Chamber and committees

Colleges talk about the infrastructure costs of doing a lot of community work to bring those least likely to ever set foot in any further or higher education setting into that setting. They bear a significant cost to get people into the system in the first place. When you look at the additional wider infrastructure costs that universities sometimes have, do you also look at the same costs for community work that colleges have?

Mary Senior, it would be helpful if you said whether you are aware of anything that universities do to target young people from the most deprived areas to support them through their education path. There are really good statistics, but Ellie Gomersall is absolutely right that the initial outcome is getting them into university. Overall, what we are looking for is a successful first degree.

I absolutely get that.

Since 2019, there has been a 32 per increase in the number of 18-year-olds from the most deprived backgrounds who have been offered a university place. That is a staggering figure—although not all those places will have been accepted, of course. That is a large cohort of young people, a lot of whom are without a history, culture or tradition of going to university. They will be the first in the family—in the household—to do that.

You are right about the strains that will be put on university staff, student support organisations and everything else. Are you aware of anything bespoke that universities are trying to do to support that particular cohort? I absolutely acknowledge the financial challenges, which we will talk about in the next evidence session. However, are you aware of any specific initiatives at the university level that are trying to drill down into that particular cohort to offer extra support?

I will ask Universities Scotland that question in the next evidence session.

I want to touch on funding later on in my questioning. I make that point to Ruth Maguire and colleagues at the start because, in asking about the widening access agenda, I appreciate the significant challenges that exist.

There is a good-news story to tell. I gave this figure in the earlier session. Since 2019, there has been an increase of 32 per cent in the offers made to 18-year-olds from the most deprived backgrounds. That is a staggering figure. Obviously, they will not all take up those offers, but it means we are now well ahead of our target of 20 per cent of students in university coming from the SIMD20 most-deprived areas. We are at 16.7 per cent, so we met our 2021 interim target early. There is a lot of good news there.

The concern is that those from the most-deprived backgrounds may be those who are most susceptible to the cost of living crisis. What can be done to identify those young people—without stigmatising them, of course—and offer them whatever support we can through their learning pathway? I appreciate that the first outcome that ticks the box is that there are more first-year, full-time students from deprived areas in universities. However, the outcome that we want to see is those students being successful learners, graduating and entering positive careers. The input is only half of the story; the real outcome is the successful securing of the degree. Could Professor Boyne say a little bit more about what support is being deployed right now, despite the financial challenges?

It is almost as if you anticipated my final question. The convener will be glad to hear that, given the time constraints.

The committee is conducting an inquiry into the success of college regionalisation thus far and next steps. You were right to mention colleges in relation to widening access. Some 40.9 per cent of all full-time first degree students are studying in colleges or came through a college pathway into a university education. College principals have told us that they get a lower reimbursement rate for higher national certificate and higher national diploma year 1 and year 2 than universities get. You will understand that they are seeking parity of financial support.

I address that question to Professor Boyne. I do not expect him to argue for a smaller slice of the cake going to universities, but it is a real issue for college principals, who might not think that the funding system is equitable.

That helpful answer still acknowledges the funding gap between universities and colleges. I am not trying to create division; I am merely mirroring the comments that we heard from college principals—I think that that is reasonable as part of our inquiry and our overall budget scrutiny in relation to the sector. Karen, is the narrowing of the gap deliberate? Will the end point be parity of funding?

It is appropriate to ask this question now, because Mr Smeall has mentioned community involvement. One of the key aspects of regionalisation is about not throwing the baby out with the bath water; it is about making sure that colleges remain anchored in their communities despite the economies of scale and the greater pull and reach that regionalisation brings.

Those who are least likely to apply to college are most likely to get involved in the type of very local community activity that colleges might offer, which shut down completely during Covid. How is that going just now? Perhaps you can say a bit more about the importance of the work in communities to get those who are least likely to apply to college to do so in the first place? I am thinking of the pre-employability and pre-training work that colleges do so well. How is that faring now, and what are the challenges?

That is helpful. It is important to put on the record the high cost but high reward in this funding climate.

Can I come back in, convener?