Widening Participation issues among
postgraduate students at the University of
Bristol, 2008/09: a preliminary
investigation
Dr Tony Hoare and Beatriz Caicedo Velasquez, on behalf
of the University’s Widening Participation Research
Cluster
University of Bristol
December 2010
1
Contents
1. Preamble.......................................................................................................... 3
2. Practicalities .................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Source of data ............................................................................................ 10
2.2 Study population ........................................................................................ 12
2.3 Dependent Variables .................................................................................. 13
2.4 Independent variables ............................................................................... 13
3. Results 1 – simple descriptive ....................................................................... 17
3.1 Composition of undergraduates and postgraduates – demographic and
educational characteristics ............................................................................. 17
3.2 Composition of undergraduates and postgraduates – widening
participation students...................................................................................... 20
3.3 Motivations ................................................................................................. 23
4. Results 2 - Multivariate analysis .................................................................. 30
4.1 Our modelling approach ............................................................................ 30
4.2 Results…………………………………………………………………………..33
5. Summary and Discussion ............................................................................ 45
6. Postscript………………………………..……………………………………………52
7. References…….…………………….….……………….…………………………..53
2
Preamble
Since Lord Dearing‟s Report of 1997 the focus of widening participation
(WP) policy and practice in the British Higher Education (HE) sector has been on
the under-representation of certain groups of young people among the nation‟s
undergraduate population. The several subsequent WP policy statements and
reports, from Government and otherwise, have differed in the ways they defined
such under-represented groups, and, amongst universities, Bristol has done so
using a wider range of criteria than any other.
As a result of an institution-wide
consultation the University identified eight groups to which the efforts of widening
participation has being focused: 1) mature students, 2) students from low
performing schools and colleges, 3) students from low participation areas, 4)
students from low socio economic groups, 5) minority ethnic students, 6) disabled
students, 7) state school students, and, 8) local students (a full description for each
of these categories is described in section 2.4).
This emphasis on undergraduates is entirely understandable. Not only are
they emphatically the dominant numerical component among all university students
but almost all the minority that pursue postgraduate study do so through having
first taken an undergraduate degree, immediately or some time previously. Hence,
other things being equal, any patterns of bias and under-representation at the
undergraduate level will be replicated to some extent at the later, postgraduate,
one, and any success in broadening the intake of undergraduate by social groups
should find its subsequent reflection among postgraduate populations as well.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the latter will be a perfect image in
miniature of the former. Some of the barriers and impediments that have led to
comparatively few young people from certain backgrounds undertaking a first
degree (eg the lack of peer-group graduate role models at their school, or in their
3
local residential neighbourhood) may have little or no impact three or four years
later. But others might still be influential (eg the lack of experience of post-school
education in the immediate and extended family), or even enhanced (notably the
lack of family financial support for postgraduate study, which is more dependent on
such „outside‟ funding than was an undergraduate degree). This will reduce still
further the likelihood of students from low social class backgrounds or mature
students becoming postgraduates, even had they enrolled for a first degree.
Another dimension to this potential difference between undergraduate and
postgraduate experiences is geographical. While the so-called elite universities,
whether defined as the Russell Group, the Sutton Trust universities or however,
represent, in reality and by definition, only a minority of the national undergraduate
population, they provide disproportionately more postgraduate student places
(Wakeling and Kyriacou, 2010). These universities tend to perform poorly against
conventional undergraduate national WP Performance Indicators (such as the
proportion of students from state schools or low social classes), and recent work by
one of us has underlined that this may owe more to the deterrent effect of their
campus images and cultures, real or supposed, on such nationally underrepresented student groups than to their academic attainments (Hoare and
Aitchison, 2009).
We may therefore find these different geographies also impact on the
national social composition of postgraduates. Whether the elites are recruiting
postgraduates from their own undergraduate ranks or from first-degree students
who choose to migrate elsewhere to pursue their postgraduate interests (a
distinction we enlarge on below), the pool they are drawing upon may be more
socially exclusive than is the national undergraduate population. More formally, we
can define several ways in which students flow between undergraduate and
postgraduate study within a system of universities, and hence of ways in which any
4
one university can compile its postgraduate student population. Figure 1 shows the
simplest of cases, with just two such „universities‟, Bristol and all others combined.
Some Bristol students leave Higher Education after completing their first degree
(Flow G). The postgraduate composition of Bristol will include some of its own
undergraduate population who progress immediately to a further qualification (Flow
A) and also first graduates attracted from elsewhere (Flow D). Bristol‟s
postgraduates also are supplied by a further, composite component from Flow E,
containing those with an earlier first degree from Bristol or elsewhere and who
return to postgraduate study some time after, along with those without any first
degree but who are admitted to postgraduate study based on an equivalent or
better background from „the university of life‟. (The equivalent flows for the other,
combined „university‟ – respectively H,C,B and F – are also shown for
completeness.)
Figure 1. Hypothetical inter-university interactions between undergraduate and
postgraduate populations
5
We can now specify two different Bristol postgraduate populations – the one
it generates (Flows A,B and part of E and F) and the other it attracts (Flows A,D
and E). These may differ from each other, and either or both may also differ from
its undergraduate population, to the extent that the specific differential progression
barriers to postgraduate status suggested above are relevant to the attracted and
generated populations. For the attracted case, Bristol‟s postgraduate composition
will also reflect both the distinctive postgraduate opportunities it offers, which may
differ sharply from its undergraduate programmes (in Bristol, for example, the lion‟s
share of taught postgraduate courses are provided by just one of its six faculties –
Social Sciences and Law) and also, as discussed already, its campus culture - the
sort of place it is (or is thought to be). This is likely to be particularly important to all
of Flow D and that part of Flow E that reflects the attraction of students without
prior familiarity of Bristol as a place to study from their undergraduate years. The
equivalent composition of the generated case will similarly reflect the differential
appeal to Bristol undergraduates of its courses and cultures against other
campuses offering postgraduate study. So, again, even were the research
evidence to converge on a standard, consensus view of what the national
landscape of postgraduate students looks like, there is no reason to assume this
will be repeated at each of over 100 campuses offering postgraduate study, either
to the (potentially different) postgraduate populations each attracts or that each
generates. At the aggregated national level the attraction and generation profiles
will converge to a common one (pace the significant complications of international
student migration!) but this national picture will merely be the amalgam of two
different and varying sets of local profiles.
To make this clearer still, consider the hypothetical example outlined in
Figure 2, based
on the same two „universities‟ as before. Each contains an
undergraduate cohort of 4000 students at Stage 1 which generate two equallysized sets of 1000 postgraduates (Stage 2). For whatever reason, the UoB has
less attraction to „WP‟ students than the other „university‟, but these form a
6
constant fraction of each separate university‟s undergraduate and postgraduate
cohorts (20% at UoB, 40% elsewhere).
Figure 2: Hypothetical widening participation profiles of local and national
postgraduate cohorts .
Only half of each university‟s 1000 generated postgraduates now choose to remain
at their home university for their second qualification, the other half moving to the
alternative campus (Stage 3), but again UoB proves the less appealing to WP
students irrespective of their origins, losing proportionately more of its own former
WP undergraduates than it retains and attracting relatively fewer of those who
were WP undergraduates elsewhere than remain at their „home‟ university. The
outcome, at Stage 4, is that the two universities have cohorts of attracted
7
postgraduates that, while still identical in overall size, are now even more unequal
in their proportions of WP students (a 3:1 differential) than were their equivalent
cohorts at Stages 1 and 2 (a 2:1 differential). When aggregated into a national
postgraduate population we find that the overall proportion of WPs is also different
to both the equivalent generated and attracted proportions of each of its constituent
universities, and so doubly misrepresents their separate experiences.
Admittedly, this simplified illustration tells us nothing about why the
differential attraction of the two universities on WP undergraduates and
postgraduates comes about, and also assumes the decision to become a
postgraduate and then to seek an appropriate placement arise as separate,
sequential, decisions. Nevertheless, it shows how the WP composition of
postgraduate cohorts can vary both from university to university, and also from the
generation and attraction stages for any single university. Clearly, examination
merely of the overall national picture tells us nothing about these finer-grained
geographies.
So in one way or the other, and for whatever reasons, WP issues amongst
postgraduates have become a seriously under-researched theme. As a reaction
we have recently seen reviews which have pored over the limited and sometimes
contradictory research findings to date concerning the composition of the national
postgraduate population its trends, funding, barriers affecting the participation, the
decisions undertaken by the potential students and the impact of postgraduate
degrees on future career prospects (Smith et al, 2010, Equality Challenge Unit,
2009, House, 2010, Stuart et al., 2008, HEFCE, 2004, Wakeling and Kyriacou,
2010). They are mostly focused at the aggregated (across-universities) national
scale, although, as we have shown, we might reasonably expect that the picture at
8
one university could be very different from that at another, and even more so than
are their equivalent undergraduate populations. However, we know of no published
research into the characteristics of postgraduate student populations at, or
generated by, an individual UK university, however defined in terms of the
interaction flows of Figure 1. This makes our survey investigation a „first‟, not just
for Bristol but for the HE sector more widely.
A summary of these published results can be found in our previous report
“Widening participation at Postgraduate level: Reading report and future
work for the Research Cluster group” which was shared with the Social Science
and Law Faculty‟s WP Forum in July 2010 by the WP Research Cluster. Overall,
these published reports have showed marked differences in the access to
postgraduate by gender, ethnicity and social class.
According to the different
authors, females predominate among UK postgraduate students especially among
taught degrees, postgraduate certificate and diploma degrees ( House, 2010,
Smith et al, 2010), although they are under-represented in Research degrees
(Purcell et al., 2005).
Although still controversial, given the difficulty in
measurement, low social class appeared as the most important deterrent to
progress onto postgraduate courses. Different studies suggests that postgraduate
students are considerably more likely to be from a professional or managerial
social class background (Wakeling, 2005, Machin and Murphy, 2010).
Finally,
interesting differences between minority groups across the different postgraduate
degrees were also found, especially in overrepresentation on taught higher
degrees for certain minority ethnic groups specifically, Black, Chinese and Asian
Other.
White
and
South
Asian
groups
were
found
to
be
relatively
underrepresented not only among taught degrees but also across all types of
postgraduate degrees (Smith et al, 2010).
9
Against this background, during the academic year 2009/10 the need to
know more about the nature of the local (Bristol) postgraduate population, was
considered a first step to any discussion of the University‟s need to respond to WP
imperatives in its postgraduate cohorts. Knowing whether there was anything we
should, or could, be doing about it was given high priority by the Management
Group of the University‟s Widening Participation Research Cluster (WPRC) and
also strongly supported by the WP Forum of the Faculty of Social Sciences and
Law and other consultees. The report to follow is the outcome of this. It
concentrates first on some simple description and then on a more sophisticated
quantitative analysis of the snapshot picture provided from the latest available
appropriate data source. We also draw out some main summary findings,
implications and conclusions, along with some of the obvious ways in which the
work could be extended. Some of what we report is predictable, but not everything.
Some is reassuring, but some more worrying and puzzling. We also look forward to
comments and suggestions as to where, if anywhere, we should go from here.
2. Practicalities
Two main objectives oriented this first report. First of all, we wanted to
explore
the
demographic
and
educational
characteristics
of
the
UoB‟s
undergraduates who finished in 2008/09 and were enrolled on postgraduate
degrees somewhere six months after graduation. Second, we wanted to provide
some initial analysis of the factors associated with being a postgraduate, with
special focus on the presence or absence of WP characteristics.
2.1 Source of data
10
To achieve our main objectives we used data related to the UK and EU
undergraduate population who finished their Bristol (UoB) course between the 1st
August 2008 and 31st July 2009 and who then completed the Destination of
Leavers from Higher Education Survey (DLHE) carried out between April 2009 and
January 2010 by the University‟s Careers Service.
This identifies each
postgraduate student under a number of headings:

