Disadvantaged students miss out on top universities – despite getting the grades

• New rankings from the Social Mobility Commission show nearly one third of English universities are underrepresenting students of a lower socio-economic background – even when they meet the entry requirements.
• Universities in the capital dominate high rankings for being the most accessible to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds – with Middlesex, Brunel and Roehampton in top spots.
• Whereas Oxbridge, Exeter, Durham and Oxford Brookes sit at the bottom of the tables, taking in fewer qualified students from lower socio-economic backgrounds than expected.

Nearly a third of universities (29%) are under-enrolling disadvantaged students, even when they have met the academic entry requirements.

The Social Mobility Commission has today, 10th August, published an interactive tool and research report ranking how well each university in England is supporting social mobility in their student intake.

The analysis proves while the majority of universities (71%) have a student intake more disadvantaged than the population achieving their entry requirements – nearly a third (29%) are taking in more advantaged students. This minority third of universities is dominated by Russell Group universities.

The rankings’ compare the socio-economic background of each university’s student intake with the students who met the universities’ entry requirements. This approach shows widening access does not require lowering academic standards and focuses on identifying barriers to enrolment.

The Commission is calling on universities to utilise this tool to review how their current academic requirements, recruitment and outreach policies may be directly, or indirectly, discouraging less advantaged pupils from applying or enrolling – the entire higher education sector has a role to play.

Alun Francis, Chair of the Social Mobility Commission said:

“This research focuses on a simple question: from the pool of students who meet their entry requirements, do universities recruit equally across all socio-economic backgrounds?  The evidence suggests that many do, but not all.  

“Where disparities exist, there may be good explanations, but we would encourage all universities to examine every stage of the student journey, from outreach and applications through to admissions and affordability, and any other relevant factors, to ensure talented students are not missing out because of their background.” 

Takeaways and trends

• The Social Mobility Coefficient scores each university, a positive number means they recruit a more disadvantaged cohort compared to the population of qualified students (top being University of Bradford at 189), a negative number means they recruit more advantaged (bottom being University of Birmingham at -103).
• London dominates top spots in rankings – with six of the top ten universities being based in London, this proves place plays a crucial role in access as the capital’s success is partly due to a higher concentration of higher-attaining disadvantaged students living in London who then have the option to live at home and reduce financial barriers; their lower entry requirements also play a role.
• More than half (13/20) of Russell Group Universities have negative scores – Exeter has the lowest score (-79) of the Russell Group, whereas the best in the Group is Queen Mary London (178) and scores much higher than the second ranking Russell Group, London School of Economics, scoring 43.
• Lower tariff universities have better access scores than higher tariff – Less academically selective universities such as Middlesex University and University of East London are higher ranked whereas those with higher entry requirements, such as University of Oxford and University of Exeter rank lower.
• Oxford Brookes outlier – it lies at the bottom of the non-location adjusted rankings with a -132 social mobility coefficient, yet has much lower academic entry requirements than other low scorers and has similar requirements to some of the London universities in the top 5. This could suggest the University is attracting a similar cohort to the University of Oxford due to its geographical proximity.
• Universities overall still attract a more elite cohort – when not accounting for who achieves the entry requirements, 60% of universities enrol a disproportionately high number of students from more advantaged backgrounds, this shows even before recruitment barriers, the gap in opportunity begins much earlier, in the home, classroom or inadequate financial support.

Paul Martin, Senior Research Fellow, at the UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities, and a member of the research team UCL, said: 

“It’s encouraging to see that a sizeable minority of universities are now recruiting cohorts of students which are more disadvantaged, on average, than the population of all young people in England. These universities appear to have cracked the fair access problem. Of course, they must not rest on their laurels and will need to ensure that those disadvantaged students they recruit are well-supported to succeed.

“However, the majority of English universities still cater to a disproportionately advantaged group of young people. At around half of these universities, access gaps cannot simply be explained by a shortage of disadvantaged students who meet the entry requirements. These universities should investigate whether well-qualified disadvantaged students are simply not applying, or whether they are not making it through the door despite making an application”

Professor Shân Wareing, Vice-Chancellor of Middlesex University that ranked top said:

“We are delighted that the Social Mobility Commission has recognised Middlesex University as the leading university in England for recruiting students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Creating opportunity through education is at the heart of everything we do. This recognition reflects years of working alongside schools, colleges and communities across North London to ensure that talent and ambition, not background or circumstance, determine who can benefit from higher education.

“Our responsibility to widening access  does not end when students arrive on campus or even when they graduate. We are committed to helping every student thrive and build a successful career. As one of London’s leading providers of nurses, midwives, teachers and social workers, we are not only transforming individual lives but strengthening the communities our students go on to serve. We prepare our students to lead and shape their professions and society. This is what social mobility looks like in practice.”

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

All data refers to England only.

The full recommendations and report ‘Who gets in? University benchmarks for better social mobility’ can be read here.

Full rankings are available here.

Regional breakdowns available for press – contact Celia.forbes@socialmobilitycommission.gov.uk.

Further information on the data

How to read the data?

• A positive coefficient means that the university is successfully recruiting a cohort more disadvantaged than the pool of available qualified students.
• A negative coefficient means the university is recruiting a cohort more advantaged than the available qualified pool, suggesting room for improvement without lowering standards.
• For example, at the University of Exeter, 1 in 4 (25%) students who are meeting the university’s entry requirements are from the less advantaged half of the population however, only 16% of the university’s actual intake are from this half. On the other hand, the majority of its intake (84%) are from the most advantaged half of the population. This disparity results in a negative social mobility score of -79, confirming that a substantial number of qualified disadvantaged young people exist but they are either not applying to this university or being filtered out during the admissions process.
• The location-adjusted coefficient applies a location weighting based on the socio-economic profile of prospective students who meet the entry requirements and also live close to the university. However, caution is needed when looking at location-adjusted scores for institutions that are expected to recruit nationally.  

Why are some English Universities not in the list?

• To meet data privacy agreements, we excluded 33/127 universities with fewer than 25 students in at least one of our socioeconomic groups (deciles). These exclusions only affected 8.7% of all student enrolments in our study. The final dataset still covers 94 universities and over 182,000 students, ensuring that our findings remain highly representative of the overall student population.

What years is the data from?

• The analysis focuses on students who took their GCSE exams in the 2015 to 2016 academic year, tracking their progression and enrolment at university by age 19 in the 2019 to 2020 academic year,
• Data was drawn from the National Pupil Database (NPD), which is linked with the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) student record.
• While there is more up-to-date data available, grading systems for these cohorts had been disrupted by the pandemic. Earlier cohorts were therefore chosen to represent a baseline.
• The analysis assessed entry requirements based on A level and Level 3 BTEC qualifications. Mature students/part-time study was not included.