1. Managing mistakes in admissions decision-making 2a. UCAS Admissions Conference, 21 March 2016 Jeni Clack, Admissions Support and Development Advisor

2. Supporting Professionalism in Admissions Set up in 2006 following the Schwartz Report Fair Admissions to Higher Education: Recommendations for Good Practice 2004 ‘The Group recommends the creation of a central source of expertise and advice on admissions issues. Its purpose would be to act as a resource for institutions who wish to maintain and enhance excellence in admissions. Such a centre could lead the continuing development of fair admissions, evaluating and commissioning research, and spreading best practice.’

3. “Equal opportunity for all individuals, regardless of background, to gain admission to a course suited to their ability and aspirations.” What is Fair Admissions? 1. be transparent 2. enable institutions to select students who are able to complete the course as judged by their achievements and their potential 3. strive to use assessment methods that are reliable and valid 4. seek to minimise barriers to applicants 5. be professional in every respect and underpinned by appropriate institutional structures and processes

4. National Expert Think Tanks  Expert groups convened by SPA to inform and influence topical debates on fairness and good practice in HE admissions.  In 2014/15, the NETT considered admissions decision-making, looking at providers’ approaches to unconditional offer-making, managing mistakes, and the relationship between recruitment and admissions.  Practitioners from a range of HEPs plus UCAS representative and SPA.

5. Mistakes are defined as… Decisions communicated to applicants that are significantly different to intended (or if intended had an unexpected impact) that breaches/threatens the professional relationship between HE provider and applicant. This may include, but is not limited to: policy; legal and statutory obligations; principles of fair admissions; availability or quality of teaching and learning; reputation; strategic aims; finances; agreements with funding, professional or other external bodies.

6. NETT evidence and key findings Survey of HE providers to consider the impact of, and responses made to, mistakes in admissions decision-making.  89% of respondents had experience of a mistake.  24% did not have codified procedures for managing mistakes and a further 24% did not know if there were codified procedures.  The impact of the mistakes appeared to be greater in relation to the provider’s reputation, fair admissions, legal obligations and admissions policy compliance.

7. What can go wrong?

8. Managing mistakes Reduce the chances of mistakes occurring  Ensure processes leading to a decision are clear, consistent and auditable.  Accurately record decisions… and double-check!  Know who is discussing decisions and when.  Plan your time and resources.

9. Clear, consistent and auditable Evaluate the different stages of your application processes for: Mistake management ‘health-check' to consider areas of risk. training and competence of staff clarity record keeping checking or monitoring steps

10. Accurately record decisions  Particular care should be taken regarding the inputting and checking of decisions.  NETT identified three approaches to processing decisions, and the strengths, weaknesses and mitigation for each:

11. Who and when? Mistakes can happen at any stage of the admissions process: Consider all potential processes and communications linked to decision records to identify who in your HEP is discussing decisions and when. NETT integrated applicant communication plan to support you. Does this vary at different points in the cycle, e.g. Confirmation and Clearing? pre- application post- application application

12. Managing mistakes Respond effectively when mistakes do occur Mistakes will happen…  Are you prepared?  Determine how you will respond.  Develop an escalation protocol.  Learn from the mistakes and near-misses.

13. Responding to the mistake Things to consider when determining your response:  the interests of the applicant  the principles of fair admissions  timeliness  strategic objectives  legal position and consumer protection compliance  UCAS procedures  other legislative considerations

14. Response escalation protocol Have an escalation protocol in place for staff to readily identify who to involve: For example: small issue affecting a large number of applicants? Escalate to XXX, report to YYY. Use alongside a defined process for deciding how to respond.

15. Lessons learned: bulk communications The data used to generate a bulk email was filtered incorrectly and a large number of emails went to applicants whose applications were still being considered, and a small number who had already been rejected. Clarifying emails were sent very quickly after this, but in doing so the data failed and some of those who received the retraction had, in fact, received the first email correctly. Don’t rush to respond until you fully understand the facts. Systems have been put in place to do a double-check of the data to prevent reoccurrence.

16. Lessons learned: using incomplete information An EU applicant was accepted based on grade A in English A level on the application. After enrolling, it was identified that she had an insufficient level of English to be successful on the programme. The applicant put English A level on the application by mistake, but it was agreed this should have been spotted at application given the profile of other qualifications. Use the rest of the application (e.g. other qualifications and school) to spot mistakes. Careful handling afterwards avoided a student complaint (she wanted to take IELTS and return the following year).

17. Lessons learned: wrong applicant An applicant with a double-barrelled name only used one half when filling in interview paperwork. On using a surname search on the admissions software it pulled up a match with a different applicant who had been unsuccessful. The applicant was then rejected in error. It is important to put systems in place to avoid such transposition errors. Use UCAS personal IDs as well as names for searching. When mistakes do occur, identify prompt, correct resolution.

18. Lessons learned: wrong programme The university offered a place into the first year when it should have been a foundation year. This was caused by being unable to make a note on their system ahead of a formal decision. It was too late to amend the decision via UCAS, so the university had to try and convince the applicant she would benefit from a foundation year. Ensure all relevant information for making the decision is recorded and readily accessible. Embed better training for all involved in decision-making.

19. Case studies and considerations interview complaint other team temporary staff

20. Over to you… What happened? Did it affect one or many? How was it discovered? What was done to seek to rectify it? And what steps have now been put in place? ?

21. Thank you More information from enquiries@spa.ac.uk or 01242 544 891 www.spa.ac.uk @SPA_Admissionsenquiries@spa.ac.uk www.spa.ac.uk