Socio-economic differences in higher
education participation and outcomes
Claire Crawford
University of Warwick and Institute for Fiscal Studies
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Motivation: rising socio-economic inequalities in
HE participation and degree acquisition over time
Difference in HE participation/degree acquisition rates
between those in the top and bottom income quintile groups
Percentage point difference
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
22.6ppts
18.9ppts
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
NCDS
BCS
HE participation at age 19
BHPS
Degree acquisition by age 23
Source: Blanden & Machin (2004), Educational inequality and the expansion of UK higher education, Scottish
Journal of Political Economy, Special Issue on the Economics of Education, Vol. 51, pp. 230-249.
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Change:
NCDS to BHPS
Motivation: what has happened since then?
• Participation in higher education has risen dramatically
• Fees and student support arrangements have changed significantly
• SES differences in some measures of attainment have been falling
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
SES gap in terms of % getting 5 A*-C grades in
GCSEs and equivalents has fallen substantially
% pupils getting 5 A*-C grades in GCSEs and equivalents
90%
35%
80%
30%
70%
25%
60%
50%
20%
40%
15%
30%
10%
20%
5%
10%
0%
0%
2004
2005
2006
FSM
2007
2008
Non-FSM
2009
2010
2011
Difference (RH axis)
2010-2012 figures based on SFR 04/2013: GCSE and Equivalent Attainment by Pupil Characteristics in England.
2006-2009 figures based on SFR 37/2010: GCSE and Equivalent Attainment by Pupil Characteristics in England.
2004-2005 figures based on authors’ calculations using Key Stage 4 and PLASC data.
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
2012
Motivation: what does this mean for SES gaps in
HE participation and outcomes?
• Changes to student finance:
– Concerns that prospect of high fees/debt levels would create a barrier to
participation/retention for poorer students and hence increase SES gaps
• Prior attainment:
– Given key role in driving HE participation, poorer students “catching up”
with their better off peers may decrease SES gaps
• Mass HE participation:
– Potential “selection effects”: lower ability students may be less likely to
complete their degree and less likely to graduate with a 1st or a 2:1
• Effect on SES gaps ambiguous (depends where new participants are drawn from)
• Empirical question . . .
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Plan for today
• Document socio-economic gaps in HE participation, drop-out,
degree completion and degree class
• Explore the extent to which these gaps can be explained by
differences in other characteristics, especially prior attainment
• Compare these results to differences by school characteristics
(including differences in labour market outcomes)
• What policy implications can be drawn from our results?
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Data
• Analysis of participation, drop-out, degree completion and degree
class uses linked NPD-ILR-HESA data
– Allows us to follow the population of pupils attending schools in
England from age 11 through to potential degree completion
• Analysis of labour market outcomes uses DLHE data
– Survey of those leaving university in 2007, 6 months and 3.5 years later
• Key covariates of interest:
– Socio-economic status
• Combine FSM eligibility at age 16 with measures of local area deprivation based on
pupils’ home postcode at age 16
• Split state school population into five equally sized groups based on this index
• Add private school students to top quintile group
– School performance:
• % of pupils in school achieving at least 5 A*-C grades at GCSE
• Pupils split into five equally sized groups on the basis of this measure
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
HE participation
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Outcomes: HE participation
• Participation at any UK university for the first time at age 18 or 19
• Participation at a “high status” institution, where high status is:
– Russell Group institutions (20 in total pre-2012)
– Plus any UK university with a 2001 average RAE score higher than the
lowest amongst the Russell Group (an extra 21 institutions)
• Focus on cohorts first eligible to participate 2004-05 to 2010-11
– 34.7% participated for the first time at age 18 or 19
– 12.0% attended a high status institution (34.7% of participants)
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
HE participation overall and at high status institutions for
state school pupils first eligible to go in 2010-11, by SES
% pupils going to university at age 18/19: highest SES
quintile group including state school pupils only
70%
60%
56%
50%
43%
40%
36.8ppts
34%
30%
26%
21.5%
19%
20%
10%
2.9%
4.8%
7.7%
18.6ppts
12.2%
0%
-10%
Lowest SES
quintile group
2nd
HE participation overall
3rd
4th
Highest SES
quintile group
HE participation at a high status institution
Source: authors’ calculations based on linked schools and universities administrative data for the cohort first eligible
to start university in 2010-11 (who sat their GCSEs in 2007-08)
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Difference
(highest lowest)
HE participation overall and at high status institutions for
all pupils first eligible to go in 2010-11, by SES
% pupils going to university at age 18/19: highest SES
quintile group including state and private school pupils
70%
61%
60%
50%
43%
40%
34%
30%
20%
42.0ppts
28.2%
26%
25.3ppts
19%
10%
2.9%
4.8%
7.7%
12.2%
0%
Lowest SES
quintile group
2nd
HE participation overall
3rd
4th
Highest SES
quintile group
HE participation at a high status institution
Source: authors’ calculations based on linked schools and universities administrative data for the cohort first eligible
to start university in 2010-11 (who sat their GCSEs in 2007-08)
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Difference
(highest lowest)
What explains differences in HE participation between
pupils from most and least deprived backgrounds?
