Figure 6.5 shows the volume of applications made by English/Home students (i.e. those predominantly affected by the tuition fee reforms) to higher education institutions from 2004–12. As the Figure illustrates, it is common to see a large rise in applications in the year, or years, preceding a tuition fee increase, followed by a fall in the first year of the new fee regime. It may therefore be possible that the decline in 2012 is nothing more than a temporary dip.
Notes: Applications from England to UK Higher Education Institutions
Figure 6.5: Volume of English applicants to UK HEIs 2004–12
Figures compiled from UCAS (2012a) and ONS population data A slightly different pattern has emerged in the past few years, however. While there is clearly a significant drop off in applications between 2011 and 2012, applications did not noticeably spike the year before the tuition fee increase. Instead the increase is somewhat more spread out over the period 2009–11. After a considerable increase in 2010 and a subsequent increase a year later, the volume of applications reached an all-time high in 2011. Prior to that, of course, was the Browne Review – set up in December 2009 to discuss the issue of tuition fees amidst a great deal of hype surrounding their possible increase.. It might be the case, therefore, that certain types of student – older individuals who have already left school and are in a position to enrol in university immediately, for example – anticipated the tuition fee increase and decided to enrol as soon as possible. The proportion of students aged 18 taking a gap year or deferring university for a year might have also decreased, especially
because students applying in 2011 for a deferral in 2012 (in order to take a gap year) would be liable to pay the higher 2012 tuition fees, unlike previous occasions when tuition fees were increased., There was thus a significant disincentive to defer entry in 2011 for 2012 (Clark, 2010).
The large increases in participation from 2009 to 2011 might have also stemmed from the UK’s deep recession during this period. Many have speculated that rises in university participation were driven by a lack of employment opportunities for young people (Curtis, 2009).
Figures 6.6 and 6.7 drill deeper into the overall numbers, examining applications by age group. Since application and participation rates are dramatically lower for older individuals, Figure 6.6 shows application rates for 18–20-year olds and Figure 6.7 for those over 21. It is clear from both figures that application rates were down for all age categories in 2012. Compared to 2011, the proportion of 18-year- olds was down by 1 percentage point (from 33.6 per cent to 32.3 per cent), while the proportion of 19-year-olds was down by 2 percentage points (from 12.9 per cent to 10.7 per cent). There were also decreases amongst older age groups, though as the numbers of students in these categories are significantly smaller, so too are the percentage point differences.
However, since individuals of all ages applied in significantly higher numbers from 2009 to 2011, as the charts make evident, it may be that the pool of potential students was greatly reduced in 2012. This could account for a large proportion of the decrease in applications, which would again imply that the drop in 2012 is temporary.
Notes: Applications from England to UK Higher Education Institutions
Figure 6.6: Application rate, English 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds
Notes: Applications from England to UK Higher Education Institutions
Figure 6.7: Application rate, English students age 21+
Figures compiled from UCAS (2012a) and ONS population data To give a better illustration of this, Table 6.3 shows the annual percentage change in application volumes by age group over time9.
Table 6.3: year-on-year change in English applications, by age
% change Age 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2011–12 18 13840 -4472 3090 8842 12247 11985 6414 -8732 -3.9 19 2986 -9301 11564 4607 5661 11373 5669 -15358 -17.1 20 1797 -968 1193 3382 1831 4513 1819 -5183 -17.1 21 585 -185 708 777 1589 2429 105 -2356 -16.2 22 505 -409 809 200 937 2152 -281 -1930 -20.0 23 514 -410 319 279 642 1606 -116 -1242 -18.1 24 378 -286 143 162 504 1191 -190 -997 -19.9 25-29 1095 -421 462 86 1234 3982 -629 -2816 -19.3 30-39 978 -1005 -72 -375 1129 3500 213 -2327 -17.1 40-60 605 -210 -19 -39 508 1997 -137 -994 -15.6
Note: Applications from England to UK Higher Education Institutions
As Table 6.3 makes evident, severe declines in applications occurred between 2011 and 2012. The greatest decreases in volume are amongst 18- and 19-year-olds: around 24,000 fewer students aged 18 and 19 were at university in 2012. This drop will have severe consequences across the board and for Russell Group universities in particular, since they tend to attract the youngest students.
However, large declines in the student population also occurred amongst older age groups, for whom application volumes are smaller. Most severely, there is a 20 per cent drop in applications amongst 22-year-olds, with volumes down by nearly 2,000 compared with 2011. Consequences of this drop will affect mid- to low-tier universities and further education colleges since they are more likely to attract older students.
Are these drops in application rates really cause for alarm, or do they simply reflect the fact that there were very large increases in applications in previous years? For instance, although the number of applications by 19-year-olds declined by 15,300 (or 17 per cent) in 2012, this followed an increase of 6,400 applications by 18-year- olds in 2011. In other words, the pool of potential 19-year-olds that could go to university in 2012 was reduced by 6,400 – so the increase in 18-year-olds applying in 2011 could account for almost half the decrease amongst 19-year-olds in 2012. UCAS analysis bears this conclusion out, showing, interestingly, the significant drop in deferrals by 18-year-olds in 2011 – i.e. those enrolling but then taking gap years – which resulted in a large decline amongst 19-year-olds enrolling in university in 2012. UCAS report that:
… a greater proportion of those acceptances were … to the 2011–12 academic year at age 18 rather than deferring to start in the following year. Together these effects gave a substantially above-trend proportion of the 18-year-old population who were accepted and started courses in 2011
(UCAS, 2012c: 32) In other words, a higher than usual proportion of 18-year-olds chose not to defer their university entryin 2011 until they were aged19, but instead decided to participate immediately. Strikingly, deferrals amongst 18-year-olds fell from 9.1 per cent in 2010 to a mere 3 per cent in 2011. In 2012 the figure had all but recovered to 7.8 per cent (UCAS, 2012c: 32).
