Dreams
The prediction predicament Marcus Allen examines some of the forces at play in university admissions As the Autumn term gets underway, schools throughout the UK and beyond are collating and compiling references and predicted grades ready for entry into the UCAS system. With postqualification applications for university admissions a distant prospect, the predicted grades are still the main indicator of an applicant’s academic performance. However, they are no longer simply a method by which universities are able to see the likely outcome of a student’s exam results, but in many cases a major component in selection. For schools and pupils they are, therefore, a key factor in application success; but can they be trusted? Over the last few years conflicting interests have caused predicted grades to travel only one way… up! When considering A Levels, data released from UCAS paints a stark picture. In the 2015-2016 UCAS cycle, 65% of all candidates were predicted to get at least an A and two B grades at A Level but only 42% actually achieved those grades. According to UCAS, around one third of UK 18 year olds placed at universities dropped three or more grades across their top three A Levels. Despite the increases in predictions, universities, of course, still want student numbers and have responded by taking students who actually achieve lower grades – 41% of students with three B grade passes were admitted to higher tariff providers in 2016, compared with only 19% in 2011. So, predictions are going up while, conversely, selective universities are admitting students with lower final grades. Why are predictions increasing? Reports of schools ‘exaggerating’ predicted grades have been hotly debated, with one suggestion being that teachers are simply not as accurate as they used to be at predicting grades since the removal of January exams in 2014. It is also suggested that independent schools produce ‘better’ predictions because they tend to be predicting at the top end of the grade spectrum where there is less room for error. Both these comments are naïve: most schools are very good at predicting outcomes of external exams for their pupils, especially where AS and A levels are still modular. The reality is that schools have been gradually inflating predicted grades and I will explain why. There are two areas in which the mechanisms of prediction and entry into UCAS lead to over-prediction. First, UCAS does not allow borderline predictions, so, since pupils sitting on a B/C borderline will have to be predicted one grade or the other, most schools will opt for the higher grade. Second, in modular A Level subjects, the top grade at AS is an A grade, where the overall module scores are above 80% on average; and the top grade at A Level is an A*, where the A2 modules average above 90% and the average of both AS and A2 modules is above 80%. Thus, if pupils gain AS module marks of around 72% (the equivalent of a low B grade) in their first year of Sixth Form, and then achieve marks up to 90% at A2, they will maintain a B
22
grade at A level. But, if they later achieve over 90% at A2, thus raising their combined AS + A2 average above 80%, they would be awarded an A* overall. In this scenario an A grade is not achievable, so, when a school is making a prediction after the AS module results for a student who is really engaged and achieving in the high 80s in the early part of their A2 studies, they know that the pupil will either get a B or an A* and will probably opt for the higher prediction. Likewise, pupils could gain full UMS (100%) in their AS modules, giving a very good indication that they will ultimately achieve an A*, and then only (!) achieve 88% at A2, with the result that although their overall average is well above 90%, they cannot be awarded an A* and will appear to have been over-predicted. However, as it happens, this reason for over-prediction will disappear after the current UCAS cycle, when all A Level subjects become linear from this September. The foibles of the UCAS and exam systems aside, schools have always wanted to get their students into the universities that are most suited to their ability and aspirations. This is nothing new, but the advent of higher tuition fees has meant that pupils and their parents are seeking exceptional value for money and wanting to go to the ‘best’ universities they can, as a conduit into a rewarding career. With much greater personal financial investments involved in a marketised HE sector, brand value has become a priority when choosing universities. Along with this, HE destinations data from the maintained sector are used for school league tables, making it imperative for schools to secure the best outcomes for their pupils within the ‘top tier’ of Oxbridge and the Russell Group. Predicting the highest realistic grades for a pupil will give her/him the widest choice of institutions to apply to. Pupils and teachers put a lot of effort into UCAS applications, carefully crafting personal statements and references, and do not want admissions administrators in universities rejecting their pupils based on predicted grades in a triaging process used by many. At worst this can result in an admissions tutor never reading an application with predicted grades that fall outside the standard offer range. Fuelling the increase is the fact that offer levels for university courses are also rising. In the well-known university guide HEAP 2012, 161 Psychology courses were advertised. Of these, five (3%) required at least AAA at A Level and a further 22 (12%) required AAB or above. In HEAP 2018 the number of Psychology courses on offer has fallen slightly to 157, but 14 (9%) now require AAA or above at A Level, and a further 22 (14%) require AAB or above. Are universities now admitting more academic cohorts? It seems very unlikely. It is almost certainly more to do with the fact that having high entrance requirements is seen as a sign of quality. Indeed, several of the university league tables use average UCAS tariff points on entry as one of the ranking indicators. Coupled with this is the desire
Autumn 2017
CCR Vol54 no3 Autumn 2017.indd 22
22/08/2017 15:56
