Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,
good afternoon and welcome to this big four out of five seminar in which we're exploring access to higher education companies and universities.
And my name is Andrew Bell. I'm senior teacher at University College here in Oxford.
It's a real pleasure to be chairing. I'm sure it's going to be an absolutely fantastic seminar today.
And before it gets underway,
can I just remind you that as with all of the previous seminars we have being recorded for posterity so they too can share in today's presentation?
And so please understand this to be a public occasion.
We've we've had opportunity to explore a wide range of things to do with access to higher
education as recently as bringing together policy makers and practitioners and those,
of course, who simply have an interest arising out of their professional lives.
And I think when it comes to matters of access to higher education for those
in the field and many beyond the field have a strong sense of what we feel,
and some of this may go beyond that and even know what we think.
So I hope that we're going to go one step further and we're going to hear something about how we might actually shape our understanding
and how we might direct our future activities in a way that's informed by really the very best research that's underway.
Time to speak, Professor. Thank you for that. Professor of Sociology at the University of Durham has very long standing research
interest in precisely these questions of access to higher education and social mobility,
including the very complex question of social mobility across a number of a number of generations.
And she's going to bring to bear on these questions a very complicated approach which reaches out to policy,
but which is also to provide advice and research on a notably.
Many here today and many have said the subsequent session.
You feel that we could pick more of the conversations that we could have reframed in terms of the evidence and the arguments that evidence so bad.
We've got a couple of respondents to that, Harrison, who's director of the research centre in the Commons situation here.
He will be offering his perspective on Vicky's presentation of the research centre, as many people know is concerned with.
Research has to do with the progress and outcomes of those who've experienced foster
care problems faced by their families here tonight and then subsequently Peter Tolan,
whose research focuses not on that, but in fact, all the classical world it's going to be bringing to that a practitioner perspective as
someone who has a longstanding engagement in admissions at this very seductive university.
And then after that, we'll make sure that there's lots of time for discussion and the questions.
Now we don't know precisely what, but he's going to talk about tonight.
So I've not seen the script, but I do feel that the title promoting fair access to higher education,
the necessity of contextualised admissions might give us a bit of this to where she's coming from.
And so with that, thank you very much, Professor Panopto.
Are you keeping up welcome, it's actually fabulous to be talking about this topic at Lady Margaret Hall,
which of course, is the Oxford College that's pioneering contextualise submissions for the university,
with its foundation here targeted at disadvantaged students who would not be likely to get the very high grades that this university asks for.
I'm imagining, therefore, that some of you will be inclined to agree with what I'm going to say tonight.
Others, perhaps not so. Looking forward to not just preaching to the converted,
but to actually see if I can give a few of you to the idea that if we want a better mission system, contextualised admissions is the way to go.
So let's begin with some background. So I think it's always useful to remind ourselves how far we have to go on the likely access agenda,
we've been doing it at times still a very long way to go.
This this graph shows you four different indicators of relatively disadvantaged status,
and the performance of each case proves how well represented that group is
amongst the few people in the country nationally and even not a school students,
for example, 93 percent of all 15 year olds say to be.
Rules in the UK, not massive unions represented at university generally slightly break on a slightly
shorter than a week off when it comes to the more selective universities,
the Russell Group, as we speak on behalf of of indicating, which is impacting on the health of our.
Selective institutions, state school representation is much lower than you would expect if it was simply an.
Same happens or for working class backgrounds of the disadvantaged category.
If you think about cutting your participation area,
which I'll come back to later after my actually very good mention of disadvantaged students, even at the same.
And also in relation to free school meals that were free school meals, young people have served as well represented in the of universities,
we would expect if it was really a chance phenomenon in our day to an Oxbridge on recruiting the IS for the possibly gender.
So a long way to go to widen access. And you might say, well, yeah, but you know, things are getting better.
So, you know, things are improving steadily, so no cause for alarm.
But if you look at the trends for the past 20 years, I'd say they are pretty flat and pretty much I've seen improvement.
