The social class gap in bachelor’s and master’s completion university dropout in times of educational expansion

The social class gap in bachelor’s and master’s completion: university dropout in times of educational expansion Jens-Peter Thomsen* *VIVE – The Danish National Centre for Social Science Research, Herluf Trolles Gade 11, DK – 1052 Copenhagen, Denmark, jpt@vive.dk THIS PAPER IS PUBLISHED IN EURPEAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL, 2021, First Published September 24, 2021 Link: https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211046748 THIS IS A PRE-PRINT (FINAL DRAFT POST-REFEREEING) VERSION Moving to opportunity: Student trajectories in the post-Bologna university system in Denmark Abstract This paper examines whether the implementation of the Bologna bachelor’s + master’s structure has been followed by an increase of university students from under-represented groups, and whether the Bologna structure has been accompanied by new forms of student mobility between Danish university institutions Looking at student movements from bachelor’s to master’s degrees from 1993 to 2011, I not find that the implementation of the Bologna structure has been followed by changes in the inclusion of under-represented groups The social gap in progression to master’s degrees remained small and constant across the period However, the formal instalment of a new transition point in the Danish university system (from bachelor’s to master’s) has provided bachelor’s degree holders with the opportunity to flee less lucrative fields of study and less prestigious institutions, and they increasingly so I discuss the implications of these movements in the light of the aim to make higher education more inclusive Keywords Higher education; Status; Social class; Bachelor's degree; Educational advantage Introduction In 1999, a number of European countries initiated the Bologna Process in an effort to make European higher education (HE) more coherent and competitive, facilitate student mobility and – through subsequent communiqués (2001, 2007, and 2009) – place emphasis on the ‘social dimension’ in HE Some of the most far-reaching effects of the Bologna Process have been the establishment of a common quality framework, a pan-European credit system and the implementation of the bachelor’s + master’s + PhD structure (3+2+3) in HE systems in all 48 participating countries In many of these countries, this structure introduced a new transition point with the awarding of a bachelor’s degree after three years of study For stratification scholars, the introduction of a new transition point from bachelor’s to master’s degrees has attracted interest Studies have shown that each transition point in education systems may affect educational inequalities (Breen and Jonsson, 2005; Mare, 1981; Shavit et al., 2007) and more specifically that the share of master’s level graduates with low educated parents have decreased with the two-cycle structure (Neugebauer et al., 2016) Such interest is even more warranted given that key dimensions of the Bologna Process is to strengthen social mobility in HE and ‘widen opportunities for access and completion for students from disadvantaged backgrounds’ (Kottmann et al., 2019: 5) This paper examines whether the instalment of the Bologna structure has been followed by an increase in the share of under-represented students in university programmes In contrast to many other countries, Danish universities adhered to a five-year one-cycle candidatus programme structure before the introduction of the bachelor’s + master’s (3+2) structure The instalment of the new two-cycle structure may have had opposite effects on the inclusion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds On the one hand, the new possibility to enter the labour market earlier may have proved attractive to students from disadvantaged backgrounds who would otherwise refrain from embarking on five years of study, deeming this an overly risky endeavour On the other hand, the 3+2 system may have worked to divert the same students towards only obtaining a bachelor’s degree, in contrast to their privileged counterparts, who are more likely to progress to the master’s level Other processes of differentiation may also have occurred For example, some groups of students may have taken advantage of the new bachelor’s–master’s transition point and sought to move to desirable master’s programmes Students who for one reason or another did not previously have the opportunity to enrol in their preferred bachelor’s course may have used the transition point as a compensatory strategy to shift to a more sought-after programme or institution In examining whether new forms of differentiation within Danish universities have accompanied the Bologna Process, I take advantage of high-quality administrative data These data allow me to look at the total cohort of bachelor’s enrollees, from the instalment of the bachelor’s degree in 1993 up until 2011 Specifically, I examine if the implementation of the Bologna structure has been followed by an increase of students from under-represented groups in Danish university programmes, and whether the structure has been accompanied by new forms of student mobility between Danish university institutions.1 I discuss these movements not only in the light of the implementation of the Bologna structure, but also with an eye to other important