Socioeconomic disadvantage and access to higher education

PPP R E S S

The•POLICY

Socioeconomic disadvantageand access to higher education

Alasdair Forsyth and Andy Furlong

First published in Great Britain in November 2000 by

The Policy Press

34 Tyndall’s Park Road

Bristol BS8 1PY

UK

Tel no +44 (0)117 954 6800

Fax no +44 (0)117 973 7308

E-mail [email protected]

www.policypress.org.uk

© The Policy Press and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2000

Published for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation by The Policy Press

ISBN 1 86134 296 9

Alasdair FAlasdair FAlasdair FAlasdair FAlasdair Forororororsythsythsythsythsyth is a research associate at the Youth Education and Employment Research Unit, University of Glasgow, and AndAndAndAndAndy Furlongy Furlongy Furlongy Furlongy Furlong

is Director of the Youth Education and Employment Research Unit, and Head of Department, Department of Sociology, University of

Glasgow.

All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,

electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the Publishers.

The JJJJJoseph Rooseph Rooseph Rooseph Rooseph Rowntrwntrwntrwntrwntree Fee Fee Fee Fee Foundation oundation oundation oundation oundation has supported this project as part of its programme of research and innovative development projects,

which it hopes will be of value to policy makers, practitioners and service users. The facts presented and views expressed in this report

are, however, those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation.

The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the authors and contributors and not of The University

of Bristol or The Policy Press. The University of Bristol and The Policy Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property

resulting from any material published in this publication.

The Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality.

Cover design by Qube Design Associates, Bristol

Cover photograph kindly supplied by Alasdair Forsyth.

Printed in Great Britain by Hobbs the Printers Ltd, Southampton

iiiiii

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Contents

Acknowledgements vList of tables and figures vi

1 Socioeconomic disadvantage and access to higher education: issues 1Introduction 1Post-compulsory education 1Post-school education 2Under-representation in higher education 3The study areas 4Research methods 7Summary 7

2 Post-compulsory education in low achieving areas 8Introduction 8Patterns of disadvantage 9Patterns of academic achievement 11Summary 16

3 Destinations of final year school-leavers 17Introduction 17Enrolment in post-school education 17Higher education students and non-students compared 19Summary 22

4 Patterns of participation in higher education 23Introduction 23Destinations within higher education 23Levels of participation in post-school education 27Student and non-student finance and support 28Parental attitudes and support 31Summary 32

5 Experience of barriers to participation in higher education 34Introduction 34Educational barriers 34Geographical barriers 37Financial barriers 38Social barriers 42Giving up on education 44Summary 46

iv

Socioeconomic disadvantage and access to higher education

iv

6 Conclusions and policy implications 47

Bibliography 50Appendix A: Original sample recruitment 51Appendix B: Original sample demographics 52Appendix C: Follow-up sample demographics 53Appendix D: Follow-up sample destinations 54Appendix E: Destinations of (S6) school-leavers, numbers enrolled in each subject 55Appendix F: Destinations of (S6) school-leavers, numbers enrolled at each institution 56Appendix G: Selection of face-to-face interviewees 57Appendix H: Profile of face-to-face interviewees 58

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

vv

The researchers would like to express theirappreciation to the members of the projectadvisory committee: Andy Biggart, FrankCorrigan, Cathy Howieson, Charlie Lloyd, KevinLowden, Janice Pattie, Sheila Riddell and JohnTibbit. We would like to thank Kay Devlin fortranscribing interviews, Wallace McNeish forassisting with interviews, Donna MacKinnon, FredCartmel and Peter Morton for assisting withquestionnaire surveys. We would also like tothank the staff of the anonymous schools whichparticipated in this study. Finally, thanks are dueto the young people themselves and their parentswho gave up their valuable time to take part inthis research.

Acknowledgements

vi


List of tables and figures

Tables1 Higher education and social class 32 Subjects taken by respondents in higher education compared with all accepted 24

UCAS applicants3 Types of institution studied at by respondents entering higher education 254 Choice of university in Glasgow city 265 Mean weekly income of students and non-students compared 296 Eligibility for tuition fees among higher education students 307 Geographical aspects of accommodation among higher education students 308 Levels of parental financial support 319 Parental attitudes to student life 31

Figures1 Study areas 62 Area (postcode) deprivation of addresses of S6 school-leavers 93 Social class of S6 school-leavers from schools in disadvantaged areas 104 Distribution of academic achievement (Highers points) 115 Social class and academic achievement 126 Social class and applications to higher education 137 Social class and unconditional offers of places in higher education 138 Social class and sixth year studies 149 Localised inequalities in post-compulsory education (‘Coaltoun’) 1510 Original school sample (n=516): applications to post-school education 1811 Follow-up school sample (n=395): actual post-school education 1812 Social class and S6 school-leaver destinations 1913 S6 school-leaver destinations and area of residence compared 2014 Social class and type of institution attended by all school-leaver new students 27

1

Introduction

Broadening access to higher education is a goalwhich can produce positive outcomes both for theindividuals concerned and for wider society.Patterns of participation in post-compulsoryeducation in Britain have changed greatly overthe past three decades – since the mid 1970s,increasing numbers of young people have ‘stayedon’ at school beyond the minimum leaving age of16 years. Between the mid-1970s and the mid-1990s, the proportion of 16 year olds remaining infull-time education in England and Wales rosefrom around one third to more than seven in 10.This has led to a better qualified school-leavingpopulation. In turn, these school-leavers havecontinued their careers in education, in increasingnumbers, by progressing to courses at further orhigher education institutions. Between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s, the proportion of UKschool-leavers entering higher education doubled.

Despite these increases in the number of full-timestudents, there remains an under-representation inhigher education of school-leavers fromdisadvantaged backgrounds. In 1997approximately one third of school-leavers in theUK entered higher education. However,geographically this varied from over 80% in themost affluent areas to 3% in the mostdisadvantaged. This inequality of representationis certain to have negative consequences for botheconomic efficiency and social justice. This reportdetails the nature of this under-representation andexplores the reasons behind this situation.

This report is based on research conducted inScotland between January 1999 and June 2000.For a survey of school-leavers, a sample of youngpeople was recruited and surveyed twice – first inthe Spring of 1999 and then again during the

following Autumn. By the time of the secondsurvey a proportion of respondents hadprogressed to higher education, while others hadnot done so. Next, from the information given bythese two surveys, 44 particularly disadvantagedbut qualified young people were selected for in-depth interviews. These interviews askedrespondents about their experiences concerningeither the transition from school to highereducation or their reasons for leaving full-timeeducation. A survey of parental attitudes to post-school education and employment was alsoconducted.

Post-compulsory education

The expansion of post-compulsory secondaryeducation has changed the profile of pupils whoremain in school beyond the minimum school-leaving age. The final compulsory school year inScotland is fourth year (S4), at the end of whichpupils are aged 16. Qualifications gained up tothis point are not taken into consideration whenapplying to courses in higher education. In fifthyear (S5) the exams known as ‘Highers’ may betaken. These exams have a similar role to Alevels elsewhere in the UK in determiningwhether academic achievement is of a sufficientstandard to gain entry to a course in highereducation. At the time of the survey, final year(S6) Scottish secondary school pupils could eitherre-sit their Highers (should they have failed toreach a satisfactory standard in their S5 results), sitextra Highers or enrol in courses known as CSYS(Certificate of Sixth Year Studies). These lattercourses were said to help prepare the school-leaver for university study, although they were nottaken by all higher education entrants.

Socioeconomic disadvantageand access to higher education:issues

1

2


The CSYS qualification reflected the traditionalrole of year S6, as preparation for entry to highereducation. However, the increasing numbersremaining in school, beyond even S5, has led to amore heterogeneous population in S6. Today, aswell as the ‘standard’ high-achievers, other pupilsfrom ‘non-standard’ backgrounds can be found inS6. Many of these non-standard pupils are low-achievers who remain in school for non-academicreasons, such as the lack of jobs, the existence of abursary for remaining in school, or to avoid being‘press-ganged’ into a government training scheme.Nevertheless, other non-standard final year pupilsmay gradually acquire sufficient qualifications toenter higher education, many of whom may nothave previously considered doing so.

Partly because of the increasing numbers of pupilsremaining in post-compulsory education, in 1999a new unitary system of qualifications calledHigher Still was introduced in Scotland. This newsystem replaced the old qualifications of CSYS andvocational modules and brought them togetherwith the old Highers in a five-level hierarchy. Thepenultimate level remains Highers with CSYSbeing replaced by an Advanced Higher. Theyoung people surveyed in this research wereamong the last school-leavers to qualify for highereducation under the old system in Scotland (itshould be noted, however, that all post-schoolqualifications have remained unchanged).

Post-school education

There are a number of options open to thequalified school-leaver who wishes to remain infull-time education. These are described below.

Degree

Open only to the highest achievers, degreecourses are available at universities andspecialised colleges (such as art schools). Degreecourses are not a fully homogenous category.Most degrees offered in Scotland are honoursdegrees, which require four years of study(although there is usually an option to leave afteronly three years with an ordinary degree). Forstudents studying in the rest of the UK, degreecourses tend to last only three years. However,some specialist degrees (for example, medicine)may involve five years of study. Successfuldegree students have the option to undertakefurther years of study in order to gain

postgraduate qualifications (such as teachertraining).

HND

Higher National Diploma (HND) courses aresimilar to degree courses but last only two yearsand tend to be taught either at (some) furthereducation colleges or the ‘new’ or ‘polytechnic’universities. As with degree courses, mostapplications to HND are made in advance throughthe body called UCAS (Universities and CollegesAdmissions Service). In this report, these twocourses – diploma (HND) and degree – will bereferred to as higher education (HE), while otherpost-school education will be regarded as furthereducation (FE).

HNC

Higher National Certificate (HNC) students, aswith degree and HND students, are currentlyfunded by student loans and were, at the time ofdata collection, eligible to pay ‘up-front’ tuitionfees (currently being abolished for Scottishstudents studying in Scotland). For the purposeof this report, HNC will be considered as furthereducation; however, it must be stressed that this isnot the ‘official’ definition used by Scottish policymakers. Our definition of HNC as furthereducation is used here because such courses areonly taught at further education colleges and areoften seen as a gateway to a degree or HNDcourse (in England many HNC courses are part-time only). It might be argued that to use adefinition of higher education which includesHNC would artificially inflate levels ofparticipation. It is possible for some students toleave an HND course after only one year with anHNC qualification. As for other further educationcourses HNC lasts only one year full-time.

NC

The National Certificate (NC) is the least advancedpost-school qualification and school achievementis not a prerequisite for entry. For this reason,only the most popular NC courses requireapplication prior to leaving school. Students atthis level in further education are funded by abursary rather than the system of student loansand tuition fees.

It should be noted that, in future, no Scottish

3

students will pay up-front tuition fees, but willhave to meet these costs in arrears. Other thanthis change to the timing of the payment of tuitionfees (from in advance to in arrears), the Scottishsystem of student finance differs little from thatfound elsewhere in the UK.

Other courses

Finally, many further education colleges also offercourses available at school or elsewhere,including Highers and vocational modules. Suchcourses may be considered an extension ofschool-level work rather than post-schooleducation.

In terms of level of academic qualification, thecourses listed above can be regarded as a simplecontinuum between degree courses (highest) andNC or ‘other courses’ (lowest). From this it wouldseem logical that qualified young people shouldchoose the course which is best suited to theirlevel of achievement at school. However, manyother factors may influence school-leavers’decisions whether or not to enter post-schooleducation and if so at which level.

Under-representation in highereducation

The central aim of this report is to distinguishbetween the factors which qualify young peoplefor higher education and those which predisposethem to attend. Although in absolute terms therehas been an increase in participation in highereducation across all social groups, in relativeterms the gap between disadvantaged youngpeople and their more advantaged peers hasremained.

Table 1 compares participation rates in highereducation, using statistics for 1998 from UCAS(Universities and Colleges Admission Services),with social class, as defined by the RegistrarGeneral (this refers to an ESRC 1995 estimate ofsocial class, see Rose et al, 1997). From this it canbe seen that participation rates were greatest –both in absolute terms and proportionally –among young people in social classes I(professional) and II (managerial), and least insocial classes IV (semi-skilled manual) and V(unskilled manual).

Beyond the imbalance apparent in the tableabove, other more hidden inequalities may alsobe at work. For example, students from ‘workingclass’ backgrounds (IIIM to V) may be more likelyto enrol in certain subjects with a limited range ofemployment opportunities. In contrast, moreadvantaged entrants may be more likely to enrolat more prestigious institutions or in moreadvanced courses. This is reflected in the Table 1by the greater imbalance within degree courseentrants than within HND entrants. This patternseems likely to be protracted in both directions,with an increasing proportion of students fromworking class backgrounds enrolling in furthereducation courses and a greater proportion ofmiddle class students continuing to postgraduatequalifications.

In the further education sector the proportion ofworking class entrants increases. Indeed, figuresreleased annually by the HM Inspectors of SchoolsAudit Unit reveal that proportionally more youngpeople from schools in deprived areas enrol in NCcourses. For example, more former pupils ofschools in deprived areas of Glasgow enrol infurther education than in higher education. Incontrast, no former pupils of some independentschools enrol in further education.

Table 1: Higher education and social class

Social class Degree %(UCAS) HND %(UCAS) Approximate % population 1995

I 14 6 5II 40 31 30IIIN 12 12 25IIIM 15 18 19IV 8 9 16V 2 3 5Unknown/other 11 20 0

Issues

4


These inequalities are partly a reflection of pooreracademic achievement by disadvantaged youngpeople while at school. However, it is clear thatthis imbalance is not solely a result of academicunderachievement. For example, in the UK,around three quarters of young people with two Alevels in social classes I and II make a directtransition to higher education, compared witharound a half of equivalently qualified youngpeople in classes IV and V. Clearly not all choicesmade by qualified young people, such as whetherto attend university or not, are based on academicachievement alone.

Ideally, qualified school-leavers should choose toadvance directly to the course in post-schooleducation best suited to their abilities. However,many factors may deter some young people frommaking this choice. These include financial,geographical and social considerations, all ofwhich may act as ‘barriers’ to full participation inhigher education. It was hypothesised at thebeginning of this study that these non-academicfactors would exert the greatest influence on themost disadvantaged among qualified youngpeople.

The study areas

To address these issues, a sample of school-leavers was recruited from schools located in fourdistinct geographical areas. These were chosenbecause they each represented areas ofdisadvantage, either socioeconomically orgeographically. Areas of socioeconomicdisadvantage were measured using the CarstairsDEPCAT (deprivation category) system. Thissystem uses levels of male unemployment,overcrowding, low social class and car ownershipto classify every postcode sector in Scotland on ascale from DEPCAT 1 (most affluent) to DEPCAT 7(most deprived). Geographical disadvantage wasdefined in this research as provision of anddistance from institutions of higher education aswell as areas qualifying for governmentassistance. The four study areas were selected torepresent an urban–rural continuum, from innercity to remote highland and island environments.The areas chosen were Glasgow City, Lanarkshire,Ayrshire and Argyll.

City: Glasgow

Glasgow is Scotland’s largest city, with apopulation of 624,000, rising to over one millionwith the addition of its more prosperous suburbs.The city contains the majority of the mostdeprived postcodes in Scotland (DEPCAT 7).Despite this level of economic disadvantage,Glasgow city has a wealth of higher and furthereducation institutions. These institutions providea microcosm of what is available in these sectorsthroughout the UK. There are three universitiesin Glasgow, each of which corresponds to thethree phases of university development in Britain.That is, one ‘ancient’ or ‘ivy league’ university(Glasgow), one ‘red brick’ or ‘established’university (Strathclyde) and one ‘polytechnic’ or‘new’ university (Caledonian). Another ‘new’university is located near Glasgow in the adjacentClydeside conurbation at Paisley. Glasgow alsohas two more specialised institutions of highereducation: the Glasgow School of Art and theRoyal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama. Thecity is particularly well served in the furthereducation sector, with no fewer than 10 furthereducation colleges located within the cityboundary and several more in the city suburbsand adjacent Clydeside conurbation. It isinteresting to note that Edinburgh – a smaller citythan Glasgow – has by comparison threeuniversities, three specialist higher educationcolleges and only three further education colleges.The relative imbalance in further and highereducation provision between the two cities initself seems likely to be a reflection of the relativelevels of disadvantage between the two cities,Edinburgh being by far the more affluent.

Seven Glasgow schools were recruited forparticipation in this study. Six of these schoolswere located in areas of multiple disadvantage(either DEPCAT 6 or 7); the seventh is in a slightlymore affluent area, but was selected because itwas known to have a large number of pupils fromethnic minority backgrounds. Two of theseschools were Roman Catholic and all had severelydeprived areas within their catchment, includingboth DEPCAT 7 postcode sectors and SocialInclusion Partnership areas (SIP or equivalent).

5

Large towns: Lanarkshire

The county of Lanarkshire has a population of634,000, most of whom live in several large townsadjacent to Glasgow city. The area was formerlya major centre of manufacturing industry, butmany of these industries (such as the steelindustry) have recently declined or disappearedaltogether, leaving the area with one of the lowestlevels of qualified adults in Scotland.

There are no universities in Lanarkshire, thoughthere are five further education colleges located infive separate towns. Transport links betweentowns are somewhat limited, with most routesbeing focused on Glasgow. However, this meansthat commuting to Glasgow’s universities andcolleges can be relatively straightforward fromLanarkshire. Daily travel to higher educationinstitutions located in Edinburgh or CentralScotland is also a viable option for studentsresident in this area.

Lanarkshire schools tended to have largernumbers of S6 pupils than in Glasgow, so onlythree schools were recruited for participation inthis research. All three schools were located inlarge towns near Glasgow (within 20 miles); eachcontained SIPs within their catchment and werelocated in a DEPCAT 5 or 6 postcode sector.

Small towns: Ayrshire

This is a semi-rural county, more distant fromGlasgow than Lanarkshire, with a population of375,000. Although there are three large townsand some affluent areas in Ayrshire, the schoolsselected were located in small towns around theperiphery of the county. These were each inareas where extractive industries oncepredominated, which now suffer highunemployment and population decline.