For example, these fake school representation classes, specifically in the Summer of Innocence in the 90s,
late 90s and then a little bit in the past few years.
I think to produce the latest successes,
it's been a reversal rate that actually state school percentage in some of the universities is going to reverse and try to continue,
certainly with these other measures as well. The line is basically flat.
We don't really see much of an increase in the representation of these relatively
disadvantaged groups in universities and certainly not in the selective those,
which is, I think, is it is extremely alarming when you consider that universities spend many billions of pounds on widening access,
government spends many billions of pounds on widening access. It's been on the policy agenda, really been pushing it for a long, long time.
It really is something that you'd like you would expect to see more, you know, and it's really it really is a problem and.
So why since you spend so much money trying to win access and it's been such a policy emphasis, so I don't want my country.
On this issue. Well, I think the the key barrier here is prime time the right,
just the fact that people from disadvantaged backgrounds are much less likely by virtue of their relative
disadvantage to get to the very high price that we ask for at universities like this one and like on my own.
So let me show you how this looks and if we start by thinking about all 15 year olds in English schools,
this is data from the American People database.
So we say what proportion of all young people are in receipt of free school meals when they're 15 years old?
And the answer is not 12 percent of those in an English school.
About 78 percent are in state schools, but not in free school meals.
Some of them will be disadvantaged or not.
It's a small percentage of people who were in state school, so we don't know whether they receive free school meals or not.
And then about seven percent go to be paid private schools.
So that's what the starting population looks like.
If we then say, Okay, what about the people who are in the top two decisions on the table that GCSE?
We see the percentage of free school meals, say school kids and more than half their representation in the house.
So they're not achieving well at GCSE. It's OK to go on to A-levels with equivalent qualifications,
though it is the slightly higher portions than we would expect given their representation in the high achievers at.
But then at key stage five A-level and equivalent free school meals,
students are again doing doing less well at this level for just the amount of
sweets and young people who are in the top two disciplines increasing by the time.
And you see that the representation of privately educated increases in the category is very large.
These schools are doing very well amongst these students and getting them very high A-level equivalent qualifications.
Regional markets continue to higher education in the same proportion as they continue to say five.
Bush is likely to be in the Russell Group Universities University.
Interestingly, there's a big overrepresentation of privately educated individuals at university.
Well, see it certainly to their high proportion of 15 year olds or even relative to their portion of high status.
It's it's another kind of like factor choosing. These social inequalities in prior attainment, all the biggest barriers to having more,
just like people at high, highly selective universities like Oxford is obvious,
as it not is, that is the key barrier,
and we have to put it slightly differently and show you what each of these different categories look like when we look at that.
Time the distribution. And so we called for most of the people who went to state school.
We were coming to a free school, meals at age 50.
Then we were respectable but no free school meals recipients and then those who were in private school.
People who are on free school meals are from state schools, most of them, they're happy.
He says foreign corporations whatsoever and.
If you say the Russell Group takes about.
Six percent of the 15 year olds in the population by the time they come to the university age are six percent of them go to university.
Then we're going to have to think differently about academic entry requirements if we're
going to have proportional representation of these three different social categories clearly,
aren't we? So if you don't, it, for example, the top six, the study of achievers basically tied to a private school, I'm more than that.
More than six percent of those are on PCH or Jason.
So if, say, trying to you, too,
so you can take the top six percent of those who were privately educated and not actually be half of those
who've got that very high level of things to have as an equal representation of those from state schools,
to the extent everybody promises high school, you didn't have a free school meals who was in the top.
This on PC from the.
And to have proportional representation of, say, school kids who were on free school meals, you'd have to go down to the auditorium to the seventh.
From time to time to have those that we a proportionally represented in line with better representation of 15 year olds is so mathematically,
what I'm saying to you is you cannot lie in anticipation of a university like this
because you're not asking everybody to be topless on all or even higher achievers.
It's just not going to happen, right? You just you have to be have to produce entry requirements for less advantaged shows.
