Law School Admissions: Study on Access & Socio-economic Diversity, Study notes of Law

Download Law School Admissions: Study on Access & Socio-economic Diversity and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Report undertaken in collaboration with York Law

School of the University of York and supported by

Clifford Chance

July 2020

Admissions to

selective UK law

schools

This report should be cited as: Bridge Group and York Law School (2020). Admissions to selective UK law schools. Bridge Group. Available at https://www.thebridgegroup.org.uk/research

• Additional assessment
• Making offers
• Confirmation
• Appendix 1: Glossary
• Appendix 2: Calculations for the figures

List of figures

Figure 1. Entrants from POLAR quintiles 1-2 as a percentage of the UK

intake, top 20 law schools and their universities ................................... 31

Figure 2. Percentage of unique applicants from POLAR quintiles 1 & 2, all

grade profiles and qualifications .......................................................... 43

Figure 3. Proportion of Q1-2 unique applicants who receive an offer, all

grade profiles and qualifications .......................................................... 47

Figure 4. Percentage point difference between Q1-2 and Q3-5 applicants

in receiving an offer, all grade profiles and qualifications ...................... 49

Figure 5. Acceptances to top 20 law schools by grade profile and POLAR

quintile .............................................................................................. 56

Figure 6. Percentage point difference in acceptance rate (application to

placed) POLAR Quintiles 1-2 and 3-5, all grade profiles and qualifications,

for Law Schools A – T ......................................................................... 60

Figure 7. Percentage point difference in acceptance rate (application to

placed) POLAR Quintiles 1-2 and 3-5 with an AAB+ grade profile, for Law

Schools A – T ..................................................................................... 61

List of tables

Table 1. The most popular law schools by grade profile (A levels only)

and POLAR......................................................................................... 69

The short, medium and longer-term impacts of the changes forced by Covid- 19 raise concerns, but may also present opportunities, regarding diversity and access to legal education. We hope that the commitment to widening access that we identify sustains in such turbulent and challenging times. Acknowledgements We would like, first, to express our sincere thanks to those individuals and universities that participated in our research, most of whom are listed below. This is not a complete list of all interviewees, as some preferred to remain anonymous. We gained many invaluable insights from our interviews, as well as a huge amount of data, and are extremely grateful for the donation of time. We would also like to acknowledge the very generous support provided by Clifford Chance, without which this research would not have been possible.

Individuals

Dr Aleksandra Cavoski Dr Claire Connor Margaret Couling Yvonne Evans Dr Imogen Goold Alex Ingold Paul McConnell Dr Christopher McCorkindale Prof Tom Mullen Dr Katie Richards Dr Stephanie Switzer Dr Chloe Wallace Christina Walton Dr Adelyn Wilson

Institutions

University of Aberdeen School of Law University of Birmingham University of Bristol University of Cambridge Cardiff School of Law & Politics, Cardiff University University of Dundee University of Exeter University of Glasgow University of Leeds London School of Economics & Political Science Faculty of Law, University of Oxford University of Sheffield University of Strathclyde University of York Only some institutions interviewed feature in the analysis of UCAS data and only some institutions featuring in the UCAS data analysis were interviewed.

Executive summary I. Overview of key findings Our interviews with admissions personnel highlighted a widespread commitment to equality and broadening access to law schools, as well as very substantial efforts to achieve that. However, our interviews also revealed that some aspects of admissions requirements and processes were likely to present more barriers for applicants from less advantaged backgrounds than for their more advantaged peers. There were also significant differences in admissions requirements and processes, with many lacking an evidence base or clear rationale. Our review of law schools’ websites indicated that the quality, availability and accessibility of information specifically about applying to law varies. More positively, applicants from both types of backgrounds were equally likely to apply to the top law schools, providing they had predicted grades of at least AAB. Our analysis of UCAS data revealed differences in the rates at which applicants from more advantaged or less advantaged backgrounds respectively progress through the stages of the admissions process, with the latter generally less likely to progress. Our data confirms that some of these differences are due to differences in predicted grades and in type of qualifications. Applicants from the less advantaged group are less likely to receive an offer, with qualifications other than A level being the biggest barrier. The biggest barrier to being accepted is predicted low grades and this is the case across both groups. However, our analysis shows that if accepted applicants are from the less advantaged group, then they are significantly more likely to have the grade profile AAB+ than their more advantaged peers. This means that law schools require applicants from less advantaged backgrounds to have higher grades than their more advantaged peers. This is contrary to the intended commitment to access. Our data is not sufficiently detailed to confirm the reasons for this difference. We recommend that law schools examine their own admissions data to investigate any disproportions in progression and unintended barriers. Since there is wide variation across law schools in the relative likelihood of the two applicant groups progressing, we also recommend that law schools share successful practice to collate evidence of which measures lead to greater success for applicants from less advantaged backgrounds.

