Is the university admissions process institutionally racist? - Mike Johnson
Higher education has increasingly come under pressure to be more “inclusive” and “diverse”. Some critics have gone further by labelling it institutionally racist. The most vociferous condemnation has come from some anti-racist activists who argue the education sector forms part of a wider racist superstructure, operating to maintain ‘white privilege’, where ethnic minorities are discriminated against, and meritocracy is extolled despite being largely mythical. This view may have had some currency in the past, but when applied to recent levels of ethnic minority progression into higher education, it is an outdated, simplistic, and baseless assessment of the university admissions process.
On the contrary, greater effort should be spent addressing the reasons for low working-class representation in higher education, including underrepresentation across Russell Group institutions for some BAME students. Tendentious anti-racist claims should be challenged and consequently marginalised. If not, this ideology will replace equality of opportunity with equity, and the UK university admissions system will gravitate towards the Americanised system of affirmative action. Should this happen, the credibility of higher education will be shattered, meritocracy will be undermined, and many aspirational ethnic minority students will inevitably descend into dependency, mediocrity and victimhood.
First, it is important to emphasise that UCAS (Universities and Colleges Admissions Service) procedure denies university admissions staff any knowledge of an applicant’s ethnicity. In theory, this mechanism ought to prevent discrimination and guarantee selection based on merit and colour blindness. Notwithstanding, particular ethnic groups continue to be underrepresented at some universities. Therefore, the argument that higher education is institutionally racist is perhaps plausible if we are judging discrimination by the mere fact that racial disparities exist. For example, in 2016 approximately 8 per cent of first-year undergraduates were Black, and in 2017 just 8.7 per cent were studying in their first year at Russell Group universities, of which only 5 per cent were Black Caribbean. Furthermore, overall higher education entry rates for Black Caribbean students are the lowest of all ethnic minorities at 45.8 per cent. Compared to other ethnic minorities, black students are only making moderate progress. Hence this arguably demonstrates an inability of higher education institutions, either consciously or unconsciously, to be fully inclusive. Equally concerning is the preponderance of BAME students studying at mid to low-tariff universities, which potentially exposes a two-tier system in which white students are overrepresented at the top. Indeed, in 2019 the white student population was the overwhelming majority across most highly selective institutions. Examples include Queen’s Belfast (96%); Glasgow (89%); Edinburgh (87%); and Durham (87%). Surely if higher education is to genuinely improve opportunities for young people, one would expect to see ethnic minority people equally represented, especially at Russell Group universities.
Despite these legitimate concerns for relatively low university entry rates amongst Black Caribbean students (especially boys), it is important to highlight the impressive progress being made by the vast majority of ethnic minorities. Data from 2021 shows 28 per cent of all UK students were BAME. More specifically, by 2021 the rate for Black students increased more than any other ethnic group from 44.1 per cent in 2010 to 62.1 per cent in 2021. Indeed, Black Africans have one of the highest overall entries at 69.8 per cent, of which 13.2 per cent relates to elite universities. Equally, Bangladeshi admission rates are 68.5 per cent, and 15.6 per cent for highly selective universities. Over half of Pakistani students (58.4%) advanced to university. Furthermore, 72.6 per cent of Indian students received offers from all HE institutions, of which 22.3 per cent were from Russell Group universities. Chinese students had the highest admissions at 81.7 per cent, with 40.7 per cent studying at leading universities. Russell Group data from 2017 also highlights significant progress because ethnic minorities represented 21 per cent of its overall undergraduate population.
Wales serves as a unique case study to further highlight achievements in widening access to HE. In 2010, 44.1 per cent of Black students enrolled at university, whilst in 2020 this had risen to almost 60 per cent. Looking more closely, in the same year 67.7 per cent of Black Africans entered higher education. Indeed, Wales can be particularly proud of its record because the proportion of Black students studying at university has more than doubled since 2010; for the most prestigious institutions, the entry rate is almost identical to white students (merely a 0.4% difference).
Crucially, any negative attention given to the low percentage of BAME students at Russell Group institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and the north of England, completely fails to recognise the high percentage of minority students who are accepted at universities which are located in, or close to, large English cities. Examples include: Manchester (33%); Birmingham (33%); UCL (52%); LSE (57%); Imperial College (57%); King’s College (59%); and Queen Mary (71%). Hence, unequal ethnic entry rates across the Russell Group is primarily due to many UK-domiciled BAME students living at home whilst they study. Thus, disparities in some university entry rates simply reflect a correlation between a high concentration of ethnic minorities in particular regions and a tendency to study close to home. What the pattern does not represent is clear evidence of systemic racism in the undergraduate admissions process in higher education.