45.0
42ppts
Percentage point difference
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.3ppts
25.0
19.2ppts
20.0
15.0
10.0
7.8ppts
3.7ppts
5.0
1.8ppts
2.9ppts
1.3ppts
0.0
Raw
Plus individual and Plus Key Stage 4 and Plus Key Stage 5 and
school characteristics equivalent results
equivalent results
and KS2 results
HE participation overall
Participation at high status institutions
Source: authors’ calculations based on linked schools and universities administrative data for the cohort first eligible
to start university in2010-11 (who sat their GCSEs in 2007-08)
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Summary
• Large differences in HE participation overall and at high status
institutions on the basis of socio-economic status
• But these gaps can largely be explained by differences in prior
attainment between pupils from different backgrounds
– Especially participation at high status institutions
• Particularly emphasise the substantial explanatory power of KS4
– Addition of Key Stage 5 controls adds little to this picture
• Suggests that secondary school is a potentially vital period for
interventions to “widen” participation in HE
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Drop-out, degree completion and degree class
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Outcomes: drop-out
• Drop-out in first or second year:
– Defined only for those who went to university at age 18 or 19
– Focus on those who leave the sector completely; anyone who transfers
to another university is included in the zeroes
• Need to be able to observe three years of data to define measure
– Means focus on those first eligible to go 2004-05 to 2008-09
• 11.5% drop-out on our measure
• Slightly lower (9.7%) if we focus on full-time first degree entrants
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Outcomes: degree completion and degree class
• For both outcomes, focus on those completing within 5 years
– Means need to be able to observe 5 years of data to define measure
– Hence focus on those first eligible to go in 2004-05 to 2006-07
• Degree completion:
– Defined for those who went to university at age 18 or 19 to study fulltime for a first degree in a non-medical subject
– 78.2% complete their degree within 5 years on our definition
• Graduate with a 1st or a 2:1:
– Sample as above but additionally restricted to those who complete their
degree within 5 years
– 64.6% of degree completers graduate with a 1st or a 2:1 on our definition
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
% of HE participants who drop-out, complete their
degree and graduate with a first or 2:1, by percentile
of socio-economic background
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
52
55
58
61
64
67
70
73
76
79
82
85
88
91
94
97
100
0%
Percentile of SES distribution (1=least deprived; 100=most deprived)
Drop-out within 2 years
Complete degree within 5 years
Graduate with a first or 2:1
Source: authors’ calculations based on linked NPD-HESA data for the cohorts first eligible to start university between
2004-05 and 2008-09 for drop-out, and between 2004-05 and 2006-07 for degree completion and degree class
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
What explains differences in university outcomes
between pupils from high and low SES backgrounds?
25.0
22.9ppts
Percentage point difference
20.0
15.0
13.3ppts
10.1ppts
9.3ppts
10.0
6.1ppts
5.0
5.2ppts
5.5ppts
4.3ppts
5.3ppts
3.7ppts
0.0
Raw (accounting
for cohort)
-5.0
Plus individual Plus Key Stage 4 and Plus Key Stage 5 and
characteristics and equivalent results equivalent results
Key Stage 2 results -3.9ppts
-3.7ppts
Plus university
attended and
subject studied
-3.4ppts
-10.0
-8.4ppts
-7.2ppts
Dropout within 2 years
Complete degree within 5 years
Graduate with a first or 2:1
Source: authors’ calculations based on linked NPD-HESA data for the cohorts first eligible to start university between
2004-05 and 2008-09 for drop-out, and between 2004-05 and 2006-07 for degree completion and degree class
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
How does this compare to the differences between
pupils from the highest and lowest performing schools?
