Registry and Admissions

Facilitator – Mark Pimm

Question 1: How accessible and disability friendly were any promotional activities you have attended and the marketing of materials?

Birkbeck Students:

Open Evening:

Generally, it was not accessible - there was no information about dyslexia, for example, on how to seek support. It was difficult to hear at Open Evening because of background noise. Had to lean forward to hear what was being said across the table. Would not be obvious to person doing the talking that person sitting opposite has a hearing problem.
Staff were warm and friendly and helpful. More seating would have been good as had to do quite a bit of standing.
Also attended the Open Day where the course information was good. Got no information on disability services.
Open Days are informative. However it is difficult to find information on things like fees from website as there seems to be no clear link from homepage.
I did all the research for my course on-line and thus didn't attend any open days. That said I contacted the Disability Office prior to applying to Birkbeck and wouldn't have applied if I hadn't been confident that there were / are disability friendly procedures and practices in place.

Prospectus:

An alternative format would have been easier. Web difficult to navigate. Links don’t always work. Not well designed. No direct e-mail.
Printed prospectus doesn’t show what modules are involved in a course, just gives general course information.
Did check the prospective for disability related issues and the prospectus to be quite standard and was indifferent to it. Didn’t feel that the prospectus particularly related to disability issues. She understands that these issues were addressed in pre-entry events but didn’t get information from these events.
The Birkbeck prospectus had a very prominent section on disability related issues and encouraged me to choose my course.
Birkbeck Student: had no experience of particular problems – found out about the course through verbal recommendation (word of mouth) – thought that the website was difficult to navigate, and although there was a lot of information on there, it was ‘like trying to find a needle in a haystack’ to locate what you needed. Suggested that since colleges need to compete in a market, and to increase application numbers, then they should be more commercially orientated.

IoE Students:

Started in January, wasn’t sent any recruitment or induction material. Therefore was not aware of services and entitlements. Induction was terrible as people didn’t turn up.
Turned up in person to get information about the course – felt that the IOE does not have a big media / marketing presence.

SOAS Students:

Difficult to access information about the CONTENT of courses
Visually-impaired student: Accessed prospectus satisfactorily on-line
Dyslexic student: Found it confusing re how to choose modules. No-one seemed to know the relevant information
One student found that despite careful preparation beforehand, with the help of SKILL, he was told that the School had not been told about any specific needs or arrangements. His experience was that staff did not read or respond to his report, despite being informed and that he had to threaten with the DDA to get flexibility.
Didn’t attend any pre-entry events as she applied through clearing.
Both course and disability information in prospectus was good
More information from the student point of view rather than about the bureaucracy of SOAS would be appreciated. The prospectus was written in a very boring way and doesn’t engage you.
Found the prospectus impenetrable and full of facts.
Course was not well advertised (Japanese) – heard about it through a friend – telephoned SOAS direct to get more information – felt that the range of courses available could be promoted better.

Question 2. How accessible and disability friendly is your admission process in terms of completion of application, interview, offer of place and enrollment?

Birkbeck Students:

Nothing done after telling of problem at interview. Wasn’t told could pay fee in instalments – scary having to pay in one lump sum. Had to fend for oneself.
Disappointing/discouraged – not aware could get any help.
Interview 7/8 years ago. Misled by Registry requirements e.g. having to be in employment to start course and age limits. Changes to requirements not made clear nor whether special consideration could be taken into account
Registration each year i.e. having to go through whole procedure every year e.g. computers [I think this refers to getting a CCS username etc]

The facilitator asked about the ‘getting started at Birkbeck’ booklet but nobody has a memory of reading it.