Similar patterns emerge amongst the younger student groups: large increases in applications in previous years preceded large decreases amongst applicants in the same cohort. A record increase in applications by 18-year-olds occurred in 2010 – showing an increase of nearly 12,000 applicants year on year – suggested to have been driven by the recession (Bawden and Mansell, 2010). Since this particular increase would have affected the pool of potential 20-year-olds going to university in 2012, it could account for why 5,100 fewer students in this age group decided against going to university in that year.
Looking at those in slightly older age categories, however, there could be some cause for alarm. Amongst 24-year-olds, for example, there was a drop of 19.9 per cent in 2012. The number of 23-year-olds applying in 2011 had also fallen, however, and increases in 2009 and 2010 were not major. It may be the case, therefore, that amongst students in older categories there are signs of a genuine and more permanent decrease in application rates as a result of tuition fees. Indeed as Figure 6.7 shows, following the tuition fee increases in 2006, applications among older students took longer to recover. Should this conclusion be confirmed, it is particularly likely to affect further education colleges and mid-tier universities – the squeezed middle – in future years, as they become more reliant on older applicants.
In contrast, Russell Group universitiestypically have very low rates of mature students. For example, less than 1 per cent of undergraduate degree students at the London School of Economics, , were aged 23 or over, while the corresponding figure at the University of Bristol was not much higher at 4 per cent (UCAS, 2012). Further education colleges, on the other hand, attract very large proportions of mature students at degree level. Indeed as figures for 2011 show, of the top 50 institutions whose degree acceptances came from people aged 23 and over, 46 were further education colleges. In the next 50 institutions ranked in the same terms, however, almost half are non-Russell-Group universities. The proportion of students at these institutions aged 23 and over is high. For example, at London South Bank University, 35 per cent of the University’s degree intake in 2011 were 23 and over; at London Metropolitan 27 per cent; and at the University of Wolverhampton 21 per cent. A fall in the number of applicants outside the traditional age range could therefore affect the squeezed middle – who are not protected by increases in their intake from the core–margin policy – even further in future years.
New UCAS figures also allow us to examine changes in application rates by students from different backgrounds in 2012. Indeed a key concern amongst several critics of the government’s policy on tuition fees was that students from deprived backgrounds might be more likely to be put off attending university as a result of higher fees. Should this happen it would have severe consequences for institutions that traditionally accept students from poorer backgrounds.
Figure 6.8 shows application rates for English 18-year-olds by IDACI10 quintile
over time, where individuals in Q1 are from the richest areas and individuals from Q5 from the poorest. Unsurprisingly, those from the poorest backgrounds are significantly less likely to go to university than are those from more affluent backgrounds are.
Interestingly, though, the largest falls in application rates between 2011 and 2012 are amongst those from the richest quintile. It is important to note, however, that application rates amongst students from poorer backgrounds have been increasing more rapidly than for those whose from richer backgrounds. Had these trends continued, one would have expected a larger increase amongst those from poorer backgrounds compared with their richer counterparts in 2012. Taking this
into account, decreases in applications amongst all IDACI groups seem to be of a similar magnitude – suggesting that the increase in tuition fees in 2012 did not especially impact individuals by their family background11.
Notes: English 18-year-old application rates for areas grouped by proportion of children living in lower income households (IDACI Quintile 5 (Q5) = lowest proportion of lower income)
Figure 6.8: Participation rate by IDACI quintile
Source: UCAS (2012a) The UCAS data also enables analysis of students’ cost preferences. UCAS analysis shows little evidence that those students enrolling in 2012 gravitated towards cheaper courses – ‘there has been no substantial move towards or away from higher fee courses compared to choices made by young applicants in previous cycles’ (UCAS, 2012 p.10) – which suggests that tuition fees have not changed student behaviour regarding the types of courses they choose12.
To summarize, as a result of the 2012 reforms there were very few changes in student enrolment by background or regarding the courses students applied for. However, there were differential decreases in application rates and volumes by age group, with a substantial decrease in the volume of 19-year-olds applying in 2012 in particular. The decrease is likely to have a greater impact on Russell Group universities – which tend to take on larger proportions of younger students – and might have contributed specifically to the fall in numbers in 2012 at six of their institutions. However, applications amongst older students were also down in 2012, which will affect further education colleges and mid- to low-tier universities that are more likely to enrol such students. Whilst applications amongst older students might recover in future years, a permanent fall in mature students – and a fall in student numbers in
general – could have serious consequences for certain institutions and be a major threat to the government’s reforms.
As discussed, many non-Russell-Group universities were affected by the HEFCE’s cuts to the student quotas and would have experienced a decline in their numbers in 2012 as a result. Such institutions in the ‘squeezed middle’ might also be the hardest hit by he overall decline in applications in 2012.
What about the fate of these universities in future years? In 2013/14 the controlled allocation of places will be subjected to another reduction of 5,000, with these places reallocated by the HEFCE. No further places will be awarded to institutions offering courses priced below £7,500 and, more crucially, ABB, not just AAB, students will be removed from the quota in 2013.