Summary of Research
This is based on the following published research:
| Citation | Cook, S., Watson D. and Webb R. (2019). ‘It’s just not worth a damn!’ Investigating perceptions of the value in attending university, Studies in Higher Education, 44(7): 156-1267. |
| Abstract | Mass expansion of the UK Higher Education (HE) sector is eroding its well-documented benefits – leading many to question whether HE remains worthwhile. Avoiding the traditional approach of estimating the returns to HE, we investigate why many now feel that attending university will not yield any financial benefits. Using BSA data from 2010 we find that this negativity is being driven by perceived lack of graduate job prospects, the rise in tuition fees and wage underpayment. We conclude that this may well fuel uncertainty and reduce demand for HE from lower socio-economic groups while increasing intra class conflict in higher socio-economic groups. |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1434616 |
Take-away Message: The Widening Participation agenda is becoming more difficult and there are increased risks of Institutional failure.
What motivated the study?
Britain’s Higher Education (HE) has boomed, with graduate numbers more than doubling in 30 years. Hid within this growth, there are notable shifts in widening participation. Entry rate gaps, measured across the most advantaged and most disadvantaged areas, have narrowed every year since 2006. Despite this positive outlook, those from the most advantaged areas remain 2.36 times more likely to attend university. What drives this distinction in HE participation? There is no consensus here. Given the ratcheting up of tuition fees, a popular explanation is debt aversion: i.e. unwillingness to take a loan to pay for education, despite the rate of return suggesting that it is a rational investment. “an unwillingness to take a loan to pay for college, even when that loan would likely offer a positive long-term return”. Research suggests that lower-class students are warier over taking on HE debt.
Rejection of debt aversion is congruent with a human capital perspective. Income-contingent loans minimise any perceived financial loss threat. Competitive labour markets then advertise the importance of acquiring a degree for career success, such that “students from working class backgrounds may feel compelled not to lose out and therefore opt to enrol” (Wilkins et al. 2013). To spur further university attendance, we then need only to refer to marginal changes in costs and benefits associated with the investment decision. For benefits, graduate employability is key. For costs, we switch to price and student loan generosity.
An issue missing in this approach is how the pupil’s understanding is influenced by parental attitudes. First, parental attitudes over debt may prejudice the ambition of the prospective student. Parental debt aversion might be transmitted to their children, such that it impairs Higher Education decision-making. Second, there are issues introduced through Bordieu’s ‘cultural capital’. The middle-class parent may engineer an education-friendly environment by attending highbrow cultural events. Hypothetically, those parents who do not create such an engaging environment have children who become less motivated into skills acquisition. Moreover, parental involvement in their child’s education can improve information flows. Higher engagement could generate greater understanding of graduate premia. A low interest in attending university may therefore reflect a parental deficiency in understanding the value of a HE degree.
Our paper started with a simple question: Do parental attitudes or tuition fees impact on the probability of a child attending university? We wanted to test whether these issues threaten additional reductions in the entry rate gap.
What does the research test?
Using British Social Attitudes data to pinpoint attitudes towards Higher Education, the following hypothesis are empirically tested:
- Employment Opportunities: Reduced graduate employment prospects will positively affect the belief that attending university is not financially beneficial.
- Education Costs: Rising costs associated with acquiring a university education will positively affect the belief that attending university is not financially beneficial.
- Wage Disappointment: Remuneration from attending university is skewed and wage underpayment will positively affect the belief that attending university is not financially beneficial.
What are the main findings?
We confirm the following:
- Social Congestion: There is a perception of ‘too many degrees chasing too few degree-level jobs’. Working class people feel that massification in Higher Education has undermined their opportunities.
- Financial Risk: Despite objective measures of investment return from acquiring a degree, university fees are driving perceptions of university attendance as being financially risky.
- Socio-Economic Inequalities: General studies into the financial return from University education focus too much on average ‘graduate premiums’. Spread further weakens the perceived desirability of acquiring a university education.
What are the policy implications?
Perceptions of financial reward increase the risk that Higher Education participation will exacerbate social immobility. This also risks structural problems within the sector, with hazardous polarization of resources to a select group of universities (Oxbridge and the Russell Group). To meet widening participation goals, there needs to be a re-focus of general policy. While Universities can do more in mitigating issues associated with social and cultural capital, gains will be restricted unless structural issues such as high costs from university attendance are eradicated.