20.0
17.5ppts
Percentage point difference
15.0
10.0
9.8ppts
5.0
2.7ppts 3ppts
2ppts
1.8ppts
1.8ppts
0.0
Raw (accounting
for cohort)
-5.0
Plus individual Plus Key Stage 4 and Plus Key Stage 5 and
characteristics and equivalent results equivalent results
-2.6ppts
Key Stage 2 results
-2.7ppts
-2.9ppts
-2.3ppts
-6.3ppts
-7.3ppts
-7.4ppts
-10.0
Dropout within 2 years
Complete degree within 5 years
-7.8ppts
Graduate with a first or 2:1
Source: authors’ calculations based on linked NPD-HESA data for the cohorts first eligible to start university between
2004-05 and 2008-09 for drop-out, and between 2004-05 and 2006-07 for degree completion and degree class
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Plus university
attended and
subject studied
Summary
• Differences in HE outcomes smaller, on average, than participation,
and in expected direction (but amongst selected sample)
• Controlling for attainment on entry to university substantially
reduces SES differences; comparing students on the same courses
makes little difference over and above accounting for attainment
– Students from high SES backgrounds still, on average, less likely to drop
out, more likely to complete degree and less likely to get first or 2:1
than students from low SES backgrounds
• Different picture when comparing outcomes by school performance
– Students from high-performing schools are, on average, more likely to
drop out, less likely to complete degree and less likely to get first or 2:1
once we account for differences in attainment prior to university entry
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Policy implications?
• Attainment during secondary school still a key driver of progression
and performance at university, so SES gaps in these outcomes may
fall if attainment rises earlier in the school system
• Differences by school characteristics suggest that pupils from low
performing schools with the same attainment as those from high
performing schools have, on average, higher “potential”
– Universities may wish to account for this in making entry offers
– If they do, they are likely to get it right on average
• Same is not true for individual/neighbourhood measures of SES
– Does not mean that no students from lower SES backgrounds will go on
to outperform students from higher SES backgrounds at university
– But it is not true on average: makes it more challenging for universities
to identify low SES students with high potential to do well
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Early labour market outcomes
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Is HE a route to social mobility?
• Returns to education in the UK largely accrue to qualifications
– Also vary by institution, subject and degree class
• But those from low SES backgrounds are less likely to attend a
high status institution, less likely to complete their degree and less
likely to get a first or 2:1, even conditional on prior attainment
• Do such differences persist into the labour market too?
• Look at earnings differences 6 months and 3.5 years after
graduation for those who attended private vs. state schools
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Differences in earnings between graduates who
previously attended private vs. state schools
20%
17.2%
18%
16%
14%
12.8%
12.7%
11.7%
12%
10%
8%
6.7%
7.1%
5.8%
6%
6.0%
4%
2%
0%
Raw
Plus background
controls
6 months
Plus prior attainment
Plus occupation
3.5 years
Source: authors’ calculations based on Destination of Leavers from Higher Education data for UK-domiciled students
who studied full-time for a first degree and graduated in 2006-07.
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Summary
• Private school students earn more than state school students, even
when we compare those who went to the same universities,
studied the same subjects and went into the same occupations
• Why?
– Better social networks?
– Better non-cognitive skills?
– Or are we still not measuring ability well enough?
• Can check this now that NPD-HESA and DLHE have been linked
• But as things stand, those from lower socio-economic
backgrounds and state schools do not appear to benefit to the
same extent from higher education: challenge for social mobility?
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Relevant published work
•
Chowdry, H., C. Crawford, L. Dearden, A. Goodman and A. Vignoles (2013),
Widening participation in higher education: analysis using linked administrative
data, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, Vol. 176, pp. 431-457.
•
Crawford, C. (2012), Socio-economic gaps in HE participation: how have they
changed over time?, IFS Briefing Note BN133.
•
Crawford, C. (2014a), The link between secondary school characteristics and HE
participation and outcomes, CAYT Research Report
(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/secondary-school-characteristicsand-university-participation).
•
Crawford, C. (2014b), Socio-economic differences in university outcomes in the
UK: drop-out, degree completion and degree class, IFS Working Paper No. 14/31.
•
Crawford, C. and A. Vignoles (2014), Heterogeneity in graduate earnings by socioeconomic background, IFS Working Paper No. 14/30.
•
Crawford, C., L. Macmillan and A. Vignoles (2014), Progress made by highattaining children from disadvantaged backgrounds, CAYT Research Report
(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-attaining-children-fromdisadvantaged-backgrounds).
© Institute for Fiscal Studies