Incentivising Specific Combinations of Subjects – Does It Make Any Difference to University Access?

Abstract

A major part of the 2010-15 UK government's education reforms in England was a focus on the curriculum that pupils study from ages 14-16. Most high profile was the introduction of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) performance measure for schools, incentivising study of "subjects the Russell Group identifies as key for university study" (Gibb, 2011). However, there does not appear to be good quantitative evidence about the importance of studying such a set of subjects, per se. This paper sets out to analyse this question, considering whether otherwise similar young people who study specific sets of subjects (full set for EBacc-eligibility, two or more sciences, foreign languages, applied subjects) to age 16 have different probabilities of entering university, and specifically a high-status university. It compares results from regression modelling and propensity score matching, taking advantage of rich survey data from a recent cohort of young people in England. We find that conditional differences in university entry attributable to subject choice are, at most, small.

Centre assessment grades in 2020: a natural experiment for investigating bias in teacher judgements

“…In particular, the filtering threshold for GCSEs taken (8 + including English and Maths) could be experimented with. The threshold could be important as SES differences in the numbers and types of GCSEs that students take have been previously identified [ 2 ]. Future research could take different pre-processing steps and investigate a different subset of the data, as well as take an even more intersectional approach by considering more, and higher order, interactions.…”

Does what you study at age 14–16 matter for educational transitions post-16?

“…Within this special issue, Dilnot finds that taking facilitating subjects at A-level is positively associated with getting a place at a higher status university and that taking maths A-level is particularly advantageous. In addition Anders, Henderson, Moulton, and Sullivan (2017) find that GCSE subject choice matters for university attendance and the prestige of the university attended.…”

Socioeconomic Differences in North Carolina College Students’ Pathways Into STEM

“…Numerous studies have focused on understanding the weaker academic achievement of students who come from LSES backgrounds, but the literature on socioeconomic inequality in STEM fields is much smaller. The preponderance of research reports that SES differentials in access to STEM in college are largely driven by differentials in prior attainment (Anders et al, 2017). In general, LSES students are more likely to lack the academic preparation from their K–12 schooling to be successful in STEM majors (Engberg & Wolniak, 2010; Ma, 2009).…”

“…The STEM literature cites math achievement in high school as a critical factor for majoring and persisting in STEM (Crisp et al, 2009; Engberg & Wolniak, 2013; Griffith, 2010; Kokkelenberg & Sinha, 2010; LeBeau et al, 2012; Maltese & Tai, 2011; Rohr, 2012; Wolniak, 2015). Studies consistently have found that children who were born in less privileged households and with parents with lower education levels have lower science and mathematics achievement (Pahlke et al, 2013) and are less likely to take higher level math and science courses in secondary school that act as gateways into STEM (Anders et al, 2017; Ercikan et al, 2005; Tyson et al, 2007).…”