The hidden admissions crisis: why universities still don’t know who their clearing students really are
This blog was kindly authored by Professor Amanda Broderick, Vice Chancellor & President, University of East London.
The data used within this piece is from phase one of the first national Pre-arrival Academic Questionnaire funded by the Office for Students and run in conjunction with AdvanceHE, JISC and the University of East London.
In an era when post-18 pathways are diversifying faster than policy frameworks can keep pace with, universities face a profound challenge: we know more than ever about who enters higher education – yet far too little about how they arrive at our doors. Clearing, once a marginal mechanism, has become a defining feature of the UK admissions landscape. But our collective blind spot remains the diversity of routes students take into higher education, and the implications these routes have for their sense of belonging, preparedness, and likelihood of success.
New data from UCAS and the national Undergraduate Pre-Arrival Academic Questionnaire (PAQ) pilot illuminates this gap – and demonstrates why addressing it is now mission-critical for the sector.
The sector knows who its students are – but not how they got here
Universities have clear visibility of applicants in the main cycle: those who apply, receive offers, and are confirmed in August. But post-main application deadline, throughout the late application period and once Clearing opens, this visibility fragments. Institutions do not receive information about which route a Clearing entrant has travelled – whether they missed their grades, changed their minds, traded ‘up’, or, crucially, never applied in the main cycle at all.
This absence of insight is not a minor administrative inconvenience. It is an obstacle to equity.
Different routes into higher education correlate strongly with different levels of preparedness, confidence, and risk of early withdrawal. For institutions committed to widening participation, the inability to distinguish these journeys means the inability to provide the right support at the right time.
A spotlight on those who never applied in the main cycle
The most striking finding in the PAQ data is the profile of students who enter university through Clearing because they had not originally applied at all. These individuals often made late, major life decisions about education – and they are disproportionally mature, local, and from widening access backgrounds.
At the University of East London (UEL), they constitute 20.3% of PAQ respondents – four times the proportion seen nationally (5.8%) and nearly triple that of the other institutions in the pilot (7.9%).
And these late deciders are the group most at risk of not enrolling or withdrawing within the first 2–3 weeks. The reasons are varied and difficult to pinpoint, but one factor is clear: without knowing which students fall into this category, universities cannot proactively provide the bespoke guidance they urgently need.
This is not simply an operational issue – it is a matter of educational justice. These individuals are often those the sector most wants to reach:
- mature learners returning to education;
- care-experienced and estranged students;
- commuters balancing study with family or work responsibilities.
They are the embodiment of widening participation – and yet, paradoxically, also the most invisible in the admissions process.
Why this matters: the route shapes the readiness
The PAQ data underscores that ‘route into higher education’ is not an administrative curiosity; it is a pedagogically and pastorally significant variable.
Students who secure their first choice offer often arrive informed and well-prepared, in part due to recent Provider Access Legislation that strengthens school-level careers guidance. Those entering through Clearing because they never applied in the main cycle, however, tend to have vague or unclear expectations of university life.
The sector must treat these groups not as a homogeneous mass of ‘Clearing students’, but as learners with distinct needs and transition risks. The PAQ’s guidance shows clearly that different routes require different interventions – from targeted course advice and logistical support (e.g. cancelling previous accommodation or updating Student Finance England) to accelerated enrolment and tailored orientation.
This is not about operational efficiency. It is about student belonging. It is about early confidence. It is about dignity in transition.
Using available data effectively
It is also about understanding the student’s journey into higher education. UCAS application data to institutions already allows for this – highlighting whether a student has come through the main-scheme cycle, or through Clearing. Admissions teams will be able to access this data – although how immediately accessible this is may depend on respective student records configuration. Unlocking this data will enable institutions to gain a deeper understanding of a student’s journey, which can be transformational in supporting effective transition.
Through this, you can:
- identify the students most at risk of early withdrawal;
- tailor communication to their information needs;
- provide timely and route-specific guidance;
- deploy widening participation resources where they matter most.
When we know how students enter higher education, we can better ensure they stay, belong, and succeed.
Seeing the whole student, not just the application
For universities, this is an invitation to reimagine what a fair transition into higher education truly means. If we are serious about social mobility, we must be serious about understanding the pathways that bring students to us – especially the unconventional ones. The national PAQ pilot has demonstrated both the feasibility and the value of the following provocations:
- Clearing is no longer a contingency mechanism – it is a mainstream route that requires mainstream policy attention.
- Students who enter through non-traditional routes must be visible in the system from the moment they accept an offer.
