Socio-economic differences in higher education ... Crawford - SES differences in... ·...

© Institute for Fiscal Studies

Socio-economic differences in higher education participation and outcomes

Claire Crawford

University of Warwick and Institute for Fiscal Studies

Motivation: rising socio-economic inequalities in HE participation and degree acquisition over time

18.9ppts

22.6ppts

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

NCDS BCS BHPS Change: NCDS to BHPS

Pe

rce

nta

ge

po

int

dif

fere

nce

Difference in HE participation/degree acquisition rates between those in the top and bottom income quintile groups

HE participation at age 19 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.

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


SES gap in terms of % getting 5 A*-C grades in GCSEs and equivalents has fallen substantially

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

% pupils getting 5 A*-C grades in GCSEs and equivalents

FSM Non-FSM 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.

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 . . .


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?


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


HE participation


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)


HE participation overall and at high status institutions for state school pupils first eligible to go in 2010-11, by SES

19%

26%

34%

43%

56%

36.8ppts

2.9% 4.8% 7.7%

12.2%

21.5% 18.6ppts

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Lowest SES quintile group

2nd 3rd 4th Highest SES quintile group

Difference (highest - lowest)

% pupils going to university at age 18/19: highest SES quintile group including state school pupils only

HE participation overall 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)

HE participation overall and at high status institutions for all pupils first eligible to go in 2010-11, by SES

19%

26%

34%

43%

61%

42.0ppts

2.9% 4.8% 7.7%

12.2%

28.2% 25.3ppts

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Lowest SES quintile group

2nd 3rd 4th Highest SES quintile group

Difference (highest - lowest)

% pupils going to university at age 18/19: highest SES quintile group including state and private school pupils

HE participation overall HE participation at a high status institution



to start university in 2010-11 (who sat their GCSEs in 2007-08)

What explains differences in HE participation between pupils from most and least deprived backgrounds?


42ppts

19.2ppts

3.7ppts 2.9ppts

25.3ppts

7.8ppts

1.8ppts 1.3ppts

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

Raw Plus individual and school characteristics

and KS2 results

Plus Key Stage 4 and equivalent results


Pe

rce

nta

ge

po

int

dif

fere

nce

HE participation overall Participation at high status institutions


to start university in2010-11 (who sat their GCSEs in 2007-08)

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


Drop-out, degree completion and degree class


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


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 full-time 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


% of HE participants who drop-out, complete their degree and graduate with a first or 2:1, by percentile of socio-economic background


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

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

10

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

What explains differences in university outcomes between pupils from high and low SES backgrounds?


-8.4ppts -7.2ppts

-3.9ppts -3.7ppts

-3.4ppts

13.3ppts

9.3ppts

6.1ppts 5.5ppts 5.3ppts

22.9ppts

10.1ppts

5.2ppts 4.3ppts 3.7ppts

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Raw (accounting for cohort)

Plus individual characteristics and Key Stage 2 results



Plus university attended and

subject studied

Pe

rce

nta

ge

po

int

dif

fere

nce

Dropout within 2 years Complete degree within 5 years Graduate with a first or 2:1



How does this compare to the differences between pupils from the highest and lowest performing schools?


-6.3ppts

-2.3ppts

2ppts 1.8ppts 1.8ppts

9.8ppts

2.7ppts

-2.7ppts -2.6ppts

-2.9ppts

17.5ppts

3ppts

-7.3ppts -7.4ppts -7.8ppts -10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Raw (accounting for cohort)

Plus individual characteristics and Key Stage 2 results



Plus university attended and

subject studied

Pe

rce

nta

ge

po

int

dif

fere

nce

Dropout within 2 years Complete degree within 5 years Graduate with a first or 2:1



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


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


Early labour market outcomes


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


Differences in earnings between graduates who previously attended private vs. state schools


12.8%

11.7%

6.7% 5.8%

17.2%

12.7%

7.1%

6.0%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Raw Plus background controls

Plus prior attainment Plus occupation

6 months 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.

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?


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-characteristics-and-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 socio-economic background, IFS Working Paper No. 14/30.

• Crawford, C., L. Macmillan and A. Vignoles (2014), Progress made by high-attaining children from disadvantaged backgrounds, CAYT Research Report (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-attaining-children-from-

disadvantaged-backgrounds).


Date post:	06-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyendiep
View:	217 times
Download:	1 times

Socio-economic differences in higher education ... Crawford - SES differences in... ·...

Documents