View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Contextual Admissions: Normative Considerations

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Contextual Admissions: Normative Considerations
Language: English
Authors: Joanne Moore, Anna Mountford-Zimdars (ORCID 0000-0002-7397-7459)
Source: Higher Education Quarterly. 2025 79(1).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, College Admission, Educational Background, Enrollment Management, Selective Admission, Higher Education, Competitive Selection, Decision Making, Context Effect, Equal Education, Access to Education, Justice
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom (England)
DOI: 10.1111/hequ.12579
ISSN: 0951-5224
1468-2273
Abstract: Access to higher education is often competitive, and much attention has been placed on the question of admission decision-making in such high stakes situations. We identify various approaches to distributive justice and consider these under the framework developed by Pike distinguishes between 'egalitaria' (everyone gets the same); 'necessitia' (people get what they need); 'desertia' (people get what they deserve); and 'marketia' (the market decides what people get). Considering applicants in context is one approach to deciding admissions designed to enhance fairness and support social justice. This approach is practiced in a range of countries including the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan and operates under names such as Contextual Admissions (CA), Holistic Assessment (HA) or Holistic Review (HR). This thought piece considers the philosophical/normative and practical reasoning approaches that underpin CA. We use the case of English higher education to illustrate the political and philosophical debates, to highlight practical challenges and potential limitations and to identify further considerations for realising the benefits of contextualising university applicants.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1459642
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFRZSVOA7HhVGJqdfs2E5lYAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPzBW-2WBtjbRSPj7wIBEICBm9OfRJgLQy6ezVP7hiavINsly7wQ9HN2fgEszIcQJ5ofmF_PHnoJGsGazXEoMBQkWwaL7RjGJxTADSQC9YUs4G2Wn1w4auI1k1kJmc95Psf0Jf33Wmq_JMM0Bl2LYXZgqUJAKCd0SAjWp_HsdBW2bYKd4oVKxgjUlnCCF4geYR5P7E88kXs55mBwIO1AUO6U9uuPgtkW1D0W0qYZ
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183952954;d8501jan.25;2025Mar25.08:15;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183952954-1">Contextual Admissions: Normative Considerations </title> <p>Access to higher education is often competitive, and much attention has been placed on the question of admission decision‐making in such high stakes situations. We identify various approaches to distributive justice and consider these under the framework developed by Pike distinguishes between 'egalitaria' (everyone gets the same); 'necessitia' (people get what they need); 'desertia' (people get what they deserve); and 'marketia' (the market decides what people get). Considering applicants in context is one approach to deciding admissions designed to enhance fairness and support social justice. This approach is practiced in a range of countries including the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan and operates under names such as Contextual Admissions (CA), Holistic Assessment (HA) or Holistic Review (HR). This thought piece considers the philosophical/normative and practical reasoning approaches that underpin CA. We use the case of English higher education to illustrate the political and philosophical debates, to highlight practical challenges and potential limitations and to identify further considerations for realising the benefits of contextualising university applicants.</p> <p>Keywords: admission; distribution; entry; fairness; higher education policy; inequality; philosophy; selection; social class; social justice</p> <hd id="AN0183952954-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Higher education around the world usually employs some form of selection process (Michel and Pollard [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref1">42</reflink>]). Decision‐making around admissions to higher education is highly political. If we think that politics is about 'who gets what, when, how' (Laswell [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref2">40</reflink>]), then we can easily see how university admissions captures the public imagination. It is a fascinating example of how power is exercised, and we can directly see the results in terms of who is admitted to university and in the resulting profiles of people in professions requiring higher level education. There is variation between countries with respect to the entry criteria and selection methods, for example, the use of examination results or performance in admissions/aptitude tests (Helms [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref3">32</reflink>]; Freeman [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>]). The diversity of approaches in use has been affected by the existence of vertically stratified national higher education systems with more intense competition for places at the most 'elite' institutions (Marginson [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref5">41</reflink>]; Freeman [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref6">23</reflink>]). The extent of institutional autonomy over HE admissions is also a factor (Orr et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref7">53</reflink>]). As a general trend, Freeman ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref8">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref9">23</reflink>]) suggests that recent reforms of admissions systems have been driven by the issue of equity for underrepresented social groups, concerns with fairness and meritorious selection. Higher education institutions having some leeway in deciding on admissions has been suggested as being helpful to disadvantaged groups (Vieira do Nascimento, Roser‐Chinchilla, and Mutize [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref10">72</reflink>], 52).</p> <p>This article we first sets out different basis that underpin approaches to the distribution of higher education, looking at different higher education admissions systems through the lens of different distributive rationales. Contextual admissions is then introduced before moving to the case of the English higher education sector. This case is used to discuss challenges and limitations presented in the implementation of contextual admissions into admissions policies and practices.</p> <hd id="AN0183952954-3">Approaches to Distributive Justice</hd> <p>Social practices, such as the criteria for accessing higher education, tend to be underpinned by generally held ideas as making good sense. It is thus worth going back to some different ideas of how goods in society should be distributed. Pike ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref11">55</reflink>]) identified four mechanisms that could be shortened to 'Necessitia', 'Desertia', 'Marketia' and 'Egalitaria' (Pike [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref12">55</reflink>], 92), as summarised in Table 1. Each derive from different conceptions of what 'fairness' means and what a fair distribution of opportunities in society would look like.</p> <p>1 TABLE Ideas underpinning distribution in society .</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="bottom"><tr><td align="left">Egalitaria</td><td align="center">Everyone gets the same</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Necessitia</td><td align="center">People get what they need</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Desertia</td><td align="center">People get what they deserve</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Marketia</td><td align="center">The market decides what people get</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 a Adapted from Pike ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref13">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>This model of distribution offers us a normative perspective and is relevant to admission decision‐making in higher education, which has cut across all four of these distributive mechanisms, in different contexts and at different times, as discussed here. The concepts in this model are also useful in reflecting on issues of equality (i.e., the same level of opportunity for all) and equity (i.e., differences depending on specific needs and abilities) and the implications for considerations of fairness in the distribution of higher education.</p> <p>In 'egalitaria', the key principle is that all people have the same opportunity, and this is rare in higher education, which usually requires some minimum preparedness to study. An exception might be open access courses such as MOOCs (massive open online courses), which were set up to be open to all, regardless of any admissions criteria. There are questions whether different people are equally placed to access and succeed in such courses in relation to issues such as skills, access to technology and support (highlighting how equality is different to equity which and requires considerations of needs as well as opportunities) (Reich and Ruipérez‐Valiente [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref14">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>In 'necessitia', allocating what is needed might be undertaken from the perspective of the state or the individual. The state—representing the collective interests of its people—for example, has a need for certain qualifications and professions to support the well‐being of its citizens. If society needs more doctors and teachers, the state simply offers more university places in those fields. Also, based on need, if an individual needs to live in a certain place due to their circumstances (such as caring responsibilities), they will obtain a university place where they need to be rather than being relocated to a different city. Institutions such as the Open University in the United Kingdom, which provide courses mostly with no entry requirements, are aspiring to be egalitarian in seeking to offer admissions to anyone who meets those basic requirements but also recognise that access alone is insufficient by offering support for success.</p> <p>There has been an increasing move in education away from simplistic conceptions of equality, and rejection of the idea that a 'level playing field' in higher education would allow disadvantaged groups to break away from intergenerational cycles of exclusion. The foundation for an equity approach was laid by Amartya Sen who argued for a focus on 'capability to function'—what a person can do and can be (Sen [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref15">64</reflink>]). From this perspective, access and ability to realise the opportunities from education are inseparable. Similarly, in addressing the challenges of inequality, Melanie Walker sees it as essential to make sure every individual in education has the capability as well as the opportunity of taking advantage of it (Walker [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref16">73</reflink>]). From the perspective of capabilities, the chance to go to higher education needs to be evaluated through a lens of both freedom to choose as well as the rationality of the choice. Individual capabilities are central to conceptions of advantage and disadvantage because taking a decision whether or not to access an opportunity is different to not being in a position to consider and option that is off‐limits. In 'desertia', people get what they deserve, that is, on the basis of 'merit'—and in education, this tends to be the deciding factor. What 'desertia' means can change across stages of schooling but also across time and space. In primary school, young children might all deserve a star for putting in the effort, regardless of whether they succeed. For university admissions, 'deserving' a place is likely to entail more than merely effort such as the ability to actually achieve good examination results or meeting some other criteria.