Type of postgraduate course: postgraduate diploma and certificate (eg
PGCE), Masters (eg M.Sc, MA) Research programmes (eg PhD, DPhil and
MPhil)

Location of postgraduate course: home university (UoB) or elsewhere

Motivation for postgraduate study: employment or academic reasons,
interest in the field, wanting to study, to postpone job hunting and others.

Means of funding: self-funding, grant/award, sponsorship, employer-based
funding, others
This source enables us to access two of the three largest pathways of
postgraduate recruitment relevant to the UoB, as mapped in Figure 1:
i) Those UoB undergraduates who then immediately enrol for
postgraduate study of some sort at UoB (Flow A)
ii) Those from the same UoB undergraduate cohort who enrol for
postgraduate study of some sort at another university (unspecified in the
DLHE dataset) in the UK or abroad (Flow D)
11
However, two other postgraduate pathways are necessarily excluded:
i) Those who enrolled immediately as UoB postgraduates from the
equivalent undergraduate cohorts at universities other than UoB (Flow B)
ii) Those, whether undergraduates from UoB or elsewhere, who enrol
on postgraduate study at UoB after a delay of at least one year from their
first graduation, or who have no first degree prior to becoming
postgraduates (Flow E).
Neither of these latter flows is accessible from our UoB-held DLHE returns,
which are confined to the destinations of our own undergraduates within six
months of graduation. The recent extension of the DLHE to cover destinations
three years after graduation would enable us to capture some of the „delayed
postgraduates‟ of that part of Flow E of Figure 1 who were Bristol undergraduates
(though the value of these data is obviously conditional on the response rate and
bias), but our own records of postgraduates provide very limited background detail
of non-UoB first-degree postgraduates here. The current (2010/11) move at Bristol
to on-line registration will not significantly change this.
2.2 Study population
The total of University of Bristol undergraduate students who finished during
the academic year 2008/09 was 3,050, of which 2,588 completed the DLHE
survey.
Additionally, by searching the student information system of the
postgraduate student body (via SITS programme); we were able to find 36
12
postgraduates who also had graduated from UoB in 2008/09 but had not
completed the DLHE survey. We also included them in our analysis, making a
total undergraduate population with information about their study circumstances six
months after graduation of 2,624.
2.3 Dependent Variables
Given the nature of our current interest we adopted three different outcome
variables related to being a postgraduate six months after graduation:
1.
All Postgraduates: Those DLHE respondents now engaged in any
further postgraduate study - PhD, DPhil, MPhil, MA, MSc, Postgraduate
Diploma, Postgraduate Certificate, other Diploma or Certificate and
Professional qualification – wherever they may be studying.
2.
Bristol Postgraduates; Those respondents from within category 1
now studying at the University of Bristol.
3.
Elsewhere Postgraduates: Those respondents from within category
1 now studying other than at the University of Bristol.
2.4 Independent variables
In this analysis we assessed the effect on the probability of studying
postgraduate of the WP characteristics as specified at the start of their
undergraduate course. These are:
13
1.
Mature students:
students aging 21 or older when starting their
Undergraduate course.
2.
Students from low performing schools and colleges: although
this has changed since in the light of other work by the WPRC, this was
defined for the cohort being analysed here as schools and colleges with a
UCAS average tariff score of 265 or below for their year 13 (Upper Sixth)
cohorts.
3.
Students from low participation neighbourhoods:
calculated
using POLAR2 quintiles 1 and 2.
4.
Students from low socio economic groups:
students whose
parents are classified on their UCAS forms as being from social classes
between 4 to 8: Small employers & own account workers, Lower
supervisory
&
technical
occupations,
Semi-routine
and
Routine
occupations.
5.
Minority ethnic students:
defined as those students who self-
declared as Black Caribbean, Black African, Black other, Indian, Pakistani,
Bangladeshi, Chinese, Asian
other, White/black Caribbean, White/black
African, White/Asian, Mixed other and Other.
6.
Disabled students: those falling into any of UCAS‟s nine categories
of disability: specific learning difficulty (eg. dyslexia), blind or partially
14
sighted, deaf , wheelchair or mobility difficulties, autistic spectrum disorder
or Asperger syndrome, mental health difficulties, unseen disability (eg.
diabetes, epilepsy, heart condition), multiple disabilities, other disability.
7.
State school students:
those from all types of non-independent
schools.
8.
Local students:
students from Bristol or Bath home postcodes
when they applied to the University as potential undergraduates.
In addition, we explored the effect of other potential significant variables that
according to the literature may influence the probability of postgraduate study.
These are:
9.
Gender: as we have seen, previous research has found significant
gender difference in the probability of undertaking postgraduate studies,
which has being more marked by different types of degrees. The existing
literature suggests that women are under-represented among Masters and
Research degrees while appear to be over-represented among other
postgraduate courses such as postgraduate certificates and diplomas
(Purcell et al., 2005, Wakeling, 2005, Stuart et al., 2008).
10.
Age at graduation:
age when the graduates finished their
undergraduate course. There is evidence suggesting that students younger
than 25 years old on graduaton are significantly more likely to continue onto
further studies than older graduates (Purcell et al., 2005).
11.
Living with parents: students who are reported as living with their
parents when starting their undergraduate studies. Although under15
researched at postgraduate level, it has being found that secondary school
leavers who were living at the parental home were more likely to undertake
higher education studies than those who
were living in rented
accommodation (Albert, 2000, Marino et al., 2006).
12.
Student loan: students who had a student loan at some time during
their undergraduate course. The literature suggests that undergraduate debt
influences the decision of graduates to enrol onto postgraduate studies.
Graduates with a student loan are significantly less likely to go on to
postgraduate studies than graduates who did not carrying a debt from their
undergraduate years (Millett, 2003). The study by Stuart and colleagues
also highlights that the amount of undergraduate debt is not the real barrier
to apply for postgraduate studies, but that the worry of incurring more debts
is (Stuart et al., 2008).
13.
Subject of study: this refers to the Bristol faculty to which the
student was registered as an undergraduate: Arts, Science, Engineering,
Medical & Veterinary Sciences, Medicine & Dentistry and Social Sciences &
Law. According to the literature, graduates from Engineering and Health
disciplines are less likely to continue onto further studies than Arts and
Social Sciences graduates, and more likely to enter the job market (Stuart et
al., 2008, Purcell et al., 2005).
14.
Undergraduate degree classification: unsurprisingly, the literature
demonstrates that having a higher degree class (eg First or Upper Second
class award ) increases the likelihood of progressing to postgraduate
studies than those with lower class degrees. (Purcell et al., 2005).
16
3. Results 1 – simple descriptive
3.1 Composition of undergraduates and postgraduates – demographic and
educational characteristics
Of the total of undergraduate population of Bristol students examined 31.2%
were undertaking further studies six months after graduation and 25.7% of the total
were involved in postgraduate courses of some sort. Of this latter figure 35.5%
were reported as studying at UoB and the remainder, nearly two thirds, were
studying elsewhere (Figure 2). Unfortunately, we have no ready way of comparing
these results with those from other universities in general or our research-intensive
peers within the Russell Group in particular, valuable though this would be.
Figure 3. Proportion of undergraduates according to their study
