Hefce: state students outperform private peers

Preliminary findings of major study revealed

November 7, 2013

State school students outperform equally qualified private pupils at university, according to the preliminary findings of a major study.

The Higher Education Funding Council for England research, set to be released in the spring, tracked about 132,000 students who enrolled in 2007-08. It looks at how likely they are to achieve either first- or upper-second-class degrees, depending on their background and controlling for different grades.

State pupils generally do better than their private peers with the same A-level grades, even when the varying difficulty of different degree courses is taken into account.

But when schools are divided by academic performance as opposed to their funding status, there is little difference in pupil standards.

The results, which are similar to those generated by a comparable Hefce study released in 2003, were revealed at a seminar on contextual admissions hosted by the Higher Education Policy Institute in London on 4 November.

Delegates warned that contextual information, which can be used to judge whether applicants from poorer backgrounds have more academic potential than their grades suggest, had to be employed more transparently.

One delegate told the seminar – held under the Chatham House rule, which forbids the identification of speakers – that it must be “absolutely clear” which measures universities were using. For example, parents wanted to know whether moving to a less advantaged postcode would gain their children an admissions advantage.

Another complained that some admissions tutors who were encouraged to use contextual data deployed them in “unscientific ways”.

The attitude of some tutors was that “ ‘10 years ago when we visited this school in Derby it was a bit rough and therefore all schools in Derby must be a bit rough’ ”.

Universities should determine the criteria used and not leave it to tutors to decide, he said.

A third delegate argued that institutions should clarify whether they were using contextual admissions to identify potential or to boost the diversity of the student body.

david.matthews@tsleducation.com

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

PhD Scholar in Medicine

University Of Queensland

Manager, Research Systems and Performance

Auckland University Of Technology

Lecturer in Aboriginal Allied Health

University Of South Australia

Lecturer, School of Nursing & Midwifery

Western Sydney University

College General Manager, SHE

La Trobe University
See all jobs

Most Commented

women leapfrog. Vintage

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman offer advice on climbing the career ladder

Woman pulling blind down over an eye
Liz Morrish reflects on why she chose to tackle the failings of the neoliberal academy from the outside
White cliffs of Dover

From Australia to Singapore, David Matthews and John Elmes weigh the pros and cons of likely destinations

Mitch Blunt illustration (23 March 2017)

Without more conservative perspectives in the academy, lawmakers will increasingly ignore and potentially defund social science, says Musa al-Gharbi

Michael Parkin illustration (9 March 2017)

Cramming study into the shortest possible time will impoverish the student experience and drive an even greater wedge between research-enabled permanent staff and the growing underclass of flexible teaching staff, says Tom Cutterham