sou · GSB329 · 2005-01-01 00:00:00 — The main objectives – to provide information and manage selection We propose that the objectives of the admission rules be defined as follows: 1.to provide true, relevant and comprehensible information on the requirements of a higher educational programme and 2.in those cases where not all competent applicants can be accep- ted on a particular programme, to select from these in a legiti- mate, comprehensible and lawful way. Furthermore, we should consider whether the admission rules should also aim to: 3.through their design encourage relevant in-depth subject study and/or broader subject studies at upper-secondary school and 4.actively help to broaden recruitment with regard to gender, social and ethnic background and disability. Basic eligibility should constitute the broad link between upper- secondary level and higher education and be the lowest common denominator, so to speak. Special eligibility requirements should be designed so as to provide the aspiring student with comprehensible and educationally sound information. My main proposal for the design of special eligibility requirements is hence a revamped system of standard eligibility requirements, which we call subject area eligibility requirements. Regarding selection criteria, the Commission describes the three proposed parallel routes to higher education: grades, aptitude tests and a third selection criterion determined by the individual univer- sity/college. The basic idea behind having three – to a certain extent equal – routes into higher education is that all selection instruments generally have rather limited forecasting properties and are as a rule also marred by other weaknesses. A mix of selec- tion methods should therefore be the aim, in line with the old adage of not putting all ones eggs in the same basket. The selection criterion determined by the individual university/ college could consist of special tests other than the national uni- versity aptitude test, the consideration of previous education or work experience, knowledge or experience that is of particular value for the course applied for or the vocational field the pro- gramme is oriented towards, or other factual circumstances that are relevant to the educational programme in question. Upper-secondary school grades currently carry considerable weight when it comes to higher education selection. The goal-related grading system is however built on the belief that knowledge and performance are in no way normally distributed among students, but – on the contrary – that all students should be able to achieve the goals set for a specific grade and even those for the highest grade. In other words: a goal-related grading system is not particularly suitable for ranking purposes. While they have been in operation, the goal-related grades in upper-secondary school have also betrayed a number of negative effects, mainly in terms of grade inflation over time and substantial variation in grade-setting from one school or municipality and the next. The situation has not been helped by the basically unrestric- ted option of being able to retake grades later on to improve ones competitiveness. The question I have been wrestling with has therefore been: how to save upper-secondary grades as a higher education selection criterion in light of their lack of legal security and reliability? I reached the conclusion that this presupposes considerable changes being made to how grades are assessed as qualifications. This proposal is discussed further in the section below, Proposals for new admission rules. The national university aptitude test The university aptitude test is also of relatively major importance when it comes to higher education selection, not least since the envisaged target group for the test has changed and now covers all applicants, and not just 25:4s as was originally intended. The aptitude test basically possesses good ranking properties, but despite this is still mainly based on the testing expertise we had in the 1960s and 1970s. The test also treats applicants whose native language is not Swedish unfairly. There is therefore good reason to modernise the test, taking into account the results of broadly established evaluations of the test performed in recent years. Work experience is not only a criterion for basic eligibility (the 25:4 rule) and for special eligibility (termed professional life experience) but also a selection criterion (along with results from the aptitude test in the so-called HA group). Work experience should continue to be afforded substantial value in connection with higher education admissions but in less of an across-the-broad way since it has in practice become more than an age supple- ment. The idea of assessing real proficiency – i.e. an individual assessment of the applicants actual skills – should also be valid in this context, and work experience should be assessed and rewarded within the framework of the individually determined selection criteria of a university/college. Using other special tests as selection criteria is another option that has been available to universities and university colleges subsequent to approval from the for Higher Education. Institutes have shown a somewhat lukewarm interest in using other special tests, however. The main reason for this lack of interest is probably the high costs involved in developing, implementing and evaluating such tests. The experiences of other special tests can in general however be perceived as positive. It is therefore important to build on these existing positive experiences in the future. The Commission proposes the develop- ment of a number of national subject area tests or so-called domain tests. Such tests – a forerunner for which can be found in the American SAT II test – has both a high level of legitimacy and relatively good forecasting properties. It is, however, important that this type of test be developed on a national