iv. The student intake to selective law schools The proportion of entrants from POLAR low participation neighbourhoods varies substantially across the top 20 law schools, with some recruiting more than twice the proportion of others. Nearly all the top 20 law schools enrol a higher proportion of students from low-participation neighbourhoods than their respective university. However, only five law schools reach the English average for higher education institutions in terms of their intake of students from such neighbourhoods. v. Provision of information to prospective applicants It is important for law schools to provide clear, accurate and easily accessible information about admissions arrangements to prospective applicants, because the information available to them from other sources – and especially from schools and colleges, family and friends – may vary markedly between applicants from different socio-economic backgrounds. We reviewed the admissions information available on the websites of a group of 24 top law schools. We found much generic information, but less giving guidance on specific details for law, such as preferred subjects, the acceptability of qualifications other than A levels, the personal statement and any criteria used to assess it, the use of contextual data and interviews. In many cases, it was very difficult to find relevant information on law school or university websites, requiring a general internet search and/or searching through dense documents. vi. The applicant journey: UCAS admissions data for the top 20 law schools

Applications

There is wide variation in the pattern of applications by prospective students from POLAR low participation (PQ1-2) areas to the top 20 law schools, with four law schools at one end attracting twice the proportion of PQ1- 2 applicants than the four law schools at the other end. We observe that those law schools attracting the smallest proportions of PQ1-2 applicants tend to be more selective or based in London, but this is not a consistent pattern. The law schools attracting the highest overall proportions of applicants from PQ1- 2 were those attracting higher proportions with either predicted grades of less than AAB or no A levels predicted (meaning that they have other

qualifications). Looking at the average for the top 20 law schools, we see that applicants from high participation areas (PQ3-5) included a substantially higher proportion predicted at least AAB than amongst PQ 1 - 2 applicants. However, two of the most selective law schools attract a higher proportion of applicants with either less than AAB or no A levels predicted within their PQ3-5 group than within their PQ1-2 group.

Offers

Offer rates ranged from some law schools making offers to almost all their applicants from PQ1-2 areas, to those making offers to only about one-fifth of them. In general – and as may be expected – the more selective the law school, the lower the proportion of applicants receiving offers. On average, 65% of PQ1-2 applicants to a top 20 law school receive an offe r. This is a very positive message that may be useful in third-party efforts to encourage students to apply to top law schools. In terms of the differential offer rate between the two POLAR groups, there is much variation. We found that at all but two law schools, PQ1-2 applicants (the less advantaged group) were less likely to receive an offer than their PQ3-5 peers. When we disaggregated offer data by qualification and grade profile, we found that the most significant difference was amongst those applicants with no A levels predicted. It is likely that this arises from different choices of qualifications by the two groups: Access and BTEC versus the International Baccalaureate. The offer rate is more balanced for applicants predicted AAB+. However, looking at the top six law schools, we find that most of them were less likely to make offers to PQ1-2 applicants than their PQ3- 5 peers across all qualifications and grade profiles.