Although there are no universities or highereducation institutions based in Ayrshire, there aretwo campuses located near Ayr town (PaisleyUniversity and the Edinburgh-based ScottishAgricultural College) where some degree coursesare available. Commuting to Glasgow’suniversities and colleges is possible for some butnot all students resident in this area. However,quality of transport links, time, distances and costsinvolved make this a more difficult prospect thanit is for Lanarkshire students. There are only twofurther education colleges based in Ayrshire,

although these have some smaller specialisedoutposts scattered throughout the county.

Four small town schools for this research wereselected from Ayrshire. These schools not onlyserved the town in which they were situated, butalso a variety of outlying small towns and villages.This is in contrast to the Lanarkshire sub-samplewhere each town visited contained at least threesecondary schools. All four Ayrshire schools werelocated in DEPCAT 5 postcode sectors andcontained SIP areas.

Remote: Argyll

The final geographical area visited was the countyof Argyll. This is mainly a remote area ofhighlands and islands, with a population of91,000. Although much of this county is quiteaffluent, many residents are dependent onseasonal employment in the tourist industry,agriculture and fisheries.

There are no universities or colleges in Argyll.Indeed, even on the mainland, much of thepopulation lives more than 100 miles from anysuch institution. Although one Greenock-basedcollege has an outpost in the county, as does theUniversity of the Highland and Islands project(begun 1999), these offer only limitedopportunities for entry into higher education. Formost potential students living in Argyll, atransition to higher education must also mean ahousing transition, with all the extra barriers thispresents to the disadvantaged young person.

Only two schools were selected in Argyll, as thesehad a higher level of achievement (and HEentrance rate) than those in the other three areas.These schools were not located in particularlydeprived areas (both were DEPCAT 4), althougheach contained a SIP within its catchment.However, both schools were distant from anyurban centres containing university or collegecampuses and included even more remote areaswithin their catchments, such as Gaelic-speakingareas and islands (one school ran a hostel forpupils who lived too far from a school to traveldaily).

The geographical location of these four areasrelative to higher and further education provisionin Scotland is shown in Figure 1 overleaf.

Issues

6


Figure 1: Study areas

University main campus

University college campus

Other higher education institution

Further education college

Glasgow

Ayrshire

Argyll

Lanarkshire

Note: In this figure the university college campus symbol also indicates the locations of campuses of otherhigher education institutions, but not campuses located within the same city as the main campus

7

Research methods

In total, 16 schools were selected from the fourstudy areas (it should be noted that, whenevergiven, the names of participating schools arepseudonyms, as are any references to the namesof towns [or areas of Glasgow] in which they arelocated). All had below the Scottish nationalaverage level of school-leavers entering highereducation, yet had a sufficient number of pupilsstudying Highers or CSYS in year S6 for a viablesample of qualified young people to be recruited.

It was decided to recruit an initial sample ofyoung people from pupils nearing the end of theirfinal year in each of the schools selected. It wasanticipated that a proportion of those recruitedwould progress to higher education in thefollowing Autumn, while others – including somequalified school-leavers – would not do so. Tomeasure how many respondents in this initialsample actually progressed to higher education, itwas decided to keep track of these young peopleby conducting a postal follow-up survey at thistime, in the following Autumn. On completion ofthis follow-up, it was decided to assess theattitudes of respondents’ parents towards highereducation by postal survey.

As well as these surveys, face-to-face interviewswere conducted with a representative sub-sampleof qualified but disadvantaged young people.Some interviewees were in higher education,others were not. These interviews wereundertaken in order to assess the barriers faced byqualified but disadvantaged young people, whichmay have impacted on their level of participationin higher education.

Summary

In this chapter we have outlined the gap inrepresentation in higher education betweendisadvantaged young people and their moreadvantage peers. We have also outlined some ofthe potential barriers to entering higher educationwhich disadvantaged young people may face andwhich may be responsible for this inequality.These barriers include finance, distance frominstitutions, local labour markets and culturalfamiliarity with higher education. Underlying allof these is the acknowledged continuedunderachievement of schools in deprived areas,and of children from less affluent families in

general. This means that relatively few school-leavers from disadvantaged backgrounds reachthe level of achievement which would allow themto gain entry to higher education. What is lesswell understood is whether those disadvantagedyoung people who do gain adequatequalifications are as likely to progress to highereducation as their more advantaged peers.

This research aims to explore the transition fromschool to higher education made by young peopleliving in disadvantaged areas. This is done byundertaking a school survey in four contrastinggeographical areas. These study areas wereselected to represent the different barriers toaccessing higher education that qualified butdisadvantaged school-leavers may face. In thenext chapter we will detail the results of an initialclassroom survey designed to measure levels ofacademic achievement among final year pupils inschools located in areas of disadvantage.

Issues

8


Introduction

This chapter will examine patterns of educationalattrition among young people from disadvantagedareas. This will utilise the findings of the initialclassroom survey described in the previouschapter. The survey was carried out during thespring term of 1999, and was administered to allfinal year (S6) pupils at each of the 16participating schools who were present on theday that the researcher called. The questionnaireused was designed to measure levels ofdisadvantage and academic achievement byenquiring about respondents’ backgrounds (forexample, parental occupations), schoolqualifications and future aspirations.

The research sample

In total, 516 respondents completed thequestionnaire (there was only one refusal). Adetailed breakdown of how this sample wasderived is provided in Appendix A. The samplesize was slightly larger than had been anticipated.This was in part due to closures and mergers ofsecondary schools in Glasgow city. Four of theseven Glasgow schools selected had been affectedby this. The schools which had closed were all inareas of multiple deprivation and had becomenon-viable due to diminishing pupil numbers.This phenomenon worked to the advantage of thisresearch as it helped to provide additionalrespondents from schools which had so fewachieving S6 pupils that they would not otherwisehave been selected for this study. All of theparticipating Glasgow schools received pupilsfrom outside their catchments, through parentschoosing to send them there in preference to thelocal school. This process is best illustrated byone school, ‘Edgeside’ Community Secondary,

where the number of questionnaires returned (n =23) was almost double the school roll at thebeginning of the year (12). In the three otherstudy areas there were clearly fewer, if any,alternative schools for parents to choose from.

The number of questionnaires obtained at eachschool varied between 80 and 13. The number ofS6 pupils participating in this research from eachschool is in part a function of the size of theschool catchment population, small in some ruralareas (for example, Ayrshire), large in some majortowns (for example, Lanarkshire). However,levels of disadvantage also play their part inshaping the numbers of pupils who ‘stay on’ untilyear S6. Levels of pupil attrition tend to behighest in schools located in areas ofdisadvantage and lowest in schools in affluentareas. Indeed, the ratio of S6 pupils present (thenumber of questionnaires returned) is a goodproxy measure of disadvantage. Approximately8% of all Scottish secondary school pupils are inS6. In the schools sampled (before allowing formergers and absences), this percentage averaged3.4% (that is, less than half the national average‘staying on’ rate) and was lowest in the Glasgowschools selected (2.5%). From the socialbackgrounds of the participating schools it mightbe expected that the sample of school-leaversrecruited would display high levels ofdisadvantage. However, as we will see, due totheir increased likelihood of staying on, manyrelatively affluent young people were alsorecruited.

Post-compulsory education inlow achieving areas

2

9

Patterns of disadvantage

Background demographics

As might be expected from an S6 school surveyconducted during the spring term, most of theserespondents were aged 17 (91.9%). A majority ofrespondents were female (56.8%) – this findingwould appear to reflect recent trends which haveindicated that girls are out-performing boys inschool.

Only 14 respondents were from ethnic minoritybackgrounds, five describing themselves asChinese and nine as Pakistani (most of whomattended the specially selected ‘Southside’ schooland who also described themselves as Scottish).A total of 19 respondents described themselves asEnglish, 13 as Irish and seven as othernationalities.

Just under a third (30.6%) of the sample werefrom single-parent families, and under one in 10(8.9%) were only children. Three quarters(75.8%) had at least one parent who was in full-time work, while more than one in eight (13.2%)had at least one unemployed parent. Almost onethird of the sample (29.6%) received a bursary toassist them to stay on at school. This bursarypayment in itself can be considered a goodindicator of socioeconomic disadvantage. Around

two thirds (65.8%) of the sample received moneyfrom their families (‘pocket money’), with arounda half (51.8%) earning money from part-timework. More demographic details of the sampleare provided in Appendix B.

Area of residence

The design of this research intentionally includeda study area which was remote from institutionsof higher education. This was the Argyll studyarea schools, from which 81 (15.7%) of therespondents were recruited. All of theseindividuals lived so far away from any universityor higher education campus that a housingtransition would be necessary for them to enter adegree or diploma course. Also, as intended bythe research design, the respondents werepredominantly resident in deprived areas. Asshown in Figure 2, almost three quarters (73.6%)of the sample lived in deprived DEPCATs (5 to 7),whereas none lived in the most affluent areas(DEPCAT 1). Only nine respondents lived in thesecond most affluent postcode sectors (DEPCAT2), all of whom lived in one Ayrshire village.Additionally, more than two out of fiverespondents (42.5%) lived in government assistedareas (SIPs or equivalent). This figure is slightlymisleading when applied to this sample, as suchassisted area status is only given to urban areas,making it unapplicable to most of Argyll.

Figure 2: Area (postcode) deprivation of addresses of S6 school-leavers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

%

DEPCAT

Post-compulsory education in low achieving areas

10


Social class

Despite their area of residence, the social classprofile of these respondents was not heavilyskewed towards the less affluent. Social class wasmeasured here using the Registrar General’ssystem (see Chapter 1, p 3) for head ofhousehold, according to what respondents hadsaid their parents’ occupations were. If eitherparent was not working, respondents were askedto provide their previous occupation. As can beseen from Figure 3, only half (49.8%) of thosewho provided information on their parents’occupations were classified as being in themanual social classes (IIIM to V). Thissurprisingly high level of non-manual respondentsis in part explicable by the presence of the Argyllsub-sample, who were selected on the grounds ofgeographical, rather than socioeconomic,disadvantage, and which had the highest level ofnon-manual social class respondents (65.8%).However, even the sub-sample recruited fromlow-achieving schools in deprived Lanarkshirereturned a majority of respondents who wereclassified as non-manual (56.9%). This is notwhat one might expect to find in schools servingdeprived communities and suggests that manypupils who enter S6 are atypical of theircommunities, having come from the more affluentlocal families.

In subsequent analyses this ‘middle class’ group(43.0% of the total sample) will be referred to asrelatively advantaged. It must be stressed

however, that this definition is only relative to theremainder of the sample and in no way can theserespondents be described as an affluent elite (only15 respondents were in social class I). The mostcommon parental occupations in this relativelyadvantaged group were: in social class II, primaryschool teacher and nurse (both n=27) and insocial class IIIN, sales assistant (n=38). Althoughmany of these were unemployed or singleparents, it is nevertheless clear that the parentaloccupational class of this sample as a whole isabove what might be expected from thegeographical areas in which this research wasconducted. This seems likely to be a function of agreater attrition rate of disadvantaged youngpeople operating even within these relatively low-achieving schools. In other words, it is possiblethat such schools need only to have a smallpercentage of ‘middle class’ children in year S1 toobtain a majority middle class roll in year S6.

Not indicated in Figure 3 are the 74 (14.3%)respondents who provided no parentaloccupation. These individuals could give noparental occupation for a complex variety ofreasons, including parents who were (or were lastknown to be) unemployed, long-term sick,deceased, retired, a houseperson, a full-time carer,a student, institutionalised or simply not presentand, hence, their occupational status wasunknown to the respondent. When compared tothose who did provide their parental occupation,this group were found to be particularlydisadvantaged. Half (51.4%) of these respondents

Figure 3: Social class of S6 school-leavers from schools in disadvantaged areas

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

I II IIIN IIIM IV V

%

Social class

11

were from single-parent families, which in partexplains why they could not provide anoccupation for either of their parents (as in suchcases often their mother is present as ahousewife/carer and they do not know what jobtheir father does, even if they do know that he isworking). Seven out of 10 (70.8%) of this groupwere bursary pupils at school, and a nearly eightout of 10 (78.1%) stated that neither of theirparents were currently working full-time.Although this group of respondents might beconsidered as ‘lower class’, in subsequentanalyses they will be treated separately fromrespondents who were classified.

Patterns of academic achievement

The Scottish qualifications required for universityentry are Highers, up to five of which can be satin years S5 or S6 (see Chapter 1, p 1). In practice,most Highers are taken in S5, so, by the time ofthis school survey, it was already apparent whichpupils were likely to qualify for entry to highereducation and which were not. A total of 28different subjects at Highers grade were taken bythese respondents. Subjects taken ranged inpopularity from Latin – just two pupils – toEnglish, which was taken by almost three quartersof the entire sample (n=371). Not all pupils wentstraight to Highers in S5; many waited until S6before attempting these. This delay is related tounderachievement in prior examinations (Standard

grades) rather than pupils choosing to delay ayear. At the time of the survey more than onefifth of the sample (n=110) had not taken anyHigher exams, though only 15 of these pupilswere not sitting any in S6. This is different to thesystem elsewhere in the UK, where A levels arenormally taken in the final year of school.

Among those who had already sat their Highers,success rates varied considerably. The easiestway to represent this is by using the pointssystem applied to each grade of Higher. Thesepoints are awarded to each exam grade asfollows: grade ‘A’ six points, ‘B’ four points, ‘C’two points and ‘D’ one point. The distribution ofHighers points obtained in S5 exams by thissample is shown in Figure 4.

From Figure 4 it can be seen that, despiteremaining in school until S6, many of the samplewere relatively unqualified. A quarter (n = 28)had no Highers points at all, while at the oppositeextreme only eight pupils had been awarded‘straight A’ grades in all five subjects they had sat(30 points). At some universities, such asGlasgow, the rule of thumb for the minimum levelof achievement is often considered as twelvepoints (or three ‘B’s). Only one fifth of thesample had attained this level of academicachievement (n=121). However, this rule ofthumb applies to mainstream subjects, and othersmay be more difficult (or easier) to gain entry to,depending on their popularity and prestige.

Figure 4: Distribution of academic achievement (Highers points)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Highers points


12


As success at Highers grade represents the key touniversity access, this finding has implications forthe future destinations of respondents. In order tosee which school pupils were more likely to besuccessful at Highers, a sophisticated statisticalanalysis was conducted. This was a multiplelinear regression correlation analysis (OrdinaryLeast Squares) which used all the demographicvariables (measures of disadvantage) listed inAppendix B, to predict Highers points (thedependent variable). Four such variables werefound to be predictive of academic success1.These were living in Argyll, having parents whowork, having income from a part-time job and, inparticular, being in a higher parental social class.In other words, even at this early stage, moreadvantaged young people are more likely to haveobtained the qualifications necessary for entry tohigher education than their disadvantaged peers.

The relationship between success at Highers andsocial class within these predominantly low-achieving schools is clearly demonstrated inFigure 5. The mean number of points alreadygained by non-manual social class (I to IIIN) S6pupils was 9.2, compared with only 5.6 amongtheir manual class (IIIM to V) peers. The meanHighers points for the group with no parentalsocial class (marked ‘X’ on Figure 5) was 3.5,lower than any social class (this groupcorresponds to the parents who do not work inthe regression equation predicting Higherssuccess above).

Figure 6 compares social class against whether ornot respondents had already made an applicationfor higher education. As might be expected,Figure 6 displays a similar pattern to Figure 5.Interestingly, however, it would appear that thesocial class gradient is restricted to applicationsfor the more advanced of the two highereducation qualifications – degree courses. Thosewho had applied for HND courses only weremore likely to be pupils in a manual social class,both in relative and absolute terms (in Figure 6the 53 respondents who had applied for bothtypes of courses are included in the degreeapplicants). This finding is in line with the figuresreported by UCAS in Table 1. Those with noparental social class had the lowest rates ofapplying for a degree (27.1%) and highest ofapplying for an HND (14.3%).

The inequalities indicated by Figures 5 and 6 wereincreased further when those who had alreadybeen accepted for courses in higher educationwere examined. Although many pupils had notyet heard the results of all their applications, andone school – ‘Muirburgh High’ in Lanarkshire –did not allow pupils to apply to university throughUCAS until S6, the gradient between social class Iand V in unconditional offers was alreadyapparent. Figure 7 shows the proportion ofrespondents in each social class who had alreadybeen accepted. Only one respondent hadreceived an outright rejection for any applicationat this time; she was a ‘straight A’ pupil who hadbeen rejected from ‘Oxbridge’ by interview.

Figure 5: Social class and academic achievement

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

I II IIIN IIIM IV V X

Social class

Hig

hers

poi

nts

13

Figure 6: Social class and applications to higher education

0

20

40

60

80

100


HNDDegree

Social class

%

As indicated by Figure 7, midway through S6,27.5% of all non-manual social class pupils hadalready attained a place in higher education – thecorresponding figure for manual social classpupils attending the same schools was only 16.4%(or, alternatively, 83.6% of manual classrespondents who made an application to highereducation had not yet secured a place atuniversity or college). This difference wasstatistically significant, even when only those whohad made an application and already knew the

result were considered. In other words, moredisadvantaged pupils had to wait until the end ofS6 before knowing whether or not they couldenter university, perhaps relying on the results ofa second series of Highers examinations at theend of that year. Greater success in S5 allowsbreathing space in S6, where pupils can preparefor university (in the case of these respondents)by studying CSYS courses (now being replaced by‘Advanced Higher’).

Figure 7: Social class and unconditional offers of places in higher education

0

10

20

30

40

50


Social class

%


14


Figure 8 shows the proportion of S6 pupils whowere actually sitting at least one CSYS, comparedwith the numbers who were sitting vocationalmodules, which (especially at this late stage) maybe considered to be preparation for the labourmarket.

Highers points and the social class differencesdetailed above were not the only factors whichinfluenced the likelihood of applying for highereducation. Females were significantly more likelyto apply than males (71.6 and 59.4% respectively).This is despite no statistically significant differencein mean Highers points already obtained betweenfemales (7.2) and males (6.3).