status six months after graduation. University of Bristol, UK. 2008/09
5.45%
35.50%
No study
Study but no PG
68.78%
Study PG
25.77%
PG UoB
64.50%
PG elsewhere
17
Table 1 describes the demographic, socio-economic and educational
characteristics of the undergraduate cohort captured in the DLHE survey and of
those also undertaking postgraduate studies. Of the total undergraduates, whether
subsequently postgraduates or not, we found that their average age was 23 years
(sd = 4.7), and just over half (53.6%) were females.
Unsurprisingly the
overwhelming majority were white (90.7%) and over 60% belonged to the highest
two socio-economic classes – higher and lower administrative, managerial and
professional (36.9% and 26.84% respectively). As also expected 97.4% of the
study population were UK or EU in their pre-university home residence and had
belonged to the Faculties of Sciences, Arts and Social Sciences and Law. Over
half had had a student loan in some of their years of undergraduate study and
nearly three-quarters graduated with a First-Class or Upper Second-Class Honours
degree.
As can be seen, the demographic, socio-economic and educational
characteristics of those who then enrolled in postgraduate studies are different in
detail rather than in substance from the undergraduate populations from which they
are derived. Slight increases are to be noted in the percentage that is female, nonwhite non-UK/EU based and (perhaps surprisingly) living with parents. Predictably,
larger deviations are found in the percentages who are young (so less likely to
have dependents, though we have no direct measure of this), with good (First and
Upper Second) degrees and from the three previously leading Faculties (the
almost complete absence of any postgraduates from Medicine and Dentistry is
striking). Most surprising, given the widespread publicity to the burden of debt
repayment on current generations of graduating students, the percentage with
some experience of a loan has risen by almost 20 percentage points compared to
the undergraduate benchmark, to nearly three-quarters (Table 1). Finally, on social
class (defined through parental occupation) there is some bimodality in the
differences we find: higher percentages of postgraduates than undergraduates
18
come from the top two categories but also from the very lowest one: it‟s the centreground that seems to be squeezed. We return to this issue in the next section.
Table 1. Characteristics of the Undergraduates who finished their course in 2008/09
according to their demographic, socio-economic and educational variables. University of
Bristol, UK. 2008/09
Variable
Total Undergraduates
Studying a
2008/09
Postgraduate degree
N
%
N
%
Female
1,406
53.58
371
54.88
Male
1,218
46.42
305
45.12
2,320
90.66
576
88.21
24
0.94
7
1.07
Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi
64
2.50
17
2.60
Chinese/Asian Other
57
2.23
23
3.52
Other Mixed
94
3.67
30
4.59
18-21
1,564
59.63
493
72.93
22-25
926
35.30
161
23.82
26-66
133
5.07
22
3.25
940
36.94
257
39.00
683
26.84
179
27.16
Intermediate occupations
257
10.10
67
10.17
Small employers and own account workers
115
4.52
20
3.03
Lower supervisory and technical occupations
56
2.20
12
1.82
Semi-routine occupations
122
4.79
20
3.03
Routine occupations
34
1.34
7
1.06
Never worked and long-term unemployed
338
13.28
97
14.72
Gender
Ethnicity
White
Black Caribbean/Black African/Other black
background
Age at graduation
Parent’s social class
Higher managerial, administrative and
professional occupations
Lower managerial, administrative and
professional occupations
19
Variable
Total Undergraduates
Studying a
2008/09
Postgraduate degree
N
%
N
%
Yes
158
6.02
44
6.51
Not
2,466
93.98
632
93.49
Yes
1,435
56.54
432
73.10
Not
1,103
43.46
159
26.90
567
21.65
188
27.81
Upper second
1,347
51.43
397
58.73
Lower second
317
12.10
70
10.36
Third class
59
2.25
9
1.33
Ordinary
329
12.56
12
1.78
Arts
597
23.07
187
27.66
Science
664
25.66
213
31.51
Engineering
250
9.66
42
6.21
Medical & Veterinary Sciences
356
13.76
83
12.28
Medicine & Dentistry
275
10.63
5
0.74
Social Sciences & Law
446
17.23
146
21.60
676
25.77
Living with parents
Used a loan for Undergraduate course
Degree classification
First class
Area of study
Total
3.2
2,624
Composition
of
undergraduates
and
postgraduates
–
widening
participation students
Table 2 presents a similar comparison to Table 1, but now based on the
prevalence of Widening Participation characteristics.
Two of them effectively
reinforce Table 1 - less than one tenth of the graduates were classified on entry as
Mature students (aged 21 and over) , or belong to minority ethnic groups. A similar
20
percentage on entry falls into the widely-cast definition of „disability‟. In contrast,
around two thirds were coming from state schools (though here UoB is far below
the national average, of course), and one quarter come from low performing
schools. Although the overall prevalence of these individual Bristol „WP‟
characteristics is clearly very different, to summarize their overall presence or
absence we created a score which is based on a simple count, ranging from 0 (no
Widening Participation characteristic present) to eight (all the Widening
Participation characteristics are present). Table 2 also presents the distribution of
this score. It can be seen that nearly 80% of undergraduates presented with at
least one WP characteristics and nearly 20% with at least three.
Again, the distribution of these same characteristics in the equivalent population
of postgraduates shows some differences, but these are mostly minor and also in
the „right‟ direction for those who feared that the deterrents of further study (and
hence postponed employment and greater likely post-university debt) would be
relatively greater for WP first degree students. So there are small increases in the
percentages of a number of WP characteristics amongst the postgraduates –
students from state schools, from low participation neighbourhoods, from ethnic
minorities and from the local region. The only downwards movement, but also the
largest such change in either direction, is in those from low social groups, which
falls by nearly 50% from its undergraduate representation to barely one in ten
postgraduates. Given that this WP measure probably best captures both the
financial and cultural capital of the background of UoB students, and their capacity
to fund postgraduate studies independently of grants, scholarships and other
awards, this is not surprising. But it is also particularly concerning from the
perspective of the potential benefits of postgraduate training for occupational,
financial and social mobility of individuals and for society as a whole.
21
Table 2. Description of the Undergraduate population with widening participation
characteristics who finished their course in 2008/09. University of Bristol, UK.
Variable
Total Undergraduates
Studying a
Relative
2008/09
Postgraduate degree
proportion
N
%
N
%
Yes
178
6.79
33
4.90
Not
2,442
93.21
641
95.10
Yes
285
13.29
67
12.27
Not
1,860
86.71
479
87.73
Yes
474
18.11
130
19.35
Not
2,143
81.89
542
80.65
Yes
327
14.82
59
10.50
Not
1,880
85.18
503
89.50
Yes
239
9.34
77
11.79
Not
2,320
90.66
576
88.21
Yes
247
9.43
54
8.00
Not
2,371
90.57
621
92.00
Yes
1,562
64.33
409
65.97
Not
866
35.67
211
34.03
Yes
277
10.58
77
11.46
Not
2,340
89.42
595
88.54
613
23.36
160
23.67
1,606
61.20
416
61.54
405
15.43
100
14.79
Mature students
0.72
Students from low performing schools
0.86
Students from low participation areas
1.06
Socio-economic groups 4-8
0.70
Minority ethnic students
1.25
Disabled students
0.85
State School students
1.02
Local Students
1.08
Number of WP characteristics
None
1-2
3 or more
Total
2,624
676
We also examined the finer-grained profiles of WP characteristics by type of
postgraduate study for these two largest categories - those following Masters and
22
research programmes (PhD, DPhil and MPhil) – the two largest such categories –
and found the distribution of WP characteristics within these two sub-groups were
very different. Not surprisingly, most of the students with WP characteristics were
studying Master courses, with greatest proportions observed within mature
students, from minority ethnic groups and the local region. Research programmes
were mainly studied by graduates from low socio-economic groups, state schools
and, again, local students (Figure 4).
3.3 Motivations
When analyzing the motivations for pursuing postgraduate programmes we find
that four reasons were each quoted by over 50% of postgraduates:
23

