Teacher-training colleges are among the strongest performers in boosting the prospects of students from low-income backgrounds, according to a new social mobility ranking developed by the Oireachtas Parliamentary Budget Office.
The rankings are based on the proportion of students from low-income backgrounds in individual colleges, dropout rates and graduates’ earnings a year after graduation.
The index puts St Angela’s College in Sligo at the top of the league table, followed by Letterkenny IT and Mary Immaculate College in Limerick.
The study notes that teaching courses have very low dropout rates and those entering the teaching profession do well in earning in the years immediately after graduation.
Wake up, people: Here’s what the mainstream media don’t want you to know about Christmas
Chasing the Light review: This agreeable Irish documentary is all peace and healing. Then something disturbing happens
Are Loughmore-Castleiney and Slaughtneil what all GAA clubs should strive to be?
Your work questions answered: Can bonuses be deducted pro-rata during a maternity leave?
There is a mixed performance among universities and institutes of technology, often influenced by relative affluence or deprivation of their catchment areas.
Dublin City University is the highest-ranked university in fourth place, followed by Waterford IT, IT Carlow, University of Limerick and NUI Galway.
Art colleges, by contrast, were among the poorest performers. NCAD ranked last in 22nd place while the Institute of Art, Design and Technology in Dún Laoghaire was fourth last.
The study notes that art colleges are not a popular option for disadvantaged students, who are likely to seek more labour market-friendly options elsewhere.
Trinity College Dublin, which has a relatively small proportion of disadvantaged students, ranked in 10th place, helped by strong graduate earnings and low dropout rates, while UCD ranked in 18th place.
Overall, it notes, that many different factors are beyond the control of colleges, such as their location, course offerings and students’ points, which are a predictor of outcomes.
However, it says there are factors within their control such as improving the participation rate of disadvantaged students and support for such students while in college.
“The purpose of this index is to refocus some attention towards social mobility, a factor that is glaringly missing from the oft-cited standard university rankings. and to encourage all higher education institutions to improve in this space collectively,” the report states.
Overall, the report estimates that €2 billion in taxpayer funding goes towards public higher education annually.
The Parliamentary Budget Office said current higher education metrics used by the Government largely measure “activity, not performance”.
For example, it says student numbers are largely determined by demographics and labour market conditions and are not a measure of performance or value for taxpayers’ money. Yet, there is no measure of socioeconomic diversity in higher education used in Government metrics, the report states.
While the Department of Education publishes the transition rate of school students from Deis, or disadvantaged, school generally, there is a lack of data available at school level. It says, ideally, outcomes by school should be published to determine the differences in outcomes for school students across the system.
It notes that feeder school analysis, published by The Irish Times and others, is the only source of data on schools at this level.
The report says future performance measurement developments in higher education should focus on the differences in outcomes by individual colleges, student backgrounds and specific courses to “really uncover the value of higher education for diverse participants”.
This would also help uncover the performance of higher education institutions tasked with providing value for the €2 billion in taxpayer funding that goes toward public higher education annually.
At present, 10 per cent of undergraduate students come from disadvantaged backgrounds. If the higher education system was representative of the broader population, this should be 15 to 16 per cent.
In some areas, such as medicine and economics, only 4 per cent of students are from disadvantaged areas.