Every year over 600,000 people apply for undergraduate degrees through the Universities and Colleges Application Service (UCAS).[i] Each applicant uses the same UCAS form, listing their choices of institutions and degree subjects and personal data. They all include the dreaded personal statement describing the applicant’s various qualities and the rationale for their choices. The applicant’s school also provides a statement about the student with a prediction of their grades. UCAS sends this information to the admissions departments of the relevant universities.
Decisions are made within those departments and offers or rejections sent back to the applicant. The candidate then chooses two offers, one “firm” at the grades that they are expected to reach and one “insurance” offer at lower grades, in case their exam results aren’t as good as expected.
At the point of submission all students are equal. What happens before and after submission, however, is radically different. Securing an offer for the right degree requires the right advice long before the admissions process. Without this, an applicant can find themselves ineligible for desirable degrees, swamped by information, lacking critical information or misled by inaccurate or dishonest marketing.
With 164 universities and HE colleges, there is now a bewildering array of destinations for applicants. Many universities offer thousands of degrees, often with specific requirements for entry. Some requirements are obvious; to study French at university you need to study the subject at GCSE and A-level. Some are not so obvious: until recently you needed a GCSE in a modern language to apply to Oxbridge.
Subject and qualification choices for specialist degrees such as Medicine need to start when a student chooses their GCSEs. Students given bad or non-existent advice by their schools may encounter a glass ceiling preventing access to a particular course or university, of which they are often unaware until it is too late. The example below is typical:
“A worried student called the Sutton Trust recently wanting a place on our university summer schools: "I've just been told I need maths A-level for computer science at Cambridge - I had no idea," she said. She had been advised to take information technology instead, despite gaining a good grade in GCSE maths, because she stood a better chance of doing well.”[ii]
Students without a clear idea about a future career face information overload during application. Wading through a vast swathe of online and printed material to choose the right courses can be time consuming and bewildering for parents and students alike. In 2014, HEFCE’s own research in this area identified a “decision paralysis” created by cognitive overload which resulted in worse degree choices by applicants.[iii]
Universities are largely responsible for this situation. They no longer provide course information; instead, they offer promotional material created by large, well resourced marketing departments. This generally consists of glossy, corporate branded packs which look much like every other course’s promotional pack. Designed to mimic a travel brochure, they are usually full of pictures of attractive lawns, students and buildings, heavy on lifestyle elements and light on details. Reading through one is tough; reading through several should probably carry a 24 hour ban on operating heavy machinery.
These brochures offer little hard information about course hours and who will teach on courses. There is even less detail about employment prospects for vocational courses such as law. It is also far from certain that students should trust the information that universities do provide. A 2014 analysis of eight randomly selected prospectuses found many actively misled applicants through a combination of selective data, exaggeration and dishonesty. [iv]
In 2017, the scale of this problem was underlined by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upholding six complaints against individual universities. This was over misleading claims in their marketing materials about their performance in academic league tables and the student satisfaction survey. The ASA subsequently required the universities to withdraw material containing these claims. [v]
Of course, any negative information such as course drop-out rates or complaint levels are also notably absent from this marketing material. In 2009, the House of Commons Select Committee compared multiple online prospectuses and complained that:
“... little or no information was provided about the nature or degree of contact which students could expect with staff or, for example, how many students would be in a group or who would teach them—academics or research students. Nor did universities appear to give students a clear idea about the work they would be expected to undertake ... in terms of numbers of essays, projects or assignments.”[vi]
The Select Committee argued that course information should be:
“...presented in a consistent format, which facilitates cross-institutional comparisons, the time a typical undergraduate student could expect to spend in attending lectures and tutorials, in personal study and, for science courses, in laboratories during a week. In addition, universities should indicate the size of tutorial groups and the numbers at lectures and teaching by graduate students.”[vii]
[i] UCAS website http://www.ucas.ac.uk/about_us/media_enquiries/media_releases/2010/210110
[ii] Guardian, 28th October, 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/28/education-adivce Sutton Trust
[iii] THES, 3rd April, 2014 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/more-data-can-lead-to-poor-student-choices-hefce-learns/2012410.article
[iv] THES, 16th January, 2014 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/rosy-prospectuses-misleading-students/2010522.article
[v] BBC, 15th November 2018 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-41984465
[vi] House of Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee Students and Universities (2009) Report
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdius/170/17005.htm
[vii] House of Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee Students and Universities (2009) Report http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdius/170/17005.htm