to develop a broader or more specialist range of skills or knowledge
(60.2%),

to change or improve career options (56.9%),

because they were interested in the content of the course (56.6%)

and because it was requirement of their employment (55.2%).
Only 4.5% indicated that they were studying because they were unable to find a
suitable job.
As Table 3 shows, though, the profile of motivations varies substantially
between those studying in UoB and those elsewhere. However, this is largely the
result of a complete void in responses from UoB postgraduates citing the
„requirement of my employment’ motive. It seems surprising (to put it mildly) that no
postgraduate study of any kind in Bristol is seen as career-related, but taking this
datum at face means, inevitability, that the UoB responses on all other motivations
are higher that of the equivalents in postgraduates elsewhere (where the void in
Bristol corresponds to the highest single motive !). This aside, UoB postgraduates
seem relatively more motivated by two particular considerations – the ability to
continue with previously enjoyed coursework (presumably with previously enjoyed
teachers too), and the more negative wish to avoid moving from „studenthood‟ to
seeking a job. The first, a clear advantage UoB has in retaining such students over
competing postgraduate opportunities, is presumably something to be welcomed,
though the second less so, with its inference of a lack of explicit enthusiasm and
commitment to postgraduate work. (It would be interesting to know whether this is
reflected in a lower completion rate of UoB postgraduates who stay here than
those moving away: we cannot access the latter data directly but could at least
compare the profile of withdrawals of UoB and non-UoB students on the same
24
postgraduate courses we offer, since our results suggest these might be different,
and the former higher.)
Table 3. Motivations of pursuing postgraduate programmes of graduates who were
enrolled onto postgraduate courses everywhere, at the University of Bristol and elsewhere,
2008/09
Motivations
It was a requirement of my employment
To develop a broader or more specialist
range of skills or knowledge
To change or improve my career options
Because I was interested in the content of
the course
Because I had enjoyed my first course and
wanted to continue studying
I wanted to go on being a student/I wanted to
postpone job hunting
I had been unable to find a suitable job
Studying PG
PG UoB
PG elsewhere
55.17
0.00
66.67
60.24
61.76
59.57
56.93
51.96
59.13
56.63
65.69
52.61
38.86
60.78
29.13
17.77
30.39
12.17
4.52
2.94
5.22
Figure 5 shows these motivations for postgraduate study against the
proportion of WP characteristics, combining all postgraduates, irrespective of
destination. In general, the postgraduates drawn from the WP fractions of our
undergraduates either take a longer-term career view of the value of postgraduate
work or are driven by more academic than employability considerations. For
instance, graduates from low participation areas, disabled and local students were
25
less employment-motivated and the most highly academic-oriented.
Disabled
students and those from low performing schools also stated they had failed to find
a job, while a quarter of the local students and those from minority groups wanted
to avoid moving from the student life to seeking a job.
For mature students
“employment requirements”, the wish for “changing or improving career options” or
“to postpone job hunting” were not important reasons for choosing postgraduate
study, rather they were mainly motivated by their “interest in the content of the
course” and “developing a broader or more specialist skill”.
All PG
3.4 Mode of study
Overall, the clear majority (nearly 90%) of the postgraduates in our dataset
are studying full-time but, as Figure 6 shows, this does vary by WP characteristic.
26
Predictably, for Mature postgraduates in particular the figure is much lower, just
over 50%. In most other cases the differences between WP students and the
overall total are fairly small. Local students are similarly more oriented to part-time
study (many will also be part of the „Mature‟ group, of course, as are those from
low participation neighbourhoods). On the other hand, those from ethnic minority
groups are more attracted to full-time study (not surprising, given the well
documented high value places on maximizing educational opportunities in the
cultural contexts from which may of these will come – see Table 1), as are those
from low performing schools.
3.5 Funding sources
Given that funding for postgraduate studies is far less secure and
predictable than for undergraduate degrees this is a strong prima facie barrier to
27
such a transition in general and those form less affluent backgrounds in particular.
In examining our postgraduates according to their main source of funding we found
that 26,1% have a grant or award, 12,9% have support from their employer, only
6,2% have a scholarship and 4,0% have other source of funding. But, predictably,
the largest single source is self-funding (50.7%). Important variations were also
observed across WP characteristics. Figure 7 shows the sources of funding
according of each of the WP groups. Positive values indicate proportions higher
than the average for all postgraduates (ie the values stated above), negative
values means lower proportions than the average for all postgraduates. As we can
see, Mature students present the higher proportion of self-funded students,
exceeding the total proportion by around 30% (doubtless linked in a chicken-andegg fashion to their predilection for part-time study), with disabled and ethnic
minority students (perhaps drawing disproportionately on support from extended
family networks) also having higher than normal self-funding levels. The fact that
disabled students are in the same category is very surprising, and may say
something about the poor levels of financial provision for extended educational
support for such groups. In contrast, dependence on some sort of external grant or
award to fund postgraduate study seems an essential underpinning for many of the
WP groups drawn from lower income social strata – those from low participation
neighbourhoods, low performing schools, lower social groups, state and low
performing schools. Local students and those from low participation areas are also
in this category, the former maybe able to draw upon funding sources specific to
postgraduates studying at their local institution.
28
29
4. Results 2 - Multivariate analysis
4.1 Our modelling approach
In this final section we return to perhaps the main interest in our report – to
what extent are WP undergraduates disproportionately likely or unlikely to
undertake postgraduate study whether anywhere, in Bristol or elsewhere.
Considering the decision to undertake a postgraduate degree is the result of a
complex interaction of multiple factors that operate at different levels - individual,
family, school, university, neighbourhood and community - it is important to base
our analysis on a theoretical framework that allows us to identify the appropriate
potential risk and/or motivators factors. Our reading of the literature suggested a
set of variables that are considered important predictors of postgraduate study,
although the nature of our data precludes some of them. This includes those
relating to family history, such as parental experience of higher education, having
dependent family members (Stuart et al., 2008), and amount of previous debt
(Millett, 2003). Nonetheless, with the available data and following the strategy of
analysis proposed by Victora et al. (Victora et al., 1997), we constructed our
conceptual model that describes the hierarchical relationship between the
variables, as in Figure 8.
As can be seen, we grouped our WP and the other
available individual variables in four blocks, or levels.
Level 1 contains
characteristics that we assume to be independent of all other influences in the
model (the „distal‟ variables in Victora and et al‟s terminology) but which may have
an influence on the lower-level variabes. Level 2 and 3 includes the „intermediate‟
variables which could be influenced by those at higher or the same level. Finally, at
Level 1 we have the „proximate‟ variables, with both the greatest potential to be
affected by others at the same or higher levels and which also exercise the most
direct influence on the decision to undertake postgraduate studies.
30
Applying this conceptual framework to our own project,
we placed the
demographic and socio-economic characteristics like age, gender, minority and low
social class at Level 1, where they may influence directly or indirectly all the other
variables in the model. Level 2 includes health conditions such as disability which
may be partly determined by low socio-economic status and the demographic
variables. This level also includes environmental variables related to the place of
residence, such as being a local student and being from a low participation area.
The third level includes school characteristics such as low performance school and
state school which can be affected by those above. Finally, Level 4 comprises the
student‟s personal history or conditions while an undergraduate at UoB, and
her/his academic attainment, which may have been affected by all the preceding
variables (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Conceptual model of postgraduate study. University Bristol, UK. 2008-09
Level
Demographic
1
Socio-economic
Gender
Minority
Health
2
Parents’ social class
Age 2009
Environmental
Local UG student
Disability
Low participation area
School
3
Low performance school
State school
Undergraduate history
4
Living with parents
Mature
Student loan
Area of study
Degree classification
Undertaking postgraduate studies six months after
graduation
31
As explained by Victora and colleagues, the important advantage of this
hierarchical conceptual model is that it allows us to adjust the effect of each
variable for those in the same level or above in the model. Consequently our
analyses adjust only for confounding variables with a superior (ie higher level)
hierarchical effect, and not for all variables present in the model, as is often done in
similar analyses so leading to incorrect and misleading interpretations (Victora et
al., 1997). For example, analysis studying the effect of social class or gender on
the probability of undertaking postgraduate study may conclude that they do not
have any effect after adjustment by “confounding variables” such as degree class
or academic subject studied. As specified in our conceptual model, these later
variables are proximal variables which may capture most if not all of the effect of
the more distal variables (such as social class and gender), and consequently the
effect of the latter result may be underestimated.
We conducted both unadjusted and adjusted analysis. In the unadjusted
analysis, we used the Chi-square test for heterogeneity to compare the probability
of each outcome within the groups of the independent variables without controlling
for any confounding variable(s). The adjusted analysis was based on the
conceptual model in Figure 8 which determined the order in which the variables
enter the analysis:
the more distal variables (demographic factors and socio-
economic) were the first to be included in the model, irrespective of whether they
were significant in the unadjusted analysis.
Those variables displaying an
association with the outcome of interest of P<0.20 remained as „adjustment
variables‟ for the hierarchically lower variables. Then, the variables of the next
level were entered and a similar procedure repeated for all levels. Both unadjusted
and adjusted analyses were carried out using Poisson regression and Wald's test
which uses the „probability ratio‟ (PR) as the effect measure, enabling more
accurate interpretations. We opted to use the Poisson regression with a robust
variance instead of the alternative logistic regression with its associated effect
measure of the „odds ratios‟, given the relatively high probability of studying a
32
postgraduate degree (over 5%, see Barros and Hirakata, 2003). However, when
we repeated the analyses using logistic regression (data not shown) we found
virtually no change in the significance of the associations that emerged. All our
procedures were performed with STATA version 9.0.
4.2 Results
For our undergraduate cohort as a whole, the estimated probability of
studying as a postgraduate three months after graduating was 25.8% (95%
confidence interval [CI] 24.1, 27.5). The probability of studying specifically at the
University of Bristol was 9.1% (95% CI 8.1, 10.3) and for studying elsewhere
16.7% (95% CI 15.2, 19.1).
Firstly, we analysed the factors related to studying anywhere. According
to the results of the unadjusted analysis, the probability of studying a postgraduate
degree decreased significantly as age increased (Table 4). Students belonging to
families of a low social class status and those who initiated their undergraduate
course at a mature age had respectively 37% and 29% less probability of
becoming postgraduates (p=0.001 and p=0.03 respectively). Undergraduates from
ethnic minority groups showed a significant increased probability (30%) than their
White peers (p=0.01), while those with a student loan as undergraduates were
twice as likely to have being engaged in postgraduate studies as those without.
The probability of postgraduate study also decreased significantly with lower
degree classifications. Those with first class degree were nine times more likely to
engage in postgraduate studies in comparison with their (very few) peers who
obtained an ordinary degree (p<0.001). These probabilities also were significantly
different across faculties, being significantly lower for those graduating from
Medicine & Dentistry, Engineering and Medical & Veterinary Sciences (p<0.001).
33
However, gender, disability, being a local student, coming from low participation
neighbourhood, a low performing school, a state school and living with parents
were not associated with the outcome of whether or not students became
postgraduates.
The adjusted analyses (Table 4) were then carried out according to the
prescribed hierarchical levels of causality. We found that after controlling for the
variables in the higher levels:

