With regard to university admissions, we do have some reasonable evidence about how differences in background and entry qualifications track through to degree outcomes. If some concerted effort was applied to this question, I think we could have some strong evidence on this. I vaguely remember the difference between two equally capable undergraduates, one from a middle-of-the-road comp and the other from a good grammar or high-performing independent school, is about one A-Level grade e.g. if the former has ABB the latter has AAB (which I'm choosing because it's the difference between missing and making the standard offer on the UG degree I teach on). It may be the difference is bigger or smaller than that but whatever it is, I'm thinking this should be the starting point for any widening participation discussion. Some will think it's unfair on families who have made the investment to get the extra grade to disapply it. Some will think upwards social mobility for the more disadvantaged is important enough to justify greater adjustment. Some will think getting the 'correct' potential highest attaining cohort into university is most important (either because of fairness or because of maximising longer-term productivity) so will want to stick to adjusting for the known gap. It may even be that the less tangible dis/advantages from different backgrounds mean that there's a fairness/productivity argument for favouring more advantaged or disadvantaged young people despite them being expected to get equal university degree outcomes. I'm open to all these arguments but not an unthinking "applicants should be judged solely on their A-Level grades" assertion. I once listened to the Headmaster of a mid-range public school talking about the need for a level playing field for his students. This was in a beautiful chapel, recently restored after raising ~£1M from parents and alumni, next to an immaculate first team cricket pitch, along from a state-of-the-art library/study centre, in a school with a maximum class size of 24, paying teachers above the state pay scale, with an SEND ratio of ~2%, etc. etc.
I know that, for oxbridge colleges, at least in humanities, tutors are trying to assess potential, rather than just achievement to date. And it seems reasonable to give a little more leeway to the socially disadvantaged candidate over the more polished and practised middle class one. Not that the system really works - the metric mostly used to measure socioeconomic background is postcode, but not at a sufficiently granular level to discriminate effectively. Indeed I know of one member of the British aristocracy who managed to qualify as “disadvantaged”
I tend to think we should fetter discretion if the alternative is robust. Exam-based assessment is pretty robust, so I am happy to fetter discretion in favour of exam scores. It doesn't feel to me like we have an equivalent for "Exam scores" in public procurement, and that ultimately you just end up using different kinds of discretion. Likewise the reason I am not convinced by VAR is that it replaces flawed discretion with something else that is flawed.
Interestingly on the trust point, I have heard from a number of people in a number of different countries that support for VAR correlates with perceived corruption. IE people will be in favour of VAR if they think the alternative is referees who are all in the pockets of the wealthy owners of wealthy clubs. In low-corruption Scandinavia, people don't want VAR. I think Sweden is the only top 30 league not to have it.
With regard to university admissions, we do have some reasonable evidence about how differences in background and entry qualifications track through to degree outcomes. If some concerted effort was applied to this question, I think we could have some strong evidence on this. I vaguely remember the difference between two equally capable undergraduates, one from a middle-of-the-road comp and the other from a good grammar or high-performing independent school, is about one A-Level grade e.g. if the former has ABB the latter has AAB (which I'm choosing because it's the difference between missing and making the standard offer on the UG degree I teach on). It may be the difference is bigger or smaller than that but whatever it is, I'm thinking this should be the starting point for any widening participation discussion. Some will think it's unfair on families who have made the investment to get the extra grade to disapply it. Some will think upwards social mobility for the more disadvantaged is important enough to justify greater adjustment. Some will think getting the 'correct' potential highest attaining cohort into university is most important (either because of fairness or because of maximising longer-term productivity) so will want to stick to adjusting for the known gap. It may even be that the less tangible dis/advantages from different backgrounds mean that there's a fairness/productivity argument for favouring more advantaged or disadvantaged young people despite them being expected to get equal university degree outcomes. I'm open to all these arguments but not an unthinking "applicants should be judged solely on their A-Level grades" assertion. I once listened to the Headmaster of a mid-range public school talking about the need for a level playing field for his students. This was in a beautiful chapel, recently restored after raising ~£1M from parents and alumni, next to an immaculate first team cricket pitch, along from a state-of-the-art library/study centre, in a school with a maximum class size of 24, paying teachers above the state pay scale, with an SEND ratio of ~2%, etc. etc.
I know that, for oxbridge colleges, at least in humanities, tutors are trying to assess potential, rather than just achievement to date. And it seems reasonable to give a little more leeway to the socially disadvantaged candidate over the more polished and practised middle class one. Not that the system really works - the metric mostly used to measure socioeconomic background is postcode, but not at a sufficiently granular level to discriminate effectively. Indeed I know of one member of the British aristocracy who managed to qualify as “disadvantaged”
I tend to think we should fetter discretion if the alternative is robust. Exam-based assessment is pretty robust, so I am happy to fetter discretion in favour of exam scores. It doesn't feel to me like we have an equivalent for "Exam scores" in public procurement, and that ultimately you just end up using different kinds of discretion. Likewise the reason I am not convinced by VAR is that it replaces flawed discretion with something else that is flawed.
Interestingly on the trust point, I have heard from a number of people in a number of different countries that support for VAR correlates with perceived corruption. IE people will be in favour of VAR if they think the alternative is referees who are all in the pockets of the wealthy owners of wealthy clubs. In low-corruption Scandinavia, people don't want VAR. I think Sweden is the only top 30 league not to have it.
Very good point.