Will replacing personal statements with application questions make university admissions fairer?

The questions replacing the personal statement provide structure and should help students focus on what is important.

Prospective students will no longer be asked to write personal statements as part of their application to university in the UK, the admissions organisation Ucas has announced.

Instead of writing a single 4,000 character personal statement, from 2026 applicants will instead have to answer three questions. These ask why they want to study a particular course, how their education has prepared them for it, and how their experiences beyond education have contributed to their preparation. In total, responses to the three questions will still add up to the same 4,000 character limit.

The change is intended to make the application process fairer. Young people from less privileged backgrounds may not get the same support in writing their statement – or be able to detail the same extensive extracurricular achievements – as their wealthier peers.

As experts on student access and widening participation to higher education, we think the questions replacing the personal statement look sensible. They provide structure and should help students focus on what is important. But a more radical approach to admissions is required to create an equitable process for all students.

Ucas has faced pressure for some time to make such a change. A 2022 report from higher education think tank Hepi showed that students from backgrounds underrepresented in higher education found including academic discussion in their statement and structuring it challenging. They also felt unsure about how to impress admissions tutors.

More generally, persistent gaps remain between the educational opportunities afforded to the most privileged in society and those who have been systematically and institutionally disadvantaged.

What’s more, admission gaps – the difference in the proportion of students from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds – are often highest in the most prestigious and competitive courses and institutions. These gaps have grown since 2018.

Writing about their rationale for selecting the course should help students clarify their own intentions, as well as demonstrating their commitment to the admissions tutors. The second question, focusing on a student’s academic preparation for the course, should be straightforward to answer if they have studied a related set of prior qualifications. It may be trickier when a student is applying for a course which isn’t directly related to their previous academic experience.

The final question is probably the hardest for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, as it asks about preparation for the course outside the classroom. This may be less easy to answer if a student’s financial or social situation has prevented them from engaging in extracurricular activities. This might be because of costs or caring responsibilities.

While these changes are welcome, we believe a more radical approach to admissions is required if we are serious about creating a more equitable process for all students. Research analysis of personal statements has shown that applicants from different backgrounds do not have the same level of preparation for this aspect of university entrance, and this is likely to also be true of the questions replacing the long personal statement.

But rather than scrap the personal statement altogether, the response has been to improve the information and guidance provided to students. By making the process clearer, the changes announced by UCAS should lead to a reduction in the cultural and social advantages enjoyed by more privileged students. In addition, the approach using short answer questions aligns with inclusive recruitment processes now seem more widely in the world of work.

Further change

However further change is needed to make access to higher education truly fair. This would involve recognising that educational disadvantages prevent some students from reaching their academic potential, and that the intensive nature of private and elite education can exaggerate the academic strengths of other candidates.

Ucas itself has led the way in this area. It produces a “multiple equality measure”, which uses student data to categorise applicants into five groups. Students in each of these groups have similar levels of educational advantage, allowing for fairer comparison against their peers.

This information allows universities to make “contextual offers” – perhaps giving students from more disadvantaged backgrounds more consideration, an offer with lower required grades or an unconditional offer.

There is a growing acknowledgement within higher education that this process of contextualising admissions is important to make university admissions fairer. However, not all universities make contextual offers and some view the reduction in entry tariff – a common component of contextual admission policies – as potentially risking the quality of the student intake and the university’s reputation.

What’s more, universities may use their own measures to determine their contextual admission policies. This maintains institutional autonomy and means universities can be responsive to their local context. But the added complexity can be a barrier to uptake if applicants can’t easily understand where and how they qualify for such schemes, or what benefits they might receive as a result.

The change to the personal statement is a good move. But higher education needs to be doing more. This includes improving and potentially standardising current approaches to contextual admission policies. They need to be a major part of the admissions landscape if universities are to make real progress towards helping students from all backgrounds access higher education.

Helena Gillespie receives funding from TASO for projects related to widening access. She is also a lead quality assessor for the Office for Students.

Mark Walmsley is a Director of the Foundation Year Network.