Minutes of meetings held between February 2007 and March 2010, at which
changes to the University of Edinburgh Admissions Policy were discussed
Minutes of the
Undergraduate Recruitment and Admissions Committee
College of Humanities & Social Science
Monday 8 October 2007
3.2
Admissions Policy Review Group Interim Report
LK reported that the interim report had been discussed at RASC and a summary of
recommendations was forwarded to APC. However that summary document had not
yet been made available to members of RASC and there was some uncertainty as to
further developments. Within HSS certain recommendations have already been
acted on e.g. re-writing notes of guidance to make them more comprehensible to
readers.
LK put forward the possibility of measuring effectiveness of policy change by
surveying 2004 cohort who will be graduating this year.
The possibility of removing First in Family was discussed due to its lack of validity,
the suspected legality of it and potential under reporting. Committee also discussed
its use as part of the selection process and LK reported that we are one of few
Universities using it for selection purposes. It was agreed to continue to use this for
one further year and then review.
[Further information: Despite its use in the process being entirely legal, 'First in
Family' is no longer an automatic selection criterion, because of concern regarding
the validity of the data. Should the data provided via UCAS become more robust,
this policy will be reviewed.]
Minutes of the
Recruitment and Admissions Strategy Committee
The University of Edinburgh
Tuesday 4 December 2007
12.
Admissions Policy
12.1
Update on Implementation of Recommendations of
RASC 07/08 1 N
APRG
12.1.1 It was agreed that research into some of the issues
and recommendations outlined in the report of the
APRG was required. Andrew Thompson agreed to
lead this research if an appropriate timescale and
sufficient resource were allocated. It was agreed that
Liz Lister, Andrew Thompson and others would meet
to agree an appropriate timescale and terms of
reference for this review in an effort to secure sufficient
resource to carry it out. It was noted that support from
the Colleges was crucial to the success of this
research.
[Action: Andrew Thompson / Liz Lister]
12.2
Minimum Entry Grades
RASC 07/08 1 O
12.2.1 RASC noted the request to raise entry grades in five
Schools in the College of Science and Engineering, but
agreed that broader discussions, supported by hard
evidence, were required before these could be
approved. Members noted the importance of
maintaining consistency in minimum entry grades.
12.3
Simplification of Selection Process/Criteria
12.3.1 Members noted that this should form part of the remit
of the review of the recommendations of the APRG.
12.4
Differential Offer Making
12.4.1 Members noted that differential offer making should
also form part of the remit of the review of the
recommendations of the APRG.
Minutes of the
Recruitment and Admissions Strategy Committee
The University of Edinburgh
Wednesday 19 March 2008
12.
Interim Report of Admissions Policy Review Group
AT reported that the initial Admissions Policy Review Group came to
RASC 07/08 3 R
interim conclusions which became the starting point for the new group.
To avoid confusion it was agreed that the group would be renamed
‘Admissions Policy Research Group’. Its remit recognises the changes
over the years and will use available statistics to come up with
principles and criteria for developing an admissions policy that is fit-for-
purpose over the next five years. The research questions have grown;
but the group wanted the questions to show a clear understanding of
strategic aims of the University along with the WP strategy. It also aims
to establish criteria for measuring success.
The research questions will focus on entry qualifications and
progression; equivalence of different educational qualifications (eg.
Scottish, English and FE) and issues around the minimum entry
requirements; and questions related to Widening Participation including
whether WP students are floundering as a result of being admitted on
the minimum, and how the University confirms that a student is first
generation. The research group will have to deliver answers by the end
of the summer and AT confirmed that a postgraduate MSc student,
under AT’s supervision, will be doing some of the analysis for her
dissertation, and that the group would be seeking funding for an
additional 6-month traineeship to support the work of APRG. Issues
relating to accessibility of data, location and robustness of the research
will have to be addressed, particularly as MB noted that the research
must be able to defend a new admissions policy.
AT confirmed that the person carrying out the research would be able
to publish as a result and that it is important to engage with
stakeholders as part of this. AT will invite comment possibly making use
of Web CT.
Further discussion was held regarding the use of focus groups in this
research and confirming that the research will be used by RASC, PSG
and the Senate in order to inform change to the admissions policy. AT
Action: KH/EL/AT
noted that the development of any changes will be closed business
under Freedom of Information since it is business sensitive. AT also
noted that Schools hoping to change minimum entry requirements will
have to be informed about the research.
[Further information: see ‘UoE LEAPS degree outcomes’ for WP student progression
and outcome statistics]
Minutes of the
Admissions Policy Research Group
The University of Edinburgh
6th October 2008
1.
Discussion of quantitative research report
Action – reallocate NI to band A (97% progression rate to HE in these schools) and
account for selective grammar schools in the school type analysis. (AT/PF)
2.
Discussion of qualitative research report
The group then moved on to discuss the qualitative report. The main points made
were as follows:-
•
AT felt that not changing does not seem to be an option. Not all the calls for
change are evidence based but important to acknowledge the ideological
arguments.
3.
Options discussion
The group considered some of the options for action which might be presented to
RASC or its successor, the main points being as follows:-
•
Have a two-track system whereby students with high grades are admitted
without contextual information, and students from deprived backgrounds have
this taken into account. The downside of this is the potential for discrimination
and stigmatization.
•
Offer on predicted grades while retaining the minimum criteria to enter the
process. EL felt this would link well to the move towards criterion-based
selection which has been agreed to by all three Colleges. As there is general
support for the use of contextual information, and other HEIs are following
suit, the process change could be used this to justify differential offers -
bringing people up to the threshold. However, it was questioned whether a
prospective student would be able to figure out what kind of offer they might
get before applying. It would be important to be very clear and transparent
about the criteria and weightings. It was also noted that legal advice would
need to be taken and also that there may be a problem with schools
predicting different grades for different students.
