|
|
Equal opportunities: SelectionWe can hardly claim equal opportunities for students if they can't get on our courses in the first place. Most of the recruitment procedures of colleges are carried out at an institutional level, and are beyond the scope of this site, but there are some considerations worth addressing: AdvertisingAre the chosen media likely to reach all sectors of the population, including those under-represented on the course at present? Why select?There is an argument which says that we ought to take everyone who wants to do a course, qualified or not. If they then fail, that is their responsibility and ultimately their choice. This is really a parody of the free-market position: places on courses are limited, and in very few cases is the full cost borne by the student. A student who is not likely to make it is occupying a place which could have gone to someone else. The fairness of equal opportunities and access policies has to work within this context. However, we do have an obligation to research what factors are relevant for selection. Statistically, which are most likely to correlate with successful completion? We do not have to be bound slavishly by them, but we need to know what they are, so that if we decide to use them or to set them aside, we are making an informed decision. Say that your research indicates that single mothers with young children are less likely to complete the course than other people. Does that mean that you are entitled to take their family status into account in selection?
Application formsGeneric institutional application forms often seem to suit no-one. From the equal opportunities point of view, ensure that they:
Short-listingTraditionally, we have selected the "best-qualified" candidates, in a norm-referenced way. But, assuming that we know what are the threshold requirements for successful completion of the course, might it not be fairer to operate a simple "first-come, first-served" policy for those who are likely to succeed? InterviewsDo you know why you interview? Interviews are potentially highly discriminatory, and the evidence is that in many fields they have no better record of selecting ultimately successful students than do paper-processing exercises. On the other hand, some students may be able to make a better case for their admission at interview than they can on paper. If you do interview:
|
|
Original material © James Atherton: last up-dated 15 August, 2005