinadmissions
• howUKHEPsminimiserisksofbias
• howHEPsinothercountriesminimiserisksofbias
• comparisonswithemployeerecruitment
• thefindingsoftheevidencegatheringfromHEPsandHEtechnologyvendors
• conclusions
• recommendations
3.
3.1
Findingsfromtheevidencegatheringexercise
Theundergraduateadmissionsmarket
SincetheremovalofstudentnumbercontrolsinEngland,HEPshavehadtheabilitytorecruitasmany
undergraduatestudentsastheywant,asidefromtocourseswherenumbersremainregulated(suchNHS
profession-basedcoursesandveterinaryscience),andsubjecttopracticalconstraintsonteaching,
laboratoryandperformancespace,studentfacilities,andaccommodation.
Many,althoughnotall,HEPshavesoughttotakeadvantageofthisfreedomtogrowtheirstudent
numbers,increasingthecompetitionforwell-qualifiedstudents.CoupledwithfallingAlevelattainment
anddemographicchanges,thishascreatedanenvironmentwhereamajorityofHEPsareactively
recruitingstudentstoamajorityoftheircourses.Typically,thismeansthatstudentsapplyingtothese
courses,whomeettheirminimumentrycriteriaintermsofpredictedgrades,willgetanoffer.Italso
meansthatprovidersaremoreabletoacceptmore‘nearmiss’students,contextualiseoffers,andoffer
studentsaplaceonanalternativecourseorfoundationprogrammeifthecoursethestudenthasappliedto
isoversubscribed,orthestudentdoesnotsecureanofferofaplace.
Whileallcoursesatasmallnumberofhighertariffuniversitiesarecompetitive,selectivityisnotthe
preserveofthehighertariffproviders.Acrossallkindsofuniversitiesandcolleges,selectionoperates
where:
• numbersremaincappedinspecificsubjects(NHSprofession-basedprogrammesandveterinary
science)
• professionalbodiesrequirethedemonstrationofspecifictraitsorcompetenciesforadmission(NHS
profession-basedcourses,psychology,physiotherapy,andsocialwork,forexample)
• therearespecificdegreeprogrammeswhicharehighlyspecialistand/orhighlyvaluedbygraduate
employers
EvidenceforthiscomesfromUCAS’offer-makinganalysis.In2015,thetotalnumberofoffersmadeto
mainschemeapplicants(thoseapplyingonorbefore30June)increasedby81,000(+4.5percent)to1.9
5
million,thehighestnumberrecorded.Thiscontinuesthetrendseensince2013ofanincreasingnumberof
offersmadeeachyear.Thenumberofoffersmadetoapplicantswhoreceivedoffersforallfiveoftheir
choicesincreasedby41,200(+6percent),andthetotalnumberofoffersmadetoapplicantswithfouror
fiveoffersreachedarecordhighat1.3million2.
Thismeantthatin2015,93percentofmainschemeapplicantswhomadefivechoicesreceivedatleast
oneoffer,and56percentoftheseapplicantsreceivedfourorfiveoffers3.
Overall,in2015,offerratestoUK18yearoldapplicantsfromEnglishprovidersincreasedto78percent
(+0.9percentagepoints),thehighestlevelrecorded4.Theseincreasesinoffer-makingareasaresultof
HEPsmakingmoreofferstoensuretheyrecruitsufficientnumbersofstudents.
ThiscanbeseeninthehighofferratelevelsseeninthetransparencydatapublishedbyUCASinJune2016,
withtheofferrateatmostproviderstypicallyinthe70to80percentrangefor18yearoldUKapplicants5.
Table1:2015OfferratestoUKdomiciledmainschemeapplicantsbytariffgroup
2015offerrate
AllUKmainscheme
18yearoldUKmain
applicants
schemeapplicants
Highertariff
63.0%
73.3%
Mediumtariff
66.5%
77.5%
Lowertariff
67.6%
79.6%
For18yearoldapplicantswhoapplywithAlevelresultspending,itispossibletolookatofferratesbythe
profileoftheirpredictedgrades.ThedataforthemostableEnglishdomiciledapplicants,whowilllargely
beapplyingtohighertariffproviders,showsthatofferratevariesconsiderablybypredictedgradeprofile.
Forexamplein2015,applicantspredictedAABhadanofferrateof88.1percent,higherthanthose
predictedABB(86.3percent),orBBB(84percent).However,applicantswithhigherpredictedgradeshad
alowerofferrate,withthosepredictedthreeA*shavinganofferrateof79percent,andthosepredicted
A*A*A,anofferrateof77.7percent,reflectingcompetitionforthemosthighlyselectivecourses6.
Despitecompetitionforplacesamongthemostable,almostallwillreceiveatleastoneoffer.In2015,
99.7%ofEnglish18yearoldAlevelstudentspredictedtoachievethreeA*sreceivedatleastoneoffer,
with98.5%ofstudentspredictedBBBreceivingatleastoneoffer7.
2
Figure24UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.
Figure26UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.
4
Figure28UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleRepot2015.
5
Source:www.ucas.com/corporate/data-and-analysis/ucas-undergraduate-releases/ucas-undergraduate-reports-sexarea.
6
Figure32UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.
7
Figure33UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.
3
6
3.2
Theevidenceofbiasinhighereducationadmissions
Changesintheundergraduateadmissionsmarkethavecreatedanenvironmentwheremanyprovidersare
incentivisedtomakemoreoffers,andaredoingso.Thisreducesthelikelihoodofbiassincetheimperative
istofillplaceswithstudentswhohavetheabilitytocompletethecourse.
