Individual Motivations

Recent empirical studies (Archer, 2003; Archer et al, 2001; Archer and Hutchings, 2000; Connor, 2001), with broadly similar findings, have tried to explore the reasons why some people choose to undertake university while others do not. Some have focused on the non-traditional perspectives of HE in general (Bamber & Tett, 2001) while others (Archer & Hutchings, 2000) have carried out comparative studies between participants and non-participants.

The Archer & Hutchings study is interesting, having been conducted on participant and non-participant focus groups in London of people aged 16 – 30, identifying a broad range of factors for consideration for engagement including cost, risk, and benefits espoused during application. The finding highlighted marketing of any service or product is at its most successful when it connects with the customer and can establish relevance to their life; it can offer them something they think they need. University is no exception. In a subsequent study Archer et al (2003) categorised engagement factors with HE into three areas: political pressure, financial rewards and improved self-image. These are worth exploring individually.

4.3.1 Political Pressure

The political pressure factor outlines propaganda influence - the “Everybody Needs A Degree” argument, the “default” after leaving school. The heavy pressure from

government agencies, teachers, Further Education (FE) College staff and parents is noted in studies (e.g. Connor, 2001) but a convincing argument is critical on how university would benefit the participant in the long run.

However, the level of relevance of university is necessarily varied by particular sub- sectors of society, with non-uniform benefits. Archer and Hutchings (2000) and Archer et al (2003) found that target groups (for example, young ethnic minority urban men) unable to visualise the experience remain dubious about the benefits. Mature students, in particular, are unlikely to receive or succumb to parental influence and may come from a traditional background of practical, skills-based employment. Meanwhile the middle and upper classes see a degree as a “must- have” accessory in their equipment for life:

“In a Mass system not only has the middle class taken over higher education: higher education has also taken over the middle class. In the process graduate status has become an essential attribute of a middle class lifestyle, arguably a more important attribute than class origin or occupational category in a post- industrial age”. (Scott, 1995: 109)

4.3.2. Financial and Employment Rewards

The two strands of financial/lifestyle betterment on the one hand, and psychological (in terms of self-esteem and confidence) development on the other, is pervasive in the Mature student motivational literature.

The belief that a degree is equated with a “better” job (in turn critically associated with more financial rewards [Astin, 1991]) is fed to prospective students in the government literature (Live and Learn, 2002). This could, of course, be because they find it useful to have a “justifying mantra” ready to hand. Nevertheless Round (2005) noted that first generation students are more likely to name job prospects as their reason for attendance than second generation, taking their trigger for entry from the government information rather than from parents.

However, 15 years after the start of this political move towards wider access, literature is increasingly dubious that the investment is advisable, at least in financial and employment terms. The value of a university education in solely economic terms is worth questioning. Non-traditional students, in particular, are making a significantly expensive financial commitment on the promise from some evidence (Blundell, 1997) and government committees (e.g. Dearing, 1997) and accompanying propaganda that this will be financially rewarded (Adnett and Slack, 2007). Research (for example, Naylor et al, 2002; O’Leary & Sloane, 2005), and publicity in the press (Henry, 2007) has disputed these claims, suggesting that, in England and Wales at least, the supply of graduates into the workplace may now be outstripping market demand. These authors alleged a Scottish mirroring of this, with estimates of graduate life earnings averaging £140,000 improvement on non- graduate life earnings. This is a reduction on the previous estimate of £400,000 and dropped further still to £22,000 for Arts graduates (O’Leary & Sloane 2005). All of this has to be viewed within the context of young graduates; mature graduates have increased risk with less years of employability. Factors such as classification of degree, prior qualifications, previous schooling (including independent versus state), and family background are critical in successfully gaining financial return through employment (Naylor et al, 2002) while, with Mature students specifically, gender, ethnicity and class play a major role in the personal calculation of risk and opportunity (Reay, 2002b). Childcare costs for female students (Reay et al 2002a) and the reluctance of male “breadwinners” to give up secure, if low paid, employment when families need support (Marks et al, 2000), add to the complicated calculation necessary by Mature students. Increased emphasis has appeared in the literature for institutions to accept responsibility for equalising some of these barriers, change their image and environment, if they are to appeal to this, much wider, audience. However, this would seem to oppose the Ancients’ rejection of being viewed in terms of skills training, and relates back to the central purpose debate of Chapter 3.

