Read on Twitter
[Thread] A few days ago, UCAS announced their first independent chair of their board, taking over from a long line of VCs.
This isn't such a bad thing, but it is interesting...they take over from the VC of Sheffield who was only appointed in 2019... https://www.ucas.com/corporate/news-and-key-documents/news/ucas-appoints-first-independent-chair-board-trustees
This isn't such a bad thing, but it is interesting...they take over from the VC of Sheffield who was only appointed in 2019... https://www.ucas.com/corporate/news-and-key-documents/news/ucas-appoints-first-independent-chair-board-trustees
...and who themselves took over from Prof Sir Steve Smith who took over from Bimingham VC David Eastwood.
Of course, Birmingham was the university who, under Eastwood's leadership, launched that oh so forward thinking unconditional offer scheme back in 2012/13 and then...
Of course, Birmingham was the university who, under Eastwood's leadership, launched that oh so forward thinking unconditional offer scheme back in 2012/13 and then...
...went on to lead quite strongly in the use of conditional unconditional offers as well.
What's really interesting about this is that, anecdotally, people were asking UCAS to step in on unconditional offers for a while when they became as big as they were and they didn't...
What's really interesting about this is that, anecdotally, people were asking UCAS to step in on unconditional offers for a while when they became as big as they were and they didn't...
Now of course, it would not be fair to suggest that David Eastwood, VC of the unconditional offer pioneering Birmingham University, personally prevented UCAS from stopping the practice that his university pushed into existence or that his role as chair compromised UCAS' position,
but I suppose what that appointment did was make it very difficult for UCAS to actually deny that their lack of response to UOs was due to their governing body being chaired by a key proponent of this practice (you have to assume as VC that he wasn't an opponent anyway...)
So having an independent chair moves UCAS away from the shared service model they were originally set up with, and as they are pushing ahead with independent governance, business acquisitions and launching admissions reviews behind paywalled articles, we're now seeing a UCAS...
...which is without a doubt, a "business". This is, I believe the vision of UCAS moving forward and has been for some some time. According to their own Digital Strategy 20-20:
"Our intention is for UCAS to be a customer centric, product focused digital business, able to use data and digital technologies to connect students with their next opportunity, and to connect [providers] with individuals with whom they can build lasting, empowering possibilities
Now, UCAS have a difficult job in all honesty...they sit between a large body of providers and a larger body of applicants and have to balance the (often opposing) needs of both, while also operating as a commercial business that needs to bring in revenue...
Sometimes that balance slips out of kilter a bit (for example when they help sell commercial loans to students https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-7942827/UCAS-sending-Future-Finance-adverts-five-months-backlash.html) but generally they do make an honest attempt to balance all of these opposing forces even if they don't always get it right.
However, the model of UCAS for providers has always been that of the "shared service" https://www.ucas.com/our-service-providers-and-members
UCAS operate an application portal that we (providers) can share as long as we agree to a few business rules. It's a fair bargain...
UCAS operate an application portal that we (providers) can share as long as we agree to a few business rules. It's a fair bargain...
...if you want to share the service, you have to sign up to rules that make the service work for the others you share it with. Rules to prevent poaching, unfair treatment of students, unequal consideration of "on time" applications, etc.
However, one rule (rule #1) also states that "UCAS expects customers to list and recruit all eligible full-time undergraduate applicants through UCAS, identifying UCAS as the main application route on their website and in any marketing materials."
Now, if this is a shared service as UCAS suggests then fine - you shares the service you follows the rules. But what if UCAS is actually a business, chaired by an independent (not a sharer of the service), describing itself as a business and HEIs as its customers?
I've often wondered casually, at what point does UCAS become enough of a business that we abandon notions of "shared service" and signing up to "agreed practices" and instead treat ourselves as customers of a business who set rules preventing us from using other competitors...
Rules which say that if you purchase a service from us you can ONLY purchase that service from us and are not permitted to use any other application service business? What we have is a business with a large market share openly preventing other competitors from existing...
Despite working in admissions before, during and after the CMA intervention, I don't actually know enough about competition and market law to actually say the extent to which UCAS are at risk here. Maybe I'm wrong. And as I say, I'm pleased UCAS have an independent chair now...
But I do wonder the extent to which UCAS are prepared to push their transformation to a business and if they do so on the assumption that we'll continue to treat it as a shared service (with the associated rules and agreements) despite us being "customers" of their "business".
