Widening Participation in Higher Education: Analysis using Linked Admin Data

Institute of Education

Institute for Fiscal Studies

Centre for Economic Performance

Research Team

Haroon Chowdry

Claire Crawford

Lorraine Dearden

Alissa Goodman

Anna Vignoles

Background and Motivation

• Concerns increased following introduction of tuition fees in 1998– But did not deter low income students (who

were protected by increased loan availability) (Dearden, Fitzsimons & Wyness, 2008)

• Recent policy developments may affect future participation– 2006-07 reforms – Further fee rises to £9k

Research Questions

• How does the likelihood of HE participation vary by socio-economic background?

• How much of this gap can be explained by prior achievement?

• How does the type of HE participation vary across socio-economic groups?

New longitudinal admin data

• Linked individual-level administrative data– School, FE and HE records

• Data on participants AND non-participants• Consider two cohorts:

– In Year 11 in 2001-02 or 2002-03– Potential age 18/19 HE entry in 2004-05 or

2005-06 (age 19/20 entry 2005-06/2006-07)• State and private school students

Results

• Likelihood of HE participation varies massively by socio-economic background

• However much of this gap can be explained by prior achievement

• Again comes back to early interventions and investments....... If we are serious about equity issues...

Male HE participation, by deprivation quintile

0 10 20 30 40% participating in HE at 19/20

State school pupils

0 10 20 30 40% participating in HE at 19/20

State and private school pupils

Least deprived quintile 2nd quintile

3rd quintile 4th quintileMost deprived quintile

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

None

1-180

181-300

301+

A L

evel

po

ints

Proportion attending HE (%)

Non-FSM pupils

FSM pupils

Allowing for prior achievement:

Results

• There is also inequality in the types of universities attended by different students

• Poorer students tend to enrol in less prestigious universities

• This has implications for the amount of human capital they acquire and hence their earnings

Strong gradient in university prestige by deprivation status

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1

Non-FSMpupils

FSM pupils

Index of university quality

Index ofuniversityquality

-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

Leastdeprived

2nd

3rd

4th

Mostdeprived

Quintile ofIMD score

Index of university quality

Index ofuniversityquality

Differences in HE prestige within A Level scores

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

1-180

181-300

301+

A L

ev

el p

oin

ts

Index of university quality

Non-FSM pupils

FSM pupils

Conclusions

• Our results indicated that the key to low participation by poor students is not their time preferences nor financial costs of study

• Reducing inequality in higher education participation in the UK is largely about reducing inequalities earlier in the system

• Psychic costs of investing in HE are too high for poor students