Higher education policy making: hope, prejudice and wishful thinking

Bahram BekhradniaDirectorHigher Education Policy Institute

City University

26 January 2010

Guess who said this?"My second cautionary note concerns evidence-based policy making. … if we mean that evidence should determine policy, then we are living in cloud-cuckoo land. … “

- Sir Howard Newby (then CEO of HEFCE)

Agenda for today

o Theme: Policy making, political decisions and even academic discourse in England often pay little regard to research evidence

o Examples examined:- Research on male and female participation and

progression in HE- Fair access- Non-continuation and drop-out

Male & female participation over time

Source: from DfES/DES Annual Reports

First year full-time home students by gender

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04

000'

s Men

Women

Bear in mind that males account for a much greater share of the population

Figure 2: 18-20 year olds from 2007-08 to 2029-30 by gender (000s)

850.0

900.0

950.0

1000.0

1050.0

1100.0

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

Population (thousands)

18-20 Males18-20 Females

So the position for males is even worse than it looks

Ah, yes, but: the myth of female under-privilege

o “Many women are studying in lower-status universities; many are mature or part-time students. The university continues to be a space where class privilege is maintained and women’s participation is limited to the bottom of a hierarchical continuum.”Penny Jane Burke, lecturer in higher education in the School of Educational Foundations and Policy Studies at the Institute of Education, University of London Quoted in “Class rifts eclipsed by sex divide”, a report by Paul Hill in the Times Higher Education Supplement, 21 January 2005.

Nature of institution attended, by gender

Type of institution Men Women FE College 2.5% 2.8% College of Higher Education 1.4% 2.1% ‘Post-92’ university 18.0% 23.3% ‘Pre-92’ HEI (not Russell group) 8.4% 10.9% Russell group (not Oxford or Cambridge) 6.7% 8.3% Oxford and Cambridge 0.8% 0.8% All types of institution 37.6% 48.2%

Source: HEFCE (unpublished)

Participation by gender and mode

Mode Men Women Index Full-time (including sandwich) 32.4% 41.0% 0.368

Part-time 5.2% 7.3% 0.358

Full- and part-time 37.6% 48.2% 0.434

Source: HEFCE (unpublished)

Young participation by gender

Source: HEFCE (unpublished)

Gender and class of degree

Class of degree Men Women

Firsts 12.6% 11.8%

Upper seconds 44.7% 51.9%

‘Good’ degrees - firsts or upper seconds 57.2% 63.7%

Lower seconds 33.8% 30.5%

Thirds or pass degrees 9.0% 5.8%

All classified first degrees 100.0% 100.0%

Source: HEFCE (unpublished)

Gender and subject preferencesSubject group Men Subject group Women

Eastern, Asiatic, etc, (non European languages) 0.20%

Eastern, Asiatic, etc, (non European languages) 0.20%

Veterinary Sciences, Agriculture and related subjects 0.30% Technologies 0.30%European Languages, Literature 0.50% Engineering 0.50%Technologies 0.50% Architecture, Building and Planning 0.60%

Education 0.60%Veterinary Sciences, Agriculture and related subjects 0.70%

Medicine and Dentistry 0.60% Medicine and Dentistry 0.80%Linguistics, Classics and related subjects 1.00% European Languages, Literature 1.10%Combined 1.00% Mathematical and Computer Science 1.20%

Subjects allied to Medicine 1.30% Mass Communications and Documentation 1.40%Law 1.30% Physical Sciences 1.60%Mass Communications and Documentation 1.30% Combined 1.90%Historical and Philosophical studies 1.80% Historical and Philosophical studies 2.10%Architecture, Building and Planning 1.80% Law 2.30%Physical Sciences 2.20% Linguistics, Classics and related subjects 2.60%Social studies 3.00% Education 3.60%Biological Sciences 3.30% Social studies 5.00%Engineering 3.70% Biological Sciences 5.30%Creative Arts and Design 3.90% Subjects allied to Medicine 5.90%Mathematical and Computer Science 4.00% Business and Administrative studies 5.90%Business and Administrative studies 5.60% Creative Arts and Design 6.20%

