The reasons for the slowdown in higher education growth and its associated trends are open to
debate. UCAS (1999) states that the absence of detailed qualitative and quantitative analysis
means that the intensification of slowdown in higher education participation cannot currently be
ascribed to the introduction of fees. It argues that data for 1997-1999 will have to be studied
before changes in the pattern of behaviour can be attributed to external factors. However, there is
strong anecdotal evidence from local studies that fear of accumulating debt, possibly fuelled by
the effects of negative equity in the property market experienced in the early to mid 1990s, will
disproportionately affect those social groups which have not traditionally entered higher
education (Hodgson & Spours 2000a). Further evidence is now emerging as a gap is opening up
between the rate of applications for higher education places in England and in Scotland. North of
the border, where fees have been abolished, there has been a strong surge in applications to higher
education, whereas in England, which has retained higher education fees, applications remains
static (UCAS 2000).
Added to this, there is some suggestion that an expanded higher education sector, which has led
to a measure of ‘qualifications inflation’, may have caused some to question the financial returns
from higher education. This is despite the fact that longitudinal studies show that higher
education graduates are three to four times more likely to attain professional or managerial jobs
than non-graduates with A Levels (Bynner & Egerton 1999).
Conversely, it may be the case that members of certain social groups feel that they can make
sufficient economic progress by not going to higher education and that there are greater economic
rewards to be found by entering a buoyant labour market as soon as possible. This points to the
significance of part-time work in relation to higher education participation. On the one hand,
casualised work may economically sustain participation in both advanced level and higher
education. On the other hand, early involvement in the labour market may diminish the demand
for university places amongst the young. The lure of a higher number of hours of part-time paid
employment with its greater financial rewards may be reducing the ability and the desire among
some 16-19 year olds to attain the grades necessary to enter a university of their choice. We have
termed these young people ‘higher education waverers’ (Hodgson & Spours 2000a). Many
young people now seek a ‘gap’ year in order to earn money and teachers speculate that some of
these will not proceed to higher education following a year off. There is also evidence that some
employers (particularly in the retail sector) select potential management recruits from within their
pool of 16-19 year old part-time employees. This may be having an effect on the number of
potential higher education aspirants, as young people choose to enter the labour market rather
than to further their studies.
While external factors may be contributing to the slowdown in applications to higher education,
factors internal to the education and training system may also be playing a part. We have argued
earlier that a prime factor may be the fact that the plateauing of participation and attainment
among 16-19 year olds means that there is a reduced supply of potential higher education
applicants from this age group. As Figure 7 illustrates, the ‘anatomy’ of and context for
participation and attainment are very different in the late 1990s when compared with those of the
late 1980s.
Figure 7: Factors affecting participation and attainment for 16-19 year olds (1987-1999)
11