Critically examine the use of contextual data in u

Critically examine the use of contextual data in university admissions policies.

The primary theme of the paper is Critically examine the use of contextual data in university admissions policies. in which you are required to emphasize its aspects in detail. The cost of the paper starts from $149 and it has been purchased and rated 4.9 points on the scale of 5 points by the students. To gain deeper insights into the paper and achieve fresh information, kindly contact our support.

As requested new task is outlined below. Please produce an essay of 4000 words for the following question. 

Critically examine the use of contextual data in university admissions policies.

With reference to the following reading list.

Admissions Statement | University of Warwick.

Admissions summary - Our grade adjustments | University of Glasgow.

Entry requirements and qualifications | University of Bristol.

How we select | The University of Edinburgh.

Student Recruitment & Admissions Briefing: contextual data in undergraduate admissions at the University of Edinburgh.

Supporting Professionalism in Admissions (SPA) work on contextualised admissions.


Opening doors, breaking barriers: a strategy for social mobility.


 Aspirations, access, and attainment: international perspectives on widening participation and an agenda for change, London

New York, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

ADMISSIONS TO HIGHER EDUCATION STEERING, G. 2004. Fair admissions to higher education: recommendations for good practice.

BATHMAKER, A.-M. 2015. Thinking with Bourdieu: thinking after Bourdieu. Using ‘field’ to consider in/equalities in the changing field of English higher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45, 61-80.

BOLIVER, V. & ET AL. 2017. Mapping and evaluating the use of contextual data in undergraduate admissions in Scotland (Executive Summary and Reports).

BRIDGER, K., SHAW, J. & MOORE, J. 2012. Research to describe the use of contextual data in admissions at a sample of universities and colleges in the UK.

BURKE, P. J. 2012. The right to higher education: beyond widening participation, Abingdon, Oxon

New York, Routledge.

CRAWFORD, C. 2014. The link between secondary school characteristics and university participation and outcomes.

CRAWFORD, C. & ET AL. 2017. Admissions in Context (Report Overview and Link to Full Report).

GIESINGER, J. 2011. Education, Fair Competition, and Concern for the Worst Off. Educational Theory, 61, 41-54.

HARRIS, M. 2010. What more can be done to widen access to highly selective universities?

HECKMAN, J. J. 2006. Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged Children. Science, 312, 1900.

LAREAU, A. 2011. Unequal childhoods: class, race, and family life, Berkeley, University of California Press.

NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATIONAL, R. 2010. Use of an aptitude test in university entrance: A validity study.

REAY, D. 2001. Finding or losing yourself?: working-class relationships to education. Journal of Education Policy, 16, 333-346.

SMYTH, E. & BANKS, J. 2012. ‘There was never really any question of anything else`: young people`s agency, institutional habitus and the transition to higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33, 263-281.

SOCIAL MOBILITY AND CHILD POVERTY, C. 2012. University Challenge: How Higher Education Can Advance Social Mobility.

SOCIAL MOBILITY AND CHILD POVERTY, C. 2014. How the key players outside central government can tackle child poverty and promote social mobility.

SWIFT, A. & MARSHALL, G. 1997. Meritocratic equality of opportunity: Economic efficiency, social justice, or both? Policy Studies, 18, 35-48.

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written
Tailored to your instructions