</p> <p>Systems that distribute higher education on the basis of merit do not demonstrate a fixed or agreed definition of merit. For example, universities could decide that 50% of desert should be derived from grades and the other 50% from other factors (Schreurs et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref17">62</reflink>]). The model has also attracted a fair amount of academic and philosophical criticism because it privileges one particular type of merit (academic attainment) over other skills, knowledges, values and behaviour people have (Sandel [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref18">61</reflink>]): You could be high attaining but not use your skills to serve the common good; you could be generous and patient or really practically clever—highly sought after traits—without being an academic high‐flyer (Goodhart [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref19">25</reflink>]). The idea of using a prism or rainbow of different skills that represented different aspects of intelligence and there have been an attempt to use those in university admissions (Sternberg [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref20">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>The 'desertia' model contrasts with 'marketia' where providers sell education in a marketplace, and buyers can choose to consume it in an open exchange. A result of this market exchange is the stratification of universities with different education products on offer targeting different consumers and having different unique selling points. Readers will no‐doubt recognise systems they know which reflect this basic market‐driven framework. In the United Kingdom, the marketisation of higher education has been associated with the rise of a reputational hierarchy, and there is evidence that whilst a market in higher education may increase the efficiency of the system, it is less equitable (Brown and Carasso [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref21">14</reflink>]). Key issues in the marketisation debate are the tension between mass higher education and the amount of public funding required, and whether higher education should be considered as a private as well as a public good (views on which are likely to depend on who is benefiting most from the rewards of higher education). Wider considerations such as the ability of a country to pay the price for higher education—as well as the availability of resources for it at the individual level—may come into play since economic considerations are seen to drive competition between institutions in United Kingdom (particular the failure of the economy to grow at a sufficient rate to sustain the full range of government commitments, see Palfreyman and Tapper [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref22">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Educational theorists such as Sen and Walker reject the concept of the market in higher education policy, both as a legitimate framework for operations and as a symbol of the interests of students. Furthermore higher educations' role as gatekeeper for differentiation by exclusion and ranking is well‐understood. Bourdieu's exposure of how selection and categorisation work through the interactions between individual applicants and institutional processes showed how habitus result in a system of self‐perpetuating concentration of symbolic capital Bourdieu ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref23">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is noteworthy that countries seem to have a mixed version of these systems in operation simultaneously, yet the core emphasis might be different across countries. The United Kingdom and other OECD countries such as Germany, for example, generally require applicants to demonstrate merit by having passed the school‐leaving examination. We could call this 'desertia' open or some sort of minimum preparedness argument for accessing higher education. The average grade in the school‐leaving examination (Abitur) is a deciding factor in allocating places to oversubscribed courses such as medicine (desertia). At the same time, university students who 'need' to live at home due to caring responsibilities will be more likely to obtain a place at their local 'home' university (necessitia). Increasingly, students with insufficiently high grades to obtain a place for study this way—or indeed any student who chooses this route and can afford it—can enrol at a private fee‐paying university or study abroad.</p> <p>Taking an equity perspective increasingly advocates a focus on equality of outcomes as well as equal opportunity of access. Here, studies of student success in higher education have highlighted the role played by selection procedures in affecting retention patterns (mediated by social differences) (European Commission [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref24">20</reflink>]). Tighter student selection criteria are associated with improved retention rates and reduced social inequalities in dropout rates, and a predictor of differences between institutions as well as across countries (Iannelli, McMullin, and Smyth [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref25">34</reflink>]). These results spotlight the importance of admissions policies for continuity (and therefore success) in higher education, but what to make of these findings remains for policy makers to decide: Stricter selection criteria based on students' school attainment could be good for retention because students who have achieved academically appear better able to sustain in higher education. However, such an approach excludes other students why may be equally likely to success given the right support. This becomes a social justice issue since stricter selection criteria are associated with the most prestigious universities or certain disciplines with the most lucrative occupational returns (Belfield et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref26">4</reflink>]) but one that requires wide ranging institutional transformation of the selection and admissions processes, along with other differentiating factors such as the curriculum and the organisational culture.</p> <p>Having introduced different fundamental approaches to distribution (egalitaria, necessita, marketia and desertia), we now look at how contextual admissions, which is increasingly used with higher education admissions system in England and other countries, as a modification of the 'desertia' rationale.</p> <p>Role of contextual admissions where 'desertia' is the deciding factor in higher education admissions, the basis on which merit is decided becomes contentious because judging merit has to be seen as fair to be legitimate: 'Everyone agrees that applicants should be chosen on merit: the problem arises when we try to define it' (Schwartz [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref27">63</reflink>], 5). One typical standard for accountability and judgement is using previous academic performance as equivalent to merit and thus as a fair allocation mechanism. According to Rawls' famous veil of ignorance though experiment (Rawls [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref28">57</reflink>]), we would only subscribe to using examination results as a 'fair' allocation mechanism if everybody, regardless of circumstances, had the same opportunities open to them to achieve highly. As we witness, however, that there are factors beyond a persons' control—such as different access to social, cultural, economic capital, schooling opportunities and genetics. Thus, singling out attainment to allocate 'desert' has a questionable claim to being a fair allocation mechanism in an unequal society. In university admissions, it is not just a question of students being able to achieve to the same level in examinations, because social inequality factors mean some students are disadvantaged by lack of understanding of the requirements of higher education and are less supported in the application process (Green and Kynaston [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref29">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>The practice of contextual admissions—which is assessing applicants with reference to the context in which their attainment was achieved—offers a potential way for desertia to work more fairly by modifying the requirements for everybody to have achieved equally highly for university admissions. It does this, however, without challenging desertia as an allocation framework as such. Contextual admissions does not advocate for replacing 'desertia' with egalitaria or neccesita as a distributive rationale, whilst understanding that inclusivity is desirable and that educators need to meet the needs of the students including those facing educational disadvantages. The argument echoes the difference principle put forward by Rawls, which states that opportunities for those least well off should be maximised if this is compatible with maintaining equal basic liberties and fairness (Rawls [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref30">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>Concepts of 'desertia' become further enhanced in a sector that is interested in people's future potential as well as their past performance. The separation between past performance and future potential underpins equal opportunities and promotes social mobility. Educators in higher education traditionally argue that anyone with talent who is prepared to work hard can succeed. Indeed, universities are tasked with overcoming background disadvantages and nurturing talent so that deserving individuals can access the benefits and connections that higher level education conveys and their potential contribution to social progress is recognised (Kelly [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref31">38</reflink>]). Universities are vocal in asserting that it is not their role to compensate for structural disadvantages within social institutions including schools and colleges; however, they cannot ignore the flaws inherent in measuring desertia using admission criteria that favour individuals from socially advantaged groups: School attainment correlates strongly with social class. Other criteria such as interviews and personal statements also reflect the person's access to social and cultural capital. Moreover, there may be a limit to how far decisions about young people's critical life trajectories should be based on achievements during childhood. As well as the problem of social inequality in education, questions have been raised regarding how far some students who do less well at school are penalised for 'being too childish to acknowledge the importance of studying' (Harel Ben‐Shahar [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref32">29</reflink>], 8).</p> <p>Similar to contextual admissions, holistic admissions aims to give consideration to the 'whole applicant' and at some highly selective US institutions such as Harvard—possibly go furthest in acknowledging complex individual circumstances (Mountford‐Zimdars [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref33">45</reflink>]). Their approach allows applicants to tell their story in their own voice about their life experiences and how they have influenced them (institutions being 'needs blind' also helps with making higher education accessible regardless of economic circumstances, although this is overall a small minority of US institutions). Contextual admissions as presently customarily practiced tends to be focussed on contextualisation using standardised measures, which can be applied across applicants—for example, those relating to school and social context—although there could be holistic appreciation of other aspects of the application alongside this.</p> <p>The basic premise underpinning holistic assessment—and indeed contextual admissions in England—is that selective higher education providers 'purport to consider students' achievement in the context of the academic opportunities available' (Bastedo, Howard, and Flaster [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>]). For example, the director of admissions of the University of Santa Barbara in the United States, Susan Wilbur in the 1990s, stated how it was important to consider 'achievement in context', to avoid comparing 'a student who's attending a well‐resourced school with a student who may be attending a high school that offers few or no honours courses' (Foderaro [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref35">21</reflink>]). Added to these concerns about the lack of equivalence of education experiences of people from different social groups is the growing understanding about how higher education prospects are affected by a whole range of societial, familial and individual barriers to educational success.</p> <p>Situating contextual admissions in this space is helpful for understanding why the concept has attracted criticism from both, pure meritocrats and from those questioning desertia as an allocation mechanism. On the one hand, pure meritocrats advocate for a system where desertia = attainment and where it does not matter how this merit is achieved or whether the game playing to demonstrate merit systematically advantages certain people. How people get to be deserving is by the by. On the other hand, criticism also comes from those who would like a broadening of the allocation to desertia = a range of factors and by acknowledging individual contexts, enablers and barriers, hopes and aspirations through a truly individualised admissions system. Criticism also comes from those who advocate for a fundamentally different allocation mechanism for educational opportunities such as higher education based on, for example, selecting a group of people best placed to tackling collective challenges such as climate change. Here, a strong value compass and drive, the ability to collaborate in a team and work across disciplines as well as an ability to think outside the box would be more important than examination results.</p> <p>An increasing emphasis in western democracies on equality of opportunity has put into question processes, which privilege dominant social groups as leading to increased inequality: 'desertia' can be improved when taking into account the disadvantages some groups face, equality being the objective. Plus, promoting fairness also includes ensuring that individuals have the opportunity to develop to their potential, as distinct from past performance (i.e., spotting talent is legitimate).