First-in-Family Students

This report from the Higher Education Policy Institute think-tank has questioned whether asking students if they are the first in their family to go to university remains a useful metric.

For years, higher education institutions have used ‘first-in-family’ status as a yardstick for their success in opening their doors to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The paper argues too much weight has been put on first-in-family status as a measure of disadvantage for admissions to higher education because the indicator has many different definitions, is self-declared and unverifiable. There is also a lack of transparency over how it is applied.

In 2017-18, more than two thirds of students (68 per cent) participating in higher education were classed as the first in their family to go to university, with 32 per cent having parents with degrees.

The report argues too much weight has been placed on the status, which is self-declared and unverifiable. There are also different definitions for the status. While it is usually interpreted as referring to whether a student is in the first-generation of their family to go to university, it can also include siblings and step-families.

According to HEPI, the status applies disproportionately to people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds who are actually more likely to go to university than white young people. However, the research did find that first-in-family students are less likely to get into highly selective universities and more likely to drop out from their course.

The report argues that a more tightly-drawn definition should be used, meaning a person would not count as first-in-family if their parents, adoptive parents, step-parents, siblings, husband, wife or partner had gone to university.

For any ‘high stakes’ policies designed to widen access – such as universities offering students from certain backgrounds lower offers – the report says that separate indicators should be used, such as whether someone has been eligible for free school meals.

Key Findings:

• In the UK, students who are the first in their family to attend a higher education institution make up roughly two-thirds
• of young graduates.
• First-generation students are less likely to attend a highly selective institution and are more likely to drop out than
• those with graduate parents.
• First-in-family students are also more inclined to choose degree subjects with seemingly relatively straightforward
• routes to the labour market.
• There are clear differences in the level of disadvantage and other socio-economic measures between first-generation
• graduates and their peers. Compared to those with graduate parents, for example, first-generation students come from households with lower incomes and are more likely to have qualified for Free School Meals.
• The use of the term ‘first generation’ is often used as a proxy for low-income. However, the term first -generation does not accurately capture individual-level socio-economic status and it also applies disproportionately to those from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds, who attend higher education at higher rates compared with young people whose ethnicity is White British.
• When it comes to support, parental education is likely to be a useful indicator for lower stakes policy interventions but it is less appropriate for higher stakes activities, such as contextual offers, when other factors also need to be taken into account.
• Policies that could be usefully adopted to provide more support for first-in-family students include:
  • demystifying contextual admissions at highly selective institutions;
  • providing more outreach engagement for the parents of groups that are under-represented;
  • more mentoring by continuing undergraduates of first-in-family students;
  • accommodation allocation schemes that give priority to students from groups most vulnerable to non-completion; and
  • easier routes to re-entry and providing base-level qualifications for those who leave their course early.

Recommendations:

• Universities should use a basket of measures in the practice of contextualised admissions. Critically, this should include the number of years a child has been eligible for Free School Meals, which is considered the best available marker for identifying disadvantage.
• Highly selective universities should demystify contextual admissions. Complexities in elite higher education are part of what makes the system so hard to navigate and so alienating for many students. Greater consistency and transparency would provide clarity to students and instil confidence in those who think they may not fit in or who are not aware of the policies they may benefit from.
• Universities should deliver specific outreach engagement for the parents of groups that are under-represented in higher education. This should address misconceptions that fuel parents’ concerns, with particular attention given to common misconceptions around student finance. By empowering parents to support and develop the knowledge and skills they need to overcome disadvantage, they can support their children’s entry to higher education.
• All universities should provide a mentoring programme between first-year and continuing undergraduates to facilitate the building of strong networks for all students.
• Intitutions should ease stress in the transition period through accommodation allocation schemes that gives priority to students from groups most vulnerable to non-completion.
• All students should be provided with a regular and familiar point of contact. Small group meetings, for example with a personal tutor, establish regular contact between student and staff, providing continuity in teaching and unofficial contact. These sessions should be timetabled to ensure regular meetings.
• For those that choose to withdraw from higher education, the system needs to be more flexible, facilitating easier routes to re-entry and providing base-level qualifications.

Link: First-in-Family Students