STUDENTS from poorer backgrounds face a “jungle” of confusing information when they try and apply to university, according to a new report.

A briefing paper by Professor Peter Scott, Scotland’s Fair Access Commissioner, found institutions operated different and confusing criteria when selecting applicants from disadvantaged communities.

He also warned progress towards meeting national targets on access was currently too slow and suggested either fresh funding or more pressure on universities to act.

Mr Scott was appointed by the Scottish Government to help meet its target for one fifth of all those starting university in 2030 to be from the poorest 20 per cent of communities.

The government has an interim target for individual institutions to have ten per cent of students from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds by 2021.

However, although recent statistics show the overall proportion is 10.4 per cent, Scotland’s older universities have much lower proportions.

A key way for universities to widen access is take into account the background of applicants and offer them lower grades as a result - so called contextualised admissions.

However, Mr Scott said while the process was a “key weapon” the term itself was “opaque” and “obscure”.

He said: “Those who are the target beneficiaries of contextualised admissions are likely to encounter even greater difficulty.

“What may appear from the perspective of universities to be a fine-tuned and customised set of adjusted offers may appear to potential applicants as a jungle of different offers with different grade reductions and subject to different conditions without apparent rhyme and reason.

“In some cases they will be entitled to receive unconditional adjusted offers if they meet the criteria, but in other cases those offers will be subject to certain conditions. It is a system designed for universities ... not for potential students.”

Mr Scott went on to call for institutions to agree a common terminology to allow applicants and their families to better understand the process.

In a separate briefing paper Mr Scott raised concerns about the pace of change with a “gulf” between the opportunities available to potential students from different backgrounds.

He said: “Incremental improvement, based on existing initiatives and interventions, is unlikely to be sufficient.

“One possibility is a further allocation of places, although public expenditure priorities are for the government to establish.

“Another is the more vigorous enforcement of access targets. But the major drive must continue to come from the commitment of institutions themselves.”

Alastair Sim, director of Universities Scotland, suggested institutions should be allowed to continue tailor their own admissions processes.

He said: “It will never be a one-size-fits-all approach to admissions. It can’t be and that wouldn’t be in the best interests of students.

“We are putting ourselves in the shoes of applicants, their parents, teachers and advisers with the goal of making it easier for them to navigate the system.”

Vonnie Sandlan, president of student body NUS Scotland, described differing admissions policies as a “technical minefield”.

She said: “It’s simply not enough to write a policy, put it on a website and hope that applicants might find it.

“While every university will have its own processes, there needs to be a common base that all applicants can work from if they’re to understand the admissions process.”

Universities Scotland will published its suggestions on the way forward by the end of the summer.