Press Story

UK universities should follow the best practice of the US Ivy League in recruiting students from disadvantaged backgrounds, according to the final report of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, published by the think tank IPPR next week (Mon 10 June). The report will argue that universities should receive a 'student premium' just like the 'pupil premium' in schools to encourage them to change their intake. Around 230,000 students at universities would initially qualify but eventually the number of students would double.

Under the plan, universities would get £1000 extra per student from a low participation area or who has received free school meals to reflect the additional cost of recruiting and supporting students from poorer neighbourhoods. They would be expected to use these funds to provide outreach programmes in schools or additional learning support for students once they arrive at university. The student premium could be funded at no additional cost by reallocating £460m of existing widening participation funding that the report argues is currently being ineffectively spent.

The report also argues for the more widespread use of contextual admissions data so that lower offers can be made to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. It will say that 10 per cent of the lowest grades should be exempt from entry tariff calculations in university league tables as long as universities commit to using them for contextual offers.

In the UK, universities like Bristol, Exeter and Leeds already use contextual admissions. In the US, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT and Brown all craft their intake to ensure diversity by actively taking applicants backgrounds into account during their admissions processes.

Last week the head of the Office for Fair Access, Dr Les Ebdon, reported that "the most selective institutions have made little or no headline progress in increasing access in recent years." He urged UK universities to do more to tackle the "unacceptably large participation gap between advantaged and disadvantaged people that remains at our most selective universities."

Nigel Thrift, Chair of IPPR's Commission on the Future of Higher Education and Vice Chancellor of Warwick University, said:

"Universities have a responsibility to expand opportunity by opening up higher education to those who have traditionally been excluded. We also believe that universities should ensure that those who will become the leaders of the future are educated in institutions that bring together a diversity of talents and perspectives.

"Universities in Britain should follow the best practice of the US Ivy League in recruiting students to craft diverse and representative intakes. This is to ensure that students are educated not merely for individual advancement but also to be effective and responsible leaders with an understanding of an increasingly diverse society and interconnected world."

Notes to Editors:

The final report of IPPR's Commission on the Future of Higher Education will be published on Monday 10 June and will be available from: http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/10847/a?critical-path?securing?the?future?of?higher?education?in?england

The members of IPPR's Commission on the Future of Higher Education are:

Chair: Professor Nigel Thrift, Vice Chancellor and President, Warwick University
o Professor Janet Beer, Vice Chancellor, Oxford Brookes University
o Professor Sir Steve Smith, Vice Chancellor, University of Exeter
o Professor Sir Rick Trainor, Principal, King's College London
o Thom Arnold, President, Sheffield Students' Union, 2011-2012
o Dame Jackie Fisher, Principal and Chief Executive, Newcastle College Group
o Dr Sandra McNally, Director of the education programme at the Centre for
o Economic Performance, London School of Economics
o Hugh Morgan Williams, Chairman, Canford Group plc and North East Access
to Finance Ltd
o Professor John Sexton, President, New York University

The report argues that the National Scholarship Programme, which is largely spent on fee waivers and bursaries, should be abolished and the funding shifted into outreach programmes, which have a stronger track record of recruiting applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The report argues that institutions that currently have freedom to recruit unlimited numbers of students achieving ABB grades should also be able to do the same for those who qualify for the student premium.

In 2014/15, the government is expected to be spending £468m on widening participation. The report argues that this money could be used more effectively to fund a single student premium, for an additional £1,000 for every student that either come from a low participation neighbourhood or received free school meals while at secondary school.

'Low participation neighbourhood' is an existing measure of deprivation that is commonly used in higher education. It is based on ward level data about participation rates in higher education and is correlated with poverty. It has been designed to capture all students - including mature students or those studying part-time. There are currently around 210,000 students enrolled in English HEIs that fit into this category. The major benefit of this measure is that data about these students is readily available; it applies to all England domiciled students including those studying part-time; and it will maintain some level of consistency with the current HEFCE widening participation allocation. The disadvantage is that as an area-based measure, it excludes students who grow up in poverty despite living in more affluent neighborhoods. For this reason it is necessary to include a second eligibility criteria for the student premium.

Free school meals at age 15/16 is a common measure of educational disadvantage in the school system, and forms the basis for allocating the pupil premium. There is a long established link between students who are eligible for free school meals, low academic achievement and low participation in higher education - and there are notoriously few students studying at selective institutions who were in receipt of free school meals while at school. There are estimated to be around 40,000 young students enrolled at English HEIs that fit into this category, and it is reasonable to assume that about 20,000 of these would not be captured by the measure of 'low participation neighbourhood' used above. The advantage of this measure is that it is consistent with the pupil premium allocated in schools - meaning additional funding is attached to individuals from poorer homes throughout their education; it identifies a small pool of 'very hard to reach' students who are being failed by the current system; and there is a wealth of data available on these students. It should encourage selective universities to target support at high potential pupils on free school meals while they are at secondary school.

Contacts:

Richard Darlington, 07525 481 602, r.darlington@ippr.org

Tim Finch, 07595 920 899, t.finch@ippr.org