So all of these are potentially submissions involving reduced entry requirements for disadvantage when this is necessary for wider access.
But I also want to ask you that it's necessary for fair access.
So it's not just a pragmatic thing that we need to do because mathematically there's no way of achieving it.
I'm actually going to try to persuade you if you're not already decided, it's a it's a fair way to do things as well.
And they used to way of thinking about the fairness or otherwise of reducing entry requirements for disadvantaged children,
and this is to think about the fairness claims that are made for the system as it is the way to do things now.
Not all the claims made to say that this is a best. And.
Suppose the first thing to say about the way we do things currently,
the way we select for the most prestigious universities is that we operate on the assumption that there is a quality of opportunity,
at least formally, at least in theory. Do you have social background?
There are. There's no formal exclusion of particular social groups.
Women are allowed to come to Oxford these days. Whether you're rich or poor, you come to Oxford University.
There are no formal barriers. Entry is the same chance I've ever received.
Any hope chooses. Is it is it is the basically the assumption, you know, to tell you that the system is that.
But you do need to meet some criteria, right? And so it's a meritocratic system of.
And the idea is that you can anyone can come here provided that they've got the high rates that are required or at least requested of you.
And the idea is that this is FedEx places at Oxford, U.S., Cambridge, Durham, et cetera.
And Ofeibea, is it because it goes to the people who deserve it,
most people who are most highly qualified and most deserving of these places and the best place to benefit from the.
And the idea is that it's a just system, because the procedures, the same procedural justice issues, fairness everybody.
If there were some flour, everybody is measured using the same type measure and everyone has to be at least this tool.
Comes this institution.
Of course, the assumption is that they somehow this all growing in equally mutually nutrient rich celebs are being water daily,
regardless of which they're in. Well,
contextualise emissions does is I think it's it's honest about the fact that we don't actually have
equality of opportunity in practise rules makes a distinction between formal equality of opportunity,
which is what we do have in principle. Sort of cheesy and genuinely fair equality of opportunity, which is equality of opportunity that.
Has things put in place to compensate for unfair influences on?
So to see opportunity would require us to recognise that not only some flowers
grow in the kind of nutrient nutrient rich soil and also translate into everyday,
but that socioeconomic economic disadvantage plays a key role in affecting ready
to go in terms of their education department and their educational achievements.
And that we would be very reminiscent of plan is to assume that the uneven
distribution of times has nothing to do with the conditions in which people grew up.
So if you take many submissions, recognises that it's just that it's false to say that there's a placebo true to it also tries to do
something about it by saying that we should think contextually about the achievements that people do have,
rather than assuming that I don't have the grades on a neutral, objective, unbiased.
The dangerous companies ability.
So what's contextualise emissions does is it selects potential rather than demonstrating from memory, as indicated by what we've achieved so far.
It takes a calibrated approach to thinking about some, so it doesn't actually promote the idea of marriage out completely.
It doesn't say any move to go to Oxford University, regardless of any higher educational attainment or achievement or experience.
Some somani for and access to university. That's not what I'm doing here.
I'm saying that climate change really is is still the impact of what we need to calibrate the meeting at that point of time.
Circumstances and what we're talking about.
So when I say to that sliding doors saying, you know, if you want it proportional representation for all free school meal kits,
then you would have to go quite some way down the entire distribution until you found the top six percent performing free school meals.
Kids who are getting key five results are in the seventh decile, obviously payment distribution, which is an amazing achievement given the Southern.
That those young people who've grown up in ambiguity cases. It's a rather than procedural justice treating everyone the same.
And so that's what makes these facts. We're talking about distributive justice, at least in relation to groups that we contextualised wishes,
treats people differently in order to to level the playing field to rectify.
Inequities prior to the point of consideration for admission.
So this is not a new idea by any means, is it, you know, this has been something that for at least 15 years has been in foreign policy circles.
We've been thinking about this and recognising the truth of the statement that
examination brains do not mean the same thing regardless of who's watching the show.
It's written 50 years ago, said this equal rights to rehabilitation, and it's fair.
