In Defence of St Andrews

This is a mini-post. I should be working right now, but this is an interesting issue which has been revived in today's news. I am referring to the recent figures released after the Guardian made a freedom of information request to the Scottish Government concerning admissions to the University of St Andrews.

As the BBC reported, these figures resulted in a plea from the university for "more effort to boost the attainment levels of aspiring students from poorer backgrounds". The figures revealed that "of the 8,872 Scottish fifth year pupils from the country's most deprived areas in 2011, only 220 achieved three A Higher passes or better." The article goes on: "Of these 220, 55 included St Andrews as a choice on their UCAS applications. St Andrews made offers to 34 of these students, 14 of whom accepted." For the full article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20500476

This seems like a straightforward argument, based on the hard evidence of statistics, and the solution has been identified - improving the pre-university attainment of students from poorer areas of Scotland. So now, surely, the next step is to work on how to raise the number of high achievers in secondary schools? Not so. Facebook status', tweets, and comments under various on-line articles on the subject show that many people feel this problem is the fault of of the university, and that St Andrews needs to fix the problem. They are joined by Robin Parker, president of the National Union of Students Scotland, who labelled St Andrews' plan to improve the figures "minuscule", saying that "only an additional six students per year" would get into St Andrews, and that the university needs "to aim much higher than this".

Stephen Magee, who is responsible for admissions at St Andrews, responded to the criticisms that have come with the statistics, stating that "We want Scotland's brightest here, regardless of background". Although it is clear that the under-representation of students from poorer areas in top universities such as St Andrews stems from the better grades achieved by students from wealthier areas, people like Robin Parker feel that it is the universities who must take on the responsibility, and "do more", whatever that means. Surely the emphasis should be placed on the improvement of the pre-university education of students from poorer areas, and those responsible for it?

Proper consideration of the figures, quoted in the article above, supports the argument that greater responsibility should be shouldered by education ministers, rather than lumped onto university admissions officers. Of the 220 students from poorer areas who achieved the necessary grades to apply to St Andrews, only 55 actually applied. Of those 55 students, 34 received offers. This shows that the problem simply does not lie with the university. This is something which is plainly obvious but easy to ignore, because the old clichés about elitism make universities extremely easy targets upon which frustrations can be blindly released. Based on these statistics, 62% of adequately qualified students from poorer areas of Scotland who applied to St Andrews received offers. The university is having no trouble at all in giving offers to students from poorer areas; in fact it is extremely good at it.

The real problem lies in two places. Firstly, in the lack of students from poorer areas attaining the top grades. Only 220 students out of 8,872 (2.5%) from poorer areas achieved three A Higher passes or better, giving them the option to apply to top universities such as St Andrews. This is most definitely a problem primary and secondary education for the poorer students needs to address. Secondly, out of 220 students who achieved the grades enabling them to apply to St Andrews, only 55 did. 75% of students who could have named the university as one of their five UCAS choices chose not to. This second problem speaks volumes about how some of Scotland's brightest young students view St Andrews. The reputation of this university needs to be changed so that those students who are good enough to get in feel like they can submit a application. Here, the university can continue with its already effective campaign of access events, dispelling the myths spread and blame cast by people like Robin Parker, and the numerous ill-informed users of Facebook, Yahoo!, and Twitter. Those who blame the university for discriminating against poorer students (the statistics of the article suggest otherwise), and insist that these institutions should "do more" to fix the problem, are doing nothing to persuade Scotland's brightest students to apply there.