Almost half of university students flagged as 'disadvantaged' not from poor families

Universities’ positive discrimination measures risk descending into a farce as new research reveals that almost half of students flagged as “disadvantaged” are not from poor families.

Russell Group institutions could be handing out lower A-level offers to the wrong students because one of the main measures of deprivation is “conceptually flawed”, according to a new report.

Many of the country’s leading universities make “contextual” offers, meaning students who are considered to be from disadvantaged households are allowed in with lower A-level grades than their peers from wealthier backgrounds.

But new research, published by the social mobility charity the Sutton Trust, claims that the Polar method universities use to determine students’ background is “very poorly correlated with low family income”.

The Polar measure is used to analyse how likely a student is to go to university, based on their postcode. Students are then divided into one of five groups depending on how likely or unlikely they are to enter higher education.

Prof John Jerrim, the report’s author, analysed the household income of students who are classified as disadvantaged by Polar and found that almost half (48 per cent) of them are not from poor households, defined as those with an annual income of around £17,800 and under.

“Overall, Polar has very few advantages,” he said. “It is conceptually flawed as a measure of socio-economic disadvantage. It is very poorly correlated with low family-income.”

Prof Jerrim also argued that the measure is biased against black, Asian and minority ethnic  students who may live in a city where there are high levels of deprivation but also high levels of university attendance.

“Despite its current widespread use by universities, and the support it receives from the regulator, it is inappropriate to use as a contextual indicator for socio-economic disadvantage – particularly when there are many easily accessible, superior alternatives,” he said.

All universities have to draw up “access and participation” plans where they set targets about the number of students they will admit from disadvantaged backgrounds as well as those from underrepresented ethnic groups.

These plans must be signed off by the higher education regulator, the Office for Students, which requires the Polar measure to be used as well as other criteria to determine students’ socio-economic status.

Prof Jerrim argues that a better way to accurately measure students’ disadvantage is to look at the length of time they have been eligible for free school meals, where families must be on universal credit - meaning they earn less than £7,400  - to qualify.

Prof Lee Elliot Major, an expert in social mobility at Exeter University, pointed out that using school meals as an indicator is also “not without its difficulties”.

He added: “A free school meal pupil in London is, on average, very different to a free school meal pupil in the north-east or south-west of the country.

“They may experience similar material disadvantage at home, but starkly different opportunities in their local neighbourhoods.” Sir Peter Lampl, founder and chairman of the Sutton Trust, said it is crucial that universities can accurately identify which students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

“In order to widen access fairly and effectively, universities need to know which students would benefit most from outreach programmes and contextual offers,” he said.

“But as today’s research shows, the measures they use are not as effective as they should be at identifying low-income students. They miss out some who deserve support while inaccurately flagging others.”

The Office for Students defended the use of the Polar measure by universities, saying it helps them to boost their intake of students from deprived backgrounds.

“Polar shows entrenched patterns of under-representation, highlighting neighbourhoods where very few people go into university,” a spokesman said.

 “This is crucial when we consider how best to improve successful higher education participation in the places across the country where people feel they have been left-behind.”