Is this fair comment or does it lead to an 'anti southern bias'

[mids2019]

More northerners to Cambridge but how do you progress with this? Does this sound alarm bells for those in the south?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68386836.amp

Distance travelled is about their starting point and where they end up.
My students start with low attendance in school (below 20pc) and with us they may attend more. There’s a lot of scaffolding in place. Then they may get into uni, level 3. Apprenticeship. For these students it’s a good distance travelled and celebrated as success.

Tbh @TizerorFizz i think the Graduate Outcomes survey has a number of limitations and a level of “so what”. Not necessarily a popular view. WonkHE has some interesting blogs on it.

you will probably recollect some of the IFS studies - I’m thinking initially about those on graduate outcomes by subject, and the one on degree classification impact . A number of the graphs and tables grouped universities, whilst the RG was one of those groups, Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and LSE were stripped out and shown as a specific standalone group - presumably for good reasons. Those reports of course still had those broad groupings though plotted individual uni positioning but without sharing the names. So not really moving us that far forward in terms of an answer to your question.

I don’t think it’s helpful to have a rhetoric that implies that going into teaching following an Oxbridge degree is a waste ‘when that can be done anywhere’. Or how some may choose teaching but others, ‘aim higher’. Nor do I think we should talk about it as a step up for kids whose parents didn’t go to university. We are then buying into the mindset created by successive governments over a generation that teaching is for lefties who managed to escape the pit and the factory but who couldn’t really aspire to anything better.

I teach. I studied History and Politics at a top tier (not Oxbridge) university. I went back in the day when you applied to UCCA and PCAS rather than UCAS so a long time ago. I didn’t choose to teach because it was a step up from my parents but because that’s what I wanted to do as a career. I didn’t see it as making a choice to do that because I lacked the drive, ambition or intellect to do anything ‘better’. I teach in an inner city comprehensive and I know of 3 Cambridge grads on staff but none from Oxford. I don’t know how that replicates across the country. Yes, I only earn 45k a year and my DH who did similar at a lower ranked university and went into banking earns 3x my salary but I don’t ever feel that that’s because he utilised his potential more than I. But then I don’t equate salary with worth.

Anecdotally, over a 25yr career in mainly inner city comps, I’ve taught alongside quite a few Cambridge grads and many others with excellent degrees and Masters from top universities. They were almost all doing the job because they loved it rather than because they felt teaching was their attainment ceiling. That’s not to say many haven’t become disillusioned and left the profession. But they weren’t there in the first place because that was all they could do.

I agree with what you are saying.

When i say step up it’s in reference to students saying they want to work with children and are considering early years childcare. I also offer other suggestions such as teaching. Many feel it’s not within their capability. I ask them to not rule it out and keep options open.

Distance travelled means absolutely nothing!

You r misunderstood what is meant by distance travelled. It refers the starting point of a student at the start of their degree and then where they end up and takes into account degree classification, job , salary etc.
Therefore is doing exactly what you asked.

You seem quite combative @TizerorFizz

I don’t truly believe any uni actually offers careers advice that says don’t do this career, do that career.

Of course they don't. That would be incredibly poor professional practice.

What I want to know is whether background is linked to career for Oxbridge students? Very much the ordinary dc who go. Not the grammar dc with high achieving parents. What difference does it make regarding career choices? Is this ever published? At Oxbridge it’s not a vast number every year is it!

There is loads of research on this topic - head to Google scholar and you'll find a whole range of research on this topic.

There are flaws with Graduate Outcomes data though mainly due to the fact the graduates are self reporting and the completion rate is woefully low. Not to mention how occupations are classified.
It's not as straightforward a question as you are suggesting.

@ElaineMBenes Yes I did. Plain English is usually helpful.

My point was: if a job can be done by any grad who wants to do it, why the scramble for Oxbridge? It brings nothing extra to the grad over another grad. Except getting the job if there’s competition but even that should come down to teaching ability and not pure knowledge. Having been taught by Oxbridge maths grads, I know what useless teaching looks like! Would not be tolerated now.

So if we don’t expect Oxbridge grads to be a bit special and just do what other grads can easily do, what’s the point of the concern about who goes there? It’s not the same as saying they cannot choose what they want. Of course they can but they’ve enjoyed their three years and then are the same as everyone else. It begins to sound like a numbers game played out around dc who fit stereotypes. It also begs the question - why bother to go away from home when you can do the job you want by staying at your local uni?

With property prices as they are, staying local with a good job can pay dividends. Of course average earners supported by DH earning multiples of the teacher salary is a luxury. Lots of women now want more for themselves. As they should.

