The myth of centralised admissions
Having deliberated for over a year, why did the Working Party on Admissions come up with two proposals for centralising Oxford’s admissions process? Obviously the offi cial answer is to give the various university bodies a chance to debate the merits and demerits of the two (where have I heard that phrase before?). But we all knew that they were discussing centralised admissions, so why have they taken a year to come up with two polarised options? The answer shows the university conniving brilliantly. Since the crap it took over Laura Spence for no reason other than a clever girl didn’t get in (I’m pretty sure that’s happened every year since), Oxford has become far more adept at managing the media. Worried about a leak, the University’s plan went something like this: drop the ‘story’ of centralised admissions into the press outlining Options A and B and watch the national broadsheets jump it (a “mediamugging” in the words of Sir Tim Lankester): The Telegraph splashed on it, but completely failed to grasp the point of the whole thing and The Times wheeled out William Rees- Mogg to inform us (nobody is quite sure on what grounds) that he was interviewed by three future college Masts at Balliol and that the proposals will destroy the fabric and identity of colleges and the independence of Oxford. Most importantly, they all concentrated on the radical changes of Plan A, (you don’t choose a college when applying, you don’t meet the people who are actually going to tutor you. What happens next? They sneak the much more moderate proposals (Plan B • you give a ‘college preference’ when you apply, you get interviewed by two colleges, including your preferred one) in through the back door, placating the government, who think we are trying to conform to the Access Agreement the university signed with the Offi ce for Fair Access (we aren’t), and placating the alumni, the colleges and the top public schools who thought the university was actually going to change so thing (it isn’t). Why is this so important? Because Plan B is bollocks and changes very little. If, unlike most Education Correspondents, you actually read the whole report, there are some nuggets of information buried about Plan B that explain this: “Colleges could also choose to interview a small number of candidates who were not on the [faculty] shortlist.” So wait, we aren’t centralising our admissions at all; a ‘small number’ could mean the entire intake in some subjects. Colleges still choose who they interview and who they take. One of the University’s stated admissions objectives is: “To ensure that the prospects of admission are not affected by college choice.” Under Plan B, “Colleges could not be obliged to take candidates according to the central rankings”. Really, well then a candidate’s choice of college WOULD affect their chances of getting in, especially if that college has invited several other candidates for interview against the judgement of the faculty. The report admits that there might still be the “perception that college choice does matter”. And with good reason. The faculties should be allowed to override the colleges, an idea specifi cally omitted from the plan and one that would ensure much greater transparency. The Head of the Access Scheme tells The Oxford Student: “A lot of students from state schools fi nd the idea of choosing a college and the complications of Oxford applications quite confusing.” Whoops! Under Plan B they would still have to pick. And fi nally, Plan B “would lack the simplicity and transparency of Plan A”. So for all the rhetoric and lip-service paid to transparency and openness in the applications process, once the university has (to a collective sigh of relief) discarded Plan A, Plan B can be allowed to proceed unhindered. Clearly the Working Party would have preferred Plan A; it is a radical, but sensible reform which would have brought real benefi t. They were, however, fully aware of the collective handbrake to change held by many people in here. Plan B placates the handbrake brigade and, unfortunately, is the one we’re going to get. Will the plans destroy college identity as William Rees-Mogg thinks? Plan A would certainly put an end to Oriel’s practice of touring the public schools looking for good rowers and then ‘encouraging’ them to apply,and Teddy Hall’s position in the Norrington table will have to be blamed on something other than the fact that anyone who can play rugby can get in. But ultimately, college identities evolve and are formed by the students who are there at any one moment. I don’t think for a second that the breaking down of relationships between certain colleges and certain large public schools can possibly be a bad thing (Ever wondered why so many Harrow boys go to Teddy Hall? Or so many Winchester boys go to New College?) Centralised admissions is a great idea for encouraging the best students to apply and for ensuring they get places, it’s just a shame that the real plan for reform is nothing more than a charade.
12th Jan 2005