cross-border flows of undergraduate students in the uk...(whittaker, 2014; whittaker, raffe and...

1

Cross-border flows of undergraduate students in the UK

Susan Whittaker, Centre for Educational Sociology/Centre for Research in Education Inclusion and

Diversity, University of Edinburgh

Paper presented at the annual conference of the British Educational Research Association, Belfast,

15-17 September 2015

Abstract

Cross-border flows, in the context of devolution, reflect wider issues around interdependencies

between the UK and devolved governments. They relate directly to concerns about the impact of

tuition fee changes on student choices. However as well as policy factors, accessibility and supply

issues provide constraints and opportunities that contribute to cross-border mobility, as do the

factors in student choice related to social characteristics. HESA data was analysed to explore

differing measures of advantage among movers and stayers from each UK country, to help identify

whether cross-border mobility contributes to wider inequalities in HE participation. It was found that

overall movers tend to be more advantaged than stayers, and more advantaged movers are arguably

more concerned with entering a high status institution, taking advantage of having the resources to

support long distance movement. These movers are relatively more common from countries with

low percentages of movers among entrants, Scotland and England. A second group of movers are

less advantaged and accessing a wider range of institutions but more likely to do so in locations that

are relatively accessible, and arguably due to supply issues in low to medium tariff institutions in

their home country. These movers are more likely to come from countries with high percentages of

movers, Wales and Northern Ireland. Cross-border mobility appears to reproduce inequalities in

participation overall, but for the second smaller group the differences between movers and stayers

are less strong. The findings suggest that there may be differences for students from each country in

the purpose that mobility serves and factors driving it. Due to differing capacity and propensity to be

mobile any further policy changes that create disincentives or barriers to cross-border mobility or

result in increased inflows would affect students unequally in relation to their home location and

social background.

Background and aims

Cross-border flows within the UK concern students who are resident in one country of the UK before

entering higher education, and enter a university in a different country of the UK. Under the

auspices of the ESRC Fellowship1 on ‘HE in Scotland, the devolution settlement and the referendum

on independence’, research on this subject was undertaken by Linda Croxford and David Raffe

(Croxford and Raffe, 2014a, 2014b), as well as by the author in the context of doctoral study

(Whittaker, 2014; Whittaker, Raffe and Croxford, 2015). This paper draws from elements of this

range of work.

Earlier research (Raffe and Croxford, 2013) which analysed cross-border flows up until 2010 had

showed that the proportion of students who crossed internal borders had declined, unevenly, since

devolution. Cross-border study was associated with the educational, social and ethnic backgrounds

of students, although there was variation in these associations in relation to students’ country of

1 Awarded to Prof Sheila Riddell, University of Edinburgh

2

domicile. However, the characteristics of cross-border movers underwent little change in the period

1996-2010. Movers were more likely to enter higher tariff institutions, but this too varied according

to country of domicile and the largest flow in terms of absolute numbers was to Post-1992

institutions in England.

The research which has followed has focused on entrants in the following years, 2011 and 2012,

using quantitative analysis of Higher Education Statistics Agency student record data2. This was the

best available data for analysing the extent and direction of cross-border flows of entrant

populations, and allowed the analysis of the association between mobility and student

characteristics. The research focused on young full-time undergraduate entrants, as this is the

student group for whom cross-border movement is most common, and they are also the group on

which the richest data on social and educational background is available. However the analysis is of

course subject to the limitations of administrative data, in terms of which student characteristic

variables are included, and how variables are measured. To account for missing and unclassified data

on the social class categorisation of students (based on the occupation of their highest earning

parent), and missing data on whether or not a student has a parent with an HE qualification and on

attainment group (tariff quintile) of students, multiple imputation was used to estimate the values of

missing cases. The findings provided in this paper are based on the pooled data resulting from 10

imputations.

In undertaking the research, we were especially interested in whether cross-border mobility is

associated with inequality in higher education participation and whether this differs between

different parts of the UK. We were also interested in the policy implications of cross-border flows,

which range across issues of student finance; widening participation; the impact of inflows and

outflows on students, institutions and devolved governments; issues of social citizenship; and the

interdependencies and unequal power relations between governments in relation to HE policy. In

this paper, the focus is on 2012 entrants, on inequalities in participation in relation to class and

schooling, and more limited policy discussion in relation to equality in participation and student

finance. This paper is concerned primarily then with student differences and issues, rather than on

the range of implications of cross-border flows for institutions and governments (further discussion

of these can be found in Croxford and Raffe, 2014a, 2014b; Raffe and Croxford, 2014; Whittaker,

Raffe and Croxford, 2015).