The problem is essentially a school problem

A level participation by gender

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

% o

f p

up

ula

tio

n t

akin

g A

lev

els

Boys

Girls

Source: DfES

The underperformance of boys is a world-wide phenomenon

Men and women’s entry rate differences as a fraction of the sum of the rates

Men and women’s entry rate differences as a fraction of the sum of the rates

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Source: OECD, Education at a Glance (2004)

Reactions to the research

Reactions

The report touched a nerve (and possibly other parts too)

In the last two decades, the sexuality revolution has impacted and infiltrated university life. Consequently, fashion-conscious female students, armed with good looks shaped by beauty parlours and salons, and sexy bodies shaped by fitness centers, and sexy clothes, accessories and perfumes shaped by designer labels, have been launching a multi-sensory attack on male minds.This has proved a big distraction for male students. In other words, it's like, male students are in a constant psychological state of arousal 24 x 7.Universities encourage promiscuity by supplying free condoms to students. This affects and distracts male students more than female students.From the male student perspective in terms of academic performance, female students and female teachers are not just a distraction, they are a curse.

A different point of view

o But Louise X, of , criticised the report.o “This report is full of castration anxieties. The author refers to the

‘dominant position of females’… The report, like feminisation discourse itself, is underpinned with the semiotics and imagery of greedy, rapacious women taking over the academy and desiring too much. It is evocative of the obesity hysteria. Women’s ‘over-performance’ is women getting too big. They are newcomers who do not know their place.”

o Angela Y, of , said she was a “little suspicious” of organisations and campaigns that suggested that “everything was fine” with young women,. “There’s an implicit argument that young women have unfairly benefited from support and attention at the expense of young men. From there, it’s easy to move towards an explicitly anti-feminist model that is about turning the clocks back.”

o “We’re seeing an assertion of panic-stricken masculinity,” Professor Y said.

o Carole Z, also considered a recent report by the Higher Education Policy Institute, Male and Female Participation and Progression in Higher Education, to be an "unhelpful" example of how gender inequality in the sector is treated.

o Carole Z said: "By saying men are missing out, Hepi ignores the gender balance in courses. Men tend to have a higher concentration in courses with a higher pay packet waiting at the end of it." She added that the report ignores the "general culture of masculinity in the academy".

o But Carole Z, of , said the report manifested the "moral panic" that has dogged female educational achievement in recent years.

o "The language and arguments made are evocative of a familiar and unhelpful 'sex war' mentality that has been around for a decade or more - indeed, as soon as girls and women were seen to be 'overtaking' men educationally," she said.

o "The lack of an equivalent panic about men's domination of higher education for the previous eight centuries says it all.“

o However, Professor Z’s analysis of the proportion of UK-domiciled female undergraduate students in the top and bottom ten institutions featured in The Times Good University Guide 2008 shows that women constituted a far higher proportion of the student body in lower-ranking universities. There they accounted for 62.5 per cent of numbers: in the top institutions, the figure was 50.6 per cent.

How myths are made – unchecked citations

Women may have leapt a gender gap but there is still a hill to climb“As June AA says … women now make up the overall majority of the undergraduate student population but they are concentrated in the less-prestigious, post-1992 universities that focus more on teaching than research.”- Miriam BB, THE 28 August 2008

The battles of 1918 go on

"Nor is the situation in our universities rosy. Although women now make up 57.2 per cent of the student population, they are concentrated not in the highest-ranked institutions but in the bottom ten."- June AA, THE 7 August 2008 Sourced from a seminar presentation

The original source was less inaccurate, but the interpretation self-serving

Academe still male bastion, assert female scholars

o“Women made up 57.2 per cent of students. They make up only half the students in the top ten institutions, compared with 65 per cent of students in the bottom ten.

oProfessor Z explained the headlines in terms of the fear of emasculation. "This is seen as a threat to masculinity. It is a moral panic.”

