Differences in degree outcomes

[senua]

Recently released research from the HEFCE backs up what those-in-the-know have tended to say on MN.

"State school students tend to do better in their degree studies than students from independent schools with the same prior educational attainment."

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Who is talking only about those who 'buy privilege'?

[JaneinReading]

It's not fair just to talk about those who buy privilege though. There are state school parents who read to their children (most I hope) and talk to them and help them. That is conferring privilege. Should that be discriminated against too?

My children's school has a lot of very very hard working not very well off parents amongst the parent body - you might get 5 adults in a local Asian family putting every last penny into the education of one child. It's a bit unfair to allow those children to be discriminated against in favour of some rich posh other family where one parent doesn't work and uses spare money to spend on her new car every year even though she could be paying school fees.

So we need quite a complex test to be fair - the child has to come from a poor post code area plus neither parent been to university plus his or her A levels are much better than is usual for the school they are at and then a bit of bias is fair enough. It's always been hard. In the days of the 11+ where girls always did a lot better than boys they simply did a 50/50 split of boys and girls, utterly unfair on the girls who were doing better in the exams than the boys. Now that girls exceed boys in A levels (and degrees) too we don't make allowances for boys at 18 so 60% of graduates are female. mind you only 20% of the get positions of power so girls are not exactly doing at all well.

[phonebox]

AFAIK the main tenet of positive discrimination (please correct me someone if I am wrong), is giving pupils from state schools lower grade offers to balance out the fact they are less likely to have had as much tutoring/cultural experiences/small class sizes/a supportive home life etc.

That's a broad generalisation, but if I think that from my quick scans of the media articles then I'm sure a lot of others would hold that view too. If the system is much more intricate and effective than this, then HEFCE/The Sutton Trust need to publicise it more - as currently positive discrimination seems to have gaping holes.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I don't believe that would work. I mean, Oxbridge has had interviews for donkey's years(and I don't mean any criticism of admissions tutors, I just think it is impossible to correct all previous disadvantage in one interview). It hasn't resulted in perfect equality.

What is positive discrimination in its current form? Excuse the ignorant question.

[phonebox]

I broadly agree UptheChimney, but positive discrimination in its current form unfairly discriminates against poor pupils from independent/grammar school pupils (I was one on a scholarship, for example).

There are those who argue "oh well there aren't many poor pupils who have access to such privilege" but that view just highlights generalisations and unfair discriminations.

Access to HE should be given on an individual basis...the only way round that is individual interviews/unbiased and objective references I guess, but who has time for that?

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Yes. What you said!

[UptheChimney]

I was content with the old system - bit of discretion to entrance tutors which operated for decades. The current attempt at more social engineering goes too far and can be just as unfair as what it is seeking to over turn

Discretion really isn't good enough now. Decades of research shows that A grades (and educational attainment generally) maps onto socio-economic advantage in a frankly disgraceful way. Individual tutors cannot be responsible for adjusting that (we have around 500 applications each year for example & a lot of larger departments have many more).

And long-term research in all sorts of areas also shows that, even with the best will in the world, individuals will tend to appoint/recruit those who look like them (read "look" as a broad metaphoric term). So privilege replicates itself.

I think it's only right to require that those who have bought privilege have to answer to higher standards.

[phonebox]

It certainly would raise some uncomfortable issues.

Standardisation of degree classification awards would be difficult to implement as well. Everyone knows that some degrees from some universities are less respected than others. And what proportion of state school pupils go on to do the more "devalued" degrees compared to private school pupils would be an interesting study to do.

This is going off on a bit of a tangent, but I'm sure that the elite Universities would be keen to hold on to the prestigious nature of their degrees and not have their students marked on the same level playing field as those universities at the bottom of the league table (if we exclude research prestige from the equation).

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Might that have made people reluctant to participate? It seems such a sensible thing to do, I'm wondering why they didn't.

[phonebox]

"The second difficulty is that it cannot be assumed that our measure of
higher education (HE) achievement (in most cases, proportion achieving a first or upper second) is standardised across higher education institutions (HEIs), and students from independent schools tend to beover-
represented in certain HEIs."

That admission from HEFCE is interesting.

I've thought for a long time that degree classification awards between HEIs should be standardised, just as A level/GCSE etc. grades are. You cannot, for example, reliably compare a state school pupil who gains a 2:1 from East London University to a private school pupil who gains a 2:2 from Cambridge. There are too many confounding variables.

They should have kept the study simpler, and compared state vs. private pupil results within individual degree subjects within individual HEIs.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Mmm. I think there was always social engineering, really. I've heard some truly hair-raising things from retired academics - I can think of two off the top of my head who sincerely believed women were thicker than men, and so they did discriminate. That's the sort of social engineering we can do without! But given we all have biases we're not conscious of, it's important to think about it, and I think that's what the study is doing.