Asaconsequence,thenumberofUKstudentsadmittedtoHEhasincreasedsince2012.Againstthis
background,entryrateshaveincreasedforallethnicgroups,reachingtheirhighestrecordedlevelsin2015.
However,therearelargedifferencesinentryratestoHEbyethnicityfor18yearoldEnglishschool
students.Since2006,theBlackethnicgrouphasrecordedthelargestincreaseinentryrates,risingfrom
20.9percentin2006to36.7percentin2015,aproportionalincreaseof75percent.Bycomparison,entry
ratesforyoungpeoplefromtheWhiteandBlackethnicgroupswereequivalentin2007,at22.2percent
and22.5percentrespectively.However,by2015,theentryratefortheWhitegrouphadincreasedto
27.8%,aproportionalincreaseof25percent.Today,theWhitegrouphasthelowestentryrateofall
ethnicgroups8.
Thereisadifferentpatternathighertariffproviders.Whileentryratesarehighlydifferentiatedby
ethnicity,andtheentryratesfromtheChineseethnicgrouparethehighest(26.5percent),thelowest
entryratestohighertariffprovidersaretheBlackethnicgroupat5.6percentin2015.Theentryratefor
theWhiteethnicgroupis8.1percent,thesecondlowest.
YoungpeoplerecordedintheBlackethnicgrouphavehadthelargestproportionalincreaseinentryrates
tohighertariffprovidersovertheperiod,increasingfrom2.9percentin2006to5.6percentin2015,a
proportionalincreaseof95percent.Despitethis,theentryratefortheBlackethnicgroupremains2.5
percentagepointslowerthantheWhiteethnicgroupathighertariffproviders9.
FurtheranalysisshowsthatthisdifferencereflectsAlevelattainment,sincethepatternofentrytohigher
tariffprovidersforEnglish18yearoldstateschoolstudentsbyethnicity,mirrorsthepatternofentryfor
thesamegroupbyAlevelattainmentatABBorabove.Forexamplein2015,theentryratefortheWhite
ethnicgroupholdingABB+was7.8percent,andtheBlackethnicgroupwas4.5percent10.Otherfactors
suchascombinationofsubjectsandgrades,admissionstests,interviews,andcontextualfactors,mayalso
playapartinentrytoHE.
UCAShaslookedindetailatoffer-makingto18yearoldAlevelapplicantsbyethnicgroupathighertariff
providersforboththe15Octoberand15Januarydeadlines(overtheperiod2010to2015).Courseswith
anOctoberdeadlinearebytheirnaturehighlycompetitive,coveringallprogrammesattheuniversitiesof
OxfordandCambridge,andapplicationstostudymedicine,dentistry,andveterinaryscience.
Whiletherearemanyfactorswhichmayinfluencethedecisionofwhetherornottoofferanapplicanta
place,suchasrelevancyofsubjectstoentryrequirements,thetwodominantfactorsaretheirpredicted
gradesandthecoursetheyhaveappliedto.DifferentgroupsofapplicantswiththesamepredictedAlevel
gradesmaymakedifferentpatternsofcoursechoices.Thiscanresultingroupsreceivingverydifferent
8
Figure88UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.
Figure92UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.
10
Figure93UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.
9
7
levelsofactualofferrates,mostlyreflectingtheirparticularcombinationsofcourses,andstrengthof
predictedgrades.
RecentUCASanalysisenablesacomparisonbetweentheactualofferratestodifferentethnicgroupstothe
offerratewhichmightbeexpectedgivenapplicants’predictedgradesandthecourse(s)appliedto.
Observeddifferencesbetweentheactualofferrateforagroupandtheaverageofferraterepresenta
differenceinoffer-making,specifictothatgroup,whichcannotbeaccountedforbythechoicesmadeby
thatgroupandthestrengthoftheirpredictedgrades.
Table2:SummaryanalysisofofferratestoOctoberdeadlineapplicantsfromtheUCAS
UndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015(highpredictedgradeAlevelapplicantsonly)
Octoberdeadline
Asian
Black
Mixed
White
(2010–2015)
Offerrate
47.6%
45.2%
63.6%
66.7%
Averageofferrate
49.4%
47.6%
63.0%
66.1%
%pointdifferencein
-1.8
-2.4
+0.6
+0.6
offerrate
Asmightbeexpected,offerratesfortheOctoberdeadlinearehighlydifferentiatedbypredictedgrade
profile11.Overall,offerstotheWhitegroupwereclosetoexpected.FortheBlackgroup,theoveralloffer
ratewas2.4percentagepointslowerthanexpected,andfortheAsiangroup,1.8percentagepointslower.
Table3:SummaryofanalysisofofferratestoJanuarydeadlineapplicantsfromtheUCAS
UndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015(highpredictedgradeAlevelapplicantsonly)
Januarydeadline
Asian
Black
Mixed
White
(2010–2015)
Offerrate
75.2%
75.4%
80.7%
84.0%
Averageofferrate
75.2%
75.9%
80.6%
84.0%
%pointdifference
0
-0.5
+0.1
0
inofferrate
ThesefindingsshowthatofferratesfromhighertariffproviderstodifferentethnicgroupsattheJanuary
deadlineareclosetoaverageofferrates12.