</p> <p>However, history tells us that holistic assessment can be as much an exclusionary as an inclusivity measure. The mapping of holistic assessment is perhaps most complete for the United States. A shortened account of higher education admissions in the United States would point to highlights such as the earlier inclusion of women into higher education than in Europe but also to the idea of grades determining who should be admitted to highly selective universities such as the Ivy League. Karabel's archival research on selective admissions then revealed how efforts of undertaking 'holistic assessments' introduced in the 1930s were a conscious move to protect privilege for the white anglo‐saxon protestant group: The 'desertia' model of good grades was too open, it allowed young people from Jewish backgrounds to gain access to elite universities in higher numbers than the establishment wished to see, thus introducing 'holistic' assessment including opaque categories such as 'sporting powers' was designed to reduce the number of Jewish students admitted (Karabel [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref36">37</reflink>]). Under affirmative action in the 1970s, holistic assessment was used to compensate for the historic disadvantages and exclusions Black students had suffered in higher education and open up the system by allowing them to enrol with lower grades than some of their white counterparts. As it was a flexible system, flexing academic attainment as a criterion, the children of—disproportionately affluent and White—alumni and donors also benefitted. Holistic assessment thus opened higher education, mirroring social change and at the same time appeased the most privileged group by giving them a way to maintain their advantaged position. It is thus likely that it shifted who 'missed out' on, for example, elite university places from Black students to lower class White students.</p> <p>Having reviewed different basic ideas around the distribution of societal goods, these frameworks can now aid us in understanding some of the policy antecedents of how we have arrived at the present state of play regarding fairness in university admissions. We now turn attention to the case of contextual admissions in England, as an example of how the philosophical and ideological debates influence the approach to admissions, which is also tempered by practical aspects associated with it, enactment in actual admissions policies and practices.</p> <hd id="AN0183952954-4">The Case of Contextual Admissions in England</hd> <p>English higher education has many stakeholders, and admissions are a matter of wide social interest. We begin by setting out the admissions context in England, identifying the drivers for contextual admissions, highlighting that by introducing a social dimension to the merit‐based system of distribution, contextual admissions offers English institutions an expanded definition of merit within admissions processes informed by an equal opportunities perspective. Based on empirical research undertaken with a sample of selective institutions, setting out the range challenges and procedural decisions faced by institutions seeking to operationalise contextual admissions in practice.</p> <p>In 2022, there were 409 HEPs in England (Atherton [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>]), and the numbers have increased rapidly in the last 10 years due to the expansion of private and alternative HE providers. Diversity of provision is a potential strength (Birnbaum [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>]), but a key feature of the English system is institutional differentiation with consequences for accessibility, the student experience and outcomes (Croxford and Raffe [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref39">17</reflink>]). English HEPs are self‐governing and noted for having more institutional autonomy, compared with their European counterparts (Pruvot and Estermann [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref40">56</reflink>]). Institutional autonomy over admissions decisions is enshrined in law. The contemporary English HE sector is close to equating achieved grades in national examinations with merit or 'desert', especially in universities with selective entry criteria (cf: Williams [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref41">74</reflink>]). Admissions selectors have traditionally focussed on academic credentials, reflecting the sectors meritocratic leanings. 'Desertia' being usually measured through past performance, with particular reference to success in examinations. Yet, even a short historical exploration shows that 'desertia' has been constructed in all sorts of way. For example, being a Catholic or nonconformist (Universities Tests Act [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref42">69</reflink>]) or a woman automatically made students 'undeserving' of all or particular forms of higher education (Howarth [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref43">33</reflink>]). The development towards greater inclusion shows on the one hand that the construction of 'desertia' or merit can and does evolve over time and that the construction of merit tends to mirror wider social trends—defining 'merit' is central and emerges as an essentially contested concept within this space (Gallie [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref44">24</reflink>]). Therefore, it not surprising that admissions to English universities have been an ongoing focus for those interested in distributive justice.</p> <p>An expansion of UK higher education provision in the 1960s was taken forward on the principle that university places should be available to all who were qualified for them by ability and attainment (Robbins [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref45">59</reflink>]). In 1992, universities and polytechnics were granted the same status, nominally moving to a unitary system of higher education although a de facto hierarchy continues to be seen through the stratification between 'higher' and 'lower' status universities (Boliver [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref46">7</reflink>]). Position in university league tables is an important marker of prestige, which institutions seek to maintain potentially at the cost of other objectives (Brown [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref47">13</reflink>]). Entry to the most prestigious universities is highly stratified on social class grounds: In 2021/2022, only 5.3% of young disadvantaged students (identified by eligibility for Free School Meals) progressed to a high tariff institution,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>] compared with 14.6% for all other pupils (DfE [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref49">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Tuition fees were introduced at the end of the 1990s to help address a funding crisis and since then the funding of undergraduate education has shifted from a system based of up‐front flat‐rates fees based on grants to a system of variable fees paid through income contingent loans (and incorporating both institutional fees and maintenance costs). This has been accompanied to loosening of government control of student numbers and an expansion of international student numbers as part of a market‐driven approach.</p> <p>Twenty years ago, the independent review of 'Fair Admissions in Higher Education'. reinforced the notion that 'desertia' should be the touchstone of admissions: 'If we have a fair admissions system, then success will not depend on connections, money or influence but on talent and motivation. This is a goal worth working towards'. (Schwartz [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref50">63</reflink>], 3). Schwartz reasserted the importance of prior qualifications as a predictor of success in undergraduate higher education but was clear that (i) educational and socioeconomic disadvantage affect pre‐entry achievement, (ii) the type of school attended affects the predictive validity of examination grades and (iii) other contextual factors are relevant (e.g., home responsibilities and interruptions to schooling) (21–23). The final report set out a number of beliefs to address such issues. These included the need for the contextual to be accurate and relevant and allow all applicants equal opportunity to demonstrate achievements and potential and the importance of individual rather than 'broad brush' approaches (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref51">6</reflink>). The circumstances where holistic assessment would be most relevant were defined as when it is unclear whether an applicant meets the necessary course entry requirements, when there are more qualified applicants than can be accommodated, or when applicants' suitability for some professions or courses is being assessed (<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref52">30</reflink>). Despite the most selective universities being a policy priority, the share of young UK‐domiciled students from areas classed as 'low participation neighbourhoods' entering universities with the highest third of entry tariffs increased from only 6% to 7% of the cohort between 2008/2009 and 2019/2020 (OfS [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref53">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>The contemporary process for making an application to full‐time undergraduate courses at English higher education institutions is mainly centralised through UCAS[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>] and proceeds in stages. Applicants make applications to up to five courses choices, usually aligning their grade predictions to the grade entry requirements since the majority of applicants apply prior to their Level 3[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>] qualification results being announced. Providers make decisions to offer a place (either conditionally or outright) based on the application, which includes a personal statement and reference, supplemented by institutional or course‐specific tests and requirements. Contextual data could be applied as an addition to the information in the application at this stage, including to make an offer or admit on a lower threshold (a 'differential offer'). Applicants then reply making a first and second choice. Places are confirmed after results are known (and providers have the opportunity of applying contextual data at this point as a lens through which to consider applicants who failed to reach the standard required). Those applicant who did not receive any offers of fell outside the grades specified in a conditional offer, have the option of entering into the 'clearing process' in order to take up available unfilled places (during which process contextual data could again be applied). Aspects of the English system are of particular note. First, basing decisions for full‐time undergraduate courses on teacher‐predicted grades, not confirmed examination results is an added complication when 'desertia' is being considered. The accuracy of the predictions, as well as the results themselves, can be affected by school/college background factors (Wyness [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref56">75</reflink>]). Second, given the range of vocational and academic routes through English education, equitable treatment needs to be given to those with nontraditional qualifications that do not fit with universities usual applicant profile. Third, threshold grade requirements for courses tend to be reviewed year on year in the light of demand for places, and grades are as much a filtering tool as a measure of course requirements. Admissions criteria related to achievement therefore tend to be rather fluid; in other words, there is a lottery of application year and demand and supply with regards to admissions even within a grade‐based system.</p> <p>The government is seeking to transform equality of opportunity and improve social mobility through widening participation in higher education (DfE [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref57">18</reflink>]). In England, higher education policy is delivered within a framework of regulation based on the Higher Education Research Act 2017, which established the Office for Students (OfS) as the regulator, together with a remit for financial support and other aspects of public concern such as quality assurance, increasing competition between providers and improving student choice (OfS [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref58">52</reflink>]). The moral and ethical arguments in favour of contextual admissions were endorsed by English higher education sector in a fair admissions code developed by the whole‐sector representative body Universities UK, which 100 providers voluntarily signed up to (UUK [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref59">70</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref60">71</reflink>]). The practice of contextual admissions has garnered support from think tanks and government bodies interested in its potential to drive forward social mobility (e.g., Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref61">66</reflink>]; All Party Parliamentary Group on Social Mobility [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>]). The OfS has also endorsed the practice (OfS [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref63">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>The response from the sector has been generally cautious: There are a range of concerns including the complexity in selecting contextual indicators and the risk of 'setting students up to fail' (Boliver and Powell [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref64">11</reflink>]). Providers have long been aware of 'missing potential' amongst candidates presenting for higher education, and some commentators locate the problems further down the pipeline than at the point of admissions (Harris [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref65">30</reflink>]; Sutton Trust [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref66">68</reflink>]). Even amongst students from different backgrounds with similar levels of attainment, there is relatively low progression for state school and college students. Various studies have highlighted the background effects, which include issues to do with education choices (Hayward, Ertl and Hoelscher [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref67">31</reflink>]), differences in support and guidance (Kintrea, St Clair, and Houston [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref68">39</reflink>]), and parental background (Ross and Lloyd [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref69">60</reflink>]). Around the same time, governmental research suggested that applicants from different education backgrounds were equally likely to receive an offer, once in the application pipeline (BIS [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref70">5</reflink>]). The inference is that many deserving students had a chance at higher education but were not sufficiently 'in the game'. In this context, widening participation outreach and recruitment become a priority as much as dealing with selection issues.