The probability ratios for students from low social class families
remained low when compared with the category of reference

The positive effect of Ethnic Minority groups remained significant, being
26% higher in comparison with White graduates.

Probability ratios for graduates from poor families remained low when
compared with the category of reference

The probability of postgraduate studies decreased significantly as age
increased. For those older than 26 years the probability of becoming a
postgraduate was 53% lower compared with those aged 18 to 21 years.

After controlling for demographic and socio-economic characteristics,
disabled students appeared less likely to pursue postgraduate studies:
their probability is 25% lower when compared with those with no
disability.
This association, however, is only disclosed when the
negative confounding effect of the socio-economic status 4-8 is
controlled for.

Another variable that become significant after adjustment was being a
local student. Those who lived in Bristol or Bath prior to coming to UoB
34
were 31% more likely to be undertaking a postgraduate course than their
counterparts living elsewhere.

Student loan also remained significant. Undergraduates with a student
loan showed 45% more likelihood of going on to postgraduate studies
than those without.

Subject of study still has an explanatory role. Medicine & Dentistry and
Engineering had lower probabilities of undertaking postgraduate studies.

The final influential factor, unsurprisingly, is class of first degree.
Graduates who obtained a first or upper second degree were more than
ten times more likely to pursue a postgraduate course six months after
graduation than those with an Ordinary degree.
On the other hand, we identified four factors as having no statistical relationship
with postgraduate status - gender, residence in a low participation neighbourhood,
attendance at a low performing school and state school. The lack of association
between gender and the postgraduate outcome was unchangeable after
adjustment for age, minority group and family social class 4-8: however, we kept it
in the model as a potential confounding variable at lower levels. Living with parents
also decreased significantly, and remained non-significant (p= 0.13) but was also
retained as a confounding factor.
The unadjusted effect of mature students
decreased after adjustment being no longer significant (p=0.17), and was again
kept in the analysis to allow for its potential effect on the other variables in the
same level.
35
Table 4. Associated factors of being studying a postgraduate course after six months of
graduation ANYWHERE. University of Bristol graduate students, 2008/09.
Adjusted †
Unadjusted
Level
Variables
1
Gender
n
Probability
PR (IC95%)
1,406
26.39
1.05 (0.92 - 1.20)
1.06 (0.92 - 1.22)
Male
1,218
25.04
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
0.01
0.04
Yes
239
32.22
1.30 (1.07 - 1.59)
1.26 (1.01 - 1.56)
Not
2,320
24.83
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
<0.001
<0.001
18-21
1,564
31.52
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
22-25
926
17.39
0.55 (0.47 - 0.65)
0.53 (0.45 - 0.63)
26-66
133
16.54
0.53 (0.36 - 0.78)
0.47 (0.22 - 0.99)
Low Social class
0.001
0.001
Yes
327
18.04
0.67 (0.53 - 0.86)
0.66 (0.52 - 0.82)
Not
1,880
26.76
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Disability
0.15
0.05
Yes
247
21.86
0.83 (0.65 - 1.07)
0.75 (0.56 – 1.00)
Not
2,371
26.19
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Local student
0.39
0.03
Yes
277
27.8
1.09 (0.89 - 1.34)
1.31 (1.03 - 1.66)
Not
2,340
25.44
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Low Participation area
0.33
0.85
Yes
474
27.43
1.08 (0.92 - 1.28)
1.03 (0.78- 1.36)
Not
2,143
25.29
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Low Performance school
0.42
0.45
Yes
285
23.51
0.91 (0.73 - 1.14)
0.91 (0.71- 1.16)
Not
1,860
25.75
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
State School
0.33
P value*
0.44
Female
Age 2009
3
PR (IC95%)
0.43
Minority groups
2
P value*
0.86
36
Adjusted †
Unadjusted
Level
4
Variables
n
Probability
PR (IC95%)
Yes
1,562
26.18
1.07 (0.93 - 1.24)
1.01 (0.86 - 1.19)
Not
866
24.36
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Living with parents
P value*
PR (IC95%)
0.53
0.13
Yes
158
27.85
1.09 (0.84 - 1.40)
1.26 (0.93 - 1.69)
Not
2,466
25.64
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Mature
0.03
0.17
Yes
178
18.54
0.71 (0.52 - 0.97)
0.56 (0.24- 1.28)
Not
2,442
26.26
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Student Loan
<0.001
<0.001
Yes
1,435
30.1
2.08 (1.77 - 2.46)
1.45 (1.18 - 1.78)
Not
1,103
14.42
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Area of study
<0.001
<0.001
Arts
603
31.01
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Science
680
31.32
1.01 (0.86 -1.19)
0.89 (0.73- 1.08)
Engineering
250
16.8
0.54 (0.40 - 0.73)
0.40 (0.25 - 0.63)
363
22.87
0.74 (0.59 - 0.92)
0.78 (0.60 - 1.01)
Medicine & Dentistry
275
1.82
0.06 (0.02 - 0.14)
0.21 (0.08 - 0.52)
Soc Sci & Law
453
32.23
1.04 (0.87 - 1.24)
1.04 (0.85 - 1.28)
Medical & Veterinary
Sciences
Degree classification
First class
<0.001
<0.001
567
33.16
9.09 (5.15 - 16.04)
14.63 (4.10- 52.20)
Upper second
1,347
29.47
8.08 (4.61 - 14.17)
11.09 (3.12 - 39.38)
Lower second
317
22.08
6.05 (3.35 - 10.95)
7.43 (2.05 - 26.92)
Third class
59
15.25
4.18 (1.84 - 9.48)
3.51 (0.73 - 16.84)
Ordinary
329
3.65
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
2,624
25.78
Total
P value*
PR: Probability ratio
† Adjusted for all the variables in the same level or above with p-value 0.2
* Wald test for heterogeneity.
37
We also explored the variables separately associated with being a
postgraduate at the University of Bristol and elsewhere (Tables 6 and 7), again in
adjusted and unadjusted formats. To help in the interpretation of the results we
created a comparative table which summarizes the outcomes of these three
multivariate analyses (Table 5). In this table the check symbol () indicates a
significant predictor at 5% level of confidence and the arrows indicate the direction
of the effect for the group (↑:increased, ↓:decreased, ↕ increased / decreased
depending on the category).
Table 5. Summary of the findings of the unadjusted and adjusted analysis of the
associated factors of being study postgraduate. University of Bristol. 2008-09
PG anywhere
Unadjusted
Adjusted
PG UoB
Unadjusted
Adjusted
Female
Minority