Conveniently, adherents to antiracism shy away from admitting that proportionally the lowest entry rates to all HE institutions are from White ethnic groups, including White British (39.1%). In fact, noticeable disparities exist within the White ethnic group itself: for instance, merely 6.3 per cent of gypsy/Roma students go on to study at university, whereas, 54.7 per cent of White Irish move into higher education, of which 20.6 per cent do so at highly selective universities- double the rate of White British pupils. The picture is even bleaker when focusing on White students who are eligible for free school meals (FSM). At 18.6 per cent, this group has the lowest entry rates into higher education.
Indeed, poverty seems less of a barrier for ethnic minority students when applying to study at university. For example, 52.9 per cent of Black pupils eligible for FSM progressed to higher education. Despite having the lowest attainment scores amongst the BAME population, Black Caribbean pupils on FSM are still more likely to attend university than White British pupils on FSM. The gap between the two groups is 18.7 per cent. Furthermore, research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in 2015 discovered that Indian and Chinese pupils were twice as likely to go to university than White British pupils. Of course, this evidence primarily reflects the continuing advances made by ethnic minority groups at both GCSE and A Level, but it also exposes the weakness of any argument claiming higher education is institutionally and systemically racist. As UCAS discovered in 2015, offer rates to different ethnic groups predominantly match expected values.
Increasing applicant numbers to universities in recent years, along with fears of over-recruitment, have forced high-tariff institutions to raise course entry requirements. Understandably, this may alarm those who argue some ethnic minorities are discriminated against, largely because their predicted grades are likely to be lower than White, Asian and Chinese students. Indeed, a 2011 publication by the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills found Black applicants had the lowest accurately predicted grades (39.1%), and also the highest under-prediction rates (7.1%). If Black students are less likely to be given high predicted grades, it will inevitably cause undesirable outcomes: first, it may deter some from applying to elite universities; secondly, it may reduce the chances of others receiving offers from these institutions.
However, the same research paper also shows a strong correlation between overpredicted and underpredicted grades for male applicants to university. Students from the lower social classes generally have the lowest grade prediction accuracy (42.8%), as do those who study in further education centres (40.2%). Indeed, research by Wyness for the University and College Union (UCU) in 2016, shows both Black and Asian students are more likely to be awarded overpredicted grades. In the same year, a UCAS report showed Black applicants are the most likely ethnic group to miss their predicted attainment: 67.5% in 2015. In short, these findings partly explain why there is some ethnic minority underrepresentation at Russell Group universities. This is potentially because some BAME students are selecting elite universities, yet the chances of meeting the entry requirements are in some instances unrealistic for certain individuals. Granted, inaccurate underpredicted grades for high-ability ethnic minority students may be seen as evidence of racism, but this should be set against the vast majority who are given overpredicted grades by teachers. On balance, this does not show clear evidence of racism. On the contrary, it indicates teachers are being overly optimistic in the predicted grades they award to give learners (especially BAME) the best possible chance of being offered places at university.
Subject choice is another area of importance when accounting for some ethnic minority student underrepresentation in higher education. Critics may highlight low percentages of BAME students across many subjects. These include: veterinary sciences, natural sciences, history, philosophy and religious studies. However, it is not only highly misleading to focus on underrepresentation in those subjects, but also largely irrelevant. According to Bolton and Lewis’ House of Commons Library research briefing in 2023, Asian students are more likely to choose the following subjects: architecture, business, computing, engineering, law, medicine/dentistry, and mathematics. Similarly, popular subjects for Black students include: business, computing, social science, and subjects allied to medicine. Perhaps one factor influencing subject preferences for ethnic minorities may be partly due to prior attainment gaps. For example, at GCSE, the highest achievers are Chinese and Indian, whereas the lowest achievers are generally Black Caribbean, White, and Gypsy/Roma/Traveller. Consequently, lower prior attainment may deter some students from applying to study STEM subjects, especially at elite universities. Nevertheless, for those who do apply, there is fierce competition for places. Indeed, the Russell Group’s Opening Doors publication in 2015 makes the point that ethnic minority students are often applying to study subjects which appear to be confined to a narrow field, of which many tend to be over-subscribed. Hence, between 2015-17, the University of Oxford reported that 41 per cent of applications from Black students were for medicine and law, compared with just 12 per cent from white students. Therefore, applicants with low prior attainment have less chance of being offered a place compared with those who have a consistent record of high achievement. This is not evidence of institutional racism, but rather a duty of care in considering each applicants suitability, premised on an obligation to uphold strict course entry requirements.