•
The group also discussed the use of personal statement data (and other
information such as motivation and commitment which is identified for
Medicine). Personal statement data cannot be validated, but EL pointed out
that if numerous students apply with the same academic achievements, it is
hard to see what else can be used to differentiate between them. If we do in
fact use this data, we must be transparent about that.
•
This led to a discussion of random selection – which is the other option at the
top end, if personal data is not used. DT said that one medical school in
London recently tried this and caused uproar. LH mentioned that she had
seen a lot of negative commentary on this in the press. However, the group
felt that interviewing all applicants was not feasible either.
•
VC speculated about setting the minimum entry requirement to AAB/BBBB?
Could defend on the basis of grade inflation and locality. LH said that
students will argue that grade inflation is not their fault and as we don’t know
how it’s happening we can’t combat this.
•
DT proposed the model of signing up to a series of admissions principles and
allowing the Colleges to develop systems which obeyed the principles but
allowed them to fit their particular context. He felt that this would be
satisfactory and would address political problems. However, he also
cautioned against spending too much time thinking about the price and not
enough about the product ie. the courses on offer. EL agreed with the
concept of common principles and process across Colleges but different
threshold values and selection criteria.
•
LH stated that CSE would like the minimum standard to be higher than it is
now but are in favour of differential offer-making. Accept it is contentious, but
feel it can be defended.
4.
Next steps
A date for RASC is needed and Mary has been approached about this. NM pointed
out that any changes would need to be cleared in November-December to make the
2010 prospectus publication schedule.
AT proposed that members send him their thoughts about the likely options to
propose to RASC, and their pro and cons, and that a summary of these could be
prepared and circulated. Members agreed to do this by the end of the week.
Post-meeting note:
Item 1 action – NI schools were not re-allocated to Band A, due to existing data
proving satisfactory.
Minute of the
Recruitment and Admissions Strategy Committee
The University of Edinburgh
Wednesday 19 November 2008
9.
Undergraduate Admissions Policy Research Group
MB said that it is important to note that the admissions policy has not lowered
standards but any new policy must continue to support LEAPS and Pathways,
and ensure that we continue to focus on the University attracting the best
students rather than students just holding our comparatively low offers for
insurance.
The group discussed admissions principles in detail that had been drafted by
AT. It was agreed that colleagues send any suggested changes to AT.
All recognised that changing the minimum academic entry requirements could
have an impact on WP students, however all agreed that published entry
requirements should be more transparent. It was discussed that the Law
website does this – minimum entry requirements are published in the
prospectus, but the website gives information on the admissions policy and the
typical academic entry grades.
It was agreed that Colleges would consider a minimum entry grade for each
subject and the typical entry grade, and how this will be published should be
discussed further by email.
Minutes of the
Undergraduate Recruitment and Admissions Committee
College of Humanities & Social Science
27 April 2009
3. Recommendation for changes to the Admissions Policy: based on the APRG
findings
Update by Andy Thomson. Paper now drafted – Andy to circulate to all
members of committee. Principle of present policy will remain unchanged
however some changes recommended for 2010 entry
Action AT
a. academic qualifications – still most important factor however to be
incorporated in to a predicted grade and level of demand scoring system for
offers to be made based on points required for particular degree programme
coupled with other factors – will lead to differential offer making
b. school band – remains an important factor. To be more definition of this as
e.g. low Band B is very different score in look up database from top Band A.
Agreed that essential that there is more refined scoring used than the current
A (0 pts), B (0 pts), C (2pts), D (4pts), E (6pts) – see discussion point a.
c. locality – to be radically changed – to support applications from local
community coupled with deprivation factor based on post code with weighting
to the EH post code to recognise support given by local Council and Scottish
Government to the University. Already support local WP applicants through
LEAPS, SWAP and Credit for Entry
d. First in family – evidence strongly supports this as an important factor,
however not able to be adequately certified. Replace with a deprivation score
as this likely to tally with first in family/WP
e. personal qualities ( personal statement & reference) – although subjective
still important as an endorsement of application - and a useful check for
motivation and special circumstances
Discussion
b. internal transfers will be more difficult if there are differential offers –
committee feel there still should be the facility to be considered for any
degree dependent on demand etc – ?consider a high achievement in year
one as a good case for a transfer from a lower to a higher demand degree –
no decision made
c. further research needed on entry grades and achivement at university to
back up policy. JR will investigate possibility of funding a research MSc to
look at admissions data analysis
Action JR
d. triage of yes, no, possible - predictor of offer chances to link with ready
reckoner - Andy has applied for funding - no uptake as yet
Way forward
1. Committee agreed to endorse Andy’s proposals – however can HSS set
its own policy? – felt that it should be endorsed university wide - if no RASC
not clear to which policy group. Proposals will be submitted to Liz Lister SRA
and Mary Bownes VP and SCE so that
Action AT
2. proposals could go to next P & R meeting on 08 June
3. Committee agreed that would not be possible to commence new system for
2010 entry – aim for 2011 entry
Minutes of the
Admissions & Recruitment Executive
The University of Edinburgh
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
4
Report from the College of Humanities & Social Science
SE raised her concern that the ‘locality factor’ (whereby additional
weighting is given to undergraduate applicants from the local area)
within CHSS undergraduate admissions policy should be reviewed in
light of recent European case law. The Convenor clarified that the
University lawyers had advised that the locality factor was legal when
first adopted, but that a review of the legality of the practice should be
undertaken in light of these concerns.