</p> <p>Along with the policy drivers, other developments in the English higher education have created momentum for contextual admissions, notably:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> recruiting a more diverse 'non‐traditional' student body was central to meeting the policy expectations.</item> </ulist> <p>Whilst the model of state‐university relationships is led by the principle of autonomous governance of universities, funding mechanisms and regulatory instruments have steered the sector towards the national objectives and priorities for widening participation in higher education. The Dearing Report (National Committee of Inquiry into HE, 1997) put outreach as a policy objective through a series of funded initiatives. There has also been a strong political interest in 'fair access' (improving prospects for students to get the 'best' university for them (UUK 2008)). The Office for Students (OfS) currently holds the remit to hold universities to account for student equality, diversity and inclusion.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The Links Between Selection and Outcomes Has Been Increasingly Recognised</item> </ulist> <p>Investments into higher education have increasingly stressed the 'student journey' or 'lifecycle' approach, which focusses not only on university access but also on success in their studies and attainment as well as progression into the labour market such as graduate‐level employment. This policy environment has encouraged collaborative working across operational functions within higher education institutions, that is, between outreach, admissions professionals, teaching and career practitioners. Such approaches demand more consistent and integrated approaches to how universities contextualise the young people they come into contact with and strategic thinking behind what they are offering/delivering to whom. The introduction of a formal requirement for higher education providers to submit statistics as well as an account of their practice to the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) measures how successful providers are in supporting success for all students; to achieve the desirable 'TEF Gold' badge, no student group must be left behind in achieving good outcomes in higher education and beyond.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Changes to Equalities Legislation Put the Focus on Inclusivity</item> </ulist> <p>The Equality Act ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref71">19</reflink>]) combined antidiscrimination and equality legislation and emphasised requirements for organisations such as higher education providers to uphold the rights of social groups across protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex). Whilst social class‐based discrimination is not enshrined in English law—attempts have been made in South Africa to do so—the higher education sector recognises the impact of social class on educational opportunities. Indeed, whilst previously institutions might have worried that CA policies might lead to accusations of 'social‐engineering', the changing policy and social environment mean that increasingly a greater risk is perceived from being viewed as elitist and inaccessible.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Contextual Admissions Played Into Marketisation of Higher Education</item> </ulist> <p>In the last 20 years, the sector has transitioned into an environment characterised by deregulation and increased competition, forcing institutions to make adjustments, particularly in terms of marketing and recruitment. Market forces create competition, including competition for high achieving students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Institutions are increasingly keen to differentiate themselves and are positioning themselves in different ways—with reference to history, mission, specialisation/portfolio, professions and so on. Such considerations influence the way in which providers shape their offer, the lens through which they look at their entry criteria and the effort afforded towards appealing to different groups. Such developments have driven forward CA policies in some situations, for example, amongst institutions looking at ways of 'locking‐in' the most promising candidates during the application process to meet institutional needs, perhaps rather than supporting young people in making the best choices for their aspirations. In other situations, however, universities have become more cautious, especially the universities that are fearful about the potentially damaging effects on market position if changes to their student profile feed through into university ranking systems that gives extra points for high grades as an entry requirement. Reduced offer entry students may become more risky because of the threat it poses to the position in 'the league'.</p> <p>Providers with the highest entry grades have the highest number of high achieving applicants and the perceived risks may be greater. However, sticking to narrow criteria (with a focus on grades alone) risks restricting the pool of potential applicants in scope. In a competitive market, 'fixed' ideas of fairness go out of the window since who selectors make offers to fluctuates over time depending on competitiveness, institutional needs and supply/demand for places. The sense emerges that there is leeway for selectors to take a rather pragmatic approach to who could be a successful student (apart from those who use a model of 'minimum preparedness' such as Edinburgh [Mountford‐Zimdars et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref72">47</reflink>]]).</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Operational Changes in Admissions Systems Gave More Scope for Contextual Data to Be Applied</item> </ulist> <p>The general trend towards the centralisation of admissions processes, which has been observed amongst English higher education providers, has probably supported CA for several reasons. Central systems make it easier to apply data consistently and help to ensure better collated management information on the applications received and the offers made, to whom, throughout the applications cycle. This helps selectors to refine their approaches.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> More Contextual Datasets Became Available</item> </ulist> <p>Along with increasingly sophisticated management, information systems has been the growth of contextual datasets. Potential sources include external data matched to the applicant—such as educational, geodemographic and socioeconomic background data, and data on engagement in widening participation outreach. UCAS (the centralised application system) provides certain information as a matter of course, and several public and commercial datasets are available. Universities themselves have developed bespoke data from a range of sources (e.g., Skyrme and Crow [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref73">65</reflink>]; Chetwynd [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref74">15</reflink>]). The various types of data have probably helped to concretise and operationalise generalised notions of 'necessitia' and 'desertia' linking to key markers of disadvantage, which have become prevalent in the sector, alongside finer‐tuned conceptions based on specific individual circumstances. Contextual datasets are well‐intentioned but not unproblematic (discussed further below).</p> <hd id="AN0183952954-5">Practices to Operationalise Contextual Admissions</hd> <p>The English higher education sector is extremely diverse and features a myriad of approaches to contextualisation, which reflect the diversity of institutional contexts, and their local opportunities and constraints. This context offers fertile ground for exploring the underpinning conceptualisations of 'desertia' that are being played out through the mechanisms of contextualisation. In this section, we identify the challenges involved in operationaling contextual data policies and identify where more work is needed in order for the promise of fairness in admissions to be realised in practice.</p> <p>One could argue that contextualising applicants has always been part of the process of making a professional judgement. What is new is the formal application of information and data underpinned by published contextual data policies and procedures. This now appears fairly commonplace especially in selective institutions—the main subjects being applicants to full‐time courses at providers with high entry grades. However, slow progress has been noted in the most competitive courses, which have 'traditional' notions regarding entry pathway and the prior knowledge and skills required to succeed (Kandiko Howson, Cohen, and Viola [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref75">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>The practice of adjusting the offer ('differential offers') is not widespread. Opponents fear making adjustments to the criteria could disincentivise high performance, or lead applicants to accept the contextual offer as a second ('insurance' choice rather than as a firm choice). From the provider side, concerns have also been raised about the reputational damage that might result from making reduced offers since grades on entry is usually a metric included in university league‐table rankings—leading some to argue that sector‐wide movement on differential offers would be beneficial as part of calls for much more use of reduced entry requirements for disadvantaged learners in order to achieve access targets nationally (Boliver and Powell [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref76">10</reflink>], Boliver, Gorard, and Siddiqui [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref77">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Challenges experienced by English universities who have operationalised contextual admissions are now discussed.</p> <p>The application of contextual data increases the administrative burden.</p> <p>The Schwartz vision of contextualisation was based on fine‐grained understanding of the contextual factors at play for individual applicants. The burden and resource implications were recognised in the narrative (and Schwartz suggested using CA initially at the margins for borderline candidates) (Schwartz [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref78">63</reflink>], 6). The administrative burden becomes more difficult for institutions seeking to balance individualise holistic approaches to selection with increasing pressure for consistency and transparency, whilst streamlining admission decision‐making, especially in those institutions where the number of applications far out‐strips the number of higher education places.</p> <p>Methods for identifying 'desertia' are contested.</p> <p>Some inequalities will be outside the domain of a formalised CA process, but there is ongoing debate about which factors to consider significant in the definition of merit. Schwartz directed selectors to consider 'hard' quantifiable measures as well as qualitative assessment (Schwartz [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref79">63</reflink>], 24). The measures are debated given various data accuracy issues (Table 2) including: poor reliability in reflecting an applicants' actual circumstances; timeliness of data (e.g., data based on the previous years' cohort); partial coverage of data; and transparency issues (unclear data or inaccessible outside the institution).</p> <p>2 TABLE Conceptions of disadvantage and their contextual sources.