@boys3 Yes I do recall the ifs studies. I remember salary differences between LSE and Wolverhampton for grads with the same degree. A background check would be useful in that comparison I think.

It’s a shame everyone talks about how important Oxbridge is for ordinary dc but we then have no idea really about what these ordinary dc do afterwards in any detail. So if we don’t actually know what career choices are made. So are we still seeing the same backgrounds at the top in the highest paying professions.? I thought changing this was social mobility in its purest form.

@TizerorFizz but we do know that going to Oxbridge/Russell Group/Elite universities does make a difference in career success and earnings..... particularly in certain professions.
Is that due to the quality of teaching? Not always. No.
Is it the way the quality of higher education should be assessed? No, I don't think so.

There is still a huge amount of bias towards particular types of universities and that is evident at application stage and when it comes to graduate employment.

It’s a shame everyone talks about how important Oxbridge is for ordinary dc but we then have no idea really about what these ordinary dc do afterwards in any detail.
Except that we do. The data about individual students isn't published for obvious reasons but universities do know what their students /graduates go on to do (even if that's not always captured formally by graduate outcome data) and as a sector we are aware of trends in graduate employment.

So if we don’t actually know what career choices are made.
We do know. This data is available in universities. We work with it everyday.

So are we still seeing the same backgrounds at the top in the highest paying professions.?
Unfortunately yes we are.

I thought changing this was social mobility in its purest form.

Social mobility is declining in the UK. We've not solved this issue yet .... not by a long shot.

Why on earth can’t it be anonomised and published then? Uk pays for uni loans so surely the public should know student outcomes? The grad premium is now 10%. That’s for all grads. RG plus is possibly higher but some get better outcomes than others.. I do think value for money matters as ordinary non degree holders are underwriting the loans. Outcomes should be discussed openly or we only see one side of the debate don’t we? Why should that be the case?

Outcomes are published and discussed publicly..... just look up Graduate Outcomes Survey.
Graduate Labour Market data and trends are analysed and published (again, I'll direct you to Prospects luminate and Charlie Ball)
There is an actual publication called 'what do graduates do'.

You can't publish individual student data because of GDPR but universities do use this data. Most (if not all) university careers services have someone responsible for data analysis.

@Rummikub, certainly with the kids I teach, there’s usually a huge difference in attainment between those who say they want to work with children and those who say they want to teach. That’s not to say we should ever lower their expectations but the Y11s who tell me they want to work with children are usually those who we try and push up from 2s and 3s to 3s and 4s at GCSE. The ones who suggest they want to teach, never say they want to work with children. Having said all that, we have in the past suggested to a girl who got 5s and 6s at GCSE that she should look at A’levels instead of the NVQ and look to pursue a degree in Early Years Primary. However, Primary Education has become extremely competitive and many universities are now asking for 3 x Bs at A’level often putting it out of reach to a kid who got 5s and 6s at GCSE. Personally, I think there should be an easier route into EYFS teaching that perhaps could open it wider to kids with a passion for EY without necessarily being academic. IMO, it’s a very different job from teaching Y6 (Y6 SATS are crazy complicated these days) and therefore there’s perhaps not necessarily a need to be as academically qualified. But I’m aware that that’s an extremely controversial point of view.

Exactly @TizerorFizz .
@ElaineMBenes@mids2019 nobody is saying that teaching is a waste for an Oxbridge graduate. No education is ever a waste. But this entire fuss about a lack of 'diversity' in Oxbridge is only because their graduates supposedly have access to better opportunities compared to other universities.

This relates to social mobility. I've had a quick look and this seems to have several different definitions. As a layman, to me 'social mobility' means having a better life than previous generations. And this is declining because conditions, not just pay, are being eroded in previously stable professions such as teaching and nursing.

However... 'social mobility' according to articles like this
https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/about-deloitte-uk/articles/social-mobility.html
Is about having access to high-powered, prestigious professions. Not just about having a 'better life' than your parents. By this metric an Oxbridge grad that just becomes a teacher hasn't really achieved social mobility.

@ElaineMBenes From your posts you seem to work for a university or recruitment, not sure which field. But I have recruited graduates for 2 well-paid fields, finance and tech, for the better part of a decade. The landscape has changed a lot, with online tests, university blind applications.

Your comment about 'quality of teaching' implies that you don't know how graduate recruitment works because it's not about the teaching. Heavens no! It's about what's done outside the degree, and understanding the world of graduate recruitment. If ambitious, driven people tend to go to certain universities, and, supported by an excellent career service, apply to everything, they're going to share that information with their juniors, who then have an easier time of it. Graduates know that they need stellar extracurriculars, they need the right keywords for the AI to pass their CV and video interviews. They need to match the required competencies and company values closely, etc.