Cross-border flows and devolution

There are a number of ways in which cross-border flows have been influenced by devolution, and by

the divergent policies pursued by England and the devolved administrations, which have changed

the opportunities and incentives to cross borders. Differences in tuition fees are an obvious area of

divergence, but also factors such as the supply of HE places and their distribution across institutions

and subjects, and programmes to promote access and participation led by local institutions.

Devolution is also characterised by an imbalance in size and power between England and the other

countries of the UK. When the UK Government makes decisions driven by attempts to create a

market in higher education, and to encourage students to see themselves as consumers and to use

HE as an investment in their financial future, then Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have to

2 HESA cannot accept responsibility for any inferences or conclusions derived from the data. All data derived from HESA data are Copyright Higher Education Statistics Agency Limited 2013.

3

adapt their own policies in response. This is to prevent negative consequences on their finances, and

on the HE system and students for which they are responsible.

This wider issue regarding interdependencies is demonstrated in relation to cross-border flows.

Policy directly referencing cross-border flows has mainly been a reaction by the devolved

administrations to UK policy on tuition fees and other issues around marketisation such as the

expansion of places in England. Specifically in relation to the potential consequences of fee

differentials, devolved administrations (DAs) have been concerned that if their country had lower

fees for students from the rest of the UK, this would be a significant funding pressure for them (eg

Rees Review, 2005; Scottish Executive, 2004; Scottish Government, 2010). They are concerned about

home students being able to access higher education places, and would not want inflows of students

to increase to the extent that participation levels of home students decreased (eg Rees Review,

2005; Scottish Executive, 2004; Stuart, 2011). They may also be concerned about retaining future

graduates (eg Welsh Assembly Government, 2009) as students from the home country are more

likely to stay on after graduation than those from the rest of the UK, and home students who leave

to study elsewhere often do not return (HESA, 2013; Hoare and Corver, 2010; Mosca and Wright,

2010). However charging higher fees to students from outside the country is a source of revenue

(Hunter Blackburn, 2015); and DAs do want diversity of students in their institutions (Keating, 2005).

So on balance the DAs appear to prefer to maintain existing levels of cross-border flows. To achieve

this, with regard to inflows the focus has been on setting higher tuition fee levels for RUK than home

students, and in Scotland RUK students were taken out of the student number cap in 2012 to protect

places for home students. With regard to outflows, outward movement is supported through the

portable student support system, fee grant (for movers from Wales) and fee loans (for movers from

all countries), and through the continued use of the common application system (an institutional

rather than government decision).

These policies and actions provide the context, conditions, incentives and disincentives for choices

made by students to apply for, and if offered, accept places at HEIs outside their home country. They

do not necessarily however fully explain the student choice that underlies cross-border flows. The

questions we have sought to address by drawing on HESA data in combination with wider evidence

on student choice and HE participation are: who are the mobile students, what influences the

propensity to cross borders, and to what extent is the capacity to be mobile an area of difference

between students that could contribute to inequalities in HE participation? Firstly, the overall extent

and directions of flows are examined. This is followed by an analysis of student differences that may

help explain the overall patterns of mobility.

The extent of flows and changes over time

The extent of internal cross-border flows and a broad picture of mobility is provided in Table 1 which

shows the percentage of home and RUK students in each HE system in relation to all (young full-

time) entrants, and the change in inward mobility from the EU and overseas. 2004 and 2012

entrants are compared to indicate change over time.

4

Table 1: Percentage of young full-time entrants to country HE system by domicile, 2004 and 2012 entrants

2004 2012 Change

England

Home 85 81 ↓

RUK 4 4 =

EU 3 5 ↑

Overseas (non-EU) 7 11 ↑

Total (N) 243940 285445

Scotland

Home 75 68 ↓

RUK 16 14 ↓

EU 4 11 ↑


Total (N) 28770 31385

Wales

Home 45 44 ↓

RUK 48 43 ↓

EU 2 4 ↑


Total (N) 16470 19130

Northern Ireland

Home 93 90 ↓

RUK 1 3 ↑

EU 5 2 ↓


Total (N) 8430 8030 All totals rounded to nearest 0 or 5.

