Fairness in higher education is about more than contextual admissions

Everyone supports the idea of equality of opportunity in higher education, but what does it actually mean?

That is what Wales’ new Commission for Tertiary Education and Research (CTER) will have to get to grips with. The body, which will fund, oversee and regulate all post-16 education in Wales as part of a new whole-system approach to post-compulsory education, will have a duty to promote equality of opportunity and to regulate providers to develop and deliver measurable improvements in it.

Equality of opportunity is linked to a post-war meritocratic model that saw individual ability as the key measure of suitability for higher education or for occupational roles, rather than class background or other social factors. Hinging on the idea of procedural fairness, it entails that students should gain access to universities based on objective and universal criteria: principally, school-leaving grades.

However, evidence suggests that inequalities remain in access to, progression within and outcomes from tertiary education among different groups. As Durham University sociologist Vikki Boliver puts it in a 2021 paper, “While previous academic attainment is the strongest predictor of admission, admissions chances differ for applicants from different social groups even when they hold the same grades and have studied the same subjects at A-level.”

If equality of opportunity is perceived to have failed to level the playing field, might an alternative model be needed?

Boliver proposes a “meritocratic equity of opportunity model” that prioritises distributive over procedural fairness. This would recognise the unequal starting points of individuals and seek actively to level the playing field. An example is the attempt to remedy structural disadvantage through the use of contextualised admissions. In the UK, this is primarily used to judge whether academic achievement reflects “true” potential for success and to allow entry to students from disadvantaged backgrounds on the basis of lower prior academic achievements.

A contextualised admission approach appears to be gaining popularity in the most selective institutions, which are beginning to formalise procedures to make admission offers that take into account the socio-economic challenges prospective students have faced.

Such approaches are sometimes described as attempts to achieve equality of outcomes, rather than of opportunity. But the outcomes in question are not material goods, income or attainment regardless of merit (such equality is normally considered untenable in practice.) A better way to conceive of this approach is to see the under-representation of a particular group as potentially indicative of inequality of opportunity. As Anne Phillips put it in a 2004 paper, “if the outcome is not equal, we can be reasonably certain that the opportunities were not”.

On this reading, an equity approach does not move beyond equality of opportunity: it is simply a different, stronger conception of what that means. As University of Glasgow philosopher Hugh Lazenby describes in a 2016 paper, “if the conception of equality of opportunity requires that each individual should have the same means for a good life with differences in how they fare depending only on natural talent and choices to expend effort, the educational system could...be employed to provide remedial treatment for those individuals who had been disadvantaged outside of education.”

So, for instance, in addition to contextualised admissions, institutions could put in place support programmes to help those who have had uneven access to prior knowledge before their study.

It is notable that discussions around contextualised admissions often focus on the most academically selective institutions. In some respects, this reflects the fact that these are seen to offer better individual returns in terms of a wage premium. However, putting in place a contextualised admission system with support programmes for these institutions is resource-intensive. In a challenging fiscal environment, CTER will need to make decisions around what type of interventions should be put in place across the tertiary education system.

Often, a more resource-intensive and substantive equality of opportunity (“equity”) approach will be needed. In addition to contextualised admissions, this might include offering learners from disadvantaged backgrounds financial support during their compulsory education, and then monetary incentives to stay in higher education.

In other cases, it may be about providing a base level of formally accessible provision. For instance, the requirement in the Tertiary Education and Research Act to provide “proper facilities” for adult learners is a key part of the education minister’s desire to make Wales a “second chance nation”, helping people gain new skills. It could also involve offering opportunities to gain basic qualifications, such as GCSE maths and English, for learners who did not attain the required grades during their compulsory education.

In contexts where there is less competition for places or where evidence suggests access and opportunity are already largely equal, proactive policies to widen access may not be required. In making these decisions, however, it will be important to assess the needs of learners holistically and across the tertiary system.

With careful thought, that is what a universal regulator of the post-16 sector should be able to offer.

Jack Price is a research associate at the Wales Centre for Public Policy (WCPP), Cardiff University. He is working on a project for the Welsh Government that will provide an evidence base to help CTER assess which groups are particularly under-represented in different parts of the tertiary system and will recommend interventions to create a fairer system for learners. WCPP is part of the UK What Works Network and International Public Policy Observatory.