Admission in india 2014

Admission in India 2014

By:

admission.edhole.com

http://admission.edhole.com/

Widening Participation in Higher Education: Analysis using Linked Admin Data

Institute of Education

Institute for Fiscal Studies

Centre for Economic Performance



Research Team

Haroon Chowdry

Claire Crawford

Lorraine Dearden

Alissa Goodman

Anna Vignoles



Background and Motivation

• Rapid expansion of HE in the UK– 43% of 17-30 year olds participated in 2005-06

• But widening participation still cause for concern– Socio-economic gap in HE participation appeared to

widen in mid to late 1990s • Blanden & Machin (2004); Galindo-Rueda et al (2004);

Glennerster (2001); Machin & Vignoles (2004)

– Although may have narrowed somewhat since then• Raffe et al. (2006)



Background and Motivation

• Concerns increased following introduction of tuition fees in 1998– But did not deter low income students (who

were protected by increased loan availability) (Dearden, Fitzsimons & Wyness, 2008)

• Recent policy developments may affect future participation– e.g. 2006-07 reforms (top-up fees)– Will soon be evaluated using this data



Research Questions

• How does the likelihood of HE participation vary by socio-economic background?

• How much of this gap can be explained by prior achievement?

• How does the type of HE participation vary across socio-economic groups?



Methodology

• Linear probability regression model– Easier to include school fixed effects

• Two models:– HE participation (at age 19/20)– HE participation in a “high status” institution

• Dependent variables are binary– 1 if participates, 0 otherwise

1 2 3is i i i i sHE SEG X PAα β β β µ η= + + + + +admission.edhole.com


New longitudinal admin data

• Linked individual-level administrative data– School, FE and HE records

• Data on participants AND non-participants

• Consider two cohorts:– In Year 11 in 2001-02 or 2002-03– Potential age 18/19 HE entry in 2004-05 or

2005-06 (age 19/20 entry 2005-06/2006-07)

• State and private school students



Data

• Socio-economic background– State school analysis:

• Free school meals status from PLASC• IMD quintiles based on home postcode (age 16)

– State and private school analysis:• Assume FSM = 0 for all private school kids • IMD quintiles based on school postcode (age 16)

– 47% of state school kids are in same quintile using home or school postcode

• 81% are in same or adjacent quintile



Data

• Gender, MOB and school ID available for all– School fixed effects for state school analysis

– School type dummies when include private school kids

• Ethnicity, EAL, SEN from PLASC– Missing for private school kids

• Neighbourhood measure of parental education based on 2001 Census– Based on home postcode for state school analysis

– Based on school postcode when include private school kids



Data

• Prior attainment – State school analysis:

• Quintiles (based on APS) at Key Stage 2, 3, 4 and 5 (plus indicators of reaching expected level at Key Stage 4 and 5)

– Private school analysis:• Key Stage 4 and 5 results only

• Exclusion of Key Stage 2 and 3 results makes negligible difference

• Use of school rather than home postcode reduces raw differences (but end result similar)– Essentially eliminating within-school differences


Male HE participation, by deprivation quintile

0 10 20 30 40% participating in HE at 19/20

State school pupils

0 10 20 30 40% participating in HE at 19/20

State and private school pupils

Least deprived quintile 2nd quintile

3rd quintile 4th quintileMost deprived quintile


HE participation (state school males)

No controls

Individual and

school controls

Plus Key

Stage 2 results

Plus Key

Stage 3 results

Plus Key

Stage 4 results

Plus Key Stage 5 results

4th deprivation quintile 0.065** [0.003]

0.048** [0.002]

0.029** [0.002]

0.017** [0.001]

0.003* [0.001]

0.000 [0.001]

3rd deprivation quintile 0.134** [0.003]

0.085** [0.002]

0.055** [0.002]

0.035** [0.002]

0.010** [0.002]

0.001 [0.001]

2nd deprivation quintile 0.201** [0.004]

0.118** [0.002]

0.079** [0.002]