Source: HESA Student Record 2004-05, 2012-13

Generally speaking home and RUK students have constituted a smaller percentage of entrants over

time in each system, and the percentage of entrants from the EU and overseas has increased. In

particular, overseas students as a percentage of entrants in England are relatively high as are EU

students in Scotland. In Wales, RUK entrants continue to make up a large proportion of entrants, and

in Scotland they continue to make a higher percentage of entrants than those from either the EU or

overseas. In Northern Ireland, the percentage of entrants from RUK has increased, but this may be

explained by the decrease over time of entrants from the EU, due to fewer entrants from the

Republic of Ireland who account for almost all of those EU students. RUK inflows therefore appear

most important to Wales and Scotland and have most impact on the constitution of the student

population in those countries.

Examining both inflows and outflows for each country, there were around 22,000 movers among UK

domiciled young FT entrants in 2012, or 7% of this entrant population. Table 2 provides an overview

of outflows of students from each country domicile, and the inflows into country HE systems of

young full-time entrants from the rest of the UK, over time.

There is little outflow from both England and Scotland. In 2012, about two thirds of movers from

England went to Wales and about a third to Scotland. Students who left Scotland almost all went to

England. In Scotland there is greater inflow of entrants than outflow, and both flows have reduced

over time, though not consistently in the case of inflows. These inflows are mainly from England,

and to a lesser extent from Northern Ireland.

5

Table 2: Percentage of UK young full-time entrants who were movers-out by home country of domicile and

movers-in by country of study – year of entry

1996 2004 2010 2011 2012

Movers-out, by country of domicile

England 6 5 4 4 5

Scotland 8 7 6 6 5

Wales 48 39 34 36 42

Northern Ireland 42 29 32 35 31

Movers-in, by country of study

England 5 4 3 3 4

Scotland 21 17 14 14 17

Wales 55 46 47 51 49

Northern Ireland 2 1 2 3 3 Source: HESA Student Record 1996-97, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13

For Wales cross-border flows in both directions are substantial. Outflows notably increased in 2012

compared to 2011 and 2010, while inflows fluctuated during those years. These flows were almost

all between Wales and England. In the case of Northern Ireland, student outflow is substantial, with

about three quarters of movers going to England and about a quarter to Scotland in 2012, but there

was very little inflow from other parts of the UK.

An important point is that England is not greatly affected by inflows or outflows, whereas the

devolved territories all are, but in different ways and to differing extents. As discussed above, this

has led to reactive policies to decisions made by the UK Government for England which did not take

into account the effect on the interconnected HE system in the UK and on funding allocations to the

devolved governments. Given the relationship in policy terms between cross-border flows and

tuition fees, we can note that the fee changes would have been expected to have most impact on

entrants from Northern Ireland and Scotland, as movers out of these countries took on much higher

fee debt than stayers (in the case of movers from Scotland this was in comparison to no fee debt).

Movement out of Scotland and Northern Ireland did reduce compared to 2011. However this

appeared to be explained to a large extent by fewer deferrals in 2011 in anticipation of the changes.

In Scotland it may also have reflected a longer-term trend (Table 2). These points suggest there was

actually only a modest impact of the 2012 fee changes, at least in the year of introduction.

Entrants from England and Wales did not take on more fee debt by moving than staying in their

home country, and the proportion of movers-out from both England and Wales increased in 2012

(Table 2). In 2012, when the higher fees were introduced in English HEIs, the Welsh Government

protected Wales-domiciled entrants from the impact, and paid the difference up to the new fee level

for students whether they entered HEIs in Wales or elsewhere in the UK. The changes in 2012

therefore provided no new disincentive to study outside Wales, and may even have encouraged

greater movement. Inflows into Wales were also very high, although they dropped in 2012,

indicating a reduction in inward flows from England. One hypothesis for the reduction in 2012 is that

it was a reaction to the increased fees in England, perhaps in the form of trying to cut costs by

staying closer to home, or focus mobility more on accessing higher tariff universities (within England,

or in Scotland where the number of movers-in increased in 2012). The removal of RUK students from

the Scotland student number cap may also explain this change in mobility from England in 2012.

6

What we see is that there were some differences between 2012 entrant patterns and those from the

previous two years, suggesting that various policy changes, including changes in fee differentials,

may have had some impact. However if we look back over this longer period we see that the

percentage of mobile entrants in 2012 was not a notable outlier, and therefore that policy changes

may not be the most important factor in mobility patterns that year.