basis, both to maintain a high level of quality keep costs down. Interviews, which also fall within the scope of other special tests as selection criteria, should, however, be used with extreme cau- tion. Firstly, they are very costly, and secondly they favour people who have already assimilated the linguistic and cultural codes that by tradition are rewarded in higher education. Furthermore, we should also ask who should have the privilege of deciding what kind of personality the interview is trying to identify, as well as how credibly one can assess the personality of a 19-year-old. Alternative selection was introduced on 1 January 2003 and is colloquially referred to as free quota. It allows a university or university college to decide the selection criteria for a maximum of ten per cent of its places – selection criteria that cover some degree of previous knowledge or other factual circumstances. The option of using alternative selection has been used on relatively small scale, not least because of the uncertainty surrounding its real purpose and compliance with existing legislation governing equality of treatment in higher education. I feel this option should remain, but become part of the third route into higher education, i.e. become one of the locally determined selection criteria. In this respect, institutes should consider knowledge and experience that is particularly valuable for the programme the student is applying for or as regards the vocational field towards which the programme is oriented. Special grounds may refer for example to disabilities or some other circumstance or to the fact that the applicant has knowledge or experience of particular value to the programme for which she/he is applying. Higher education institutes are as a rule rather cautious when it comes to utilising this option to admit individual students. The option should remain, however, and universities and univer- sity colleges should report annually on how many people have applied and been accepted on special grounds, what these special grounds were and how many have been accepted. Universities and university colleges should nowadays assess an applicants real proficiency, which involves making a holistic assess- ment of his/her potential for successfully completing the programme she/he is applying for. Experience of the first year after these assessments were introduced shows good promise for the future, but a number of obstacles need to be eradicated. Some examples: firstly, real proficiency is still considered to be somewhat of a sidetrack. Secondly, national assessment equity should be strengthened and the proposed subject area tests could well play an important role in the future in this respect. Thirdly, it is unfortunate that so many of those who have been deemed eligible based on real proficiency have still not been accepted, because the institute has not wanted/dared to use this alternative selection criteria to admit a student. Proposals for new admission rules I propose that a requirement for at least a Pass grade in the core subjects of Swedish and English be added to the basic eligibility requirements. This corresponds to courses in Swedish A and Swedish B or Swedish as a Second Language A and B and English A. Applicants must also have completed an approved upper-secondary school project. These courses and project work must be included in the courses in which the applicant has attained a Pass grade, covering at least 90 per cent of the upper-secondary school credits needed to have completed an upper-secondary school programme. The same requirements will be placed on upper-secondary adult education as for upper-secondary school education and only a person with a final grade from adult secondary education will have fulfilled the requirements. The reasons to put forward this proposal are to ensure that eligibility requirements provide true and relevant information, because evaluations performed by the for Higher Education indicate deteriorating knowledge in above all Swedish and English and because basic eligibility requirements including Swedish and English make it easier to construct special eligibility requirements. The basis for this proposal is a simulation of the number of people achieving basic eligibility in several different subject combi- nations, including the one currently being proposed. I believe the proposed changes will not have a negative effect on the transition to higher education. I propose a system of 14 different subject area accreditations as a way of organising and describing special eligibility. The fundamental idea is that the prospective student will have a legitimate right to clear and comprehensible information on the eligibility requirements for a particular higher education pro- gramme and that universities and university colleges should describe their eligibility requirements in a clear, comprehensible and uni- form . Neither should entrance requirements for programmes that are basically the same be allowed to vary from one university/univer- sity college to the next. Even a range of programmes that is in many respects diversified can be accommodated within the frame- work of a small number of subject area accreditations. In addition, the information supplied on eligibility requirements must also be clear and educationally sound, otherwise it will not fulfil its purpose. I therefore propose that subject area accreditations be called subject area accreditation for behavioural science, subject area accreditation for technology, and so on. Both subjects essential for accreditation and subjects worth additional merit will be specified for each of the 14 subject area accreditations. The essential subjects will constitute the necessary entrance requirements, whilst the additional merit subjects are those that are not required for accreditation but for which extra points can be awarded. The purpose here is to encourage upper- secondary students to take