Access to the Professions for Undergraduates from Less-Privileged Backgrounds – The Issue

upReachAccess to the Professions for Undergraduates

from Less-Privileged Backgrounds – The Issue

upReach.org.uk

http://upreach.org.uk




1. The professions are key to the UK’s economic success...

2. ...yet are not socially representative

3. Access to the professions has not improved for over two decades

4. Once at selective universities, undergraduates from less-privileged backgrounds perform comparably with their more-privileged peers

5. However, equal academic performance is not matched by equal access to the professions with a gap of up to 15%...

6. ...and those graduates from less-privileged backgrounds who do access the professions earn up to £3,000 less annually

Capabilities required for access and calls for upReach’s approach

7. Employers value non-academic capabilities that undergraduates from less-privileged backgrounds tend to lack and struggle to build

8. There are calls for a collaborative approach to improving social mobility at university

9. upReach’s collaborative approach can make a significant contribution

upReach – Access to the Professions for Undergraduates from Less-Privileged Backgrounds – The Issue of 14

Nine point summary

The professions Access at university

The professions are key to the UK’s economic success...

The professions are an increasingly important part of the UK economy. According to the Cabinet Office, their share of total employment is projected to rise from 42% in 2010 to 46% in 2020 and ‘will account for approximately 83% of all new jobs’ in the next decade1.

...yet are not socially representative

The makeup of the professions does not reflect the full range of socio-economic backgrounds in the UK. The Sutton Trust have shown that the professions contain disproportionately high numbers of independently-educated employees2.

For example (Fig. 1):

● 43% of Barristers

● 54% of top Journalists

● 54% of FTSE 100 CEOs

● 70% of Finance Directors

● and 88% of Supreme Court Judges

...were independently-educated despite independent schools accounting for only 7% of the school population3.

These statistics echo findings published in the Cabinet Office report Unleashing Aspiration, which argues that ‘the professions are becoming the preserve of people from an increasingly small part of the social spectrum’5.


Fig. 1 Percentage of independently-educated employees by professional group4

MPs

Barristers

Senior Civil Servants

Top Journalists

FTSE 100 CEOs

Lords

Finance Directors

Supreme Court Judges

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%Percentage of independently-schooled employees

Prof

essio

nal g

roup

Percentage of the school population who are independently-educated

Access to the professions has not improved for over two decades

According to the Panel on Fair Access, ‘access to society’s top jobs and professions has become less... representative over time’6.

While the number of people employed in the professions has increased over the last two decades, the difference in representation between those from more and less-privileged backgrounds has not changed – a gap of 23% has remained constant since 1996 (Fig. 2)7.

Alarmingly, for current university leavers entering graduate jobs, the gap between more and less-privileged entrants has grown over the past five years. Comparatively fewer new graduates from less-privileged backgrounds are entering the professions (Fig. 3)10.

‘If action is not taken... the typical professional of the future will now be growing up in a family that is better off than seven in ten of all families in the UK’13.

For example:

• The typical teacher of the future will today be growing up in a family that is better off than 66% of all UK families

• The typical accountant of the future will today be growing up in a family that is better off than 75% of all UK families

• The typical lawyer of the future will today be growing up in a family that is better off than 83% of all UK families14

Therefore, improving graduate outcomes for those from less-privileged backgrounds has ‘a crucial role in determining whether Britain’s sluggish rates of social mobility can be improved’15.


Fig. 2 The proportion of the working-age population employed in higher level occupations by social background8, 9

20%

21%

22%

23%

24%

25%

1991-95 1996-00 2001-04 2005-080%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Gap

YearEm

ploy

ed in

the

prof

essio

nsGapHigher-level occupations NS-SEC (1-2)Others

Fig. 3 The proportion of graduates in full-time graduate employment six months after graduating by social background11, 12

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-1150%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

Gap

Year

Empl

oyed

in g

radu

ate

posit

ions

GapMore-privileged groups SOC (1-3)Less-privileged groups SOC (4-9)

Once at selective universities, undergraduates from less-privileged backgrounds perform comparably with their

more-privileged peers

Hoare and Johnston have shown that state-school-educated undergraduates at Bristol University perform better than their independently-educated peers in all types of university examinations16. 88% of state-school-educated graduates received a 2.1 or above, compared with 85% of those who were independently-educated (Fig. 4)17.

