Last year there was a considerable increase in concern about the time students spent in employment during term time. This is because surveys over the previous two years reported that this burden now affects most students. There is a growing realisation that a two-tier system is in operation with working students having less time to study whilst the rest have plenty of time. But this is by no means a new phenomenon. This system has prevailed for many years in the UK but is getting worse. Indeed, it stretches across higher education in EU countries and wider afield. Time available is the main currency for success. There is abundant evidence and recognition, but little by the way of a solution to the baked-in inequity.
TEFS has gathered evidence and studied this issue in detail for several years (see footnote 1). This is summarised here and proposes a radical rethink about what a university delivers to make the outcomes fair and equitable.
Surveys on the UK student academic experience by AdvanceHE and the Higher Education Policy Institute over the past two years have revealed that the majority of UK students are in term-time paid employment. But if you think that is bad enough, in December 2024 the Scottish Government’s report, ‘Student Finance and Wellbeing Study (SFWS) Scotland 2023-2024’, found multiple horrors under the rock. It is a comprehensive 247-page analysis that looks in detail at student finances. The median number of hours worked over a snapshot week at the survey time was 19 hours for the astonishing 76% of students who had paid term-time employment. This pattern stretched across FE students and postgraduates alike and appears out of control.
Though not as dramatic, the latest AdvanceHE/HEPI surveys show a similar rising working pattern. This is significantly higher than in previous years (2023 report and 2024 report). The situation in 2024 mirrored that of 2023 where 55% of students in employment in term-time increased to 56%.
Figure 1 shows the situation in the UK over the years. There has been a clear upward trend that is unlikely to slow down.
The problem is not so much the proportion of students in this situation. Instead, the number of hours in employment and away from their studies is more important and more likely to lead to poorer attainment and outcome.
Figure 2 shows that the increase in the proportion of students working was accompanied by a steady rise in the mean number of hours worked per week, 13.5 to 14.5 hours from 2023 to 2024. The main reason is to cover the cost of living to stay in university. Maintenance loans cannot cover these costs, and parental support may be scarce.
However, most universities recommend no more than 15 or 16 hours per week to avoid negative consequences for their coursework. Conversely, non-UK international students can legally work part-time for up to 20 hours per week. This anomaly means it is becoming the normal expectation for many working students.
More telling is the distribution of the number of hours in employment each week in term. Some work very few hours whilst many work very long hours. Figure 3 shows how this has changed since 2012. There is a general shift in the distribution toward the right and more hours. This probably results from financial pressures as grants disappeared and loans were frozen.
Nothing new here.
Whilst there may be alarm in some quarters that the number of students resorting to part-time work at the expense of their studies is increasing, it must be remembered that it has been like this for many years. There is little new to see and TEFS has looked at the evidence over many years (Footnote 1). The eagle-eyed readers will have noticed the data points in Figure 1 from AdvanceHE/HEPI surveys in 2006 and 2007. Equivalent data is not available between 2009 and 2011. However, on the face of it, little seems to have changed. The survey returns from students were gathered on a five-point scale in 5-hour increments, so an equivalent distribution is not possible to present.
Nevertheless, Figure 4 shows a strikingly familiar pattern with significant percentage working over 20 hours per week.
This highlights something that might have been recognised and acted upon years ago. Yet an FOI request from TEFS to all UK universities revealed a serious ‘blind spot’ in 2021 (TEFS ‘University student part-time working is a dangerous blind spot’ 16th June 2020 and ‘University students who work part-time need support – or they will drop out’ The Guardian 16th June 2020). While many universities now acknowledge that they have a substantial number of students working, they still have too little reliable data on individual circumstances.
Delving further back in time.
Indeed, the evidence goes back even further in time. It was in the 1990s that I became aware of more students, especially first-year students, defaulting on practical sessions and assignments due to job commitments. Later in the 2000s, this had escalated to one student needing to hold down a job for 34 hours per week. It was impossible with no solution or mitigation possible.
When I was a student in the 1970s, and later when teaching elsewhere in the 1980s, there was no spare time for taking term-time jobs. Also, there was no mitigation process available for any foolhardy student willing to try this. In my first year as a student, I had 32 hours per week of timetabled contact time in lectures, tutorials and practical sessions. Then it took at least another 20 hours per week to complete assignments. I oversaw a similar pattern as a lecturer elsewhere into the 1980s. But, with more students and staff redundancies later in the 1980s, this changed with relaxed timetabling that slowly released students to take jobs.
Table 1 shows results from a South Bank University Student Income and Expenditure Survey in 1998/99 and 2002/03.
The total hours worked each year implied a mean of around 10-12 hours per week. The results were no surprise to me.
