Admissions process

Another factor, likely to influence the institutional distribution of minority ethnic students, is racial discrimination in the applications and admissions process. At first sight, the different acceptance rates of minority ethnic students to universities and colleges (via UCAS), which vary from a high of 80 per cent for Chinese, to a low of 64 per cent for Black Africans, with the comparable figure for White applicants at 78 per cent,1 _{suggest a bias in admissions.} However, much of the reasons for these differences are likely to relate to differences in the qualifications of applicants in relation to the entry requirements of courses. As already pointed out (in Chapters 2 and 3), attainment is a key factor in gaining entry to particular institutions, and there are substantial differences in entry qualifications, school backgrounds, and in particular, ‘A’ level scores, of applicants from different ethnic groups. Also, admissions rates are not simply the number of accepted applicants to total applications across the sector. Applicants can withdraw from the application process, retake their examinations, and re- apply the following year (and there is some evidence that this differs according to minority ethnic group). Also, not being an ‘accepted applicant’ at one institution does not mean that an applicant has not taken up a place elsewhere.

It is much better to look at applications, offers and acceptances on an individual basis, and also try to take account of the skewed institutional distribution of minority ethnic students and their varied entry qualifications, and personal backgrounds in investigating admissions bias. This has been done in one important research study.2 _{It showed that when entry qualifications} and other socio-demographic characteristics were controlled for in analysis of UCAS application and acceptance statistics, minority ethnic candidates had less chance of success in gaining a place at an old (ie pre-92 group), but not a post-92, university. In particular, Black Caribbean and Pakistani groups were much less likely than White students to have gained admission to a pre-92 university, but Chinese and other Asian groups were more likely to have done so. Minority ethnic candidates were one and a half to two and a half times more likely than White students to gain admission to university through Clearing.

It seems likely, therefore, that that there exists some ethnic disadvantage built into the process of admitting students, from

1 _{See Leslie, Abbott and Blackaby, 2003.} 2 _{Shiner and Modood (2002).}

some minority ethnic groups, at some universities (especially pre- 92 ones). This is reinforced by the amount of discretion given to admissions staff in offering places, and also from other studies on student selection criteria.1

However, our research with current students failed to provide any direct evidence of this. When first year students were asked their experiences of applying and the admissions process, in a question designed to identify whether or not they had experienced any discrimination of any kind, very few mentioned any (only two said yes, they had experienced some ‘racial discrimination’, four some religious, and three some age, discrimination). However, it needs to be noted that few will have been interviewed, or had much personal contact in the offer decision making process, and so this is not really a fair indication.

Our interviews did, however, show a range of experiences by individuals of the university and college application and admissions process. Those who applied for a university place from school or college found the process relatively straight- forward on the whole, more so than those who were outside of an educational establishment at the time of applying (eg in work, looking after families), who were more likely to find the application process more problematic or more bewildering (though not all of the latter found it difficult). However, this may be more about access to support, rather than any discrimination encountered, as when asked about the support they got, it was teachers, careers tutors and/or family members with experience of the HE system who were mentioned mainly.

There is a need to undertake further research on the offer decision making process, especially by course subject/type at different institutions, to enable firmer conclusions to be drawn here. It is likely that improved monitoring of admissions and student throughput, resulting from the recent race relations legislation, will help in this, especially in assessing the scale of any racial discrimination. Also, the current consultations on key issues, relating to fair admissions to HE (the Schwarz group), will provide a focus for further discussions. It has been suggested, eg that withholding names on UCAS forms till after the offer stage may help, but it has not yet been tested out, and may not be practical.

4.5 Summary

Minority ethnic groups have higher participation rates in HE than the White group, but some groups have considerably higher participation than others, in particular Indian and Black African groups. The lowest participation is among female Bangladeshi,

lower than the White figure (male and female). However, there are some uncertainties lying behind these participation measures. Differences are due to their different prior attainment and pre-HE entry routes and choices and also to a combination of other social, geographical and cultural factors discussed in the previous chapter (see Chapter 3).

The overall HE participation figures mask important differences in the participation pattern of minority ethnic groups in HE study, especially in their relative representation in different institutions, subjects and courses (degree/sub-degree, full-time/part-time). This is not simply an Asian/Black/White split, though certain patterns can be seen that way, but a more complex ethnic group distribution. Some of the patterns of participation are linked to HE entry route, and in particular the attainment levels of different groups, which combine to varying degrees for different minority ethnic groups with other personal factors (eg gender, age, geographical location, religion) and also views of other influencers (eg views of parents, family, career plans) to produce specific, and somewhat complex, patterns (see Table 4.4 which illustrates this with some contrasting examples combining ethnicity and gender). There has also been shown to be some disadvantage for minority ethnic groups in the process of admissions at some universities (in the pre-92 sector), which may also affect the institutional distribution of minority ethnic students.

Some of the policy implications arising from the findings in this chapter relate to the work which is currently being done in HE, in relation to the new race relations legislation (eg on monitoring admissions) and to HEFCE’s Race Equality scheme and

Table 4.4: Selected statistics summarising contrasts between some minority ethnic/gender groups Male Indians Female Black Caribbeans Male Black Africans Female Bangladeshis Male Pakistanis Female Chinese Total number of undergraduate

students (approx.)

23,000 11,000 12,000 3,000 13,000 5,000

% of total undergraduates 2.2 1.0 1.1 0.3 1.2 0.5

% of total full-time degree

students 2.7 0.9 1.2 0.4 1.5 0.6

% of total full-time sub-degree

students (mostly HNDs, DipHEs) 2.4 1.6 2.3 0.3 1.8 0.4

% of first degree students taking:

a) medicine/dentistry 8.4 0.2 0.7 0.7 2.5 1.0

b) business/admin studies 3.6 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.7 1.2

% of each group entering undergraduate courses

a) aged 21+ 20.6 71.3 72.0 23.4 33.3 32.7

b) with ‘A’ levels 74.0 31.1 32.1 71.5 68.7 62.6

institutions’ own race equality policies. It is important that information on admissions monitoring is made public so that any problems, specifically any of racial bias, are identified, and encourage actions to be taken. We also recommend that further research is undertaken on the offer/acceptance/entry process to explore where opportunities for racial discrimination may occur. Improving processes through more training of admissions and academic staff, and also sharing practice, is also recommended. The second set of policy implications relate to information and guidance to help make students make good choices. It is important that all students, especially from families without experience of UK HE, are given appropriate help and guidance to make the right choices about which courses to take and which universities and colleges to go to. It is also important that the diversity of the minority ethnic student population, and also the ways they are influenced differently by the factors highlighted in this chapter, is recognised in local projects that aim to help in student decision making.

A third area of policy relates to the new Office for Fair Access (OFFA), which will have a racial equality duty, and therefore needs to include this dimension in its work, for instance when approving access agreements with universities and providing guidance.

A fourth is directed at the Department, and the need to explore further, through statistical analysis work, likely explanations for the different HE participation rates (ethnic/gender HEIPRs). There will be an opportunity to use the soon to be released, more detailed, Census 2001 data to develop an improved estimate of participation rates for different groups, and also undertake some cross-checking of assumptions behind the derived HEIPR figures shown in this report.