Changing transitions to a differentiated higher education system: Linda Croxford and David Raffe CES, University of Edinburgh

Context 1: Higher Education in the “United Kingdom” (UK)  Expansion in number of places, from “elite” system to “mass” system (33% in 1996) -> aim of 50% by 2010  Widening participation: aim to increase participation in HE by disadvantaged groups – including low social class, ethnic minority & older students.  Differentiation – effects of marketisation? Or continuing hierarchies?

Context 2. Debates on the effects of expansion Reduced inequality through increasing opportunities for HE entry? (eg Shavit, Arum, & Gamoran 2007) ‘Effectively maintained inequality’ (Lucas 2001) Increasing institutional differentiation – focus on ‘who goes where?’ (eg Reay, David & Ball 2006) Institutional diversification? (Huisman, Meek & Wood (2007)

Questions As HE expanded, have working class/ethnic minorities increased their representation? Are they concentrated in particular institutions, and is this changing? Have traditional institutional hierarchies weakened? Are other dimensions of institutional diversity shown by the characteristics of entrants?

Data from Universities & Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) UCAS handles all applications to HE institutions in the UK for FT undergraduate courses 6 cohorts -1996, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008,2010 This paper is limited to UK domiciled students applying to or entering HEIs Information on ethnic minorities is limited to standard categories Prior qualifications & social class are limited to under-21 age group

Expansion: Percentage increase in numbers of entrants All entrants 59  UK-domiciled 53  EU-domiciled 83  Overseas 161 UK domiciled:  White 46  Asian 71  Black 217  Mixed/other 397 Total entrants

Are minorities concentrated in particular institutions? Measured by Index of Dissimilarity (Segregation) Index of Dissimilarity (D) shows whether a minority group is evenly (or unevenly) spread across institutions D is high if minority students are clustered in particular institutions, and low if they are evenly distributed across institutions. D=0.5*∑(|Ai/A-Bi/B|) Where: Ai is the number of minority-group entrants in institution i Bi is the number of majority-group entrants in institution i A is the total number of minority-group entrants in all institutions B is the total number of majority-group entrants in all institutions

Traditional institutional hierarchies England –Russell Group (Research focused) –Other pre-1992 –Post-1992 Scotland –Ancient (pre-1600) –Old (pre-1992) –New (post-1992) Both are (partly) historically based – because resistant to change? Have these hierarchies weakened (perhaps superceded by other hierarchies) since the 1990s?

What are the main dimensions of institutional diversity? Principal components analysis based on characteristics of entrants per institution and subject -suggests five main components: 1.Social status & prior qualifications (22%) 2.Black & ethnic minorities (17%) 3.Asian minorities/ not disabled (8%) 4.Male, non-UK domiciled, Chinese (8%) 5.New EU countries (6%)

Distribution of component scores ComponentAssociated Variables 1. Social status & prior qualificationsTraditional institutional hierarchy + Medicine & Veterinary Medicine 2. Black & ethnic minoritiesHigh in London, low elsewhere 3. Asian/not disabledHigh in Subjects Allied to Medicine 4. Male/non-UK domiciled/ChineseHigh in Sciences Low in Subjects Allied to Medicine 5. New EU countriesHigh in Northern Ireland and Scotland Components 1-4 broadly similar over time – only 5 increased over time

Questions – and Answers As HE expanded, have working class/ethnic minorities increased their representation? – Social class – no, ethnic minorities -yes Are they concentrated in particular institutions, and is this changing? – Social class –no, ethnic minorities yes but reducing Have traditional institutional hierarchies weakened? - No Are other dimenisons of institutional diversity shown by the characteristics of entrants? – Yes, differentiation by social class, ethnicity, gender and domicile

SOME ISSUES FOR DEBATE 1. Why are institutional hierarchies so stable? 2. Are they challenged by markets? 3. Should socially-stratified institutions be welcomed as means of ‘inclusion’ or resisted as means of ‘diversion’? 4. Are processes of differentiation by class and ethnicity comparable?

Published Croxford, L. and Raffe, D. (2011) Applicants and entrants through UCAS to the UK’s differentiated full-time HE system Working Paper 1. Croxford, L. and Raffe, D. (2011) The social, demographic and educational characteristics of applicants and entrants to full-time HE in the UK Working Paper 2. In press Croxford, L. and Raffe, D. Differentiation and social segregation of UK higher education, Oxford Review of Education. Raffe, D. Was devolution the beginning of the end of the UK higher education system? Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education. In draft Raffe, D. and Croxford, L. One system or four? Cross-border applications and entries to full- time undergraduate courses in the UK since devolution. Raffe, D. and Croxford, L. How stable is the stratification of Higher Education in England and Scotland? Croxford, L. and Raffe, D. Social class, ethnicity and access to higher education in the four countries of the UK: Croxford, L. and Raffe, D. Dimensions of the UK HE System Current papers from this research

References Huisman, J., Meek, L. and Wood, F. (2007) Institutional diversity in higher education: a cross-national and longitudinal analysis, Higher Education Quarterly, 61 (4) Lucas, S. (2001) Effectively maintained inequality: educational transitions, track mobility and social background effects, American Journal of Sociology, 106, pp Reay, D., David, M.E. and Ball, S. (2005) Degrees of Choice: social class, race and gender in higher education (Stoke on Trent, Trentham Books). Shavit, Y., Arum, R. and Gamoran, A. (2007) Stratification in Higher Education: A Comparative Study (Stanford: Stanford University Press).