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Conception of disadvantage</th><th align="center">Types of data</th><th align="center">Sources (<italic>and criticism</italic>)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Individual challenges and responsibilities</td><td align="center">Individual level data (self‐report)</td><td align="center">Application forms (reliability), mitigating circumstances (coverage)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Disadvantage due to lack of access to the types of familial social, cultural and economic capital that support HE progression</td><td align="center">Individual level data (self‐report)</td><td align="center">Higher education background questions in application forms (reliability), student finance data (timeliness)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Educational disadvantage exam results misrepresenting ability due to a school/college penalty</td><td align="center">School‐/college‐level data</td><td align="center">School/college profiles, performance league tables (coverage, timeliness)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Disadvantage in the application process due to lack of access to appropriate application support gaps</td><td align="center">School‐/college‐level data</td><td align="center">School/college profiles, performance league tables (coverage, timeliness)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Social and economic disadvantages</td><td align="center">Area‐based measures of wealth and class</td><td align="center">Multiple deprivation measures (public), market profiling (commercial) (reliability, validity, transparency)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Disadvantage due to lack of exposure to higher education</td><td align="center">Area‐based measures of higher education take‐up</td><td align="center">OfS datasets based on participation rates (reliability, timeliness)</td></tr><tr><td align="center">School/college measures of HE progression</td><td align="center">School/college progression data (coverage, timeliness)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cumulative definition of competitive disadvantages in higher education admissions</td><td align="center">Compositive data/points systems</td><td align="center">Data based on sophisticated statistical modelling techniques (such as the Multiple Equality Measure [MEM]) (transparency)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Contextualised through a track‐record of engagement in WP outreach</td><td align="center">WP outreach data</td><td align="center">Outreach scheme participation datasets (coverage)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A review of contextual data found some 28 categories of indicators in use across the sector (with within category differences in definitions used and thresholds). Gorard, Boliver, and Siddiqui ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref80">26</reflink>]). Eligibility for Free School Meals, verified at the individual level, was identified as the only trustworthy measure of disadvantage. Despite the increasing number and sophistication of the data systems used in higher education, contextualisation often relies on 'proxy' indicators rather than accurate and verified individual‐level data.</p> <p>The thorny issues involved in different datasets have been extensively explored elsewhere (Gorard et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref81">27</reflink>]; Gorard, Boliver, and Siddiqui [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref82">26</reflink>]). Using area‐based information (e.g., matching a person's postcode to HE participation data) may be particularly flawed, due to reliability issues and the perversity of identifying disadvantage based on patterns of progression applied to candidates who have already risen above their background characteristics (Moore, Higham, and Mountford‐Zimdars [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref83">43</reflink>]). Even use of school based data is problematic because of the timelines—the data available for use in the application such as deprivation and attainment profiles is usually out of date (i.e., inferences have to be drawn on how the school performed the previous year). Coverage is a particularly difficult concern in the context of England because a lot of data available for some candidates is not collected in the same way for others—for example, data on students and schools in England differ from that available in other parts of the United Kingdom. The type of data sources used has implications for the external transparency to applicants themselves—for example, students are able to look up some data themselves (e.g., governmental deprivation statistics) but are unable to access other sources (e.g., commercial datasets) and the complexity of the methodology by which some indicators are developed can make them less accessible outside of the institution. To be most reliable, the data and information would need to be individually and externally verified—which is rarely possible—processes for checking are problematic apart from in relation to relatively uncommon factors, which could be followed up a verified through official sources such as whether an applicant has spent time in the social care system. Interviews with selectors suggest that inaccuracy of a few percentage points is considered acceptable (and some try to mitigate by triangulating several sources) (Moore, Mountford‐Zimdars, and Wiggans [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref84">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>Depending on the measures used, different aspects of disadvantage are prioritised, see Table 2. Conceptions based on the individual factors comes close to see a 'mitigating factors' rationale for contextual data. Use of measures of education deprivation directly address the inequality embedded in education and transferred between educational phases. Use of family and area‐based measures bring in conceptions around applicants' position in relation to the kinds of social, cultural and financial capital traditionally required in higher education (cf. Bourdieu [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref85">12</reflink>]). Blending of individual, institutional and area‐level factors creates ambiguity around the notion of disadvantage (Boliver et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref86">9</reflink>]). The variation seen across the sector highlight the ideological differences in the discourse, as well as the potential for inaccurate inferences. Plus, there are clearly tensions between contextual admissions and the 'desertia' model of fair admissions if universities are willing to sacrifice some potentially equally, if not more deserving disadvantaged candidates, in favour of those that are more easily identifiable.</p> <p> <emph>The evidence for contextual admissions is variable and hard to interpret</emph> Measuring the implications of contextual admissions requires sophisticated approaches to evaluation. Evaluation needs to take account of: whether or not contextual information and data were relevant to one or more of the decisions taking during the processing of the application; whether the data were accurate; whether contextualisation was needed given the strength of the application relative to the admissions criteria and pool of applications for the course; and the outcomes achieved by contextualised students through higher education relative to non‐contextualised students in the same cohort. Studies have pointed to the special challenges that lower socioeconomic group students face, their level of preparedness for HE study, issues related to 'tacit' knowledge of the HE game and their sense of belonging as members in the academy. Such issues create problems for contextual admissions since it becomes difficult to evidence whether student outcomes reflect 'desert' and ability or how negative institutional and environmental factors play out for nontraditional students entering academia.</p> <p>The generation of evidence is complex, requiring linked systems and the capacity to flag and track individuals from application through their student journey. The nature of the challenge is affected by the institutional data systems. For example, systems that allocate applicants a contextual flag will allow for systematic data than systems that manually flag only some groups of applicants. A comprehensive approach to evidence would combine data at admissions with undergraduate outcomes data and would require a consistent approach to contextualisation, and analysis that takes account of the confounding factors. Controlling for levels of prior attainment and unpicking the implications of both entry grades and disadvantage for oncourse results appears particularly problematic, as borne out in the outcome analysis in this issue.</p> <p>Effective evaluation of the impacts of CA and the implications for student success is an area that would definitely benefit from further consideration and the development of shared methods and tools.</p> <hd id="AN0183952954-6">Transparency in Admissions Can Be Compromised</hd> <p>Without potential applicants and their advisors knowing what, and how, contextual data will be used the benefit of widening the pool of applicants is likely to be wasted. Transparency becomes a contextual admission challenge due to the difficulties in communicating to applicants the complexities of administering contextualised decision‐making on the ground (as well as issues to do with external transparency and availability of data). Some selectors in highly competitive regimes have preferred a targeted approach to communication (e.g., to particular schools/colleges or outreach cohorts). Concerns about widely communicating contextual admissions policies seem to come from all sides: due to the dangers of inflating demand for places or generating false expectations amongst disadvantaged candidates, appearing to patronise hard working disadvantaged students who value their achievement of a place at a high‐ranking university or upsetting relatively privileged applicants who believe that having worked (and possibly paid) for their education they are more deserving than potentially less well‐qualified candidates. Given these issues that individual universities have with transparency, it is little wonder that sector‐wide transparency is compromised.</p> <p>The practice of admitting students experiencing education disadvantage on lower grades at confirmation stage—whilst supportive of access—lacks transparency since the many applicants who might have got a place at that level of prior attainment would not have been encouraged to apply. This type of contextualisation does little to increase the diversity of the applications received and is unfair to those who might have been considered but did not apply because they perceived the threshold to be too high.</p> <p>Better positive promotion of CA is needed to potential applicants and those supporting their education journey (Mountford‐Zimdars, Moore, and Higham [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref87">48</reflink>]). The language of CA is not well‐understood outside the sector pointing to the need to agree a shared terminology that is also accessible to schools and students.</p> <hd id="AN0183952954-7">Procedural Decisions Affect How Contextual Data Makes a Difference</hd> <p>Contextual data have the potential to be used during each stage of the application decision‐making process, depending on the providers' objectives and preferred approach. Table 3 unpicks ways in which CA takes place in different contexts, the anticipated results and the assumptions underpinning the approaches. Whilst the aim of 'desertia' is foregrounded, this does not always play out through the adjustment of offers. Research in the sector suggests a somewhat conservative approach to differential (reduced) offers with an average reduction for applicants from low participation neighbourhoods (LPN) of only half an A level grade (little different to concessions awarded other students) (Crawford et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref88">16</reflink>]). The range of approaches demonstrates that contextual admissions play different roles, including as part of an integrated outreach and recruitment approach, and as part of student support strategies. Whilst 'desertia' comes out as the main function, there are also clear links to distributive decisions reflecting the needs some disadvantaged candidates as they navigate the application process ('necessitia') and the desirability (from an institutional perspective) of mitigations, which strengthen the most unequivocally disadvantaged candidates ability to compete. For example, care experienced and refugee status students who are often afforded guaranteed additional consideration.</p> <p>3 TABLE Approaches to application of contextual information and data throughout the applications cycle.