Caroline Müllenbroich and Bing Lu say it is time to base PhD admissions on demonstratable competencies rather than prior privilege

Physics faces a persistent and uncomfortable paradox. While we repeatedly assert that scientific excellence depends on creativity, rigour, resilience and collaborative problem-solving, the way we select the next generation of researchers still relies heavily on institutional prestige, grades and prior access to opportunity. Although easy to use, these criteria are deeply entangled with structural advantage resulting in a system that is efficient to operate and familiar – yet systematically exclusionary.

Traditional admissions criteria are heavily shaped by unequal access to resources, inside knowledge, mentors and cultural capital

Most academics recognize the limitations of traditional admissions criteria, but we continue to rely on them. Degree classification, university ranking, publications and reference letters feel like comfortable objective indicators of merit. In reality, however, they are heavily shaped by unequal access to resources, inside knowledge, mentors and cultural capital.

Two students with equal underlying potential, for example, can present very different CVs depending on whether they had access to a research-intensive institution, informal advice networks, paid research internships, or simply, the financial security to take risks. When admissions panels default to these signals as primary filters, they are not solely selecting for ability – they are also selecting for accumulated advantage.

This is not merely a matter of fairness but a strategic problem for science. Science and technical subjects in the UK face chronic recruitment and retention challenges. At the same time, major issues facing our society are too complex to solve from a single perspective. Physics skills are in growing demand across the UK and Ireland with PhD graduates entering industry, policy, entrepreneurship, education and beyond. This demands not only technical brilliance, but adaptability, communication and ethical judgement.

To achieve the interdisciplinary breadth required to tackle today’s issues, we need to implement thoughtful strategies and processes. If we continue to draw from a narrow and self-reproducing talent pool, we constrain not only who gets to participate in science, but the kind of science we are able to do.

A new approach

At the Centre for Doctoral Training (CDT) in Diversity-Led, Mission-Driven Research (DiveIn) based at the University of Glasgow, we saw an opportunity to move away from PhD admissions criteria being focused on prior privilege towards one based on demonstrable competencies relevant to excellent research and successful completion of a PhD. While most PhD programmes recruit students to predefined projects, which rewards prior disciplinary alignment and insider knowledge, DiveIn instead recruits a cohort first and co-creates projects later.

We worked with the Equity in Doctoral Education through Partnership and Innovation (EDEPI) programme to design a CDT with this mind. EDEPI was created to tackle persistent inequalities that create barriers to access and participation for racially minoritized groups. The EDEPI framework identifies three broad areas: comprehension and evaluation (analytical and problem solving, communication, planning and organization); delivering results (integrity, working with others, independence); and socio-emotional competencies (motivation, curiosity, resilience). We expanded the EDEPI framework to emphasize an appetite for interdisciplinary research; cohort-based development; and advocacy.

A core pillar of the DiveIn approach to the EDEPI framework is anonymization. Our applications are divided into separate components, with personal data, CVs and competency statements de-linked during evaluation. Assessors also never see names, genders, nationalities or institutional affiliations.

The DiveIn admissions process consists of four key elements. The first is an anonymized, competency-based written application, structured around five targeted questions probing motivation, resilience, curiosity and self-reflection. The second is a task-based exercise, in which all applicants analyse the same dataset and explain their reasoning – testing analytical thinking and communication independently of discipline.

Another aspect of the process is a double-marked, wide-ranging assessment, ensuring that no single impression dominates and that different aspects of the application are judged independently. The final aspect is a transparent, structured interview with questions shared in advance and mapped explicitly to competencies.

Applicants are assessed for their ability to thrive in a diverse, collaborative cohort

Importantly, applicants also receive active support, which includes webinars explaining the process, guidance videos for each question and live drop-in sessions. This is not coaching for advantage – it is an explicit attempt to dismantle the “hidden curriculum” that privileges those already familiar with academic selection rituals. Applicants are, therefore, assessed not only for individual PhD readiness, but for their ability to thrive in a diverse, collaborative cohort.

Diversity gains

DiveIn’s first full recruitment cycle provides some encouraging evidence that our approach is working. The resulting cohort is naturally diverse in background, discipline and experience. Our results also suggest that undergoing such a shift can widen participation without lowering standards and may, in fact, improve the quality and impact of the research that the PhD cohort carry out. In other words, the process did not abandon standards but changed what those standards were designed to measure.

How to create a conference environment that welcomes everyone

If we continue to admit PhD candidates primarily based on narrow retrospective signals, we will systematically under-select precisely the kinds of researchers the future requires. Conversely, if we treat admissions as a design problem – something that can be structured, tested, iterated and improved – we open the door to a more resilient, creative and socially responsive generation of researchers. As diversity gains in the technology sector are stalling, this reform to admissions could help sustainably boost diversity in UK Tech.

We can build systems that are fairer, more principled, and more aligned with the realities of modern research

We now need to refine, scale and continue to evaluate the programme. But the core insight is robust: we can do better than prestige-driven selection. We urge anyone who selects PhD students for their programme to think about these issues and make use of the resources available at EDEPI on inclusive PGR admissions. We can build systems that are fairer, more principled, and better aligned with the realities of modern research.

For a discipline built on careful measurement and experimental design, it is striking how little physics has applied those principles to choosing who gets to become a scientist. Perhaps it is time we did.

• This article was written with Ross Forgan, Sandra Dopico Ardao, Qammer Abbasi and Caroline Gauchotte-Lindsay.