Potential areas for unconscious/implicit bias in admissions transition post-application application pre-application This table may prove a useful starting point for Recruitment, Admissions and Equality leads within an HE provider, or relevant working group, to consider together what risks of bias may exist across the applicant experience, and agree a plan to target appropriate information, training or other awareness-raising approaches. It may also be used within any internal development to supplement the materials from ECU with a specifically student recruitment dimension. HE applicants HE providers (and their advisers) (and their agents) ‘Type’ of HEP – is it for me? ‘Type’ of course Availability of role models Negative student stereotypes Adviser’s historical trends for where their pupils go – perpetuates/reinforces views Press coverage Levels of confidence – readiness to question/challenge academics ‘Loyalty triggers’ for a good match Do they count as WP? Content of marketing materials (perpetuating stereotypes?) Promotion of role models Assumption, and differing assumptions, of what constitutes a barrier (vs evidencebased identification, including consultation with protected groups) Fear of discrimination Assumptions over how information will be used (e.g. disability): possible non-disclosure Knowledge vs hearsay on suitable choices Perception of what makes a good personal statement Choices selected – may include assumptions over location Predicted grades (variation across different ethnic groups; variation across age groups) Phrasing of reference – some terminology may reinforce stereotypes Acceptances chosen – assumptions over how aspirational/safe to be, based on stereotypical perception of where others in a group they associate themselves with are seen to get in. Structure, wording and supporting information on the application –is it designed with a certain ‘model’ applicant in mind (e.g. young, UK-based school-leaver taking A levels)? Transparency around how information is used - does it encourage disclosure? Fear of discrimination, or of coming forward, to ask for support Lack of personal identification with certain traits eligible for support Mixing with other students, including: cultural differences; inappropriate behaviours; identification of in groups Assumptions in selection based on application (especially around sex, age, race, school type, convictions, experience) Assumptions in interview (reinforced by appearance, accent, confidence) Interactions in interview (in group affiliation; confirmation bias) Type of decision/offer made – have assumptions been made about the context in which the applicant has studied? Unseen costs (e.g. tests, auditions, travel) – do they deter some applicants? Provision of support – have assumptions been made over who does or does not need transition support?