When looking at firsts across the Russell and 1994 Groups, over 20% of state-school-educated graduates achieve first-class degrees, in contrast to less than 18% of independently-educated graduates18.

Comparable academic achievement is also emphasised by Alan Milburn, who notes that ‘children from state schools are more likely to do well at university than those from private schools with the same A-level results’19.

However, equal academic performance is not matchedby equal access to the professions with a gap of up to 15%...

Students from less-privileged backgrounds are more likely to be employed six months after graduating when compared to their more-privileged peers. 74% of state-school-educated graduates were in employment of some form compared with only 67% of independantly educated graduates – a gap of 7% (Fig. 5)21.

Yet despite having higher rates of employment after graduation, students from less-privileged backgrounds show a poorer rate of progression into graduate employment. Just 58% of state-school-educated graduates found professional employment, compared to 74% of independently-educated graduates – a gap of 15%22. These findings are supported by Smith et al’s research that undergraduates ‘from poorer backgrounds have a lower probability of being employed in graduate occupations after graduation’ when compared to their more-privileged peers23.


Fig. 4 The percentage of undergraduates achieving different degree classes at Bristol University categorised by school type20

IndependentState

IndependentState

Fig. 5 Employment outcomes for undergraduates six months after graduation by school type 24

50%

60%

70%

80%

58%

74%

15% gap**

50%

60%

70%

80%

74%

67%

7% gap**

2.2s or below2.1s1sts

Degree class * %s rounded

* %s rounded** Gap %s calculated on unrounded numbers

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Independent State

20%17%

68%68%

12%15%

School type

% o

f em

ploy

ed g

radu

ates

in

grad

uate

em

ploy

men

t*

% o

f gra

duat

es in

all

type

s of

em

ploy

men

t*

School type School type

% o

f und

ergr

adua

tes

by

degr

ee c

lass

ifica

tion*

Students from less-privileged backgrounds are more likely to find employment after graduating...

...yet are less likely to access professional employment.

...and those graduates from less-privileged backgrounds who do access the professions earn over £3,000 less annually

State-school-educated graduates who achieved a 2.1 or above receive on average a £2,590 per year lower starting salary than their independently-educated peers (Fig. 6)25. This disparity increases to £3,018 per year amongst those who achieve first-class degrees26. Therefore, even the most talented graduates from less-privileged backgrounds do not receive equal starting salaries. These findings are supported by the Bridge Group who state that ‘graduates from less-privileged backgrounds who successfully access the professions ... tend to earn less than their more-privileged peers’27.

The National Equality Panel has shown how this gap appears to widen as careers progress; ‘three and a half years after graduation... despite their lower degree classes... 33% of those who had gone to private schools earned over £30,000, but only 14% of those who went to state schools’ earned the same or more (Fig. 7)29.

Therefore, the financial returns on higher education are not the same for undergraduates from more and less-privileged backgrounds. Consequently, ‘as currently structured, a goal of a fair and equal educational system is unlikely to be the only factor that can help to mediate and attenuate labour market inequalities’30.


Fig. 6 Average graduate employment starting salary by school type for graduates who achieved a 2.1 or above six months after graduation28

IndependentState

IndependentState

Fig. 7 Graduate earnings three and a half years after graduation by school type31

Graduates Earning Over £30,000Graduates Earning Under £30,000

67%

33%

Independently-educated

86%

14%

State-school-educated

£18,000

£19,000

£20,000

£21,000

£22,000

£23,000

£24,000

£25,000

£20,559

£23,149£2,590 gap

Students from less-privileged backgrounds have lower graduate starting salaries

Aver

age

star

ting

sala

ry fo

r gra

duat

es w

ho

achi

eved

a 2

.1 o

r abo

ve

School type

£18,000

£19,000

£20,000

£21,000

£22,000

£23,000

£24,000

£25,000

£21,811

£24,829

£3,018 gap

...and this is more pronounced between the brightest students.

