New data, same old story

ACCESS.

Expanded information on university applicants reveals a predictable tale. John Pratt says we have a long way to go in widening access.

Higher education has long been the preserve of the better-off.

For much of history it has also been dominated by young men. We are now in an era of mass higher education. Has it made any difference to such longstanding disparities? The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service identified an apparent shift this summer, but its claim that there may be signs of change in applications from lower socioeconomic groups is based on slender evidence.

The historic differences in the social class in higher education were stark. In 1962, the Robbins committee surveyed a sample of 21-year-olds. It found that 45 per cent of those with fathers in "higher professional" occupations entered full-time higher education, compared with only 4 per cent of those with fathers in skilled manual occupations and 2 per cent of children of semi and unskilled manual workers. Moreover, the proportions of "working-class" students entering higher education had not changed for 25 years.

The Robbins report also showed that only about 7 per cent of the age group of women entered higher education in 1962, compared with nearly 10 per cent of men. Most students, of either sex, were aged 18 to 21.

Much has changed since then. Now, about a third of the age group enters full time higher education, compared with 9 per cent at the time of Robbins. But the abolition of student grants and the introduction of fees to be paid by undergraduates have raised concerns about deterrence, particularly to less well-off and older students. The average debt of graduates in 1998 was more than Pounds 3,900; for graduates aged 26 or more, it averaged more than Pounds 4,700.

Perhaps the most obvious long-term change is that women now constitute the majority of applicants. UCAS data for applications at June 30 1999 show that women constituted 53 per cent of the total (216,504 of 406,323). Their share of the total had risen marginally above 1998. The overall number of applications at this date was 1.7 per cent below 1998, and the number of admissions to higher education last year had also fallen by the same percentage below 1997, confirming predictions about the impact of student loans and fees. But the drop in applications from women by June 1999 was only 1.5 per cent compared with 1.9 per cent for men.

There are now many more older students applying for higher education than in the 1960s. Again, however, the indications in this year's applications are of a decline. UCAS data show that the number of UK applicants aged 25 and older was 10 per cent below the corresponding figure last year. For those aged 21 to 24, the decline was 7 per cent, but for those under 21, there was a rise of 0.2 per cent. The figures do nothing to allay the fears that it is mature students who are most deterred by the costs of higher education. Compared with 1998, there were nearly 5,000 fewer applicants aged 21 and over.

UCAS breaks new ground this year when it comes to students' socioeconomic backgrounds. For the first time, data from applicants have been analysed using the market research company Experian's Mosaic system. Applicants were classified by postcode into 12 lifestyle groups based on 86 socioeconomic factors - a combination of census, electoral roll, housing and financial data.

The categories reflect a wider range of variables than the social-class classifications based on father's occupation previously used by UCAS. A typical category is "suburban semis", described by Experian as "Ithe bedrock of middle-brow suburban taste, attracting people whose ambitions are focused on limited and attainable objectivesI these people live well-organised and agreeable lives and have sufficient time and income to pursue a wide variety of home-based leisure interests".

The Mosaic analysis confirms that historic disparities in applications to higher education are far from being eliminated. As Tony Higgins, UCAS chief executive, commented: "Lower income families are still woefully under represented in higher education." The UCAS study shows that the better-off still apply much more than the less well-off to enter higher education: 21 per cent of 1999 applicants were from the "higher income families" group, though only 11 per cent of the population is classified as such. The percentage of applications from "low-rise council" areas and "council flats" was only about half that if the distribution were proportionate to population. This means that more than twice as many people applied from "higher income families' (nearly 69,000) as from the "low-rise council" and "council flats" groups combined (just over 34,000).

The UCAS study compares applicants for 1999 with those for 1998. The data show very small differences in applications from the various socioeconomic groups, though Mr Higgins saw these as indicating that "this year people from less well-off backgrounds are more likely to consider higher education". The percentage of applications from "higher income families" drops from 20.87 to 20.81 per cent, and that from "low-rise council" rises from 6.83 to 6.87 per cent.

"Mortgaged families", which UCAS calls a "mid-group", is the only one to have shown a numerical as well as a percentage rise in applications, but "blue collar owners" show a numerical and percentage decline. It is on this basis that Mr Higgins remarked that "if this study marks the beginning of a trend, then we will start to see real change in the social make-up of our student population".

This seems a shade ambitious. After all, the previous year's figures had shown a rise (somewhat higher, too) in the proportion of applications from social classes I and II (professional, managerial and technical occupations). The new data are far from unambiguous, the changes are statistically insignificant, and at these rates of change it will take a large part of the next century to achieve parity.

Nevertheless, the data raise some interesting issues. The decline of more than 1,000 applications from "higher income families" again raises questions about student fees, since this group would have to pay the full fee, yet, equally is best able to do so.

There are also marked changes in applications for courses in some subjects.

Applications for initial teacher training are down by 13 per cent, despite the government's efforts to improve recruitment, while those for nursing are up by 8 per cent, even before the new pay structure was introduced.

Computer science is booming, and the decline in some social sciences appears to have slowed.

The UCAS applications data reveal how faltering are our steps towards a genuinely mass system. The overall drop in applications and the persistence of social disparities must be of continuing concern for UCAS, the institutions and the government.

John Pratt is head of the centre for institutional studies at the University of East London.