education
HE has become a more common route for young people, from all backgrounds, to take before making the transition into work. This is an international phenomenon reflected in the rapid expansion of the sector. Brown (2013) reflected that “globally, the numbers enrolled in higher education since the mid-1990s, has more than doubled from 76 million 179 million in 2009” (p. 684). Within the widening participation policy context in the UK, this expansion has aimed to make HE more accessible to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, deprived areas, and from underrepresented demographics. Widening participation is a key educational policy towards “providing an equality of opportunity for groups which are underrepresented in tertiary and higher education” (Crabtree & Roberts, 2007, p.339). Despite the overall expansion of the sector towards this target, Dunbar-Goddet and Ertl (2007) claimed that growth in student numbers remains greatest for middle-class students holding traditional A level qualifications. This stated, according to the WVPC (2014), there has been significant expansion in the numbers of HE students who entered with a BTEC qualification. This cohort’s demographic is reflective of students from a widening participation background (ibid). In relation to this Wolf (2011) commended the BTEC's contribution towards widening participation by acknowledging that it has become well-respected within certain HE institutions and in particular within certain subjects. The report highlighted that “higher education institutions are familiar with the long- established level 3 BTEC” (p.48) and formally recognise them within their administration processes. With trends such as this becoming noticeable, Byrom and Lightfoot (2013) in contrast to Dunbar-Goddet and Ertl (2007), recognised that widening participation policy “has primarily benefited students from non-traditional backgrounds and yet their experiences within HE are often highlighted as problematic” (p.812).
Although progress towards widening participation targets have been recorded (see, Hoelscher & Hayward, 2008) the highly stratified nature of HE continues to be well documented (for example, HEFCE, 2006). The Cabinet Office (2011) concluded that “young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are… [still] less likely to progress to HE, especially in the most selective universities” (p. 26). In UK cities it is common for prestigious Russell Group
universities to operate alongside more recently established institutions. These institutions tend to be considered as less prestigious and often offer more vocationally-orientated, or technical, qualifications (Brown & Carasso, 2013). Another key change in HE provision has been to encourage more FE institutions to offer degrees, and foundation degrees, at a much lower cost (ibid). Foundation degrees have been shown to be “successful in attracting non-traditional learners” (HEFCE, 2006, p.37). Moreover, BTEC students are more likely, than A level students, to move on to foundation degrees before having an option to ‘top up’ for the honours certificate. As such, BTEC learners, who are proportionally representative of working-class students, are exposed to a range a different transitional experiences that differ from ‘traditional’ pathways into and through HE.
It is not only social class that shapes the nature of BTEC transitions into and through HE. Significantly, gender inequalities have eroded less in HE for those students who have entered through more vocationally orientated routes rather than traditional pathways. Whilst the Hoelscher and Hayward (2008) report indicated that women have become increasingly ‘over- represented’ in many areas of HE, they acknowledged that male applicants still outweigh female applicants taking a vocational pathway into HE. In addition to this, London Economics (2013) noted that, of those students who took a BTEC there “is still a very slight gender split, with a higher proportion of men completing degree level qualification compared to women (14% compared to 12%)” (p.7). Although these overall percentages have narrowed, gender imbalances in both HE and VE take different compositions depending on the subject. With some subjects being almost entirely composed of, and delivered by, males or females.
Whilst in some measurable ways HE becomes a more diverse and expansive sector in the UK, opening doors for BTEC students regardless of their background and gender, a number of pertinent phenomena have emerged that might have discouraged BTEC transitions into, through, and beyond HE. Most noticeably, since the implementation of the Browne (2010) report in 2012, funding reforms have impacted on the provision of HE (Brown & Carasso, 2013). Not only can these reforms place heavy financial burdens on students that wish to attain degree qualification, they have shaped students’ expectations of HE study. Positioning these reforms in the context of universities histories, Rolfe (2013) highlighted how HE has shifted
from providing a broad education to awarding work-based qualifications. From this process, Rolfe argued that universities have evolved into corporate entities, and students have become consumers that wish to ‘cash in’ on their qualification. The customer (student) is motivated by the prospect of realising the returns on their large investment in HE with more tangible (often monetary) compensation in future employment. In relation to this, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (2014) recognised that course progression statistics and examples have become increasingly important in attracting applicants. This has led to HE qualifications prioritising employability skills in design and discourse. Paradoxically however, while students become more concerned with the market value of their education, HE pathways into industry have become more competitive.
As a result of widening participation agendas there has been direct inflation of degree qualifications. Bathmaker, Ingram and Walker (2013) concluded “a degree is no longer enough [to secure meaningful employment], and students are urged to mobilise different forms of ‘capital’ during the undergraduate study to enhance their future and social economic positioning” (p.724). Consequently, research has identified that transitional ‘success’ has become increasingly dependent on the student ability to ‘play the game’ (Bathmaker, et al., 2013; Hatt & Baxter, 2003). Bathmaker et al., (2013) recognised that in order to“‘play the game’ successfully, students are encouraged to enhance their ‘employability’ through additional activities” (p.725). They stated that some of these activities are taken-for-granted cultural practices for middle-class students, where their families have involved them in projects that help them succeed in life (idid). To some extent then, the value of degrees is not on paper, but is tied up with how it can encourage students to develop successful strategies when playing the game. In turn, as the cultural capital of graduating is no longer enough, the ability of students to mobilise certain forms of capital in the correct settings through reshaping their behaviours, interactions and skills is the key to their transitions.
As this section highlights, notions of employability skills litter documentation at HE (this will be returned to in Chapter 3 in more detail). Coupling this with the documentation and discourse of employability skills identified in the BTEC it is clear that there has been an overall movement in the UK education system. This movement implicitly holds employability skills as
vital for individuals to prosper, whilst at the same time there are many reports that highlight these skills as lacking (see Chapter 3). Bathmaker (2013) argued that this preoccupation with employability skills within VE and progressively in HE has been driven by the straightening relationships between education and industry and employer-led notions of skill.