One student did not know there was an online application form. Need for large print application.
Painless process to be admitted. Once admitted there was a lack of information from Registry, departments (no handbooks etc)
‘Getting started at Birkbeck’ book has no index, too many words, can’t immediately find information, have to trawl through all information.
Induction day was a positive experience
PhD Student could not find out if another student was working on similar proposal from the start of the course (originality is important so useful to know from the start)
Everything was smooth and straight forward until I was granted an interview. At that time I luckily enquired as to the accessibility of the venue in question and was told by Mark Pimm that the offices being used were wholly inaccessible to me. An alternative venue was found that was fully accessible to me and the Course Director and one of the Course tutors came over to the main building. All my other enrollment apart from my getting my student card was done by phone, on-line or by post.
As an undergraduate, found the forms ok but had difficulty getting information from the teaching staff particularly about the lighting in lecture halls and which rooms would be used for teaching.
Student had experienced problems with the registry – was sent an application pack by post – spent a lot of time completing it – and was then told that it had been lost – had to apply again from scratch. Attended an open day, which went well. Attended an interview next, where the panel had received both the first and second application packs.

IoE Students:

Student applied in person, on the spot. All staff were welcoming and encouraging.

SOAS Students:

No problems with application process – took the precaution of taking a copy of the form before sending, and used a recorded delivery service – all well organized. However, some misinformation or inconsistency about the selection criteria for courses – was told that it was essential to have O-Level Arabic in order to follow Islamic studies – later discovered this was not the case.

Admissions Forms:

Visually-impaired student: Attempted to use online application form but found it had to be printed out. Had to wait for people to be contacted and then for a decision to rebuild the form. Eventually received online application form and then heard that department had lost application. Re-did application, but told the only staff member who could decide was away. Student received confirmation one week before the start of term. By this time it was too late to apply for any support or put it in place. The student was forced to pay herself for fees she would have applied for.
Dyslexic student doesn’t recall any problems with UCAS application forms
FE college helped with the completion of the UCAS form and this was very useful.

Enrollment:

Dyslexic student: Enrollment experienced as ‘quite a mess’ – for disabled as well as all students. Found that staff were not sensitive that students may not be understanding everything. Staff in registry sometimes very unfriendly.
Other dyslexic student: Found enrollment jam-packed, lots of queuing, not enough bright, large arrows and directions.
For visually-impaired student: enrollment very, very difficult. Hard to find out where to go, how to manage queuing system. Confusing and quite traumatic.
Suggestion for students to be accompanied one-to-one for enrollment
Only chose to study because of her recent diagnosis of dyslexia. Had help with application form FE college.

Mark Pimm: What about the forms that need to be completed during induction?

SOAS Students:

Had undiagnosed AD/HD at the time of enrollment and found the process very difficult; forms, long queues and physical access difficulties.
On paper the enrollment process looked like it would work very will. In practice it didn’t.

Birkbeck Student:

The enrollment process at Birkbeck is very smooth.

Question 3: How supportive of disability needs is the fee paying system?

Birkbeck Students:

Experienced a communication problem on funding as only given advice by the Disability Office after going to the office about other issues. Didn’t know have access to other facilities.
Experienced a communication problem as College failed to inform student that had not paid all fees.
Only found out what available from the Disability Office not the College as a whole.
Didn’t get help with filling PGT1 form – horrible to fill out.
Re SFSO have to phone up to make an appointment and sometimes difficult to get through on phone. Can’t e-mail. Appointment process a complex system.
Warned to get help with fees from SFSO as told had to get certain marks from exam [not sure what was meant by this comment].
Didn’t know what students may be entitled to. Would like to know at start of course, needs to be more widely publicized.
Fee waiver/hardship info was useful, hard to work out if eligible
I pay termly and send a cheque by post. I am enthusiastic to hear that last term they tested an on-line payment system which I hope is in place next term.
Having spoken to people in Student Funding numerous times this term, I would say that they are aware of disability needs and more so are helpful, understanding, willing to listen and terribly patient.
The disability office at Birkbeck has been instrumental to support in this area. The disability office helped me consider my situation and identify the best courses of action.
Phone advice should be available from the school office prior to enrollment.
Student found the online and credit card payment options very helpful, but not uniformly applied – there were still certain departments which would only accept payment by cheque – no overall coordination.