There were also considerable geographicaldifferences between and within the four studyareas. As anticipated during the school selectionprocedure detailed in Chapter 1, proportionallymore prospective higher education studentsattended the remote Argyll schools (87.7%) thanthose in the other areas (62.3%).

The more rural areas were also less homogenousthan the urban areas in the sample. In Ayrshire,the social patchwork of differing towns andvillages was apparent in the likelihood both ofremaining in S6 and of making an application tohigher education. This is illustrated by thecatchment area of ‘Coaltoun’ Academy in Ayrshire.This includes a relatively affluent rural area offarms, ‘Coaltoun’ (population approximately9,500) and two satellite developments – ‘NorthCoaltoun’ (population, 4,000) and ‘Low Coaltoun’(1,500). Although all three settlements areclassified as disadvantaged (all are SIPs,containing some of the worst 10% enumerationdistricts in Scotland, all DEPCAT 5 or 6), ‘CoaltounAcademy’ returned 24 questionnaires from pupilsresident in ‘Coaltoun’, but only three from ‘NorthCoaltoun’ and two from ‘Low Coaltoun’. In otherwords, pupils living in the larger town, where theschool was situated, were more likely to stay onuntil S6. This confirms the findings concerningsocial class detailed earlier which indicated that,even in deprived schools, some pupils arerelatively more disadvantaged than others.

Figure 8: Social class and sixth year studies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


ModulesCSYS

Social class

%

15

Even within the relatively over-represented‘Coaltoun’, the geographical distribution ofaddresses of S6 respondents, and in particularhigher education applicants, was not random.This is shown by Figure 9.

From Figure 9 it can be seen that half the S6pupils and most of the higher educationapplicants in this town lived in one small area – aresidential area of modern housing. Of theremaining S6 pupils, few lived in the councilhousing schemes (where the bulk of the town’spopulation lived), although four higher education

applicants lived on or near one of the town’s mainroads. These localised patterns of inequality wererepeated for all the schools surveyed outsideGlasgow. Residents in the Lanarkshire sub-sample, particularly applicants, also had atendency to live on or near main roads (moredesirable housing) and not on council housing or,especially, SIP areas. The Argyll sub-sampleincluded the children of relatively affluent‘incomers’ (only 23 Argyll pupils stated that bothof their parents had attended secondary school inthe county, compared with over three quarters inevery other study area).

Figure 9: Localised inequalities in post-compulsory education (‘Coaltoun’)

Higher education applicant

Non-applicant

Area of private housing

Council housing 'schemes'

Main streets and roads


16


Summary

In this chapter we have highlighted educationalinequalities among a sample of young peoplefrom schools in disadvantaged areas. Althoughthe sample contains some relatively affluentrespondents, we recruited many multiplydisadvantaged individuals with sufficientqualifications to gain entry to higher education.

A three way split in levels of achievement wasapparent. Approximately one quarter of thesample had no qualifications at Highers grade,while another quarter already had sufficientqualifications to gain unconditional entry to highereducation. The remainder of the sample hadobtained some Highers, but either did not yethave good enough grades to enter highereducation or were awaiting the result of theirapplication.

Those who had been unconditionally accepted forhigher education were less likely to be from adisadvantaged background. This is because therelatively advantaged young people in the samplewere more likely to have been academicallysuccessful at school. The overall impression fromthis stage of the research was that even withinlow-achieving schools, pockets of more ‘middleclass’ pupils tended to do better academically.Indeed the presence of these atypical pupilsmasked the true gravity of educational inequalitiespresent in disadvantaged school areas.

Respondents who had applied to higher educationand had not been accepted were now either re-sitting or attempting more Highers. The outcomeof this second series of examinations seemedlikely to be the crucial phase in determining entryto higher education among this cohort. In thenext chapter we will follow the progress of theseyoung people, to assess just how successful theywere in these examinations and how manyprogressed to university or college.

Notes

1 Variables in the regression equation whichpredicted Highers points (adjusted Rsquare=0.104) were: social class (t=4.79, p=0.000),living in Argyll (t=3.39, p=0.001), parents notworking (t=–2.59, p=0.010), and any income fromwork (t=2.40, p=0.017).

Variables not in the equation were: gender, singleparent, only child, car access, total income, anyincome from family, bursary pupil, DEPCAT, SIParea, and living in Glasgow, Lanarkshire, orAyrshire.

17

Introduction

The previous chapter detailed patterns ofdisadvantage and educational achievement in asample of young people recruited in the spring of1999. This ‘original’ sample was recruited withthe intention of tracking their progress afterleaving school. To this end, in October 1999, a100% postal follow-up study was undertaken (thisexcluded one respondent who refused to give hisname and address and two foreign exchangepupils). This postal survey was initiated at thepoint in time when all respondents enteringhigher education should have spent at least oneweek as a student. This chapter will focus onpost-school patterns of educational attritionbetween the original and follow-up surveys.

The follow-up postal survey achieved a responserate of 77%. This was much higher thananticipated, perhaps reflecting levels of concernamong young people about these issues. Perhapsbecause of this high response rate, when datafrom the first and follow-up surveys werecompared, only two significant demographicdifferences were found between those whoresponded and those who did not. First, femaleswere more likely to have responded than males:six out of 10 (59.7%) respondents in the follow-upsample were female. This gender difference wasexplicable by the fact that more females wereapplying to higher education in the first place.Seven out of 10 (69.9%) respondents in thefollow-up survey had made an application at thetime of the first survey, compared with only asmall majority (55.0%) of those who did not makean application. In other words, those whoparticipated in the follow-up were more likelyhave been interested in higher education in thefirst place.

Perhaps of more importance was the absence ofdifferences between the original and follow-upsamples in terms of social class (I to V) andresidence (study area or deprivation measures).Most (over 60%) of the respondents recruited ateach school also participated in the follow-upsurvey. In other words, disadvantage did notsignificantly affect attrition rates. A detailedbreakdown of the demographics of therespondents in the follow-up sample is given inAppendix C.

Enrolment in post-school education

Just over half (54.7%) of respondents whoparticipated in the follow-up survey hadprogressed to higher education. This was dividedbetween 170 who enrolled in degree courses and47 who entered diploma (HND) courses. Lessthan one quarter (23.8%) of the sample had leftfull-time education. Of these, 51 were now infull-time work, three had enlisted in the armedforces, 14 were on a ‘skill-seekers’ governmenttraining scheme, 17 were unemployed, eight wereonly working part-time and one had returned tosecondary school. Between the extremes ofhaving left education and having enrolled inhigher education was a third group (21.5% of thefollow-up sample) who were now in furthereducation. These comprised 26 HNC students, 47NC students, seven on vocational courses (GSVQ),three sitting Highers and two on other (non-academic) courses. These categories of school-leaver destination were not entirely mutuallyexclusive. One full-time worker was a ‘gap-scholar’ whose firm would fund her throughuniversity, starting in the following year. One‘skill-seeker’ was being put through an NC courseand one further education student did not statewhat qualification he was studying for. Finally,

Destinations of final yearschool-leavers

3

18


one degree student had already ‘dropped out’ ofuniversity (after less than one month) and wasnow working full-time.

The eventual destinations of these school-leaversdiffered somewhat from their stated intentionswhen they were at school. The differencesbetween stated intentions (applications) anddestinations (whether they actually made it tohigher education) can be gauged by comparingFigures 10 and 11. Figure 10 shows what mightbe described as an ideal or ‘best case’ scenario,dependent on the original sample’s (mostadvanced) ambitions for the year after they left

school. Figure 11 shows the actual destinations ofrespondents in the follow-up sample.

It should be noted that the destinations shown inFigure 11 may not be end points. Many may havechosen to use FE as a ‘stepping stone’ to highereducation, while others may have taken a ‘yearout’ of full-time education. Indeed, only one third(32.3%) of respondents who were not in full-timeeducation at the time of the follow-up stated thatthey had no intention of applying for any coursesthis year, while another third (34.8%) had alreadydone so.

Figure 10: Original school sample (n=516): applications to post-school education

Figure 11: Follow-up school sample (n=395): actual post-school education

Degree

HND

HNC

NC

Other/unclear

None

Degree

HND

HNC

NC

Other/unclear

None

19

Higher education students and non-students compared

Looking at the respondents who entered highereducation revealed that six out of 10 (59.3%) werefemale and, despite mostly having attendedschools near the bottom of the ‘league table’, most(55.6%) were from the non-manual social classes(excluding 18 higher education students who hadno parental occupational class). The comparablestatistics for all accepted UCAS applicants in 1998were 52.1% female and 73.3% non-manual socialclass. In other words, the profile of the highereducation students in this research differed fromthe overall student population in being relativelymore female and more ‘working class’.

Demographics and school-leaver destinations

Respondents who were in higher educationdiffered from those in the follow-up sample whowere not. Despite their greater numbers in thefollow-up sample, proportionally as many femalesas male respondents were now in highereducation (54.2 % of the female respondents and55.3% of males). However, the social classgradients identified in the previous chaptersremained as pronounced as ever. Figure 12highlights the destination of young people for thedifferent social classes.

From Figure 12, it can be seen that a majority inall the non-manual social classes (I to IIIN) werenow studying degree courses, whereas a minoritywere doing so in each of the manual classes,particularly IV and V. Those doing the lessadvanced HND courses were more evenly spreadcross the social classes, with a slightly greaterproportion of social class IV and V respondentsstudying for a diploma. The group who did notgive any parental occupation (described in theprevious chapter and marked X on Figure 12) hadthe lowest level of entry to higher education(21.6%) but the highest level of enrolment infurther education (35.3%).

The overall pattern of participation in furthereducation was quite different from highereducation. Indeed, as indicated by Figure 12, itmore closely resembled the pattern of diplomastudents. This is perhaps unsurprising, as threequarters (76.6%) of HND students in this samplewere enrolled at further education colleges. Alsoshown on this figure are the numbers in eachsocial class who were no longer in full-timeeducation. Of all of these school-leaverdestinations, only enrolling in degree courses1, themost advanced or prestigious option, wasstatistically significantly related to social class.However, other factors may also influencedestination.

Figure 12: Social class and S6 school-leaver destinations

0

20

40

60

80

100


FEDegree

%

HND Not in education

Social class

Destinations of final year school-leavers

20


Geographical factors influencing school-leaverdestinations

Comparing the four study areas also revealeddifferences in the destinations of respondents.These are shown in Figure 13.

From Figure 13 it can be seen that levels ofparticipation in higher education were muchlower among the Ayrshire respondents. Incontrast, the Argyll sub-sample had the highestlevels of participation in higher education despitethe greater barriers faced by these young peoplein terms of distance from any institutions of post-school education. These differences between

study areas also mask more local differencesbetween and within the schools whichparticipated in this research. For example, onlyone respondent from ‘Pittoun Academy’ inAyrshire was now in a degree course (with oneother studying for an HND). In contrast, only onerespondent from ‘Lochbeg Grammar’ in Argyll wasno longer in education (a high-achiever who haddeferred entry to university). At another extreme,a majority of respondents in the follow-up samplefrom ‘Edgeside’ Community Secondary in Glasgowwere now studying a further education course. Adetailed breakdown of the destinations ofrespondents from each study area is presented inAppendix D.

Figure 13: S6 school-leaver destinations and area of residence compared

0

20

40

60

80

100

FEDegree

%

HND Not in education

Area of residence

Glasgow(city)

Lanarkshire(large towns)

Ayrshire(small towns)

Argyll(remote)

21

Predicting participation in higher education

The differences in participation rates betweenstudy areas may be a function of the differingsocial class profiles of the four study areas. Toaccount for this and the effects of other factorswhich may influence school-leavers’ transitions,more sophisticated statistical analyses wereconducted, aimed at predicting which respondentswere most likely to enrol in higher education.Multiple linear regression correlation analyseswere conducted using all the demographicvariables (measures of disadvantage) listed inAppendix B, with a binary measure of whether ornot each respondent was enrolled in highereducation (degree plus HND) as the dependentvariable (in a similar procedure to that used topredict Highers points in the previous chapter).

An initial regression analysis revealed fourvariables, collected at the time of the first survey,which were significantly related to being in highereducation at the time of the follow-up, controllingfor other demographics. The variable which wasmost strongly related to school-leaver destination(higher education or not) was living in Ayrshire2.This was an inverse relationship, that is,respondents recruited from the participatingAyrshire (small town) schools were less likely toprogress to higher education. Being a bursarypupil and having parents who did not work at thetime of the first survey was also strongly inverselyrelated to being in higher education at the time ofthe follow-up survey. In contrast, being in ahigher social class (between I highest and Vlowest) was positively related to entering highereducation. Taken together with interactions,these four variables alone predicted 10% of thevariance in higher education enrolment (see note2). In other words, increased likelihood ofprogressing to higher education could bepredicted by not living in the Ayrshire study area,being middle class, having working parents andnot being a bursary pupil in S6.

Clearly, access to higher education is provided byacademic performance and not demographics. Tocheck if this was indeed the case, the aboveanalysis was repeated with the inclusion of avariable measuring Highers points. Unlike theother variables, this measure was taken from thefollow-up survey and so included any extraHighers points which respondents may haveobtained in S6. This second analysis eliminatedtwo variables – social class and parents not

working (which approximates to those with nooccupational social class). This confirms thefinding, discussed in the previous chapter, thatthese two variables are strongly related toacademic achievement at school (Highers points).Unsurprisingly, current Highers points was a farstronger predictor of entry to higher educationthan demographics: by itself this measureaccounted for over one third of variance inentrance rates3. Nevertheless, being from theAyrshire (small town) sub-sample and havingbeen a bursary pupil were both still stronglypredictive of non-enrolment in higher education,even when controlling for Highers. Why thesetwo variables should remain is not entirely clear.However, in the case of bursary pupils, this maysupport the view that some of these individualshad only stayed on at school because of thebursary, rather than as preparation for highereducation. Interestingly, those who were bursarypupils at school were significantly more likely tobe in receipt of a bursary as a student (33.6%)compared with those who received no bursary atschool (12.4%). This implies that someindividuals may enrol in NC courses to maintainreceipt of a bursary. The Ayrshire residents mayhave been deterred from higher education by acombination of distance (in comparison toGlasgow and Lanarkshire) and socioeconomicdisadvantage (in comparison to Argyll).Alternatively – as became apparent duringsubsequent face-to-face interviews – there may bea greater cultural distance from higher educationin these small towns, which could compound theeffect of any geographical and economicdisadvantage.

Taken together with Highers points, living inAyrshire and having been a bursary pupil (plusinteractions between the three) accounted for twofifths of the variance in entry into highereducation, leaving three fifths of this varianceunaccounted for (see note 3). In other words,many other factors as well as level ofqualifications and simple measures ofsocioeconomic disadvantage are involved indetermining whether or not young people makethe transition directly from school to highereducation. These will be explored in Chapter 5.

Destinations of final year school-leavers

22


Summary

In this chapter we have tracked the destinations ofschool-leavers through the use of a postal follow-up survey. These destinations can be groupedinto three potential outcomes: higher education,further education and those not longer ineducation. The transition straight to highereducation can be regarded as the direct route.Over half of respondents followed this route. Thismeans that approximately half of those who wererelying on their S6 Highers results to secure aplace at college or university were successful indoing so. Of course this does not mean that theywere always successful in gaining their first choiceof course, subject or institution.

Those in further education can be regarded ashaving the potential to advance to highereducation, going by an indirect route. Amongthose not in education, only one third had nointention of returning to full-time education in thefollowing year. Another third had already appliedfor a studentship, the remainder being, as yet,undecided. As such, those currently not atcollege or university were as likely to be delayingtheir entry to post-school education (‘deferring’)as leaving altogether (‘rejecting’). Reasons forthese courses of action will be elaborated on inthe Chapter 5.

As expected, more advantaged school-leaverswere more likely to have enrolled in highereducation. It must be stressed that enrolling inhigher education was found to be more stronglyrelated to achievement at school (defined byHighers points) than (directly) by social class.There was little evidence that disadvantage initself restricts access to higher education.However, underpinning all of this was the findingdetailed in the previous chapter – that middleclass pupils are more likely to gain thequalifications at school sufficient to gain entry tohigher education, even within predominatelydeprived areas.

At this stage there was already some evidencethat disadvantaged young people who do attainhigher education are more likely to enrol in lessadvanced courses (HND rather than degree) ascompared with their more advantaged peers. Thisimplies that simply recording whether or not ayoung person has enrolled in a full-time course isnot sufficient to fully measure the effects ofdisadvantage on participation in higher education.

The next chapter will expand upon respondents’educational destinations by looking at more subtlemeasures of participation in post-schooleducation. The types of courses, subjects andinstitutions enrolled in by these young people willbe examined, as will how able they and theirparents are to finance them.

Notes

1 Other than by linear association only enrolmentin degree courses varied statistically significantlyby social class (Chi-square=12.99: df=5: p=0.025,by linear association p=0.001).

2 Variables in the regression equation whichpredicted higher education (adjusted Rsquare=0.098) were: living in Ayrshire (t=–3.54,p=0.000) parents not working (t=–2.94, p=0.004)bursary pupil (t=–2.80, p=0.005) and social class(t=2.20, p=0.028).

Variables not in the equation were: gender, singleparent, only child, car access, total income, anyincome from family, any income from work,DEPCAT, SIP area, and living in Glasgow,Lanarkshire or Argyll.

3 Variables in the regression equation whichpredicted higher education (adjusted Rsquare=0.391) controlling for Highers points(adjusted R square=0.360) were: having been abursary pupil (t=–3.97, p=0.000) and being fromAyrshire (t=–2.92, p=0.004).

Variables not in the equation were: gender, socialclass, parents not working, single parent, onlychild, car access, total income, any income fromfamily, any income from work, DEPCAT, SIP area,and living in Glasgow, Lanarkshire or Argyll.

23

Introduction

In the previous chapter we tracked thedestinations of school-leavers, that is those whohad progressed to higher education and thosewho had not. Using the findings of the follow-upsurvey, this chapter will examine thesedestinations in detail. The follow-up surveycollected new data which made it possible tomeasure the changing demographics of thesample as they made the transition from school tohigher education. Beginning with those whomade the direct transition from S6 to highereducation, this chapter will detail different levelsof participation in higher education.

