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......

For the special marker they are more likely to prefer or require master's than look at school exams, aren't they?

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.

What about musicians? Artists? Writers?

Or, thinking about extremely valuable but low-paying (often because traditionally female) jobs - teachers, nurses, social workers?

Tbh I think there are 2 extremes where the level of debt is irrelevant- those who are targeting high-paid roles, and those whose vocation leads them to roles where they will never repay their student loans. It is those in the middle, who took degrees ‘because they tick the box of ‘things to do next’’ but end up in middling office / retail / service jobs where the balance between debt and salary bites hardest.

This is such rubbish.

Ours went to ‘old poly iniversites’

Theyve all got really good jobs. One’s written a published text book and one’s a journalist. So actually the literacy is there. A levels are a developmental thing. Some get in their academic stride faster than others.

Hiwever l don’t think any degree offers social mobility anymore. So many low paid jobs require a degree.

Surely the point about Event Management is that in the past it didn't require a degree so to get into that field as a career you were competing with other people who also hadn't been to university. Now that it is possible to take it as a degree, if you don't you will be competing for jobs with people who have studied it for 3/4 years - some firms might take a chance on a keen 18-year-old, but I would imagine most will prefer to take on twentysomethings who have been studying it.

It used to be true that many journalists did degrees in other subjects first (DH did), but not so much any more. As @Gwenhwyfar says things have changed.

@thing47 A lot employ their mates! Events mgt might help a few with career goals but these companies still employ a variety of grads in a variety of roles. It’s also a degree that’s not very flexible.

Regarding social mobility - yes of course degrees can lead to this. The IFS now recons a degree gives 10% premium on lifetime earnings. 30 years ago it was 17%. However some degrees are better than others and some universities are better than others and some dc want it more than others and make every effort to get the breadth of skills required for a better career. Anyone from a working class background where minimum wage is the norm, will do better as a doctor. Plus quite a few jobs in fact.

Teaching and nursing are not the lowest paid jobs.They do have salary progression. MSE now thinks the current loan system is worse for lower paid grads. They pay for much longer. So there’s incentive to get promotion and do well. A young teacher can become a deputy head and that’s good social mobility for a working class kid getting pp money. The main thing that holds people back is desire and breaking free from their background.

We do have 50% grads in the workforce under the age of 35. Lots of jobs don’t require a masters in a niche area. Lots of jobs require more skills than some degrees or masters provide and students need to wake up to this. A masters might help in some careers (stem) but in others professional exams are a better route. We really need to ramp up apprenticeships and work with part time study.

Does this then influence whether you give them the job if as you say you can tell who was privately educated etc, would this lead you to favour a less confident, less switched on candidate over the one you feel was former?

No, candidates get scored based on points, which are awarded for ticking off what we are looking for in the model answer. The private school candidates tend to answer better. Not always. I’m not privately schooled, very much dragged up working class, but the difference is obvious.

Access into HE has never been easier, and I think this helps. Eg you can now get into medicine via an access course. My own very non academic db failed his GCSE's (maths and eng lang multiple times) did BTEC then NVQs, went onto do a HND, then got into university (albeit an ex poly). He did marketing, which wasn't competitive back then and at 40 he's now on £90k, which is a lot more than me or my other db could dream of.
In saying that though I don't think it is apparent until the following generation, and university by itself isn't always possible unless you have the right home circumstances. My dd had a school friend who was a LAC. Lovely girl, was never an A* pupil but really put her head down and worked very hard to get her GCSE's. She came from a very chaotic, alcoholic family and all of her 6 siblings went into care. She then started A levels, but turned 18 in y12 and she had to leave her foster family. She had to go back to her mum (she tried to get a flat of her own but couldn't afford it) who needed her to work to pay into the house, so she left school. She's now worked in a plethora of zero contract jobs, sofa surfs between her mums, her aunt and friends and is fairly miserable. University wasn't an option for her sadly, her life was too chaotic and even with maximum loans she couldn't have afforded to live.

