Oxford and Cambridge Universities have made headlines recently for publishing figures that show that applicants from British ethnic minorities are significantly less likely than their white peers to secure places. Oxford invited just 17% of minority applicants to join its ranks in 2013, compared to 25% of similar white applicants; Cambridge similarly extended invitations to only 23% of minority candidates, compared to 29% of their white peers. Over the period from 2010 to 2012, just 36% of Russell Group university applicants from ethnic minorities were accepted, compared to 55% of their white peers. Especially low acceptance rates were experienced among Bangladeshi (31%), Pakistani (30%), and black (23%) applicants.
The David Lammy MP-led all-party parliamentary inquiry into such under-representation at the UK’s elite universities is now being held. To date, the universities have put the onus on ethnic minority students themselves for the low rate of acceptance, arguing that the students are less likely to achieve competitive A-level grades in relevant subjects and to prefer oversubscribed degree courses. However, this argument has been challenged. For example, while some – but not all – ethnic minority groups do achieve lower average A-level grades than their white peers, analyses have demonstrated that disparities in offer rates remain even when taking into account such data. Furthermore, there is no hard evidence to support or to contradict claims that ethnic minority candidates are less likely to have the appropriate combination of A-Levels for their chosen course. While applicants from these groups are disproportionately applying for oversubscribed degrees, this does not wholly account for the low offer rates noted by the Universities, as has recently been acknowledged by Oxford. However, there is considerable uncertainty about why offer rates vary so much. A major obstacle to a fuller comprehension of the issue is the fact that university admissions data is not accessible externally. While researchers have had partial access to Ucas’ national university admissions database, much data at the individual level has been withheld. Recently, and perhaps paradoxically, as access has been restricted, there have been calls for greater openness with respect of such data. A Cabinet Office white paper from 2012 noted that more open data in all areas of public life could empower citizens while helping to improve public services, and thus increase the demand for education, the fashioning of public policies, among other things. The decision to withhold admissions data is especially surprising given that HEFCE grants for 2014-2015 were as much as £3.9bn. Universities are legally obliged to not discriminate against applicants on grounds such as ethnicity, and the data should thus be available so as to provide accountability for admission decisions if needed. Although universities might object to making available this sensitive data, there are potential reputational benefits to be gained from opening such information up as a sign of a commitment to creating transparent and fair admissions systems. Vikki Boliver at the University of Durham is among the researchers investigating these issues.
Comments are closed.