- Carole Z of the quoted in THE 10 July 2008

An elementary (or self-serving) mistake

Women Men % WomenInstitution A 10 20 33%Institution B 200 100 67%Wrong answer 50% Average

Women Men % WomenInstitution A 10 20 33%Institution B 200 100 67%Right Answer 210 120 64% Average

There are other problems of under-privilege that are ignored

Some universities are highly socially elitist - % students from most disadvantaged groups

o UK – 29.8%o Oxford 9.8%o Cambridge 11.5%

Why does it matter?

o Just going to a “Top University” enhances earnings power (Are the top universities worth paying for? I Hussain, S McNally &  Shqiponja  Telhaj, LSE October 2008)

o 45% of leading journalists attended Oxbridge (Sutton Trust)

o 27% of MPs attended Oxbridge (Sutton Trust)o Similarly lawyers, and presumably other

influential professionso 25% of all professors in England attended

Oxford or Cambridge (either PG or UG)

The Prime Minister’s views

"An absolute scandal" was the phrase Gordon Brown used to embroil the government in a class war with Oxford University (Times 26 May). With the emphatic backing of the Sun (26 May), which enjoyed "his blistering assault on stuck up Oxbridge 110%"

The issue of fair access has become a shouting match

o Oxford’s chancellor, Lord Patten suggested that universities were being asked to “make up for the deficiencies of secondary education’ by lowering standards”

o The war of words between the government and Oxbridge intensified yesterday. The Secretary of State for universities, John Denham, accused Lord Patten of having outmoded views and seeking to preserve the university for a socially elite intake.

o - Guardian October 2 2008

A shouting match (continued)

o The head of admissions at Oxford warned that there was little more the university could do to encourage students from disadvantaged areas to apply without compromising academic standards because there was a ‘finite pool’ of pupils with the required grades

o Denham responded by criticising the university for setting its sight ‘too low’

A shouting match (continued continued)

o Alison Richard (VC Cambridge) “universities are not engines for promoting social justice … One outcome is that we can help social mobility. But [that] is not our core mission”

o Denham “Profoundly disagreed”. “Education is the most powerful tool we have in achieving social justice”

o The suggestion that some universities are biased in their admissions is just wrong - In Oxford for example state school pupils made

59% of applications, and received 56% of offers

o And avoids the real issues- Among them that only 176 of the 13,500 pupils

with 3 Grade As are from the poorest backgrounds

- School achievement remains highly related to social background

Disparity of participation is a problem of early ambition - dropout at 16

GCSEs (A* to C) at 16

Males and Females Males Females

None 96 97 951 to 4 77 80 87

5 58 63 536 48 50 477 35 39 418 29 30 279 14 15 14

10+ 9 8 8Total 54 58 48

Diversity in admissions standards and social stratification

English universities by qualifications on entry and Social Class of entrants

0

10

20

30

HEI

Av

era

ge

A-l

ev

el p

oin

ts o

n e

ntr

y

Soc. Class > 30%

Soc. Class 20 to30%

Soc. Class < 20%

Analysis of HESA student data

Yet the concern of Ministers (and not just Ministers) is understandable

o It is just disingenuous or naïve to say (as elite universities say in England) that all that matters for the purpose of admission is academic potential

o These universities are producing society’s elite

o They are already engaged in social engineering - it is legitimate to be proactive in this, as are the top US universities

Social engineering does not have to be ducked

o "Moreover, such quantitative measures [examination scores and so on] are even less useful in answering other questions relevant to the admissions process, such as predicting which applicants will contribute most in later life to their professions and their communities."

Bowen and Bok – ‘The Shape of the River’

An easy way to rationalise action to compensate for schooling deficiencies

"It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that individuals who achieve impressive A level results at a poorly performing school in a disadvantaged community would be a better academic bet than those with a somewhat better A levels from contrasting backgrounds".

- Kevin Whitston HEFCE Head of WP THE 30 September

'research which suggests that such students perform better once at university’

-NCEE Report June 2008

-Schwartz Report

-Etc

FACT

"We concluded that students from lower performing schools are not expected to do consistently better in HE than similar students from higher performing schools. However, we did find that students from non-independent schools and colleges appeared to do consistently better than students from independent schools, when compared on a like-for-like basis.“

- Schooling effects on higher education achievement, HEFCE 2005

A-level points, school type and HE achievement

A levels as a predictor of HE success

o A-levels are only slightly better than tossing a coin as a way of predicting who will do well at university, a professor of educational assessment said yesterday¹.

