UUK and GuildHE update Fair Admissions Code

Back at the start of the year, and after that Sunday Times piece on international foundation years and such like, Universities UK promised to do three things to address the issues that had been raised.

The first was to commission the Quality Assurance Agency to examine standards within international pathway programmes – this appeared in July and offered the sector a (qualified) clean bill of health, but made recommendations that would help make the nature and purpose of these pathways clearer.

There’s been updates to the Agent Quality Framework (that was thing number two), so the only remaining promise was an update to the fair admissions code of practice – which has appeared this morning.

The old code nominally applied to all applicants, but had a pronounced slant towards the needs and expectations of home applicants. Back in 2022 (the last time the code was reviewed) there was a lot of interest in so-called “conditional unconditional offers” – the code replaced a pandemic-era condition of registration in England to avoid this kind of offer making.

This time round the language on international recruitment, and particularly on relationships with other parties (including agents) who may be involved in recruitment has been strengthened. We also see the quiet insertion of the need to comply with CMA guidance when it comes to course related information, entry requirements (including English language requirements) and course titling (that last one being a recommendation from the QAA report), and a new requirement to avoid “tight offer acceptance deadlines” and similar deadlines (on interview/audition or deposit/fee payment) that put undue pressure on applicants.

Also notable is new information around benchmarking international entry requirements against home equivalents. This already happens within UCAS (indeed, UCAS actively links its own requirements to the code of practice) – the changes extend this outside of applications via UCAS. Within franchising arrangements, there’s now a clear steer on ensuring that applicants know which organisation is making decisions on applications.

To be clear, there’s no changes to the overarching principles, only the expected behaviours that underpin them. And – more importantly – this is a voluntary code that institutions can choose to sign up to, and does not have any regulatory impact. The behaviour of signatories will be monitored by the sector representative bodies, providers will be asked to explain practices that deviate from the expectations in the code.

While it is good to see the code updated to reflect current concerns and practices – and, frankly, anything that drives institutional attention on this issue is welcome – I don’t think anyone could argue that this code alone will solve issues with international recruitment practice. It relies on universities doing the right thing: most universities will, but financial pressures driving ambitious recruitment targets may tempt others.