Laura Clark, Education Correspondent for the Daily Mail
Pupils from poor homes do worse at university than richer youngsters with the same A-level grades despite attempts to boost their numbers, research has found.
The study – published today by the Institute for Fiscal Studies – tracked students in England who began studying at a British university from 2004/5 to 2011/10.
Among those who began with similar grades and took the same course, those from the poorest backgrounds were 3.4 percentage points more likely to drop out of their studies within two years of starting them than those from the richest homes.
And they were 5.3 points less likely to complete their degree within five years and 3.7 points less likely to achieve a first or 2:1.
The think-tank’s study may suggest that universities which discriminate in favour of poorer applicants could be unfairly penalising bright middle-class youngsters. But the research also found that pupils from the best-performing comprehensives were two percentage points more likely to drop out and 5.2 points less likely to graduate with a good degree than youngsters from weak schools with the same A-level grades.
The findings may lead to greater use of schemes that involve universities making lower offers to pupils from poor-performing schools or giving them priority in admissions.
It could mean that applicants from private schools, grammars and high-performing comprehensives could find it harder to get into elite universities unwilling to expand their overall numbers.
A range of targets are currently used by universities to meet Government demands to widen the social mix of undergraduates, including boosting recruitment from deprived postcodes, state schools and the lowest social classes.
The new research – published today by the Institute for Fiscal Studies – tracked students in England who began studying at a UK university between 2004/5 and 2011/10.
Researchers found that in general, students from the most disadvantaged homes were 8.4 percentage points more likely to drop out of university within two years of starting their course, compared to those from the most advantaged backgrounds.
They were also 13.3 percentage points less likely to complete their degree within five years, and 22.9 points less likely to graduate with a first or 2.1.
There were still ‘significant’ differences even when a student’s own grades are taken into account, the study found.
Among students who began university with similar grades and took the same degree course, those from the poorest backgrounds were still 3.4 percentage points more likely to drop out of their studies than those from the richest homes.
And they were still 5.3 points less likely to complete their degree and 3.7 points less likely to achieve a first or 2.1.
The researchers said the finding that youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds do less well on average than wealthier peers – even when they have similar prior achievement – suggested that poor students may need extra support at university to enable them to succeed.
The study also questioned the increasing use of ‘contextual’ data in university admissions which solely considers a candidate’s social background.
‘While, on average, students from less good schools go on to outperform students with similar grades from better schools, the same is not true of students from poorer backgrounds with the same grades as those from richer backgrounds,’ the report said.
‘Universities interested in using contextual data to inform their admissions policies may therefore wish to focus on school characteristics rather than individual or neighbourhood measures of disadvantage to identify students who, on average, are likely to go on to perform well.’
The study found that pupils from the best-performing comprehensives were actually two percentage points more likely to drop out and 5.2 points less likely to graduate with a good degree than youngsters from weak schools with the same A-level grades.
This may mean that students from poorly-performing state schools have higher ‘potential’ than those who went to top schools.
The report suggests that ‘university entry requirements could be lowered for pupils from poorly-performing state schools in order to equalise the potential of all students being admitted to university, on average’.
The paper added: ‘The same does not appear to hold, on average, for individuals from different socio-economic backgrounds, however: those from lower socio-economic backgrounds remain, on average, more likely to drop-out, less likely to complete their degree and less likely to graduate with a first or 2:1 than those from higher socio-economic backgrounds, even once we compare individuals with the same human capital on entry to university.
‘That is not to say that universities should not be using information on individuals’ own socio-economic background to inform their admissions processes; simply that it is more challenging to identify those from lower socio-economic backgrounds with strong potential to succeed.’
Critics claim that lowering entry grades for certain groups risks crude ‘social engineering’ and detracts from attempts to boost academic standards in state schools.
But universities in the elite Russell Group have been set a target by the Government’s social mobility tsar Alan Milburn to be admitting 3,000 more students from state schools by 2020 and 1,400 from working-class backgrounds.
Ministers announced last year than universities would be freed from strict student number controls from 2015/16, which will give academics more freedom to expand courses rather than choose between closely-matched candidates.
But some are concerned that many universities or courses will be unable or unwilling to expand quickly, resulting in unfairness to some well-qualified applicants.
Explaining her findings, study author Claire Crawford said: ‘Our research highlights that there are large differences in university outcomes by socio-economic background, a substantial proportion of which can be explained by differences in attainment earlier in the education system.
‘While improving the attainment of students from disadvantaged backgrounds at school is likely to aid their performance at university as well, we find non-negligible differences in university outcomes between students from different socio-economic backgrounds at the same university, studying the same subject, who arrived with the same grades.
‘This suggests that universities may wish to focus on improving the progression and performance of students from disadvantaged backgrounds as well as widening access.’