Are poor still put off a degree?

By Mike Baker

Not all students make it to graduation

The latest data on university drop-out rates has revealed growing tensions in higher education.

There was little agreement on either diagnosis of the problem or on proposed solutions.

The government suggested that poor teaching was partly to blame for a rise in the drop-out rate for first year undergraduates.

By contrast, the university lecturers' union suggested it was the student finance system that needed an overhaul.

Indeed, the reaction to the figures had every appearance of warring factions digging in for the forthcoming battle over the review of student fees.

But the reality is that drop-out rates in the UK, whilst rising slightly, remain among the lowest in the world.

While that is not a reason to be complacent - and finance and the student experience each play a part in students' decision to stay on - I would argue that the drop-out statistics were less of a concern than the access data.

'Depressing'

After all, not all students who fail to finish their degree have "failed".

Some may have wasted their time (and money) but others will have benefited from their year in higher education even if they do not immediately continue to gain a degree.

They have got into university and found it is not for them - or at least not for now.

Much more worrying than the fate of those who leave early is the plight of those who - despite having the innate ability and potential - never even get through the door to university.

While the access statistics appear to show a mixed picture - with small rises in students from state schools and disadvantaged neighbourhoods - the most depressing statistic is the continued failure to attract more students from poorer families.

So while almost half the working population of the UK is classified in socio-economic groups 4 to 7, only 29.5% of young university entrants come from this section of the population.

What is more, the figure is down from 29.8% the previous year.

So, while there has been a small rise in students from poorer neighbourhoods and from state schools, the combination of these statistics suggest the improvement has not come evenly from within these groups but has favoured the relatively better-off within these categories.

Blockage

And if we look at how many school-leavers from poorer families get into the traditional elite universities, the picture is even starker.

Across the Russell Group of universities just 18.5% of entrants come from the lower socio-economic groups, again a slight fall on the previous year.

Widening participation has been a priority

The most selective universities had the lowest percentage of students from poorer families: Oxford 10.5%, Cambridge 11%, and Bristol 13.9%.

The easy thing to do would be to blame the universities. But that would be too simple.

While there are certainly things that universities can do to try to make students feel welcome whatever their background, the reality is that the real blockage comes much earlier in the education system.

And this is where the big problem lies for the government.

It has been committed to widening participation at university for over a decade now.

Millions have been spent on bursaries, grants, summer schools and on the Aim Higher schemes.

Some of it has paid off.

But the data suggests that, despite the improvement in participation rates from state schools and poorer neighbourhoods, it is still not reaching the poorest families within these two categories.

Wastage

This does not suggest that money spent on widening participation is wasted.

But it does suggest that an even higher priority must be to target help to the poorest children from an age well before they are even considering university.

It is clear that the only way to tackle deep social inequality in education is to begin from the earliest age

We know from Leon Feinstein's research (see my column of a fortnight ago "Nature, nurture and exam results") that the children from the poorest families who start out in the top quartile of the ability range are overtaken by more affluent children from the lowest quartile of ability by the time they are six or seven years old.

So by the time children are coming to the end of infant school, several of those born with the ability to get to university have probably already lost their way.

The wastage rate continues in secondary school.

According to the Sutton Trust, there are as many as 60,000 pupils in every age group who - at the age of 11, 14 or even 16 - were among the top fifth of performers in school but who do not go to university by the age of 19.

By contrast, if children from poorer homes do make it through to A-levels they are as likely to go to university as any other pupil (although there are still disparities if you look at access to the most selective universities).

Faced with such evidence, it is clear that the only way to tackle deep social inequality in education is to begin from the earliest age.

In an ideal world, there would be no shortage of funds for both widening participation projects and for improving school and pre-school education.

But if it has to be one or the other, then the choice is clear: The money has to go to the youngest children.