Social characteristics and mobility

Table 3: Characteristics of movers from each country – percentage of young FT entrants in 2012 who were

movers (and percentage of stayers in each characteristic group in brackets)

England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland

Total

Higher managerial and professional class

32 (24)

44 (27)

27 (18)

24 (15)

30 (24)

Lower managerial and professional class

33 (30)

30 (31)

33 (30)

29 (30)

32 (30)

Intermediate class 18 (21)

15 (21)

20 (22)

25 (30)

20 (21)

Working Class 17 (26)

11 (21)

21 (30)

22 (26)

18 (26)

Has HE qualified parent 67 (53)

81 (65)

66 (57)

60 (59)

66 (54)

Went to independent school 20 (11)

51 (9)

9 (2)

- 15 (10)

From low participation HE area 8 (12)

- 9 (13)

6 (7)

8 (11)

Total movers (N) 11680 1080 6100 3295 22150 All totals rounded to nearest 0 or 5.

‘ – ‘ fewer than 50 movers

Source: HESA Student Record 2012-13.

Table 3 provides an overview of findings in relation to measures that indicate levels of

advantage/disadvantage of entrants, and how these relate to cross-border movement of entrants

from each country. It shows the percentage of movers by each characteristic, and the percentage of

stayers is provided in brackets for comparison. Although this table shows descriptive data,

regression analyses have also been undertaken which provide evidence of these associations with

cross-border mobility.

Movers were more likely than stayers to be from a managerial and professional class background. In

particular, movers were more likely than stayers to be from a higher managerial and professional

class background, overall and for all country domiciles. Students from Scotland however stood out in

two ways – movers were much more likely to be from a higher managerial and professional class

background, but less likely than stayers to be from a lower managerial and professional class

background. Movers from all countries were less likely than stayers to be from an intermediate or

working class background. As well as the class findings, those who went to independent school as

opposed to state school, those not from a low HE participation area (defined as the bottom quintile

of young HE participation rate) and to a large extent those with an HE qualified parent compared to

first generation students, were also more common amongst movers than stayers. Students from

Northern Ireland were an exception to the latter finding.

7

These more advantaged movers were relatively likely to enter high tariff universities, and as these

are relatively rare and dispersed, they would have had to be willing and able to move long distances

from home if required. These findings apply to movers from all four countries, but particularly for

movers out of Scotland and movers from England to Scotland. So there is more concentration of

relatively advantaged movers from the countries where mobility is an uncommon decision or path.

The research literature on student choice and HE participation would predict these findings. There is

much research on student choice which suggests that when applicants are deciding what to study

and where, a number of factors come into play: social background, finances, family, school

background, qualifications, and that motivations for HE study can differ between different categories

of students (Ball et al., 2002; Connor et al., 2001; Davies et al., 2008; Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka,

2015; Holdsworth, 2009; Purcell et al., 2008; Fitz et al., 2005; Hinton, 2011; Osborne, 2001, 2006).

One thing to note is that financial issues are only one part of a complex picture. Students are not

driven primarily by economically rational calculations about the likely returns to their HE choice. This

suggests that policy positions on cross-border flows that are driven by the issue of fees could

overlook this complexity.

If we apply student choice findings to mobility as a particular facet of student choice or decision-

making, this would suggest that middle class students, particularly the most advantaged among this

group, will have the resources that allow mobility to be a less risky and costly choice. Immobility in

fact may be a risk as restricting their geographical area of choice could reduce their chances of

gaining access to high status HE (Ball et al., 2002; Belfield and Morris, 1999; Davies et al., 2008;

Gibbons and Vignoles, 2009; Holdsworth, 2009). We would therefore expect more mobility generally

amongst students with more financial and cultural resources, for this movement to be to high tariff

universities, and for this to be more strongly the case for cross-border mobility, and the data appear

to support this.

Student choice research also suggests that students from working class or intermediate class

backgrounds will have fewer resources to mitigate the risks and costs of mobility. They may also

place less value on moving long distances from the home area (Ball et al., 2002; Davies et al., 2008;

Forsyth and Furlong, 2003; Gibbons and Vignoles, 2009; Holdsworth, 2009; Purcell et al., 2008)

[though in some parts of the UK, such as Scotland and the North-East of England, staying in the

home area is more common and so applies to students from a wider range of backgrounds].