Aver

age

star

ting

sala

ry fo

r gra

duat

es w

ith

a fir

st c

lass

deg

ree

School type

Knowledge

Knowing about different options and how to achieve them is essential for career success. According to The Bridge Group, a lack of knowledge is a barrier that undergraduates from less-privileged backgrounds often face when entering the professions35.

Furthermore, the Government’s report Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers suggests that ‘not knowing how to achieve your ambitions can be as damaging as not having those ambitions at all’36. The connection between knowledge and aspiration is emphasised by Professions for Good who argue that ‘while young people from deprived backgrounds do not generally lack aspirations, there is a lack of understanding of how to fulfill career goals’37.

Soft skills

A CBI survey found that 82% of graduate recruiters rated soft skills (such as problem solving and teamwork) as the most important qualities in a potential employee38. Soft skills were seen as more important than degree subject or even professional experience.

According to The Sutton Trust, soft skills are not just highly valued by employers but ‘as more people get degrees, these attributes are becoming more important in differentiating between who does and does not get appointed’39.

Worryingly, Oxford University research has shown that undergraduates from less-privileged backgrounds are more likely to lack the soft skills required for ‘managerial or professional service jobs’40.

Networks

‘An important differentiating factor [in career outcomes] is graduates’ access to professional networks. These provide access to... privileged information, role models and internship opportunities – that in turn promote access to competitive professions’41.

Oxford University have shown that it is these networks ‘that working-class students do not have’ and struggle to build42.

This is important because ‘[evidence continues] to point in the direction of connection rather than ability being the key that unlocks a work experience opportunity or an internship’43.

Professional experience

Professional experience is important because it ensures that applicants are ‘work ready’ and able to successfully secure a professional graduate role44.

Alan Milburn, the Government’s independent reviewer on social mobility, has argued that ‘having work experience or an internship on a CV is even more critical to finding employment now than it was even three years ago’45. Moreover, undergraduates from less-privileged backgrounds struggle to obtain relevant professional experience46.

This is significant because ‘over one-third of this year’s graduate vacancies will be filled by applicants who have already worked for the employer as an undergraduate’47.


Employers value non-academic capabilities that undergraduates from less-privileged backgrounds tend to lack and struggle to build

The Social Mobility Toolkit identifies that employers expect candidates to have ‘more than just technical skill or academic achievements’ when they recruit for their graduate roles32. According to the Cabinet Office’s 2012 University Challenge report, ‘employers are looking for candidates who demonstrate communication, teamwork and organisational skills’33. However, it is these non-academic capabilities that undergraduates from less-privileged backgrounds tend to lack and struggle to build34. This goes someway to explaining why undergraduates from less-privileged backgrounds have poorer access to the professions.

These non-academic capabilities fall into four categories:

There are calls for a collaborative approach to improving social mobility at university

A 2011 CBI survey showed that over 70% of employers ‘would like to see more effective development of graduates’ employability skills’48. Alan Milburn, in his 2012 University Challenge report, emphasises that universities also ‘have a clear responsibility both to be aware of how they are preparing students for the world of work, and to provide students with the tools they need to succeed’49. This call reiterates Milburn’s report for the Panel on Fair Access which recommended that ‘Government should develop new partnerships with civic institutions, professional bodies, community organisations and individual citizens to help deliver [better social mobility provision]’50.

This is nothing new – the Government’s 2005 Gateways to the Professions report recommended greater collaboration between employers, universities, and policy makers that would result in a more coherent social mobility policy51.

Good work is already being undertaken by organisations that empower students from less-privileged backgrounds to access university. However, we need to ensure that interventions before 18 are followed through in later life52. Supporting this view is the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Social Mobility’s statement that ‘later development of non-cognitive skills... can be very productive... and have a significant impact on future earnings’53.

upReach is ideally placed to continue supporting students from less-privileged backgrounds once at university and to further the employability work already undertaken by universities by bringing together universities and ‘employers to open up opportunities’ further54.

upReach’s collaborative approach can make a significant contribution

By building a cross-sector coalition of universities and employers to run a professional development programme for undergraduates from less-privileged backgrounds, upReach answers these calls to improve access to the professions.

