Access to higher education
There is a strong association between participation in higher education and social class. While there has been an increase in the number of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds participating in higher education since 2005, there are still gaps in participation by socio-economic background but these are smaller or larger depending on the measures used.
There is a strong relationship between social background and the type of university attended. The higher education sector is stratified, with students from lower socio-economic backgrounds significantly less likely to attend highly selective universities. There are many factors contributing to this, including student choice, geographical mobility and prior attainment. In view of the expansion of higher education and its steeply hierarchical structure, for social equality, it is vital to look beyond participation in higher education generally, to consider access to highly selective universities because they confer the greatest premium in the labour market. This focus is known as ‘fair access’.
Percentage of 15 year old state-funded pupils who entered HE by age 19 by Free School Meal (FSM) status1
Progression to the most highly selective universities varies significantly by region and social background. For instance, in the North East, only 2% of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds (as defined by Free School Meal status) attended a selective university in comparison with 11% of students from the same social group from Inner London. And the gaps in participation between social groups are significant. In England, students from higher socio-economic backgrounds are three times more likely to attend a highly selective university than their peers who have experienced financial hardship. In some regions, the gap is even wider, such as in the North East where students from higher social groups are five times more likely to attend a prestigious university.
The ‘fair access’ debate therefore relates to policy and action to diversify the intake of the most selective universities given their importance in opening pathways to elite professions. This has been the focus of charities such as The Sutton Trust, The Access Project and The Brilliant Club. Outreach activity has centred on raising students’ ambitions relating to participation in higher education, helping to inform their choices, raising attainment and creating progression pathways. Additionally, universities use contextual admissions processes, taking into account students’ background characteristics and adjusting their entry requirements accordingly. Evidence indicates that flexible and contextual approaches to admissions are an effective tool to reduce social inequality in higher education.2
Geography plays an important part in determining access to higher education in general and the type of institution attended in particular. In some more remote parts of the country, there is limited access to higher education or no choice available. This can also mean that schools in such areas are less likely to benefit from universities’ widening participation activity.3 Evidence suggests that the higher costs and added risks involved in moving away from home make this option less appealing to some young people and those who are less confident that higher education is right for them.4
With limited access to local higher education in remote places, the most able students are likely to leave home to attend highly selective institutions in large urban areas. Whilst this may be positive in terms of ‘fair access’ － diversifying student communities － it has a negative effect on socio-economic equality more broadly as it deepens regional inequalities.
Student mobility is therefore a key dimension of inequality in higher education choice and experience. In areas where there is access to higher education, individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to study locally and commute to attend. Whilst the majority of young people now choose to stay local for university (55.8%), over three times more students from the lowest social group commute from home in comparison to those from the highest social group (44.9% versus 13.1%). There are also striking patterns in participation according to ethnicity. British Pakistani and Bangladeshi students are over six times more likely than White students to commute to study.5
The Office for Students is responsible for monitoring the performance of higher education providers in tackling inequalities in access, participation and success.
Footnotes
- https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/757897/WP2018-MainText.pdf
- Vikki Boliver, Stephen Gorard and Nadia Saddiqui. (2019) Using contextual data to widen access to higher education. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education.
- Michael Donnelly and Sol Gamsu. (2018) Home and away: social, ethnic and spatial inequalities in student mobility. The Sutton Trust.
- Department for Education. (2017) Understanding the changing gaps in higher education participation in different regions of England.
- Michael Donnelly and Sol Gamsu. (2018) Home and away: social, ethnic and spatial inequalities in student mobility. The Sutton Trust.
Join our mission
We've got bold ambitions to connect the whole social mobility community in one place. Sign up to our newsletter to be the first to hear news on events, exciting new ideas and connect to others who want to make a difference.