Destinations within higher education

Even among school-leavers who had progresseddirectly to higher education there was a great dealof heterogeneity. Respondents were not onlydoing a variety of courses (such as degree orHND), but also a range of different subjects, at avariety of institutions, dispersed throughout thecountry, and they also displayed a number ofdifferent statuses in terms of their finance.

Subjects studied in higher education

All the subjects taken by respondents werecollapsed into the principle subject groups usedby UCAS. A comparison between all acceptedUCAS applicants in 1998 and the higher educationstudents in the follow-up sample is shown inTable 2.

Interpreting the following table requires somecaution. First, there is a potential overlapbetween these principal subject groups. For

example, courses in hospitality, tourism and travelcould be put into either the communication orbusiness categories dependent on the institution,while a geography degree could be either inphysical science or social studies, dependent onsubsidiary subjects. Second, there is likely to besome reporting bias, with respondents who weredoing combined courses only reporting theirfavoured final degree topic in the follow-upquestionnaire (this became apparent duringsubsequent face-to-face interviews). Suchreporting, although in many ways moreinformative of intentions, would underestimatethe proportion of the sample in the combinedstudies category during their first year.

From Table 2, the most obvious way in which thehigher education students in the research samplediffered from other students was that they weremore likely to be studying for an HND. Of thetotal sample of 217 respondents, 47 had enrolledon HND courses (22%) compared with 9% of allUCAS applicants. In other words, this relativelydisadvantaged sample were less likely to progressdirectly from school to the highest qualification onoffer (degree). Within the degree students someless obvious differences were also apparent. Themost popular degree subjects were business,engineering and maths/computing. All of thesewere in proportions above the average UCASentrant rate, as were the proportions incommunication, education and (with the inclusionof HND) medicine and allied disciplines. Each ofthese subjects could be described as specialised,career-oriented or even vocational. In contrast,more ‘academic’ subjects, such as the humanities(for example, history), languages (for example,English) and the creative arts (for example, music)were less popular with students in the researchsample.

Patterns of participation inhigher education

4

24


The broad principal subject categories used byUCAS mask a range of specific courses, each withtheir own levels of prestige. For example,agriculture includes a range from veterinarymedicine to food science. In total, 37 differentsubjects in higher education were enrolled in byrespondents (plus three at FE level only). Eachcourse can be seen as having different levels ofattractiveness to each respondent. For example,five of the six medical students were in socialclasses I and II, compared with none of the eightstudying chemistry or pharmacy. The relativeover-representation of disadvantaged studentsseems likely to have had an effect, not only onwhich subjects were taken, but also which werenot. For example, no respondent had enrolled (orbeen accepted) for higher education courses inastronomy, classics, divinity, economics, marine/nautical studies, music, philosophy, statistics orveterinary medicine, and only one each forarchaeology, drama, non-English languages,politics, sociology and veterinary nursing (thoughsome may have taken these as joint or subsidiarysubjects).

These findings imply the possibility thatrespondents may be more career conscious orcautious about subject choice in comparison toother first year students, rather than beingaltruistic or academically motivated. On the otherhand, many respondents may only have becomeaware of what many of these subjects involved onarrival at university. A full breakdown of thesubjects taken by respondents, including FEstudents, is shown in Appendix E.

Institutions of higher education

As well as studying a broad range of subjects,respondents in higher education also attended arange of institutions. As most (81.1%) highereducation students studied at universities, thesewere sub-divided into three types of institution asfollows:

• ‘ivy league’ or ‘ancient’ universities• ‘red brick’ or ‘established’ universities• ‘polytechnic’ or ‘new’ universities

‘Ivy league’ in this context refers to historicuniversities which received their charters over 100

Table 2: Subjects taken by respondents in higher education compared with all accepted UCAS applicants

Respondents degree Respondents HND UCAS degree UCAS HND

% n % n % %

Business 14 24 23 11 11 30Engineering science 14 24 4 2 6 8Maths and computing 11 19 0 0 7 20Physical science 9 15 0 0 5 1Social studies 9 14 2 1 12 3Biological science 6 10 2 1 6 2Education 6 10 0 0 5 1Communication 5 8 15 7 2 4Allied to medicine 4 7 34 16 7 3Medicine and dentistry 4 6 0 0 2 –Languages 3 5 0 0 6 –Humanities 3 5 0 0 4 0Creative arts 3 4 2 1 9 15Architecture and building 2 3 9 4 2 2Agriculture 0 0 6 3 1 5Combined studies 8 13 6 3 16 5

Total 100 170 100 47 100 100(n=272,340) (n=25,880)

25

years ago. Such institutions are usually regardedas the most prestigious and often offer the mostadvanced courses or subjects (such as medicine).Examples of such institutions include Durham,Edinburgh and Oxbridge. ‘Red brick’ refers touniversities usually established during Victoriantimes or in the 20th century prior to 1990. Manyof these are located in major cities, specialising incourses which reflect the local industrial heritage(such as engineering) or are located on purpose-built campuses. Examples of these includeLeicester, Heriot Watt and Keele. The term ‘newuniversity’ refers to the former polytechniccolleges which were awarded their charters duringthe expansion of higher education that hasoccurred in the past decade. Such universitiesoften have the highest numbers of non-standardstudents (for example, low social class, maturestudents and ethnic minorities), as well as thehighest ‘drop-out’ rates. The types of subjects andcourses (for example, HND) available at thesereflect their recent transition from polytechniccollege status.

Table 3 details the destinations of respondents inthe follow-up survey who entered highereducation, broken down by type of academicinstitution.

Table 3 illustrates a polarisation between type ofinstitution and degree or diploma courses. Onlyone respondent was studying for a degree at anFE college. In contrast, only one respondent wasstudying for an HND at a ‘red brick’ university andnone at an ‘ivy league’ university. More highereducation students were enrolled in a degreecourse at a ‘red brick’ university than elsewhere,though the combined number of students studyingeither degree or HND courses at ‘new’ universities

was similar. Just over one fifth (21.7%) of highereducation students (10.9% of the whole follow-upsample) were now studying at an ‘ivy league’university. Even fewer were in other institutionsof higher education. These comprised one atagricultural college, one at art school in Englandand two at more general higher educationcolleges.

Comparing the different types of institutionchosen by respondents in this research requires adegree of caution. This is because many factorsmay govern choice of institution other than itsprestige, subjects or courses on offer. Inparticular, distance from each institution is likelyto be a crucial factor. It was expected that thismight be a particularly strong influence withdisadvantaged Scottish students and this wasindeed confirmed in this research. Thegeographical locations of the institutionsrespondents had enrolled in tended to be verylocal. In both the higher education and FEsectors, a majority (58.8% and 69.9% respectively)of respondents stated that they attended thenearest institution to their parental home whichoffered the course they had enrolled in. Thismeant that a large majority (71.6%) of alluniversity students were enrolled at one ofGlasgow’s three universities, compared with only10 respondents (5.7%) at three similar universitiesin Edinburgh. Only six respondents had enrolledat an institution outside Scotland (all in England).These comprised four who were studying at ‘new’universities, one at an art school and one at an FEcollege. Therefore, all other things being equal, aprospective student in this sample is more likelyto choose a university in a familiar area, withincommuting distance than one far from home.

Table 3: Types of institution studied at by respondents entering higher education

Degree HND

% n % n

‘Ivy league’ university 25 43 0 0‘Red brick’ university 41 69 2 1‘New’ university 31 53 21 10Other higher education institution 2 4 0 0Higher education at FE college 1 1 77 36

Patterns of participation in higher education

26


To account for the effect of locality on enrolment,we compared enrolment at three universitiesbased in Glasgow city. Each of these institutionsrepresent one of the types of university detailedabove. Namely the University of Glasgow (‘ivyleague’), the University of Strathclyde (‘red brick’)and Glasgow Caledonian University (‘new’).Using a range of academic indicators, The SundayTimes publication The good university guide 1998(the year respondents would have made theirapplications) ranks Glasgow 20th, Strathclyde42nd and Caledonian 71st of the UK’s 96universities. The rank order of these universitiesin terms of entrants from state school is the reverseof this. In 1999 (the year respondents enrolled inuniversity) Caledonian was ranked 4th, Strathclyde31st and Glasgow 67th. In theory, these threeinstitutions should all be equally accessible,although Strathclyde and Caledonian are locatedin the city centre, whereas Glasgow is in the ‘westend’ of the city. Table 4 shows the proportion ofrespondents attending each of the three universitiescompared to UCAS applicants as a whole.

From Table 4, it can be seen that Strathclyde hadenrolled slightly more students from the samplethan the other two institutions. This is differentfrom the number of respondents who had appliedto each; in terms of applications, Caledonian wasslightly less popular than the other two. This is inturn different from the UCAS figures for applicantsin 1998 which shows the ‘ivy league’ Glasgowuniversity as clearly the most popular of the threeamong all prospective students. Taking a cruderatio of applicants in the sample to 1998 UCASapplicants reveals Strathclyde (1 to 127) to berelatively the most attractive of the threeinstitutions to the sample respondents, relative toother applicants, with Glasgow University beingthe least attractive (1 to 174).

Each respondent could make up to six separateapplications through UCAS, some to the sameinstitution, some to others. Prospective students

may choose a range of institutions, including afirst choice and a ‘fall-back’ in case theirapplication to their first choice is rejected. Withthis in mind the success rates among applicants tothese three institutions also varied betweenGlasgow (29.9%) and Strathclyde (39.5%). Inother words, prospective students in this relativelydisadvantaged sample were least likely to bothapply or enrol in an ‘ivy league’ institution. AtCaledonian (34.5% success rate) eight of the 39students gained a place through the clearingsystem, compared with only one at Glasgow andnone at Strathclyde. This implies that the local‘new’ university was the most likely of the threeto be chosen as a fall back, should an applicationto somewhere else (such as Glasgow) beunsuccessful. Interestingly, however, over threequarters of higher education students in all socialclasses stated that the institution which they werenow at was their first choice. This implies thatthese respondents had not been aspiring to other,perhaps more prestigious or distant, institutions.

It is quite remarkable that none of theserespondents had enrolled in any ‘red brick’ or ‘ivyleague’ institution outside Scotland. Only threerespondents had applied for Oxbridge, none weresuccessful (despite one being a ‘straight A’ pupil).It is equally remarkable that none of theserespondents were successful in gaining entry toeither of Scotland’s independent art schools. Thisdoes not reflect a lack of interest in the creativearts among this population, as 17 were studyingart at FE level (compared with only five in HE),but that few respondents had applied and nonehad gained entry to these prestigious institutions.

Over the follow-up students as a whole (HE andFE), the social class gradient was clearly visibleacross all categories of institution, as indicated byFigure 14. Again, it was those who could give noparental social class that appeared to be leastsuccessful, with only one student in this groupattending an ivy league institution.

Table 4: Choice of university in Glasgow city

Students (n) Applicants (n) UCAS applicants 1998

Glasgow 38 127 22,072Strathclyde 49 124 15,835Caledonian 39 113 16,835

27

As might be expected, Figure 14 is very similar toFigure 12 (which detailed course type), exceptthat the FE sector representation appears muchgreater in Figure 14. This is because most HNDcourses were being studied at FE college (seeTable 3) and both of these courses were morelikely to be chosen by disadvantaged students.

Levels of participation in post-schooleducation

Further education students

Figure 14 shows the social class distribution of the85 respondents who enrolled in the FE sector(defined as mainly HNC or NC in this research).This is the reverse to that of university students.At one extreme, none of the social class Irespondents were at FE college; at the otherextreme, two thirds of the students with no socialclass were at FE college. Only 10 respondents instudy areas which had FE colleges enrolled at FEcolleges outside their area; eight of these were inthe adjacent Clydeside conurbation. One Argyllrespondent attended an outpost campus of aGreenock-based college situated in a localindustrial estate which offered a limited range of(HNC) subjects.

The most popular FE subject taken by theserespondents was art (n=17), followed by socialcare options (n=15). No other subject was takenby more than 10 respondents at FE level (seeAppendix E). During subsequent face-to-faceinterviews, detailed in the next chapter, it becameapparent that many of these new FE studentswould have the opportunity to progress to highereducation (HND) within their college, althoughnot necessarily at the same local campus.

Potential students not in education

As indicated in the previous chapter, only onethird of respondents who were not full-timestudents had no intention of returning toeducation the following year. Of the 16 non-students with 12 or more Highers points (the ruleof thumb for entry), only six had not alreadymade an application to higher education.

Of the 25 non-students who stated what type ofapplication they had made, nine had applied forat least a degree course and eight for an HNDonly (three had applied for both). Ten of theseapplications were for nursing courses – perhapsreflecting a waiting list for this subject. The mostpopular institution applied to was the (‘ivyleague’) University of Glasgow. These findingsindicate that, despite not currently being in

Figure 14: Social class and type of institution attended by all school-leaver new students

0

20

40

60

80

100


%

FE collegeIvy leage Red brick New university

Social class


28


education, not all non-students were disinterestedin education or lacking in ambition (one hadapplied to Oxbridge).

Predicting level of participation in post-schooleducation

Given the patterns apparent in Figures 12 and 14,it was decided to repeat the statistical procedureused to predict enrolment in higher education, inthe previous chapter, to account for the differentqualifications (degree and HND) which constitutehigher education. Also, as NC and HNC may beused as a ‘stepping stone’ to higher education, itwas decided to include FE students in theanalysis. Effectively, this produced a three-pointdependent variable representing the minimumduration of each course in years from degree(three years, mainly at university) through HND(two years, mainly at college) to NC and HNC(one year, only at FE college). As the non-students in the sample comprised many deferringpotential students, whose school-leavingdestinations were as yet unknown, this groupwere not included in this analysis.

An initial regression equation using onlybackground demographics (see Appendix B)yielded four variables which, taken together,predicted 10% of the variance in course length1.Enrolment in longer (or more advanced) courseswas positively related to higher social class andcar access, but negatively to living in (small town)Ayrshire and having parents who did not work.When Highers points was introduced, almost halfthe total variance in course length was accountedfor2 (more than for any other analysis conducted).As with previous regressions, the strongestpredictor of the type of course enrolled in wasprior qualifications (Highers points). Again, itmust be stressed that these prior qualificationswere obtained at school, predominantly by therelatively advantaged young people in the sample.Controlling for Highers points (which againreplaced social class) revealed that course lengthwas inversely related to living in Ayrshire,DEPCAT and having parents who did not work.In other words, students who lived in small townAyrshire, lived in a deprived area and whoseparents did not work, were the most likely to beenrolled in an FE course and the least likely to bestudying for a degree.

There are a number of possibilities which mayexplain these findings. The longer time involved

with more advanced courses may deter someyoung people with limited funds (for example, ifnobody in their household is employed, orcommuting is deemed too expensive).Alternatively, local culture (for example, indeprived areas or in small towns) may makefurther education (college) seem a relativelyattractive prospect, compared with the ‘biggerstep’ of moving directly from school to university.

Student and non-student finance andsupport

By the time of the follow-up, the non-studentsdiffered from the new students in many waysother than level of involvement in post-schooleducation. The most obvious differences were interms of housing and finance. Specifically, non-students were now in the labour market, whilestudents were involved with the mechanisms ofstudent funding, fees and accommodation.

Sources of income

Table 5 details the various sources of income ofstudents and non-students in the follow-upsample.

Table 5 clearly shows that, not only does studentincome vary from that of non-students, but thatthere is also a great deal of difference betweenthose in higher education and those in the FEsector. On the whole, non-students might bedescribed as both ‘better off’ and more self-sufficient. Most non-students were working(usually full-time) and earning much more thanstudent (part-time) workers. Although theaverage income of students in higher educationwas almost three quarters of that of non-students,their biggest source of income was from loans.Three quarters of higher education students hadalready taken out a loan, even though the follow-up survey was conducted in the first month oftheir first year at college or university. Indeed,this figure is likely to underestimate the truenumber of students taking out loans, as it becameapparent during subsequent face-to-faceinterviews that many had been experiencingdifficulties in arranging student loans at the timeof the follow-up survey. In contrast, most FEstudents were in receipt of a non-repayable (localauthority) bursary. Some HE students alsoreceived a bursary (those in nursing or relatedsubjects and some who lived in remote islands) as

29

did the one non-student who had returned toschool. Some students received other incomefrom special funds made available todisadvantaged young people to assist themthrough higher education (such as the RobertsonTrust).

Perhaps because of their reliance on loans ratherthan bursaries, more HE students than FE studentsboth worked part-time and (still) received incomefrom their parent(s) or other family. The numberof higher education students who were alreadyworking part-time is remarkably high given thatthis research was undertaken at the very start oftheir student careers. On the other hand, even atthe time of the first survey, only five of therespondents currently in HE stated that workwould not be an important source of their income(as a student) in the following year. Theeconomic necessity for part-time work seemscertain to take up time which many studentswould otherwise wish to spend at study.

It should be noted that, at this early stage, noincome variable varied significantly across thesocial classes, either overall or when onlyincluding those in higher education. Those withno parental occupational class did receive lessoverall (primarily because those in work earnedless) but, in part because of greater receipt ofspecial funds, those in higher education had asimilar level of income to other HE students. Thisdoes not mean that all are equally able to financea studentship, merely that they have similarincome needs. Beyond this first month in HE,students’ abilities to maintain income levels andrepay debts may not be so equitable.

Due to the timing of this research – at thebeginning of term – it was not possible to askstudent respondents for a detailed account of alltheir expenditure. Nevertheless, there are anumber of costs unique to the student populationwhich can be examined at this stage – specificallytuition, accommodation and travel.

Tuition fees

The students in this sample are part of a ratherunique age cohort in Scotland in that they will bein one of only two year groups who were liable topay tuition fees in advance of entry into post-school education. In theory, all respondents whowere studying for degree, HND and HNC coursesshould have been means-tested to assess the sizeof the fees they were due to pay for each year’stuition. In 1999 the full fee was £1,025 per year.This is expected to be met by the students’parents. However, students from low-incomefamilies may have some or all of their fees paidby the Student Award Agency Scotland (SAAS).Indeed, exemption from having to pay tuition feesis a good proxy measure of disadvantage(students whose joint gross parental income wasbelow £16,945 pay no fees). Table 6 comparesactual fee eligibility in the follow-up sample withwhat respondents had expected to pay at the timeof the first survey.

