Two-thirds of this year’s university entrants are in favour of switching to a post-qualification admissions (PQA) system, a survey for the Sutton Trust has found.

The polling of 502 university entrants by YouthSight also found that one in four respondents would have made different decisions about which universities they applied to had they used their final grades, rather than ones predicted by their teachers.

Of those who would have applied to a higher-tariff university, 52 per cent said teachers had underpredicted their grades.

Working-class respondents were less likely than middle-class applicants to say they would have applied to the same universities if they had known their final grades at application, 63 per cent versus 78 per cent.

̽����Ƶ

They were also more likely than their middle-class peers to say they would have applied to a more selective university if they had known their final results, 16 per cent compared with 10 per cent, the survey found.

According to the Sutton Trust, the survey results and the controversy that surrounded this year’s A-level results show that the UK’s admissions system must be reformed. Moving to a system in which young people and universities can make decisions based on actual exam results would be “fairer than the current system”, the report says.

̽����Ƶ

This year, A-level grades were calculated through centre-assessed grades, based on both teachers’ assessments and the rank order of pupils. These grades were calculated after exams were cancelled, and were different from the predicted grades that students applied to university with.

Ofqual then applied an algorithm, based on a school’s previous performance, to those centre-assessed grades. This led to almost 40 per cent of A-level results being downgraded, and resulted in the government mounting a U-turn and allowing pupils to use centre-assessed grades if they were higher than their algorithm-allocated grades.

With a higher weighting on teacher prediction this year, 38 per cent of the students surveyed ended up with correctly predicted grades, 30 per cent said they had at least one grade lower, while 32 per cent said they had at least one grade higher.

In previous years, nearly 85 per cent of students’ grades did not match their teacher predictions, with underprediction particularly affecting high-achieving disadvantaged students, the report says.

̽����Ƶ

These students – numbering about 1,000 in most years – are then less likely to apply to a highly selective institution, and if they do, they may be rejected because the institution does not believe they will achieve the grades needed for entry, according to the Sutton Trust.

This year’s A-level debacle, alongside the Office for Students’ consultation on admissions to higher education and Universities UK’s Fair Admissions review provide “an important opportunity to take another look at reforming the system”, the report says.

Peter Lampl, founder and chairman of the Sutton Trust, said this year had “exposed major flaws with the system that are due principally to our reliance on predicted grades”.

“Two-thirds of young people support post-qualifications applications, which allow both them and universities to make decisions based on actual grades. It’s as if applicants have real currency in their possession, rather than counterfeit currency as is now the case,” he said.

̽����Ƶ

“PQA would benefit high-achieving low-income students as their grades are often underpredicted. PQA would also result in admissions becoming more efficient, simpler and fairer for all students.”

University and College Union general secretary Jo Grady agreed. She said: “The current admissions system is not fit for purpose. This report shows that students are receiving university offers according to inaccurately predicted results, with students from more affluent backgrounds more likely to gain a place at their preferred university than their less-affluent peers.

̽����Ƶ

“Allowing students to apply after they receive their results will help level the playing field, remove the problems associated with unconditional offers and end the chaotic clearing scramble.”

anna.mckie@timeshighereducation.com