Box of delight

At over 200 pages and 50 recommendations, the Augar report does not disappoint as a meaty piece of policy work. It will take us some time to fully digest its many implications, the job of which we’ve started work on already and will involve the ideas and analysis of countless experts from inside and outside universities. I write this article having read it all the way through once, not having had sight of much of the underlying research or funding datasets. This is my hot take in which I am only able to cover a precious few specific aspects of the report – there’s a great deal more analysis to follow.

Applicants to higher education from less advantaged backgrounds are much less likely than others to achieve the high academic entry qualifications usually required by the most selective universities.

For example, if higher-tariff providers in England wanted to admit the highest-performing ten per cent of free school meal-eligible pupils from state schools, this would mean admitting everyone with qualifications roughly equivalent to at least BCC at A level. Similarly, if medium-tariff providers wanted to admit the next highest-performing ten percent of free school meal-eligible pupils, this would mean admitting everyone with DDD and above at A level.

However, we must place these achievements in a broader context and admit that, for many older learners, this story of improved access to university is not one they recognise. The focus of reforms in the last ten years has been on the ‘traditional’ school-leaver, generally studying full-time on a three-year degree programme.

But, for other parts of the student body, the picture is very different. There have been significant declines in the number of both mature students and part-time learners studying at university, particularly in England where there have been the most significant reforms – in fees, in funding arrangements, and in student number deregulation.

The Office for Students Access and Participation data, released on 29 March, exists to support registered providers in developing an access and participation plan for submission in May.

But for such a potentially explosive release, response has been muted. We are offered a tantalising glimpse of the student experience for a range of disadvantaged groups, and the chance to identify the providers where admirable progress is being made along with those where the progress is yet to come. If higher education is indeed, as Justine Greening suggests, all about social mobility we need this data more than ever. But the design of the data presentation means that few have been able to see the full scope of what we now know about the sector.

A new report investigating the pay differences between ethnic minority staff and their white counterparts has been published by the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA).

Inspired by the interest shown in gender pay gap reporting and the prospect of ethnicity pay gap reporting, the key findings include clear evidence that pay ‘penalties’ for ethnic minorities are significant, with black men and black women earning the least on average relative to white men. The research finds that the pay penalty experienced by ethnic minority women in the sector is much more likely to be due to factors associated with their ethnicity than their gender.

The black attainment gap is a long standing issue that the sector is still struggling to treat with the urgency that it deserves.

Now, in light of TEF and the grading of institutions, it appears that there is a missed opportunity to use the brutal publicity of an Olympic-style medal awarding system to punish those whose attainment gaps are starkest.