UCAShasalsorecentlypublishedafirsttrancheofdataexaminingapplications,offers,andofferratesby
namedindividualHEP.Thishasbeenaccompaniedbyafurtherpublicationoftimeseriesdatabytariff
grouping.ThetablebelowshowsthedataforUK18yearolds,whosubmittedtheirapplicationsbeforethe
30Junedeadline13.
11
Figures41&43UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015(NB:figuresfortheAsianandMixedgroupsarenot
intheReport).
12
Figures36&38-40UCASUndergraduateEndofCycleReport2015.
8
Table4:Summaryanalysisofapplication,offer,andentryratesbyethnicgroupfromUCAS
Undergraduatereportsbysex,areabackground,andethnicgroup(allUK18yearolds)
Highertariff
Asian
Black
Mixed
White
(2015)
Applicantsper10kof
2,599
2,081
2,162
2,029
population
Acceptsper10kof
911
530
994
955
population
Offerrate
62.2%
60.9%
73.0%
75.5%
Averageofferrate
63.7%
63.8%
73.0%
75.1%
%pointdifferencein
-1.5
-2.9
0
+0.4
offerrate*
*Takingonlypredictedgradesheldandthecourseappliedtointoaccountreducesdifferencesinoffer
ratesbetweenethnicgroupstomuchsmallervalues,indicatingthattheoffer-makingprocessoperatedby
universitiesisbroadlyfair.SmalldifferencesremainfortheBlackandAsianethnicgroups.
UCASconcludesthat,acrosstheUCASadmissionsscheme,thereisnoevidenceofsystemicbiasinthe
admissionssystem.However,thereareproviders–fromthehigher,medium,andlowertariffgroups–
whoseofferratestocertaingroupsareoutsideofwhatmightbeexpectedifoffersweremadesolelyon
thebasisofapplicants’predictedgradesandthecourse(s)theyappliedto.Althoughvariationinofferrates
isseenamongallgroupsofapplicants,offerrateslowerthanwhatmightbeexpectedaremoreoftenthan
notseenintheoffersmadetotheBlackandAsiangroups.
Itisimportanttoemphasisethatvariationinofferratesoutsideofwhatmightbeexpectedisnotinitself
evidenceofbias.Thereareotherfactorswhichmaybetakenintoaccountwhendecidingwhetherornot
tomakeanoffertoanapplicant,forexample,thesubjectsandsubjectcombinationoftheirAlevelsor
otherqualifications(especiallyforSTEMsubjects),interviewsandadmissionstests(foranumberof
medical,nursing,andsocialworkcourses),andpriorexperienceorcontextualfactors.Thesefactorsare
notcontrolledforinUCAS’analysis.
Also,universitiescannotmakeoffersifstudentsdonotapply,andUCAS’equalitiesdatashowsthatcertain
ethnicgroupsaremorelikelytoapplytosomeHEPsthanothers,andthatgeographicalproximityappears
tobeamajorfactor.
Finally,itisworthnotingthatifallHEPsmadeofferstoallgroupsexactlyattherateexpectedbasedon
theirpredictedgradesandcourseappliedto(therebycorrectingforconcernsaboutunconsciousbias),
modellingshowsthatwouldnotmakeamaterialdifferencetotheentryratesofunderrepresentedgroups
inHE.
13
Source:www.ucas.com/corporate/data-and-analysis/ucas-undergraduate-releases/ucas-undergraduate-reportssex-area.
9
3.3
HowHEPsseektominimisetherisksofbias
UCASaskedHEPswhatstepstheytaketominimisetherisksofbiasinadmissions.Itisevidentthatthevast
majorityofHEPsthatrespondedtothesurveywerewellawareoftherisksthatunconsciousbiascould
posetofairadmissions,andwereemployingarangeofmeasurestominimisethese.
Commonexamplesreportedfromthesurveyincluded:
• theconsistentapplicationoftheHEP’sadmissionspolicy,theuseofpredefinedselectioncriteria,and
cross-checkingofdecisions
• havingteamsofwell-trained,professionaladmissionspractitioners–thisprovidesconsistency,
promotesgoodpractice,andenablesdecisionstobemadeorreviewedbymorethanoneperson
• havingasecondpersonreviewapplicationsthatdonotreceiveanoffer
• providingequalityanddiversity,interview,andunconsciousbiastraining–71percentofrespondents
saidthatsomeformoftrainingwasmandatory,althoughmostHEPsreportedtheyoffergeneric
equalityanddiversitytrainingratherthantrainingaboutdealingwithunconsciousbias
• usingcontextualdata
• usingEqualityImpactAssessments,internalauditsofprocessesandprocedures,andrandomsampling
ofadmissionsdecisions
Additionally,asmallnumberofHEPsoperateinternalprocesseswhichmaskinformation(suchassex,
nationality,homeaddress,dateofbirth,andcriminalconvictions,butnotname)fromthosemakinginitial
admissionsdecisions.
However,responsesfromaverysmallnumberofHEPsindicatedalackofawarenessoftherisks,mistaking
egalitarianviewsandadiversestudentintakeassufficientmeansforaddressingrisks.Whilesuchproviders
maybeadmittinglargenumbersofdisadvantagedorBAMEstudents,theymightstillnotbemakingas
manyoffersasmightbeexpected,orbecontributingasmuchastheycouldbetowideningparticipation
(WP).
