HEPI has been central to discussions on social mobility in higher education, especially through the English Social Mobility Index (ESMI), created by Professor David Phoenix, Vice-Chancellor of London South Bank University. The ESMI provides a framework to evaluate English universities’ support for social mobility, focusing on access for disadvantaged students, continuation, and graduate outcomes. The 2024 version of the Index was published yesterday.
Building on Professor Phoenix’s work, this analysis by Adam Finkel-Gates adapts the ESMI framework to Scotland, creating the Scottish Social Mobility Index (SSMI).
Methodological Differences Between the ESMI and SSMI
The ESMI provides a framework to assess universities’ contributions to social mobility. In adapting it for Scotland, the main change was replacing England’s Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) with the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD). Both indices rank geographical areas by deprivation based on factors such as income, education, health, and employment, allowing the SSMI to remain comparable to the ESMI. However, the SIMD also incorporates indicators such as geographic access to essential services and housing quality, which are particularly relevant in Scotland’s rural and remote areas. The SIMD divides Scotland into data zones and ranks them from the most to the least deprived. SIMD1 represents the 20% most deprived areas, while SIMD2 represents the next 20% – together encompassing the 40% most disadvantaged areas.
Scottish Social Mobility Index
The SSMI ranks universities on their contributions to social mobility by evaluating access, continuation, and graduate outcomes. Key findings show that universities situated in areas of higher socio-economic deprivation, such as the University of the West of Scotland, Glasgow Caledonian University, and the University of Strathclyde, excel in widening access. However, continuation rates vary, with some high-access institutions facing challenges in student retention. The table below presents the full rankings, offering insights into each institution’s role in promoting social mobility across Scotland.
Summary of the Findings
The SSMI and ESMI reveal that universities in areas of high deprivation lead in both Scotland and England, making their strong access scores unsurprising. In Scotland, top-ranked institutions like the University of the West of Scotland, Glasgow Caledonian University, and the University of Strathclyde show a commitment to widening access, as do the University of Bradford, Aston University, and Birmingham City University in England. However, the English universities tend to perform better in student retention, a key challenge for many Scottish institutions. Graduate salary outcomes are similar in both countries.
Both the SSMI and ESMI use Z-scores, which measure relative performance within each country, so direct comparisons between the English and Scottish rankings are not feasible. Each index, therefore, offers a unique perspective on social mobility within its national context.
Recommendations
Based on the SSMI findings, we recommend strategies to improve retention, encourage collaboration, and support social mobility through aligned policies.
For Scottish Universities
- Enhance Retention Support in High-Access Institutions
Universities that excel in access should invest in tailored support, such as mentoring, academic tutoring, and mental health resources, to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds succeed.
- Share Best Practices Across Institutions
Collaboration can benefit all universities. For example, Aberdeen’s strengths in retention could inform practices at the University of the West of Scotland, which leads in access. Partnerships like this would strengthen sector-wide efforts in social mobility.
Policy Recommendations
- Research the Link Between Access and Retention
The SSMI suggests that high access rates might correlate with lower continuation. Policymakers should support research into why students leave early, particularly in high-access institutions, to help develop targeted solutions.
- Encourage Collaborative Social Mobility Initiatives
Policymakers can fund partnerships between universities strong in access and those strong in retention. Collaborative programs, like those between Aberdeen and the University of the West of Scotland, could improve outcomes across Scotland.
- Create a National Retention Strategy
A national strategy focused on retention and completion for disadvantaged students would support Scotland’s social mobility goals. This could involve setting measurable targets, collecting regular data, and ensuring access initiatives are matched by strong retention efforts.
Summary
The SSMI highlights the contributions and challenges that Scottish universities face in promoting social mobility, drawing comparisons to the ESMI. In both Scotland and England, universities with strong commitments to widening access, such as the University of the West of Scotland and the University of Bradford, lead the rankings by supporting students from disadvantaged backgrounds in urban areas. However, high-access universities in Scotland, like the University of the West of Scotland, face notable challenges in student retention, pointing to a critical need for improvement to ensure access translates into long-term success.
The SSMI findings show that while Scottish universities excel in widening access, more targeted efforts are needed to support retention, particularly in high-access institutions.
These findings emphasise the importance of both access and retention, suggesting that Scottish universities and policymakers should work together to ensure that opportunities for higher education lead to sustained student success. With targeted efforts, Scotland’s universities can further strengthen their impact as drivers of inclusive social mobility.
Methodology Note
The SSMI evaluates universities’ contributions to social mobility using three metrics: Access, Continuation, and Graduate Outcomes. Access measures the proportion of students from SIMD1 and SIMD2, weighted at 1 and 0.5 respectively, with a total metric weighting of 1.5, resulting in a component weight of 2.25. Continuation uses the same SIMD1 and SIMD2 weighting, with a total metric weighting of 1, giving a component weight of 1.5. Graduate Outcomes are a single measure with a total and component weight of 1. Scores are standardised using Z-scores.