This is so true, 100%. My DD is a top uni and when i asked if she was finding it hard to get support while she was hunting for an industrial placement, her reply was, 'this is internship/placement season at uni, EVERYBODY is rigorously looking for internships'. The uni also recognises this and provides good support. Employers are also not unaware of these unis and visit these unis regularly to give their students handy tips on interviews & assessment, opportunities to network and ultimately to hire them as soon as they graduate. Not just that, my DD was really motivated by what her coursemates and even flatmates were doing - every evening they would convene to discuss who has found what and give more encouragement to those still searching. These are some of the intangible benefits of going to a good university that are sometimes overlooked .

This is very interesting. Then uni/ school blind recruitment can act in the opposite way to intended?

That is such a sad story. You’d think that the care system wouldn’t use turning 18 as a blunt tool and instead think ok a year and they their qual and options.

We try to offer as much support to care leavers as possible but if there’s no stable home education tends to not be a priority understandably.

I don’t think so. Everyone gets to interview based on their application, which is blinded, so it should be purely on grades and experience. Blinding this removes the bias some employers can have for the top Unis and private schools. It’s a much more level playing field getting your foot in the interview door. Then it’s up to them to perform in the interview, which is where I think the applicants with the “better” background seem to shine a bit more. I don’t like it, but it’s true.

So HE can offer social mobility, but it relies on employers using recruitment methods which remove bias as much as possible, and the HE component being enough to outweigh the advantages that growing up with privilege can give you.

It’s tricky as the privilege still shows through at interview. Universities provide contextual offers based on the background of applicants but there isn’t a catch up process for these students once at uni that would then enable them to perform as well.l

These students rub shoulders with the ones who are applying for internships and can go to all the careers fairs etc. They need to observe what to do and get on with it. However you cannot make people want better jobs and make them understand how to get it. They don’t want to change into someone they are not. They might not necessarily want a job that aids their social mobility either. They want to be them.

It’s not fair to say it’s obvious who goes to private school. Many of DDs barrister friends did not. Can you tell? Absolutely not. They are intelligent, confident and just as good as anyone else. What they did do (and DD had to do) was to work out a strategy to get a highly competitive career. It takes planning and lots of boxes ticked over many years plus a deep desire to succeed.

Firms might not look at uni but most don’t just employ on degree details. It’s the whole package an applicant presents that matters. I’ve seen very highly educated parents working for local government believe the masters from Maastricht is the key to that job in policy development. Turns out no work experience was a no no for employers. So unis can tell students all
about getting a sought after career but if they would rather not bother, they might take a long time to get a job. With other students the penny drops very quickly. Who might be the better employee?

clearly it’s about the whole package. But if you get a head start by going to private school it’s difficult for others to catch up (if they want to). It takes more planning, strategy and resilience.

@TizerorFizz

that's really interesting.

I guess the question is whether the meticulous dedicated career planning you describe will be the 'default' amongst those from lower income background. It may be that you have poorer students who are innately talented but because of peer pressure, lack of school resources and parental knowledge and time don't have the best preparation for application to competitive roles.

I see how employers would value the skills you describe and personally I feel they are admirable but I feel that the really quite professional approach to networking and work experience described would probably be instilled by parents 'in the know' who were intimately aware of what elite employers require.

I do feel the average comprehensive is ill prepared to start students' career journeys as they do not have the experience and there is a sense to be comprehensive they shouldn't be aiming resources towards those that aspire highly but focussing on local employment, FE, apprenticeships etc. which the majority of students steer to.

I guess this is where private education excels in setting a culture of aspiration backed with resources that has the assumption all its pupils will be aiming for professional roles in later life.

The digitisation of career info and recruitment has at least given all school and uni students access to a greater 'resource pool' than in the past. My DC definitely benefitted from watching webinars, signing up to online holiday programmes etc - which helped shape their aspirations and offered concrete evidence of interest to prospective employers.