 ↑
Older than 21

 ↓
Low socio-economic
groups

 ↑
 ↓
 ↑
Disabled
Local


From low
participation areas

From low performing
schools

From state Schools






Living with parents
Mature
With student loan
SS&L, Arts, Sciences
First/second class




 ↑
 ↕
 ↑
 ↓
 ↑
PG elsewhere
Unadjusted
Adjusted

 ↑

 ↑

 ↓

 ↑


 ↑
 ↑
 ↑
 ↕
 ↑




 ↕
 ↑
As can be seen, the unadjusted analysis of continuing studying at the
University of Bristol showed a higher number of significant predictors than for
those studying anywhere.
In common with the „studying anywhere‟ case, the
following groups showed a significantly higher probability of association with
38
postgraduate study at their „home‟ university: those aged 18-21; who were mature
when starting their undergraduate course; those who had had a student loan; those
from Sciences and those holding a First class degree. Additionally, other variables
were showed to be important in studying at the UoB: being previously resident in
the Bristol or Bath postcodes; from low participation areas; from low performing
and state schools and those who were living with their parents.
As with the „studying anywhere‟ case, the results of the adjusted analysis
showed that older graduates are less likely to enrol onto a postgraduate degree at
the UoB. The same was observed for graduates from Engineering and Social
Sciences and Law whose probabilities to continue studying at UoB were
significantly decreased when compared to those graduates from Arts. Students
who had a student loan and had obtained a high degree class also were more
likely to be studying at UoB than their corresponding reference groups.
But
contrasting with studying anywhere, we now found higher probabilities of studying
at UoB in other groups of students such as local students, those from a state
school and who were living with their parents. The greatest probability ratios of all
were found among locally-resident students and those who were not living in
rented or university accommodation (Table 5 and Table 6).
For those postgraduates studying elsewhere, the unadjusted analysis also
showed significant statistical association with ethnic minority groups, age, social
classes 4-8, mature students, from low performing schools, those with a loan, from
the Social Sciences and Law faculty and holding a first class degree. Unlike the
equivalent „anywhere‟ analysis, female postgraduates, those living in Bristol or
Bath and from a low participation area showed higher probabilities of studying
elsewhere, while those from low performance schools have lower probabilities.
When reviewing the adjusted results, we found that studying elsewhere had an
increased probability ratio with being young, from ethnic minority groups and social
39
classes 1 to 3.
Similarly, graduates with a first class degree and from Social
Sciences and Law showed a higher probability of being postgraduates elsewhere
than graduates with a lower academic results, or from an Arts background. A
differential gender effect was also evident, with females significantly more likely to
be studying elsewhere as postgraduates than males.
As with the „studying
anywhere‟ case, no significant associations emerged after adjustment between
studying elsewhere and previous residence in a low participation area, attending a
low performing school, state school and living with parents (Table 6 and Table 7).
40
Table 6. Associated factors of being studying a postgraduate course after six months of graduation
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL. University of Bristol graduate students, 2008/09.
Adjusted †
Unadjusted
Level
Variables
1
Gender
n
Probability
PR (IC95%)
1,406
8.25
0.81 (0.64 - 1.03)
0.80 (0.63 - 1.02)
Male
1,218
10.18
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
0.77
0.78
Yes
239
9.62
1.06 (0.71 - 1.60)
1.07 (0.67 - 1.69)
Not
2,320
9.05
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
<0.001
<0.001
18-21
1,564
11.13
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
22-25
926
5.62
0.50 (0.37 - 0.68)
0.50 (0.37 - 0.68)
26-66
133
10.53
0.95 (0.57 - 1.58)
0.95 (0.57 - 1.59)
Low Social class
0.26
0.26
Yes
327
7.03
0.79 (0.52 - 1.20)
0.79 (0.52 - 1.20)
Not
1,880
8.94
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Disability
0.72
0.87
Yes
247
8.50
0.92 (0.60 - 1.41)
0.96 (0.63 - 1.48)
Not
2,371
9.19
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Local student
<0.001
<0.001
Yes
277
18.05
2.22 (1.67 - 2.96)
2.62 (1.93 - 3.54)
Not
2,340
8.12
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Low Participation areas
<0.001
0.27
Yes
474
14.77
1.86 (1.44 - 2.41)
1.28 (0.86 - 1.97)
Not
2,143
7.93
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Low Performance schools
0.16
0.78
Yes
285
11.23
1.29 (0.90 - 1.84)
1.06 (0.72 - 1.55)
Not
1,860
8.71
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
State Schools
Yes
0.002
1,562
10.44
1.59 (1.19 - 2.12)
P value*
0.07
Female
Age 2009
3
PR (IC95%)
0.09
Minority groups
2
P value*
0.02
1.43 (1.07 - 1.91)
41
Adjusted †
Unadjusted
Level
Variables
Not
4
n
866
Probability
6.58
PR (IC95%)
P value*
1.00 (Reference)
Living with parents
PR (IC95%)
1.00 (Reference)
0.03
0.01
Yes
158
13.92
1.58 (1.05 - 2.37)
2.13 (1.23 - 3.68)
Not
2,466
8.84
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Mature
0.65
0.74
Yes
178
10.11
1.11 (0.71 - 1.75)
1.24 (0.35 - 4.30)
Not
2,442
9.09
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Student Loan
<0.001
<0.001
Yes
1,435
9.41
5.19 (3.27 - 8.24)
5.90 (2.74 -12.69)
Not
1,103
1.81
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Area of study
P value*
0.0001
<0.001
Arts
603
10.45
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Science
680
12.21
1.17 (0.86 - 1.59)
0.64 (0.42 - 0.96)
Engineering
250
8.40
0.80 (0.50 - 1.29)
0.33 (0.12 - 0.91)
363
11.57
1.11 (0.86 - 1.59)
1.11 (0.72 - 1.71)
275
0.73
0.07 (0.02 - 0.28)
0.35 (0.05 - 2.59)
453
6.40
0.61 (0.40 - 0.94)
0.39 (0.22 - 0.66)
Medical &
Veterinary
Sciences
Medicine &
Dentistry
Soc Sci & Law
Degree classification
First class
<0.001
0.003
567
13.40
4.90 (2.49 - 9.65)
2.17 (0.50 - 9.42)
Upper second
1,347
9.06
3.31 (1.70 - 6.44)
1.21 (0.27- 5.37)
Lower second
317
8.83
3.23 (1.55 - 6.73)
0.87 (0.18 - 4.14)
Third class
59
8.47
3.10 (1.08 - 8.92)
0.80 (0.12 - 5.14)
Ordinary
329
2.74
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
2,624
9.15
Total
PR: Probability ratio
† Adjusted for all the variables in the same level or above with p-value 0.2
* Wald test for heterogeneity.
42
Table 7. Associated factors of being studying a postgraduate course after six months of
graduation ELSEWHERE. University of Bristol graduate students, 2008/09.
Adjusted †
Unadjusted
Level
Variables
1
Gender
n
Probability
RP (IC95%)
1,406
18.14
1.22 (1.03 - 1.45)
1.22 (1.01 - 1.47)
Male
1,218
14.86
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
0.01
0.04
Yes
239
22.59
1.43 (1.11 - 1.84)
1.35 (1.02 - 1.78)
Not
2,320
15.78
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
<0.001
<0.001
18-21
1,564
20.40
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
22-25
926
11.77
0.58 (0.47 - 0.71)
0.60 (0.48 - 0.74)
26-66
133
6.02
0.29 (0.15 - 0.58)
0.12 (0.02 - 0.85)
Low Social class
<0.001
0.002
Yes
327
11.01
0.62 (0.45 - 0.85)
0.59 (0.42 - 0.82)
Not
1,880
17.82
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Disability
0.15
0.228
Yes
247
13.36
0.79 (0.57 - 1.09)
0.80 (0.55 - 1.15)
Not
2,371
17.00
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Local student
0.002
0.09
Yes
277
9.75
0.56 (0.39 - 0.81)
0.68 (0.44 - 1.06)
Not
2,340
17.31
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Low Participation area
0.02
0.63
Yes
474
12.66
0.73 (0.57 -0.94)
0.91 (0.63 - 1.33)
Not
2,143
17.36
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Lower Performance schools
0.05
0.29
Yes
285
12.28
0.72 (0.52 - 1.00)
0.83 (0.58 - 1.18)
Not
1,860
17.04
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
State Schools
0.20
P value*
0.04
Female
Age 2009
3
RP (IC95%)
0.03
Minority groups
2
P value*
0.18
43
Adjusted †
Unadjusted
Level
4
Variables
n
Probability
RP (IC95%)
Yes
1,562
15.75
0.89 (0.74 - 1.06)
0.88 (0.72 - 1.06)
Not
866
17.78
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Living with parents
P value*
RP (IC95%)
0.36
0.63
Yes
158
13.92
0.83 (0.56 - 1.23)
0.90 (0.58 - 1.40)
Not
2,466
16.79
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Mature
0.01
0.14
Yes
178
8.43
0.49 (0.30 - 0.80)
0.25 (0.04 - 1.59)
Not
2,442
17.16
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Student Loan
<0.001
0.47
Yes
1,435
20.70