It's appropriate that we should think about contextual factors when we're trying
to understand what some of these claims actually mean in terms of attention.
And, of course, the Office of Fair Access for the Office for Students periodically referred to this this.
Idea, but slightly further afield,
the Commission on Widening Access in Scotland in 2016 reiterated this idea that somebody who
achieved good grades in a really difficult environment is likely to be politically motivated,
particularly bright, particularly primed to accept a university like this.
I just want you to come sideways. This is a tangent for a moment, for me,
it because one of the things to be aware of is that this idea that contextualise the
disadvantage of individuals who do well in education are likely to be especially bright and
especially motivated has led the contextualised admissions debate down a bit of a group that
is some of the most exciting time to be linked up with empirical evidence that should be.
This is that if you admit, thanks to a private school, kids to university,
the students say grades state school kids tend to outperform at the kind of school kids and school data nationally to specific universities.
The this evidence to suggest this the Bristol, for example.
And so often it's been argued that, OK, we should reduce entry requirements for space for kids because we know that that they'll actually do,
as well as the educated kids who've to be because of great science requirements.
Good for a long time recognises the site school is a great place.
School population is massive. It's like more than 90 percent of young people.
Some of them are very talented and some of them are middling and some of them are very disadvantaged.
If we look at the last state school kids show, but we look at the subsection states for kids who are the most deprived those on free school meals.
How we look at how they did it compared to that kind of education, as if comments were also pretty close to the same grades.
We see that free school markets actually do as well. So we want to show you this.
This shows you this is a model that controls the S3 up rates on entry to university specific universities.
You went to a little school for the degree subject matter that you studied and given that you entered university 100.
What were the rates at which you continued through the programme?
We thought it was you were in this sort of signal to continue to go out the other end of the first or to more.
And what we see is the yes, state school kids are more likely to graduate with a good degree than privately educated kids,
with the same rates on entry for free school meals, state school kids or not.
And that's likely to come out with the first or two or even when they got the same grades on entry as an accomplished piece.
That's something that we need to be mindful of, other things that have to be introduced that reminds us.
One is that we can't assume that disadvantaged individuals are going to flourish
on that puts their own state when you come to you in a state like this. Quite possibly.
They're going to need some help, some support in various ways yourself from acting.
We can't assume that after the doors jump to what is going on.
Oh yeah. So the amazing thing is that we can't just look to outcomes.
Studies have to determine whether we should let people live because if we did, we'd say, actually,
we should ask pre-school kids for higher grades than try to educate people because because
they're going to need them and will just have the same thing because for too long.
If the logic doesn't work, steering clearly.
If you come back to the school system, commissioner, why the access to I think you ahead of the game in the Scottish,
this is ahead of when the journey was one of the things that the commission when the access noted in Scotland and it's true in the UK,
who generally is that we are asking for rather more and is really needed to do well on a degree programme at this university,
at my university, in Oxford University. And those are the things that suggest that that that over time we've actually
been asking students for more the higher grades than we did 10 years previously,
not because of great inflation, not because it's harder to do a degree Oxford than it was 10 years ago.
I mean, it is. You may correct me in the discussion house, but I don't think it is that it's harder to get a degree.
I think what's happened is the number of 18 year olds has been going to demand 16 points for degree programmes.
So it brings the price either the sticker price with my own degree programme, we raised it my grades because there were loads of applicants.
So we could do that or maybe not the sticker price, but the effective price of entry has been very low over time,
certainly exceeding what is needed to do well at the university.
So in Scotland, it was proposed and the government is running with it and Scottish universities,
which French universities have been tasked with identifying minimum entry requirements.
What do people need to succeed on the degree programme?
It's going to be lower than the market, right?
Be as ambitious as possible in determining what the full price is that we never mentioned climate and ask disadvantaged students for that money.
And this is Scottish Government policy. We do well to follow their lead.
So it still still leaves us with quite a difficult issue of figuring out how much, how well qualified you need to be in order to succeed.