3.4
HowHEPsinothercountriesminimiserisksofbias
ThereissignificantliteratureabouthowothercountriesseektowidenaccesstoHEforunderrepresented
groups,particularlythosedefinedbyethnicityandsocio-economicbackground.Forexample,universitiesin
boththeUnitedStatesandAustraliausecontextualdataandinformationtoplaceacademicachievement
inthecontextoftheeducationalenvironmentinwhichstudentshavestudied,andadditionaltestsand
interviewsareusedforhighlycompetitivecoursessuchasmedicineanddentistry.
However,thereislimitedinformationaboutpracticesusedtominimiserisksofunconsciousbias.Wenoted
goodpracticeintheUniversityofCalifornia’ssystemwherethereismandatoryannualtrainingforallstaff
andreviewersinvolvedinadmissions,includingonunconsciousbias,andallapplicationsareconsideredby
atleasttwopeople.Wedidnotfindanyexamplesofuniversitiesusinganame-blindapproachto
admissions.
10
3.5
Comparisonswithemployeerecruitment
3.6
Evidencegatheringonthepotentialfeasibilityofname-blindapplications
Thereisgrowingevidencethataname-blindorCV-blindapproachtograduateandemployeerecruitment
candeliverpositiveresults.WhileparallelscanbedrawnbetweenselectionforadmissionstoHEand
recruitmentforemployment,theseareinherentlydifferentactivitiesforanumberofreasons.
• Employeerecruitmentisusuallyfocusedonasingle,orasmallnumber,ofvacancies.Itisahighly
competitiveprocessbetweenindividuals.Asoutlinedat3.2above,admissionstoHEisnowprimarilya
competitiveprocessbetweenprovidersseekingtoattractandrecruitstudents.Wherethereis
competitionamongapplicants,thisistypicallyforoneofalargenumberofplaces.
• Employeerecruitmentgenerallyinvolvesaninterviewasthefinalstageoftheassessmentprocess.
SelectioninterviewsareonlyusedforaminorityofHEcourses,andwhentheyareused,willformpart
oftheoverallassessment,ratherthanbeingusedtomakethefinaldecision.
• Employeerecruitmentandstudentrecruitmentaresubjecttodifferentlegalconsiderations.For
example,studentsareviewedasconsumersbytheCompetitionandMarketsAuthority,andthevast
majorityofstudentrecruitmentisnotsubjecttoemploymentlaw,althoughbotharesubjecttothe
EqualityAct.
• Studentsaregenerallyrecruitedontheirpotentialtosucceedonacourseoveraprolongedperiod,
takingintoaccountthecontextoftheircurrentachievements.Employeerecruitmentismorelikelyto
focusoncurrentability,withlessemphasisoncontext.
Tounderstandthefeasibilityandpracticalityofintroducingname-blindapplications,UCAShasengaged
withHEPsandthesector’smaintechnologyproviderstoexploretwomodels:onewheredataismasked
centrallybyUCAS,andonewheredataismaskedlocallybyHEPs.
Toputthefeedbackintocontext,itisnecessarytounderstandhowadmissionsworksinpractice.
Thereareanumberofsafeguardstominimisebiasbuiltintotheadmissionsprocess.UCASdoesnotshare
informationaboutapplicants’ethnicity,religion,sexualorientation,genderidentity,parentaleducation,
andparentaloccupationwithHEPsuntilafteradmissionsdecisionshavebeenmade,orthecyclehas
closed.Whilethisinformationisusedtomonitordiversity,itcannotbeusedtoinfluenceoutcomesfor
individuals.Itshould,however,benotedthatUCASdoesprovideinformationaboutanapplicant’s
nationality,asthisisnecessaryhelpdeterminefeestatus.
WhenUCASprovidesdataandinformationfromstudents’applicationstoHEPs,thedataandinformation
fromUCASapplicationforms,references,andcontextualdataistransferredintouniversities’ownIT
admissionsorstudentrecordssystems.Thesesystemsaretypicallyprovidedbyoneoffivemain
technologyvendors(Capita,Ellucian,Oracle,SAP,andTribal),oraretheHEP’sownin-housesystems.Many
smallerHEPsandcollegesuseUCAS’web-linkservice.
ThedataisdistributedacrossHEPsandusedformultiplepurposes.Inadditiontoadmissionsdecisionmaking,thismayincludecontactingstudentstoofferservicesandsupport,determiningfeestatus,the
verificationofqualificationsandotherinformation,counterfraud,DBSchecks,etc.Theseprocessesoften
runinparallelwithadmissionsdecision-makingtospeedthetimefromreceiptofapplication,tomakingan
offerorotherdecision.
11
Theadmissionsmanagementanddecision-makingprocessisdifferentateachHEP.Admissionspoliciesand
processesaredeterminedbytheinstitutionalmission,strategicobjectives,andcourseportfolio,andare
alsoinfluencedbyorganisationalstructureandtheirunderpinningtechnologicalcapabilities.Forexample,
applicationprocessingandadmissionsdecision-makingmaybeundertakencentrallybyadministrators,or
inadistributedmodelbyacademicsinschools,departments,orfaculties.Mixedmodelsoperateinmany
HEPs,andadmissionsfordomesticandinternationalstudentsareoftenhandledseparatelyandsubjectto
differentpoliciesandprocesses.Fordegreeprogrammeswhichareaccreditedbyprofessional,statutory,
andregulatorybodies(PSRBs),admissionspoliciesanddecision-makingcriteriaareinpartdeterminedby
theseorganisations.
