We must not make some students less attractive than others
One the most sacrosanct features of university admissions in the UK is that they are “needs-blind”. Students’ academic ability and potential dictate whether they are offered a place. Their family income and any need for student financial support are, rightly, irrelevant in the decisions of admission tutors. This is not the case in the US. And there is a risk that this will no longer be the case in England either, if the current Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance – headed by Lord Browne – proposes inadequate government-funded student support, and instead opts for an enhanced role for institutional bursaries given directly to students on top of their government-funded student loans and grants.
Admission to Ivy League universities, the most selective and prestigious universities in the US, is usually “needs-blind”. At the other end of the hierarchy, there is normally open access to community colleges. But, for the majority of good public and private US universities, those just below the very highest rank, the offer of a university place may depend upon both a student’s academic ability and their family income, and specifically the amount of financial support the university has to hand over to the student. These universities’ admission policies are “needs-aware”.
Put simply, the more financial aid a university has to give, the less attractive the student. So when a university has to choose between two equally qualified people, but one student comes from a poor family and requires a high level of financial help, while the other comes from a wealthier family and has no call on the university’s bursaries, it is the wealthier student who will be offered a place.