Table 5: Mean weekly income of students and non-students compared

HE students FE students Non-students

Income source £ % in receipt £ % in receipt £ % in receipt

Parent(s)/family £26.02 46 £26.00 36 £14.10 26Work £41.68 55 £39.98 39 £110.20 85Bursaries £42.33 9 £30.90 66 £15.00 1Loans £54.37 68 £48.71 15 – –Other (such as benefits) £33.56 5 £20.54 6 £42.81 11

Total £73.02 £50.39 £98.43


30


As can be seen from Table 6, only one quarter ofthe students in the follow-up sample were payingfull tuition fees (although some did not know ifthey were eligible to pay). What is quite alarmingabout this table is that so few were aware of theirlikely eligibility in advance of leaving school.Only 25 individuals believed that they would beexempt from paying fees should they enrol inhigher education (one of whom was mistaken).In other words, a large number of potentialstudents may be uncertain or worried abouttuition fees, even when they are unlikely to beeligible to pay. Such a lack of information in S6seems likely to act as an unnecessary deterrent toHE for some young people and their parents.

Accommodation and travel

More than one third (38.4%) of higher educationstudents in the follow-up sample had now lefttheir parental home. This compares with fewerthan one in 10 of both further education students(9.4%) and non-students (7.6%). As might beexpected from the research design, the mostmarked difference in levels of leaving home wasfound between the four study areas. Table 7compares the numbers of students in higher

education from each of the four study areas whohad left home.

The pattern shown in Table 7 confirms thenecessity of a housing transition for young peoplein the remote study area (Argyll) who wish toenter HE. Although the urban–rural continuum interms of numbers of students between Glasgowand Ayrshire is what might be expected, it isremarkable that so few students overall have lefthome. Only four Glaswegians had done so – twoliving in halls of residence and two obtaining acouncil house tenancy. This concurs with findingsconcerning respondents’ choice of institutiondetailed above. These findings tend to supportthe view that, among this population, leaving theparental home to go to university is done as anecessity rather than a choice.

The reluctance to leave home, for whateverreason, is also borne out by the distances andcosts of commuting to university or college.These burdens were greatest for ‘stay at home’Ayrshire students, who spent on average 2 hours36 minutes travelling at a cost of £4.83 each day.Due to their proximity to higher educationinstitutions and transport nodes, Glasgow studentsincurred the least commuting burden (1 hour 23minutes for £2.58 each day). CommutingLanarkshire students were between theseextremes (1 hour 43 minutes at £4.36 daily)3.

The costs of accommodation and apparentwillingness to travel imply that there are benefitsfrom remaining in the parental home. As theproviders of many of the respondents’accommodation and much of their financialsupport, it was decided that parental attitudes tohigher education should be explored.

Table 6: Eligibility for tuition fees among highereducation students

Anticipated Actual

Fee % n % nFull amount 12 22 26 62Part amount 3 5 20 47Exempt 13 25 36 86Don’t know 73 138 17 41

Table 7: Geographical aspects of accommodation among higher education students

Glasgow Lanark Ayr Argyll

% n % n % n % n

Parental home 94 58 85 56 46 19 0 0Student accommodation 3 2 15 10 44 18 85 40Other accommodation 3 2 0 0 10 4 15 7

31

Parental attitudes and support

The original survey questionnaire gave an optionfor respondents to ‘opt out’ of a parental survey.A short postal questionnaire was sent to theparents (or parent) of those who gave theirpermission4 during the spring of 2000. More thanhalf (56.9%) of the 292 parental questionnairessent out were returned. Almost three quarters(72.8%) were completed by the respondent’smother alone, a further 5.6% were jointlycompleted by both parents. The parent(s) ofrespondents in higher education were notsignificantly more likely to return thequestionnaire than those who were not. Therewas also no difference in the likelihood ofreturning a questionnaire between the socialclasses of respondents’ parents, although thoseliving in remote Argyll (72.9%) were much morelikely to have done so than those living elsewhere(51.1 to 56.6%).

As might be expected from a sample of parentswho took the trouble to respond, most werehighly supportive of their son or daughterentering post-school education. Only six parentsstated that they would rather their son or daughtergot a job. Two of these had a son or daughterwho was currently in HE and one in FE. Only

one parent felt that higher education was of littleimportance, compared with 100 (60.6%) who feltthat it was extremely important. However, therewas less accord between parents when it came toproviding (financial) support for their son ordaughter during their studentship. This is shownin Table 8, which indicates that few parentsexpected to provide all financial support for theirson or daughter during a studentship. On theother hand, few expected to give no support, withroughly equal numbers expecting to provide halfor most. The reasons for this may be that,although a majority were willing to provide a highlevel of support, many felt that they were unableto do so.

When parental attitudes to student finances andself-support were examined, an even greaterspread of responses was found. These are shownin Table 9.

The parents appeared particularly unhappy at theprospect of their sons and daughters taking outstudent loans. This is at odds with the highnumbers of respondents currently in highereducation who had already taken out loans. Incontrast, a majority of parents were happy to seetheir son or daughter work part-time during term-time.

Table 8: Levels of parental financial support

None Little Half Most All

% n % n % n % n % n

Expect to pay 2 4 12 20 39 65 41 67 6 9Are willing to pay 2 3 10 17 24 40 32 52 32 53Are able to pay 13 22 29 48 23 38 27 44 7 12

Table 9: Parental attitudes to student life

Very unhappy Unhappy Not bothered Happy Very happy

Attitude towards: % n % n % n % n % n

Student loan 25 41 45 73 9 15 17 28 3 5Student work 5 8 18 29 11 18 55 89 12 19Leaving home 14 23 32 51 19 30 30 48 5 8Doing a post-grad course 1 1 5 8 29 47 45 73 21 34


32


There were few differences between parentalresponses in terms of social class or area ofresidence. Argyll parents were less unhappyabout their sons or daughters leaving home to goto college or university (as might be expectedbecause of the necessity of doing so in that area).Also, parents in lower social classes felt less ableto support their son or daughter through astudentship. As might be expected, this wasparticularly the case with the parents who had nooccupational class, nearly half of whom (47.1%)felt unable to give any support, compared withonly one in 10 of the rest of the sample (9.5%).Nevertheless, nearly all the parents whoresponded to this questionnaire were on thewhole very positive about higher education.Unfortunately, it cannot be known if this was alsothe case for those who did not respond.

Summary

In this chapter we have examined patterns ofparticipation in higher education. From these it isclear that the destinations of respondents detailedin the previous chapter only tells part of the story.Those who had progressed to higher educationwere found to be a very heterogeneous group (interms of courses, subjects, institutions, finance andsupport). Compared with the student populationas a whole, students in this research were morelikely to be enrolled on shorter or less advancedcourses, in more vocational subjects, at ‘newer’universities or FE colleges. Within the sample,students from the most disadvantagedbackgrounds were found to be the most likely tobe studying non-degree courses at FE college. Itmust be stressed that this was primarily a functionof existing social class differences in schoolattainment, rather than any systematic selectionbiases by universities.

The young people who had enrolled in highereducation differed from the remainder of thesample in terms of finance and residence. Mostnon-students were in paid work, most FE studentsreceived bursaries, most higher educationstudents had taken out loans, with more than halfalso working part-time. One quarter of thesample had left home between the two datasweeps. For many this may only be a temporarychange of address (that is, for term-time), as mostof these ‘movers’ were now in HE and came fromthe more distant areas.

Despite being more likely to have left home,respondents in HE remained more dependent onparental support than those who were not ineducation. Although respondents’ parents wereunhappy about the prospect of their son ordaughter leaving home and, in particular, aboutthem taking out a student loan, on the wholethose who responded to a short postalquestionnaire were very supportive of highereducation.

Clearly all these factors: institutions, subjects,social background, geography, housingtransitions, student versus non-student financesand levels of parental support must influence thedisadvantaged young person’s career choices. Inthe next chapter we will look at how respondentsperceive these as barriers which can either limittheir participation in higher education or deterthem from entry altogether.

Notes

1 Variables in the regression equation whichpredicted type of course (adjusted Rsquare=0.104) were living in Ayrshire (t=–3.42,p=0.001) parents not working (t=–3.30, p=0.001)social class (t=2.31, p=0.022) and car access(t=2.90, p=0.023).

Variables not in the equation were: gender, onlychild, single parent, total income, any incomefrom family, any income from work, bursary pupil,DEPCAT, SIP area, and living in Glasgow,Lanarkshire or Argyll.

2 Variables in the regression equation whichpredicted type of course (adjusted Rsquare=0.478), controlling for Highers points(adjusted R square=0.449), were living in Ayrshire(t=–2.64, p=0.009) parents not working (t=–2.33,p=0.020) and DEPCAT (t=–2.32, p=0.021).

Variables not in the equation were: gender, socialclass, only child, single parent, car access, totalincome, any income from family, any income fromwork, bursary pupil, DEPCAT, SIP area, and livingin Glasgow, Lanarkshire or Argyll.

3 These differences in time and cost werestatistically significant by linear association alongthe urban Glasgow to rural Ayrshire continuum byONEWAY analysis of variance (F=8.71 and 11.50respectively, both p=0.000).

33

4 Of the 395 school-leavers who participated inthe follow-up study, 102 (25.8%) had indicatedthat they did not wish us to contact their parents.Those who gave permission were more likely toprogress to HE (59.0% compared with 42.2% ofthose who opted out; Chi2-square=8.71, df=1,p=0.002). One respondent lived with hergrandparents, another with her aunt and uncle –both of these sets of relatives were sent aquestionnaire. Only one respondent was livingindependently while at school and did not give acontact address for her parents.


34


Introduction

As outlined in previous chapters, young people’schoices of post-school education may begoverned by many non-academic factors. Toexplore these in detail, it was decided to conductface-to-face interviews with a sub-sample ofrespondents. Forty four such interviews wereconducted during the spring of 2000. Rather thanrandomly selecting respondents for theseinterviews, it was decided to focus ondisadvantaged but qualified young people. Theselection of interviewees was stratified to berepresentative of each of the destinationsexamined in Chapter 3 (see Figure 11). As far aspossible, it was intended to match interviewees ineach destination by qualifications (Higherspoints).

Selection procedure

A rigorous stratification system was employed toselect appropriate interviewees. To berepresentative, 23 interviews with respondents inhigher education were carried out, 10 in furthereducation and 11 with non-students, according totheir status during the follow-up survey. Thisframework was adhered to, regardless of anychanges in status which might occur in the timebetween the follow-up survey and face-to-faceinterview. Selection of interviewees involvedtaking the highest qualified respondents whowere not in education and matching them tosimilar individuals who were students.Disadvantage among HE students was defined bynon-eligibility to pay tuition fees (as a result ofmeans-testing). Disadvantage among FE studentsand those not in education was defined by beinga bursary pupil when at school or by living ineither a deprived SIP area or in remote Argyll. All

respondents, regardless of their destination, whowere in either social class I or DEPCAT 2, wereexcluded, as were HE students who were eligibleto pay full tuition fees. A full description of theselection procedure is given in Appendix G.

Interviews were conducted in a variety of settings,including parental homes, term-time addresses,halls of residence, university campuses and workplaces. All interviews were taped and transcribedbefore analysis. The interview gave each of thesequalified but particularly disadvantagedrespondents the opportunity to explain why theywere in their current situation, and what barriersthey had encountered in attempting to accesshigher education. In this chapter, whenever aninterviewee’s statement is presented, theireducational status and reason for selection is alsogiven. A brief profile of all interviewees is givenin Appendix H.

Educational barriers

School

The schools selected for this research were allnear the bottom of the so-called league tables interms of school-leavers entering higher education.Many aspiring interviewees felt that attending an‘underachieving’ school, which may not seepreparation for university as a high priority,presented a barrier to their prospects.

“When I was at school my careers advicepeople were like trying to get you bysaying, ‘Oh! you can do this sort of job’and everything, but were not exactlyhelping you where its like, ‘Oh! you cansort of do this uni degree’ or whatever.

Experience of barriers toparticipation in highereducation

5

35

They were more designed with gettingjobs for everyone rather than likeencouraging them to go on to universityand things.” (HE student, paying no fees,#303)

“It’s not really about universities, they’realways going on about jobs and that, butnever about going down to university, butit’s always just be a mechanic and all this.”(HE student, paying no fees, #477)

As well as feeling that their teachers were morefocused on the majority of less academicallyoriented pupils, some respondents found theseother pupils themselves to be a distraction.

“It was getting quite violent. There was alot of fights amongst the senior ones andthe junior pupils.... I think if I wasn’t inmedicine ... you had to do a 6th year atschool.... It is a lot harder to get in if youdon’t. If it had not been for that [the factthat she wanted to study medicine] Iwould definitely not have went in for 6thyear at school and went out to work for ayear.” (HE student, paying partial fees,#053)

Interviewees found that things got easier in thesenior school, when staff could devote moreattention to those (few) pupils who stayed on.

“See like, after you get started doingHighers and everything, the teachers havea lot more time for you, but 1st to 4thyear, aye, it was the idiots that got all theattention.” (HE student, paying no fees,#296)

As indicated in Chapter 2, a small number ofyoung people were only included in the sampleas a result of school mergers. One respondent feltshe would not have made it to higher educationwere it not for the closure of her old school(which would not have been deemed viable forthis research).

“Well at ‘Bridgeside’ [closed school] theydid nae really bother if you went and didanything, but at ‘Riverside’ theyencouraged you.... They did nae reallycare if you passed exams, you just daemodules and that’s fine. The teachersreally ... they thought you were

common.... They thought everybody waslike that, they just treated everybody thesame way like they were stupid.” (HEstudent, paying no fees, #503)

In the previous chapters, it became apparent thatthe greatest barriers may be facing the mostacademically able pupils. This was reinforcedduring face-to-face interviews, with those aspiringto more prestigious institutions or advancedcourses. This situation may, in part, explain thelack of respondents who applied for Oxbridge (orany other English ‘ivy league’ or ‘red brick’university) and why, ultimately, no respondentswere successful in obtaining a place at suchinstitutions.

“I think more people should try for it[Oxford], ‘cos people don’t even considerit in ‘Lochbeg’, I think I’m the only personfor I don’t know many years that’s evenapplied for it.” (Non-student, remote area,#347)

“[#366] and I got stick from so manyteachers for applying [to Cambridge], Imean really there was one teacher thatwould not even speak to us because itwas a case of, ‘Oh! Our universities arenot good enough for you’, and made youthink you were a snob and all this, but acouple of teachers were reallyencouraging and trying to help us out andgoing through interview situations and allthis, but basically, no, they don’t wantyou.... I took it upon myself, I mean Isent away for a prospectus. We don’thave the prospectus in school[‘Glenburgh’].” (HE student, paying nofees, #427)

This is not to say that individual schools or staffmembers did not encourage their talented pupilstowards academic success, despite some pupilsfears and reservations.

“I didn’t think it was for me, but certainlythere was the careers teacher, she wasmuch more motivating and saying that,‘You can still do it, just because you wentto Riverside doesn’t mean you’ll not getthe grades’.” (HE student, paying partialfees, #053)

Experience of barriers to participation in higher education

36


Leaving school

Perhaps because of their lack of local familiaritywith post-school educational institutions, manyinterviewees who continued their education statedthat they saw going to university or college as a‘big step’. As indicated in the previous chapter,some of the respondents who were not ineducation at the time of the follow-up were in factdeferring the transition to better prepare for thisbig step.

“I decided to take a break before going touniversity and also the scholarshipappealed to me quite a lot because itgives me funds while I am at university aswell, but also it was a great opportunitybecause of the training I am getting.”(Non-student, former bursary pupil, #249)

“Partly the reason I took the year out wasbecause of the student loans beingintroduced. My parents can’t afford tosupport me, so I’m saving up this year soI’ve got some money behind me when Ido go away.” (Non-student, remote area,#347)

Deferring entry was a particular feature ofprospective students from remote areas whoneeded time to prepare for the inevitable housingtransition.

“I just saw the [job] advert in the‘Eileanbeg Telegraph’ and I didn’t quitefancy going away straight away touniversity, so I took a year out andthought that would be quite a good job tohave and gain me experience as well....You see it’s really quite expensive to goaway, if you think about all the debt I’dget into, I think I’d get into a lot of debt.”(Non-student, remote area, #489)

“Why am I here [‘Eileanbeg’]? Wellbasically with primary teaching I knowthat experience is essential, so it was totake a year out to do that, plus to makemoney, like, for college, obviouslybecause it’s so expensive.” (Non-student,remote area, #451)

Many interviewees who entered HE were awarethat they were non-standard students, and wereoften the first from their family to have gone on to

HE. For them higher education was highly valuedas a ‘passport’ to a better way of life.

“Well I think it is very important to mebecause it means I can get the chance todo something like, I mean none of myfamily have got like degrees or anything,so it means that I have got the chance todo something that none of them havedone, and it gives me a chance likemaybe see a bit of the world dependingon what I decide to do.” (HE student,paying no fees, #303)

Some of the better qualified respondents werenow encountering former pupils from moreadvantaged schools, including private schools, forthe first time, and realised that things had beendifferent for them.

“There was a scholars course because like60 scholars within the whole of the UKand there is only, like, three of us fromScotland. But all the ones are fromLondon and everything is very muchprivate school orientated. But the otherthree scholars that are in Scotland, there isonly me and one other that are from stateschools. We were complaining yesterdaybecause all the mailings do go out to theprivate schools and everything, so we aretrying to get it more so that states aremore notified of it.” (Non-student, formerbursary pupil, #249)

“Well most of them [being interviewed atCambridge] I was going to say they wereEnglish, but that is really racist and bad,but I just came from a completely differentbackground from all of them and I couldnot relate to any of them at all. Even thenight before when we were all sittingabout eating and things like that andsitting having a wee conversation and Icould hardly make out what they weresaying never mind talk to them about it.”(HE student, paying no fees, #427)

Having been one of the relatively ‘better off’ at herschool, this respondent only became aware of herdisadvantage on entering higher education.

