Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Mary jane platt_conf_10
Mary jane platt_conf_10
Mary jane platt_conf_10
Mary jane platt_conf_10
Mary jane platt_conf_10
Mary jane platt_conf_10
Mary jane platt_conf_10
Mary jane platt_conf_10
Mary jane platt_conf_10
Mary jane platt_conf_10
Mary jane platt_conf_10
Mary jane platt_conf_10
Mary jane platt_conf_10
Mary jane platt_conf_10
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
437
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Is there a relationship between entry qualifications, widening participation status and degree outcome? Dr Mary Jane Platt Dr Judi Turner Gill Mary Fletcher
  • 2. Outline • Background • Methods • Distribution of degrees by – Classification of degree – SEC group • UCAS tariff on admission – Relationship with SEC/WP – Final degree
  • 3. Method • Admission data relating to students graduating 2007-2009 • Data on – degree classification, – faculty/subject, – UCAS tariff score on entry, – gender, ethnicity, social economic group ( HESA) and WP indicator (only for 2009)
  • 4. Inclusion criteria • Graduated 07-09 • Home student • With a classified degree • With UCAS tariff based on GCSE/ A level qualifications • Those with Missing data excluded from analysis • N=8597
  • 5. Background • “Extending widening participation” is a key priority in the University Strategic Plan with the aim of “Increasing the proportion of under- represented groups” • Russell Group universities exploring use of ‘contextual data’ • The Fair Access Working Group raised the question as to whether students from disadvantaged backgrounds should be accepted onto undergraduate programmes with lower UCAS tariff scores than other students and if so, how much lower?
  • 6. Distribution by Classification 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 First (12%) 2:1 (52%) 2:2 (22%) Third Pass Other
  • 7. Degree classification by SEC group SEC 1-3 First 2:1 2:2 3rd other SEC 4-7 First 2:1 2:2 3rd Other N=7,406, P=0.019
  • 8. UCAS Tariff by SEC (2007-09) n Mean tariff CI SEC 1-3 5682 371 368-373 SEC 4-7 1724 353 348-357 p=<0.001) n Mean tariff CI WP 509 325 313-337 Not WP 2295 353 348-359 p=<0.001) UCAS Tariff by WP (2009 only)
  • 9. Average Tariff on admission of students awarded 2:1 or higher Faculty/School SEC n Tariff CI p Arts 1-3 1032 380 374-384 0.004 4-7 276 363 353-372 Engineering 1-3 128 318 313-380 0.08 4-7 50 346 302-333 Science 1-3 873 383 377-389 <0.001 4-7 321 350 338-362 SES 1-3 1227 373 369-378 0.25 4-7 371 367 359-377 Med: Sch HS 1-3 167 367 353-381 0.74 4-7 42 362 331-393 Med: Sciences 1-3 213 395 383-407 0.05 4-7 51 367 341-397
  • 10. Average Tariff on admission of students with vocational degrees Faculty/Scho ol SEC n Mean Tariff CI p Med: Med Ed 1-3 353 454 443-464 0.81 4-7 70 457 440-474 Dentistry 1-3 74 398 374-422 0.007 4-7 34 455 423-487 Veterinary 1-3 140 458 443-472 0.31 4-7 40 473 451-496
  • 11. Summary • Those from lower SEC manage to achieve good degree from lower UCAS Tariff • Differences by faculty – Selection? – Achievement? – Classification • Different picture for Vocational degrees
  • 12. Discussion • Lots of caveats to this work! – How is UCAS tariff calculated? – Doesn’t look at ‘other’ routes of admission – Other individual level factors not accounted for • E.g. Age – SEC may not be a robust indicator of social disadvantage
  • 13. Next Steps • Take this work forward exploring other contextual data • Aim for a robust and fair system that allows students disadvantaged by their educational opportunities to access higher education on a ‘level playing field’ • WP a better indicator of ‘educational disadvantage’ • But only available for 09 graduation

×