The programme consists of mentoring, workshops, professional experience, and networking events, which develop the non-academic capabilities that undergraduates from less-privileged backgrounds tend to lack and struggle to build. Run alongside undergraduates’ degrees on university campuses, it empowers participants with the knowledge, networks, soft skills, and professional experience critical to accessing the professions.

Unleashing this unrealised potential will benefit not just undergraduates, but also employers, universities, policy makers, and society.

To find out more about upReach, please visit upReach.org.uk or get in touch. Our contact details are:

Henry Morris Deborah [email protected] [email protected] 456 4274 0784 671 6669

Mark Harrison [email protected] First Floor, New Zealand House0775 710 7527 80 Haymarket, SW1Y 4TE

upReach.org.uk @up_Reach


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://upreach.org.uk/

http://upreach.org.uk/

References

1. Cabinet Office, Fair Access to Professional Careers: A Progress Report by the Independent Reviewer on Social Mobility and Child Poverty, (2012) p.1

2. Sutton Trust, Submission to the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee on Social Mobility and Education and Access to the Professions, (2009) p.8

3. Collated from Cabinet Office, Fair Access to

Professional Careers (2012); Cabinet Office, Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers: A Strategy for Social Mobility (2011); and Sutton Trust, Submission to the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee on Social Mobility and Education and Access to the Professions, (2009)

4. Collated from Cabinet Office, Fair Access to Professional Careers (2012); Cabinet Office, Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers: A Strategy for Social Mobility (2011); and Sutton Trust, Submission to the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee on Social Mobility and Education and Access to the Professions, (2009)

5. Cabinet Office, Unleashing Aspiration: The Final Report of the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, (2009) p.20


7. Source: Cabinet Office, Social Mobility Indicators http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/access-professions (accessed 8th October 2012)

8. Source: Cabinet Office, Social Mobility Indicators http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/access-professions (accessed 8th October 2012)

9. NS-SEC (National Statistics Socio-Economic

Classification) is a social classification based on occupational background and employment status. Classifications range from Class 1 (higher managerial, administrative, and professional occupations) to Class 8 (never worked and long-term unemployed). It is based on the occupational background of a student’s parents, step-parents, or guardians.

10. Source: Cabinet Office, Social Mobility Indicators http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/higher-education-graduate-destinations (accessed 8th October 2012)

11. Source: Cabinet Office, Social Mobility Indicators http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/higher-education-graduate-destinations (accessed 8th October 2012)

12. SOC (Standard Occupational Classification) is a social classification of occupations based on the skills required and nature of the position. Classifications range from 1 to 9; the higher the number of the classification group, the less-skilled the occupation. It is based on the occupational background of a student’s parents, step-parents, or guardians.


14. Cabinet Office, Unleashing Aspiration: The Final

Report of the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, (2009) p.20

15. Cabinet Office, University Challenge: How Higher Education can Advance Social Mobility, (2012) p.1

16. A. Hoare & R. Johnston, Widening Participation Through Admissions Policy - a British Case Study of School and University Performance, University of Bristol, (2010) p.12


18. HESA DLHE survey data analysis (see Appendix 1 for methodology). Difference in degree-class achievement between state and independently-educated graduates (see Appendix 2, Table 1 for full data).



21. HESA DLHE survey data analysis (see Appendix 1 for methodology). General employment levels as a percentage of those who responded to the DLHE survey (see Appendix 2, Table 2 for full data).

22. HESA DLHE survey data analysis (see Appendix 1 for methodology). Graduate employment levels amongst state and independently-educated graduates as a percentage of those in general employment (see Appendix 2, Table 3 for full data).


http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/access-professions








http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/higher-education-graduate-destinations








23. J. Smith, A. McKnight & R. Naylor, Graduate Employability: Policy and Performance in Higher Education in the UK, (2000) p.41

24. HESA DLHE survey data analysis (see Appendix 1 for methodology). Left-hand analysis: General employment levels amongst state and independently-educated graduates (see Appendix 2, Table 2 for full data). Right-hand analysis: Graduate employment levels amongst state and independently-educated graduates, as a percentage of those in general employment (see Appendix 2, Table 3 for full data).

