Poorer students present 'financial risk'

Universities struggle to cover costs of dropouts as government support is cut

January 9, 2014

Click here for the full graph with each university listed

New research has laid bare the link between high dropout rates and universities that take undergraduates from low socio-economic backgrounds – and which institutions are managing to buck this trend.

It demonstrates how widening participation could have a financial cost for institutions, at a time when extra funding for universities that take on students from poor backgrounds is under threat.

The graph below, created by York St John University, shows a clear correlation between retention at English universities and the proportion of students from a household where the highest-earning family member had a job falling into the bottom half of the National Statistics Socio-economic Classification.

However, this correlation appears to break down when the dropout rate exceeds 12 per cent in the righthand third of the graph.

Les Ebdon, director of the Office for Fair Access, said the research “starkly” illustrates the costs of taking on students from a widening participation background because of the “significant loss of money” to an institution when a student drops out.

“If universities were simply businesses they wouldn’t do it,” he said.

This emphasises the importance of the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s student opportunity allocation – previously known as the widening participation premium – which gives extra money to universities that take disadvantaged students, he argued.

This year, the allocation is worth £332 million, down £34 million from 2012-13, and there are fears that it could be cut further as the government looks for savings over the next two years.

Professor Ebdon said the fund covered only a “fraction” of the cost to a university of a student dropping out.

It distributes nearly £300 per full-time student multiplied by a “risk weighting” based on the average age and qualifications of the institution’s student body – a proxy for how likely students are to need extra support.

But when students drop out, universities face the loss of tens of thousands of pounds of tuition fees, teaching grants for higher-cost subjects, and fees for accommodation and other services.

According to Graeme Atherton, director of the National Education Opportunities Network, there was a perception among some academics that students from poor backgrounds “are hard to teach, expensive and drop out”.

“I’ve encountered it not infrequently,” he said. “[There is a] perception that they are a burden, and this [research] adds to that idea.”

The universities on the right of the graph take a “big finance hit”, he said.

But the research does offer hope to the sector as it shows that the institutions in the top left of the graph are managing to combine low dropout rates with a high percentage of widening participation students.

York St John has managed to cut its dropout rate from more than 10 per cent in 2003 to 5.6 per cent in 2011, although its proportion of widening participation students decreased slightly in that period.

Andrew Fern, strategic analyst at York St John, said the institution had improved student feedback and instituted a survey that looked for early warning signs that students might drop out.

Dr Atherton noted that institutions with lower entry grades would be more likely to attract widening participation students, who were often less academically prepared, and so less likely to stay the course.

Tessa Stone, chief executive of the education charity Brightside, cautioned that although entry grades explain the correlation at some institutions, the graph also showed that some institutions with equally high entry grades had very different dropout rates.

University location, number of international students and course quality could all make a difference to retention, regardless of students’ performance before university, she said.

She also warned that the problem could be a vicious circle, because when students see their peers drop out this “reinforces the fact that it’s possible”.

“It’s not simple,” said Professor Ebdon. “Money is clearly quite important. The poorer you are, the less likely you are to stay on course.”

He added: “A sense of belonging is critical to student success. If you feel you don’t belong either because of class or ethnicity, you’re more likely to drop out.”

Those from widening participation backgrounds might not have been as well prepared by their previous education for university as others, he continued, which pointed to the importance of university-run access courses.


Times Higher Education free 30-day trial

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Reader's comments (4)

This piece troubles me because it presents poorer students as a financial burden based on research that seems not to ask where each individual university's retention problems lie. The headline finding rests on the assumption that the students dropping out of high-WP universities are more likely to be WP students. And in absolute terms, this is true - Bolton has more WP drop-outs than Oxford. However, what really needs to be established is whether each individual university's WP population is over- or under-represented within its drop-out group. Without this information, I'm not sure the interpretation is safe.
Would the non continuation rate of WP students against overall non continuation rate would illustrate that?
This graph plots the socio-economic group of young entrants against the non-continuation rate of all (including mature) entrants. Furthermore, it doesn't look at where the students were actually taught, only where the funding council money goes first (before being paid on to the actual teaching institution). For some institutions, this can be a larger proportion of 'their' students. The chart is thus misleading and so the story based on it probably is too. Every student matters, every 'drop-out' should be seen as a failure in support (often, but not always, by the institution). (Louise: yes, it would, but that would involve purchasing data, instead of using what's freely available. Who cares enough to do that? (rhetorical))
Surely every Comments section should cross refer to published LETTERS about the item? There were at least two letter about this article - and they make points not made above.


Featured jobs

Gallery Assistant

University Of Southampton

Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering

University Of Greenwich

Knowledge Exchange Co-ordinator

Cranfield University

International Officer

University Of Southampton