We need to try and grapple with the idea how do we know when someone's educated enough that they're going to be fine?
It's going to be fine.
Well, we can begin to answer this question with data, but there will be some normative elements of the decision that we make as well.
And some states are always is open to interpretation, but I've been by the data and the interpretation of it.
You may disagree and. Typekit talks about that in the discussion.
This is some data that looks at the we are looking at Russell Group universities, people who until recently.
The states do a three year, full time degree programme. And it's asking how was the relationship between the best three A-levels,
but that hasn't happened in Chile and various indicators of success that degree now.
Best three items, because although many people have four five six seven eight nine 10 animals, offers are normally expressed in terms of three.
You'll notice that I guess it was trivial, and that's because this dataset is for people, just people ICE was introduced.
You know, it's old data so that we can follow them to completion and see how did they complete, how did they go?
It needs to be updated with the stuff. But basically, racecar people are going to be speaking.
It would have been resolved based on the existing. So he has some time to look at this, it's probably, you know, what do you see?
Do you see that if we think about success, an indicator of success,
a degree that will be being able to get through the first year and go on to the second year of your programme,
that might be a minimal definition of success. What is the definition of success?
No less than receivers, actually a very shallow correlation between.
The probability of successful outcome and great solution.
We can then say, okay, they the chances that you will stop a degree programme and you'll get through,
you volunteer to get through year two on Tier three.
These are not conditional on Trump previously. This is given that you started school.
And again, what you see is that there's quite a limited relationship between the two things across much of the high traits
distribution only being starts to decline significantly with the success rate once you get lower than Triple C.
So that makes me proud, as you can see, you get through I and actually get out the degree of these,
you know, get out of here alive with a degree and then this is quite a shock.
It's maybe shallow. I guess my point is that it's customer relationship that we might have imagined
it will be different than two previous iterations of the different subject, so there will be a need to explore the dates of these specific contexts.
But this is the broadly the case. The result of universities that getting a degree is not very strongly correlated to kind of what is meant.
It is a bit, but not as strongly as we might. So you can easily call the BBC and have a 95 per percent chance of structuring it with a degree.
You don't need to find stuff to be very likely to get a degree.
So the last one I want to show you is a bit of a different maximiser, so into the brain.
This is getting all the way through the three years green and coming out with a good degree of hostility.
And there the relationship is much, much stronger, which I'm going to suggest to you two things.
First, I'm going to say that if you're going to be sitting still on so and coming out with the first or two on,
and that to me says that people with babies are not destined to fail.
Some of them, some of them will succeed. Some of them, whether they succeed later,
is not purely to do with whether they're adequately trying to get something to do with how well
we support them in the fall and help them to do the things that we want them to learn and this.
Substantially as well about how financially secure they are on the race and to they have to work 20 hours away just to secure their.
What this says to me is that, yes, there is a strong relationship between the outcome of military calculation in the range of criminal law,
even with what we would considered pretty mediocre at the still a family constitution.
So that gives us hope, at least try to definitely say he walked by.
To get ahead of themselves, and he was one of the things that I wanted to flag up to you as ways that we could.
Do alcohol as universities and as a sector to make sure that those who clearly could benefit from a degree
of he's actually given the full opportunity to make that happen and talk about things like learning support.
I would not argue with anybody who wanted to say that if he admits to, this would be BS and CS like it affects me subject knowledge.
Yes, they are. I absolutely agree with that.
And I would also agree that they're going to potentially some of them at least will have gaps in academic skills.
I mean, what are you have to all be advocates in an exciting way in face to face discussion.
I'm saying that we could teach them to do that and not, I guess, as well as the NIH programme, just to the foundation in its various universities,
answering doing through some schools, creating programmes, filling those gaps, building the schools and supporting facilities.
How should we think about supporting our students and for the whole industry, for these things?
And I mentioned a moment ago some of the financial support elements, something that also, I believe, offers very, very generously more generously.
I guess that would be possible outside of this university.