Policiesandprocessesarelikelytodifferasmuchbetweendifferentprogrammesofstudyatoneprovider
asbetweendifferentHEPs.AppendixAhighlightsthemultiplestagesinadmissionsmanagement.
3.6.1 Optionone:UCASmasksnamescentrallyandwithholdsthisinformationfromHEPsuntil
aninitialadmissionsdecisionismade
UCASisabletodevelopandimplementthecapabilitytowithholdnamesfromtheinitialdatasupplyto
HEPs.ThiscouldbedevelopedforinclusioninthenewUCASUndergraduateapplicationserviceandits
associateddatatransferservice.
However,HEPrespondentstothesurveyhadreservationsaboutthisapproach.Theprimaryconcern
expressedbyproviderswasthepotentialdetrimentalimpactonthepersonalrelationshipstheyhave,and
wanttobuild,withapplicants.ItwasfeltthatifUCASwastowithholdanapplicant’sname,evenforashort
time,thiscouldhaveasignificantnegativeimpactonthestudentexperienceandconversion,asitwould
preventHEPscommunicatingdirectlywithapplicantsonapersonalbasis.HEPswereespeciallyconcerned
aboutthepotentialimpactonWPapplicants,aswithoutaname,theycannotidentifyapplicantswhohave
beenpartofoutreachactivitiesandwhotheywanttowelcomeandofferadditionalsupportto.Itwasfelt
thatwithholdinganapplicant’snamecouldhampermakingcontextualisedoffers,offeringalternative
courses,orofferingsupporttoapplicantsatriskofdroppingoutoftheprocess.
‘Webelieveanyremovalofnameswithintheapplicationprocessislikelytohaveadetrimental
impactontheseactivities[aimedatsupportingthetransitiontodegreestudiesforapplicantsfrom
disadvantagedgroups].Statistically,thisgroupofstudentsislesslikelytoconvert,sopositive
relationshipbuilding,wherestudentsareseenasanindividual,ratherthananumber,iskeyforthis
group.
‘It[name-blind]mayhaveunintendedconsequenceswhichwouldimpactdetrimentallyonprecisely
thegroupswhichitisperceivedwouldbeassisted.Forexample,contextualfactorscouldnoteasily
betakenintoaccountandcorrespondingpositiveactionimplemented.’
Otherconcernscitedwiththisapproachwere:
• riskofinabilitytofulfilconsumerprotectionresponsibilities
• inabilitytocarryoutidentitychecks,orverifyqualifications,fee,andimmigrationstatus
• increasedlikelihoodoferrors
12
• thatmaskingthenameoftheapplicantwouldn’tinitselfbesufficienttoachievethestatedaim
becauseoftheotherplaceswhereanapplicant’snameappearsintheinformationprovidedbyUCAS
(e.g.someone’semailaddress,personalstatement,and/orreference),andbecauseethnicitycanbe
inferredfromotherinformationprovided(e.g.nationality,thequalificationssomeonehastaken,such
asaGCSEorAlevelinanativelanguage).Otherinformation,suchassexandage,couldalsogiverise
tounconsciousbias
Inaddition,conversationswiththemaintechnologyvendorsidentifiedthatitwouldbetechnologically
complex,expensive,andtimeconsumingforthemtoredeveloptheirsoftwaretoaccommodateUCAS
withholdingdatacentrally.ItwouldalsothenrequireHEPstoinstallnew,upgradedversionsofvendor
software.
Onesaidthatitwouldtakeuptotwoyearstoupdatetheirsoftwaretoaccommodateadatasupplyfrom
UCASwhichexcludesanapplicant’sname.TwoothersindicatedthatifUCAScouldnotprovideaname,it
wouldnecessitatemajorre-engineeringoftheirsoftware,asnameisusedasakeyfeatureforindexingand
duplicatehandling.Anotherprovider’ssoftwareisdesignedsothatitiscustomisablebyHEPs,andthey
indicatedthatHEPswouldneedtoundertakeconsiderableworktorealisethissolution.Giventhelikely
costsinvolvedandotherbusinesspriorities,softwarecompanieshavesaidtheywouldbereluctantto
embarkonthisredevelopmentunlessmandatedtodosobygovernmentoraregulatorybody.
3.6.2 Optiontwo:UCASsuppliesnamestoHEPsandHEPslocallymaskthenamefrom
decision-makersuntilaninitialadmissionsdecisionismade
ThesecondoptionistoencouragetechnologyvendorstoprovidesoftwaresolutionswhichgiveHEPsthe
functionalitytomaskinformation,suchasname,onalocalbasis.ThiswouldgiveHEPscontrolofwhat
informationwassharedwithwhomandwhen.Forexample,namescouldbeprovidedtothosestaff
responsibleforapplicantcommunications,WPsupport,verification,feestatus,andcounter-fraud
activities,whilethenameiswithheldfromthosedecidingwhetherornottomakeanofferorinvitationto
interview.
Thisismoreattractivefromanadmissionsmanagementperspective,giventhedifferentpoliciesand
proceduresemployedbyHEPs,andthiscapabilityalreadyexistsinsomeversionsofsomeexisting
universityadmissionssystems.Forexample,thelatestversionsofsoftwareofferedbytwoproviders
alreadyprovideHEPswiththecapabilitytomaskinformationlocally,includingname.