However whether by preference or necessity if students have a smaller geographical range of

realistic choice this could reduce their potential benefits from HE. And while the middle classes,

those from more advantaged backgrounds, are trying to maintain their positional status as HE

expands, students with limited options are in danger of struggling to convert their higher education

credentials into high status employment and social position (Brown, 2013; Holmwood, 2014;

Marginson, 2006).

As overall movement is more common for the more advantaged groups but more importantly

reflects differences in comparison to stayers, then cross-border mobility appears to contribute to

inequalities in HE participation. For these students the benefits of mobility may be the positional or

status gains, and the expected positive impact on future earnings and employment that mobility

could bring. These students may have the financial resources and also social resources, such as

8

encouragement from family and school, for these expected benefits to outweigh the costs of

mobility.

It is not the whole picture though. Movers from Wales and Northern Ireland were as likely to enter

new universities than old universities (or lower to medium tariff level rather than higher tariff level).

A third of movers from Scotland and a fifth of movers from England also entered new (Post-92)

universities. Movers to lower tariff institutions were less different (in terms of class, parental

education and schooling) to stayers entering lower tariff institutions than was the case for movers

and stayers entering higher tariff institutions. This was most strongly the case for movers from

Northern Ireland, but also more strongly the case for Wales than for Scotland notably and for

England. The effect of this is seen in the overall findings (Table 3), and the data suggest overall that

for Wales and Northern Ireland from which mobility is more normalised, there was a more

egalitarian group of movers out of those countries.

Other factors in mobility: supply and accessibility

Table 4: Supply and demand: young FT entrants from each country domicile, 2012


UK entrants in country’s HEIs (supply)

242970 22405 14585 10555

Entrants from country to all UK HEIs (demand)

241600 25645 16800 7460

Supply-demand ratio 0.99 1.14 1.15 0.71 Method: UK entrants within each country divided by number of entrants from each country domicile

All totals rounded to nearest 0 or 5.

Source: HESA Student Record 2012-13

Table 5: Supply and demand: young FT entrants from each country domicile by institution tariff level, 2012


Highest 0.98 2.24 0 0

High 0.95 1.16 1.04 2.1

Medium 0.98 1.23 1.29 0.16

Low 1.02 0.58 0.98 1.83

Lowest 1.07 0.4 1.34 0 Method: UK entrants within each country divided by UK entrants in all UK, by institution tariff level

Source: HESA Student Record 2012-13

As well as the role of social characteristics in mobility, other key factors are those of supply and

accessibility. Tables 4 and 5 show simple measures of the relative supply of undergraduate HE in

each country. They are based on entrants data so do not account for unmet demand in the form of

unsuccessful applications, but they are indicative of supply levels. In Table 4 we see a lack of places

overall to meet home demand in Northern Ireland, and as we saw in Table 1 about a third of

entrants left Northern Ireland to enter university. Table 5 shows a lack of supply at the lowest and

the highest tariff level in Northern Ireland. Movers out were also most commonly in the lowest and

highest attainment groups. Research by Osborne (2006) identified both reluctant leavers and

determined leavers from Northern Ireland and these data do suggest there were movers who left

not as a positive choice to leave but because it was the only way to access HE.

9

Table 4 suggests that there was not an overall lack of supply in Wales per se. However there was a

large inflow of students from England, as seen in Table 1, as well as limited higher tariff institutional

provision (Table 5). Movers out were most likely to be in the highest attainment groups. However in

addition a sub-group of movers were lower attainers who moved to enter new universities in

England (a quarter of all movers were low or lowest attainers entering Post-92s). This appears to be

particularly the case in the north of Wales where there is limited HE provision. Movers from the

north entered HEIs in the North-West of England to a greater extent than other regions in England,

and compared to movers to other regions were more likely to be from an intermediate or working

class background, to be first generation students, to be lower attainers, and were less likely to have

gone to an independent school. Supply issues are therefore a factor in the high levels of movement

out of Wales.

There were fewer supply issues evident for England and Scotland. This may partly explain why

movement out was less common from these countries. It may also help explain why movement was

more concentrated amongst the more advantaged, if mobility is more frequently a positive choice to

access high status provision, and only to a lesser extent driven by supply issues in the home country.

However Table 5 suggests that in Scotland there was an under-supply of lower tariff places, and this

may explain then why, although movement was most common for those entering Russell Group

universities, about a third of movers went to Post-92s.

