*4.4. University as Change Agent versus University Responding to External Pressures*

A final point of comparison is the position that each university took in their respective programs. In Trinity, the 20-year evidence base gave the institution confidence and experience to reach back into the second-level system and build a larger scale programme and to aim for system-level change—in creating strong whole-school, college-going cultures.

In LMH FY, there was some academic support for change but there was concern that it was not possible to recruit the "right" low-SES students and that the university would not be able to address gaps in schooling through a one-year course. There were also people within the university who believed that change was not necessary, and it was not the role of the university to "fix" gaps in schooling. There were external pressures on Oxford from the OfS, in respect of being able to charge full tuition fees, from the media, in highlighting continuing inequalities in its admissions, and from the "do-tank" The Sutton Trust, which had long called out the issues with Oxford and Cambridge admissions. The pressure for change within Oxford was mainly from external sources: policy, financing, media. The motivation for change within Trinity derived from the successful evidence base across the HE sector in preparing and admitting low-SES students, most of whom went on have high academic achievement in their degree courses. low SES.

This subsection has considered the first of two questions posed by the CCS, exploring changes to admissions processes in both institutions alongside a comparison of the two programme approaches and the policy context within which they emerged. The following subsection seeks to answer the second research question.