However,thelargestsectortechnologyvendordoesnotoffermaskingcapability.Toofferthis
functionality,theybelievetheywouldneedtomakechangestotheircoresoftwareapplication,whichHEPs
wouldthenneedtoapplyviatheirbiennialupdates.Itmaytakeanumberofyearsforallprovidersto
movetothisnewversion.Providersthatalsousetheirwebinterfacemayalsoneedtoredevelopthis
themselves.
Althoughthisapproachwouldaddresssomeoftheconcernsraisedaboutcommunicationswithapplicants,
consumerprotectioncompliance,andfraudandverificationactivities,atmostprovidersitwouldlikely
requiresubstantialprocessre-engineeringandITredevelopment,designandimplementationofnew
versionsofstudentrecordsandmanagementinformationsoftware.Thecostofthiscouldbesignificant.
13
Thisislikelytobeparticularlyproblematicforsmallerproviders,whereadmissions-relatedtasksmaybe
undertakenbyoneortwopeople.Concernswerealsoraisedaboutthefairnessofsuchasystem,given
thatsomeinternationalstudentsarerecruiteddirectly,andthatatClearing,theuseofaname-blind
approachwouldnotbepracticalgiventhespeedatwhichthesystemoperates.
Itisalsoworthflaggingthatneithersolutionaddressestheriskthatanapplicant’snamealsooftenappears
elsewhereintheirapplication–forexample,intheiremailaddress,personalstatement,andreference–
andthateliminatingthisislikelytobenearimpossible,especiallywithregardstoemailaddresses.An
applicant’sethnicitymayalsobeinferredfromtheirnationalityorqualificationstheyhavetakenorare
taking;informationwhichisessentialtotheirapplicationandassessmentoffeestatus.
4.
Conclusions
Althoughthereisevidencefromresearch,particularlyfromtheUS,ofunconsciousbiasoperatingin
employeerecruitmentandthevalueofusinganame-blindapproach,itcannotbeassumedthateitherthe
problemorpotentialsolutionaredirectlyapplicabletoadmissionstoHE,givendifferencesinpurposeand
levelsofcompetition.
ThemarketinundergraduateadmissionsmeansthatmanyHEPsareseekingtorecruitratherthantoselect
studentsforadmissiontotheirmostoftheirprogrammes.Thisisvisibleinsignificantlyincreasedlevelsof
offersmadetoallgroupsofapplicants.In2015,93percentofstudentswhoappliedbefore30Juneand
madefivechoicesreceivedatleastoneoffer.Thisenvironmentdrivesabusinessimperativetofillplaces.
UCAS’analysisonentrytoHEbyethnicity,offer-making,offerrates,andaverageofferratesallpoint
towardsadmissionstoHEbeingfairatanationallevel.Whiletherearelargedifferencesinofferratesby
ethnicgroup,inmostcasesthiscanbeattributedtheapplicant’spredictedgradesandhowcompetitive
thecourseisthattheyappliedfor.
ThisisbackedupbyUCAS’mostrecentdataonapplications,offers,andofferratesbynamedproviders.
Whilethisreinforcestheevidencethatoveralladmissionsarefair,italsosuggeststhatasmallnumberof
providersneedtoexaminewhytherearesignificantdifferencesbetweenobservedandaverageofferrates
forsomegroups.
Thereareover380HEPsusingtheUCASUndergraduateadmissionsserviceforrecruitmenttofull-time
undergraduate-levelprogrammes.Havinglookedatthefeasibilityofintroducinganame-blindapproach,it
isevidentthatHEPsandtechnologyvendorshavesignificantconcernsaboutamodelinwhichUCAS
centrallywithholdsnames.Asoutlinedabove,HEPsareconcernedthattheywillnotbeabletomaintain
personalcontactswithapplicantsandsupportWPstudents,aswellaswiderriskstoverification,
compliance,andoperationalefficiency.Technologyvendorshavesignalledthatmajorre-engineeringof
theirsoftwareproductswouldberequired.
Althoughahighereducationprovider-levelimplementationaddressessomeoftheseissues,itwouldstill
requiresoftwareredevelopmentbysometechnologyproviders,requireproviderstoimplementsoftware,
andnecessitatebusinessprocessre-engineeringandtechnologyinvestment.
14
Thereisasensethatthereisinsufficientevidenceofaproblemtowarrantthescaleofinvestmentand
businesschangethatwouldbeneededtoadoptname-blindapplications.Thisisparticularlythecasefor
HEPsthatarerecruitingtoall,ormost,oftheircourses,andforsmallerandspecialistcourseproviders.
MakingthecaseforinvestmentislikelytobeequallyproblematicforHEPswhoseequalitydatashowsthat
therearenosignificantdifferencesintheirofferratesagainstexpectedofferratesfordifferentethnicor
nationallyunderrepresentedgroups.
AtypicalHEPcommentfromtheevidencegatheringsurveysaid:‘Theuniversityrecognisesthat
unconsciousbiasmayexistincertainsituations,althoughthereappearstobeverylittleevidencethatthis
takesplaceinthecontextofuniversityadmissions,particularlyforrecruitingproviders’.
DrVikkiBolivercommented:‘Ifadmissionsdecisionsareinfluencedbyconsciousorunconsciousbias,then
thesolutionisnottoremoveinformationthattriggersthosebiases,buttodevelopprocessesandfoster
culturesinwhichsuchbiasesarerecognisedandredressed’.
