1. Widening Participation: The St Georges approach Kenton Lewis – Head of Widening Participation & Student Recruitment

2. Overview What I will talk about Widening Participation – some basics Alternative approach to WP thinking Contextualised assessment www.tasteofmedicine.com

3. Overview What I wont talk about (much) SGUL as best practice to be replicated Work experience Multi Mini interviews

4. Widening Participation Aspiration, facilitation, retention Strong New Labour connection, but existed long before Open University, post-92 Universities Selecting and recruiting institutions Regulation (e.g. OFFA, WPSA) Election!

5. Implications of WP AGAINSTFOR Lowering standardsEquality of opportunity for the individual Costly for Universities and society (interventions, extra support etc.) Limits social exclusion and the associated problems (Social mobility) WP students more likely to drop outEmployment / economic benefits (Good for individual, good for society) Mass HE lowers the market value of a degree (less delineation between individuals) Avoiding waste of natural resources (not missing out on talent) Social engineering that disadvantages Independent School students Better relations between staff and student Devalues non-University education/career pathsGreater diversity = healthier learning environment

6. ACTIVITYPrimaryYr 7Yr 8Yr 9Yr 10Yr 11Yr 12 Yr 13 / Adult learners PRIMARY PRACTICE WWW.TASTEOFMEDICINE.COM EXPERIMENTS ROADSHOWS CLINICAL SKILLS TASTER DAYS SPRING & SUMMER SCHOOLS DEVELOPING REFLECTION INTERVIEW PREPARATION SCHOOL COLLEGE VISITS OPEN DAYS STUDENT AMBASSADORS Outreach work (medicine and healthcare) Age518+

8. Academic thinking about WP Equality or equity? Treating unequal people equally is just as unfair as treating equal people unequally The Govt. position follows a Deficit Model Academic research looks at identity and culture Sociological models students are different not lacking

10. Academic thinking about WP The culture of a University can be (is) a barrier Im not a University type – no family history of HE Identify with comfortable likely to succeed not recognise feel alien less likely to succeed Successful WP needs change in HE culture Elite should not mean Elitist Be wary of terms WP Student, WP University

11. Adjusted Entry Criteria Treating unequal people equally is just as unfair as treating equal people unequally In order to measure potential we look at how far you have had to travel We recognise performance in relation to your peer group, NOT the national average

12. Adjusted Entry Criteria students from independent schools appear to consistently do less well than students from other schools and colleges, when compared on a like-for- like basis […] For the most highly selective higher education institutions [we] find that students from LEA schools do consistently better than similar students from independent schools (HEFCE)

13. Adjusted Entry Criteria Traditionally assessed on actual and predicted academic performance, then assessed at interview Guaranteed interview if AABb (AAAb from 2008) OR if BBCb AND 60% higher than school average School average data published online by Govt. All applicants need to perform well in a blind multi mini interview

14. Methodology Data collected from existing records held by the Institution Anonymised database created and analysed in SPSS Looking at examination performance Three distinct groups of students:-

15. Methodology Students with lower grades from eligible school n=34 Students with higher grades from eligible school n=87 Students with higher grades from non-eligible school n=387 (cohorts 2003/4 – 2006/7) (Ongoing research looking at transition into the profession)

16. What did we find? Adjusted criteria students perform just as well on the course as those coming in with higher grades (no statistically significant difference) A larger proportion of adjusted criteria students fail on their first attempt at examination (though not statistically significant) This scheme has widened participation (in terms of state education and ethnicity)

17. Any questions? klewis@sgul.ac.uk Email if you want a copy of the presentation and/or stats

19. Mean scores AC statusNumberMeanStd DeviationStd error mean 1 st year final mark (old scheme) AC2665.088.9571.757 Non-AC26466.498.9940.554 1 st year final mark (new scheme) AC865.294.8691.721 Non-AC28864.899.4630.558 Indicative figures for all cohorts combined 1 st year final mark (combined cohorts) AC3465.41 Non-AC55265.69

20. Failure at first attempt Percentages PASSFAILNOT TAKENTOTAL AC76.5%20.6%2.9%*100.0% Non-AC85.0%14.1%0.9%100.0% Eligible82.6%16.3%1.2%100.0% Non-Eligible85.2%14.0%0.8%100.0% *n=1