White Working Class Males in British Higher Education
For many young people caught in the margins of poverty , low-paying jobs , and the casualties of the recession , the potential costs of higher education , regardless of its status or availability , will dissuade them from even thinking about the possibilities of going to [ university ].
The same conclusions were reached within research with white , working class boys by Stahl ( 2015 , p . 167 ): “ The boys knew the value of education , but the majority of the participants saw education as a risk rather than a certainty , whereas their educators saw education as the certainty and low-skilled employment as the risk ”. As recent research has found ( Ashley et . al . 2015 ; Wakeling and Savage , 2015 ), working class students were less likely to be employed in as high paying jobs as their middle class peers even after completing their undergraduate degrees , so the perceived rewards may not outweigh the risks for working-class students .
Belonging In addition to the rise in tuition fees , working class students ’ sense of belonging at university , or lack thereof , has also been explored as a factor discouraging academically capable students from applying to university ( Jones , 2016 ). Even for students who do pursue an undergraduate degree , their sense of belonging can impact their overall university experience ( Curran , 2016 ; Evans , 2010 ; Leese , 2010 ; Mangan et . al . 2010 ; Ingram , 2009 ).
Decision making Baars et al ( 2016 ) suggest that there is evidence that ‘ white working class boys ’ decisionmaking may make them less likely to progress to HE ’ ( p . 15 ). Their report commissioned by Kings College London , suggests that differences in access to relevant cultural capital , reduced access to information through role models and lower use of official sources of information reduces the effectiveness of the decision making process of white working class young men .
4 . Retention and success of white working class males
4.1 The national picture
The 2014 National strategy for access and student success in higher education developed jointly by HEFCE and OFFA ( BIS , 2014 ), emphasised that efforts to widening participation relate not only to HE access but also to improving students ’ progression through their programme and on to further study or employment . The need to consider widening participation within a student lifecycle framework is driven by national evidence that HE outcomes differ between different groups and for the case of white working class males the evidence is that they are disadvantaged in relation to their class . Zimdars et al ( 2015 , p . 11 ) states that :
Analysis of HE outcomes for different student groups shows some consistent patterns , with the least-advantaged students ( those from low socio-economic groups ) having consistently lower attainment and progression outcomes even after controlling for other factors such as type of institution . HEFCE has shown these differences to be statistically significant with regard to attainment and employment outcomes . … 77 % of students from areas of very low HE participation ( fifth quintile ) gain a degree , compared to 85 % for the most advantaged students ( first quintile ); a difference of over 8 percentage points ( HEFCE 2013 / 15 ). There is a similar pattern in the attainment of ‘ top ’ degrees with only 45 % of the least advantaged gaining a first or upper second class degree , while 59 % of those from the most advantaged quintile did so . Students from the lowest HE participation areas ( POLAR3 quintile 1 ) are least likely to get a degree and go into a job . Only around two-fifths ( 41 %) got a degree and went on to a graduate level job or further study .
23
In addition to disadvantage related to their socio-economic group , there is strong evidence that white working class male students are disadvantaged in relation to their gender . The evidence is that overall male students are less likely to continue on their studies than their female counterparts : in 2013-2014 , 91.8 percent of UK domiciled female students compared with 89.7