educational changes that have taken place in the period under study The paper proceeds as follows I set out by contextualizing the analysis and subsequently present my data and methods for examining the data attained Thereafter, I present my analysis and conclude with a short summary and discussion Context: The Bologna Process and the Danish educational system The Bologna Process was initiated in 1999 as an example of pan-European cooperation with regard to HE programmes, aiming to homogenize programme structures and strengthen European HE internationally This goal was to be achieved by making HE degrees more comparable across member states, introduce a common 3+2+3 study structure, promote mobility and the free movement of student, teachers, and researchers, to adopt a common system of credits (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)) and to promote a common framework for quality assurance (Bologna Communiqué, 1999) In the Prague Communiqué (2001), ministers further emphasized the social dimension of mobility, and the goal of including students from underrepresented groups was promulgated in the London Communiqué, stating that the ministers ‘reaffirm the importance of students being able to complete their studies without obstacles related to their social and economic background’ (London Communiqué, 2007: 5) In the Leuven Communiqué from 2009, ministers agreed that each country should set up ‘measurable targets for widening overall participation and increasing participation of under-represented groups in higher education’ (Leuven Communiqué, 2009: 2) Later communiqués reaffirmed the goal to increase the inclusion of under-represented groups (see the Bologna Process implementation report (European Commission, 2018) for a detailed discussion) Denmark has gone a long way in implementing the Process’ initiatives Six years prior to its initiation, university reforms began introducing a bachelor’s–master’s degree structure The political rationale behind splitting up the five-year candidatus programme into a two-cycle structure in 1993 was to combat dropout by introducing a shorter degree (the bachelor’s), to offer employers a more flexible qualifications system and to align Danish university programmes with Anglo-Saxon ones (Rasmussen, 2019) Since then, Denmark has implemented the ECTS credit points at all levels and aligned its bachelor’s, master’s and PhD programmes, with a university reform passed in 2003 stipulating that all university programmes follow the 3+2+3 structure As most Danish university programmes before 1993 were uninterrupted five-year candidatus programmes, the implementation of the 3+2+3 structure formally restructured Danish higher education, but with a few practical implications For most traditional liberal arts and professional programmes, the introduction of the 3+2 structure in 1993 was a mere formality, with programme profiles continuing to be prepackaged, offering little flexibility in terms of content or curricula National policy changes in 2003 may have done more to fuel increasing movement between fields and institutions As part of the universal implementation of the 3+2 structure in 2003, bachelor’s and master’s programmes were required to formulate labour market profiles as part of the implementation of a qualification framework as laid out in the Bologna agreement (Danish Evaluation Institute, 2017) Following this, from 2007 to 2016 twice as many new master’s as bachelor’s programmes emerged (121 and 59, respectively) (Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2018) These programmes should also be seen as the outcome of new institutional strategies for attracting students in an increasingly competitive HE market Since the 1980s, universities have been partly financed by a pay-per-student arrangement and the possibility of establishing new master’s programmes following the Bologna Process and the 2003 University Act has given institutions more economic incentives to attract out-of-institution students, thereby increasing cross institutional transfers from bachelor’s to master’s programmes The introduction of the bachelor’s degree in Denmark has taken place in a system where young people experience fewer constraints on their educational choices and transitions than elsewhere Compared to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development average (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012: 135), unemployment rates among tertiary education graduates have historically been relatively low and social security in Denmark provides considerable support Day care is universal and affordable and there is no tracking in compulsory school (grade to 9), although an increasing number of students attend private schools (with the state subsidizing three-quarters of the tuition fees) Apart from private elementary schools as well as a few private high schools, there are no tuition fees in education and all HE students are entitled to a government grant of 840 euros monthly (2020 figures) while studying Danish children begin their educational career with 10 years of compulsory education in public or private non-profit schools: grades zero to nine, for six-year-olds to fifteen-year-olds, with an optional 10th grade After compulsory school, two-thirds of all students enrol at a HE preparatory upper secondary school – called a ‘gymnasium’ – with a general academic track and two vocationally