Is there a gap because Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic students enter higher education with lower entry qualifications?
The value-added metric (VA) identifies Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic achievement having taken account of and thus controlled for entry qualifications. The data reveals that the gap is persistent across all entry routes, qualifications and tariffs. So the simple answer is no.
Is it because Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic students are more likely to study certain subjects?
Again, our approach, using the VA methodology, controls for subject of study by benchmarking against sector data from the same subject. There are subject areas where the awarding gap is less prevalent than others; however for 2019/20 this only accounted for 1.8 percentage points of the awarding gap at London Met.
Is there a gap because Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic students use different entry routes?
It has been suggested that students entering with BTEC qualifications, though nominally having the same UCAS tariffs as other forms of entry, are less well prepared for the demands of university and therefore on average show lower attainment. It is further assumed that more Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic students enter with BTEC qualifications than White students. By breaking down the VA scores for students into those with and without BTEC, by subject, we have been able to show that generally:
a) it is true that BTEC students do less well, but
b) there is still a substantial awarding gap between White and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic students with BTEC; and
c) Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic students are not strongly over-represented in terms of students entering with BTEC
Is it all down to socio-economic status?
This is perhaps historically the most widely offered explanation for the awarding gap. However, analysis of London Met’s VA data reveals that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic students from Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) groups 1 and 2 (most deprived) were awarded a higher percentage of first/2:1 degree classifications in 2019/20 than their Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic IMD 3 and 4 (least deprived) counterparts. The data also reveals that the only difference in differential attainment within social classes is between White IMD 1 and 2 students and their White IMD 3 and 4 counterparts.
Are Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic students more likely to be engaged in extensive paid work?
It seems plausible that a heavy commitment to paid work could, regardless of race, could impact academic success by reducing attendance, engagement and study time. There are historic assumptions that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic students are likely to have heavier paid work commitments than White students. We are aware of one piece of research which found that paid work pressures did apply more heavily to Black Caribbean students, but not to other Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic students (from Why the Difference? A Closer Look at Higher Education Minority Ethnic Students and Graduates, Connor, H, Tyers, C, Modood, T and Hillage, J (2004)). However, recent unpublished research from Kingston University shows that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic students are no more likely to be working long hours than White students.
Are Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic students more likely to be pressured into taking degrees of little personal interest?
It is a stereotypical view, which is also unsupported by research, that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic students are more likely to be pressured by their families to take degrees in which they lack personal interest but that have strong vocational ties (see Soocoormanee, P (2012) Influence on Student Choice. Case study in Cousin, D, and Cuerton, G (2012) Disparities in Student Attainment, HEA).
