Applications to university resume growth halted in 2012

Nigel Williams, 25 July 2013

Lower proportions of white 18-year-olds than other ethnic groups are applying to university. So said a UCAS report released in July 2013. This fact has been been true for pupils from state schools since 2010, when proportions of black applicants first overtook white, but it was enough to get the report widespread press coverage. There are some more subtle stories hiding behind the headline.
Application rates are only the first stage. UCAS describe them as ‘demand’. Other UCAS data reveal that the average rate of applicants’ acceptance in 2012 was 75 per cent but that proportions for different ethnic groups ranged from 63 per cent for Black African up to 80 per cent for Asian Chinese. Behind these top-level figures lies all the detail of under- and over-subscribed courses and institutions. Combining the two sets of figures for 2012 gives estimates of 21 per cent as the proportion of white 18-year-olds gaining places and 20 per cent for their black peers. It is hardly a danger signal for concerns about equality or diversity since, compared with the obvious gap between young women and young men, the difference is miniscule. The ethnic Chinese population enjoyed greater success but with much smaller overall numbers.

A second story in the coverage needs a little correction. CEO Mary Curnock Cook suggested that

the gap between rich and poor is closing as disadvantaged groups are applying at record levels.

The report defines rich and poor in two ways. The first is free school meals, where numbers of applications have risen among both recipients and non-recipients. The second way is by the 2007 POLAR2 classifications. These are ‘higher education participation’ rates, standing for ‘Participation of Local Areas’. It is an over-statement to equate this to advantage or disadvantage. Although participation is one aspect of affluence or deprivation, it will inevitably match closely the number of applications from particular areas. If we define advantage as getting many people into university, then entrants and, by extension, applicants will always come from advantaged areas. Some narrowing is probable because results from top and bottom areas will include an element of regression to the mean.

The increase in demand over the first decade of the century was to middle- and low-tariff institutions. The great increase in fees came in 2012, so there was an artificial surge in that year’s applications as candidates chose to go without gap years, with a corresponding drop the year after. The instructive comparison for 2013 is therefore with 2010. After all the increases in fees, most application rates have held steady or increased. Only in the fifth of areas with greatest participation have application rates gone down slightly, but that is exactly the sort of observation that is typically explained by regression to the mean. The group where applications have declined has been the older age group, 20 to 29 years. Among that age group, the recovery from the 2012 dip has not brought applications back to 2010 levels whatever the tariff of the institution.

After setting aside a few concerns about diversity, there are still important messages that the wealth of published data can reveal. Compared to 2010, the greater fees have not resulted in a permanent decline in applications, except possibly among mature students. There are reported increases in profitable courses such as medicine, engineering and law. Even without the sensationalism, UCAS data are well worth the coverage they received.