Well done Ucas, nearly.
There is a sense that reform in education is glacial rather than radical, and so it has been pleasing to read Ucas’ new report on changes to university admissions, Future of Undergraduate Admissions, published earlier this month.
The headlines speak of the personal statement being consigned to the dustbin of history from 2024, but, on deeper reading, there is more to this publication than initially caught the eye.
There are areas to applaud, such as the fair access programme seeking to reach those who don’t have the support of advisers or counsellors.
Increasing confidence in Ucas’ ability to act as an independent source of advice for young people will be good for families, and the entry-grade reports being accessed more widely will be extremely helpful to clarify what grades universities have accepted rather than the ones they insist are entry requirements.
Ucas changes: international university admissions
There is also a promise to look closely at international undergraduate admissions.
Against the backdrop of current political rhetoric about limiting the number of international students, and the funding challenges in higher education, it will be interesting to see where Ucas heads on this.
International schools would be aligned with most universities in supporting Ucas in allowing more access for international students and beginning to resolve some Brexit-related wobbles.
Ucas realises that all of this will help the teams of advisers, counsellors and consultants to optimise their advice, and in some ways it will make them even better informed and attractive. This realisation is at the heart of the two major reforms to change the personal statement and reference processes to structured questions.
On the face of it, this, too, should be applauded. Ucas’ reasoning seems sound: the personal statement can be significantly influenced by advice offered and is, indeed, seen by some commentators as a mechanism to “widen the gap”’. The reference can be burdensome for advisers and highly variable in its usefulness to universities.
However, the value of reviewing and editing the personal statement is that it becomes a dialogue: a dialogue with students about aspiration and self-awareness.
It can lead to growing confidence in the transition from secondary education to tertiary education and is, in itself, an exercise of intrinsic value.
The refinement of language can be helpful for international students, and the growing clarity of course and institution choice born out of this work can be affirming and positive for a student so far removed physically from their destination.
The need for dialogue
I’m not constructing an argument to keep the personal statement, but at the very least we should reflect on its benefits and try to find places in schools for that dialogue and the time to engage in the academic discipline of shaping a piece of writing, articulating self.
This may sound idealistic, and it may be almost impossible in some settings. But while its passing may not be lamented, the personal statement should, in my view, get a good send-off as a construct that had real benefit.
The reference less so. The move to structured questions will be supported by many if it is less onerous. We have seen this in staff recruitment, too, where forms are much more common and text box comments increasingly rare, but they are not always the easiest things to navigate.
The key issues here will be whether the format will be easily accessible, and, much like examinations, whether we will be asking the right questions.
I wonder if the slot available for “any other circumstances” might become a mini version of the verbose references that Ucas seeks to remove.
Learning questions
On the topic of questions, we come to learning styles.
Ucas’ report, in proposing structured questions to replace the personal statement, suggests one of these might be: “Preferred Learning Styles - Which learning and assessment styles best suit you - how do your course choices match that?”
Professor Daniel Willingham and a number of other esteemed educators sought to debunk the myth of learning styles, and therefore some schools of a similar opinion will be disappointed with Ucas’ use of language in this proposed question.
As ever, the full version of the question wasn’t initially reported, which sent Willingham followers scurrying to EduTwitter to decry the changes, and the wording remains unfortunate.
The wording also begs the questions: how does the student know which learning and assessment style best suits them? And what evidence have they for their assertion?
Not all reform is good reform, but, on balance, Ucas seems to have got this right.
So well done Ucas, nearly.
Chris Seal is head of senior school at the Tanglin Trust School in Singapore