But it's this important part of the puzzle, as it's been found in all, are we we don't need to.
Be confident that we're doing what we can to support disadvantaged students to be free of the dissident
material disadvantages that they have while society so able to actually study full time already working,
able to engage in their studies without worrying about whether they're going to pay, how they're going to pay for next time.
So I mean, clearly making somebody who is very keen to provide these kinds of supports to students to bridge these knowledge gaps,
to build a capital city schools so that some of the students with lower than typical proximity
to the race are going to be ready to hit the ground running when they start to a degree.
This is not true everywhere there is. This is not this is not the nature's attitude is not the attitude of most universities in my experience.
I'm going to just point to some data for learning from some research we did in Scotland
when we went to all of the universities in Scotland except the Open University.
The other 18 we went to and we talked to admissions handsome solutions.
This is about principle of fairness and practises and processes of.
And what we call the very.
Most universities either consider themselves to be worth striving to be in at least some areas that provision excellent universities,
world class universities.
This is what's priced right to say that you are excellent, a world class, and this is very narrowly framed as you were an excellent university,
a world class university because no one knew how you select your students.
And number two, you would agree that research and no one ever really talks about reinventing the teaching.
All fields lead to evidence that we really made a difference to the number of students there,
but nobody ever says that when they're trying to make the case that the department or their institution, is it leading company system systems?
And what the upshot of this is is that universities are be.
Resistant to the idea of making students who might need some support because it doesn't, because it's not like some universities.
So there's a big focus angle on widening access, but only to what we called the heroic disadvantage, right?
We're. One of my next book. They've got of these students who have had some really cool adversity that they've overcome,
but they can still do it all hit the ground when they get get on and do well regardless.
We got a little we. Yeah. But we still want to be able to hold it, but we still believe in this.
And there's a sense that there wasn't a.
Much enthusiasm with the idea of taking on blow this week to help to them.
There was a desire to scream to admit this to my students who were going to be finding out.
He is much more cautious about meeting students who at this first meeting,
so he says the two could have performed exceptionally well down the road where they where they support loans.
But because of all Americans here, the traditional lectures, lots of independent study, they will do what they could do well, but no one's going to.
All right, so how do you decide to do that, we should take the.
It would be very remiss me to not tell you how we identify who is actually supposed to commit to what we say.
If this is it, this is a strategy that's going to continue to widen participation,
we want to be confident that the metrics that we're using to identify disadvantaged
individuals actually do identify disadvantaged individuals soon as we can.
Basically, this means using individual negligence in case are about people as individuals and that are families
not using promises that are to do with the area they live in or the school that they need to.
And we want to get to verify the information that people gave us, right, so if someone says I am selling for free school meals,
we want to be able to verify that through contact with the school or linking up with the national people database records.
Likewise, if people say I'm on a low income family, we want to see HMRC records to confirm the mistakes.
But it's not to the individual level, which is why one reason is that if we lose entry level of clinical measures,
we're going to get some of those negative studies.
They're going to be lot people who are genuinely too small, at least we deem incorrectly are not disadvantaged.
However, in the last four days I told Story, which is such a shame because it's the preferred government metric, isn't it?
But ultimately, I didn't. You listen to work on this.
Ages ago, I'm just looking at 51 percent.
So if you don't have people who are in the lowest in this being the two quintiles at the lowest rate of reaching participation,
and only about a third of those people are for free school meals.
No, sorry, children, only a third of free school meal kits live in those areas.
Two thirds of them live elsewhere. So if we say it's going to be called a one to two thirds of the intended beneficiaries, some of you,
some of the other indicators are between a plastic bag with happy child affirmations, events, the percentage in the school or as they're a bit better.
But then still far the still excluded what people that we'd like to capture and these free school kids who don't happen to be in, it's always true.
David Marshall, I personally think, is that the high risk of false positives by using these indicators,
the false positives where we say someone is disadvantaged and or at the very least, we're not sure whether they are enough or they are.
