Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)/Sutton Trust publish 'Which university degrees are best for intergenerational mobility?'

The report investigates the extent to which individual universities, subjects and courses promote intergenerational mobility, focusing mainly on people who attended university in the mid 2000s. It uses the Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) dataset to document mobility rates for each university, subject and course in England. Mobility rates are calculated by looking at the access rate (the share of students for each university, subject or course from low-income backgrounds based on Free School Meals) plus the success rate (the share of those FSM students who make it to the top 20 per cent of the earnings distribution at age 30). The report was used as evidence to support a “reboot” of access and participation plans, announced by Michelle Donelan, the universities minister.

The full report can be found here. 

At-a-glance:

• Gaps in access are hugely variable depending on university selectivity. Low-income students are far less likely to attend the most selective universities: in the mid 2000s, students who attended private secondary schools were around 100 times more likely to study at Oxford or Cambridge than FSM-eligible students (p2)
• Variation in access to different subjects is common. Pharmacology and social care have only very small gaps in access by socio-economic background, but there are large gaps in subjects such as medicine. In the mid 2000s, the privately educated were nearly 25 times more likely to study medicine than FSM-eligible students (p2)
• The very best-performing institutions in terms of their success at helping graduates into high-paid employment admitted few FSM students. Similarly, the universities with the highest FSM access rates have below average success rates. However, across all universities, the correlation between access and success of -0.24 is relatively weak. Some universities do reasonably well on both metrics (p2)
• The average mobility rate across all universities is 1.3 per cent - well below the benchmark of 4.4 per cent, which would be the rate if there were equal access to university for all income groups, and undergraduates from all income backgrounds had the same chance of making it into the top 20 per cent of earners. At age 30, only 1.3 in every 100 university graduates are in the top 20 per cent of the earnings distribution and from a low-income background, compared with a benchmark of 4.4 (p2)
• The highest-mobility institutions are often less selective and based in big cities – although the ranking reveals a mixed picture, with some highly selective institutions appearing towards the top of the table. London institutions are especially dominant. However, only seven institutions reach or improve upon the benchmark mobility rate of 4.4 per cent – Queen Mary University of London, Westminster, City, Greenwich, London South Bank, Brunel and St George’s Hospital. London’s high share of FSM pupils, many of whom perform well at school and are from ethnic minority backgrounds, is likely to explain, in part, high access rates of London institutions (p2, p23)
• Adjusting earnings for cost of living differences across the country improves the mobility rates of Northern universities, and lowers those in London and the South East. It does not change the overall ranking of universities very much, however. London universities still dominate the top of the mobility distribution, and the most selective universities still perform poorly (p3)
• Adjusting for differences in attainment and other characteristics of FSM students across universities reinforces the message that many low-return, low-selectivity degrees do very well in terms of mobility. The least selective institutions move up the mobility ranking, while the most selective ones move even further down. However, the overall changes from this adjustment are relatively minor (p3)
• Law, computing and (especially) pharmacology are the best-performing subject areas, with mobility rates of 2.2 per cent, 2.9 per cent and 4.2 per cent, respectively. Around 10 per cent of their students were FSM eligible and many of them perform well in terms of labour market success (p3)
• While some courses have no students from low-income backgrounds, others have mobility rates that exceed 10 per cent. Computing, law and economics at London-based institutions dominate the top 20 courses when ranked on mobility rates. Arts and humanities courses generally do poorly (p3)
• There is much variation in mobility rates within institutions - many universities are in the top 10 per cent of the mobility rankings for some subjects and in the bottom 10 per cent for others. Even for the arts courses, which do poorly overall, there are some institutions with very good mobility rates. Many courses that do poorly in terms of boosting earnings on average do a lot to promote mobility (p3)
• There has been a slow but steady increase in the access rates of FSM students in the decade since the mid 2000s. However, at many universities, progress over this period was negligible (p3)
• An increase in average mobility rates from 1.3 per cent for mid 2000s students to around 1.6 per cent for cohorts entering university in 2018 and 2019 would be predicted from these improved access rates - well below the benchmark mobility rate of 4.4 per cent. There is clearly much progress still to be made, especially by the most selective universities, where access rates remain extremely low (p3)

Implications for governance

The variations across institutions and courses in access, success and intergenerational mobility highlighted in the IFS/Sutton Trust report have provided a springboard for ministers to look again at what they demand of the sector in terms of access and participation.

These expectations are outlined in a letter to the Office for Students (OfS) from Nadhim Zahawi, the education secretary and Michelle Donelan, the universities minister, which formed the basis of the Minister’s speech on November 24th. The letter details a “reset” (also described as a “reboot” and “refresh”) of the role that the government wants universities to play in supporting “true equality of opportunity”.

The implications for governance seem clear: the reset represents an overhaul of what universities should focus on in access and participation and how resources should be allocated to achieve new targets.

A key feature is that universities should play a greater role in driving up standards in schools and colleges – not only aimed at improving the qualifications that secure university places but also those needed to access college courses and apprenticeships. Most, if not all, institutions already work with schools but many will now have to consider the extent of this work and its effectiveness. The implication is that simply targeting the most able pupils or those with “university potential” is not enough – nets must be widened. In her speech the Minister mentions interventions such as summer schools, mentoring and even programmes that help teacher recruitment and retention as possible ways forward.

The OfS is to “strongly encourage” institutions to set themselves ambitious, measurable targets to significantly increase the proportion of students on higher and degree apprenticeships, Level 4 and 5 courses, including Higher Technical Qualifications. Underlying this new target is the government’s ongoing concern that too many students are currently recruited to “low quality” HE courses with relatively low completion rates and poor graduate outcomes, as evidenced in the IFS/Sutton Trust report; a concern that is driving the OfS’s current review of quality and standards that is expected to significantly colour the government’s eventual response to the Augar recommendations.

The Minister wants a “fresh focus” by the OfS on the progress of disadvantaged and underrepresented groups into high paid, high skills careers. As the letter puts it “providers should not be incentivised, nor rewarded, for recruiting disadvantaged students onto courses where too many students drop out or that do not offer good graduate outcomes”.

Where courses exist with high dropout and/or low graduate employment rates, universities will be expected to set “clear, measurable targets” to improve the outcomes of such courses that they will be held account for meeting.

Degree attainment gap between white and ethnic minority students, particularly Black students, is mentioned in the letter and is clearly a focus in current A&P plans. However, white working-class boys are referenced twice as the group least likely to go to university, as highlighted by a recent select committee inquiry, with the implication that they should receive due consideration in renegotiated plans

A mention of “regional equalities” could perhaps signal a more nuanced perception on the part of ministers of what a “graduate job” is, a better understanding of how local economies impact student outcomes and an acknowledgement that producing graduates who flock to the south east to take up higher paid jobs does not advance the levelling up agenda.

Governors will no doubt wish to see where their own institution stands in the IFS/Sutton Trust ranking, and consider the implications with regards to a “reboot” of current A&P plans. With a new Director for Fair Access and Participation now appointed, they can expect more announcements and details to emerge in the coming weeks.