“They all speak a certain way and you arenot impressive anymore, but then youhave also got that kind of you’re poorer. I

37

did not feel working class until I went touni, because I am not particularly workingclass, I mean my dad is a [primary] teacherand things and now I feel incrediblyworking class and I feel like a weesocialist that stands up for what shebelieves in in uni.” (HE student, payingpartial fees, #053)

Geographical barriers

Living in remote areas

For the Argyll (remote) respondents enteringhigher education also meant leaving their homearea. For some, leaving their community andcoming to the city could be quite a culture shock.

“There was about 50 people where I lived[an island] and now there’s like 500,000,it’s totally different.” (HE student, payingno fees, #477)

As well as the problems of physical relocation,these respondents also had to cope with theincreased financial burdens associated withmoving. This respondent had secured a place ona distance learning HNC course in Argyll while hedecided whether or not it was viable for him toleave in order to advance his education.

“I mean I am alright for money here, but Isuppose it would obviously be different ifI was to go away. But the only reason Iam alright for money here is because Ihave got through my course andobviously I got a loan.... If I was to goaway I would do something better yes –probably a degree.... I would actually bevery happy to stay in the [Lochbeg] area,if it was a possibility.” (FE student, remotearea, #318)

Leaving home

For respondents from remote Argyll, leaving theparental home was seen as a necessity. InGlasgow and Lanarkshire – both close toinstitutions of higher and further education –leaving home was unpopular. The maindrawback of living at home for these respondentswas in ‘missing out’ on student life.

“Because I live out in the Northeast ofGlasgow, because I travel and I don’t havea car either.... So it kind of means that asfar as things like night life goes and beingpart of the student life I don’t haveanything to do with that really. I am moreinvolved with people from work [the Co-op shop] and stuff who aren’t basicallystudents. You feel you are missing out onstudent life quite a lot by not being outthere.” (HE student, paying partial fees,#053)

For the Ayrshire (small town) respondents, thisdecision was less clear cut, as the burden of longdistance daily travel was relatively balancedagainst the costs of moving to a term-timeaddress. However, for some, a studentship wasseen as providing an opportunity to ‘escape’, evento the point of influencing choices in highereducation.

“I wanted to leave North Coaltoun, kind ofthing, because it’s like pretty much adead-end cycle round there so I wanted toget out.” (HE student, paying no fees, #303)

“Yes, I think Ayr [FE college] offers quite afew art courses now, so I could havepossibly went there, but I wanted to getaway from Ayrshire.” (HE student, payingpartial fees, #248)

Accommodation

Those who left home were then faced with theprospect of finding term-time accommodation.This could be quite a challenge for young peoplewho were not familiar with mechanisms used bystudents from more standard backgrounds.

“We were not very knowledgeable aboutGlasgow to be honest and we appliedthrough Glasgow Council and the flat theyoffered us was like 15-floor, high-rise,damp and we turned them down and thenwe decided we were going through estateagents and it was a wee bit dodgy. So weactually got it through the newspaper. Ididn’t see it until we moved in, [#249 and#193] came up, but we were not toobothered about being in a student area,more a community area we wanted to bein, near shops and such.” (HE student,paying partial fees, #248)


38


For some interviewees, term-time accommodationwas less than ideal and could affect commitmentto higher education.

“It is an old building – there is a lot ofrenovation work needing done to it andso far people have had to move out oftheir rooms because the ceiling’s falling inand things like that – me being one ofthem.” (HE student, paying no fees, #303)

Travelling

Most students, apart from those in halls ofresidence, incurred some travel costs. Only a fewdisadvantaged respondents had full car access,and public transport was often limited(particularly in small town Ayrshire). For thesereasons, many interviewees in higher educationfound that travelling could erode both theirfinances and study time.

“Well, travelling is the biggest thingwithout a doubt, travelling is £60 a monthat least and then my books would maybewould be £200 per semester and there istwo semesters so it is about £400. But it’susually travelling and eating because if Iam in here for a full day I need to havemy lunch and my dinner.” (HE student,paying no fees, #379)

One respondent found she was ineligible for hallsof residence, due to the proximity of hermoorland cottage to Glasgow, yet with only fourbuses passing her home each day, a housingtransition was imperative for her to attend herchosen college.

“Well I couldn’t travel to Glasgow from‘Ashtoun Moss’ because I wouldn’t be ableto get a bus on time. My class starts at8.45 in the morning and there is not a busthat leaves Ashtoun Moss to get me toGlasgow early enough [the first bus leavesat 7.00am]. So it is impossible.” (HEstudent, paying partial fees, #248)

Again, as with accommodation, in extreme cases,travel problems could contribute todisillusionment and dropping out of highereducation.

“I was actually at Paisley University andafter that I gave it up because I had to

keep travelling to Ayr [campus] all thetime and I had no money and had noloans at that point so. It was the fact myloan had not came through and I paid £50per week train fare to get there, so I justdid not have that kind of money. So I hadto pack it in.” (non-student, formerbursary pupil, #057)

Financial barriers

Clearly, the problems encountered with studentaccommodation and travel are only in partgeographical. Finance was an important factor indictating decisions involving whether or not toleave home, and also the accepted standard ofaccommodation or mode of transport used. Theseconsiderations impacted on levels of participationin higher education. Money would appear to bethe reason most students in this research chose toenrol at local universities or colleges. Forexample, one interviewee stated that she knewthat she was, in her opinion, enrolling in theworst medical school in Scotland, but being theclosest it was the only one that she could afford tostudy at:

“That is why I went to Glasgow. Iprobably would not have gone toGlasgow if it had not been for themoney.” (HE student, paying partial fees,#053)

Commuting from the parental home had the twinadvantages of minimising accommodation costsand allowing continued access to parentalsupport. Respondents often entered intoagreements with their family which recognisedboth their own hardships and their parents’inability to provide for all student needs.

“I don’t pay money and they don’t giveme money, we kind of agreed on that,you know, that’s fine.” (HE student,paying no fees, #015)

“If I am working I will pay money to mymum and dad, aye, but if I am not thenthey just give me free rent.” (HE student,paying no fees, #379)

Non-students, on the other hand, were expectedto help provide for their parents, and often sawbeing reliant on ‘pocket money’ as a disincentivefor entering higher education.

39

“I see my friends [students] and I think,‘Oh no! That’s just not me’. I hate havingto take money off my mum and dad. Ilike being independent and doing myown stuff. Like I have got a car and thatto pay for and if I was not working then Icould not afford it.” (non-student,deprived SIP area, #005)

Part-time work

As expected from the findings of thequestionnaire surveys, many interviewees sawwork as essential to successfully funding their waythrough higher education. This included bothfull-time temporary employment (for example,during summer vacation) and part-timeemployment during term-time.

“I could just about survive now with myless hours, but I couldn’t survive withoutit altogether. Definitely not.” (HE student,paying partial fees, #053)

“I knew that I would have to move uphere for it to be possible to go [tocollege]. I had to work full-time duringthe summer to get money to come. I amworking just now. I work part-time, but ifI didn’t have that job there is no way Icould stay up here.” (HE student, payingpartial fees, #248)

Many were already finding that part-time workoften clashed with classes or study:

“Trying to balance work and theuniversity, now that is the hardest thingbecause for a while there I had five day aweek job. And it was running straightfrom uni to work and concentrating moreon work than uni.” (HE student, paying nofees, #379)

Some interviewees found they had to cut back ontime spent working in order to accommodatestudy, often to levels lower than the amount theyhad worked while at school.

“Bad one – difficult to get days off tostudy and things like that.... Aye, becauseI’m going to finish every other Tuesdayand every Wednesday at 3.30 and then Istart work at 5.00 on a Tuesday and aWednesday. So I’m going straight from

there to work and by the time I get homeI’m [tired]. Yes, I just collapse, I never getanything done.” (HE student, paying nofees, #018)

“I’ve been working there for two-and-halfyears now, and I used to do like ninehours a week you know, like, I do threehours a night. But once I started uni Iasked to drop a night because I thought,you know, I really need more time tostudy because I felt I did not haveenough.” (HE student, paying no fees,#015)

This situation could be particularly acute in therun up to Christmas, when both the demands ofemployers and financial needs of students tendedto be greatest.

“I was working a lot over Christmas andNew Year because I was falling behind insort of assessments, and I was not gettingin on time because they were asking meto work, and it is that way that you couldnot say no because you would lose yourjob kind of thing.” (HE student, payingpartial fees, #248)

Student loans

The other major source of income for the studentsin higher education in this sample was fromstudent loans. As mentioned in the previouschapter, many respondents had difficulty insecuring loans in the first place.

“I have been trying to ‘phone the loanspeople for the past two weeks – can’t getthrough at all. The bank don’t knownothing about it. The college say just keeptrying there is nothing they can do. My firstinstalment of my loan was late as well....”(HE student, paying partial fees, #248)

“I’d just started work then, so the £30travelling expenses per week – I was naeeven making that at weekends, so I wasgetting low on money before my loancome through.” (HE student, paying nofees, #225)

“Then it was trying to get a hold of peopleand talk to them about getting a loan wasan absolute nightmare. Spent days on the


40


‘phone trying to get hold of them and wasput through to somebody else and theysaid it was coming and it wouldn’t comeand it was a bit of a nightmare.” (Non-student, former bursary pupil, #057)

Even if adequate loans could be obtained, thelikelihood of large debts at such a young age wasa considerable barrier to these less affluent youngpeople.

“I mean you have got to look at reality,my mum is a single parent you knowwhat I mean. Some people just can’tafford it.... It isn’t fair but that’s just theway it is and I think if it was going to putme into serious debt or you know putpressures on my mum or things like that Ijust simply wouldn’t do it. You just try tohave to get up and try and get a job. Itwould put me off.” (FE student, formerbursary pupil, #271)

“That is one of the reasons that I neverwent to university. That was a bigconsideration, if I wanted to go on – incase I fell into debt.” (HE student, payingno fees, #225)

Again, better qualified disadvantaged young peopleenrolled in more advanced (longer) courses facedthe greatest problems, such as this intervieweewho was studying for a five-year degree:

“I have got the extra year and the books,you definitely need to take out themaximum loan.... It bothers me that if Ithink about it, it is just under £3,000 and Iam doing five years – that’s £15,000 debtby the time I qualify which I am really notvery happy about at all.” (HE student,paying partial fees, #053)

Bursaries and grants

Interviewees who were either currently studyingnursing or were enrolled in NC courses at FEcolleges were in receipt of non-repayablebursaries. Unsurprisingly, there were nocomplaints about this system of student funding.

“Yes, well I have got a £100 per week todo the nursing course which is a lot morethan you get on the broo [benefit].” (Non-student, former bursary pupil, #230)

‘Losing’ this bursary and going on to the loanssystem was clearly a disincentive for thisinterviewee, who was already thinking abouthigher education next year.

FE student: “I would say it encouraged(former me – the bursary – as I saidbursary before, that does encouragepupil, #161) me quite a bit.”

Interviewer: “Next year when you stayon, when you don’t get abursary, how do you feelabout that?”

FE student: “I honestly don’t knowwhat to do because of that.I know it will affect me.”

Those already in higher education thought thatbursaries or a return to the old grants systemcould be a big incentive for disadvantaged youngpeople.

“I had to sort out the fees – whether Iwould be able to afford to go. Buteverything is sorted out now, but with theloans and I think they should really bringback grants because I really don’t want tobe in debt. But I had to take out astudent loan, so I see that as a really bigobstacle because some people just can’tafford to go to university.” (HE student,paying no fees, #015)

“I mean abolish tuition fees – without adoubt they shouldn’t be here I meanmaking students pay to learn is just aludicrous thing. But grants should bemeans tested as they are, but I am notreally sure how you could make it fairer,because I know people that deservegrants but don’t get them and people whodon’t deserve them but do get them.” (HEstudent, paying no fees, #379)

Tuition fees

Another controversial aspect of student financeconcerned tuition fees. Although none of thehigher education students selected for interviewwere eligible to pay full fees, some did expressstrong opinions on this topic. These were usuallyformed either by witnessing school friends whowere having problems paying tuition fees or their

41

class-mates from more affluent backgrounds whowere not.

“Most of my friends didn’t have any tuitionfees, I was one of the few had any. Theones in medicine have got more, theirparents are just ‘funny money’. So I’veseen two opposite ends, I’ve not reallyseen any in the middle. Except for onefriend that’s got £700 odd fees, but hismum lost her job and he had to pay it offhimself so he had more money for that, sohe is finding that quite difficult.” (HEstudent, paying partial fees, #053)

One respondent spoke of the deterrent effect thattuition fees had, even among those, like him, whowould not have to pay any. This corroborates thelack of knowledge respondents displayed abouttheir likely fee status before leaving school.

“It made me consider whether or not togo to university, but it was really only fora short time. I thought about it and Ifound out about what I was going to haveto pay and how I was going to organisemyself and found out that I can supportmyself through the loan so.... The onlything they didn’t do was tell me that youare going to pay fees or you’re not goingto have to pay fees or you will be able toget a good loan, you won’t get a goodloan. Things like that, as I didn’t knowanything about that until I was actually atuniversity on the course and then I foundout.” (HE student, paying no fees, #379)

What was surprising was that not all intervieweessaw the abolition of ‘up-front’ tuition fees inScotland as a good thing. The mostdisadvantaged young people, who currently hadall (or most) of their fees paid by SAAS, felt thatthe proposed new system of payment in arrearswould be unfair to them.

“It’s worse off for me to do it that way –to pay £2,000 once you’re earning money– because it means I’ll have to paysomething, whereas if I was getting it paidfor me every year I’d be well off.” (HEstudent, paying no fees, #504)

Again, this disincentive seemed strongest withdisadvantaged students who were attemptinglonger (more advanced) courses. Under the future

system, the medical student saw her potential feesrise, from £576 in advance under the currentsystem, to £4,100 in arrears once she had qualified.

“I thought [my fees would be] £144 threetimes – don’t have to pay in 5th year, sothat would only be about £500/£600,whereas now it is going to be £2,000 extrabecause you have to pay it at the end.That worries me more because if it wasfor me, £144 – I could work that off in thesummer, but now it is just a big lump sumat the end.” (HE student, paying partialfees, #053)

Student finance policy

This research was timely as it coincided with themuch publicised Cubie inquiry into studentfinance conducted by the Scottish Parliament1.There was certainly an overall view that morecould be done to financially assist disadvantagedstudents. It was felt that this might encouragemore non-standard students to stay on at schooland enter higher education.

“North Coaltoun is quite hard hit byunemployment and things like that somost people think, ‘Oh! I can’t go touniversity because I have not got themoney’ and things like that. So maybe ifthey gave like a bit more financial supportto people in that situation then they mightget more people from areas like NorthCoaltoun coming to university and things.”(HE student, paying no fees, #303)

Perhaps inevitably, those currently in highereducation were dissatisfied with currentgovernment policy. This was seen as somewhathypocritical, on the one hand making publicstatements about widening access to educationyet, on the other, making it increasingly difficultfor less well off young people to be able to affordto participate.

“Well if I was part of the government Iwould bring back grants. I mean TonyBlair saying ‘education educationeducation’, yet you need to take outmoney to go uni. So I would bring backgrants and I would make sure thateveryone was treated equally, no matterhow much [money] their parents made.”(HE student, paying no fees, #015)


42


“That’s what I don’t like about thegovernment either, they say they wantpeople to go to university but they arecharging a hell of a lot for them to go touniversity, so they’re no really. They aredoing the opposite of what they should bedoing.” (HE student, paying no fees, #085)

Social barriers

As well as the more obvious educational,geographical and financial hurdles faced bypotential students from disadvantagedbackgrounds, other more subtle factors (moredifficult to quantify in earlier statistical datacollection) were also important.

Parents and family

Many respondents were the first in their family toenter higher education, and only five intervieweeshad a parent who had been to college oruniversity. As a consequence, many said theirparents expressed some reservations about thembecoming a student.

“I think my mum was a wee bit thingamy[unsure] about it. She felt I should go outand get a job and start earning moneybecause by the time after university, thetime it takes me to find a job, I could havea job just now. Especially if I need to startpaying tuition fees.” (HE student, payingno fees, #085)

“I mean, that’s what my mum and dadkeep saying to me, ‘Just think of the debtyou’ll get into’ and that.” (Non-student,remote area, #489)

“My dad said it a few times – that he hadheard stories of people going to collegeand going to university and gettingdegrees and ending up with nothing atthe end of it. I thought about that. Hencethe reason why I went to get work, I sentto the [design companies] and that. Thatidea didn’t work, so the only option wasto go to college.” (FE student, formerbursary pupil, #161)

Parents could also exert an influence on choiceswithin higher education, particularly towardsmore vocational subjects. For example, this

interviewee was sitting an NC in secretarialstudies at a nearby FE college on her mother’sadvice, rather than music or business at universityin Glasgow, as her teachers had advised.

“Well I can’t say my teachers, becausethey encouraged me to do differentthings. I would have to say my mum. Iknow I keep going on about my mum butI think my mum encouraged me becauseit was more practical to go and, youknow, get something behind me.” (FEstudent, former bursary pupil, #271)

Others found their parents to be enthusiasticabout the prospect of having a son or daughter atcollege or university.

“My mum and dad have always been quitesupportive and they’d rather that I got outof Ayrshire and did something rather thanjust sit back.” (HE student, paying partialfees, #248)

Sometimes parents actually exerted some pressureon the interviewee to not follow in their footstepsand to go into higher education.

“My mum said, ‘You should just go and doit, and even if you want to be a fisherman[like his father] you can come back. Butjust go and do it for the first couple ofyears’.” (HE student, paying no fees, #477)

Peers

The effect of peers, as with family, could impacton decisions concerning higher education byeither encouraging or discouraging respondents.This was true of both their old peers, from theirhome community, and new ones, especially class-mates from more affluent backgrounds.Interviewees who had entered higher educationwere aware that their life choices were not thenorm for people from their community.

