11th February 2011 9:00
By Harriet Boulding
This week the government announced that severe penalties will be placed on universities which charge higher fees and fail to admit students from poorer backgrounds. The plan to place a £6000 cap on fees for universities who do not meet these targets was met with exasperation, as universitiy admissions tutors argue that the sanctions are penalising them for problems created by government educational strategies.
In order to lay the ground work for this policy, the government has released guidance to universities encouraging them to admit poorer students with lower grades. This has sparked an old controversy in itself, namely is it right to give one student a lower offer than another because of their background? Many universities maintain that they will make offers purely on the basis of academic potential, but as a tutor who has worked with students from all backgrounds, I have to ask how we are measuring academic potential.
I would argue that if a student is from a poorer background, and perhaps has an after school job, their circumstances are definitely relevant to their applications. Is an A grade from a student from a poor background the same as an A grade from a student who goes to a fee paying school, had many cultural and academic advantages growing up, and perhaps receives hours of extra tuition? No. Does that mean B grade from a poorer student is worth an A grade from a well -off student? Well it's not that simple.
I believe what universities are objecting to is that the government is trying to over simplify what is an extremely compex process. Yes our backgrounds are relevant, and most universities have special access application schemes of some sort which recognises this fact. On the other hand, if you are able to interview students you realise that grades, background, school and all the other factors to be considered are certainly not the sum of a student.