By 2005 a pivotal report to Universities UK and HEFCE by the Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI) and London South Bank University revealed much more, ‘Survey of higher education students’ attitudes to debt and term-time working and their impact on attainment’. This study was restricted to students in seven anonymous universities. Three were older pre-92 universities and four were newer post-92. However, the variation in the proportion of students working varied greatly across the seven universities from 78% to 42%. This probably reflected the level of ‘tolerance’ accepted in each institution and possibly the course workload expected. There’s no wonder some wished to remain undercover.
The report is extremely valuable and revealing in its detailed and nuanced observations. Most would hold for today and a good example lies in observations about employers and shift patterns. Some employers were very flexible if students needed to study for examinations but,
“Moreover, as final examinations loomed large, most had reduced their hours of work (or stopped altogether): the opportunity to do this could well be linked to the nature of the job”……“……they don’t need me to work so many hours since it’s quieter now in the pub …because students aren’t going there so often as they’re revising for exams…”
The overall conclusion was that academic attainment was affected. Indeed, my experience of examinations held in January meant crucial revision was often sacrificed for employment over the busy Christmas and New Year periods. This vacation work also had a big impact and should not be side-lined.
Impact on course studies and attainment.
Multiple studies across several countries show an impact on attainment and outcome for students affected. But these tend to be patchy and subject-specific. However, they all point in the same direction. Simply put, more hours in paid work have a greater impact on outcome.
The seminal work of Callender in 2008, ‘The impact of term-time employment on higher education students’ academic attainment and achievement’, (Journal of Education Policy, 23:4, 359 — 377) set out a threshold of around 12 hours a week before academic attainment was negatively affected. Cited is the Cubie Report of 1999, ‘ICIS (Independent Committee of Inquiry into Student Finances: Fairness for the future’, that specifically recommended students’ paid work should be limited to 10 hours a week and they should be advised about managing their paid work and studies. However, Callendar and the House of Commons Education Committee revised this up to 12 hours by 2001. The inference was that there is a threshold. However, this also reflects the demands put on students at any set time. Thus, lowering the time demands on students in courses means the threshold can be raised. Perversely, this also means an erosion of the curriculum. Perhaps that too has a quality threshold that should not be ignored.
A valuable review by Seow and Pan in 2014 ‘ A literature review of the impact of extracurricular activities participation on students’ academic performance’ (Journal of Education for Business, 89(7), 361–366) provides a good reference point. It references a seminal text by James Coleman in 1961 about high school students in the 1950s (‘The Adolescent Society’ New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe). He viewed it as a ‘Zero Sum’ framework whereby,
“Student’s society is a finite system in which commitment to academic, athletic, or social values represents a loss to the other two”.
From direct experience, I take the same position and assume that all extra time in work unrelated to the degree detracts from attainment and outcome. The question then arises about at what point this becomes significant. Working part-time in a fruit and veg wholesale market from 5 am while studying for my A-levels had a significant impact for me.
However, in addition to the ‘Zero Sum’ framework, Seow and Pan offer two other options.
Secondly, a ‘Developmental’ Framework whereby,
“The dominant theoretical framework in the general education literature is the developmental framework, which theorized that extra-curricular activity (ECA) participation has a positive effect on academic performance indirectly as a result of the non-academic and social benefits associated with ECA participation”.
However, this offers a feeble excuse for universities to turn a ‘blind eye’ to the extent of working students’ hours and the simple fact they have less time to study and are exhausted most of the time.
The third, and most feasible is the ‘Threshold’ framework whereby,
“An emerging theoretical framework in the extant literature is the threshold framework, which theorized that ECA participation has a positive effect on academic performance up to a certain point beyond which participation leads to negative academic outcomes”.
This is a sensible reference point for universities to adopt and means they must somehow support students to ensure they stay below a threshold of hours in term-time work. But stripping out the curriculum and lowering expectations for students to allow the threshold to increase is surely not wise.
Does this happen elsewhere?
The simple answer is yes. A report from UNESCO last year declared that,
“To date, however, there is no higher education system in the world that provides free higher education for all”.
So, it is inevitable that students either need support from their families or resort to paid employment to survive. Government support or university bursaries play a pivotal role in some cases but these are inadequate across the UK. There is plenty of evidence that the least advantaged students in most countries take part-time jobs to fund themselves. This leaves them in the second tier of a system that advantages those with family resources and more time to study.
Closer to home, in EU countries, there is a very variable student employment pattern. The most recent detailed report from EUROSTUDENT last year made the following observations in ‘Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe. Eurostudent 8 Synopsis of Indicators 2021-2024’.
“On average, 59 % of students in the EUROSTUDENT countries work during the lecture period……………Among students who work more than 20 hours per week, dropout intentions are more prevalent than among those who do not work…………….Being able to pay living expenses appears to be the main motivation to work for students…….….Often it is students with parents not at all well-off who (have to) work during the lecture period”.