Additionally in terms of accessibility, as might be expected, those on the GB mainland who live close

to other country borders are usually those more likely to enter HEIs in that neighbouring country.

This was more strongly the case for movers from Wales and England. In Scotland, although those

living close to the English border were relatively likely to be movers compared to other local

authority areas, students from Edinburgh were the most likely to be movers. Northern Irish movers

were likely to enter HEIs in cities in the north of England and Scotland, which could be considered

the closest areas in terms of travel. In all cases, there is evidence of well-established pathways from

particular countries or areas within countries to regions and specific institutions in neighbouring

countries, which may also indicate the importance not just of physical but social accessibility in

cross-border mobility, particularly for those from less advantaged backgrounds.

Social characteristics, supply issues and accessibility all appear therefore to play a role in cross-

border movement. There are indications that mobility may serve somewhat different purposes and

be driven by somewhat different factors for students from each country, but there are two broad

groups of movers. The first group are relatively advantaged students in terms of social and

educational background, arguably more concerned with entering a high status institution than

concerned about location per se, taking advantage of having the resources to support long distance

movement if required. The second group are students who are less advantaged using mobility to

access a wider range of institutions but more likely to do so in locations that are relatively accessible,

and more likely to do so due to supply issues in low to medium tariff institutions in their home

country. In the case of the first group, cross-border mobility does appear to at least reproduce

inequalities in participation; in the case of the second group the differences between movers and

stayers are less strong.

10

Conclusion

While government policy is an important factor in the context in which student choice and

participation outcomes occur, other factors are important, and possibly more so. The factors in

decision-making that lead to cross-border mobility can relate to the extent to which students are

determined to enter a particular type of institution or field of study and can get access to this in their

home country, wider issues of supply of HE in the home country, the normality of leaving the

country to study, and the physical and social accessibility of institutions outside their home country,

and these vary between students and between countries. So in relation to the policy issue most

closely associated with cross-border flows, although changes in fee differentials may have an impact

over time, other factors will play a role in cross-border mobility and this could make their impact

incremental. We must note though that the policies of the devolved administrations have been

intended to limit the impact of the fee differentials and to maintain existing cross-border flows, and

so the full potential impact has not been tested. If inflows did substantially increase and if places for

home students were not protected, this would likely mean that mobile and relatively advantaged

students from outside the country were affecting the ability of less mobile and less advantaged

applicants to access places. A reduction in outflows could have a similar effect if it meant more

advantaged students staying in the home country and reducing the places available for less

advantaged students. Cross-border flows therefore have the potential to exacerbate inequalities in

participation. Based on current patterns of inflows and outflows, from a HE system perspective this

issue is most strongly relevant for universities in Wales and the ancient universities in Scotland. The

impact of inflows on the constitution of the student body in these institutions is not picked up in

statistics on widening participation which focus on home students.

The findings also suggest that students from all areas and all backgrounds would not be equally

affected by any changes that made studying outside their home country more problematic – for

example loss of fee support for Welsh movers-out or loss of living support portability or introducing

separate applications systems within the UK. Students from Northern Ireland in general, from Wales

but particularly North Wales, students from Edinburgh and the south of Scotland, and students from

England living close to the Welsh border, would be those most affected. And within those areas, any

additional barriers to cross-border study would be a stronger issue for those with greater financial

constraints and those with lower attainment levels, as these are the students who would have more

limited options if access to provision was restricted. This would be in addition to any other existing

constraints on mobility related to social and cultural resources, which are not evenly distributed in

the student population, reflecting the fact that there will continue to be students in all countries

without the propensity or capacity to be mobile despite any changes to recruitment practices and

funding – positively choosing to stay nearer their home location, or being constrained by

circumstance. Others meanwhile will be mobile not willingly but in order to access appropriate HE

opportunities unavailable in the home country. And while student differences and the contextual

factors which enable or constrain student mobility matter for individual students, they also matter

for wider issues of fairness and equality of access. However as each administration is constrained by

the need to focus on home students studying in the home country, these are issues which in post-

devolution UK are harder to address.