“There was two of us [applying formedicine] in our year, but that was thefirst in about 20 years or something thatthere had been anybody going intoanything like it.” (HE student, payingpartial fees, #053)

“I think that Ashtoun is a really bad placebecause it does have a kind of mindset

43

where if you do move away and if you dowant to go into higher education andeverything people do think that is justcompletely sad.” (Non-student, formerbursary pupil #249)

Likewise, there was a perception that their fellowstudents recognised that interviewees weresomewhat atypical of their home areas and alsoatypical students.

“Doing a case study in Easterhouse, whichis just down the road from me and I havea lot of my friends live up there, but weare all going into Easterhouse as a groupand some of the comments that comefrom them.... They don’t seem to realisethat the people from Easterhouse and thepeople from here [Riverside] are the sameas them. They seem to think they are allviolent and drunk. They just hear thepress problems and put two and twotogether, and I feel they are not actuallyinsulting me, but I feel that they aresometimes. Although they are not sayingit is you, you know what I mean, you feelkind of protective of your ownbackground.” (HE student, paying partialfees, #053)

Many interviewees found it difficult to makefriends at university or college, where mostpeople that they encountered were fromunfamiliar backgrounds.

“I like the course, but I don’t like the city.People down here don’t talk to you ...different lifestyle down here.” (HEstudent, paying no fees, #477)

“There is a small group that I get on wellwith, but in general they are very differentbackgrounds to me and it makes it quitedifficult. They have also got a lot moremoney which means you can’t reallysocialise with them in the same way. Itend to not, I only know them atuniversity.” (HE student, paying partialfees, #053)

Some interviewees felt that they were regarded asinferior by their more affluent fellow studentsbecause of their disadvantaged backgrounds.

“Some of them come fae places likeMilton Keynes and that, and sort of like

think they are better than you, but otherpeople are just like from like Glasgow orEdinburgh, whatever, and are just averagepeople really.” (HE student, paying nofees, #504)

“They think they are better than everyoneelse kind of thing, that’s what I don’t likeabout them, they are all so confident.”(HE student, paying no fees, #477)

There was clearly a possibility for young peoplefrom disadvantaged backgrounds to becometrapped in a ‘catch-22’ situation, where they feltthey could neither ‘fit in’ at home nor atuniversity.

“I was looking forward to it. I thoughtwithin the school we had always beentold that, well I was always told, if you aregood at school and you don’t fit in toschool, the trouble makers and stuff, youshould go to uni and that there it will beall away. You tend to find then, that youdon’t fit in there ... in another way fromschool.” (HE student, paying partial fees,#053)

“I thought it’d be better. If I had myfriends down here it would be brilliant,but I’m finding it hard to make friendsbecause, I don’t know, they don’tunderstand my accent sometimes, I don’tknow what it is.” (HE student, paying nofees, #477)

Class consciousness

Some interviewees, particularly the highestachievers, felt that they were now encounteringbarriers related to their social class.

“See this is before we even went down [toan interview for Cambridge] I was sittingsaying to [#366] I mean what is the pointin us trying this because look at howmany minority groups we are in. Notonly do we go to a comprehensive schoolwe are Catholics, I am a girl, I mean weare Scottish need we say anything else.”(HE student, paying no fees, #427)

“I see more of a problem being a classthing. I didn’t really believe it waspresent when I started off. I thought it


44


wouldn’t be as present as it maybe is, butI mean there is a definite thing for theHutchie [a private school] group. I findthat definitely exists, so if that still existsin your working life then that is obviouslygoing to be a problem for me I wouldimagine.” (HE student, paying partial fees,#053)

Even at this early stage, class awareness hadalready influenced some respondents’ choices ofhigher education, in this case towards a ‘new’university.

“The people that I went to school withthat I know that’s went to Glasgow andStrathclyde [universities], they alwaysseem a bit more up themselves than thepeople I’m here with [Caledonian].” (HEstudent, paying no fees, #356)

One respondent indicated that a more affluentclassmate had the opposite reason for choosing tostudy at Glasgow:

“Somebody said they came up to Glasgowto study because they want to study anarea of deprivation. I just thought it is notthe only thing that Glasgow is – an area ofdeprivation.” (HE student, paying partialfees, #053)

Giving up on education

The respondents in this research had all spent atleast two years in full-time education beyond theminimum leaving age. As detailed in Chapter 2,most pupils who attend the selected schools donot stay on at until S6. Furthermore, many ofthose who do stay on are not there in preparationfor university, but leave school with fewqualifications and enter the labour market directly.A few respondents who did gain qualifications(Highers) also chose to directly enter the labourmarket. Although surprisingly small in number,these ‘rejecters’ of post-school education providean alternative viewpoint to the bulk of thesample.

The lure of full-time employment

The most obvious reason for respondentschoosing to forego the opportunity of highereducation was to earn money.

“I suppose it was just the fact that I wasused to working and I didn’t really fancygoing and being a poor student.” (Non-student, former bursary pupil, #370)

As well as making money, entering full-timeemployment was seen as a way of gainingexperience, which was viewed by some as on apar with post-school education in terms of careerprogression.

“I have got experience. Sometimes whenyou go to college once you havecompleted all your course and that,sometimes people don’t want to take youon because you have not had anyexperience. So this is getting me someexperience.” (Non-student, deprived SIParea, #005)

“Well it [‘rejected’ college course] wouldprobably be a waste of a year, I wouldrather get experience and being in aworking environment and dealing withpeople and everything as well.” (Non-student, former bursary pupil, #370)

On the other hand, this respondent found thatworking full-time had helped her decide to applyfor higher education the following year:

“Just by going by my [full-time] job, theonly job I could get in there just now is anoffice junior. Whereas if I had a degree inaccountancy or something, then I couldget a higher paid job.” (Non-student,remote area, #489)

As already stated, many of those currently not ineducation were actually deferring entry to highereducation. However, even those who currentlyhad no intention of returning did not rule it outaltogether for the future. This interviewee hadstayed on at school (deferred entry to the labourmarket) to obtain more Highers in case he wasunable to get a job.

45

“It’s like a safety net, in case I want to goto college or university and get a betterjob.” (Non-student, former bursary pupil,#188)

The reluctant student

Some interviewees at college or university hadalready attempted to find full-time work, beenunsuccessful, and reluctantly returned toeducation.

“I had an interview at [company name] –that’s an accountancy firm in Coaltoun.But with the exam results I had they teltme it would be a waste of time, ‘cause itwas like lower than what I wiz able taedae.” (HE student, paying no fees, #296)

“I opted to stay here [Lochbeg] and lookfor a job. After about four or five attemptsor like going for an interview and thatand, I would say, coming close, I wasunsuccessful in finding a job and thiscourse [HNC] came up.” (FE student,remote area, #318)

Interviewees in this situation tended to choose theminimal course possible to gain access to theirchosen (vocational) career.

“I think that [HND] is enough, I mean Ihave done a wee bit of research myself ofpeople who are doing graphics and stuffand people who are doing like the topgraphics and they seem to have just donethe small courses and then gone ontodoing the job straight away. That’sbecause they are good at it, so I reckon ifyou are good at it and you want to getspotted then....” (FE student, formerbursary pupil, #428)

“I could stay on for five [years of study] if Ido well, I could stay on for five if I tried,but och!, I’m not really wanting to dothat.... It would be a Masters, but it’s likea managers job, but I wouldn’t mind kindof practical hands-on, well I’m not reallywanting labouring work or anything, just ahands-on approach job.” (HE student,paying no fees, #477)

The student apprentice

Many interviewees saw their studentship as anapprenticeship. This was found at all levels, fromNC to advanced degree students, and reflects therange of vocational rather than academic subjectsshown in Table 2.

“I was interested in medicine but Idefinitely wanted to do a degree where Iknew it would be like ... it’s almost like anapprenticeship, because it removed anyworry. I was worried I would do anEnglish degree or something – I wasinterested in English – and then not get ajob at the end of it.” (HE student, payingpartial fees, #053)

This respondent found herself doing a vocationalsubject that led to a job rather than the subjectwhich she enjoyed and was most talented in:

“I would have loved to [have studiedmusic and drama] as soon as I wasn’t inschool, but it is all to do with confidenceand then I thought to myself what if I amnot good enough, what if I don’t make it,you know. And then I think ‘Okay, welllets think about this’, so I thought if I godo my medical secretary or whatever Iwas going to do, I thought, at least it issomething practical behind me, so that if Idid go to drama, then I’m not as good as Ithink I am, then I have got something tofall back on. I can at least go and, youknow, apply for a job to be a medicalsecretary and say like I have got thequalifications for this could you pleasegive me a job.” (FE student, formerbursary pupil, #271)

In a sense, choosing subjects on economicgrounds rather than ability can be considered ashidden educational disadvantage. In other words,some disadvantaged young people do not leaveeducation altogether, but do leave the subjectwhich they are most able or qualified in.

Leaving early

Another way in which this process was apparentwas when respondents did study their preferredsubject, but at a less advanced level. Forexample, one interviewee chose to study for anHND rather than an honours degree, partly


46


because of the extra cost involved in the longercourse:

“It was one of the reasons that I went tocollege as well because I could of went touniversity, but that was four years and Idid not know whether I could afford it.”(HE student, paying no fees, #225)

Against the advice of her parents and teachers,this respondent opted for an HNC at furthereducation college over a university degree:

FE student: “I could not afford to go to(deprived university.... You wouldSIP area, have to move up here and#220) it would be quite hard ...

because that would meanyou’d be going longer.”

Interviewer: “What would you say wasthe main reason that youchose here instead?”

FE student: “The length of the coursereally.”

Even those who planned on completing a degreecourse realised that the same barriers to continuedparticipation would still exist at the end of theirstudies.

“I would really like to do another degreein a science, but it is the money thingagain. I think I would need to get a joband do a degree part-time.” (HE student,paying no fees, #379)

In other words, participation in higher educationby disadvantaged young people may be reduced,not only by them rejecting or deferring entry, butalso by them choosing less academic subjects, oreven less advanced courses, as a result of theirdisadvantage.

Dropping out

The final way in which participation in highereducation can be reduced is by students droppingout. Although beyond the remit of this research,some respondents had already dropped out ofpost-school education by the time that theseinterviews were conducted. As time passes andmore barriers are encountered, it seems likely thatmany more may either reduce their level of

participation in higher education or, as with thisinterviewee, drop out completely:

“I did like being at university. I liked thepeople and that. I enjoyed the course. Ithought it was really good, but at the endof the day it just got back to money again.That was the thing that was going to stopme.” (Non-student, former bursary pupil,#057)

Summary

These face-to-face interviews confirmed thehypothesis that decisions made by disadvantagedyoung people concerning higher education arenot solely based on their qualifications. Choicesof courses, institutions, subjects and whether ornot to continue participation in full-time educationwere governed by a number of other factors.These included geographical, financial and socialbarriers, all of which interacted with pre-existingand newly developing educational barriers.

In the short space of time between the completionof the follow-up questionnaire and theseinterviews, many respondents had alreadychanged their status (see Appendix H). Somewho had left full-time education were eitherconsidering returning or had already done soduring the winter intake at FE colleges. Otherswho had enrolled in HE had either dropped orwere considering strategies aimed at minimisingtheir participation. As indicated in previouschapters, the greatest barriers were often subtleand faced by the highest achievers.

Note

1 In December 1999 the Cubie inquiry made alarge number of recommendations to the ScottishParliament, including the abolition of up-fronttuition fees. This recommendation is currentlybeing implemented; others (for example, benefitsfor students who cannot find vacationemployment and the reintroduction ofmaintenance grants) are not. Cubie alsorecommended that payment of tuition in arrearsshould begin at an income level of £25,000 gross.The Scottish government has currently reducedthis threshold to only £10,000. This ‘cherrypicking’ of Cubie’s recommendations is certain tohave influenced the accuracy of statements madeand opinions expressed by interviewees.

47

Post-compulsory education has increasinglybecome a feature of the transition between schooland work. Participation in higher education canno longer be considered the preserve of the eliteor ‘middle-class’. However, this is not to say thatdisadvantaged young people enjoy equal accessto higher education. It has become clear in recentyears that, despite the broadening of highereducation in general, the gap in representationbetween these social groups has remained strong.This research has attempted to uncover reasonswhy this should be the case. During the course ofthis study, a number of barriers to participation inhigher education have been identified. In thisfinal chapter we will examine these barriers andhighlight some their implications for policy.

At this stage it may necessary to redefine what ismeant by participation in higher education. Asthis research progressed, it became clear thatsimply enrolling in a higher education course, ornot, was a rather simplistic way of definingparticipation. A more accurate definition wouldbe that of level of participation. This includes notonly the presence or absence of enrolment in adegree or HND course, but also the nature of thiscourse (how advanced or prestigious). To simplymeasure numbers of students from disadvantagedbackgrounds entering higher education may infact mask some more subtle ‘hiddendisadvantage’, as these young people may beenrolling in courses which are not equitable withthose enrolled in by students from moreadvantaged backgrounds.

In this research, few disadvantaged young peoplehad successfully gained access to the courses atthe most ‘desirable’ institutions or in the mostadvanced subjects. Those who had done sotended to come from slightly ‘better off’ familieswithin the research sample. One of the most

striking findings of this study was that the so-called ‘school league tables’ of entrants to highereducation are in fact quite misleading whenassessing the numbers of young people fromdisadvantaged backgrounds who enter degree orHND courses. The schools which participated inthis research were all below the national averagefor university entrants and were located in areasof disadvantage. Nevertheless, even within theseschools, most degree course entrants were fromrelatively more advantaged backgrounds, from thesmall pockets of middle-class residents (mostlyclasses II and IIIN) within the catchment areas ofeach of these schools. Although these mayprovide only a single figure percentage of thelocal school roll, this often translates into amajority of the school-leavers from that schoolwho enter higher education. In other words,pupils from the most disadvantaged backgroundsare even less likely to enter higher education thanmight be suggested by the ‘official’ schoolstatistics. Likewise, ‘deprived’ postcodes maycontain hidden pockets of relative affluence (in asimilar way to the better known phenomenon that‘affluent’ postcodes contain pockets ofdisadvantage). Consequently, we see little meritin admission polices designed to assist studentsfrom certain schools or areas.

From these findings, it is clear that for the vastmajority of disadvantaged young people, thelabour market, rather than higher education, wastheir post-school destination. This is simplybecause such pupils tend to leave school beforethe final year (S6), and many of those who didstay on were more likely to be preparing for thelabour market (by sitting vocational modules) thanfor university. It must be stressed that the under-representation of disadvantaged young people inhigher education is a result of their lack ofqualifications obtained at school, meaning that

Conclusions and policyimplications

6

48


fewer apply, rather than because of any selectionbiases by institutions. There is clearly a need forpolicy to become more focused on improving theacademic performance of disadvantaged youngpeople during their school years, rather than onuniversity admissions procedure.

For those from all social backgrounds who didobtain suitable qualifications for entry to highereducation, the labour market was rarely chosen asa post-school destination. Indeed, those whowere qualified and were not in education in theyear after leaving school could better be describedas deferring (rather than rejecting) entry to highereducation. The reasons why some young peopledeferred entry to higher education highlight someof the barriers faced by all disadvantagedpotential students. These barriers are complex,and it would be over simplistic to say that anyone factor was responsible for shaping theirchoice of route into higher education. More often,a complicated equation needed to be solved inorder for the best option to be chosen. Thismight involve income, availability of full-timework, travel, accommodation, free study time,future prospects, preparedness to take on debt,parental attitudes and social influences. Deferringstudents had often taken a ‘year out’ in order tosave money or otherwise prepare for highereducation (rather than through choice). This‘choice’ could be influenced by a range of factors,including, for example, students from remoteareas needing to prepare for a housing transition.Deferring study for a year or more increases thelikelihood that a young person will not return tofull-time education and, if they do, it leaves thema ‘year behind’ compared with their peers (and istherefore likely to reduce participation).

Many of those interviewed did not valueparticipation in post-school education as an end initself, but as the only way to get a job. Some ofthese individuals had already attempted to get ajob, but had failed to do so. For these ‘reluctantstudents’, returning to full-time education wasseen as their only viable option. Such youngpeople tended to enrol in the least advancedcourse available. Perhaps more worrying was thatsome highly qualified young people, who didvalue higher education, would also enrol in lessadvanced courses. This was done so that theycould enter the labour market as soon as possiblein order to minimise debt. Clearly there is apotential for this process to continue throughouthigher education. Successful HND students fromdisadvantaged backgrounds may be more likely to

decide not to advance to degree level. Likewise,disadvantaged students may choose to leaveuniversity with an ordinary degree, rather thancontinue for an honours year, and few will wantto take on the extra costs involved in post-graduate study.

Participation in higher education was seen bymany to simply be the best way to access a ‘good’career. Many disadvantaged young people wereattracted to specific courses because these wereseen as having a job at the end (which couldallow them to quickly clear up any debtaccumulated during their studentship). Suchcourses were likened to apprenticeships, andwere usually in more vocational subjects and notnecessarily the subject the young person wasmost talented in.

For those who were determined to go as far aspossible in higher education, the strategies thatthey adopted for overcoming the barriers whichthey faced could often come into conflict with oneanother. An example of such conflict concernschoices of part-time work. A large majority of theyoung people in this research saw part-timeemployment as essential for them to be able toafford higher education. Even by midway throughtheir first year, many students interviewed werefinding that they had to balance the conflictingneeds of part-time work and (supposedly) full-time study. In such cases, disadvantaged studentsmay have to decide either to work less in order tofree up more study time (and risk losing theirjob), or to work more in order to purchase booksand course materials. If the student chooses towork less they may become more financiallydependent on student loans and other sources ofdebt. However, both the young person and theirparents were often unhappy about the prospect oftaking on debt (rather than part-time work duringterm time). This example illustrates theinterconnectedness of the barriers faced byprospective students, even before other lifestresses are taken into account.