I think it's too simplistic to assume everyone can assess without bias, and that any investigation of bias (whether in the admissions system or in education prior to that) is 'social engineering'. But maybe I'm misunderstand what you meant with that term.

I do think that's an important point about parents and university. And about women ending up with no career.

I also wondered about students who don't quite fit into the 'mature student' category but who had some time out (I know someone who's just started her degree aged 20). Because that is presumably an in-between group they can't easily generalize about. She seems so much more motivated and mature to me than the others ... but perhaps that's just individual.

[JaneinReading]

I was content with the old system - bit of discretion to entrance tutors which operated for decades. The current attempt at more social engineering goes too far and can be just as unfair as what it is seeking to over turn.

I am in favour of the research - it has apparently found if you are not white or if you are male or if you go to a private school then you don't do as well in your degree. So what is the solution? More support for private school pupils at university or for men or for people from the bad post codes or for non whites?

In a sense the headline of the thread it totally wrong. The research says pupils from bad post codes do badly at university. It does not say all state school pupils do.

Not sure if it is in this report but one plan is that if one of your parents went to university that is a demerit point even if they got there through the OU or from the worst school in the land because they really worked hard. It all seems a bit unfair. But yes let us carry on with this kind of research. I'm not against it. They should try to plot careers and earnings. They should look at how many of the women who are doing so well give everything up and end up on minimum wage jobs for life or no career - what % are they 10 and 20 y ears down the line compared with their worse performing male university cohort?

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

But that's what people are trying to do, isn't it? To treat everyone the same. And to do that, you have to take into account what 'merit' they have - the study shows it's not as simple as counting how many A grades at A level someone has.

I don't really understand what you mean about disadvantaging people who end up with worse degrees but had better A levels?

Surely what's important to do with this research is to work out how best to give people who're likely to do well if given good support that support? If someone already has lots of good opportunities, we need to worry about them less, don't we? But it seems to be saying that, even given the way state school students do well, those who're at the poor end are still being held back by that. So they need more help.

[JaneinReading]

In fact eve4n better - why not just treat everyone the same whether their parents went to university or not and whatever colour or sex they are. Amazing idea - just admit them on merit! Wow what a thought.

[JaneinReading]

This is interesting too from the study

"There is significant variation in degree outcome for students from different ethnicities
10. Students classifying themselves as White consistently achieve higher degree outcomes than students recording other ethnicities. This confirms findings from previous HEFCE studies. In all, 72 per cent of
White students who entered higher education with BBB gained a first or upper second. This compares with 56 per cent for Asian students, and 53 per cent for Black students,entering with the same A-level grades.

Female students are more likely to achieve an upper second or higher than male students with the same prior educational attainment
11. For example, of students who enter with A -level grades AAB, 79 per cent of female student s go on to gain an upper second or higher, compared to 70 per cent of male students. This difference is because of the proportion achieving upper seconds. The same proportion (20
per cent) of women and men achieve first class honours"

I suppose what we have to decide to do - if we want to give preference to those who go in with worse grades but get a great degree (those from the posher comps that seems to be) then one advantages those. If those from poor postcodes or who are black or male and indeed from private schools end up even if they start with the same A levels with worse degrees then all those (the black, male, private ones too) will not do as well as their A levels suggest so in a sense they are all int he same category and we therefore ensure fewer of them get in as they don't fulfil the promise of their grades. I am being provocative but that is what the results show - that the private pupils, the boys and the non whites do not end up with the better degrees. So do we disadvantage these who end up with worse degrees but had better A levels - in which case we have to lump all men, none whites and private school pupils in the same category and treat them equally on admissions perhaps?

[JaneinReading]

My point was that if state school supporters on the thread are saying if children from state schools who get worse grades than private pupils who go to good comps or live in lovely postcodes at university get higher grades than the private pupils therefore univerisities should give preference to that cohort (I will call them the posh post code state schoolers) because they get a better degree.

Therefore if those from bad postcodes do worse at degree level then the conclusion must be that they should not waste places on them?

I think we should continue what has happened for 30 years - entrance tutors see an exceptional pupil with very good grades compared to their school typical grades and they are given a bit of extra advantage. That has always happened. However to institutional preference to those in posh comps whose parents chose to buy cars and shoes rather than education to the disadvantage of working parents busting a gut to pay school fees is where we go too far.

If instead we say

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I don't think that is having it both ways. It stands to reason someone from a poor background has a lot of difficulties going against them - not least having to work a lot around studying, I think. But if those students have the potential to do really well because they've overcome a lot to get to university, it surely makes good sense to try to help them?

Whereas if you have someone who's had all the benefits of good teaching, well-to-do background (and I know this is true of plenty of state school pupils and isn't true of some private school pupils, but I think probably it's a fair generalization along state/private lines), then there is simply less you are going to be able to do to help them work at a higher level. If they had the capacity, they would be there already. If you see what I mean?

