Ethnicity issues for higher education students and graduates (Autumn 02)

Do ethnic minority students face discrimination in the higher education system? Are there biases against them in the labour market, and if so, to what extent? This article looks at some of these issues, supported by evidence from recent research.

ADMISSION TO HIGHER EDUCATION

According to the report Widening Participation in Higher Education in England, published by the National Audit Office early in 2002, ethnic minorities now have high levels of representation in higher education, making up 15% of all students, compared with 6% of the working age population. This picture, however, masks a more complex situation in which rates of participation vary between different ethnic minority groups and types of institution.

A recent study, Help or Hindrance? Higher Education and the Route to Ethnic Equality, reported in the British Journal of Sociology of Education and The Guardian, investigates the possibility of ethnic bias in the allocation of university places. The data were taken from applications to higher education for the academic year 1996-7, and the research focuses on the key stages of the university application procedure rather than admission, so that the decisions taken by institutions can be isolated from those made by candidates. According to the study, ethnic minority applicants had lower rates of success during the applications procedure than their white counterparts, and this was particularly so for black Africans and Pakistanis. For example, the rates at which applications yielded initial offers and the rate at which firm offers were confirmed for white applicants were 70% and 65% respectively; the corresponding figures for black Africans were only 57% and 38% (see Table 1). The study also points out that although medicine, dentistry, and subjects allied to medicine were popular choices for black African and Asian candidates, with the exception of Chinese there was no evidence that ethnic minority applicants systematically apply to the most academically competitive or popular courses.

One reason for the differences in successful selection rates was attributed to academic factors. Investigations into predicted and actual A-level scores has shown that, with the exception of Chinese, other ethnic minority groups all had lower average scores than white candidates. However, teachers' predictions were found to be optimistic for all groups, and particularly so for non-white ethnic minorities, therefore there was no evidence of negative signals being sent to the university admission tutors.

Although most ethnic minority groups were being admitted to higher education at lower rates than whites, Table 1 shows that the variations in admission rates were not markedly large, compared with the differences that existed at earlier stages of the applications procedure. The study attributed this to the role of clearing, with ethnic minority candidates being found to be between 1.5 to 2.5 times more likely than whites to gain a place through this route.

Although the study concluded that there was little evidence of ethnic disadvantage in overall admission rates, candidates' destinations within higher education were found to vary widely according to their ethnicity. Table 2 shows the probability of securing an initial offer by ethnic group and type of university. With the exception of Chinese, minority groups were found to be concentrated in new (post 1992) universities. Among candidates who were otherwise identical, old universities were found to favour white applicants most, followed by Chinese and black Caribbeans; whereas black Africans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis were the least likely to be selected. New universities, on the contrary, were revealed to favour white applicants least and 'positively favour some minority groups'. Although the candidates’ destinations could be explained in part by the differences in application patterns, the responses of the different types of institution were also thought to have played a part, as there was found to be ‘a greater commitment among new universities to widening the social and ethnic basis of participation in higher education.’ The concentration of ethnic minorities in new universities could also be explained in part by the greater reliance of these students on being admitted through clearing, as 62% of the admissions resulting from this route were to new universities.

According to the authors of the report, their study 'raises crucial questions about the extent to which the differences identified in relation to old universities may be attributed to discrimination', and that 'discrimination may take complex and subtle forms.'

ETHNIC MINORITY GRADUATES IN THE LABOUR MARKET

According to a study of higher education students, Diversity in the Graduate Recruitment Marketplace, 60% of the ethnic minority students surveyed believed that their employment prospects are not as good as those of other students. In addition, 33% felt themselves to be disadvantaged during employer testing. Students also thought there was a glass ceiling in many companies that prevented ethnic minority employees from reaching more senior positions. Are their worries justified, however?

Table 3 shows the percentage of economically active* UK domiciled full-time first degree graduates from the 1999-00 academic year who were in employment six months after graduation, published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). This ‘indicator of employment’ shows that six months after graduation, all ethnic minority groups had lower employment rates than their white counterparts. Although these figures alone should not be used as evidence of racial discrimination, as the outcome of employment depends on many factors, other studies have revealed some worrying facts for ethnic minority graduates. According to a publication from the London School of Economics, The State of Working Britain, and reported in The Times Higher Education Supplement, Britain’s ethnic minorities are better educated than their white peers but are paid less and are the first to be sacked in a recession. According to the author of the study, the differences in labour market performance between whites and ethnic minority groups ‘cannot be explained away by differences in educational achievement or geographical dispersal’, and ‘there is still a substantial residue that needs to be explained.’

The Cabinet Office have also provided some uncomfortable reading for ethnic minority graduates. According to the study Ethnic Minorities and the Labour Market: Interim Analytical Report, reported in The Financial Times, all ethnic minorities are disadvantaged in terms of employment and occupational attainment. Although British Indians have better educational qualifications than their white colleagues and have no problem getting started in managerial and professional jobs, their progress up the career ladder is slower than that of their white counterparts. The situation is found to be even worse for Africans, Caribbeans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, as people from these groups appear to have great difficulty in entering managerial and professional jobs, regardless of their qualifications or social class. The report also found there is no correlation between the social integration of an ethnic group and success in the labour market.

The fact that many of the ethnic minority students are concentrated in new universities could be one of the reasons why they are disadvantaged in the labour market. According to the survey report, Graduates in the Eyes of Employers 2002, 65% of the recruiters surveyed are reported to focus their recruitment activity on particular universities. Significantly, not one respondent named a new university as one of their targets.

THE WAY FORWARD?

Under the Race Relations Amendment Act, which came into force earlier this year, each higher education institution is required to produce its own race equality policy. The HEFCE has also published its Race Equality Scheme, consisting of a strategy and action plan setting out how the HEFCE will promote race equality and fair treatment.

According to Diversity in the Graduate Recruitment Marketplace, clear equal opportunities policies are attractive for the majority of students, especially for those from ethnic minorities. Although students were found not to have paid much attention to equal opportunities statements in advertising and recruitment literature, they felt reassured knowing that they were in place. The use of high profile/senior women and ethnic minority staff in recruitment literature was also suggested as a way to overcome any perceptions of a glass ceiling.

*Economically active- this included graduates who were either in employment or unemployed, and did not include those who had gone on to further study or training.

REFERENCES

Widening Participation in Higher Education in England, The National Audit Office (NAO), January 2002.

Help or Hindrance? Higher Education and the Route to Ethnic Equality, Michael Shiner and Tariq Modood, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Volume 23, Number 2/June 01, 2002, p 209-232.

Favourite Colours, Michael Shiner and Tariq Modood, The Guardian, 25 June 2002.

Diversity in the Graduate Recruitment Marketplace, Park HR, 2001. Tel: 020 7299 3018.

Indicators of Employment, Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), April 01/21.

Minorities are Better Educated Than Peers, Claire Sanders, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 23 November 2001.

Ethnic Minorities and the Labour Market: Interim Analytical Report, the Cabinet Office, February 2002.

Ethnic Minorities Lose out on Promotion Despite Their Qualifications, Study Finds, Rosemary Bennett, Financial Times, 20 February 2002.

Graduates in the Eyes of Employers 2002, Park/The Guardian.

HEFCE Publishes Race Equality Scheme, Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) press release, 31 May 2002.