Education Letters: Admissions crisis

I welcome the support of the chief executive of UCAS for my concerns about the fragmentation of the university admissions system (Letters, EDUCATION & CAREERS, 10 July). It is clearly common sense that a system that becomes arbitrary cannot be satisfactory. While this common ground is very welcome, Anthony McLaren's belief that current UCAS practice resolves the difficulties is not tenable.

It is remarkable that Mr McLaren is satisfied that 70 per cent of students have their places confirmed when A-level results are announced. Presumably the 30 per cent who do not get their places have not achieved the expected grades and must defer application or go through Clearing. No system with a 30 per cent failure rate in processing applications can be satisfactory.

Nor is a defence of the system via its ability to produce detailed exam mark data and grade profiles satisfactory. Universities are drowning in data, intensifying the anger of admissions tutors who do not have time to pore over candidates' data. Many do not regard the marks as reliable predictors of ability, and are turning to setting their own tests. Independent studies, notably into hard and soft subjects, justify some of their concerns.

The oversupply of data also creates serious problems for the applicants. Few students or their advisers have the time or skills to read the fine print for every possible course they can apply for, and there is mounting evidence that even able students fail to read crucial details due to the sheer complexity of the system. It is Kafkaesque that universities expect students to spend valuable study time simply trying to work out which universities they can apply for. It is even more Orwellian when, despite fulfilling even the most arcane criteria, they still do not get an offer.

It would be unreasonable to expect the chief executive of UCAS to accept that the systems he is running are seriously flawed. But as he believes the systems are robust, he should be willing to allow them to be scrutinised by an independent commission. This is the call I made in my article, and Mr McLaren should not hesitate to support it.

Trevor Fisher, Stafford

Full marks to Trevor Fisher ("Why the admissions system has to change", EDUCATION & CAREERS, 3 July) for highlighting the research from the Institute for Public Policy that finally dismissed the widely propounded myth that there is a crisis of "underachievement" in state schools and that restrictive admissions policies are not to blame for the under-representation of state school children in Russell Group universities.

Let us be clear, the issue here is not absurd notions of "envy" on the part of state school children who make up the vast majority of school students. Few of these would want to go to schools or universities that produced a foppish elite. The issue is the release of talent from all corners of our population whether or not they be members of the social elite.

In this light the reluctance of CBI chiefs to embrace the reforms to post-16 education is simply depressing. It is widely known in the system that the old style-classical model for post-16 education is at best outdated and at worst deliberately and restrictively arcane and antiquated but still there is ignorant defence of the indefensible by everyone form Lord Patten down.

The upshot of all of this is that not only are our state-school students denied the benefits of Russell Group university education but these institutions, by a process of reverse logic, must be culturally and intellectually impoverished as a result. No wonder British universities are on the slide in the most-recognised international league tables.

Gerry Murphy, Liverpool

Let's end intervention

As a former teacher, I was fascinated by Andrew Hargreaves' analysis ("This Government must find a new direction", EDUCATION & CAREERS, 10 July). It has been frightening to watch over the years, the way in which government intervention, whether by intention or default, has had the effect of intimidating teachers and bringing them "into line", forcing compliance with government values and policies. One of the greatest blows was the abolition of the inspectorate, a much loved body of highly skilled and experienced senior teachers whose task was, among other things, to support young trainees' development, and its replacement by Ofsted, which as its name implies (Office for Standards in Education), is effectively a policing force for government mandate; it proceeded to name and shame, sometimes with total misunderstanding. I know of one superb primary head who refused to toe the testing line and deprive her children of the support she had always given to develop the pre-literacy foundation they needed – and was publicly destroyed, along with her school.

Both Conservative and Labour governments followed a policy of offering early retirement to senior teachers on high salaries, which, in fact, drained the profession of strength to resist as well as knowledge, skills and values. SATS and league tables completed the erosion of teacher autonomy. Did they do any good? As Hargreaves pointed out, England has plummeted to the bottom of world leagues, but as it previously held a top position for so long, it must have had a reasonable quality of teaching. Labour's £50m literacy campaign had no effect on literacy.

Grethe Hooper Hansen, Bath

Teaching by degrees

Working towards a Masters-level profession could be a significant way of raising the professional status of teaching, but not in the way the government proposes ("Do they need this masterplan?", EDUCATION & CAREERS, 10 July). I question the validity of such a profession when there is no requirement for teachers to participate.

Rigorous selection of the right candidates for initial teacher training and a quality training and guaranteed induction period would be more effective in raising standards and retaining teachers in the workforce than the additional burden of completing a Masters in the first five years of teaching. This is a period of high workload and greatest danger of drop-out from the profession. Having to complete a Masters will only exacerbate this situation.

A better approach would be to have a two-year induction period at the end of which the Masters would be awarded. This would have the advantage of ensuring that every entrant to teaching received a high quality induction experience and that an all-Masters profession would be achieved over time. This would be similar to other professions where training towards qualification continues when entrants take up their first posts.

Philip Parkin, General Secretary, Voice, Derby

Send letters to: The Editor, Education, 'The Independent', Independent House, 191 Marsh Wall, London E14 9RS (with a daytime phone number); fax to: 020-7005 2143; email to: education@independent.co.uk; letters may be edited for length and clarity