25. HESA DLHE survey data analysis (see Appendix 1 for methodology). Salaries amongst state and independently-educated graduates for those in ‘graduate employment’ (see Appendix 2, Table 4 for full data).


27. The Bridge Group, Social Mobility through Higher Education, Bridging the Gaps: Current Issues and Focus for 2011/12, (2011) p.17


29. J. Hills, M. Brewer, S. Jenkins, R. Lister, R. Lupton, S. Machin, C. Mills, T. Modood, T. Rees, S. Riddell, An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK – Report of the National Equality Panel, (2010) p.364

30. S. Machin, R. Murphy, Z. Soobedar, Differences in Labour Market Gains from Higher Education Participation, (2009) p.14

31. J. Hills, M. Brewer, S. Jenkins, R. Lister, R. Lupton, S. Machin, C. Mills, T. Modood, T. Rees, S. Riddell, An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK – Report of the National Equality Panel, (2010) p.364

32. Professions for Good, Social Mobility Toolkit, (2012) p.28 and Cabinet Office, Unleashing Aspiration: The Final Report of the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, (2009) p.44


34. Professions for Good, Social Mobility Toolkit, (2012) p.28 and Cabinet Office, Unleashing Aspiration: The Final Report of the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, (2009) p.44

35. The Bridge Group, Social Mobility, Higher Education and the Professions, (2010) p.7

36. Cabinet Office, Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers: A Strategy for Social Mobility, (2011) p.51

37. Professions for Good, Social Mobility Toolkit, (2012) p.28

38. Confederation of British Industry, Building for Growth, (2011) p.36

39. Sutton Trust, Submission to House of Commons, Children, Schools and Families Committee on Social Mobility and Education and Access to the Professions, (2009) p.9

40. T. Ogg, A. Zinders, A. Heath, Schooling Effects on Degree Performance: A Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Aptitude Testing and Secondary School Grades at Oxford University, Oxford University, (2009) p.785

41. The Bridge Group, Response to White Paper on Higher Education, (2011) p.5

42. T. Ogg, A. Zinders, A. Heath, Schooling Effects on Degree Performance: A Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Aptitude Testing and Secondary School Grades at Oxford University, Oxford University, (2009) p.785

43. Cabinet Office, Fair Access to Professional Careers, (2012) p.23

44. Department for Education and Employment, Moving On: Graduate Careers Three Years after Graduation, (1999) p.9


46. Cabinet Office, Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers; A Strategy for Social Mobility, (2011) p.40


48. Confederation of British Industry, Building for Growth, (2011) p.19



50. Cabinet Office, Unleashing Aspiration, The Final Report of the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, (2009) p.141

51. Cabinet Office, Gateways to the Professions, (2005) p.37

52. Cabinet Office, Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers: A Strategy for Social Mobility, (2011) p.6

53. Cabinet Office, Seven Key Truths about Social Mobility: The Interim Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Social Mobility, (2012) p.28

54. Cabinet Office, Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers: A Strategy for Social Mobility, Update on progress since April 2011, (2012) p.38


Appendix 1: Definitions and methodology for analysing HESA Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education survey data

Introduction

This briefing contains analysis of data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency’s (HESA) Student Record Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey, covering academic years 2008/09, 2009/10, and 2010/11.

The DLHE survey provides information on the activities of students after leaving a Higher Education Institution. Data is collected through a survey carried out approximately six months after students’ graduation. The majority of entries are linked to the HESA Student Record, allowing analysis of destinations by students’ attributes such as social background and qualification obtained.

Social backgound

Respondents’ social background was assessed by the type of school attended prior to university. Responses were sorted into those from graduates who had attended independent schools and those who had attended state-funded schools, sixth-forms, or FE colleges. Throughout this briefing, the term ‘students from less-privileged backgrounds’ is used to refer to undergraduates who previously attended state-funded schools.

Initial restrictions

On HESA’s recommendation, the data sample was restricted as follows:

• Full-time students• First degree students • Students below the age of 20 upon entry to university• UK-domiciled students

Also on HESA’s recommendation, we excluded those whose degrees were categorised as ‘unclassified’ (e.g. medicine, dentistry, vetinary science etc.) or ‘classification not applicable’.