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Application stage</th><th align="center">Uses</th><th align="center">Result</th><th align="center">Assumptions</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Initial assessment</td><td align="center">Initial selection (first sift)</td><td align="center">Short‐listing</td><td align="center">Boost the pool of applicants to be considered</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Avoid missing out on 'hidden' potential</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Help to ensure candidates for consideration reflect the institutional priorities</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Contextualise applications and personal statements<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="center">Further consideration</td><td align="center">Enable selectors to take account of the effects of background/ cultural factors and relative low school/college proficiency in supporting students to make applicants and provide statements</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Identify mitigating circumstances</td><td align="center">Further consideration</td><td align="center">Allowance for applicants who have more mitigating circumstances such as more responsibilities at home, interrupted educational experience and so on</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Identify applicants who have taken part in WP outreach</td><td align="center">Further consideration</td><td align="center">Help universities to support 'return on investment' in outreach</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Application of additional UCAS points<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">Help selectors to identify candidates with good academic potential for success in higher education</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Contextualise interviews and other admissions requirements (e.g., auditions, portfolio based assessments and tests)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="center">Additional consideration</td><td align="center">Mitigate for relative poor performance in interviews and tests due to applicants circumstance and lack of experience</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Offer making</td><td align="center">Decide which candidates with predicted grades<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /> which match entry criteria to make a conditional offer to<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">Standard conditional offer</td><td align="center">Diversification of the applicant profile of offers made</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Trigger for tailored communications materials</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Secure conversion of offers to places</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Used to make a conditional offer to candidates above the level of their predicted grades</td><td align="center">Aspirational conditional offer</td><td align="center">Diversification of the applicant profile of offers made</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Trigger for tailored communications materials</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Encouragement to potential students to motivate them towards educational success (or at least avoid de‐incentivising them to do well in examinations</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Used to make an unconditional offer (or change a standard or aspirational offer to unconditional once accepted)</td><td align="center">Unconditional offer</td><td align="center">Diversification of the applicant profile of offers made</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Trigger for tailored communications materials</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Secure conversion of offers to places</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Differential Reduced offers/algorithms (subsequent rounds, or borderline candidates?)</td><td align="center">Differential offer</td><td align="center">Spotting potential beyond grades under‐representing 'true' HE potential (measured through performance of similar previous entrants)</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Trigger for tailored communications materials</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Help to secure conversion of offers to places</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Confirmation stage</td><td align="center">Used to admit applicants who have not met the conditions (when examination results are known)</td><td align="center">Additional consideration</td><td align="center">Safety net for people who have less stable backgrounds which may affect results</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Clearing stage<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">To identify candidates for under‐subscribed courses</td><td align="center">Deciding who to offer to during clearing</td><td align="center">Diversification of the student body</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Avoid missing out on 'hidden' potential</td></tr><tr><td align="left">UCAS adjustment process (up to 2021)</td><td align="center">Used to give students who had exceeded their expected grades a short period to explore other options with higher entry requirements without affecting the offer held. From 2022 onwards applicants wishing to change their choice now decline the offer and resubmit through the clearing process.</td><td align="center">Students who achieve to a higher level reconsider their options</td><td align="center">Students whose grades exceed their predictions should have the chance to 'trade‐up' their course choices</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student support</td><td align="center">To target transition support to applicants with confirmed places</td><td align="center">Targeting of transition support</td><td align="center">Help to ensure nontraditional students have the best chance of success</td></tr><tr><td align="center">To support the student experience once students take up a place</td><td align="center">Targeting of academic and personal support</td><td align="center">Help to ensure nontraditional students have the best chance of success</td></tr><tr><td align="center">To monitor how different groups of student fare throughout the applications and admission stages</td><td align="center">Management information and reporting</td><td align="center">Enable selectors to adapt their approaches to better ensure diversification of offers and acceptances</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Provide robust reasons for rejection and help inform feedback to applicants</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Can help providers to improve information, advice and guidance</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 a For example by applying an uplift in scoring processes for personal statements.</item> <item>3 b Some universities run schemes, which enable them to apply additional UCAS tariff points to outreach participants who have demonstrated academic potential during outreach programmes, for example, through completion of an additional piece of academic work. The UCAS tariff points system translates applicants' qualifications and grades into a comparative numerical value.</item> <item>4 c For example using trained interviewers who understand how background could affect relative performance or the separation of different groups of applicants by background when ranking performance in tests to enable closer 'like with like' assessment.</item> <item>5 d Most admissions decisions to full‐time undergraduate courses are based on teacher predicted grades, and applicants have to wait until school and college examination results are published to find out if they have met the conditions of an offer.</item> <item>6 e For example applying an uplift to contextually flagged applicants in the ranking process within a gathered field.</item> <item>7 f Clearing is the stage at the end of the application cycle when universities with unfilled places provide potential students with the opportunity to apply for the places which haven't yet been filled.</item> </ulist> <p>Applicants are inevitably in competition with each other—so how their application is viewed—and indeed the threshold at which selectors set the criteria—will be underpinned by an assessment of the state of the market for places amongst the applicant cohort for any particular course. Decision‐makers often have to factor in estimates of the likely 'conversion rates' of how many will take up an offer of a place. Therefore, the types of offers made could change throughout the course of the application process if selectors decide to take account of the patterns emerging earlier on in the process (e.g., if places remain unfilled). Differences in how similar candidates are treated at different types suggests a dynamic notion of 'desertia' within market‐based systems. Practices such as tying CA to a first‐choice application or making offers conditions on applicants confirming their entry reminds us that universities are subject to 'marketia'.</p> <hd id="AN0183952954-8">Discussion</hd> <p>We have argued that higher education admission selection decisions need to be contextualised as a specific approach designed to improve the fairness of the 'desertia' model of allocating university places based on the tradition in political thought of creating a society in which resources are distributed according to desert. CA does so by softening the definition of merit to take into account future potential to achieve and by taking into account the distance different individuals have travelled to arrive at their individual grades which indicate their 'merit'. However, the application of contextual data in practice faces a number of challenges and procedural issues. There are no easy solutions—conceptions of contextual admissions within different HE systems and different HEIs reveal a range of contrasting approaches to social justice, plus most systems and different HEIs recognise that admissions decisions will have only limited impact whilst broader structural inequalities and power relations continue to exist.</p> <p>To date, the use of CA as practiced in the English context has done little to shift the overall profile of higher education students in England: In 2021/2022, independent school A level students were twice as likely as state school students to progress to high tariff HE by age 19 (63.2% vs. 30.4%) meaning a gap of 32.8 ppt (up from 31.2 ppt the previous year) (DfE [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref89">18</reflink>]). Moreover, CA is limited as a tool for widening access and promoting genuinely better choices and opportunities to thrive for young people. On selective higher education courses, the privileging of academic merit as the sorting principle for 'desertia' remains unchallenged as the key allocation mechanism for distributing spaces, even if slightly modified in light of background disadvantages. University self‐interest in meeting widening participation and monitoring targets also does not necessarily align with the genuine interest of potential applicants. It is also not necessarily judged worthwhile for universities to get a more complete picture of the characteristics of each individual applicant or to endeavour to deeply understand alternative mechanisms of supporting learning gain and success at university when institutions are measured against quantifiable targets. The seemingly most 'deserving' applicants who mirror groups who've achieved success in the past can be helicoptered out (Mountford‐Zimdars, Gaulter, and Harrison [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref90">46</reflink>]), undeserving applicants are left to their fate—not supported in their choices because this is not considered within the university's remit.</p> <p>Within the framework of CA, there is ample scope for enhancing the mechanism and processes underpinning the application of CA. The regulator for higher education in England has offered some pointers for enhancing practices: ensure that data about contextual information is accessible; use individualised data; take a whole institution approach to support; evaluate policies (OfS [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref91">50</reflink>]). However, as we have seen in the present special issue, the use of contextual data in English university admissions is enormously varied, and the benefits to applicants (and institutions) can vary. There is little consensus around the selection of data or how to apply it. Using CA to make differential offers is the most unequivocable way of actively compensating for education disadvantages. Weaker 'additional consideration' approaches only influence the profile of admissions decisions at the margins.</p> <p>The OfS is calling for universities to take a more radical approach to use of contextual admissions, including rethinking the role of exams in signalling merit (OfS [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref92">49</reflink>]). If the higher education system in England remains wedded to selection based on achievement which is differentiated by socioeconomic factors, the impact of contextual data is likely to remain marginal. Contextual admissions support selection decisions within the body of potential students who have already applied (i.e., are already well motivated with the prospect of education in their educational sights). Those groups whose disadvantages meant they failed to even make it through to the end of postcompulsory education, or chose an alternative route aged 16, continue to remain out of scope.</p> <p>Simply providing more information, advice and guidance about higher education is also insufficient. A more radical approach, perhaps building on the capabilities model that enables people to take advantage of opportunities is needed. Focussing on modifications to the 'desertia' model largely bypasses debates of whether models based on the principles in egalitarian or necessitia or marketia could be alternative ways of allocating places: debates around CA and HA are very much contested as it is. This is a missed opportunity to think about how individualised admissions systems generally are perhaps missing to support tackling collective challenges like climate change: here, success is a strong value compass, collaboration, interdisciplinarity and innovation—none of which are explicitly picked up through the present desertia admissions model.