Figure 5 shows the pattern across the participating Eurostudent countries (these are listed fully in Footnote 2). Unfortunately, the UK is not included in this comparative analysis. However, the UK is probably someplace in the middle in a similar position to one of our closest neighbours, Ireland.
Of course, assuming that a threshold is more important, a look at the hours worked is more meaningful. Table 2 shows the mean working hours per week for those in employment across the EU. This illustrates well the stark dichotomy of experience for students between those with family support and those with little or no family support.
Blurring the part-time/full-time boundary.
It is generally acknowledged that the OECD definition of working 30 or more hours per week constitutes a full-time job. With a significant number of students working close to and over this boundary, it becomes apparent it is becoming blurred. Conversely, defining a full-time degree in terms of contact hours and hours of study is more of a moveable feast. It often depends upon the institution and the subject being studied. The trend toward constricting contact hours to two or three days per week to accommodate part-time jobs runs a considerable risk. The curriculum may be eroded because of less being expected of students. I know several graduate employers who are already uneasy about the erosion of knowledge and attainment. Those with representation via a variety of professional bodies who set standards are protected to some degree, but others are not.
It is becoming a bit of a bolognese.
One protection is that the UK is still part of the so-called ‘Bologna process’ which aims to make national education systems more comparable internationally. This means adherence to reasonable standards and workload. Central to this is the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) which is the main tool of the European Higher Education Area.
It is expected that,
“In a standard academic year, 60 ECTS credits are the equivalent of a full year of study or work”.
Each ECTS credit is nominally expected to represent 25-30 hours of study or approximately a total of 30 to 40 hours per week at best. The UK is, however, an outlier already. It has used a credit accumulation and transfer system (CATS) since 2008 whereby one credit equals 10 hours with two being nominally equivalent to one ECTS credit at 20 hours. The CATS process has been around for some years and overlooked by the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (see ‘Higher education credit framework for England: guidance on academic credit arrangements in higher education in England’ August 2008). The Office for Students (OfS) parted company with the QAA in 2022 and was then suspended from the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR). This sends out the wrong message and opens up a Pandora’s box.
It doesn’t take a ‘rocket surgeon’ to work out that the UK is sailing very close to the wind with students who must show they work for over 50 hours per week on their jobs and studies combined. It is worth noting this statement from the Bologna Process,
“Differences between national higher education systems can lead to problems concerning the recognition of qualifications and mobility periods abroad”.
Radical change is needed to the three-year full-time model.
Accepting that there exists an unfair two-tier system that discriminates against the less well-off in the UK, then change is necessary. Observing that there is an apparent mirroring of this across the EU means that this should not be taken at face value. But it isn’t a valid excuse for defending the UK scenario.
Adherence to a concentrated full-time degree favours the most well-off whilst ensuring the disadvantaged are kept in their place. It actively discriminates on social and financial grounds. It must be noted that many degrees in the EU take at least four years to complete. This is one explanation for students with part-time work being able to continue their studies. They take longer to complete their degrees but are more likely to succeed equally.
In the absence of more financial support for students from the government, then another approach is needed. Ditching the three-year full-time model and offering more flexibility in UK universities is the simplest way to ensure parity of outcomes for those supporting themselves. As an aside, Scotland, like Ireland, offers a four year programme geared to earlier entry selection at age seventeen.
This proposal means rebuilding the three-year full-time model over an extended period. For example, I have previously supported students in splitting their final year over two years. This extends the degree by a year but helps in levelling up the outcome where the final degree marks are heavily loaded onto that year.
However, this also means that the fee structure must be simplified and geared to charging fees pro rata for the time spent at university each year. Alternatively, we should ditch fees for a graduate tax or National Insurance levy, but that is another story.
The author, Mike Larkin, retired from Queen’s University Belfast after 37 years teaching Microbiology, Biochemistry and Genetics. He remains optimistic and loves mixed metaphors.
Acknowledgement: TEFS thanks Jonathan Neves and colleagues at Advance HE and HEPI for openly releasing the combined survey data.
Footnote 1.
- ‘More students in jobs as fewer travel first class on the university experience train’ June 29 2023
- ‘Student hardship: it’s going to be a cold winter’ July 2022’.
- Students working in term-time: Overall pattern across the UK July 19, 2019
- The vast majority – one million – of students have no employment when in full-time studies. July 27, 2018
- Students working in term-time: Challenging the ‘disadvantage’ shibboleth August 09, 2019
- Students working in term-time: Commuter students and their working patterns August 23, 2019
- The cost of equalising the HE experience November 29, 2019
Footnote 2.
