How English domiciled graduate earnings vary with gender, institution attended, subject and socio-economic background (Executive Summary)
By L. Dearden, A. Vignoles, J. Britton, N. Shephard. 2016
162 citations recorded by the source corpus.
This paper uses tax and student loan administrative data to measure how the earnings of English graduates around 10 years into the labour market vary with gender, institution attended subject and socioeconomic background. The English system is competitive to enter, with some universities demanding very high entrance grades. Students specialise early, nominating their subject before they enter higher education (HE). We find subjects like Medicine, Economics, Law, Maths and Business deliver substantial premiums over typical graduates, while disappointingly, Creative Arts delivers earnings which are roughly typical of non-graduates. Considerable variation in earnings is observed across diff erent institutions. Much of this is explained by student background and subject mix. Based on a simple measure of parental income, we see that students from higher income families have median earnings which are around 25% more than those from lower income families. Once we control for institution attended and subject chosen this premium falls to around 10%.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Education
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c42cc1d5be2060dc27240081c6e0dd116cd881b2
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Economics and Econometrics
- L. Macmillan
- A. Vignoles
- Claire E. Crawford
- Paul Gregg
- S. Marginson
- G. Wyness
- David Bell
- David G. Blanchflower
In Education
- A. Vignoles
- L. Macmillan
- Paul Gregg
- Claire E. Crawford
- S. Marginson
- Kathleen Lynch
- S. McGuinness
- Stephen D. Rubb
Citations in the corpus
- Higher education, career opportunities, and intergenerational inequality (2016, methodology): “The data used by both Britton et al. (2016) and Laurison and Friedman (2016) has some limitations, however. Both have access to only relatively crude measures of family background, with Britton et al. (2016) relying on a severely right-censored measure of income and Laurison and Friedman (2016) rely”
- Limitations of human capital theory* (2019, background): “Britton et al. (2016) study UK graduates with 10 years in the labour market, investigating the effects of variations in socio-economic background, gender, institution attended and field of study.”