in-depth and diversified studies that are relevant to higher education. We can use a nursing programme to exemplify the idea behind essential and additional merit subjects, which under the proposal would be included in the subject area accreditation for care studies and nursing. Subject are accreditation for care studies and nursing – Language step 3 or Native language B – Health Care or Social service studies, courses worth a minimum of 100 points In other words, Mathematics B and Science B are the essential subjects needed for eligibility, whereas the subjects listed as additional merit subjects provide extra points. The idea here is for only a maximum of three additional merit subjects to provide extra points, with one point per subject regardless of the grade gained by the applicant, so as not to create unnecessary stress. Another thought is to highlight programme-specific courses from primarily vocational programmes, which in the case of the above- mentioned example would be courses from the Health Care Programme. Under the proposal, the for Higher Education would issue regulations governing the applicable subject area accre- ditations for an educational programme leading to an advanced vocational qualification, whilst the university/university college it- self, after consultations with the for Higher Edu- cation, would determine the applicable subject area accreditations for other educational programmes aimed at new higher education entrants. Assessment of qualifications and selection Three routes will lead students into higher education: grades, tests and local selection criteria determined by the university/university college. At least 30 per cent of places should normally be allocated based on grades, at least 30 per cent based on the university aptitude test and at least 10 per cent on the locally determined selection criteria but it should also be possible to allocate the places differently if there is good reason to do so, for example if it is a question of programmes primarily aimed at further education and training. Grades as selection criteria Under the proposal, grades should be assessed differently in the future, by: assessing qualifications in two steps (firstly the entire final grade, then the additional merit subjects), scrapping the option of being able to compete for selection with diluted programmes, introducing an upper limit of 18.5 for aggregate final grades (a maximum of 3 points for additional merit subjects can be added to this, however), presenting aggregate figures to just one decimal place. scrapping the option of supplementing grades later on unless these are fail grades (it should be possible to improve these grades but only count them at Pass grade even if a better grade is achieved), excluding local courses, not affording sport and health special treatment, amalgamating the two selection groups BF (grades from folk high schools) and BG (grades from upper-secondary school). University aptitude tests as selection criteria The university aptitude test should be developed and modernised by implementing the following measures: Adapt it to people with Swedish as a second language. Adapt it to authentic measurements. Link it to ICT (information and communication technology). Adapt it to special needs students. Develop alternatives to the written test. Expand the test to include an essay component. Develop subject area tests, so-called domain tests as an alter- native to the general university aptitude test. Offer all students a free university aptitude test during their last term at upper-secondary school. Locally determined selection criteria The various local elements that currently exist – alternative selec- tion, other special selection tests, real proficiency, etc. – should be put together into one coherent, locally determined selection criterion. This selection criterion would mean that universities and university colleges would themselves be able to base selection on: 1.special selection tests other than the national university aptitude test, 2.knowledge, work experience or other experience that is especi- ally important for the programme being applied for or especially valuable as regards the vocational area towards which the pro- gramme is oriented, or 3. another factual circumstance relevant to the programme. There should also be a link between the locally determined selec- tion criteria and the recruitment goals established by the Govern- ment. Selection when applicants are equally well qualified If applicants are equally well qualified, selection can currently be made based on the need to improve recruitment from the under- represented gender. Afterwards, it comes down to drawing lots. I propose that when applicants are equally well qualified, regard should firstly be paid to gender, then to order of priority, and then to test results. Only after that should lots be drawn. Deferring or interrupting studies I propose the introduction of a provision in the Higher Education Ordinance enabling a university/university colleges rejection of a students application to defer or interrupt his/her studies to be appealed to a higher instance. om ändring i högskoleförordningen (1993:100); utfärdat den x x 2005. Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om högskoleförordningen (1993:100)1 dels att 7 kap. 6 och 16–16 c §§ skall upphöra att gälla, dels att 7 kap 4, 8–15 §§, 12 kap. 2 § samt bilaga 3 till förord- ningen skall ha följande lydelse. 1. fått slutbetyg från ett 1. fått slutbetyg från ett har lägst betyget Godkänd på har lägst betyget Godkänd på kurser som omfattar minst 90 kurser som omfattar minst 90 procent av de gymnasiepoäng som krävs för ett fullständigt som krävs för ett fullständigt svenska A och svenska B eller svenska som andraspråk A och B 1Förordningen omtryckt 1998:1003. 2Senaste lydelse 2002:761. 