[JaneinReading]

There are some interesting parts of it. We should not selectively quote the study. So if you come from a poor postcode you do worse in your degree. If we are using the study to say let more state school pupils in and discriminate against privates the local conclusion of that based on this study is "except those from really poor areas as they do not do so well in their degrees". You cannot have it both ways.

"Students from disadvantaged areas tend to do less well in higher education than those with the same prior educational attainment from more advantaged areas

12.We classified the postcodes students live in immediately prior to entry using either the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI
),which measures in a local area the proportion of children under the age of 16 who live in low-income households or Participation of
Local Areas (POLAR), which measures in a local area the proportion of young people who go onto higher education. We found that
on either measure, those from the most disadvantaged
areas have consistently lower HE degree outcomes than those with the same prior educational attainment from other areas.

13. Applying IDACI, 77 per cent of those from the most advantaged areas with ABB at A-level go on to gain a first or upper -second degree. This figure drops to 67 per cent when ABB students from the most disadvantaged areas are considered."

[kalidasa]

It is a recognised phenomenon among academics, but in my experience it is only really marked at the relatively extreme ends: e.g. the products of a small number of the most high-profile private/public schools and conversely students who have managed to do well despite being at fairly low-achieving state schools. Students in the latter category are almost always "undervalued" in terms of A level grades (though obviously a lot of admissions tutors try to take this into account where they have the leeway to do so); students in the former group can definitely be "overvalued" - e.g. all As at A level who are bright but not really very bright, but have been extremely well taught at a very high level from the age of four or five. This particularly makes a differences in subjects (e.g. languages) where cumulative learning over a long time is important for performance. There is also a slightly separate phenomenon of burn-out - even very intelligent students who have been so pushed and pressured through a very intense education up until 18 that they go a bit crazy with the freedom and relatively 'hands-off' style of university teaching and do nothing much academically at university for a couple of years. That group often pull it together for finals though and do well. The opposite of that doesn't really have a name but you see it a lot too and in fact it's one of the greatest pleasures of university teaching: students who seem good and diligent but not particularly unusual at the beginning of the first year but who have actually never really been fully engaged before, and who suddenly "get it" and do extremely well.

[Slipshodsibyl]

Surely students with lower grades are more likely to be studying a range of subjects at a wide range of institutions which makes this kind of comparison very difficult.

Where students have AAA grades, the subjects and universities will be mostly traditional with comparable standards. The same direct comparisons are far more difficult when you widen the range of institutions and courses. I know students with excellent degrees from new universities, often in specifically vocational subjects, and they do well in life, but they would not get a good degree from a traditional university in a traditional subject. I think there is likely to be a far bigger number of maintained school students in this large group.

Does the research distinguish between subjects/institutions, or have I missed that somewhere?

I believe Cambridge specifically stated a year or two ago there is no difference between state and independent in their degree results.

[wordfactory]

I'd be interested to know if it included any course that includes a year abroad or whatever.

[meditrina]

Thanks!

I wonder if that also includes languages and engineering as "long"? Presumably vetinerary medicine is long too.

Also, as it's the first time with that analysis, it means that it's not possible to know if this is typical or not (especially with the number 'undefined')

[senua]

Scroll down for detail meditrina. Look at page 21. Although I must admit I am confused: they seem to be saying that not many transfer from state to independent.
Another 'although'. If you look at page 7 it says that - for reasons unexplained - the survey excludes those studying medicine & dentistry and long courses (so that's architecture, another course needing high grades). Perhaps most of the state->independent are medics/dentists?

[meditrina]

How many years in private education did they count as privately educated?

There's a big influx into that sector for 6th form, and of course those who do not get the grades to continue through in their state school must be a confounder in this.

[JaneinReading]

Yes, Think, that was almost my point. I never saw private schools for my children as about buying grades. It was about helping make them good people with a good and interesting life whilst having the choice (if they were to take it) of a high paid career. I regard university as similar - some will do well, get their double starred first or whatever it is and join a leading barrister chambers. Others will mess around and come up with ideas which they might well use to found a business. Others will just have a good time and make friends for life.

The latest stats I thought just found an 8% difference between outcomes which is tiny and not worth worrying about. They also looked at children from bad state schools as against from good ones so probably not too relevant to most state school mumsnetters as the latter tend to get their children into good state schools which would not be advantaged against private schools of course.

I think it's very unfair to suggest most state school pupils at good universities anyway have been spoon fed. I pay fees so the teachers can veer right off the syllabus and do the opposite of spoon feeding whilst also of course covering the syllabus too. I pay to avoid the exam factory of some other schools. if you have a class of very bright private school (or state school ) pupils the last thing you need to do with them is spoon feeding.