oriented academic tracks (technical and business-oriented) Other students opt for a vocational education and training (VET) programme, attaining qualifications for craft occupations such as carpenters, electricians, construction and service work Applications to HE programmes are centrally coordinated by a public body A diploma from a gymnasium formally grants access to a HE programme if that programme has the space to accept all applicants This is the case for most programmes, but for several university programmes demand exceeds supply and so the applicants’ gymnasium grade point average (GPA) determines admission (with a small share being admitted on the basis of extracurricular qualifications) The HE system comprises business academies, university colleges and universities Business academies host two-year to three-year programmes primarily directed towards the private sector University colleges offer three-year to four-year semiprofessional bachelor programmes primarily educating welfare state civil servants (teachers, nurses and childcare, and social workers) Universities hold a wide range of traditional liberal arts and professional programmes, offering three-year bachelor’s programmes, two-year master’s programmes and three-year PhD programmes.2 Students in Denmark enrol in a bachelor programme with a relatively fixed subject (e.g., a Sociology bachelor’s) and all bachelor’s students are legally entitled to continue into the corresponding master’s programme after graduating (e.g., a Sociology master’s) This is by far the most common entry route into a master’s programme It also means that unlike in many other countries, bachelor’s students not have to apply to gain entry into the applicable master’s programme If, however, bachelor’s degree holders wish to pursue a master’s programme in another department (or in another institution), they must apply directly to that department The department assesses their application individually, often focusing on the student’s curricular activities on their bachelor’s programme More than four out of five bachelor’s students obtain a master’s degree With a few exceptions, there is de facto not a labour market for university bachelor’s degree holders in Denmark, as employers tend to expect mature candidates with master’s qualifications (Danish Agency for Labour Market and Recruitment, 2003), despite political efforts to strengthen a labour market for university bachelor’s degree holders (Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2018: 32).3 Mechanisms of differentiation in higher education Although there is a voluminous literature documenting persistent social inequalities in access to HE (e.g., Breen and Jonsson, 2005; AUTHOR, 2017, 2019; Shavit et al., 2007), relatively few studies have examined the effects of the Bologna Process on educational inequality Studies from Portugal and Italy have identified a positive effect on overall enrolment (Neugebauer, 2015) However, the introduction of bachelor’s degrees in Germany has been found to have had no positive effect on bachelor’s enrolment among students of lower socio-economic status and the share of master’s students of lower socio-economic status has decreased since the introduction of the two-cycle structure (Neugebauer 2015; Neugebauer et al., 2016) The introduction of a new degree level brings with it new possible forms of differentiation in HE A new bachelor’s degree may lead some of those students who previously studied a fiveyear one-cycle candidatus degree to pursue a three-year bachelor’s degree only Students from working-class backgrounds are generally more risk averse (Breen and Goldthorpe, 1997; Goldthorpe, 1996) and more likely to leave with just a bachelor’s degree However, a short three-year bachelor’s degree may also lead to the inclusion of working-class students, as they may view it as more realistic and manageable than its five-year counterpart (Schindler and Reimer, 2011) Regardless of the outcome, there are reasons to doubt if any of these mechanisms have been powerful in Denmark First, working-class students are more likely to pursue qualifications at university colleges, where ‘professional bachelor’s degrees’ (e.g., teacher, social worker, nurse, and childcare worker) grant fast access to the labour market (AUTHOR, 2013) Second, even though working-class university students may in theory be more prone to leaving after attaining a bachelor’s degree, the legal right to continue into a master’s programme (and the fact that there are no tuition fees in Danish HE and students receive generous grants while studying) may offset these dispositions Additionally considering that a labour market for university bachelor’s degree holders in Denmark has never materialized, an early labour market entry mechanism may be hard to identify in the Danish case However, it may be the case that the bachelor’s–master’s structure has introduced a new form of horizontal differentiation, where students use the new transition point as a channel for moving to programmes or institutions that they consider more attractive than where they attained their bachelor’s degree Several studies have pointed to the choice of institution, field of study and programme as important areas of distinction as the HE system has expanded (Davies and Guppy, 1997; Hällsten, 2010; AUTHOR, 2015) These patterns of differentiation have been given a theoretical underpinning in the