</p> <p>What would proper holistic support for 'deserving' educationally disadvantaged potential higher education students look like from an applicant perspective? Clarity on the requirements and understanding of how they will be treated might be the first expectation. The use of minimum thresholds, which reflect the level of achievement actually required for a highly competitive course, as well as the 'standard' offer, has been heralded as making a step change for transparency and understanding amongst potential applicants. In Scotland, this approach has fed through into increases in the proportion of students from disadvantaged areas in the selective universities (OfS [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref93">49</reflink>]). Such an approach signals a move to conceptions of 'desertia' linked to what is required of students, rather than inflating the criteria to meet the perceived needs of the institution (e.g., to restrict the pool of applicants or signal market prestige).</p> <p>Going even further, a system that has an interest in recognising talent in a broad sense, supporting everyone in society to flourish and live the lives they want, might also be on the wish list. This would require earlier intervention than the point of higher education admissions, including offering support in imaging lives they may not have direct experience of, as part of a process of identity creation and understanding of possibilities for the future. This is no easy task, but universities are in a position to deliver, given their routes into outreach from early education upwards, their touch points throughout lifelong learning, and their institutional teams dedicated to supporting the fulfilment of individual potential and removing barriers to success. The paradigm shift implied for university selection teams would be to support individuals as they are—rather than fitting them into the existing ideal—and investing in them over time—rather than expecting them to turn up in the admissions process already suitably polished.</p> <p>Thinking about what counts as distributive justice is important since normative values in social systems have been said to be fundamental to the way decision‐makers perceive reality (Jervis [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref94">35</reflink>]). Therefore, conceptions of what is valued in higher education might inform how academics think about students and what they perceive the role of higher education to be. Let us hope universities implement more progressive and imaginative approaches which widens participation—likely through more ambitious CA and HA policies but perhaps also by radically rethinking to what extent notions of necessitia and egalitarian could enhance fair admissions.</p> <hd id="AN0183952954-9">Author Contributions</hd> <p> <bold>Joanne Moore:</bold> conceptualization, investigation, writing – original draft, methodology, writing – review and editing, formal analysis, project administration, data curation. <bold>Anna Mountford‐Zimdars:</bold> conceptualization, investigation, writing – original draft, methodology, writing – review and editing, formal analysis, project administration, supervision.</p> <hd id="AN0183952954-10">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>The authors have nothing to report.</p> <hd id="AN0183952954-11">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0183952954-12">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.</p> <ref id="AN0183952954-13"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref48" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Defined as an institution in the top third by average UCAS tariff on entry.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref37" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Allows students to apply to multiple universities and colleges with a single application form, see: https://<ulink href="http://www.ucas.com/">www.ucas.com/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref34" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Level 3 qualifications are advanced level academic and vocational qualifications taken by post‐16 students.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref26" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0183952954-14"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> All‐Party Parliamentary Group on Social Mobility. 2017. The Classceiling: Increasing Access to the Leading Professions. London : Sutton Trust. https://<ulink href="http://www.suttontrust.com/wp‐content/uploads/2019/12/APPG‐on‐Social‐Mobility%5fReport%5fFINAL.pdf">www.suttontrust.com/wp‐content/uploads/2019/12/APPG‐on‐Social‐Mobility%5fReport%5fFINAL.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Atherton, G., J. Lewis, and P. Bolton. 2023. Higher Education in the UK: Systems, Policy Approaches, and Challenges. London : House of Commons Briefing Number 9640. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP‐9640/CBP‐9640.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bastedo, M. N., J. E. Howard, and A. Flaster. 2016. " Holistic Admissions After Affirmative Action: Does "Maximizing" the High School Curriculum Matter? " Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 38, no. 2 : 389 – 409. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716642407.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Belfield, C., J. Britton, F. Buscha, et al. 2018. The Relative Labour Market Returns to Different Degrees. London : Department for Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref70" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> BIS/Sutton Trust. 2009. " Applications, Offers and Admissions to Research‐Led Universities." BIS Research Paper no. 5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref38" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Birnbaum, R. 1983. Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education. San Francisco : Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref46" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Boliver, V. 2015. " Are There Distinctive Clusters of Higher and Lower Status Universities in the UK? " Oxford Review of Education 41, no. 5 : 608 – 627. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1082905.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref77" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Boliver, V., S. Gorard, and N. Siddiqui. 2019. " Using Contextual Data to Widen Access to Higher Education." Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education 25 : 7 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2019.1678076.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref86" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Boliver, V., S. Gorard, and N. Siddiqui. 2015. " Will the Use of Contextual Indicators Make UK Higher Education Admissions Fairer? " Education Sciences 5, no. 4 : 306 – 322. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci5040306.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boliver, V., and M. Powell. 2021. Fair Admission to Universities in England: Improving Policy and Practice. Public Report. London : Nuffield Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boliver, V., and M. Powell. 2023. " Competing Conceptions of Fair Admission and Their Implications for Supporting Students to Fulfil Their Potential at University." Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education 27, no. 1 : 8 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2022.2063429.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bourdieu, P. 1996. The State of Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, R. 2006. " League Tables—Do We Have to Live With Them? Perspectives: Policy and Practicesin." Higher Education 10 : 33 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, R., and H. Carasso. 2013. " Everything for Sale? The Marketisation of UK Higher Education." Higher Education 66 : 641 – 643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734‐013‐9633‐9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chetwynd, P. 2011. A* at A‐Level as a Predictor of Tripos Performance: An Initial Analysis. Cambridge : University of Cambridge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crawford, C., L. Dearden, J. Micklewright, and A. Vignoles. 2016. Family Background and University Success: Differences in Higher Education Access and Outcomes in England. Oxford : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Croxford, L., and D. Raffe. 2015. " The Iron Law of Hierarchy? Institutional Differentiation in UK Higher Education." Studies in Higher Education 40, no. 9 : 1625 – 1640. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.899342.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DfE. 2023. " Widening Participation in Higher Education 2021/22." Accessed Novermber 12, 2023. https://explore‐education‐statistics.service.gov.uk/find‐statistics/widening‐participation‐in‐higher‐education/2021‐22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Equality Act. 2010. Accessed Novermber 12, 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality‐act‐2010‐guidance">www.gov.uk/guidance/equality‐act‐2010‐guidance</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> European Commission. 2015. Dropout and Completion in Higher Education in Europe. Luxembourg : European Commission.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foderaro, L. W. 2009. " The Whole Applicant." The New York Times, ED25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman, B. 2015. " Who to Admit, How and at Whose Expense? International Comparative Review of Higher Education Admissions Policies." Unpublished Paper. Accessed September 19, 2024. https://<ulink href="http://www.academia.edu/19668099/Who%5fto%5fadmit%5fhow%5fand%5fat%5fwhose%5fexpenseInternational%5fcomparative%5freview%5fof%5fhigher%5feducationadmissions%5fpolicies">www.academia.edu/19668099/Who%5fto%5fadmit%5fhow%5fand%5fat%5fwhose%5fexpenseInternational%5fcomparative%5freview%5fof%5fhigher%5feducationadmissions%5fpolicies</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman, B. 2020. " Admissions Processes to Higher Education, International Insights." In The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions, edited by P. N. Teixeira and J. C. Shin. Dordrecht : Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐017‐8905‐9_341.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallie, W. B. 1956. " Essentially Contested Concepts." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 : 167 – 198.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodhart, D. 2020. Head Hand Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century. London : Allen Lane.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorard, S., V. Boliver, and N. Siddiqui. 2018. " How Can Contextualised Admissions Widen Participation? " In Achieving Equity and Quality in Higher Education. Palgrave Studies in Excellence and Equity in Global Education, edited by M. Shah and J. McKay. Cham : Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐78316‐1_14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorard, S., V. Boliver, N. Siddiqui, and P. Banerjee. 2017. " Which Are the Most Suitable Contextual Indicators for Use in Widening Participation to HE? " Research Papers in Education 34 : 1 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1402083.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, F., and D. Kynaston. 2019. Engines of Privilege: Britain's Private School Problem. London : Bloomsbury Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/dbaa008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harel Ben‐Shahar, T. 2023. " Merit, Opportunity, and the Future of Higher Education." In Handbook of Equality of Opportunity, edited by M. Sardoč. Cham : Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐52269‐2_92‐1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, M., and Director of Fair Access. 2010. What More Can Be Done to Widen Access to Highly Selective Universities? Bristol : OFFA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayward, G., H. Ertl, and M. Hoelscher. 2008. Degrees of Success: The Transition Between VET and HE: Full Research Report. ESRC End of Award Report, RES‐139‐25‐0238. Swindon : ESRC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helms, R. M. 2008. University Admission Worldwide. Education Working Paper Series Number—15. Washington : World Bank.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howarth, J. 2000. " 'In Oxford but...Not of Oxford': The Women's Colleges'." In The History of the University of Oxford: Volume VII: Nineteenth‐Century Oxford, Part 2, History of the University of Oxford (Oxford, 2000; Online Edn, Oxford Academic, 3 Oct. 011), edited by M. G. Brock and M. C. Curthoys. Oxford : Oxford University press. Accessed November 10, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199510177.003.0010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iannelli, C., P. McMullin, and E. Smyth. 2024. " Higher Education Retention in Ireland and Scotland: The Role of Admissions Policies." Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734‐024‐01259‐1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jervis, R. 1998. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kandiko Howson, C., E. Cohen, and J. K. Viola. 2022. " Inertia in Elite STEM Widening Participation: The Use of Contextual Data in Admissions." British Journal of Sociology of Education 43, no. 6 : 950 – 969.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karabel, J. 2005. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Mifflin and Company : Houghton.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, E. 2015. " Modelling Justice in Higher Education." In The Aims of Higher Education: Problems of Morality and Justice, edited by H. Brighouse and M. McPherson, 135 – 155. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintrea, K., R. St Clair, and M. Houston. 