Does HE in 2024 really offer social mobility?

[mids2019]

Is the idea that increasing the number of students would increase social mobility a fallcy? It seems to my mind young people now are presented with a plethora of HE/FE choices with an underlying implicit message that university choice does not matter and all professions/roles will be equally achievable despite university attended or the underlying school grades.

I surmise that allowing ex polys to offer a range of degrees was to put often working class children in par with possibly middle class candidates with on average slightly better grades (due to social environment/schooling) when it comes to job applications. However in reality do employers really believe 'all degrees are equal' and are willing to take on applicants with lower education profiles to aid the general notion of social mobility or are they in reality simply just going to the same old universities (in one sense the older the better)

I thought this a good topic as I think my children are being offered little incentive to improve their potential GCSE marks through increased study as they are coming out with the argument 'well you don't have to have great GCSEs or A levels as you will still get into a uni and get a degree and that's all employers want'. To be frank depressingly this seems a reasonable argument......

Increasing the number of HE and degree courses is a good idea when in subjects that correlate and support the jobs market. Unfortunately the wide range of useless degrees offered just for the university to pull in additional tuition fees just wastes time and money, and sets unrealistic expectations for the student. There are so many in very low paid jobs.

And yes, the establishment does matter and make a difference. Studying at Durham v an ex Poly will generally be more academically rigorous and its reputation hold more value. But does depend on the subject

Our organisation strips the name of the university out of job applications, so when I assess I can only see the degree title and grade. So it makes no difference where they went to uni for us. Same with the graduate entry programme I assess for. No advantage.

I can tell at interview though who went to private school and /or a “good” university. They have more confidence, answer questions better and generally seem more worldly and switched on.

I'll just coast and do the least I can get away with... its not an attitude that will be particularly attractive to employers but also won't help them get the most out of uni in terms of personal development. There's lots of outcomes data available for different institutions if they want to do some research- but yes it does matter where you go not just gor career prospects but for the quality of teaching and facilities

In theory HE does enable social mobility but you need to heavily caveat - social mobility basically requires money. So the course being studied needs to lead to a well paid job. Say 75k/annum +

Otherwise you're just taking on debt without enhancement and that's self defeating.

Kids need to be guided to only do courses they lead to decent pay. Anything else is a backward step in my view given the levels of debt involved.

Absolutely agree with the last two posts.

Regards coasting, I really do not wish my daughter to do that obviously. To give some context she is predicted 10 8s at GCSE but is falling short in a few areas and as parents we need to come up with convincing arguments it's worth putting in the effort to achieve these grades. There seems to be a bit of an attitude of I'll get a job of some type in the future and can't see how getting good grades necessarily gives an adavantage. Plenty of people coming out of ex polys with firsts who didn't have those GCSE grades so in a way I see why there is a bit of pushback.

I believe social mobility happens through the next generation.

Say if a student from a working class background went to uni and qualified as a teacher or nurse (these seem to be the most accessible) then their children seem to be more aspirational and go to better unis. I work in education and I see this happen. Obviously not all but enough. It'd be interesting to see if research showed this too.

Some careers are more accessible the more family money there is. Medicine has many prep options, some fantastic ones in London but they cost £1000. Prohibitive for working class families. I’d you can afford these then the stronger the application.

My dc1 went to Warwick. Her friends are mostly private school educated and the disparity is huge. They can access unpaid/ low paid internships in London to get ahead in their careers. It has been eye opening tbh. She sees this too but is resilient. Confidence really seems key.

how can working class students get this confidence?

For an equivalent degree you need much higher A Level grades than when I was applying 20 years ago. You can’t expect to get average GCSE and A Levels and walk into a good university.

The university you go to and the degree you get really does matter. The job market is increasingly competitive and a degree in event management from an old poly just won’t cut it. I despair at the kids signing themselves up to a lifetime of debt to get these pointless degrees - the universities have a lot to answer for.

As PP said, there are many employers that do blind recruitment, but these are not in the majority. And once you’re in the workplace the difference will become apparent.

@Whatdoesthatbuttondo .

Interesting. I am aware of people on degrees with work placement with A level grades of around DDE who are on track for firsts from newer universities. Yes, congratulations for getting a first but the literacy and numeracy isn't quite there. I wonder if the employer interview the point where a true standard is revealed. It seems the employer interviewer is really now the gate to be considered when looking at carer travel.

Why is an event management degree from an ex poly not worth it? These seem to ficus on real world experience. That’s a good think to gain practical skills.

@WindyDock

agree with this but schools are averse to telling the hard truth about competitive universites/ careers. Schools are quite willing to distribute marketing materials from ex polys especially local ones and hail getting in a success. Being cynical it allows the schools to look successful with content students without considering the bigger picture.

This is from the Office for Students. An astonishing number of students now get firsts, perhaps because they are now the paying customers. So a first doesn't differentiate as much as it used to. Which is where work experience, internships etc become more important

@Blinkingmarvellous

it suggests though that we stop pushing our kids to get good grades and focus their minds on the softer skills for future employment (including work experience). It starts to bring up the question what is education all about especially if you want kids to aspire?

