2006:21 R

Real-life skills and alternative selection at higher education institutions in 2005

The information contained in the annual reports for 2005 indicates that the number of applications on the basis of real-life skills had declined somewhat compared with the previous year. On the other hand, a larger number of applicants had been assessed as meeting the requirements for basic or specific eligibility than in 2003 and 2004. Almost the whole of this increase in the number of eligible applicants can be attributed to the amendment of its routines by Karlstad University, which has opted to review not only those who invoke the possibility of meeting eligibility requirements through the regulations on real-life skills but all applicants that cannot show that they meet the formal eligibility requirements.

The numbers enrolled have amounted to between 200 and 300 annually from 2003 to 2005, which is less than one per cent of the total number of enrolments in higher education. To what extent this is a small or a large proportion from any broader perspective is difficult to assess, in view of the excellent possibilities of acquiring eligibility offered by adult education programmes or what is referred to as the 25:4 rule. The general interpretation adopted at Karlstad University suggests, however, that the total number that may have been eligible on the grounds of real-life skills could have been larger.

The extent of alternative selection according to the new regulations is limited. In 2003 just under 600 students were involved, in 2004 fewer than 500 and in 2005 even fewer again. The most common reason for admitting students using alternative selection is that the applicants have undergone some form of introductory programme for higher education. Appropriate vocational experience is used, as are alternative selection instruments and preferential quotas.

Some of the explanations for the limited use of alternative selection may be found in the short time the regulation has been in force, that cost it often entails for the higher education institutions and the general uncertainty that prevails about the selection criteria that are admissible according to the new regulations.