Research by Warwick academics has concluded that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to get a place at university. To a large extent, I disagree with this writer. 

The team, made up of Warwick researchers Wiji Arulampalam, Robin Naylor and Jeremy Smith, branded the current university applications system “unfair and inefficient” in an interview with theGuardian. I'd like to think the writer was a "victim" of this apparently "unfair and inefficient" system because I beg to differ.

The study, which only covered universities with medical schools, including Warwick, showed that pupils who did less well at GSCEand so had lower predicted grades were less likely to be offered a place at a university, despite many achieving the same marks in the final exams. This is due to the fact that the current application system is based on academic reference letters, the students’ own personal statements, their results at GCSE and their predicted A-Level results. First of all, DUH?!?! What do you expect? To get into a highly sought-after medical degree with a shitty grade? Medical schools are tough and difficult. Why would a university want to accept a student with consistently lousy grades? If that student has not been doing well since O levels, that just goes to show he does not have the capacity to survive 6-8 years of Medical School and post medical school. Do you want quality doctors or half-standard doctors treating you? Even though one can argue it's about the passion, not just the academics, it isn't so for a Medicine course. I'm not belittling other courses. I'm saying, a person with just passion alone with no intellectual advantage will not survive 6 years of medical school. Shouldn't your predicted grade be an accurate description of your actual grade? Okay, in Singapore, that might be a different situation because the prelim papers set by the MOE are out to kill you, but that is not the case in the UK education system. More so, the UK system allows students to resit! They have no reason to use lower predicted grades as an excuse. And, if their final exam grades are considerably better than their predicted grades, the UK universities more than welcome appeals. The UCAS system offers a clearing option and an extra option. What do you mean due to the fact that bla bla bla? The universities want to know if you are really who you say you are in your personal statement? Its called cross examination/checking. Do you really want them to judge you solely on your academic grade? Or, do you really think they would accept you based on a highly subjective essay about yourself? Um, I don't think so. 

Where students made their university application after the deadline for those to Oxford and Cambridge, the bias is said to have increased, as on courses such as Medicine at top universities where the competition is tougher. By the time these students made their applications, many of the places on their course had already been filled. Students who are applying to Oxford or Cambridge will not only have applied earlier but also will have often been predicted better grades than those who apply later in the system. The research also claimed that standard offers are raised for students who apply to university at the end of the application period, in December and January, stating that whilst 30 per cent of applications are made in these months, only 21 per cent of these applications actually receive one or more offers to study. Well, firstly, those who apply to Oxbridge are generally the smarter ones. So, of course, they'd have better grades. This essay is focusing too much on predicted grades that they forget that the university still considers their actual grades and if it were to fall short of one grade by a mere 3 marks, they are rejected their offer. That offer held would them be given to the wait-listed offer holders. Well, isn't it given that the later you apply, the lesser is your chance of getting an offer? Why? Because it shows your lack of urgency and enthusiasm, and possibly, shows your indecision. That's what many teachers tell their students. Apply as early as possibly to show them your eagerness. Of course, it should not be at the cost of making the wrong decision. Isn't it a first-come-first-serve system? It applies to everything does it? The later you go to a sale, the less things there are to buy. So, that's your opportunity cost - apply late and have a slimmer chance of receiving an offer or apply early and possibly face a wrong decision (even this can be amended in the future). 

Sean Ruston, Education Officer at Warwick Students’ Union, said that it was now a “commonly known fact” that students from state schools are disadvantaged as opposed to those from the private sector as it is “clear” that state schools generally under predict grades for their students. There are other factors at play, according to Ruston, such as poor guidance in terms of careers advice and which subjects to choose. Okay, point taken here but shouldn't their teachers work to help maximise a student's potential? Why would a teacher want to undermine a student's future by underpredicting their grade unless they really deserved that grade? If anything, these students from underprivileged backgrounds should be directing their anger at their teachers or the national education system. Why have their teachers not think the best in them but still remain realistic? Why have they not provided better guidance? I see it more as the fault of their teachers and not the application process. It has already been "proven"(to some extent) that children of uneducated/poorly educated parents are less likely to enter university. (Ignoring the upper tail end of the spectrum- aka the oddballs that even with their uneducated parents, they are brilliant). Yes, in some sense, its unfair for the student to be unable to enter university because their parents were not educated well enough to influence them. But that's life. Just like how some are born into rich families and some aren't . We make our own destinies. We decide how our life will turn out. (Okay, I know God decides who we are, etc but you get what I mean.) 

The government has plans to cut support systems such as the Connexions service and Aim Higher, both of which were aimed at low income students. Ruston said that often schools will push “soft subjects” so that their students can get the grades they need to push the school up the league table, which are usually subjects that are frowned upon by top universities. He added that “vocational subjects are being pushed [in order to] end unemployment” and far fewer state schools than private sector schools teach subjects such as further maths, which automatically puts those students at a disadvantage in applying for maths based courses. Okay, the writer has finally given something worth arguing about. In some odd way, this makes sense- the government pushing soft subjects to end unemployment. Okay, I more or less agree with the rest of the article, except for a few bits and pieces but I'm just too tired to care anymore. 

Often it is a case that private schools will over predict the grades for their students, said Ruston, as opposed to the state schools purposely under predicting. He explained this as due to the fact that private schools “compete to get [their students] into Oxbridge and other Russell group universities,” whereas state schools rely on their results and league tables.

Students who come from a disadvantaged background, such as those that are from an ethnic minority, in a lower social class or those who attend a non-fee paying school, are more likely to develop their intelligence later in life and therefore have a lower probability of being awarded a place, according to the research. If this slower development has a long term impact on their education, it could be a reason why these students do not gain places. Whilst social exclusion to university places is generally accepted as being morally objectionable, exclusion on the grounds of intellect is desirable. If the problem is that the disadvantaged have a lower standard of education rather than being less intelligent, it is argued that the focus should be on fixing the system instead.

Post-Qualification Applications (PQA), a system in which students apply to university only after having received their A-Level grades, has been suggested by not only this panel of academics but also the 2004 Schwartz Report. They argue that PQA, which is already used in many countries, would be fairer, the current system being largely based on speculated predicted grades that the students often exceed. For PQA to work, term dates for both schools and universities would have to be overhauled by weeks, which “neither feels able to do […] as they believe it would impact on the standard of teaching” said University Press Officer, Peter Dunn.

“PQA is the perfect solution,” said Education Officer Sean Ruston, although “schools are generally resistant [as it is a] sacrifice worth making” despite “logistical difficulties.” He added that the government had in the past hinted that PQA was a possibility, and though “tough to implement” it offers the only long term solution.

The Office for Fair Access (OFFA) has another recommended solution. They would have universities that are looking to charge fees of £6000 or more from 2012 encourage applicants from minority groups, likely through extra subsidised places not dissimilar to David Willets’s recent proposals.

The main focus for restructuring is the idea that the universities application process needs to change in order to compensate for the poor education of these socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils, though some might question whether or not it would be more beneficial to instead standardise the level of education for students, regardless of their social background.

One student, who did not wish to be named, said that in his experience this was “just an excuse for people who don’t get in [to their first choice].” Most students to whom the Boar spoke agreed that students from disadvantaged schools should not get “special treatment” and that it would be “inconvenient” if the academic year were changed in order to change the applications system.