An Oxbridge graduate who has done nothing but study is 100% going to fail the interview, even if by some fluke they get past the first few stages. For a start, we interviewers all have the same structured competency based questions, and the answers are audited. I don't care if you're an academic high flyer. I am recruiting for a graduate analyst/dev not a researcher. It your experience is narrow you won't be able to have examples of incidents demonstrating the skills I require, I'll have nothing to write in my sheet, and I will fail you.

Unlike maybe 2 decades ago where the hiring process wasn't so regimented, A couple of interviews and you're good to go. Hiring managers had the final say and they didn't need to justify decisions on the basis of 'fairness'. Or any other reason. They could just hire whoever they got on with, people in their own image and if they tended to be people from top universities they deal was sealed.

Two key takeaways:

1. Access to Oxbridge, as an intellectual powerhouse, for the intellectual to blossom and explore. Is a different argument compared to social mobility.

2. What is social mobility - doing better than your parents? Or accessing a 'high powered' job?

3. Correlation does not imply causation. The definition of bias:
   Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is, inaccurate, closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair.

Seeing graduates from specific universities dominating specific professions doesn't imply prejudice on the employer's part. It could be that grads in certain places are in a better place to obtain inside information, leverage their network, etc. Maybe MC people with professional parents, whose friends work in these fields have access to them, and then to go to certain universities, and the outcomes are a result of their external network.

The solution to this is to give others the same opportunities, that employers are doing with online insight days, visiting a wider range of career fairs, etc.

I don't claim to be a spokesperson for every single 'top field' of course or even every company within my field. But the world is very different to what it was. It's not 100% fair. But it's a lot better.

Also as a thought experiment... before everyone went to uni people could work their way up from the shop floor to senior management. Is a world where lots go to university, but this isn't really possible anymore, really an example of social mobility?

I do think apprenticeships should allow mobility within a company as long as employees get the opportunities. I’m not sure if they do or they don’t. Certainly very few 18 year olds get degree apprenticeships. Most go to adults already employed. Starting an undergrad course is a lot easier to get.
@PingvsPong I do think social mobility means different things to different people. Job title might be one thing but earning more and having choices money brings is something else that social mobility achieves. This is now more difficult to achieve. Many older people have had many advantages younger people don’t get.

I did think Oxbridge gave grads a better insight into possible professions but it appears many DC are now definitely not getting ahead of their parents in many ways. It’s always been the case that some people don’t want to capitalise on their degree. Family members of mine very much so. Others take a different view. It’s a mixed bag everywhere but as there is such a fuss made about Oxbridge, some that go, it appears, aren’t much different to anyone else.

ElaineMBenes From your posts you seem to work for a university or recruitment, not sure which field. But I have recruited graduates for 2 well-paid fields, finance and tech, for the better part of a decade. The landscape has changed a lot, with online tests, university blind applications.

Wrong.

I work in career development and employability in the higher education sector. So yeah, I know ALL about how the graduate recruitment landscape works. And not just in finance and tech..... the whole landscape.

Your comment about 'quality of teaching' implies that you don't know how graduate recruitment works because it's not about the teaching. Heavens no!

I don't think I did suggest this did I?
However, the metrics which measure the quality of teaching at university are directly linked to graduate outcomes and the concept of 'distanced travelled' mentioned earlier.
And quality of teaching doesn't just mean subject knowledge. It also includes employability curriculum and how the students are being prepared for the graduate labour market. So they're inextricably linked.

It's about what's done outside the degree, and understanding the world of graduate recruitment. If ambitious, driven people tend to go to certain universities, and, supported by an excellent career service, apply to everything, they're going to share that information with their juniors, who then have an easier time of it. Graduates know that they need stellar extracurriculars, they need the right keywords for the AI to pass their CV and video interviews. They need to match the required competencies and company values closely, etc.

As a qualified careers adviser with decades of experience working in higher education (not to mention a Masters and PhD in the subject) I'm well aware of all of this.

I was responding to a poster who is complaining that data on graduate outcomes isn't available. Which it clearly is.

Yes there’s a difference. What I see with some students is under confidence in abilities. And these are the ones I push out of their comfort zone. I see students with some decent grades saying childcare. Obviously I explore why and challenge if necessary.

@ElaineMBenes The info I’m asking for is not in the public domain. What jobs do the comp educated dc at Oxbridge go on to do? That’s what I’m asking. Please reply if this is known data. It’s not known to
me.