Acceptance and acceptance rates

Most of the law schools placing higher proportions of PQ1-2 applicants also placed a larger proportion of these with other than AAB+. However, this is not a consistent pattern. Nor does relative prestige within the top 20 law schools appear to have a consistent association with the proportion of PQ1- 2 amongst accepted applicants. Looking at acceptance rates (the likelihood of applicants’ being placed), we find that on average, across the total cohort, applicants from both POLAR groups predicted AAB+ had the same acceptance rate. When we disaggregate this by law school, we see that applicants from PG1-2 areas were more likely to be

areas and predicted AAB+ are applying in line with their predicted grades. We see that applicants predicted AAB+ apply to similar law schools, the top seven being the same for each POLAR group, but in a different order. vii. Key findings from interviews The aim of the qualitative research was to explore the admissions processes used by a group of selective law schools, together with the underpinning rationales for their use. This element of the study was based on interviews with Admissions Tutors and/or professional admissions staff at a total of 16 law schools, supplemented by information available online on university websites. Four main aspects of the law admissions decision-making process were explored: the UCAS application; additional assessment; making offers; confirmation. In summary, our general findings are that: there is a strong commitment to widening access amongst selective law school admission professionals; there are wide variations in the decision-making processes and evaluation of applications employed by law schools; and that the adoption of policies and procedures often lacks an evidence-base , or clear justification. These variations in approach and the lack of evidence may well be influenced by a lack of available data and other information, as well as the impact of other concerns that run counter to the aim of broadening access. Amongst the latter, the impact of entry tariffs on league tables presents a substantial inhibiting factor. Our findings from the four aspects of the decision-making process are as follows.  The UCAS application: We find wide variations across law schools in the acceptance of qualification types. Vocational qualifications (in the form of BTECs) were not accepted by more than a third, unless in combination with A levels. Similar differences in approach to preferred and excluded A level subjects are evident. We find that suitability of qualification and subject appears to be based more on assumptions than robust investigation. Some interviewees expressed doubts regarding the accuracy of predicted grades and concerns about reliance on personal statements. However, we find widespread reliance on both elements, with examples of seemingly subjective evaluation.  Additional assessment: We find considerable differences in the use of information additional to that provided in the UCAS application. More than

a third of law schools used the LNAT. As well as variations in how the components of the LNAT are assessed, we find contrary views as to its value and reliability. We find greater variation in the use of interviews. This includes whether interviews are required for all, some, or any applicants, and the degree to which they are structured. The provision of information to applicants also varied, with some significant deficits identified, and so we raise equality of access to information as a concern.  Making offers: We find a fairly high degree of consistency in standard grade requirements but significant differences in whether and how contextual information may be used to adjust such offers. Our interviewees expressed concerns regarding the availability and robustness of contextual data to help decision-making, as well as their ability to interpret this. This area of discussion also noted some of the influences regarding reluctance to make such adjustments, primarily in the form of League Table rankings, but also ability of students to succeed on the degree programme.  Confirmation: We find that the majority of the law schools used the allocation of discretionary places at the time of final A level results as an opportunity to make contextual information into account. viii. Closing words This report asks many questions and provides rather fewer answers. We have not identified a clear solution to the issue of the underrepresentation of students from less advantaged backgrounds in the top law schools: there is no magic wand, no one measure that will guarantee a more diverse intake. We have however provided a model for how individual law schools might wish to explore their own more detailed data and we have identified which questions they might wish to ask. We have also shown that some of the top law schools can achieve more socio-economic diversity in their intake than was present in their applicant pool, suggesting that other law schools may also have the capacity to improve. Perhaps counter-intuitively, it is likely to be easier for the more selective law schools to improve than it is for the less selective.

