So, when should they apply?

For a decade, critics have attacked the university admissions system, in which sixth-formers apply before they receive their A-level grades. Now it could be about to change. Lucy Hodges on plans to relieve the exam period of some stress

Is our university admissions system a sensible one? No, say the critics who, for more than 10 years, have called for reform to enable upper-sixth-formers to apply after they have taken their A-levels rather than before. But their pleas have fallen on stony ground. Schools have been reluctant to give up lesson time for the exams to be held earlier; exam boards say their examiners can't mark any faster; and university admissions officers say that the system works fine, so why tamper with it?

Each year, 18-year-olds have been applying to university on the basis of grades they are predicted to get by their teachers. They have to make decisions about which course and university to choose a year before they actually go there. And they become committed to choices that they might think better of once they have got their grades the following August.

The system, according to the critics, is particularly hard on young people who do better than expected. Under the current rules, they have to stick with the course and institution they accepted; they are not supposed to trade up.

"Reform should have happened years ago," says Martin Stephen, the High Master of Manchester Grammar School. "The present system is madness. It creates huge uncertainty and paperwork, and takes time away from teachers who should be teaching and lecturers who should be doing research."

The reformers are hopeful that Mike Tomlinson, leading the inquiry into last summer's A-level fiasco, will recommend in his final report next month that the system be changed. He is being lobbied by some influential players, notably Tony Higgins, the chief executive of the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (Ucas, which first called for reform in 1993), and Chris Price, the former Labour MP, who links the change to another reform – schools moving from a three- to a six-term year.

"Higher education institutions would support changes which build in greater certainty for students and security for institutions," says Ucas, together with Universities UK (UUK), which represents vice chancellors, and the Standing Conference of Principals, which represents the principals in colleges of higher education, in its evidence to the Tomlinson inquiry.

Last week, on behalf of the Local Government Association, Chris Price added his voice to the clamour in a letter to Education Secretary Charles Clarke. "We believe that post-qualification application encourages access by enabling less-confident students to apply with better information about their abilities, and uses taxpayers' resources more effectively by making unnecessary both teachers' predicted grades in schools and conditional acceptance systems in higher education," he said.

The United Kingdom is thought to be the only nation in the world in which university admissions is based largely on predicted grades. Elsewhere, students are picked after they have demonstrated their ability in recognised exams. Surely, the critics say, this is a more sensible way in which to proceed, from the point of view of both students going to places for which they are best suited and institutions wanting to recruit the right people.

"At the moment, students' applications are judged on the basis of notoriously unreliable predictions made seven months before they take the exams and at too early a stage in their A-level courses. Six months later, they might make a different choice of course," says John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association.

Reformers such as Leslie Wagner – the vice-chancellor of Leeds Metropolitan University and chairman of the UUK task group on admissions – and Chris Price are calling for A-level exams to be brought forward so that sixth-formers take them three weeks earlier in the year, in the second week of April, irrespective of the date of Easter. The exam results could then be published at the end of July, and the universities could delay the start of the academic year by one week. That way, you create enough space in the system for students to apply after their results are out. "It helps both the students and the universities," says Professor Wagner.

The idea is that in July, students need apply only to a couple of universities because they know their grades and have established what they want to do. They don't need to list six universities or hold an insurance offer in case they don't get the grades. It is this hedging of bets that produces all the bureaucracy and waste, say the critics, with universities making offers to far more students, sometimes triple or quadruple the number of places, because they know most applications are bogus.

Students could conduct their research into university choices after the exams are over in May and June. That is when university visits can take place; when applicants can read prospectuses and talk to their teachers about which course would suit them; and, maybe, when interviews can take place for the courses that require them.

Another idea, mooted by Mr Tomlinson already, is for the start of the university year to be moved to January. However, that has been dismissed by everyone. It would be like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, says Professor Wagner, throwing the UK out of line with the EU and the rest of the world.

Pressure for reform has been coming largely from schools and colleges, but some university leaders have picked up the hot potato. A group organised by the UUK's predecessor, the Committee of Vice chancellors and Principals, examined it in the Nineties, found it too hot and chucked it at Lord Dearing.

In his 1997 report, Dearing recommended that reform be pursued. A proposal was formulated under a steering group chaired by Sir Brian Smith, the vice chancellor of Cardiff University. It proposed that A-levels be published on 10 August, earlier than they are now, after which students would apply to university electronically. The universities countered that two and a half weeks was too short a time in which to match places to applicants.

In fact, the universities are split. Some are in favour of reform, others are against it. And the opposition is from admissions officers rather than vice chancellors. Delyth Chambers, director of admissions at Birmingham University, has her doubts. "My fear is that if post-qualification admissions were introduced, you would still have a conditional offer system that would be unregulated," she says.

She and other admissions officers fear that a "shadow" admissions system would develop in sought-after courses at sought-after universities. Bright students from selective or independent schools would contact those universities and be offered places conditional on A-level results. For that to work, there would probably still have to be the paraphernalia of predicted grades, the school's report and the personal statement being dispatched months in advance.

"At the end of the day, the current system does work," she says. "People do get to the institutions they want. I do feel that the Ucas scheme in its present format has safeguards that protect students. What you might get in an unregulated shadow system is students being offered inducements to go to one institution rather than another."

By contrast, Jacqueline Henshaw, Manchester's admissions officer, welcomes greater certainty for the university and applicants, though also envisages the development of a shadow admissions system. That would have to be put on a formal footing, she believes.

Whether a recommendation next month by Mr Tomlinson will enable the universities, schools and exam boards to agree on reform is doubtful. And then the real hard work will begin – of turning that into a new system that works.

l.hodges@independent.co.uk

'It's great to make your application when you know your grades'

Emma Prest, 18, is an old hand at the Ucas system, having applied last year, during her final year at school, and again this year once she had got her A-level results. First time round, she wasn't confident about what grades she would achieve or even where she wanted to end up. "I got all As and A*s at GCSE but A-levels were different, much harder work and I was doing contrasting subjects, chemistry, geography and Spanish (plus AS levels in maths and art history). I decided to apply for American studies at university because I had lived in America and didn't know what else to do. I thought it would be fun and I liked the breadth of the subject. I applied to Warwick, Sussex, King's College London, Nottingham and Edinburgh. I soon realised that I liked the courses at King's and Warwick but preferred the idea of living in Nottingham or Edinburgh. In the event, I didn't get in to either of the latter two, though Edinburgh told me to reapply. So, I dropped out of Ucas and applied again after my A-level results. With grades ABC I realised I wouldn't get in to Edinburgh for American studies (they have increased their requirements to AAB), so I thought again. I had got an A in geography and enjoyed it at school. Plus, I was really keen on Edinburgh, so I applied again, this time to study geography in the science faculty. I have had unconditional offers from all over the country. It is great to apply when you know your grades. You know where you're likely to get in whereas before you didn't have a clue."