Financial gain is one aspect of the employment market. However, some aim for a “different and better” job to the one they have prior to undertaking HE. “Changing direction” is a theme running through the literature on mature motivation as those disaffected by their employment circumstances consider the risks of returning to education (Warmington, 2003). However, once again the picture is not positive with suggestions that the employment market may not be a helpful place for mature graduates. Within a wider arena, Sennett (2006) describes a capitalist culture of employers who set their unit’s culture as inflexible. In line with the “Fit” theories, (Schneider, 1987; Chatman, 1989; examined further in the next chapter), Sennett describes how employees who enter the workforce and find a culture clashing with their own beliefs simply move on, effecting the creation of a transient labour market. Many mature graduates, however, are geographically static with family responsibilities and have a reaction to such culture clashes by becoming non- conformist in the workplace environment, resulting in them being difficult to manage. Worse still, in the process this can create a stereotypical impression of older employees, thus leaving a legacy of potential discrimination by employers. In consequence, and regardless of prohibitive legislation, it is simply cheaper and less trouble for employers to employ a young person who can think short term, develop their potential and then move on; “surrender” while regretting nothing.

The Institute of Manpower Studies (IMS), in 1992, warned that employers have indeed been reluctant to take on Mature graduates. The report noted that there was:

“still a strong preference for young graduates who fit more easily into the graduate entry programme” (Pike et al, 1992:6)

The “fit” of these programmes is to do with the age restrictions, but, in a longitudinal study of mature graduates Purcell et al(2007) confirms that more than a decade later this remains the case with increased difficulty in finding appropriate employment, lower rates of earnings and higher declared satisfaction in their graduate roles. This is a situation which recent legislation (the Age Discrimination

Act, 2006) will attempt to redress, encouraging employers to avoid treating people of different ages less favourably.

4.3.3. Self-Improvement

The publicity for university recruitment campaigns encourages prospective participants to realise their dreams and “be all they can be” (Batchelor, 2006). Finance and employment can be interpreted as routes to achieve this, there are alternatives. Chapter 6 will investigate the overall effect of university participation on the students’ self-image, considering frameworks for understanding the processes of definition of selves and others, and of aspiration of self-classification (for example, Social Identity Theory, [Festinger, 1954; Taijfel, 1981] and Social Categorization Theory [Haslam et al, 2000; Turner, 1981; Turner et al, 1994]. At this point, however, I merely want to introduce the idea that, alongside more obvious fiscal routes, the search for self-improvement can be a powerful motivator for engagement in the first place (Archeret al,2003).

The student identifies with their personal image of someone certified as intellectually superior to others through having been awarded a degree. A basic tenet of many motivational theories is that people set goals for themselves and that these goals can be powerful motivators of behaviour (Austin and Vancouver, 1996; Bandura, 1996). Support for this comes from Christie & Munro (2003) noting that students and their families who withdrew from HE still retained a strong positive orientation towards HE and often invested in the student re-entering another university to try HE a second time. The suggestion is that, having embraced the educational route as legitimate to achieve self-betterment, this was a core, and lasting, belief.

Turning the focus to Mature students, the literature is heavily dominated by female studies, focusing on women wanting to re-train prior to re-entering the labour market (Maher, 2001; Peters, 2000). Mature women rated the highest in terms of changes to self-identity, linking success in Higher Education to self-esteem and

therefore this group of students were identified by Murphy & Roopchand (2003) as particularly vulnerable in HE, and requiring targeted support by the institution. Within the element of “risk” comes “false uniqueness” (Thorpe and Snell, 2007), when those from a non-traditional background underestimated their chances of coping academically with the course.