So this is. If we use cold weather to decide what the scene should get contextualised for not only one in 10 people selected at random,
but should be from free school meals, not friends. And you might say, well,
free school meals from Scotland would the only disadvantaged people or other people who maybe
incomes are a bit over the threshold to qualify for school meals who are also disadvantaged?
And I'll say, yeah, I'm sure that is the case, but is that 90 percent of the people who live in these homeless people there is.
Chun song by using Cola and to a lesser extent, civil society, said in a communications school admission free school meals.
Chances are that we're going to be picking people who are not disadvantaged from the United States,
who are in treatment if we're using those increases because basically we're either
have no effect or actually make things worse than we actually make things worse.
Right, Typekit messages amounts to screw up. I think it's really untenable to say that it's it's fair to ask everybody for the same.
Needs to come to the U.S. to. I just don't think we can.
Maintain the fiction that there's a policy book to speak and the grace that people have been the same thing with respect to the.
Just it's just you just can't say that it's not really, isn't it?
I think there's evidence to say that the is actually disadvantaged students on lower grades.
Without them, we're not setting them up to fail. Even if we just leave the building, they're actually probably going to be fine.
If we look after them, they're going to do great. And I think universities have a role should have a role in bridging some of these gaps.
We all institutions have to look. We should be embrace the opportunity to teach and we need.
I'm teaching you benefit from it.
And just to finish then to say that the very last consideration, but actually just as important as everything else is,
it's the right interfaces so that we are actually targeting the intended beneficiaries.
Vicki, thanks very much indeed.
A Wide-Ranging practical approach to the search for there's probably something unsettling for some of us in some ways as well.
Thank you very much.
We're going to leave this discussion in a moment, but first, we're going to have to brief responses to further informed questions.
I'm going to invite your house and comes with Space Needle coverage area to hit the reset for education.
You actually mostly on the right outcome. Well, let's see.
I guess we look at something else and you mentioned something about that as being realistic.
I think essentially it's sort of a good discussion on it.
And I think it's a number of things I would pick up. First of all,
it would say very few was about three sets up just to explain and work is focussing in
particular on young people who have some of the most profound challenges to overcome.
Application, the algae could come through the system and as a result, often undergo extreme disruption to educational background,
but also a lot to do with the Navy seal of approval arising from that circumstance of being within families which are abusive on the platform.
So within that context, it's a good.
The spirit of the textual submissions as well, which I find really, really important because I say to other people,
I'm interested in reception of those that have the highest hill to climb.
I want to make three points that include the territory. And so the first point really is about the question about why islands represent us.
We have islands have been the gold standard. Give us submissions for as long as the members.
And yet we have this question, everything about whether they have passed that status.
When we think about the normative expectations of what an alien curriculum is providing compared to the
sort of expansive and critical factors is that we want to see somebody undertaking a degree course.
It seems to me that that's what I said.
There's a mismatch there between what we are providing to people young people between the ages of 16 and 18 and what we expect of them from 18 to 21.
What's going on a broad range of ages there?
The second point is about prudence. This is where they can sort of talk.
And actually, when you look at what the of great universities have achieved thus far over the last 50 years, I've been researching this area.
We room for us to talk about.
And actually what's largely happened is for some reason, the universities have been very successful, approaching students from other US universities.
It's a moving round the deck chairs rather than ruling out people for which young people are being given.
And when you start to look at the amounts of money that is spent on that process,
which is largely a marketing exercise rather than for you, I think that that's something which we need to think about.
My third point is about the challenge of if you like to global universities like oxygen and others as well about what
contextualised missions means to us in terms of taking a different group of learners and exposing them to world class teaching.
And actually, I think there's a there's a chance that to actually think about different types of learning.
And so I think even if you like the discourse around either for me is one that
needs a little bit of critical illness on my own experience of teaching. Medical students historically have not come through in aid groups.
They've come through other groups in.
So about to confrontation should signal a little bit of discussion as well, which is the question about potentially whether we can mention this,
if at all, whether or not we actually have a crude definition of what we mean when we talk about the potential of a young person.