5.
Recommendations
BasedontheevidencegatheringworkandconversationswithHEPs,technologyproviders,and
stakeholders,UCASproposessevenrecommendationstodeveloptheevidencebaseonunconsciousbiasin
admissions,promotegoodpractice,andencourageHEPstoundertakename-blindapplicationprojectsto
betterunderstanditsapplicabilityandpotentialuseinadmissions.
Recommendationone:HEPsshouldrunname-blindadmissionsdecision-makingprojectsata
locallevel
ThereissupportfromtheHEsectorforconductingprojectsusinganame-blindapproachatalocallevelin
the2017admissionscycle,totestitsapplicabilitytoHEadmissions,itsefficacyinaddressingconcerns
aboutunconsciousbias,andtobetterunderstandthelikelycostsofawidespreadimplementation.HEPs
areencouragedtoexploreusinganame-blindapproachfordifferentsubjects,typesofcourses,andfor
thoseusingdifferentrecruitmentandselectionmethodologies.
Tosupportproviders,UCASwillcoordinateprojectactivities,assistwiththedesignofdatacollectionand
analysis(whererequested),andcollate,analyse,andpublishthefindings.SPAwillalsooffersupportand
advicetoHEPspilotingthisapproach.
Recommendationtwo:SPAshouldtaketheleadonthedevelopmentofgoodpracticeand
enhancementofunconsciousbiastrainingforthoseinvolvedinadmissions
ThereiswidespreadsupportacrosstheHEsectorforthedevelopmentandpromotionofgoodpractice
tominimisetherisksofbiasinadmissionsanddevelopment,andpromotetrainingspecificallyin
recognisingandaddressingunconsciousbiasinadmissions.AtypicalquotefromtheUCASsurveysaid:
‘[x]wouldwelcomeasector-widecommitmenttoprovidetrainingonunconsciousbiasandcultural
awarenessforallstaffinvolvedintherecruitmentandselectionofstudents.SPAcouldleadonthe
developmentofthistrainingtoensurethereisconsistentaccesstogoodqualitymaterialsandresources
acrossthesector’.
15
WewouldalsoencourageHEPstoworktowardsECU’sraceequalitychartermark.
Recommendationthree:HEPsshouldregularlymonitorandreviewtheiradmissionsdataand
addressanyunexplaineddifferencesinoffer-makingoradmissionsoutcomes
Itisgoodpracticeforproviderstomonitorandregularlyreviewtheiradmissionsdatatoevaluatethe
efficacyoftheiradmissionspoliciesandprocedures.Thisenablesswiftactiontobetakenatanystageof
theadmissionsprocessifevidenceofbiasisfound.SPAhasrecentlypublishednewgoodpracticeon
monitoringandusingadmissionsdatatoevaluatethefairnessofadmissionspoliciesandcriteriainthe
contextofprogression,retention,andoutcomestrategies.HEPsareencouragedtoengagewithanduse
thisgoodpractice.
Tosupportproviders,UCASwillcontinuetopublishandexpandequalitiesdata,whichincludesdataon
application,offer,andacceptanceratesbysex,ethnicity,andareabackground.
Recommendationfour:HEPscouldconsiderintroducingareviewofapplicationsmarkedfor
rejection
Atitssimplest,initialadmissionsdecision-makingresolvesapplicationsintooneofthreegroups:thoseto
whomtheuniversitywishestomakeanoffer,thosewhoseapplicationsarerejected,andthose
applicationswhichrequirefurtherconsideration.Eventually,allapplicationsresultineitheranofferora
rejection.
ManyHEPsalreadyhaveprocessesinplacetoenableareviewofrejectedapplicationsagainsttheir
admissionscriteria,coveringeitherallorasampleofthesedecisions.Theuseofareviewstage,often
conductedbydifferentindividuals,enablesadmissionsteamstoprovideasecondcheckagainstentry
criteria,includingmakingsurecontextualinformationanddatahavebeenappliedinlinewiththeHEP’s
policy.Ifnotalreadyundertaken,considerationcanbegivenforachangedcourseoffer.Involvementof
differentadmissionsstaff,wherethishasnotalreadyhappened,mayalsohelpreducetheriskofbias.
HEPsthatdonotalreadyusesomeformofreviewareencouragedtoconsiderdoingso.Inaddition,HEPs
couldbeencouragedtoreviewtheirdecision-makingprocessannuallytoensurefairandequitable
treatment.Suchareviewshouldinformadmissionspoliciesforthefollowingyear.
Recommendationfive:ThereshouldbefurtherresearchintounderstandingifthereisbiasinHE
admissions
ThereissupportfromHEPsandstakeholdersforfurtherresearchtounderstandifthereisbiasin
admissions.
UCASwillsupportthisrecommendationthroughthepublicationofequalitiesdata(recommendation
three),andbymakingarichersetofindividual-leveldataavailabletoauthorisedresearchersviathe
AdministrativeDataResearchNetwork(ADRN).
16
Recommendationsix:UCASshouldimprovesupportforHEPsusingcontextualisedadmissions
Theuseofcontextualdata,whichseekstoputanapplicant’sacademicandotherachievementsintowider
educational,socio-economic,orgeo-demographiccontexts,isawell-establishedmeansforaddressingfair
admissions,andmayaidHEPs’wideningparticipationobjectives.
Contextualdataandinformationmaybeusedinnumerouswaysandplacesduringtheadmissionsprocess.