11

References

Ball, S J, Davies, J, David, M and Reay, D (2002) ‘Classification’ and ‘Judgement’: social class and the

‘cognitive structures’ of choice of higher education, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23 (1),

51-72

Belfield, C and Morris, Z (1999) Regional migration to and from higher education institutions: Scale,

determinants and outcomes, Higher Education Quarterly, 53(3), 240-263

Brown, P (2013) Education, opportunity and the prospects for social mobility, British Journal of

Sociology, 35(5-6), 678-700

Connor, H, Dewson, S, Tyers, C, Eccles, J, Regan, J and Aston, J (2001) Social class and higher

education: Issues affecting decisions on participation by lower social class groups, London: DfEE

Croxford, L and Raffe, D (2014a) Student flows across the UK’s internal boundaries: Entrants to full-

time degree courses in 2011, Edinburgh: CREID

Croxford, L and Raffe, D (2014b) The impact of the 2012 tuition fee changes on student flows across

the UK’s internal borders, Edinburgh: CREID

Davies, P, Slack, K, Hughes, A, Mangan, J and Vigurs, K (2008) Knowing where to study? Fees,

bursaries and fair access, The Sutton Trust

Fitz, J, Taylor, C and Pugsley, L (2005) Attitudes towards participation in higher education in Wales

2005: A report for the Independent Study into the Devolution of the Student Support System and

Tuition Fee Regime in Wales, Cardiff: NAW

Forsyth, A and Furlong, A (2003) Losing out? Socioeconomic disadvantage and experience in further

and higher education, Bristol: The Policy Press

Gibbons, S and Vignoles, A (2009) Access, choice and participation in higher education, London:

Centre for the Economics of Education, LSE

Hemsley-Brown, J and Oplatka, I (2015) University choice: what do we know, what don’t we know

and what so we still need to find out?, International Journal of Education Management, 29(3)

HESA (2013) Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Institutions Longitudinal Survey of the

2008/09 cohort: Key findings report, Cheltenham: HESA

Hinton, D (2011) ‘Wales is my home’: higher education aspirations and student mobilities in Wales,

Children’s Geographies, 9(1), 23-34.

Hoare, A and Corver, M (2010) The regional geography of new young graduate labour in the UK

Regional Studies, 44(4), 477-494

Holdsworth, C (2009) ‘Going away to uni’: mobility, modernity and independence of English higher

education students, Environment and Planning A, volume 41, 1849-1864.

12

Holmwood, J (2014) From social rights to the market: neoliberalism and the knowledge economy,

International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(1), 62-76

Hunter Blackburn, L (2015) Whose to lose? Citizens, institutions and the ownership of higher

education funding in a devolved UK, HEPI No. 72, Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute

Keating, M (2005) Higher education in Scotland and England after devolution, Regional and Federal

Studies, 15(4), 423-435

Marginson, S (2006) Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education, Higher

Education, 52 (1), 1-39

Mosca, I and Wright, R (2010) National and international graduate migration flows, Population, 141,

36-53

Osborne, R D (2001) Higher education, participation and devolution: the case of Northern Ireland,

Higher Education Policy, 14, 45-60

Osborne, R D (2006) Access to and participation in higher education in Northern Ireland, Higher

Education Quarterly, 60(4), 333-348

Purcell, K, Elias, P, Ellison, R, Atfield, G, Adam, D and Livanos, I (2008), Applying for higher education

– the diversity of career choices, plans and expectations: Findings from the First Futuretrack Survey of

the ‘Class of 2006’ applicants for higher education, HECSU

Raffe, D and Croxford, L (2013) One system or four? Cross-border applications and entries to full-

time undergraduate courses in the UK since devolution, Higher Education Quarterly, 67(2), 111-134

Rees Review (2005) Fair and flexible funding: A Welsh model to promote quality and access in higher

education, Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government

Scottish Executive (2004) Higher education review phase 3: The competitiveness of higher education

in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive

Scottish Government (2010) Building a smarter future: towards a sustainable Scottish solution for

the future of higher education, Edinburgh: Scottish Government

Stuart, J (2011) Update to independent review of variable fees and student finance arrangements,

Belfast: DELNI

Welsh Assembly Government (2009) For our future: the twenty first century higher education

strategy and plan for Wales, Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government

Whittaker, S (2014) Student cross-border mobility within the UK: A summary of research findings,

Working Paper 2, Edinburgh: CREID

Whittaker, S, Raffe, D and Croxford, L (2015) Cross-border flows of students within the UK, in Riddell,

S, Weedon, E and Minty, S (Eds) Higher education in Scotland and the UK: Diverging or converging

systems?, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

cross-border flows of undergraduate students in the uk...(whittaker, 2014; whittaker, raffe and...

Documents