¹Daily Telegraph 14 August 2002, of research by Professor Dylan Wiliam

The relationship is actually quite strong

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

A-level points of other graduate

Pro

ba

bili

ty r

atio

Who does best at University – HEFCE October 2002

Chance of graduate with 24 A-level points having a better degree than another graduate

Another convenient (because relatively easy) solution

o The assertion - - “Bursaries and scholarships are … successfully encouraging high-

achieving lower-income students to opt for more selective universities and colleges.”

Another convenient (because relatively easy) solution

o The assertion - - “Bursaries and scholarships are … successfully encouraging high-

achieving lower-income students to opt for more selective universities and colleges.”

o The basis for the assertion- “28% of students surveyed (28%) believed bursaries were important

when deciding where to go to university and a quarter of students who had heard of bursaries reported that the amount of bursary available had influenced their choice of university.”

‘Awareness, take-up and impact of institutional bursaries and scholarships in England: Summary and recommendations’ – OFFA 2009

Another convenient (because relatively easy) solution

o The assertion - - “Bursaries and scholarships are … successfully encouraging high-

achieving lower-income students to opt for more selective universities and colleges.”

o The basis for the assertion- “28% of students surveyed (28%) believed bursaries were important

when deciding where to go to university and a quarter of students who had heard of bursaries reported that the amount of bursary available had influenced their choice of university.”

o The reality- “In 2005-06 (before bursaries were introduced) 20.8 per cent of students

at Russell Group and 1994 Group universities in England were from the poorest socio-economic groups. In 2006-07 (the first year of the new bursary arrangements) the proportion had reduced to 20.1 per cent, and in 2007-08 it had reduced further to 19.8 per cent. So bursaries appear to have had no impact on fair access.”

‘Awareness, take-up and impact of institutional bursaries and scholarships in England: Summary and recommendations’ – OFFA 2009

IUSS Select committee Report August 2009

Drop-out (non-completion) – 3 issues

o The Daily Mail issue“The Shame of the Student Dropouts”o The frightened politician issue“We must bear down on non-

completion”o The muddled sociologist issue“Drop-out is a social construct”

To the Daily Mail:HE drop-out rates in the OECD

Drop-out rates: number of graduates divided by the number of new entrants in a typical year of entrance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Irelan

d

United K

ingdom

Spain

Finlan

d

Icela

nd

Germ

any

Denmar

k

Nether

lands

Czech

Rep

ublic

Belgium

Austri

a

Franc

e

Sweden

Italy

% d

rop

-ou

t

Source: OECD, Education at a Glance (2004)

To the frightened politician:Different institutions have very different rates of dropout

Outcome - Neither award nor transfer

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percentage

No

. of

inst

itu

tio

ns

Analysis of HESA Performance Indicators

Different institutions have very different rates of success in widening access

From low participation neighbourhoods(young full-time)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percentage

No

. of

inst

itu

tio

ns

Analysis of HESA Performance Indicators

Likelihood of drop-out is directly related to prior educational experience

Full-time first degree entrants (1997-98)Non-continuation rates from first year of study

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

A-leve

l 30-

27A-le

vel 2

6-21

A-leve

l 20-

11A-le

vel 1

0-1

Acces

sBTE

C (l

evel

3)

GN

VQ (l

evel

3)

Oth

er

None

young

mature

Source: HEFCE analysis of HESA data

The muddled sociologistso 'Drop out' is seen as a threat to the Government’s

widening participation policy and to its social justice agenda. It is commonly portrayed as a disaster for the students themselves.

o Interviews showed that 'dropping out' was not a disaster. Students had sound reasons for withdrawing early. All but one intended to return to education.

o The researchers conclude that working-class students who withdraw early to refocus and re-enter education are real lifelong learners: institutions and policy-makers have yet to catch up with them