1.64 (1.36 - 1.98)
1.09 (0.86 - 1.36)
Not
1,103
12.60
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Area of study
P value*
<0.001
<0.001
Arts
603
20.56
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
Science
680
19.12
0.93 (0.75 - 1.16)
0.94 (0.73 - 1.21)
Engineering
250
8.40
0.41 (0.26 - 0.63)
0.45 (0.26 - 0.75)
363
11.29
0.55 (0.40 - 0.76)
0.63 (0.43 - 0.92)
275
1.09
0.05 (0.02 - 0.17)
0.11 (0.04 - 0.36)
453
25.83
1.26 (1.01 - 1.57)
1.42 (1.12 - 1.81)
Medical &
Veterinary
Sciences
Medicine &
Dentistry
Soc Sci & Law
Degree classification
First class
<0.001
<0.001
567
19.75
21.66 (6.94 - 67.65)
8.54 (2.70 - 26.99)
Upper second
1,347
20.42
22.39 (7.22 - 69.41)
7.24 (2.31 - 22.68)
Lower second
317
13.25
14.53 (4.55 - 46.41)
4.81 (1.48 - 15.58)
Third class
59
6.78
7.43 (1.17 - 32.38)
2.51 (0.52 - 12.21)
Ordinary
329
0.91
1.00 (Reference)
1.00 (Reference)
2,624
16.62
Total
PR: Probability ratio
† Adjusted for all the variables in the same level or above with p-value 0.2
* Wald test for heterogeneity.
44
5. Summary and Discussion
Our report has provided for the first time for Bristol, and we believe for any
other specific university for that matter, a preliminary description and analysis of
the composition of its postgraduate student population, with particular emphasis on
how this chimes with the University‟s widening participation agenda. By combining
together the relevant segments of the national DLHE survey and the University‟s
own SITS database we were able to compare the most recent profiles of Bristolgenerated postgraduates against the corresponding Bristol undergraduate cohort
from which they were derived.
The headline conclusions that emerged from this are these:
1. Overall, a quarter of the Bristol undergraduates immediately registered for a
postgraduate course, two-thirds of them at a university other than Bristol.
2. Comparing the matched undergraduate and postgraduate profiles shows
them broadly similar, but with some predictable differences – certain
faculties produce proportionately more postgraduates than others, and they
are drawn disproportionately from the younger and better qualified (by
degree class) undergraduates.
3. On the other hand, apart from undergraduates from low social class groups,
those defined as „WP‟ by the University‟s existing range of criteria are not
noticeably under-represented among those who subsequently become
postgraduates.
4. Masters courses appear relatively more attractive to Ethnic minority, locallyresident and mature students while those from low social classes, low
45
participation neighbourhoods and state or underperforming schools gravitate
relatively more towards research-based postgraduate studies.
5. Notwithstanding an apparent glitch in the DLHE dataset, it seems that WP
students in aggregate are motivated towards postgraduate studies more by
academic-related
rationales
and
long-term
perspectives
than
are
postgraduate students as a whole.
6. Most postgraduates, WP and otherwise, are full-time, with the exception of
mature students who are relatively attracted towards part-time enrolment.
7. Most are also self-funding, but aside from mature and disabled students,
those deemed „WP‟ on one or more criteria are relatively more likely to have
secured postgraduate funding of some sort than the Bristol postgraduate
average.
8. More sophisticated analysis allows us to examine the interplay of various
WP and other variables on the decision to enrol as a postgraduate
anywhere, and also specifically at Bristol and other university destinations.
Overall, our results showed the significant roles of high degree class,
mature age and faculty of first degree on the decision to become a
postgraduate
in
all
the
six
analyses
we
ran
(3
destinations
x
adjusted/unadjusted); otherwise the tendency for WP students to be more
likely to be postgraduates was generally confirmed. This was particularly so
for these with other local personal/family ties of some sort and attending a
„WP‟ school, who all also disproportionately enrolled as postgraduates at
Bristol rather than elsewhere.
9. However, undergraduates from low social classes were confirmed as the
main exception to this, being significantly less likely to become
postgraduates, both as a whole and at non-Bristol universities.
46
10. Finally, there was a tendency for students who had had loans (and hence
incurred debt) during their undergraduate career to be more likely to
become postgraduates overall, and at Bristol.
Where we can make such comparisons, we frequently find echoes of the
wider literatures on the national aggregate postgraduate population in these
results (Equality Challenge Unit, 2009, House, 2010, Smith et al, 2010, Stuart
et al., 2008, HEFCE, 2004, Wakeling and Kyriacou, 2010). This is certainly so
with the under-representation of older students among postgraduates (Purcell
et al., 2005) and of those with a declared disability (Equality Challenge Unit,
2009, Leacy et al., 2010), and, in contrast, the over-representation of
postgraduates from
first degree programmes in Arts and Social Sciences
(Pollar et al., 2008, Stuart et al., 2008, Purcell et al., 2005), an ethnic minority
background (Wakeling, 2009, Stuart et al., 2008, Smith et al, 2010), a higher
social class (Wakeling, 2005, Machin and Murphy, 2010), a high quality first
degree (Purcell et al., 2005, Wegner, 1969, Stuart et al., 2008, Wakeling,
2005). Data limitations precluded our comparing our results with all such
previously-identified variables. On the other hand, for the first time we have
shown the geography of pre-university residence and living with parents while
taking a first degree to be associated with subsequent postgraduate enrolment.
We found some tendency for females to be over-represented in those taking
postgraduate courses outside Bristol, although we did no explore whether that
association was constant across the different types of courses as found by
Purcell et al (2005), where women were more likely to have undertaken other
courses than Master or Research degrees. Finally, our finding that those with a
student loan were also more likely to become undergraduates appears to run
counter to the implications of Stuart et al (2008) that fear of debt is a deterrent
to further study (we return to some complications in interpreting this result
below).
47
Inevitably, there are limitations to what we have been able to achieve. Only
one undergraduate-cum-postgraduate cohort has been examined. With more
time others could be, though we know no reason why the one analyzed should
not be representative of others as well. In addition to the restrictions, noted
earlier, in comparing our own students via SITS with the wider literatures, the
DLHE data tell us nothing in general, nor for WP students in particular, about
the detailed destinations of the non-Bristol bound postgraduates (eg how many
enrol at other „elite‟, Russell group, post-1992, overseas…. universities), nor on
how they fare on the courses which they were only part-way when captured by
DLHE (pass rates, completion rates etc).
Furthermore, as we have noted previously, we have no other HEI-specific
university data against which to compare our own experiences: our
progression-to-postgraduate rate and postgraduate profiles may be par for the
course for the HE sector as a whole, but how do we compare with our
immediate competitors? With time and more such place-specific studies
published we should be able to put our own into a richer context.
A related shortcoming is the absence of any information on Bristol‟s
importing of postgraduates from first degree training provided elsewhere (Flow
D of Figure 1). Without this we are not in any position to judge whether Bristol is
overall a net importer or exporter of postgraduates – the two-thirds export loss
of locally-trained students may be more than compensated by an even larger
influx from elsewhere – nor to tell how far this changes the WP profiling of
Bristol‟s overall postgraduate population (ie we know our generating profile but
not our attracting one). The first should be fairly easy to remedy from further
work on SITS. The second is less tractable, and will depend on the interplay of
48
the factors discussed in Section 1. Confidentiality constraints on the release of
DLHE data from „other‟ universities is also a continuing practical obstacle in
filling this gap. The more obvious solution, if Bristol is at least as interested in its
attracting than generating capacity for postgraduates (realistically it is probably
