Equal opportunities: Selection

We 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:

Advertising

Are 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?

Selection processes are forms of assessment. They simply happen at the start of a course rather than the end. As such, all the issues surrounding assessment should be taken into consideration when selecting. Are the methods valid, reliable, and fair?

Application forms

Generic institutional application forms often seem to suit no-one. From the equal opportunities point of view, ensure that they:

Short-listing

Traditionally, 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?

Interviews

Do 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, and of course offering an interview can itself be an encouragement to someone unsure about studying.

If you do interview:

To reference this page copy and paste the text below:

Atherton J S (2011) Teaching and Learning; [On-line: UK] retrieved from

Original material by James Atherton: last up-dated overall 10 February 2010

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

Search Learningandteaching.info and associated sites:

Click here to send to a friend

Print

Back to top

Consider carefully how you are going to inform candidates of their success or otherwise. Many college administrations are wary of giving reasons for rejection, but we know how important feedback is, and how it can inform the candidates' next moves.

Yes, I know. In many colleges chance would be a fine thing! Candidates are often interviewed by people who know little about the courses, other than their level and entry qualifications, and selection is as much a selling exercise as anything else...