theory of effectively maintained inequality (EMI), where inequality refers to inequality in access to different types of education This theory states that students from high socio-economic status backgrounds seek out advantages in the education system wherever there are advantages to be found Lucas shows how these students seek out qualitative advantages in high school (i.e., better quality tracks) where high school attendance is universal (Lucas, 2001) In an analogous fashion, university students may seek out qualitative advantages where they are available This may be the case where students seek out master’s programmes in fields or institutions that grant access to more lucrative or prestigious social positions than those available had they stayed within the same field or institution of their bachelor’s degree In the same vein, cultural reproduction theory places weight on how the privileged social classes (i.e., highly educated families), endowed with large amounts of cultural capital, use the education system strategically to maintain advantages for their children (Bourdieu, 1996; Lareau, 2011; Reay et al., 2005) Movements between fields or institutions may, in a rational choice perspective (Breen and Goldthorpe, 1997), be viewed as strategic adjustments that maximize utility, when students make use of the possibility of transferring into a new field or institution with more attractive job prospects (e.g., working-class students moving to programmes that are deemed a less risky choice) I use these theories as my point of departure to analyse student movements as a way of securing privileges and attractive labour market prospects In order to examine these mechanisms of differentiation, I present relevant data in the next section Thereafter, I analyse movements between bachelor’s and master’s programmes, fields and institutions and examine if and how these movements are related to social background and cognitive ability Data and methods To examine student movements between bachelor’s and master’s programmes, I use depersonalized administrative data from Statistics Denmark on all bachelor’s enrollees from 1993 to 2011 I restrict the analysis to bachelor’s and master’s programmes at universities, as the 3+2 structure is only fully implemented at the university level University colleges not have a master’s degree level like universities and a ‘professional bachelor’s degree’ from a university college (e.g., teacher, nurse, and childcare worker) does not automatically qualify for application 10 The Leuven Communique (2009) The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) The London Communique (2007) The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) Lucas SR (2001) Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects American Journal of Sociology 106(6): 1642–1690 Mare RD (1981) Change and stability in educational stratification American Sociological Review 46(1): 72–87 Mare RD (1993) Educational stratification on observed and unobserved components of family background In: Shavit Y and Blossfeld H-P (eds) Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, pp 351–76 The Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2018) Universitetsuddannelser til fremtiden [University education for the future] Ministry of Higher Education and Science Neugebauer M (2015) The introduction of bachelor degrees and the under-representation of students from low social origin in higher education in Germany: A pseudo-panel approach European Sociological Review 31(5): 591–602 Neugebauer M, Neumeyer S and Alesi B (2016) More diversion than inclusion? Social stratification in the Bologna system Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 45: 51–62 OECD (2012) Education at a Glance OECD The Praque Communique (2007) The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) Rasmussen P (2019) Higher education system reform in Denmark in the Bologna era In: Broucker B, De Wit K, Verhoeven JC and Leisyte L (eds) Higher Education System Reform Brill | Sense, pp.79–96 Reay D, David ME and Ball SJ (2005) Degrees of Choice: Social Class, Race, Gender and Higher Education Trentham 25 Schindler S and Reimer D (2011) Differentiation and social selectivity in German higher education Higher Education 61: 261–275 Shavit Y, Arum R and Gamoran A (2007) Stratification in Higher Education: A Comparative Study Stanford: Stanford University Press 26 Figure Share of bachelor’s degree holders continuing into a master’s programme in a different subject, by year of bachelor’s enrolment Note: I show only traditional multi-faculty institutions where a bachelor’s subject has a corresponding master’s subject Some newer institutions, such as Roskilde and Aalborg, have a different study structure, with one or two years of basic study courses followed by a specialization, which in the administrative data misleadingly appears as if students have moved between subjects 27 Figure Share of bachelor’s degree holders moving into a different field of study at the master’s level, by bachelor’s field of study and year of bachelor’s enrolment Note: Programmes within the field of health transitioned to the bachelor’s –master’s structure a little later than the other fields Therefore, the line for the field of health begins in 1996 28 Figure Share of bachelor’s degree holders moving into another institution at the master’s level, by year of bachelor’s enrolment Note: Average for all