Tilbage til Advanced (Grades 10-12) English (UK) – Interactive task

Designing a Fair System for University Places

Engelsk tale scenarie

Abbi

An upbeat British English speaker with a clear, supportive delivery.

29 years · female

Practise talking about "Designing a Fair System for University Places" with Abbi, your AI speaking avatar. Speak out loud, get instant feedback, and build confidence for your Trinity GESE Grade 10-12 speaking exam.

Start free AI practice

Samtale

I need advice about designing a fair system for university places. Can you ask me what you need to know before suggesting a plan?

Godt svar:

Before suggesting a system, I would ask what problem the university is trying to solve. Is it too much reliance on exam grades, unequal school backgrounds, pressure from parents, lack of diversity, or concern that standards may fall? I would also ask which courses are oversubscribed and whether they require particular skills, such as medicine, engineering or performing arts. A fair admissions system cannot be identical for every subject. I would need to know what evidence is available about applicants' schools, interviews, personal statements and later university performance. The aim should be to select students with genuine potential, not simply those who had the best preparation.

The difficulty is that different people involved want very different things. What should I do first?

Godt svar:

I would begin with to separate academic requirements from selection methods. The university can decide what knowledge or skills are genuinely necessary for each course, then ask whether its current process measures those fairly. I would recommend reviewing data on admissions, school background and student outcomes before changing the whole system. That keeps options open. It may show that some subjects need interviews, others need aptitude tests, and others need contextual offers. The university should not begin with a slogan such as “merit only” or “access first”. It should begin by defining merit in a way that recognises both achievement and opportunity.

Some people are demanding an immediate decision, but the evidence is incomplete.

Godt svar:

When evidence is incomplete, the university should not redesign admissions overnight. It can run controlled pilots and compare outcomes carefully. For example, it might use contextual offers in selected courses and track retention, grades, student satisfaction and use of support services. It should also monitor whether any group is unintentionally disadvantaged by the change. Speed matters because unfair systems can exclude people every year, but a poorly designed reform can damage trust and harm students. I would recommend acting where the evidence is strong, testing where it is uncertain, and explaining clearly what data will decide the next step. Applicants should know how the evidence is used.

What compromise would you recommend, and what would you refuse to compromise on?

Godt svar:

The best compromise may be to keep demanding academic standards, but interpret achievement in context. A student who earns slightly lower grades in a poorly resourced school may show as much potential as a student with higher grades from a highly selective school. The university could use contextual offers, extra assessments or foundation-year routes, depending on the course. I would refuse to compromise on honesty about criteria. Applicants should not have to guess what the university values. If background is considered, say how and why. A fair compromise protects standards while admitting that opportunity is not distributed equally before students apply.

How should I explain the decision to people who will be disappointed by it?

Godt svar:

I would make clear that the university is trying to identify potential as well as past achievement. I would acknowledge that some rejected applicants will feel disappointed, especially if they have excellent grades. Then I would explain the evidence behind the policy and the safeguards: academic standards, course requirements, contextual criteria and support for admitted students. I would avoid suggesting that privileged applicants did not work hard. Many did. The point is that hard work happens under different conditions. A respectful explanation should make clear that the system is not lowering ambition; it is trying to judge achievement more accurately. Applicants should know how the evidence is used.