Yes, I did encourage them early on to do that but so did their (fairly standard) comp school. Many if these opportunities are very flexible in terms of engagement, so those who are time poor and/or constrained financially can still engage. All this helps break down the barrier between the elite 'in the know' and the rest.

Online selection processes have their drawbacks but do allow students to consider applying for positions without the concerns of sunk costs of time to travel to interviews etc.

@PerpetualOptimist What I don’t understand though is why many don’t do this. In my wider family and friends’ dc it’s clearly obvious they did nothing. They definitely seemed to think the degree was all you needed and that, of course, had been the case in their parents’ day! These are parents with degrees so it’s definitely not just dc with working class parents. Many of them could be ambitious for dc. So I just think the student has to wise up and make the effort. However I think parental nudging helps but “you can take a horse to water “ etc…….

As an employer, I'd interview any graduate who had the required degree for a role. I didn't care which institution it was gained from.

Having said that, experience has taught me that there are some institutions that are extremely poor, and generally their graduates do not have what I'm looking for in terms of work ethic, ambition etc.

But I interview on principle, partly because the skills I look for are hard to find, and partly because the culture/standard of tuition at those institutions might improve and everyone deserves a chance.

@TizerorFizz"What they did do (and DD had to do) was to work out a strategy to get a highly competitive career. It takes planning and lots of boxes ticked over many years plus a deep desire to succeed."

Completely agree with this. But to address other' points I think the private school "advantage" is a red herring. What young people need is good self-awareness and perception as there plenty of resources online. Inevitably young people with "second generation" life skills have a head-start with this, either genetically, or with scaffolding, or both. I was an aspirational northerner with working class parents who went to a comp, was first-gen uni in the nineties, and now have a comfortable "mc" lifestyle in a leafy London suburb. My two children went to comps and are second-gen uni. They are much more laid back than me because they take after their dad (who was mc northern and went to private school). So sometimes I scaffold them more than I feel I should need to - I send them opportunities, encourage them to apply, remind them, etc. In that way I help to compensate for their laid back-ness.

In contrast, family members sent their children to private school, but worked so long and hard to pay for it that they had less time to help with scaffolding. They essentially left the school to do the work. One did a heart-over-head degree, which unfortunately didn't help her get her preferred career choice. The other did a poor-quality degree and is now working in a job he could have done without any degree.

DS1 has a friend with "blue collar" parents who is first gen uni. He is at Imperial and will get a good job. He has always been hugely self-motivated, taking every bit of good advice he read online.

So there are multiple ways to get "advantage", but ultimately it comes down to the young person themselves to use what gumption they have to pull themselves up by their coat-tails.

I dont think my son has had the same message that any old grade and any old university will do at his comp.

They've sort of had the message that if you dont get straight As for A level and dont go to a top university for your course you might as well not bother at all as you will just have a big debt but no higher earning potential..

He has friends set to get A, B C leaving A levels to do appretiships or much more vocational courses. And they might well be earning more than someone doing a non specific degree from a low ranked uni in a few years but I have been surprised.

I do feel the average comprehensive is ill prepared to start students' career journeys as they do not have the experience and there is a sense to be comprehensive they shouldn't be aiming resources towards those that aspire highly but focussing on local employment, FE, apprenticeships etc. which the majority of students steer to.

Anecdotal of course, but my DD's experience is that her average comp provided her with a lot of support in making university applications and accessing opportunities to build up her personal statement. In fact as the only child interested in applying for her subject at university she was absolutely inundated with offers from her subject teachers.

Also anecdotally, private schools may have lots of experience of getting students into universities but friend's child who wanted to get a place on a competitive degree apprenticeship was left to get on with it with virtually no support, while the school still insisted he completed a UCAS personal statement even though he didn't apply to university.

So maybe this is more of a case of individual setting, or perhaps all institutions need to get good at tailoring support to the students they have?