Do we have a definition of work to do? We have a firm theoretical basis.
We have this idea that we know that potential looks like. But that's still a challenge you to think about whether we have that work through in life,
which means that we can then use that as the basis for making admissions decisions about individuals.
So we'll leave it at that particular option that you feel.
First and second respondents is it's timing, because, as I mentioned earlier on, is it's a cheater and should be straight out of modern college,
but also for these folks are perhaps more relevant to the assessment of the college.
So he has the practise practitioners experience. Peter, thank you.
Thank you, Professor Butler, I could just say I agree to sit down and have something should be told from tonight.
There is a French proverb to the effect that everything worth saying has already been said many times, but since no one listens.
We always need to this again because it would be a thoroughly undesirable if the university
came to rely on available examination grades as the main criterion of selection.
The Angel is not designed as a university entrance exam.
Marks given a all six guys to promising university were not, in fact, Professor Bolivar Professor Harrison France in 1965.
This commission of enquiry into the marvellously eliminating inhumane 50 pages of
submissions in the 1960s in libraries responsible Typekit single of the parochial
Oxford based points about this shibboleth a mystical gold standard of potential
without which box to guide talks unnecessarily point about historical amnesia,
if you will forgive me. This is not been a criterion since time immemorial.
For thought to be a shooter is extremely recent, but Oxford, to be precise, it's exactly 21 years old.
It all predecessors, I think, would be horrified by. What does that mean?
Well, today it basically means the top quartile of scripts twenty six point four percent of all eligible if they are above the Top 40,
1965 top quartile A-level scripts meant to be or both.
So if you plan little bits on some of these for the days of flatness,
key variables and a tendency, Bebe will be leaving in an embarrassing six months,
don't get the point of the 1965 Oxford Insight seventy three point two percent or three courses achieved below as they No.
Over the 1969 incident, more than a third pretty violent force and the chief below the national average as they are,
of course, many fewer UK students taking service in the 1960s than they do now.
Still, there is nothing unimaginable about an Oxford,
with a third of its undergraduates achieving below the national average available, either it hasn't seen in for ages.
Of course, in 1965, Oxford was no paradise of social inclusivity.
That was not even in Professor Bolivar's Terms for Equality of Opportunity for its undergraduates layer by quota.
There were close scholarships for students in schools and so forth.
But Oxford, 50, is yet to not use the air shibboleth as entry criteria, and the result was, shall we say, interesting.
In 2018, fifty eight point two per cent of Oxford, UK undergraduate intake came from to maintain the sector fifty eight point two per cent in 2018.
This is both on university website. The highest figure since the university began recruiting detailed admissions statistics.
You actually in December. Figures from the 1950s and 1960s are very easy to come by.
If I could show you one slice of bread crumbs of certain sizes, professor,
all of a sudden it's the beginning of that showing slow progress on widening access 1997 to 2017 and settled alongside 20 years from 1950 to 1972,
you would see a line that looks like the vast majority 65 admissions around 61 percent,
but not just UK Typekit came to maintain such a higher than state vote for.
The guy was actually a very small sliver of which was selected by retail stores.
Similarly, in 1965, around 20 per cent sources he painted as fathers in manual labour in professions the Lord franchise.
This is my five point sixty one percent from the maintained sector,
20 percent for manual labour and backgrounds were fleeing the industry's most serious challenge.
Facing 1960s Oxford, it demanded urgent, concerted action.
Since then, we have very comprehensively failed as fee paying schools have shrunk as a proportion of never.
The tank is grown in absolute terms, as a proportion of citizens like students from disadvantaged backgrounds very dramatically shrunk.
And I think as Professor Border Psychology proved, this pseudo meritocratic,
a chivalrous as little transfer to a very large cost has improved already set lists.
Thank you very much both for those responses. You don't want to leave.
Yes, I'm going to invite you to come back to the stage and join us.
I don't have many of the questions which we're about to take will be directed towards making a difference.
Come up this we to Typekit perspectives and discussion.