That very specific set of data isn't public due to GDPR.
The universities themselves will have that specific data as that will be something they would track so you could ask for it via a freedom of information request or you could buy it via HESA as they will own that data set.

Yes, this is extremely important.
No point in claiming that Oxbridge degrees allow 'social mobility' if a significant proportion of the graduates going off to top jobs had other advantages to begin with. Such as parents and peers in top professions.
Also, there is NOTHING wrong with going into teaching, we need passionate teachers and individuals should do what makes them happy. But feeling left out and that things are not for the 'likes of you' run deep. If the data shows that DC from a deprived background are aiming lower than their peers from the same university then it's done little for opening up opportunities/encouraging people to aim high.

BTW, Education is an undergraduate degree in Cambridge so it makes sense that a lot of them are going to be teachers. I just didn't expect it to be in the top profession. However, thinking deeper, this makes sense if a large proportion of the others go on to further study. This wouldn't show in the graduate outcomes survey which is done only 15 months after graduating.

@ElaineMBenes OK, so you are well aware of the entire employment landscape, have a Master's/PHD etc etc in this field. What is your opinion on the impact of university, and university alone, excluding other confounding factors, on graduate outcomes. Not just a few years after graduating, but 10 years into their career, and beyond?

@TizerorFizz
Although the data set for this report is a few years old now this was pretty easy to find ....

www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-07-06-oxford-levels-playing-field-undergraduates-first-jobs

www.ox.ac.uk/news/arts-blog/are-oxford-graduates-career-outcomes-related-their-social-background

OK, so you are well aware of the entire employment landscape, have a Master's/PHD etc etc in this field. What is your opinion on the impact of university, and university alone, excluding other confounding factors, on graduate outcomes. Not just a few years after graduating, but 10 years into their career, and beyond?

You are asking an impossible question.
The decision to attend university, the type of university you choose and the subject you choose to study are all influenced by a multitude of factors. And these decisions are not always logical to an impartial observer.

The type of university and the subject studied will then have an impact on your graduate outcomes as will how an individual interacts with the university experience.

It's just not possible to exclude other confounding factors.

What careers services can do is understand these factors and address them where possible.

And let's not forget, for many people a degree is simply a way of entering a graduate level job. Many graduates aren't working in jobs where they are directly using the subject knowledge gained from their degree. However, the skills they developed are highly sought after by graduate employers.

@PingvsPong although LEO data does attempt to present the longitudinal outcomes of first degree graduates and info can be found here

explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/graduate-outcomes-leo-provider-level-data

And you and @TizerorFizz might find this report interesting

ifs.org.uk/publications/returns-undergraduate-degrees-socio-economic-group-and-ethnicity

OK, so you are well aware of the entire employment landscape, have a Master's/PHD etc etc in this field. What is your opinion on the impact of university, and university alone, excluding other confounding factors, on graduate outcomes. Not just a few years after graduating, but 10 years into their career, and beyond?

@PingvsPong absolutely and this starts to get to the crux of the matter, understanding that that longer medium and longer term timescale is where the real insight is.

But even if you read the Higher Education board here there is still a perceived not for the likes of us, DC wants to go to a uni within an hour of home and a reverse snobbery over what it's like at Oxbridge or southern unis.

You also get the reverse of southern DC not wanting to go too far from home TBH.

If the idea if Oxbridge will give you a chance of those £100k a year roles in accountancy, law, banking and other financial services and indeed being a private doctor on £1m a year etc then that is a good thing. The fact some people are rich enough to pick lower paid roles is another facet. Eg my son who has a property he lets out, lives at home rent free and starts his solicitor job this month is not interested in money very much (and not surprisingly - he has the property income and no rent to pay etc and is not very materialistic - in other words in a sense he is rich enough not to worry about money but even so I think aiming for a £100k+ job would be a good idea as ultimately life is very expensive). At the other end of the scale are people very poor who go for high paid jobs because their parents earned so little - my sons were at a majority Asian school (although we are white) and so many of those children went into jobs like banking, being a quant, professions etc because the family background might be rural Pakistan and they came to this country to make money, have the 10 cars, huge house, gold etc. so teaching would not be a usual choice for them.

It is certainly a complex picture.

As long as we continue to rewards both hard work and high exam results in a fair way so that those from all backgrounds who bust a gut to do well at A level and university then I am happy. If instead we reward the idle and make hard work not pay then something would be wrong.

picking up on that LEO dataset

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/impact-undergraduate-degrees-lifetime-earnings