Forexample,thismayincludetoflaganapplicationforfurtherconsiderationratherthanrejection,to
guaranteeanintervieworaudition,ortoinformthedecisionwhetherornottoacceptsomeonewhohas
notmetthetermsoftheirconditionaloffer.Inaddition,asmallnumberofHEPsusecontextualdatato
makelowerofferstoapplicantswithcertaincontextualcriteria.Theuseofcontextualdatamaytake
accountofeducational,geo-demographic,and/orsocio-economiccontext,aswellasotherindividual
aspectsofeducationaldisadvantage.
UniversitiesandcollegesemployingcontextualdatauseinformationprovidedbyUCASfromthe
applicationform,abasketofcontextualdataofferedthroughUCAS’contextualdataservice,theirown
data,suchasiftheapplicanthassuccessfullytakenpartinawideningparticipationactivity,and
informationtoprovidesupporttoapplicants(suchascareleavers)throughtheadmissionsprocessand
beyond.Thirdpartydataservicesmayalsobeused.AnumberofHEPsrespondingtotheevidence
gatheringsurveyaskedUCAStostrengthentheservicesitprovidestosupportcontextualisedadmissions.
UCASwillreviewwithHEPswhatdataandservicestheyneedtoundertakecontextualadmissionsmore
effectively,andwilldeliveranychangesaspartoftheredevelopmentoftheUCASUndergraduate
applicationservice.
Recommendationseven:Thoseresponsibleforfairaccessandwideningparticipationshould
considerwhatfurtheractionscouldbetaken
UCASinvitesOFFA,HEFCW,theScottishFundingCouncil,andtheDepartmentfortheEconomyinNorthern
IrelandtoconsidertheevidenceandfindingsinthisreportinrelationtoguidancetheymayissuetoHEPs,
inrelationtoaccessandoutcomeagreements.
UCASinvitesthoseresponsiblefortheregulationofHEtoconsiderwhethertherewouldbevaluein
establishingarequirementforregulartrainingonunconsciousbiasforthoseinvolvedinadmissions
decision-making.
17
UCAS sends copy of
application to each
choice
Reference added
(usually by school/
college)
Conditional
and/or
Unconditional
offers
All choices
unsuccessful
Post-application visits
Institutions notify
UCAS of decision, who
inform applicant
Institution feedback
to any unsuccessful
applicants
Individual institutions may wish to map their own processes against this flow chart to review where staff with different
responsibilities can best co-ordinate efforts to maximise the potential of attracting, nurturing and recruiting the most
appropriate students to succeed at their institution.
The green areas denote the sequential stages of the applicant experience, whilst purple areas denote the process steps
occurring within, and overlapping, those stages. Each step in the process is an opportunity for applicant and institution to
interact: the quality of that interaction will dictate whether or not the most suitable students for institutions progress onto
the most appropriate courses for those applicants. Co-ordinated activity across all steps is therefore vital in managing the
flow of potential into higher education. Pale purple areas do not constitute essential steps within the application process,
but are elements that may enhance interaction within a step and enrich the applicant experience.
Additional choice
via Extra
Conditional Firm wait
for exam results or
other conditions
Accept 1 firm and
1 insurance place,
declining all others
Decline all
choices
Applicant
chooses to enter
adjustment
Conditions
exceeded
Conditions
met
Conditions
not met
Firm place
reconsiders
application
No new acceptance;
applicant stays with
original Firm place
Conditions
meet or
exceeded
Conditions
not meet
New Firm place
reconsiders
application
HE student
Supporting Professionalism
in Admissions
Pastoral support (e.g. finalised
accommodation; enrolment
information; student services
awareness; fees support;
orientation and induction
activities; dedicated mentors;
NUS; independent
on-line forums)
Unconditional Firm
Academic support
(e.g. finalised module structure;
timetables; personal/subject
tutor information, pre-sessional
and in-sessional mediatory
education)
TRANSITION
New institution
accepts applicant
Unsuccessful at Firm
place; Insurance place
becomes new Firm
Unsuccessful at
new Firm place
Seek alternative Firm
place via Clearing
Applicant engagement with HE
Entering HE study
POST-APPLICATION
This chart represents the process flow for the applicant experience: all the stages an individual might go through to become
a full-time undergraduate student at a UK higher education institution.
Possible interviews,
internal admissions tests,
portfolio submissions
Possible requests
for additional
information
Institutions consider
applications against their
internal admissions criteria
Pre-HE academic / vocational / experiential learning
UCAS sends
acknowledgement for
applicant to check
Complete application
to UCAS with up
to 5 choices
Visit potential choices at
open days, review their
websites, ask any questions
Research potential
choices
Read UCAS on-line
information on the
admissions process and
deadlines carefully
Compact/Progression
schemes
Possible external
admissions tests
required
Preparatory engagement with HE
Considering HE study
APPLICATION
The Applicant Experience (via UCAS)
Experience HE environment
(visit an HEI; HE ‘taster’ modules;
summer schools on HE campus)
Gain background
understanding of HE
and what it offers
Information, advice
& guidance from
school/college, careers
advisors, friends, family
Check course and
institution data
available via UCAS
Early engagement with HE
Raising HE awareness
and aspirations
PRE-APPLICATION
Appendix A
18
Rosehill
New Barn Lane
Cheltenham
GL52 3LZ
t: +44 (0) 1242 222 444
www.ucas.com