Does Where You’re From Determine If You Go To University?
It’s no secret that there’s a participation divide within higher education in the UK. Whether or not a young person attends university is heavily influenced by their socioeconomic position and location, and as a result, social mobility is heavily affected. We’re going to take a closer look at the issue, and what’s being done to solve it.
Higher education participation rates according to geographical location are referred to by the POLAR classification quintiles (participation of locals areas). They represent the likelihood of 18-year-olds attending higher education institutions based on where they currently reside.
As it stands, it’s referred to as POLAR4, measuring 18 to 19-year-olds who enter higher education. POLAR4 revolves around five quintiles; number one shows the lowest rate of participation and five shows the highest. The map below represents this:
As you can see, there is a great deal of participation variation across the country. If you visit the map’s place of origin, you will be able to click on each individual coloured area and be given the young participation percentage rate.
It isn’t abnormal for an area with a low participation rate to neighbour an area with an extremely high participation rate, representing the overwhelming difference in environment and characteristics of UK areas. Areas with low participation levels were also found to have the lowest proportion of graduate adults, which raises the question of parent support within the realm of higher education.
When looking at each area by background the dilemma continues to unfold. Those entering higher education from high participation areas are found to have studied at an independent school or be funding university themselves. Whereas, entrants from low participation areas are more likely to have far weaker qualifications or are more likely to study for a less valued qualification. Staggeringly, those from the advantaged half of areas dominate the student population so much, that even the majority of characteristics usually associated with disadvantaged areas (such as lower grades) are found in those from advantaged areas.
But the sad truth is, even when disadvantaged students get in, they’re far more likely to drop out — it’s something the Education Secretary has criticised universities for. Damian Hinds says institutions are concerned with only attaining their attendance rate, not maintaining it.
Very recent figures tell us 8.8% of poorer students drop out compared to 6% of their more advantaged peers. London Metropolitan University, for example, saw 18.6% of its students dropping out before completing their degree, and the University of Bolton saw the highest number of students dropping out in their first year at 21.3%. They are two universities that find themselves at the bottom of the UK university rankings, and their dropout rates could be due to a number of things.
Social mobility is paying the price
Those from privileged backgrounds and higher participation areas don’t have to worry about their movements when it’s time to go to university. They tend to have a pick of the bunch and venture off to whatever institution they prefer most.
There are many, however, who have the academic ability to study at well-respected institutions but their financial situation restricts them from doing so. So, what’s being done to level the playing field?
A recently published BBC News article revealed that Cambridge is to offer clearance places for the first time in the summer in an attempt to shorten the gap on social mobility. They have announced around 100 places will become available but only less-fortunate students will be allowed to apply.
Although, this comes after numerous allegations suggested the University of Cambridge isn’t an inclusive institution — yet they insist the clearance places aren’t being made available to meet a certain quota.
Oxbridge are renowned for their elitist temperament, with four-fifths of students accepted having parents with top professional and managerial roles, and statistics suggest nothing is improving.
Hopefully, this is Cambridge’s way of trying to make a difference, but considering their yearly intake is around 3,500 students, 100 clearance places isn’t much of a start.
Additionally, the lack of social mobility within the higher education system has a considerable impact on the inequality of income; children with highly paid parents are more likely to earn more compared to children with lower paid parents. The graphical line representing this is pointing upwards, and university exclusivity is ensuring it stays its course.
But Russell Group universities are doing their part
Oxford and Cambridge will always be seen as elitist institutions; they haven’t achieved their status as top universities in both the UK and the world by opening their doors to anyone. But that’s not to say other institutions in the UK aren’t doing their bit to improve the social mobility of poorer students.
Russell Group universities have increased their funding by 60% over the last five years in order to help the most disadvantaged. Their money has gone towards scholarships, fee waivers, outreach activities and bursaries, all with the hopes of creating chances for those who might otherwise be unable to afford the transition from college to university. They organise and deliver mentoring sessions, summer schools and campus visits, sponsoring schools and providing Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for teachers. This is all with the hopes of encouraging low socioeconomic students’ to apply to their desired institutions, all the while having the backing of remarkable universities.
It has also been suggested that the highest tuition fee rate of £9,250 could be dropped down to £6,500. This could help improve social mobility within education, as high tuition fees are much more likely to deter students from going to university, research has suggested.
Areas of study that are much more likely to lead to higher paid jobs, such as medicine, could see their yearly fee rise to £13,500 as a result. It’s not unreasonable ‘charging’ students with better-paid job prospects more than those who could go onto earn half their salary, especially if it enables less-privileged students to go on and get a degree.
With a huge lower participation rate divide among different UK areas underpinning the lack of social mobility within higher education, it’s only right to tackle the problem at its source. Perhaps large portions of the funding should be directed at the lower quintiles in the POLAR system? Let us know your thoughts by commenting below.
Originally published at www.kortext.com by Matthew Maynard
