“Not everyone should be a social worker.” A critical review of social work education admissions decision-making in English universities

Admissions is an under researched area of social work education. While the UK fair university admissions code of practice centres applicant inclusion as education justice, courses such as social work are exempt on safeguarding grounds. The social work profession centres social justice and inclusion values. While education justice is evidenced by scrutiny of inclusive student experience, applicant experience as education justice is less considered, sitting uncomfortably alongside safeguarding concerns and workforce representation. Around 5,500 students enrol onto English social work education courses each year. Courses are accredited by a common professional regulator, Social Work England (SWE). While SWE provides admissions guidance to universities, it is for universities to set their own processes. SWE has overarching quality assurance validation processes which encompass admissions every four years otherwise there is no national picture of admissions processes or decision-making. To this end, for example, it is not currently known if decision-making impacts on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI). Admissions processes are expected to be holistic and multi-dimensional considering academic and non-academic applicant characteristics. This thesis critically examines the social work admissions as the classroom door through a social constructionist lens using a three-stage mixed-methods research design: (1) policy and archive document review (2) university webpage reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) (3) academic decision-maker survey data analysis (RTA) viii Findings: There is an absence of policy clarity, training or scrutiny with limited consideration of applicant experience, admissions decision-making and the impact on student experience and workforce representation. Findings show variation in process and decision-making rationale which attributed to lack of training, team discussion and concern for regulatory oversight. While local autonomy is valued, a regulator inclusion statement would be welcomed. Applicant experience would benefit from monitoring commonalities in rejected applicant characteristics, the impact of admissions experience on student progression and uncoupling bursary allocation from admissions performance.