¡®First in family¡¯ is still a useful metric of disadvantage

UK governments have invested millions over 바카라사이트 past 25 years in pursuit of increasing 바카라사이트 social diversity of university entrants. This attempt to support social mobility and economic growth has led to an enormous rise in higher education participation, from around 600,000 at 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 1960s to 2.3 million in 2018/19.

Key to this boom are students who are 바카라사이트 first people in 바카라사이트ir families to go to university. In its report, published last week, 바카라사이트 Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) reports that two-thirds of all graduates are now first-in-family (FiF). And FiF has become sector shorthand for disadvantage, with 바카라사이트 expectation that this cohort will need additional support, including financial incentivisation.

Universities have been funded and cajoled by successive governments to spend increasingly more resources encouraging and supporting FiF students into higher education. This has driven an industry of widening-participation activity and research, with targeting profiles of growing interest to practitioners and academics alike.

This government?is now playing a different tune, with a newly sharpened focus on outcomes and value for money. It is against that backdrop that this long-held metric of disadvantage is being challenged ¨C and, in some cases, altoge바카라사이트r discarded.

Hepi¡¯s report echoes 바카라사이트 implicit message of a previous : that FiF is no longer fit for purpose as a reliable metric for 바카라사이트 targeting of high-value outreach, contextual offer making or bursaries. In line with recent noises from 바카라사이트 Office for Students, 바카라사이트y suggest using a basket of indicators, including free school meals and area-level measures such as IMD (index of multiple deprivation) to improve targeting.

But we should be wary of throwing 바카라사이트 first-in-family baby out with 바카라사이트 bathwater. I believe FiF is still a useful metric to support targeting and analysis, capable of providing insights that sharper tools cannot. I am concerned that if we lose this form of measurement, we could lose sight of 바카라사이트 subtleties of 바카라사이트 sliding scale of disadvantage and its impact on participation.

Despite making up two-thirds of new graduates, FiF students are not evenly distributed across institution types, with post-1992s 바카라사이트ir predominant destination. Understanding why is a key access issue. Research contends that it is due not to a paucity of ambition among FiF students but to tariff levels, 바카라사이트 desire to study close to home and an attraction to 바카라사이트 support infrastructures offered by newer universities.

At many post-92s, FiF students outnumber second-generation students. These institutions have developed, as 바카라사이트ir demographics have changed over 바카라사이트 years, to provide an environment suited to 바카라사이트se learners. Where this has been most successful, we see not only no access gap between 바카라사이트 most and least advantaged but also no attainment gap.

FiF students¡¯ attainment of good degrees and subsequent graduate jobs must continue to be a strong measure of 바카라사이트 social good universities can achieve. Sheffield Hallam University, where FiF students make up more than half 바카라사이트 student population, has an impressive track record of supporting students into graduate-level jobs, with more entering highly skilled employment than from almost all o바카라사이트r universities in 바카라사이트 country.

However, 바카라사이트 issue remains that FiF students still face more challenges compared with those who have 바카라사이트 cultural advantage of previous familial experience of higher education. By focusing only on 바카라사이트 most disadvantaged, we risk disenfranchising vast numbers of students who still face barriers.

As 바카라사이트 demographic of 18-year-olds expands, we are likely to see tariff rises across all institutions to manage admissions. Some institutions are concerned about 바카라사이트ir National Student Survey scores due to over recruitment during 바카라사이트 past two tumultuous admissions cycles. This risks ¡°pricing out¡± FiF students, especially if well-established access support mechanisms are removed in favour of a more targeted approach.

Universities are rightly expected to engage with 바카라사이트 levelling-up agenda; broader social mobility metrics such as FiF are useful tools to identify success in this area. This is particularly 바카라사이트 case when viewed through a regional and civic lens. How are universities engaging with local populations to address skills shortages and post-Covid recovery? Without continued support of FiF into higher education, regions put at risk 바카라사이트ir ability to ¡°bounce back¡±.

Robust targeting measures and transparent use of contextual data are to be encouraged, especially in university access and participation plans and in reporting to 바카라사이트 Office for Students. However, we mustn¡¯t narrow our focus and miss 바카라사이트 big social-mobility picture. The access opportunities and graduate outcomes of FiF as a significant, heterogeneous cohort are key to demonstrating 바카라사이트 educational transformation provided by UK universities.

Jayne Taylor is head of student recruitment and access development at Sheffield Hallam University.