0.052** [0.002]

0.017** [0.002]

0.001 [0.002]

Least deprived quintile 0.288** [0.006]

0.160** [0.003]

0.110** [0.003]

0.076** [0.002]

0.031** [0.002]

0.007** [0.002]

Observations 550,972

R-squared 0.053 0.128 0.253 0.333 0.436 0.584

F-test of extra controls 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


HE participation (state and private school males)

No controls Individual and school

controls




0.098** [0.006]

0.016** [0.003]

0.004* [0.002]


0.108** [0.006]

0.015** [0.003]

0.002 [0.002]


0.143** [0.007]

0.019** [0.003]

0.000 [0.002]


0.171** [0.007]

0.026** [0.004]

0.001 [0.002]


R-squared 0.028 0.114 0.416 0.596

F-test of extra controls 0.000 0.000 0.000


Type of Participation

• Also consider type of HE participation, because:– Students at less prestigious institutions more likely to

drop out and/or achieve lower degree classification – Graduates from more prestigious institutions earn

higher returns in the labour market

• Define “high status” university as:– Russell Group university (20 in total)

– Any UK university with an average 2001 RAE score greater than lowest found amongst Russell Group

• Adds Bath, Durham, Lancaster, York, etc (21 in total)


Female “high status” participation, by deprivation quintile

0 10 20 30 40% attending high status HEI at 19/20

State school pupils

0 10 20 30 40% attending high status HEI at 19/20

State and private school pupils

Least deprived quintile 2nd quintile

3rd quintile 4th quintileMost deprived quintile


“High status” HE participation (state school females)

No controls

Individual and

school controls

Plus Key

Stage 2 results

Plus Key

Stage 3 results

Plus Key

Stage 4 results



0.031** [0.004]

0.019** [0.004]

0.012** [0.004]

0.007 [0.004]

0.004 [0.004]


0.048** [0.004]

0.032** [0.004]

0.021** [0.004]

0.013** [0.004]

0.009* [0.004]


0.063** [0.005]

0.043** [0.005]

0.029** [0.004]

0.018** [0.004]

0.012** [0.004]


0.076** [0.005]

0.054** [0.005]

0.038** [0.005]

0.026** [0.005]

0.017** [0.004]


R-squared 0.021 0.041 0.124 0.171 0.217 0.314

F-test of extra controls 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


“High status” HE participation (state and private school females)


controls




0.062** [0.010]

0.018** [0.006]

0.006 [0.005]


0.073** [0.010]

0.022** [0.006]

0.012* [0.006]


0.073** [0.009]

0.020** [0.006]

0.008 [0.006]


0.097** [0.010]

0.031** [0.007]

0.019** [0.006]


R-squared 0.013 0.075 0.231 0.343



Conclusions

• Widening participation in HE to students from deprived backgrounds is largely about tackling low prior achievement

• Focusing policy interventions post compulsory schooling unlikely to eliminate raw socio-economic gap in HE participation– But does not absolve universities


Limitations

• Young participants only– But other work looks at mature students

• Limited information on private school students


HE participation (state school males without Key Stage 2 & Key Stage 3 results)


controls




0.048** [0.002]

0.003** [0.001]

0.000 [0.001]


0.085** [0.002]

0.010** [0.002]

0.001 [0.001]


0.118** [0.002]

0.018** [0.002]

0.002 [0.002]


0.160** [0.003]

0.032** [0.002]

0.007** [0.002]


R-squared 0.053 0.128 0.435 0.584



HE participation (state school males without KS2 & KS3 and using school postcode)


controls




0.100** [0.006]

0.014** [0.002]

0.004* [0.002]


0.115** [0.006]

0.015** [0.002]

0.002 [0.002]


0.155** [0.006]

0.018** [0.003]

0.000 [0.002]


0.187** [0.007]

0.027** [0.003]

0.001 [0.002]


R-squared 0.026 0.095 0.430 0.582



Admission in india 2014

Education

Transcript of Admission in india 2014