Under the “self-improvement” motivation, Sennett (2006) takes us into an important consideration of his central concept of “usefulness”:

Feeling useful means contributing something which matters to other people” (2006:189)

Feeling useless evokes the negative response of having nothing to offer, of not mattering in society. Within the study of motivation, education can be identified as a tool to acquire this frame of mind, offering a route to status and professionalism. This train of thought would link with concepts of identity and of recognition; a university degree can be symbolic of society’s recognition or reward, in some cases being perceived as offering a sense of legitimacy, (as recognised by Hoskin and MacVe, 1986 in reference to the introduction of written examinations to legitimise the label of “profession” on accountancy).

Usefulness is a fundamental emotion at the core of human life. Linking in with the institutional purpose debate, I was particularly interested in what Sennett termed “the Culture of the New Capitalism”. Sennett describes the plight of individuals in the current western economies, who have gained high level formal qualifications but are unable to transfer these attributes into economic value, thus ending up under what he terms, “The Specter of Uselessness”. In his portrayal of the modern economic culture, people are not currently valued for longevity of service, for experience or for craftsmanship. The global workforce (with the infusion of the Southern hemisphere now offering talented, bi-lingual, university educated youth), combining with the technological explosion, has resulted in a questioning of the value of a traditional education. Instead the focus of industry and business, Sennett

claims, is on the acquisition of short term, transferable skills; employees are expected to move around.

Sennett (2006:88) introduced the concept of a perceived “over qualification” in job applicants. If a job is advertised and the essential criteria does not include a degree, then an applicant from university would be lacking appeal for employers. However, I would challenge that the degree vouches for more than knowledge in the particular subject. The actual process of undertaking and successfully completing a course in HE indicates other qualities, including commitment, sustainability, determination, persistence, even, possibly, an ability to problem-solve when the most routine of jobs go wrong. Sennett’s observations could also have a poignant relevance to the question of institutional choice. If he is right, what would motivate a mature student to choose an Ancient?

4.3.4 Institutional Choice

I have understood Sennett’s view to critique a society which aims modern universities towards skills development. His view also highlights a potential clash with the Ancient culture, more suited towards the craftsmanship style, the acquisition of non-practical skills (for example, the critical thinking mentioned earlier in this chapter) and producing an in-depth knowledge of fine arts, classics and philosophy without direct application vocationally.

So, in considering Sennett’s ideas, if students choose to attend an Ancient on the basis of their preferred learning style, then this would seem to be appropriate. However, if they choose because it is geographically suitable or because they think the Ancient will offer an elite label for their degree, which, critically, is assumed to make them more employable, whatever career they wish to enter, they may be headed for disappointment. Factors such as degree subject, classification of degree, flexibility of location and external factors (for example, age and family commitments) are likely to be more significant criteria in the employability equation.

In the recent battle for students in a competitive market, research examining institutional choice has attempted to highlight the criteria upon which students base their decisions (Briggs, 2006; Tett, 2004; Prescott & Simpson, 2004; Adnett & Slack, 2007). Results revealed a broad range of reasons including one particularly relevant to Mature students, that of “distance from home”. However a common feature of the studies was the listing of “university prestige” or “academic reputation”, suggested as a perception of the marketing, placed, perhaps surprisingly, ahead of graduate employment (Briggs, 2006:714). However, Egerton and Parry (2001) challenges this and offers evidence that, in spite of prestigious reputation, traditional institutions attract few working class Mature students, leading to conjecture that this could be because of their limitation on vocational courses, rural location (sometimes), residential base or academic entry criteria. Whiteheadet al(2006) found that anxiety about the application process and fear of failure could dissuade applications to an Ancient. This supports other findings of difficulty in Ancients attracting other non-traditional students. For example, Forsyth and Furlong (2000), investigating high achievers at schools in low socio-economic groups in the West of Scotland, found lack of congruence with their perception of themselves attending prestigious, distant universities. Choice seemed to depend on local availability of courses, part-time work opportunities and on their own perceptions of social barriers and class consciousness; an inner battle between local, practical convenience but with self-esteem minimising the chance of successful application.

If we take the first section of this chapter examining what a university expects to be purpose, combining it with this second section describing the motivations of a non- traditional student to engage with HE, the third, and last, section of this chapter looks at the possible areas of tension, or even overt clashes, in the philosophical underpinnings of both.