IoE Students:

Lack of support for people who may be caring for a relative.
Student paid all own fees – was not aware of any financial support for disabled students until much later in her course.

SOAS Students:

The Welfare offices at SOAS is very helpful and very positive. Help always received with forms and with making sure these are sent to the right place.
Assistance from Zoe Davis, the Disability Officer, has been available wherever and whenever it has been required.
Found completing forms ‘agony’ but is getting better. No support with completing forms was offered.
It would be useful to put a telephone number at the end of a form for you to call if you need help with completing it.
Student paid all own fees – never requested support. Felt that fees for postgraduate courses were high, and although staff tried to be helpful, some had never heard of DSA.

Question 4: Registry: Easy to talk to about needs?

SOAS Students:

Registry was seen to be unhelpful, on the whole, and ‘stuck in a non-aware system’ in terms of disability. Real difficulties in having needs met has led one student to have to extend her degree by a year.
There is a very small window you have to talk through to Registry. Sometimes it will be closed with no reason. You have to call to attract attention (there is no bell). Students will often be stuck in a corridor, waiting to be seen, with nowhere to sit. Wheelchair-users cannot reach the window. Staff cannot see students, for example if they have a white stick. Staff have no way of know that a student is disabled. There is no opportunity for confidentiality.
Students’ experience is that by going to Zoe things generally get done 10x faster. However, there is a culture among most staff that students should go to Zoe to get things sorted out, rather than getting the departments themselves equipped and accessible to all students.

Question 5. How accessible is the front counter system to you? Are the individuals on reception aware of disability issues?

Birkbeck Students:

Not trained to handle specific queries – like civil servants.
Find quite helpful
There was a mixed reaction to the facilitator’s question about feeling comfortable about having to speak about disability in an open space. It was mentioned that there can be background noise and the area is echoey.
Experienced problems with communication between SFSO and Registry.
Didn’t find out about Disability Office from Registry staff.

The facilitator suggested having a card system whereby a student could write details of their disability on a card and then give this to a member of Registry staff or having a confidential space: Some thought this was a good suggestion as it would not be intimidating or embarrassing. Overall the confidential space suggestion was good but not so sure about the card idea.

Someone asked why do they have to specify their disability.

The facilitator asked about the seating available.

The group thought more seating should be available and not just outside Registry. The group thought there was a lacking of seats generally and that there was no where to go and have a chat.
The seating in the basement is too low which is not good for the disabled. The new seating area on the grass has no shade so if you’re light sensitive or if you can’t sit on the grass you can’t participate.
Difficult as there is a different member of staff at the counter each time. Lack of confidentiality. Staff seem to be very unaware of disability issues and don’t know how to respond, many ‘run scared’ if student tells them.
Felt awareness training for staff would be useful.
Students may sometimes ask for the same member of staff who is already aware of their situation to avoid having to explain again.
One student with an unseen disability said they do not disclose disability as staff may not believe them as they look well and feels that disclosing may complicate issues which will upset the student. This has led to them writing to the registry as they are anxious about visiting in person.
Suggestion that a student with an unseen disability might be used in the staff training process.
There are chairs just by the front counter which have proven invaluable as a rest stop even if I'm not contacting/dropping off anything at the Registry. Individuals who have helped me were always affable and if I remember correctly were kind enough to laminate my student card for me when I collected it.
There are issues of confidentiality as the room is open to the public and often busy, it is also very impersonal having to talk to someone through a window. Staff may not know you have a disability. If disabled students carried some sort of card this may overcome the issue of disclosure.
This would require prior disclosure. What if registry asked ‘should you have a disability is there anything we can do to help you?’
You should be able to make an appointment prior to attending the university. Registry is often closed and is particularly difficult to use if your disability means that you have poor organization. Birkbeck registry is not open at useful times and should be open for morning and evening sessions. Extended hours would also facilitate privacy.
Student had experienced some problems with an appeal – not desirable to discuss complicated and private matters at a public counter – felt rushed by staff as there were other students waiting for attention – would have preferred to discuss sensitive issues in a private office. Counter service is really only suitable for quick simple enquiries.

