Contextual Data in University Screening Questioned by School Leaders Association Head

The use of contextual data in making background checks on university applicants is being questioned by a school head and school leaders association president. Some universities are using such data which may lead to the bias on social background and away from academic ability as objective criteria, the concerned leader points out.

At the Higher Education Policy Institute 2013 Spring Conference on University Admissions and the Student Academic Experience, Northampton School for Boys head and Association of School and College Leaders president Mike Griffiths who is a conference speaker called on universities to be more transparent with how they screen applicants, offer courses and award places.

The concern over the use contextual data or background information about aspiring students is raised by the academic leader in connection with the compliance of universities in admitting a targeted number of students who come from disadvantaged circumstances in light of the skyrocketing tuition fee increase.

Studies on universities last year show that more and more universities who are very choosy have prepared to use contextual data towards making lower-grade offers, expediting the interviews with poor pupils or in reviewing applicants who almost make the cut. It is believed that universities who use data like family income, postcode, performance of the school of the applicant and university background of applicants’ parents are up to two-thirds of the total number of universities. For Mr Griffiths, the issue is regarding the information’s robustness, reliability and freshness.

According to the school head, students may be offered or not offered a place based more on these data rather than their own abilities. Universities should focus on what a student can bring to a university and what are the benefits which the student can get from the education. He asserts further that young applicants with disadvantaged circumstances should be treated as valuable rather than as merely being patronised.

The academic leader also called for absolute clarity regarding the employability of a course. Students, especially those who come underprivileged circumstances aim to land jobs after earning their education. They want courses which serve the purpose but there are some courses which may mislead them. Mr Griffiths has labeled these courses as having “sexy sounding titles.” According to him, there are other courses in some universities which are given titles which sound attractive as they appear to put a graduate in a career but does not really have the potential and in fact has not successfully put a graduate in the field.

Universities have the dilemma of being objective and subjective at the same time because they need to be fair in ranking applicants while looking for applicants who can fill in their government requirements. What procedures can you come up with that you can suggest to address the needs and concerns? Do you think this issue can see an end? If your answer is yes, will it be sooner or later?