I think I try to encourage my kids to make the most of all the opportunities they get - both academic and extra curricular. I think it's both/ and rather than either/or.
Having worked in a new uni (not in an academic role) I would not encourage taking any degree but there were some sections of the uni e.g health, that had a good reputation, great facilities and good outcomes.
Unsurprisingly a higher number of kids are now going from sixth form to apprenticeship as you get experience and training without debt but they are competitive to get into.

I work in an inner city comp and we have a lot of first generation university applicants. There is definitely an element of social mobility. I would say ethnically it is more often students with immigrant parents or grandparents who are first generation.

Financially we are lucky in that our smallish city is close to quite a lot of bigger cities with excellent universities so quite a few can live at home to keep costs down.

We don't seem to have many who apply for non traditional degrees. There is an element of family encouragement for more traditional options. We also gave grade 7 entry requirements for A level which makes a difference.

Good grades send a message to the employer about intellect and character. Work experience and performing well at interview is increasingly important, but the best candidates will have all that AND good grades. I would suggest to your DD that she needs both to be a competitive candidate. Lots of employers will still take the uni into consideration, so your DD would be unwise to hope that the companies she wishes to work for don’t, she’ll be limiting her options. The candidate up against her could come off confidently at interview, have relevant work experience, excellent GCSE/A level results, and a degree from a good uni under their belt.

I agree @mids2019 with your point that the employee recruitment process has become the point where true standards are revealed. I would say that GCSEs and A levels, from our experience, still provide a useful indicator as there is a national standard and national testing. By contrast, degree classification is becoming a less reliable indicator for us.

I am not sure that, as a whole, unis are adding effective value; competitive unis rely hugely on prior attainment and, for those drawing large numbers of students from the SE, like Durham, Warwick, Bristol, Bath and Exeter, on 'home domicile' as those students have better access to internships and placements in high paying career roles, boosting average salary and grad employment stats for those unis.

You could argue that employers using university-blind applications might actually set more store by GCSE/A-level grades precisely because they don’t know the uni.

If you want proper social mobility, I'd suggest looking at engineering (and all its disciplines) as a uni subject. It's still a growth area.

Medicine is getting to be impossible without family support. Law is pretty much a closed shop for those without existing contacts. Same for arts and civil service (the interesting bits).

I'm a working class kid from the north. No grad scheme would touch me but 10/15 years on Im much more employable and have worked blue chip and consultancy. There's lots of prejudice consciously and unconsciously about polys but any further study is valuable. However, im not sure if it's value for money anymore. Social mobility is very, very low these days. And I think state school very much teach to the majority of students passing rather than all students rewatching their full potential

Jesus

So, no teachers, nurses, radiographers, vet nurses, ?

IMO it’s child abuse to force children into A Levels/ university degrees they don’t like.

And how would you decide which ones lead to good pay? Only medicine, finance and law allowed?

The UK doesn't need many engineers as manufacturing is in East Asia. Of course, it will soon be replaced by robots.

I think that lots of courses are poor value for money, but it is not as simple as red broke/oxbridge vs ex poly. You might be surprised at the poor quality of teaching on some subjects at a few respected universities.

I encountered my kids to develop saleable skills, whether they went to uni or not.

I think it's also a mistake to push kids into careers because of your own snobbery. That leads so many problems down the line, and therefore ironically, poor value for money in its own way, as well as sadness for some kids.

And lots of views are based on outdated career data. I'm out of date with where the latest respected career data can be found, as my kids are grown, but it must exist.

There’s a global shortage of engineers.Some companies in the U.K. are finding it difficult to recruit.

At an HE conference they said that nursing is hugely in demand.

Currently teaching too with what’s currently going on especially in certain subjects.

I see many students who want to go into law or psychology degrees not realising that many won’t successfully enter those careers.

I’m constantly saying it’s not just about the grades. What else can you bring?

Family support and encouragement is important as well.

Because people have managed to do these jobs for decades without needing a degree in them. There are obviously vocational careers that really need the associated degrees, like medicine and dentistry, and jobs that require you to be good at maths or English, but for the rest you’re better off getting a well respected degree subject and then specializing later. For instance, most well regarded journalists will have degrees in subjects like English, not journalism. Similarly, lots of lawyers study traditional subjects and then do law conversions.

There is a lot of data online about which types of degree reliably lead to well paid employment. I would hazard a guess that event management isn’t one of them.

There’s many routes into most careers though. It’s not one size fits all. University isn’t just about the degree. Which is why a decent proportion of grad jobs specify no subject discipline.

Lots of Graduate schemes that recruit university blind only ask for a 2:1, or a 2:2, but they also ask for a relatively high UCAS tariff from A-levels or equivalent, so chances are the candidate would have gone to a higher ranking university.