- Bespoke, data-informed transition support is not a luxury; it is fundamental to widening participation.
Towards a more transparent, supportive and inclusive admissions ecosystem
If the UK is to remain a global leader in equitable access to higher education, we must ensure our admissions processes evolve with the changing needs and realities of applicants. That evolution starts with visibility. Understanding who comes to university is no longer enough. We must understand how, why, and when they make that decision – and build systems capable of supporting every pathway. The future of widening participation depends on it.
Comments
Ruth Arnold says:
This is really good example of using data for good. As a member of the steering group chaired by Sir Les Ebdon and powered by Dr Michelle Morgan (Dean of Students at UEL) I’ve seen at first hand the efforts going into developing this work to be even more effective in understanding and supporting those who have every opportunity to thrive with the right help. Lessons to be learned and applied from right across higher education, including the kind of bridging that makes all the difference to international and mature students, as well as degree apprentices. My thanks to AdvanceHE, JUSC, UEL and in particular to Les and Michelle whose lifelong professional commitment to properly informed and ambitious student support is an inspiration to many of us.
Reply
Jonathan Alltimes says:
What is social mobility and equity? Just because we understand a phenomenon, does not mean we can, should or may control it. The government wants to control ‘life chances’, so has done a deal with higher education. In terms of occupation, they think education controls life chances and judging from the amount of state money spent on it over the last 81 years, they think it is the most powerful means other than the past nationalisations and the NHS. What they forgot were industries are not all the same and the addition of industry in the analysis of mortality by occupational was an original powerful distinction. Industries determine the possibilities for employment for which higher education is of only some consequence. The government policy of widening access or participation to higher education has had a very marginal effect on the likelihood of poverty, economic growth, and productivity over the last 20 years, in particular through foundation years and foundation degrees, because of economic changes outside of our control or because we were ignorant and not vigilant. We know performance at A-level is generally the major determinant of degree result. We also know occupations with statutory codes of practice and requiring higher standards of numeracy are more likely to be better paid and with better standards of employment, that is, the professions. The longer you are employed in the same occupation, the more likely you are to become responsible for hiring employees, that is, control of the means of production, which may be state regulated. The ownership of the means of production is also a determinant of social mobility.
The causal narrative proposed is the data is likely to cause the possibilities of developmental pathways causing more equity and social mobility. We think it just to treat non-normal students differently, but to what end, to what extent, and how much is it going to cost?
The semi-independent and semi-autonomous universities have preserved learning for almost 1,000 years, while the state wobbled about.
Reply
Ed Layt says:
This really resonates. The point about knowing who students are, but not how they arrive, is something we see consistently across the sector.
At SMRS, we’ve been successfully tackling this through our propensity modelling work, developed over the last 10 years for over 30 institutions in the UK and internationally. Using historical enquiry, application and enrolment data, we identify conversion likelihood at an individual level. This helps highlight where intent is strong, but also where it is low or uncertain. From there, universities can deploy much more targeted interventions, whether through paid media, tailored messaging or nurture communications, to improve outcomes in a focused and efficient way.
What’s particularly interesting in the context of this piece is how that same principle is now being extended. We’re currently piloting approaches that apply these insights to current students, using data from their application journey to better understand risk and deliver timely, relevant support during transition.
If route into higher education is such a strong indicator of preparedness and belonging, then connecting admissions insight through to the student experience feels like a critical next step, not just for conversion, but for continuation and success.
Reply
Paul Wiltshire says:
Universities don’t care who their clearing students are. They are just paying customers and they will take anybody they can to ensure they have full courses.
Reply
Dr David O’Connor says:
The 20.3% vs 5.8% split is the most important number in this piece, and it is almost certainly invisible in any institution’s Clearing conversion reporting. Operators routinely collapse all Clearing entrants into a single funnel, which means the withdrawal risk profile for late deciders gets buried inside an aggregate that looks acceptable on the dashboard and catastrophic six weeks into term.
What makes this particularly sharp is that the data to disaggregate it already exists. The UCAS feed tells you whether a student entered through main scheme or Clearing. With a modest amount of records configuration you can start to see route, not just status. The institutions that have done this find the late-decider cohort behaves differently from day one: lower portal engagement, slower enrolment completion, higher likelihood of deferring induction. None of that is surprising once you see it. The problem is most teams never get to see it.
The harder question is not whether universities should invest in bespoke transition support for this group. Of course they should. It is why, in 2026, the standard institutional response to a Clearing place acceptance is still a generic welcome email timed to the offer confirmation rather than a workflow triggered by route.
Reply
Add comment