Oxford discriminates against 'second rank' universities
OXFORD UNIVERSITY'S post-graduate admissions procedures have been accused of being elitist after selection criteria were leaked. Criteria used to assess candidates applying for the university's post-graduate medicine course have been condemned for discriminating against students with qualifications from new universities whilst giving graduates from Oxford and Cambridge an unfair advantage. Applicants are given a grade according to their academic record.
In the course director's guidance notes to assessors there is a strong emphasis on the type of institution previous qualifications were obtained from. Terms such as ‘second rank' and ‘weak institutions' are used to describe some universities, whose graduates stand a significantly reduced chance of being invited for interview. The document stipulates that candidates should be graded according to the amount of self-directed learning their courses entail.
Those who have undertaken PhD courses or tutorialbased degrees, such as at Oxford and Cambridge, will be awarded the highest A grade. Regardless of the qualification level or classification obtained, those from institutions described as ‘weak' are graded B– or C. Candidates are also required to sit an examination, the results of which form the major part of their assessment. Officially, anyone who scores very highly should be invited for interview.
Those who have been given a higher grading on their previous academic record, however, will be reconsidered for interview even if their test performance is poor. A spokeswoman from the University press office told The Oxford Student: “Grading is used to identify candidates who are strong so that they can be looked at again if their results fall into the lower brackets. “Whatever institution a candidate is from, if they perform well enough in the test, they will be on the shortlist”.
The Oxford Student was told there is no definitive list of institutions considered to be either ‘premier' or ‘second rate', but that it is left to tutors' individual discretion to determine the relative value of each course taken. In terms of undergraduate degrees, the unique tutorial system at Oxbridge has raised concerns graduates from the two institutions will be considered to have more highly-developed independent research skills.
Pam Tatlow, chief executive of the Mainstream Universities Group, told The Oxford Student she felt “shocked” at what she believed to be “a discriminatory policy advocated by Oxford where some students were effectively being given a second chance. “Any assessment based upon where an undergraduate took their degree is unfair,” she said. “Degrees from new universities are just as valuable. All courses have to be quality assured in exactly the same way as those at Oxford and Cambridge.
“All degrees are of equal worth and to ignore this is to ignore the quality assessments and external examinations in place.” Student Union president John Blake, also expressed contempt with the policy. “If the Pharmacology Department think there's a problem with some of the pre-medical courses in the country, they should stand up and say so,” he argued. Blake added: “It's completely unacceptable to basically say that you get a second chance because you went to Oxbridge.
“Whilst I appreciate that it is unfair to admit someone who does not possess the necessary skills for the course, it is unacceptable to write off anyone on the basis of what university they went to.” He also expressed concern about the damage the revelation may cause to the university's recent campaign to create a better public image with regard to its access and admissions policies.
“In the most generous light, this [policy] just demonstrates an enormous blindness to how it looks to the outside world. The University must be seen to be fair.” Having been criticised by Michael Driscoll, chairman of The Mainstream Universities Group, who claimed the document “reeked of snobbery”, the University issued a statement apologising for the language used.
It claimed: “‘Weak' in this context was used as shorthand for ‘less likely to provide the independent research grounding appropriate for this course', but admitted it has unfortunate connotations”. The document in question will be changed accordingly. Yet Blake also expressed the disgust he felt at the language used in the original document.
He described it as “unacceptable, absurd and indefensible” and said he believed it to be “disingenuous to suggest [Oxford] don't know exactly who they mean by ‘second rate'.
24th Feb 2005