I do wonder if private school pupils are still relying too much on structures that might have evolved over time - going to a private school, good university and making "connections" is no longer sufficient on its own to get a good job. Whereas state school pupils that may be used to working from sixth form level and through university (personal observation tells me this is far less prevalent in private school pupils; however I am not assuming that my observation making this true of all students) so have a stronger work background and soft skills to demonstrate when it comes to applying for jobs.

I do feel the average comprehensive is ill prepared to start students' career journeys as they do not have the experience and there is a sense to be comprehensive they shouldn't be aiming resources towards those that aspire highly but focussing on local employment, FE, apprenticeships etc. which the majority of students steer to.

Speaking as a teacher of 25 years this is just utter tosh. All kids are catered for and the 6th form where l worked was fantastic at getting kids into university.

Any school will have greater expertise and experience in guiding their students towards the most common destinations for their particular intake (both in terms of ability spread and socioeconomic background). However, with over 40% of students in England applying via UCAS, a comprehensive school (ie one that has a full range of abilities) would by definition expect and cater for an application rate around this level (higher for schools in less deprived areas; lower for schools serving areas of high deprivation). I think it unlikely to be correct - as a sweeping statement- that no comprehensive schools cater well for one third to two fifths of their intake.

What they are, perhaps, are jacks of all trades, as a necessary consequence of their comprehensive nature - less expert at Oxbridge entrance, say, than highly selective schools with many applicants per year. That then requires just that bit more self-starting from the young person - not in itself a bad thing, but there won’t be the same element of being carried along by the group.

DS studied a subject with an entrance procedure that would have been niche except in a handful of specialist schools. His comprehensive school mugged up
on the procedure, supported him in specific areas (including linking up with a member of staff in a local private school for interview practice when they asked him for feedback after his first foray) - but DS drove the process throughout. Ultimately, that was a good thing.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow This will depend on locality. We know some areas don’t get as many to good unis.

The “in the know” is a red herring @mids2019 . We knew not one thing about what DD1 or 2 wanted to do and helping them was not possible for us. We had no contacts. Neither did DD1 get any help from her private school. They taught her A levels but career “in the know” was utterly absent.

The whole point about getting the job you want is doing it yourself! I know very few young people whose parents scaffolded anything! Maybe I just know bright ones who get down to it but as I said, a few could not be bothered. DD2 had to research a change of career after taking the “wrong” degree and falling out of love with what she thought she wanted at 17/18 but no scaffolding from us.

Also there seems to be an assumption that the rich at private schools all want highly competitive careers. They don’t. At a girls’ school what pupils want can be very mixed. Married life and babies suits some. I didn’t feel our private school did much to support careers and the girls who now have great careers did if themselves! As did all the local dc we know from our state schools. Some of the grammar dc are doing very well. Others are doing next to nothing flitting from one job to another. It totally comes down to who you are, what you personally want, and not where you went to school (unless you join your family company). Many dc do this from all walks of life. Parents cannot force unwilling dc into successful careers. The effort must come from the dc.

Just as an example: DD1 did 10 mini puilages whilst at uni. She researched where she wanted to apply, closing dates and did all the applications herself. She organised work experience with a family solicitor. She volunteered for the NT. During law conversion course she volunteered at a CAB and a women’s crisis support group. She applied for numerous pupillages. Each required supplementary info particular to them. NO grammar or spelling mistakes ever! She did a longer internship at a barristers’ chambers. She also applied for a scholarship from her Inn of Court. All of the above whilst studying and taking exams and all have specific deadlines. If a dc needs hand holding through all of this, then they are not cut out for the Bar. Then there are interviews for scholarship money and pupilage. It’s utterly full on but if you research it, you can do it from any background because the scholarships are generous. So from around 19 she had to commit to this career, research it and do what she needed to do. No short cuts!

What starts to become obvious is that not everyone wants to be bothered!