more so), is for Bristol‟s new on-line postgraduate recruitment processes to
broaden the range of data it recruits from external applicants, to match those for
its undergraduate cohorts.
These caveats aside, the university might take reasonable comfort in the
lessons from our results. For the most part, fears that postgraduate study is a
significant barrier to further study across-the-board for Bristol‟s WP students, on
top of those they faced when deciding upon a first degree, have not been borne
out. If the University is anxious to recruit more of the under-represented mature
postgraduates then expanding part-time provision is an obvious strategy to
follow. It might genuinely be puzzled by the tendency for those with
undergraduate loans to be disproportionately well represented amongst
postgraduates, but maybe were we to have data also on undergraduate
bursaries and other financial support we would see this result differently.
Maybe, too, well-heeled, financially-astute students see a student loan as a
cheap way to raise money for later use, against alternative forms of borrowing,
rather than as something immediately needed to pay their way through their
first degree studies.
The one genuinely concerning outcome of our findings is that students from
low social class backgrounds are deterred from postgraduate study in general
and specifically from applying for courses away from Bristol. Bristol can
inevitably only offer a limited range of further academic opportunities, as the
two-third export rate from our locally-produced postgraduate recruits implies,
and those postgraduate opportunities most suited to the interests and career
49
plans of many Bristol undergraduates must involve applying elsewhere. It might
be claimed (correctly) that researchers have raised serious doubts about the
dependability (and response rate) of much of the socio-economic data on
undergraduates collected by UCAS (also the ultimate source of this aspect of
our SITS data) , but, as there seems no obvious reason why this would also
differentially distort the later profile of those who enrol as postgraduates over
those who do not, we are inclined to take our results here as „real‟ rather than
simply an artefact of an imperfect database. This under-representation of low
social classes amongst the DLHE postgraduates appears in all our analyses,
from the simple description of Section 3 to the six multivariate cases in Section
4, including the „at Bristol‟ case, though it falls short of our statistical
significance thresholds. Given that postgraduate training confers a further clear
economic advantage on students in addition to that of a first degree (House,
2010) this would seems a real barrier to social mobility for those otherwise with
the academic potential for further study, both locally and also sector-wide.
There is a limit to which we can probe these patterns of underrepresentation much further with such quantitative data as we have. A more
attractive pathway would seem to be a two-pronged qualitatively-focused
investigation. First, this might examine the ways that Bristol‟s postgraduate
schools promote, fund/sponsor and adjudicate postgraduate applications and,
second, research the particular barriers to postgraduate progression that
students from lower social class backgrounds perceive both before and, for the
minority taking such a step, after the event. The Social Sciences and Law
faculty, with its dominance both as an undergraduate generator of
postgraduates and provider of postgraduate courses, and also its reservoir of
appropriate research expertise, would seem the obvious site for any such
investigation.
50
6. Postscript
While not directly part of our review, with its primary focus on the widening
participation characteristics of postgraduate students, one further aspect of our
findings is of considerable significance in the current funding climate. Until the
October 2010 Browne Review on student fees and the Government‟s
Comprehensive Spending Review, the main recent thrust of the University‟s
student expansion had been through postgraduates. Here it has enjoyed much
greater freedom over recruited numbers and charged fees than for the
undergraduate enrolments, where it has even been threatened with fines should it
„over-recruit‟. But, as our analysis confirms, the main emphasis of the postgraduate
cohorts generated by the University, irrespective of their second-degree
destination, and of the attracted postgraduates as measured by faculty of enrolled
courses, is in Arts and Social Sciences, the two faculties most threatened by the
withdrawal of any Government support for undergraduate teaching, whether at
Bristol or beyond. The implications for the continued heath and diversity of the
University‟s postgraduate community seem serious. One option is for fees for such
undergraduate courses to rise disproportionately to maintain current teaching
levels. If so, then it is reasonable to expect this to impact selectively downwards on
the WP component of the recruited undergraduates, and hence lead to a
deterioration of the diversity among those we both generate and can attract. A
second is for undergraduate courses to be maintained, but on a severely bargainbasement teaching cost basis, reducing the preparedness of the students so
produced for postgraduate study is likely to be lowered. And a third is for Bristol
and other elite universities to withdraw from such undergraduate programmes no
longer underpinned by Government teaching funding, so damaging their ability to
generate the quantity and quality of postgraduate enrolments from their
undergraduate feedstock.
51
7. References
ALBERT, C. 2000. Higher education demand in Spain: the influence of labour market signals and
family background. Higher Education, 40, 147-162.
EQUALITY CHALLENGE UNIT 2009. Equality in higher education: statistical report 2009. London:
Equality Challenge Unit.
HEFCE (HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND) 2004. Review of widening
participation research: addressing the barriers to participation in higher education.
Bristol: HEFCE.
HOARE, A. and AITCHISON, R. 2009. PQA: Pretty Questionable Assumptions. Higher Education
Review, v42 n1 p19-51.
HOUSE, G. 2010. Postgraduate education in the United Kingdom. Higher Education Policy Institute
and British Library.
LEACY, A., BARNES, P. and HEPWORTH, S. 2010. What happens next? A report on the first
destinations of 2005 graduates with disabilities. Sheffield: Association of Graduate Careers
Advisory Services Disability Development Network.
MACHIN, S. & MURPHY, R. 2010. The social composition and future earnings of postgraduates,
Sutton Trust.
MARINO, R., MORGAN, M., WINNING, T., THOMSON, W., MARSHALL, R., GOTJAMANOS, T. and
EVANS, W. 2006. Sociodemographic backgrounds and career decisions of Australian and
New Zealand dental students. Journal of Dental Education, 70, 169.
MILLETT, C. 2003. How Undergraduate Loan Debt Affects Application and Enrollment in Graduate
or First Professional School. Journal of Higher Education, 74, 386-428.
POLLAR, E., CONNOR, H. and HUNT, W. 2008. Mapping provision and participation in postgraduate
creative arts and design. Brighton: University of Sussex: Institute for Em ployment Studies.
PURCELL, K., ELIAS, P., DAVIES, R. and WILTON, N. 2005. The Class of'99: A study of the early
labour market experience of recent graduates. London: DfES.
SMITH, A, BRADSHAW, T., BURNETT, K., DOCHERTY, D., PURCELL, W and WORTHINGTON, S. 2010.
One step beyond: making the most of postgraduate [Online]. Available:
www.bis.gov.uk/one-step-beyond [Accessed 1st November, 2010].
STUART, M., LIDO, C., MORGAN, S., SOLOMON, L. and AKROYD, K. 2008. Widening participation to
postgraduate study: Decisions, deterrents and creating success. Higher Education, 1.
VICTORA, C., HUTTLY, S., FUCHS, S. and OLINTO, M. 1997. The role of conceptual frameworks in
epidemiological analysis: a hierarchical approach. International Journal of Epidemiology,
26, 224.
WAKELING, P. 2005. La noblesse d'état anglaise? Social class and progression to postgraduate
study. British journal of sociology of education, 26, 505-522.
WAKELING, P. 2009. Are Ethnic Minorities Underrepresented in UK Postgraduate Study? Higher
Education Quarterly, 63, 86-111.
52
WAKELING, P. and KYRIACOU, C. 2010. Widening participation from undergraduate to
postgraduate research degrees: A research synthesis. York, United Kingdom: University of
York.
WEGNER, E. 1969. Some factors in obtaining postgraduate education. Sociology of Education, 42,
154-169.
53