2011. The Influence of Parents, Places and Poverty on Educational Attitudes and Aspirations. York : Joseph Roundtree Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laswell, H. D. 1936. Who Gets What, When, How. New York : Whittlesey House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, S. 2016. " High Participation Systems of Higher Education." Journal of Higher Education 87, no. 2 : 243 – 271.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michel, R., and S. Pollard. 2020. " An Overview of Higher Education Admissions Processes." In Higher Education Admissions Practices: An International Perspective. Educational and Psychological Testing in a Global Context, edited by M. E. Oliveri and C. Wendler, 5 – 17. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108559607.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, J., L. Higham and A. Mountford‐Zimdars 2018. Research Into Use of Contextual Data in Admissions. Final Report to the Fair Education Alliance (FEA). Exeter : Centre for Social Mobility.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, J., A. Mountford‐Zimdars, and J. Wiggans. 2013. Contextualised Admissions: Examining the Evidence, Research Into the Evidence Base for the Use of Contextual Information and Data in Admissions of UK Students to Undergraduate Courses in the UK, Report to SPA, the Supporting Professionalism in Admissions Programme. Cheltenham : UCAS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mountford‐Zimdars, A. 2016. Meritocracy and the University. London : Bloomsbury.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mountford‐Zimdars, A., J. Gaulter, and N. Harrison. 2023. " Helicopter Mobility: Changing Habitus Without Challenging Structural Inequalities, Experiences of an International Elite Education Programme." British Educational Research Journal : 1 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3947.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mountford‐Zimdars, A., J. Moore, and J. Graham. 2016. " Is Contextualised Admission the Answer to the Access Challenge? " Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education 20, no. 4 : 143 – 150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2016.1203369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mountford‐Zimdars, A., J. Moore, and L. Higham. 2021. " What Is the Current State of Debate Around the Use of Contextualised Admissions for Undergraduate Admissions? A Review of the Current Stakeholder Perspective, Perspectives." Policy and Practice in Higher Education 25, no. 1 : 14 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2019.1640802.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OfS. 2019. Contextual Admissions: Promoting Fairness and Rethinking Merit. Insight Briefing 3, May 2019. Bristol : Office for Students. Accessed November 12, 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/bf84aeda‐21c6‐4b55‐b9f8‐3386b21b7b3b/insight‐3‐contextual‐admissions.pdf">www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/bf84aeda‐21c6‐4b55‐b9f8‐3386b21b7b3b/insight‐3‐contextual‐admissions.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OfS. 2020. Contextual Admissions: Effective Practice Advice. Bristol : Office for Students. Accessed November 12, 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice‐and‐guidance/promoting‐equal‐opportunities/effective‐practice/contextual‐admissions/advice/">www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice‐and‐guidance/promoting‐equal‐opportunities/effective‐practice/contextual‐admissions/advice/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OfS. 2021. " Number of UK‐domiciled undergraduate students to English higher education providers 2006–07 to 2019–20." Accessed September 19, 2024. https://<ulink href="http://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/5772/student%5ftime%5fseries%5fofficial%5fstatistics.xlsx">www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/5772/student%5ftime%5fseries%5fofficial%5fstatistics.xlsx</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OfS. 2022. " Maintaining the credibility of degree, Insight Brief 14." Accessed September 19, 2024. https://<ulink href="http://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/a712215d‐94e8‐4e98‐8614‐baee4d5aa3dc/insight‐brief‐14.pdf">www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/a712215d‐94e8‐4e98‐8614‐baee4d5aa3dc/insight‐brief‐14.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orr, D., A. Usher, C. Haj, G. Atherton, and I. Geanta. 2017. Study on the Impact of Admission Systems on Higher Education Outcomes—Volume I—Comparative Report. Brussels : European Commission, Directorate‐General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2766/943076.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palfreyman, D., and T. Tapper. 2014. Reshaping the University: The Rise of the Regulated Market in Higher Education. Oxford : Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659821.001.0001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pike, J. 2011. Political Philosophy. Milton Keynes : Open University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pruvot, E., and T. Estermann. 2017. University Autonomy in Europe III. Brussels : European Association of Universities. https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/university%20autonomy%20in%20europe%20iii%20the%20scorecard%202017.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Revised ed, 63 – 64. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reich, J., and J. A. Ruipérez‐Valiente. 2019. " The MOOC Pivot." Science 363 : 130 – 131.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robbins, L. 1963. Higher Education: Report of the Committee Appointed by the Prime Minister Under the Chairmanship of Lord Robbins, 1961–63. Cmnd 2154. London : HMSO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross, A., and J. Lloyd. 2013. Access for All: An Investigation of Young People's Attitudes to the Cost of Higher Education Using the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England. London : Universities UK.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandel, M. 2021. The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? London : Penguin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schreurs, S., S. Steenman, A. Kool, K. Stegers‐Jager, and K. Cleutjens. 2023. " Handboek Selectie Hoger Onderwijs." https://<ulink href="http://www.onderwijskennis.nl/sites/onderwijskennis/files/media‐files/UU%5fHANDBOEK%5fSELECT%5fDIGI%5fDEFFF%20%28002%29.pdf">www.onderwijskennis.nl/sites/onderwijskennis/files/media‐files/UU%5fHANDBOEK%5fSELECT%5fDIGI%5fDEFFF%20%28002%29.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz, S. 2004. Fair Admissions to Higher Education: Recommendations for Good Practice. London : HMSO. Accessed November 10, 2023. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/5284/1/finalreport.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skyrme, J., and M. Crow. 2008. " Targeting Outreach Activity: A Prioritisation Model." In Higher Education in Diverse Communities: Global Perspectives; Local Initiatives, edited by F. Ferrier and M. Heagney, 76 – 83. London : European Access Network with Masaryk University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Social Mobility & Child Poverty Commission. 2013. State of the Nation 2013: Social Mobility and Child Poverty in Great Britain. London : Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state‐of‐the‐nation‐2013">www.gov.uk/government/publications/state‐of‐the‐nation‐2013</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg, R. 2010. College Admissions for the 21st Century. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Sutton Trust. 2008. " The Influence of the School in the Decision to Participate in Learning Post‐16, Increasing Higher Education Participation Amongst Disadvantaged Young People and Schools in Poor Communities." London : The Sutton Trust.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Universities Tests Act. 1871, Accessed November 10, 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/">www.legislation.gov.uk/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Universities UK. 2020. Fair Admissions Review, November 2020. London : UUK. https://<ulink href="http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what‐we‐do/policy‐and‐research/publications/fair‐admissions‐review">www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what‐we‐do/policy‐and‐research/publications/fair‐admissions‐review</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Universities UK. 2022. Fair Admissions Code of Practice, March 2022. London : UUK. https://<ulink href="http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what‐we‐do/policy‐and‐research/publications/fair‐admissions‐code‐practice">www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what‐we‐do/policy‐and‐research/publications/fair‐admissions‐code‐practice</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vieira do Nascimento, D., J. Roser‐Chinchilla, and T. Mutize. 2020. Towards Universal Access to Higher Education: International Trends. Venezuela : UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker, M. 2005. Higher Education Pedagogies. Berkshire : McGraw‐Hill Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, B. 1962. 'The Idea of Equality' in Philosophy, Politics and Society 2nd Series, edited by P. Laslett and W. G. Runciman. Oxford : Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wyness, G. 2016. Predicted Grades: Accuracy and Impact. London : UCU.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Joanne Moore and Anna Mountford‐Zimdars</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref94"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1459642
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Contextual Admissions: Normative Considerations
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Joanne+Moore%22">Joanne Moore</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anna+Mountford-Zimdars%22">Anna Mountford-Zimdars</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7397-7459">0000-0002-7397-7459</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Higher+Education+Quarterly%22"><i>Higher Education Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2025 79(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Admission%22">College Admission</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Background%22">Educational Background</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Enrollment+Management%22">Enrollment Management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Selective+Admission%22">Selective Admission</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Competitive+Selection%22">Competitive Selection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Context+Effect%22">Context Effect</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Justice%22">Justice</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28England%29%22">United Kingdom (England)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/hequ.12579
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0951-5224<br />1468-2273
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Access to higher education is often competitive, and much attention has been placed on the question of admission decision-making in such high stakes situations. We identify various approaches to distributive justice and consider these under the framework developed by Pike distinguishes between 'egalitaria' (everyone gets the same); 'necessitia' (people get what they need); 'desertia' (people get what they deserve); and 'marketia' (the market decides what people get). Considering applicants in context is one approach to deciding admissions designed to enhance fairness and support social justice. This approach is practiced in a range of countries including the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan and operates under names such as Contextual Admissions (CA), Holistic Assessment (HA) or Holistic Review (HR). This thought piece considers the philosophical/normative and practical reasoning approaches that underpin CA. We use the case of English higher education to illustrate the political and philosophical debates, to highlight practical challenges and potential limitations and to identify further considerations for realising the benefits of contextualising university applicants.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1459642
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1459642
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/hequ.12579
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Admission
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Background
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Enrollment Management
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Selective Admission
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Competitive Selection
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Context Effect
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Justice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (England)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Contextual Admissions: Normative Considerations
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Joanne Moore
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anna Mountford-Zimdars
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0951-5224
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1468-2273
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 79
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Higher Education Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1