According to a government task-force report, the university admissions system should be revised so as to require students to make their selection of university after they have received their A-level results. Quite how this affects Scotland is unknown.

At present university applications use predicted A-level grades, with supplementary information obtained by content on application forms plus interviews. It is proposed that applications and interviews would be retained, but that final decisions would not be taken until the actual A-level results are known. Decisions themselves would be more transparent to applicants.

This all seems quite sensible. Except for a few minor issues. The current system already accepts students who meet the entry requirements. Those who don’t go into a clearing system. The new system would essentially throw everyone into the clearing system. In this case, what happens to those students who did better than they expected? Would they be required to apply to other courses that more closely met their achievements and therefore be turned down by their original first preference? For example, at the time I left school, there was really only one course in the UK I wanted to do – even despite the Oxbridge mentality that drove my school. (Let me think.. Cambridge or Manchester. That’s a toughy.) My UCCA form essentially had four other entries with a variety of grade requirements – so I could be sure that I got a place somewhere. But my mind was set on my first choice, UMIST. When the results came out, whilst my actual grades were somewhat lower than was predicted, I did easily pass the points requirement for the course. Supposing that I had met my predicted grades? Would I have been required to look elsewhere so as to allow other students into UMIST who more closely met the entrance requirements? Furthermore, what happens to students that want to defer a year? Do they then have to apply a year later? What happens in the interim if the entrance requirements have changed?

Alternatively, supposing there’s a bunch of people applying for a course. Some of these exceed the entrance requirements, others only meet the requirements. It stands to reason that those who exceed the requirements should be admitted. They’re arguably better qualified. Indeed there might be many who meet the entrance requirements, yet get rejected because of oversubscription. At least in the current system, if you’re rejected at the time of original application you can look elsewhere, which gives you more time. One way around this maybe is the proposed introduction of national SATS-type test which provides a further discriminant. But then, how does a university make decisions based on this new additional information? And indeed, what’s changed as a result of this new system? All it does is delay the inevitable, requiring all students to panic about finding a place, rather than just those who didn’t meet their predictions.

As part of these proposals the author says that universities might prefer students who would add to diversity of the student body, due to “compelling educational” benefits. So we have positive discrimination for applicants of similar ability but from different social or economic backgrounds. That sounds fine, but what’s wrong with taking in applicants based on the order in which they applied? Likewise what happens to the students who are discriminated against?