IoE Students:

Separate doctoral registry – have no awareness of disability issues, student finds it intimidating, some staff not very helpful or friendly and make student feel that they are being awkward.
Student thought that registration procedures were well organized – happy with the support services in general (except for a problem with a dyslexia assessor).

SOAS Students:

Registry seen as very inaccessible and unsympathetic, and that it is very difficult to ask for help. There are no formal procedures set up for staff to follow and sometimes requests are not understood.
Experience of problems getting passed from person to person, without anyone taking clear responsibility. Sense that departments don’t work together to facilitate students’ experience.
The physical location of registry is a problem as it is at Vernon square. There is no confidentiality and the room is hot and the lighting is bad.
Not much experience of using counter services – once the initial application was sent, a meeting was set up with DO and all the support/ adjustments were put in place – student was happy for the DO to arrange this.

Question 6. How easy is it to contact registry? Are you able to access registry during the opening hours available?

Birkbeck Students:

12.00 a bit late. Sometimes have to hang around for an hour.
Staff grumpy. Have to be brief and very quick ‘very scary’. From students’ point of view: not sure what Registry does. E.g. the SFSO and the Disability Office are part of Registry but deal with completely different issues.
When re-registering for next year have to wait until September for filling out form for financial help which then doesn’t arrive until January which means 3 wasted months e.g. getting help with fees.
The temp desk in the FCE enrollment office is good. The staff and applying process helpful to people with disabilities.
‘Thank God’ for the arrival of the Disability Office which has made a massive difference.
I have always phoned ahead, but I've only dealt directly with the registry once. I think, if I remember correctly, I made a special trip into college just for that.

Other points:

Birkbeck student:

Generally pleased with the disability support provided. Online application form worked well.

IoE student:

Had heard of a fellow student who had been wrongly designated as an international student – only discovered the error through discussion with another student – should only have been charged fees as a home student – was eventually reimbursed.

SOAS student:

Felt that the initial registration procedures should be re-organized to avoid long queues – can be very chaotic – lots of students unsure what to do, and wasted time standing in the wrong queue. Not suitable for students with more complicated or involved enquiries, or special needs – everyone was expected to join the same queues. Student suggested that this ‘fast lane’ approach was only suitable for students with the most straight forward registration needs – there should be a different system for those who require more time and attention from staff (e.g. separate queues, appointments, specially allocated registration days).

GENERAL SUMMARY/POTENTIAL ACTION POINTS

Distribution of disability specific information to all new disabled students is something that could be reviewed.
Mixed opinions showed importance of reviewing accessibility/ provision/environment for open evenings. Need for clear location of disability information to ensure all attendees are able to identify and access this information.
Mixed opinions on prospectus. Some students would like to have seen more detailed course information (e.g information on modules, modes of assessment etc). Highlighted need for clear, easy to find information in prospectus and induction handbooks.
Some criticism of web access, some students found website difficult to navigate as there are no clear links to the prospectus/course information.
Continue to develop online application forms.
Ensuring that induction materials/processes are the same for students who start in January or April as they are for the main intake in September/October.
Clear information on whether students are eligible to apply for financial support is a theme that emerged.
Disability awareness training for registry staff was an issue as staff did not always know how to respond to disabled students. Students may become reluctant to visit the registry as they are worried how they will be treated.
Problem of discussing potentially sensitive information in the main registry reception area. Possible confidential space suggested.
Importance of sections of registry working together and communicating effectively so students requests are not passed from one person to another or lost between the various sections.

SOAS, University of London (The School of Oriental and African Studies)

Equality & Diversity Office