Widening university opportunities to the less well-off is a win-win

IAM pleased to note that the publication of A Blueprint For Fairness, the final report of the Commission on Widening Access, has started a spirited public debate on fair access. I welcome that debate and have noted much of it has focussed on our recommendation for the introduction of separate entrance requirements for disadvantaged learners.

This is understandable: at first glance it seems a controversial, perhaps even illogical proposal. But scrutiny of the evidence reveals a rather different picture.

This proposal is not about social engineering or positive discrimination. Neither does it have anything to do with lowering standards. The evidence is clear: study after study shows bright learners from disadvantaged backgrounds do just as well, and often better, at university than their more affluent peers. Assertions made about lowering standards are baseless; fair access can raise standards through a fairer, more accurate evaluation of talent.

This evidence explains why American Ivy League universities go to extensive lengths to ensure that too much focus on grades does not act as a barrier to admitting those with potential. They scout for talent in deprived communities, work with talented young people from early in their school career and have an admissions process focussed on a more holistic assessment of potential and ability. They want the best talent and have realised that while grades are important, they can often be as much a proxy for entrenched advantage as they are for excellence.

There is also home-grown evidence. Some of our most prestigious universities are already making use of contextual data in admissions – and some are prepared to offer quite significant tariff adjustments. Those admitted will sometimes require a little extra support in their first year but, crucially, none of these institutions has experienced any drop in standards.

The young people afforded these opportunities have grabbed them with both hands. They will go on to make a better life; to contribute more substantially to Scotland’s economy and will break cycles of deprivation by ensuring their own children do not face the same barriers they did. The cost benefit ratio to Scotland’s social and economic wellbeing is enormous.

The evidence here makes sense. Those in our most deprived communities face a multitude of social, cultural and systemic barriers that make their journey to higher education far more challenging than their better-off peers. They excel at university because to get there they have to demonstrate the resilience and talent necessary to overcome adversity.

Not only that, they enjoy far less of the additional supports often provided to those who presently dominate university admissions. Few will have access to private tutors or skilled guidance on making applications. Nor are they likely to have the resources or family connections necessary to build a portfolio of experiences, sometimes described as cultural capital, which appear to carry weight in who is offered a place.

It is plainly unfair to compare school attainments resulting from these two radically different experiences.

Access thresholds are simply about levelling this playing field so our young people are at least running the same race and are therefore being judged on a fairer, more equitable assessment of their potential.

We approached this work with no pre-conceived notions. I also hope it will be accepted that a commission including two university principals, former and present college principals, a headteacher and a director of education would not countenance any proposal that diminished the very academic standards we have spent our professional lives upholding.

There is also a moral issue at stake here. In circumstances where we now have an evidence base that shows beyond any doubt that bright, disadvantaged learners can enhance standards, what right do any of us have to deny them the precious gift of a higher education which enabled so many of us to transform our lives?

I ask those of you who went to university to reflect upon the benefits you have reaped from that opportunity. I then respectfully ask that you check the current entry requirements for your degree. Would you get in now?