Access to employment and access to graduate employment restrictions

When measuring access to employment, those categorised as ‘not available for employment’ were excluded from the dataset. We then defined as in ‘employment’ those who were in:

• Full-time paid work (including self-employed)• Part-time paid work• Voluntary/unpaid work• Work and further study

From this subset of the data, the percentage of respondents in ‘graduate employment’ was calculated to demonstrate differing access to the professions.

Throughout this briefing, the term ‘professions’ is used to refer to graduate employment. The definition of graduate employment used is that of Elias and Purcell’s report ‘SOC (HE) A Classification for Occupations for Studying the Graduate Labour Market’ (2004) and is based on the Standard Occupational Classification of those graduates in the DLHE survey.

Average graduate employment starting salary restrictions

When investigating the disparities in graduate salaries, the dataset was restricted to those who were in salaried, full-time graduate employment.


Appendix 2

The following tables show the outcomes of our HESA data analysis to two decimal places. Figures used in the briefing are highlighted.

Table 1

Degree class achieved by state-school-educated and independently-educated graduates (2008/09, 2009/10, and 2010/11)





Type of university

Degree classification

State-school-educated graduates

Independently- educated graduates

Gap

Russelland 1994

Group

Firsts 20.08% 17.91% 2.71%

Russelland 1994

Group

2.1 59.76% 63.54% -3.79%Russelland 1994

Group 2.2 17.79% 16.59% 1.20%

Russelland 1994

Group

3rd/Pass 2.38% 1.96% 0.42%

All

Firsts 15.25% 16.30% -1.05%

All2.1 53.65% 60.60% -6.95%

All2.2 26.98% 20.35% 6.63%

All

3rd/Pass 4.12% 2.74% 1.37%

Table 2

Destinations of state-school-educated and independently-educated graduates ‘available for employment’ six months after leaving Higher Education (2008/09,

2009/10, and 2010/11)


2009/10, and 2010/11)


2009/10, and 2010/11)


2009/10, and 2010/11)

State-school- educated graduates

Independently-educated graduates

Gap

Full-time paid work only (inc. self-employed) or

Part-time paid work only or Voluntary/unpaid work only or

Work and further study

73.68% 66.70% 6.98%

Further study only 16.03% 24.10% -8.07%

Assumed to be unemployed 9.30% 7.96% 1.34%

Other 0.99% 1.25% -0.26%


Table 3

Percentage of state-school-educated and independently-educated graduates in ‘graduate employment’ six months after leaving Higher Education

(2008/09, 2009/10, and 2010/11)


(2008/09, 2009/10, and 2010/11)


(2008/09, 2009/10, and 2010/11)


(2008/09, 2009/10, and 2010/11)


(2008/09, 2009/10, and 2010/11)

Type of university




Gap

Russelland 1994

Group

Firsts 81.95% 76.13% 5.82%

Russelland 1994

Group

2.1 or above 73.40% 65.00% 8.40%

Russelland 1994

Group

All 76.18% 66.10% 10.09%

All Universities

Firsts 81.23% 73.46% 7.78%

All Universities

2.1 or above 72.19% 61.33% 10.86% All

Universities

All 73.58% 58.37% 15.21%

Table 4

Average salary amongst state-school and independently-educated graduates in full-time salaried ‘graduate employment’ six months after

leaving Higher Education (2008/09, 2009/10, and 2010/11)









Type of university




Gap

Russelland 1994

Group

Firsts £25,625 £23,367 £2,258

Russelland 1994

Group

2.1 or above £23,798 £21,823 £1,975

Russelland 1994

Group

All £23,545 £21,617 £1,928

All

Firsts £24,829 £21,811 £3,018

All 2.1 or above £23,149 £20,559 £2,590All

All £22,801 £20,291 £2,510


Access to the Professions for Undergraduates from Less-Privileged Backgrounds – The Issue

Documents

Transcript of Access to the Professions for Undergraduates from Less-Privileged Backgrounds – The Issue