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
Recommended