We believe that this will allow law schools to make faster progress in diversifying their respective intakes. The Law Admissions Network would support efficiencies in gathering evidence. iii. As part of developing an evidence-based approach, each law school should review its own admissions data to assess whether applicants from less advantaged backgrounds have an equal chance of success. We recommend:  using the most up-to-date internal data available  using our methodology of tracking applicants through the stages of the application cycle and assessing whether applicants from less advantaged backgrounds 2 progress proportionately across each stage  in addition, disaggregating where possible each element that contributes to the assessment process (for example, grades, A level subjects, qualification type, personal statement, LNAT and interview). This would allow each law school to identify any policies or practices that had a more negative impact on applicants from less advantaged backgrounds.^3 iv. Using the results of this internal review, each law school should review any factors within their admissions process underlying unequal chances of success and assess the potential for reducing these barriers. Reducing barriers may include:^4  considering the impact of an applicant’s personal and educational context not just on grades, but also on the personal statement and reference, especially where these are scored, and on interview  considering all subjects equally (^2) Law schools are likely to have access to institutional widening participation markers for applicants. (^3) For example, if a smaller proportion of applicants from less advantaged backgrounds are receiving offers than their peers from more advantaged backgrounds, and their grades are equal, a law school may wish to explore whether applicants’ A level subjects influenced decisions. (^4) For example, if a law school found that A level subjects did influence decisions, then it may wish to reassess whether it is justifiable to preference some subjects over others. This could include seeking evidence from other law schools for better performance on course by those with specific A level subjects.

 accepting qualifications other than A levels. v. Develop a better understanding of contextual admissions By collating practice and evidence across law schools, the Law Admissions Network would facilitate this process. Linking in with employers of law graduates will promote greater consistency of approach between higher education and employers. Points to review include:  (^) sources of contextual data and identifying eligible applicants  (^) the evidence base for using contextual data in admissions in terms of its impact on the predictive validity of A level results for undergraduate performance  options for implementing contextual admissions  (^) negotiating senior-level agreement  being transparent to potential applicants. vi. As part of addressing the recommendations above, we recommend that law schools bear in mind the following key findings from our research:  Accepted applicants from less advantaged neighbourhoods (POLAR quintiles 1-2) are significantly more likely to have the grade profile AAB+ than those from more advantaged neighbourhoods (POLAR quintiles 3-5).  (^) Applicants from POLAR quintiles 1-2 with qualifications other than A levels are much less likely to receive an offer than those from POLAR quintiles 3-5.  Accepting a wide range of qualifications and accepting applicants who had been predicted less than AAB helps in placing applicants from POLAR quintiles 1-2. vii. Share admissions policy and practice internally Law admissions personnel should share policy, practice, internal evaluation and research with colleagues in other professional social science subjects, such as economics and business. viii. Each law school should consult with university colleagues responsible for marketing and outreach relating to student diversity. This is particularly important for law schools attracting low numbers of applicants from less advantaged backgrounds or converting a lower

example, changing the timetable for applying to university so that applicants apply only after they receive their final examination results.

1. Research aims and methodology Aims

1. Diversity within the legal profession is affected by uneven access and opportunity from primary school through to law firms’ recruitment and progression practices. Access to university^7 remains a crucial stage within this journey. Though talent is drawn from a wider student body (and elsewhere), law degrees from university law schools provide the most common route into the profession and the main ‘talent pool’ from which future professionals are drawn. This is very likely to remain the case, despite recent initiatives such as legal apprenticeships.
2. This study identifies and analyses the socio-economic make-up of the student bodies at 20 of the most selective law schools in England and how those student bodies are formed through the stages of the admissions process. We then explore the admissions requirements, policies and procedures used by these and other selective law schools and how they may influence the resulting student bodies. We also explore the rationale for these admissions arrangements and how they are implemented.
3. To identify the socio-economic make-up of the student bodies, we analyse UCAS^8 data to show the POLAR^9 profiles of prospective students across the admissions cycle. (We use POLAR as an indicator of educational disadvantage and a broad proxy for wider socio-economic disadvantage.) (^7) We generally use the term ‘university’ to refer to all higher education institutions, as it is more widely understood outside the higher education sector. (^8) The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) handles applications for full-time undergraduate study at UK universities and colleges. (^9) The participation of local areas (POLAR) classification is used to group areas across the UK based on the proportion of young people participating in higher education; quintiles 1 and 2 are the classifications for neighbourhoods with the lowest participation. For more information, see: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/data-and-analysis/polar-participation-of- local-areas/.