institutions shown in each subfigure for reference purposes 29 Figure Share of bachelor’s degree holders moving into a new master’s subject, field or institution, by gymnasium GPA and year of bachelor’s enrolment 30 05 15 25 35 Figure Likelihood of moving to a new institution at the master’s level by GPA (quintiles) with bachelor enrolment before 2003 (1994-2002, upper graph) and after 2003 (2004-2011, lower graph, presented separately 4 25 35 University of Copenhagen Roskilde University Aarhus University asobserved Copenhagen Business School University of Southern Denmark Aalborg University 35 15 25 05 15 05 1 2 University of Copenhagen University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Copenhagen BusinessBusiness School Roskilde University Roskilde University University of Southern Denmark University of Southern Aarhus University Aarhus University 10 School Denmark Aalborg University Aalborg University Note: From two linear probability models – before (1994–2002) and after 2003 (2004–2011) – with GPA and institution interacted and adjusting for parental education 31 Figure Share of bachelor’s degree holders moving into a master’s subject, field or institution different from the bachelor’s, by social background (parental education) and bachelor’s enrolment year 32 Figure Social gaps in institutional movement from bachelor’s to master’s, by individual institution From two linear probability models (bachelor’s enrolment year 1998–2002 (left) and 2003–2007 (right)), with social background and institution interacted and adjusting for enrolment year and GPA Aalborg University Aalborg University Roskilde University Roskilde University University of Southern Denmark University of Southern Denmark Aarhus University Aarhus University Copenhagen Business School Copenhagen Business School University of Copenhagen University of Copenhagen 05 FHF2=1 15 25 FHF2=3 05 15 25 Parents: short education Parents: long education Note: y-axis show the bachelor’s institution, x-axis show the likelihood of moving to a new institution at the master’s level 33 FHF2=1 FHF2=3 34 20 05 20 04 20 03 20 02 20 01 20 00 19 99 19 98 19 97 19 96 19 95 19 94 19 93 05 15 25 Figure Risk of not obtaining a master’s degree From linear probability model interacting bachelor’s enrolment year and social background, adjusting for gender and GPA 0 05 05 1 15 15 2 25 25 3 35 35 Figure Risk of not obtaining a master’s degree From two linear probability models (one before and one after 2003) interacting social background (parental education) and GPA (quintiles), adjusted for gender 5 Parents: short education Note: X-axis depicts GPA quintiles with (lowest) to (highest) Left graph covers bachelor’s enrolment Parents: long education years 2000–2002; right graph covers bachelor’s enrolment years 2003–2005 FHF2=1 FHF2=3 35 Appendix Table A1 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2nd GPA 3rd GPA 4th GPA 5th GPA Copenhagen Business School Aarhus University University of Southern Denmark Roskilde University Aalborg University 2nd GPA#Copenhagen Business School 2nd GPA#Aarhus University 2nd GPA#University of Southern Denmark 2nd GPA#Roskilde University 2nd GPA#Aalborg University 3rd GPA#Copenhagen Business School 3rd GPA#Aarhus University 3rd GPA#University of Southern Denmark 3rd GPA#Roskilde University 3rd GPA#Aalborg University 4th GPA#Copenhagen Business School 4th GPA#Aarhus University 4th GPA#University of Southern Denmark 4th GPA#Roskilde University 4th GPA#Aalborg University 5th GPA#Copenhagen Business School 5th GPA#Aarhus University 5th GPA#University of Southern Denmark 5th GPA#Roskilde University 5th GPA#Aalborg University Medium education Long education Female Constant Move to new institution bachelor’s – master’s Standard errors 0.00698 0.0111** 0.0143*** 0.0146*** 0.0119** 0.0223*** 0.0215*** 0.0241*** 0.00968 -0.00675 -0.00528 -0.0145** 0.0282*** 0.0341*** 0.0999*** 0.0921*** 0.0825*** -0.0327*** -0.0131 -0.00882 (0.00519) (0.00514) (0.00512) (0.00506) (0.00491) (0.00499) (0.00492) (0.00505) (0.00817) (0.00765) (0.00724) (0.00690) (0.00998) (0.0121) (0.0149) (0.0147) (0.0119) (0.0126) (0.0149) (0.0191) -0.0210 -0.0350** -0.00987 0.00332 -0.0293 (0.0185) (0.0158) (0.0130) (0.0144) (0.0191) -0.0297* -0.00704 -0.0309** 0.00858 -0.0120 (0.0178) (0.0173) (0.0124) (0.0138) (0.0199) -0.0569*** 0.0104 -0.0335*** -0.00775 -0.0401** (0.0170) (0.0176) (0.0121) (0.0131) (0.0198) -0.0347* -0.0100 0.00884*** 0.0162*** 0.0124*** 0.0333*** (0.0189) (0.0194) (0.00284) (0.00318) (0.00242) (0.00744) Table A2 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2nd GPA 3rd GPA 4th GPA 5th GPA Copenhagen Business School Aarhus University University of Southern Denmark Roskilde University Aalborg University 2nd GPA#Copenhagen Business School 2nd GPA#Aarhus University 2nd GPA#University of Southern Denmark 2nd GPA#Roskilde University 2nd GPA#Aalborg University 3rd GPA#Copenhagen Business School 3rd GPA#Aarhus University 3rd GPA#University of Southern Denmark 3rd GPA#Roskilde University 3rd GPA#Aalborg University 4th GPA#Copenhagen Business School 4th GPA#Aarhus University 4th GPA#University of Southern Denmark 4th GPA#Roskilde University 4th GPA#Aalborg University 5th GPA#Copenhagen Business School 5th GPA#Aarhus University 5th GPA#University of Southern Denmark 5th GPA#Roskilde University 5th GPA#Aalborg University Medium education Long education Female Constant Observations 57,314 *** p