Other strategies of minimising costs, and henceaccumulated debt, included choosing the nearestuniversity or college and staying at home withparents. This can also reduce the level ofparticipation in higher education: the nearestinstitution did not always offer the ‘best’ coursesfor the young person concerned; staying at homewith parents minimised accommodation costs, butoften maximised travel costs (time as well asmoney) and made the non-standard student feel

49

remote from university life. Some disadvantagedyoung people felt that they did not fit in atuniversity, for reasons ranging from geography tosocial class, and saw this as an obstacle to theircareer both in higher education and beyond.

Although there is little that can be done to changesuch feelings, other than policies which increasethe overall representation of non-standardstudents within the higher education population,there does appear to be a need to familiarisedisadvantaged young people with student life (forexample, practical finance arrangements). Thismay enable prospective students to pick thecourse, institution and subject which they are bestsuited for. If this is done early in the secondaryschool career (perhaps as early as S2) it may alsohelp encourage more young people fromdisadvantaged backgrounds to ‘stay on’ and gainmore qualifications.

A more obvious way of attracting moredisadvantaged young people to higher educationis to make it more financially appealing to boththem and their parents (who may have had littleor no contact with such institutions).Interestingly, the abolition of up-front tuition fees,although welcomed by many, was not seen tobenefit the most disadvantaged (who previouslyhad their fees paid by a student award agency).This group would clearly benefit more from thereintroduction of student grants similar to the non-repayable bursaries received by NC students. Asthings stand these courses (NC) may seempreferable to the more advanced HNC (in thesame subject, at the same institution and eventaught by the same person) because of thedifferent ways in which they are funded, againpushing disadvantaged young people into lessadvanced courses.

Another way of making participation in highereducation more attractive would be through theprovision of low-cost and better standard studentaccommodation. For less affluent students fromremote areas the necessary housing transition wasoften seen as the main deterrent to participationin higher education. For stay-at-home studentswith high commuting costs, cut-price studenttravel was seen as helpful and travelling expensesas highly desirable. Housing and travel assistancemay not only help the disadvantaged studentfinancially (less debt and part-time work), butwould also free up more time for study. Again,this illustrates the interconnectedness of the

various barriers faced by disadvantaged youngpeople enrolled in or aspiring to higher education.

This research has highlighted a gap in the level ofparticipation in higher education betweendisadvantaged young people and their moreadvantaged peers. This is primarily a function ofschool performance, which has knock on effectsthat influence representation throughout highereducation. Those disadvantaged young peoplewho do gain adequate qualifications for entry tothe most advanced courses, at the mostprestigious institutions, are then faced with arange of barriers which may adversely influencetheir level of participation in higher education.Reducing these financial, geographical and socialbarriers is vital if full participation in highereducation is to be broadened for under-represented groups. This necessarily means notonly increasing the numbers of less advantagedyoung people entering higher education, but alsoincreasing their level of participation withinhigher education. This research found that thegreatest barriers were being faced by the mostable (best qualified) disadvantaged young people.Clearly, this situation is far from the goal ofwidening access to higher education for under-represented groups.

Conclusions and policy implications

50


Biggart, A. and Furlong, A. (1996) ‘Educating‘discouraged workers’: cultural diversity in theupper secondary school’, British Journal ofSociology of Education, vol 17, no 3, pp 253-66.

Carstairs, V. and Morris, R. (1991) Deprivationand health in Scotland, Aberdeen: AberdeenUniversity Press.

Central Regional Council (1995) The new councils:A statistical summary, Stirling: Research andInformation Development and PlanningServices, Central Regional Council.

HM Inspectors of Schools (1997) Leaverdestinations from Scottish secondary schools1994/95 to 1996/97, Edinburgh: Scottish Office.

HM Inspectors of Schools (1997) Attendance andabsence in Scottish schools 1994/95 to 1996/97,Edinburgh: Scottish Office.

HM Inspectors of Schools (1998) Examinationresults in Scottish schools 1996-98, Edinburgh:Scottish Office.

Independent Committee of Inquiry into StudentFinance (1999) Student finance: Fairness for thefuture, Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament.

Lynch, K. and O’Riordan, C. (1998) ‘Inequality inhigher education: a study of class barriers’,British Journal of Sociology of Education, vol19, no 4, pp 445-79.

McLoone, P. (1994) Carstairs scores for Scottishpostcode sectors from the 1991 Census,Glasgow: Public Health Research Unit,University of Glasgow.

Rose, D., O’Reilly, K. and Martin, J. (1997) ‘TheESRC review of government socialclassifications’, Population Trends, no 89, pp49-59, London: Office for National Statistics.

Scottish Office (1997) Further education inScotland, Report by the secretary of state forScotland, London: The Stationary Office.

Tinklin, T. and Raffe, D. (1999) Entrants to highereducation, Edinburgh: Centre for EducationalPsychology, University of Edinburgh.

UCAS (University and Colleges AdmissionsService) (1999) Statistical bulletin, wideningparticipation, Cheltenham: UCAS.

Bibliography

51

Roll DEPCAT % 2+ % n S6 Follow-upSchool and study area (approx) (lowest) Highers enter HE sample n

Westside Secondary 1,000 6 (7) 5 13 18 11Parkside Secondary 750 6 (7) 7 11 20 13Riverside Secondary 1,300 6 (7) 14 16 31 25Northside RC Secondary 800 7 6 8 19 13Eastside RC Secondary 950 7 8 10 34 28Edgeside Community Secondary 850 7 4 9 21 13Southside Secondary 800 4 (6) 13 13 19 16

Glasgow City school sample 162 119

Muirburgh High 450 5 (6) 11 20 26 19Craigburgh High 950 5 (6) 10 15 43 34Glenburgh RC High 1,300 6 (6) 13 20 80 63

Lanarkshire large towns school sample 149 116

Coaltoun Academy 1,000 5 (6) 13 20 30 26Ashtoun Academy 950 5 (6) 6 20 57 48Pittoun Academy 400 5 (5) 10 17 13 9Sandtoun Academy 600 5 (6) 11 9 24 16

Ayrshire small towns school sample 124 99

Lochbeg Grammar 500 4 (4) 23 26 31 24Eileanbeg Grammar 1,000 4 (6) 24 27 50 37

Argyll remote school sample 81 61

Scotland average 787 4 16 29Total sample 516 395

Notes: The above figures for entry to higher education includes HNC students; RC indicates Roman Catholicschools (which are also state run in Scotland).

Appendix A: Original samplerecruitment

A

52


n %

Sample size 516 100.0Female 293 56.8Name/address provided 515 99.8Aged 17 years 474 91.8Glasgow (city) 162 31.4Ayr (small towns) 124 24.0Lanark (large towns) 149 28.9Argyll (remote schools) 81 15.7Single parent 156 30.6Only child 46 8.9Mother unemployed 39 7.7Father unemployed 43 8.6Mother works (full-time) 196 38.6Father works (full-time) 348 67.4Income from family 316 65.8Income from Bursary 149 29.6Income from work 263 51.8Other income 7 1.4Full use of a car 141 27.9Occasional car access 67 13.3Applied to higher education 337 66.3

Appendix B: Original sampledemographics

B

n %

Deprived DEPCAT 379 73.6DEPCAT 1 0 0DEPCAT 2 9 1.8DEPCAT 3 27 5.2DEPCAT 4 100 19.4DEPCAT 5 161 31.3DEPCAT 6 133 25.8DEPCAT 7 85 16.5No address given 1 -

Manual social class* 220 49.8Class I 15 2.9Class II 151 34.2Class IIIN 56 12.7Class IIIM 127 28.7Class IV 69 15.6Class V 24 5.4No parental occupation given 74 -

Lives in a SIP area 219 42.5

* The percentages in each social class exclude the 74 respondents who could not provide an occupation orprevious occupation for either of their parents. This group of individuals is likely to include many of the mostdisadvantaged young people surveyed.

Note: Not all percentages are based on n=516 due to a small amount of missing data for some questions.

53

n %

Sample size 395 100Female 236 59.7Glasgow (city) 119 30.1Lanarkshire (large towns) 116 29.4Ayrshire (small towns) 99 25.1Argyll (remote schools) 61 15.4Single parent 110 28.2Only child 29 7.3Mother unemployed 33 8.4Father unemployed 33 8.5Mother works (full-time) 150 38.2Father works (full-time) 272 70.3Income from family 248 67.8Income from bursary 109 28.4Income from work 204 52.6Other income 4 1.0Full use of a car 112 28.9Occasional car access 58 14.9Applied to higher education 272 69.9

Appendix C: Follow-up sampledemographics

C

Data collected during the follow-up

n %

Lives in parental home 295 75.1Lives in halls of residence 63 16.0Lives in student flat 8 2.0Lives in private rented flat 15 3.8Council tenant 5 1.3Owner-occupier 2 0.5Other 5 1.3Income from family 143 39.0Income from Bursary 72 18.8Income from loan 148 39.6Income from work 223 58.8Other income 25 6.6

n %

Deprived DEPCAT 288 72.9DEPCAT 1 0 0.0DEPCAT 2 8 2.0DEPCAT 3 22 5.6DEPCAT 4 77 19.5DEPCAT 5 127 32.2DEPCAT 6 99 25.1DEPCAT 7 62 15.7

Manual social class* 173 50.3Class I 12 3.5Class II 114 33.1Class IIIN 45 13.1Class IIIM 98 28.5Class IV 54 15.7Class V 21 6.1No occupation given 51 -

Lives in a SIP area 167 42.3

* Social class percentages exclude the 51 respondents who could not provide a parental occupation.

Note: Not all percentages are based on n=516 due to a small amount of missing data for some questions.

Original sample data of those who participated in the follow-up

54


School Degree students HND students Any FE course Not in education

Westside Secondary 4 0 5 2Parkside Secondary 5 1 3 4Riverside Secondary 18 5 1 2Northside RC Secondary 7 2 0 4Eastside RC Secondary 8 4 6 2Edgeside Community Secondary 2 1 7 3Southside Secondary 3 3 6 4

Glasgow schools 47 16 28 29

Muirburgh High 6 2 2 9Craigburgh High 12 6 4 12Glenburgh RC High 33 7 12 11

Lanarkshire schools 51 15 18 32

Coaltoun Academy 12 2 7 5Ashtoun Academy 14 2 16 16Pittoun Academy 1 1 3 4Sandtoun Academy 6 3 6 1

Ayrshire schools 33 8 32 26

Lochbeg Grammar 14 4 5 1Eileanbeg Grammar 25 4 2 6

Argyll schools 39 8 7 7

Total 170 47 85 94

Notes: Totals are not mutually exclusive (for example, one respondent was enrolled in a degree course but haddropped out and taken on a full-time job); therefore totals do not always equal those in the follow-up totalsgiven in Appendix A.

Appendix D: Follow-up sampledestinations

D

55

Subject HE FE

Accounts 7 1Agriculture 2 0Archaeology 1 0Architecture 3 1Art 5 17Astronomy 0 0Beauty 1 1Biology 11 2Building 4 0Business 28 6Care 0 15Chemistry 9 0Classics 0 0Combined Studies 16 5Computing 8 7Cookery 0 0Dentistry 0 0Divinity 0 0Drama 1 5Economics 0 0Education 10 0Engineering 26 6English 4 0

Appendix E: Destinations of(S6) school-leavers, numbersenrolled in each subject

E

Subject HE FE

Geography 2 0History 4 0Journalism 6 0Languages 1 0Law 9 0Marine/nautical 0 0Maths 11 0Medicine 6 0Music 0 1Nursing 12 1Optical 2 0Philosophy 0 0Physics 4 1Politics 1 0Psychology 4 0Secretarial 0 3Sociology 1 0Sport 8 3Statistics 0 0Technical 0 0Tourism/travel 7 5Veterinary 0 0Vet nursing 1 0

Note: All subjects above were applied for by at least one respondent in the original sample.

56


Institution Enrol Apply

Scottish ivy league universities

Glasgow University 38 127Edinburgh University 3 44Aberdeen University 3 27St Andrews University 1 11

Scottish red brick universities

Strathclyde University 49 124Heriot Watt University 4 27Dundee University 3 34Stirling University 13 38

Scottish new universities

Caledonian University 39 113Napier University 5 27Robert Gordon University 3 14Abertay University 1 10Paisley University 11 77

‘Oxbridge’ university 0 3UK ivy league university 0 2UK red brick university 0 11UK new university 4 10

Overseas university 0 1

Institution Enrol Apply

Higher education institutions

Glasgow Art 0 5Royal Music/Drama 0 2Edinburgh Art 0 2Scottish Agricultural 1 4Queen Margaret 4 5Northern 7 8

UK HE 1 2

Further education colleges

Anniesland 15 13Building and Printing 7 8Cardonald 15 13Central Commerce 11 8Food Technology 5 7Glasgow Nautical 7 1Langside 6 3North Glasgow 4 4Stow 3 1Cambuslang 0 1Coatbridge 6 2Motherwell 5 1Bell 11 35Ayr 22 2Kilmarnock 6 4Dumfries 0 0Borders 0 0Clydebank 2 2James Watt 5 6Reid Kerr 1 1Falkirk 0 1Telford 0 1Oatridge 1 1UK FE 1 1

Appendix F: Destinations of(S6) school-leavers, numbersenrolled at each institution

F

Note: All institutions above were applied to by at least one respondent in the original sample.

57

G

Higher education Further education

Degree HND HNC NC Not in education

Courses 18 5 4 6 11

Total 23 10 11

Selection rationale

Order selected: (1) 11 highest achieving non-students, matched to(2) 10 highest achieving FE students,(3) five highest achieving HND students and(4) 18 similarly achieving degree students.

Eligibility for face-to-face interview

Eligible if: (1) In HE or FEand

pays no tuition feesor pays partial fees (less than 50% [£500])

(2) Not in HE or FEand

was a bursary pupil (in S6)or lives in remote area (Argyll)or lives in deprived SIP area (if not remote area).

Excluded if: Pays full fees (if in higher education)or is social class Ior lived in DEPCAT 2 area (in S6).

Appendix G: Selection offace-to-face interviewees

58


School or college Highers Social Course or occupation Institution at TransitionsID Gender Age and study area points class at time of follow-up time of follow-up since follow-up

5 F 18 Muirburgh, Lanark 10 IIIM Full-time work Not in education15 F 18 Muirburgh, Lanark 19 II Degree, Maths Strathclyde University18 F 18 Muirburgh, Lanark 16 IIIN Degree, Social Studies Paisley University38 F 18 Edgeside, Glasgow 22 X NC, Art Cardonald FE53 F 18 Riverside, Glasgow 34 II Degree, Medicine Glasgow University57 F 18 Riverside, Glasgow 10 IIIM Full-time work Not in education Degree drop out85 M 18 Northside, Glasgow 12 X Degree, Business Caledonian University120 F 18 Eastside, Glasgow 16 IIIN Degree, English Glasgow University136 M 18 Southside, Glasgow 10 X HND, Business Cardonald FE Unemployed161 M 18 Craigburgh, Lanark 14 IIIN NC, Art Cardonald FE188 M 18 Craigburgh, Lanark 14 X Casual work Not in education203 F 18 Ashtoun, Ayr 12 IV Degree, Science Strathclyde University220 F 18 Ashtoun, Ayr 14 IV HNC, Accounts Central FE On to HND level225 F 18 Ashtoun, Ayr 20 X HND, Sports Nautical FE230 F 18 Ashtoun, Ayr 12 II Unemployed Not in education HND, Nursing248 F 18 Ashtoun, Ayr 21 V HND, Art Building FE249 F 18 Ashtoun, Ayr 42 II Gap scholar Not in education Unconditional HE255 F 18 Pittoun, Ayr 11 IV HND, Nursing Caledonian University262 F 18 Pittoun, Ayr 10 IV HNC, Hospitality Ayr FE271 F 18 Sandtoun, Ayr 8 IIIN NC, Computing James Watt FE NC, secretarial288 F 20 Coaltoun, Ayr 5 V Unemployed Not in education Training scheme289 F 18 Coaltoun, Ayr 5 IIIM Part-time work Not in education NC, Social Care296 F 18 Coaltoun, Ayr 17 II HND, Business Ayr, FE303 F 18 Coaltoun, Ayr 15 X Degree, Chemistry Paisley University318 M 18 Lochbeg, Argyll 26 II HNC, Computing James Watt FE347 F 18 Lochbeg, Argyll 28 II Full-time work Not in education Unconditional HE348 F 18 Glenburgh, Lanark 21 IV Degree, Chemistry Glasgow University356 M 18 Glenburgh, Lanark 8 IIIM Degree, Engineering Caledonian University362 F 18 Glenburgh, Lanark 18 V Degree, Art Studies Strathclyde University370 F 18 Glenburgh, Lanark 7 II Training scheme Not in education Full-time work379 M 18 Glenburgh, Lanark 18 II Degree, Sports Strathclyde University385 M 18 Glenburgh, Lanark 21 IIIM Degree, Sports Glasgow University387 F 18 Glenburgh, Lanark 30 V NC, Art Motherwell FE414 F 18 Glenburgh, Lanark 6 IIIM HNC, Social Care Coatbridge FE427 F 18 Glenburgh, Lanark 30 II Degree, Maths Glasgow University428 M 18 Westside, Glasgow 6 X NC, Art Anniesland FE437 F 18 Westside, Glasgow 9 IIIM NC, Art Central FE451 F 18 Eileanbeg, Argyll 18 IV Full-time work Not in education Unconditional HE477 M 18 Eileanbeg, Argyll 22 II Degree, Engineering Strathclyde University484 M 18 Eileanbeg, Argyll 10 IIIN Degree, Education Stirling University489 F 18 Eileanbeg, Argyll 14 IIIM Full-time work not in education Unconditional HE501 M 18 Riverside, Glasgow 38 IIIM Degree, Chemistry Strathclyde University503 F 18 Riverside, Glasgow 18 IV Degree, Archaeology Glasgow University504 M 17 Riverside, Glasgow 18 V Degree, Maths Stirling University

Notes: X = No social class as no parental occupation provided.

Appendix H: Profile offace-to-face interviewees

H

Socioeconomic disadvantage and access to higher education

Documents

Transcript of Socioeconomic disadvantage and access to higher education