Another factor considered in the Opening Doors report is the claim that disadvantaged students do not always receive adequate advice on courses, universities, and personal statements. Similar research by Montacute and Cullinane for the Sutton Trust (2018) revealed that some teachers confess to harbouring misconceptions about the Russell Group, and worse still, they discourage disadvantaged pupils from applying to these universities. Granted, this unhealthy influence harms ethnic minorities and equally negatively impacts on impressionable white working-class HE applicants from non-selective state schools and colleges. More generally, research by Baars, Mulcahy and Bernardes for King’s College London (2016) explains white working-class boys mostly lack access to cultural capital - vital for success in interviews and when writing a personal statement. Their research supports this claim by emphasising the fact that only 10 per cent of the most disadvantaged white British males progress to higher education. The point of this comparison is to highlight the challenges equally faced by BAME and White pupils from low-income families when applying to university. Hence, the weaker argument is to claim that ethnic minority undergraduate underrepresentation is the result of systemic racism in higher education. The stronger argument recognises that underrepresentation in higher education is evident across all working-class ethnicities, predominantly caused by cultural and material deprivation.
The antiracist position also fails to appreciate that BAME underrepresentation on different university courses invariably reflects the voluntary decisions made by different individuals, many of which are motivated to become high-earning graduates in the future. Indeed, antiracist dogma ignores the unfortunate impact of prior attainment gaps, which either deters students from applying to highly selective universities or serves to lower their chances of being accepted if they do so. If this cycle is to be broken, greater efforts must be made to improve the quality of university application guidance for disadvantaged pupils; this offers a pragmatic and effective approach to achieving greater ethnic minority representation across different degree subjects. Contrast this with antiracist calls for greater equity in university admissions for BAME students and one begins to see two different strategies diverging. The first is firmly committed to equality of opportunity, albeit with external enabling support for individuals most in need. The second unequivocally endorses equality of outcome (equity) where membership of an ethnic group may be licence for preferential treatment (positive discrimination). However, insisting universities meet ethnic minority admissions quotas, as advocated by Ibram X. Kendi, will not reduce any ethnic minority attainment gaps henceforth, but will likely cultivate an entitlement culture amongst some BAME students, and will also replace individual identity and ambition with group identity and victimology.
Without any doubt, many disadvantaged groups continue to be underrepresented in higher education, and unless it is seriously addressed, legitimate questions will be raised regarding the credibility of the university admissions process. However, considerable progress has been made and more ethnic minority pupils are studying for degrees than ever before, including at prestigious universities. Granted, further barriers need to be removed for ethnic minorities but also for working-class pupils in general. One should not discard out of hand any claims which accuse universities of racial discrimination during the student selection process. Nevertheless, antiracist critics of higher education institutions fail to appreciate the increasing opportunities realised by many ethnic minorities who gain access to university, at much higher rates than Whites.
Therefore, policies must be implemented which seek to increase wider participation in higher education. For example, improvements in undergraduate degree course guidance; greater transparency in the UCAS application and selection process; more early years Russell Group outreach programmes for disadvantaged young people. Moreover, schools and colleges should not endorse tendentious claims that the education sector is institutionally racist. A more meaningful and productive approach to widening access to university would be to improve compensatory education. The cultural capital of many middle-class university applicants must be replicated as much as possible in schools and colleges for working-class pupils, including ethnic minorities. High expectations for individual pupils, irrespective of ethnicity, gender or social class, must remain at the heart of compulsory education. It is this universal, liberal philosophy which has helped many disadvantaged pupils aim high and succeed, and more barriers will be overcome if it is retained. conversely, if antiracist victimology becomes the single lens by which ethnic minorities perceive higher education, disadvantaged student representation in universities will decline, and worse still, existing socio-economic inequalities will be reinforced.
Mike Johnson is an education professional.