“These proposals would reduce choice for students and put students from challenging backgrounds at further disadvantage.
“We reviewed the admissions process comprehensively in 2012, (The UCAS Admissions Process Review) and found the general view from the secondary and higher education sector to be that whilst a post-results application system is logical, it would work against those from less advantaged backgrounds. It wouldn’t leave enough time for universities to properly assess and meet the needs of the full range of students, nor for students (particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds) to conduct all their research into accommodation and finance before making informed choices.
“Finally, It is not the case that only 16% of predicted grades are right – the correct interpretation is that only about 16% of students have no net deviation at all from their predicted grades across three A level results.”
A full response from Mary can be found in her blog post on the Times Higher Education website.