All quotes from “Rethinking working-class 'drop out' from university”, by Institute for Access Studies, Staffordshire University – Jocey Quinn, Liz Thomas, Kim Slack, Lorraine Casey, Wayne Thexton and John Noble, published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Likelihood of Depression - Men

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Below A-Level

A-Level&Equivalent

Non-completion

Sub-degree

Mature degree

Degree and higher

Qualification

Od

ds

rela

tive

to

Bel

ow

A-L

evel

qu

alif

icat

ion

s

Institute of Education: Wider Benefits of Learning Group (http://www.learningbenefits.net/Publications/ResearchReports.htm)

Likelihood of Excellent Health - Women

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Below A

-Leve

l

A-Leve

l&Equiv

alent

Non-com

plet

ion

Sub-degre

e

Mat

ure d

egre

e

Degree a

nd hig

her

Qualification

Od

ds

rela

tive

to

Bel

ow

A-L

evel

qu

alif

icat

ion

s

Institute of Education: Wider Benefits of Learning Group (http://www.learningbenefits.net/Publications/ResearchReports.htm)

Likelihood of Educational problems in children

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Below A-Level

A-Level&Equivalent

Sub-degreeDegree

Qualification

Od

ds

re

lati

ve

to

Be

low

A-L

ev

el

qu

alif

ica

tio

ns

Institute of Education: Wider Benefits of Learning Group (http://www.learningbenefits.net/Publications/ResearchReports.htm)

Likelihood of voting - Men

Voter

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Below A-Level

A-Level&Equivalent

Non-completion

Sub-degree

Mature degree

Degree and higher

Qualification

Od

ds

co

mp

are

d w

ith

b

elo

w A

-le

ve

l

Institute of Education: Wider Benefits of Learning Group (http://www.learningbenefits.net/Publications/ResearchReports.htm)

“Part time HE is the future” – well if so there is a downside

First degree awarded

Still active on degree

course No longer active

Cohort Number of

entrants

% of

entrants

Number of

entrants

% of

entrants

Number of

entrants

% of

entrants

UK HEIs

(non-OU) 6,490 39% 350 2% 9,745 59%

Open

University 10,025 22% 1,745 4% 34,420 75%

Total 16,515 26% 2,100 3% 44,165 70%

Outcomes of part-time first degree entrants in 1996-97 after 11 academic years

Higher education policy making: hope, prejudice and wishful thinking

Bahram BekhradniaDirectorHigher Education Policy Institute

City University

26 January 2010

o Miriam David 7 January, 2010 I am delighted that you have taken Professor Carole read's research so seriously, exactly as it deserves to be. Kelly coate's research is also very important, and both deserve much wider coverage, and nuanced attention to their 'evidence', pace HEPI's director who nowhere defines what he means by evidence.

o Thomas Hobbes 9 January, 2010 Whatever HEPI's director means by "evidence", we can at least assume that he means more than just a collection of anecdotes and snap judgements thrown together by someone obsessively determined to find sexism wherever possible, and then labelled "research". Do any academics these days ever pause for even a moment to wonder why nobody outside the sacred groves takes them seriously?

Abuse of research – the case of PQA

o Mr Rammell said that research showed that pupils from poorer families suffered most because teachers often underestimated the grades that they eventually achieve - while over-estimating the likely results of pupils from wealthier homes¹.

¹Times 9 September 2005

Accuracy of predicted grades, by social class

% Correct

SES1 51.4

SES2 46.3

SES3 43

SES4 40.9

SES5 40.4

SES6 39.4

Analysis of the Reliability of Predicted Grades –DfES October 2005

But lowest SES are over-predicted, rather than under

Percent Under

Percent Correct

Percent Over

SES1 7.5 51.4 41.1

SES2 8.6 46.3 45.1

SES3 8.9 43 48.1

SES4 8.5 40.9 50.5

SES5 8.8 40.4 50.8

SES6 10.2 39.4 50.5

Analysis of the Reliability of Predicted Grades –DfES October 2005