2.fått slutbetyg från gym- nasial vuxenutbildning eller fått samlat betygsdokument från gymnasial vuxenutbildning och har lägst betyget Godkänd på kurser som omfattar av de gymnasiepoäng som krävs för ett slutbetyg, 3.har en svensk eller utländsk utbildning som motsvarar kra- ven i 1 eller 2, 4.genom någon annan verk- samhet än utbildning har för- värvat kunskaper som motsvarar dem som utbildningar i 1 eller 2 ger, 5.är bosatt i , , eller och där är behörig till högre utbild- ning, eller 6.genom svensk eller utländsk utbildning, praktisk erfarenhet eller på grund av någon annan omständighet har förutsättningar att tillgodogöra sig grundläggande högskole- utbildning. meddelar närmare föreskrifter om kraven i första stycket 3 och 4. I fråga om en utbildning som vänder sig till nybörjare i högskolan anges de krav som avses i 7 § första stycket i en s.k. standardbehörighet. 2.fått slutbetyg från gymnasial vuxenutbildning och har lägst betyget Godkänd på kurser som omfattar av de gymnasiepoäng som krävs för ett slutbetyg innefattande de nationella kur- serna svenska A, svenska B eller svenska som andraspråk A och B och den nationella kursen eng- elska A samt projektarbetet, 3.har en svensk eller utländsk utbildning som motsvarar kra- ven i 1 och 2, 4.är bosatt i , , eller och där är behörig till högre utbild- ning, 5.genom svensk eller utländsk utbildning, praktisk erfarenhet eller på grund av någon annan omständighet har förutsättningar att tillgodogöra sig grundläggande högskole- utbildning. meddelar närmare föreskrifter om kraven iförsta stycket 3. I fråga om en utbildning som vänder sig till nybörjare i högskolan anges de krav som avses i 7 § första stycket i en s.k. områdesbehörighet. föreskrifter om vilka standard- föreskrifter om vilka områdes- behörigheter som finns. behörigheter som finns. föreskrifter om vilken standard- föreskrifter om vilken områdes- behörighet som skall gälla för en behörighet som skall gälla för en utbildning som leder till en utbildning som leder till en sådan yrkesexamen enligt bilaga sådan yrkesexamen enligt bilaga 2 som inte har en konstnärlig 2 som inte har en konstnärlig Högskolan skall efter samråd skall gälla för övriga utbild- ningar som vänder sig till ny- skall gälla för övriga utbild- börjare i högskolan. ningar som vänder sig till ny- Om det finns särskilda skäl, börjare i högskolan. Om det finns särskilda skäl, högskolan för tillträde till en viss utbildning ställer upp andra högskolan för tillträde till en krav enligt 7 § första stycket än viss utbildning ställer upp andra de som följer av standard- krav enligt 7 § första stycket än behörigheter som behövs för den de som följer av den områdes- behörighet som behövs för den Vid urval skall hänsyn tas till de sökandes meriter. Vid urvalet används urvals- Vid urvalet används urvals- 1. betyg, 1. betyg, 2. högskoleprov som avses i 2. högskoleprov som avses i 3. andra särskilda prov, 3. tidigare utbildning, och 4. tidigare utbildning, 4. de av högskolan enligt 14 § 5. arbetslivserfarenhet, och 6. särskilda skäl. Vid i övrigt likvärdiga meriter Vid i övrigt likvärdiga meriter 3Senaste lydelse 2002:761. 4Senaste lydelse 2002:761. får urval också göras med hän- syn till kön i syfte att förbättra rekryteringen av studenter från det underrepresenterade könet. Vid sådana meriter får vidare lottning användas, om urval med hänsyn till kön inte kan göras. I fråga om utbildningar som vänder sig till nybörjare i hög- skolan, får en högskola i den omfattning som framgår av 16 c § bestämma urvalsgrunder som innefattar vissa förkunskaper eller andra sakliga omständigheter. Högskolan får bestämma att urvalsgrunder som anges i andra stycket skall användas. I fråga om utbildningar som inte vänder sig till nybörjare, skall högskolan bestämma vilka urvalsgrunder enligt andra stycket som skall användas. får urval också göras med hän- syn till i första hand kön i syfte att förbättra rekryteringen av studenter från det underrepre- senterade könet, i andra hand efter sökandens prioriteringsord- ning av sökt utbildning och i tredje hand resultat på prov. Dä- refter får lottning användas. I fråga om utbildningar som inte vänder sig till nybörjare, skall högskolan bestämma vilka urvalsgrunder enligt andra stycket som skall användas. Vid urval till en utbildning som vänder sig till nybörjare i högskolan gäller 12–16 c §§. Detta hindrar dock inte att det vid antagning till en kurs ges förtur åt sökande som redan är studenter vid högskolan. Vid urval till en utbildning som vänder sig till nybörjare i högskolan gäller 12–15 §§. Detta hindrar dock inte att det vid antagning till en kurs ges förtur åt sökande som redan är studenter vid högskolan. Urvalsgrunderna skall vara betyg och resultat från hög- skoleprovet i kombination med Urvalsgrunderna skall vara betyg, högskoleprov och de av högskolan beslutade urvals- 5 Senaste lydelse 2002:761. Om det inte finns synnerliga skäl skall av platserna fördelas 1.minst en tredjedel på grundval av betyg, och 2.minst en tredjedel på grund- val av resultat från högskole- provet i kombination med arbetslivserfarenhet. Av de platser som avses i första stycket 2 skall hälften fördelas på grundval av poäng för såväl högskoleprovet som arbetslivs- erfarenhet och hälften på grund- val av poäng för enbart högskole- provet. Första stycket hindrar inte att samtliga platser på en utbildning med konstnärlig inriktning fördelas på grundval av andra särskilda prov än högskoleprovet, eventuellt i kombination med andra urvalsgrunder. Om det inte finns särskilda skäl skall av platserna fördelas 1.minst 30 procent på grund- val av betyg, 2.minst 30 procent på grund- val av högskoleprov, och 3.minst 10 procent på grund- val av de av högskolan beslutade urvalsgrunderna. Första stycket hindrar inte att samtliga platser på en utbildning om det föreligger särskilda skäl fördelas på grundval av de av högskolan beslutade urval- sgrunderna. Vissa bestämmelser om hur betyg skall värderas finns i bilaga 3. I övrigt skall meddela föreskrifter om värde- ring av betyg. skall också meddela föreskrifter om fördelningen av de platser