Access to Britain’s top universities is far from fair

Research suggests that access to the United Kingdom's top universities is far from fair for students from state schools and ethnic minorities, even when the figures are screened for subjects studied at A-level

Hard Evidence: why aren’t there more black British students at elite universities?

Young people from black British backgrounds are more likely to go to university than their white British peers, but they are much less likely to attend the UK’s most selective universities. As the Independent Commission on Social Mobility pointed out: “There are more young men from black backgrounds in prison in the UK than there are UK-domiciled undergraduate black male students attending Russell Group institutions.

Performance-based university funding and the drive towards ‘institutional meritocracy’ in Italy

Many countries, including Italy, are increasingly managing their public higher education systems in accordance with the New Public Management principle that private-sector management practices improve efficiency and quality. A key mechanism has been the introduction of performance-based funding systems designed to reward ‘high-performing’ institutions and incentivise ‘lesser-performing’ institutions to improve. Instead of improving efficiency and quality across the board, however, we argue that performance-based funding systems naturalise longstanding structurally determined inequalities between institutions by recasting national higher education systems as competitive institutional meritocracies in which institutional inequalities are redefined as objective indicators of intrinsic ‘merit’ or worth. We illustrate how performance-based university funding systems naturalise pre-existing inequalities between universities drawing on the case of Italy, a country characterised by longstanding inequalities between its northern and southern regions which demonstrably impact on the apparent ‘performance’ of universities. The concept of institutional meritocracy captures the illusory nature of this performance game

Organisational Identity as a Barrier to Widening Access in Scottish Universities

Widening access policy has historically focused on tackling the socioeconomic barriers to university access faced by prospective students from under-represented groups, but increasingly policy makers are seeking to also address the barriers to wider access posed by undergraduate admissions policies. In this vein, the Scottish Government has recently called upon universities to set separate academic entry requirements for socioeconomically disadvantaged applicants which recognise that “the school attainment of disadvantaged learners often does not reflect their full potential” and which better reflect the minimum needed to succeed in higher education. In this paper, we draw on in-depth interviews with admissions personnel at eighteen Scottish universities to explore the scope for more progressive admissions policies of this kind in light of universities’ identities as organisations and in light of corresponding organisational strategies for position-taking in global and national higher education fields. We present a theoretical model and an empirical illustration of three hierarchically-ordered ideal types of organisational identity—globally competitive, nationally selective, and locally transformative—and show that the more dominant of these tend to constrain the development of more progressive admissions policies. This is because globally competitive and, to a lesser extent, nationally selective organisational identities are understood to require admission of the ‘brightest and best’, conceptualised as those with the highest levels of prior academic attainment who can be expected to succeed at university and beyond as a matter of course. We conclude that universities must recognise and redress the implicitly exclusionary nature of their organisational identities if genuine progress on widening access is to be made

Reliability of Longitudinal Social Surveys of Access to Higher Education: The Case of Next Steps in England

Longitudinal social surveys are widely used to understand which factors enable or constrain access to higher education. One such data resource is the Next Steps survey comprising an initial sample of 16,122 pupils aged 13–14 attending English state and private schools in 2004, with follow up annually to age 19–20 and a further survey at age 25. The Next Steps data is a potentially rich resource for studying inequalities of access to higher education. It contains a wealth of information about pupils’ social background characteristics—including household income, parental education, parental social class, housing tenure and family composition—as well as longitudinal data on aspirations, choices and outcomes in relation to education. However, as with many longitudinal social surveys, Next Steps suffers from a substantial amount of missing data due to item non-response and sample attrition which may seriously compromise the reliability of research findings. Helpfully, Next Steps data has been linked with more robust administrative data from the National Pupil Database (NPD), which contains a more limited range of social background variables, but has comparatively little in the way of missing data due to item non-response or attrition. We analyse these linked datasets to assess the implications of missing data for the reliability of Next Steps. We show that item non-response in Next Steps biases the apparent socioeconomic composition of the Next Steps sample upwards, and that this bias is exacerbated by sample attrition since Next Steps participants from less advantaged social backgrounds are more likely to drop out of the study. Moreover, by the time it is possible to measure access to higher education, the socioeconomic background variables in Next Steps are shown to have very little explanatory power after controlling for the social background and educational attainment variables contained in the NPD. Given these findings, we argue that longitudinal social surveys with much missing data are only reliable sources of data on access to higher education if they can be linked effectively with more robust administrative data sources. This then raises the question—why not just use the more robust datasets

The use of access thresholds to widen participation at Scottish universities

The Scottish Government has set ambitious targets for widening access to full-time undergraduate degree programmes. Meeting these targets will be a real challenge, not least because young people from socioeconomically disadvantaged contexts continue to lag substantially behind their more advantaged peers when it comes to achievement at Higher level. Following the recommendations of the Commission on Widening Access, the Scottish Government has mandated Scottish universities to set separate entry requirements for contextually disadvantaged applicants, known as ‘access thresholds’. In this article, we draw on the findings of a research project commissioned by the Scottish Funding Council to develop an empirical evidence base for the use of access thresholds to widen participation in higher education. We show that access thresholds are mathematically necessary if wider access is to be achieved, and we present evidence demonstrating that applicants admitted with Higher grades lower than the market rate have a high probability of success at degree level. We welcome the widespread use of access thresholds but highlight the scope to be much bolder than is currently the case. We also show that the use of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) to identify contextually disadvantaged learners runs a high risk of failure to reach the intended beneficiaries. We argue strongly in favour of the use of administratively verified individual level measures of contextual disadvantage instead, specifically receipt of free school meals and low household income

Which are the most suitable contextual indicators for use in widening participation to HE?

Universities are increasingly making decisions about undergraduate admissions with reference to contextual indicators to identify whether an applicant comes from a disadvantaged family, neighbourhood or school environment. However, the indicators used are often chosen because they are readily available, without consideration of the quality of possible alternatives. A review of existing research literature to assess potential contextual indicators yielded around 120,000 reports, and 28 categories of indicators. Each indicator was assessed on the basis of existing evidence concerning its relevance, reach, availability, accuracy, reliability and completeness. Many possible indicators are not readily available, or accurate enough for use in practice. Indicators concerning individual circumstances are generally safer than area-based or school characteristics. There are some indicators for very small categories that can be used relatively un-problematically as long as the data can be made available at time of candidate selection. None of these is a solution to the more general issue of contextualised admissions. Having a disability or special educational need is clearly linked to lower attainment and participation but not for all categories. The most suitable general indicator is eligibility for free school meals (FSM), based on the number of years an applicant has been known to be FSM-eligible

Experiences of first-generation scholars at a highly selective UK university

Targets set by the UK Office for Students require highly academically selective UK universities to enrol a greater percentage of students identified as least likely to participate in higher education. Such students are typically at a disadvantage in terms of levels of academic preparedness and economic, cultural and social capital. Drawing on 18 interviews with first generation students at Durham University, we identify five sites of pressure: developing a sense of belonging within the terms of an elite university culture; engagement in student social activities; financial worries; concerns about academic progress, and self-transformation. Based on these insights, we argue that support for first generation scholars will require that universities recognise and redress elitist cultures that discourage applications from prospective first-generation scholars ultimately ensuring those who do enrol have the best educational and all-round experience