Least selective universities ‘performing best on social mobility’

The obsession with linking how much graduates earn to the 'quality' of a course needs to be dropped. It's not a true measure of 'social mobility' and, as your second table shows, is swiftly distorted by the fact that salaries in London tend to be higher than those earned by people doing exactly the same work elsewhere. Even the second table is distorted: many students I talk to at Aston University plan on taking a London-based job - not so much for the money but for the city lifestyle.

That pupils on FSM in London, going to London Universities and after graduating, staying in London for their jobs, have had the best chances of scoring well in the "social mobility" sector based on the criteria used, is no surprise. However, this "success" does not prove anything about the value added by the Universities they attended. The fact that Russell group Universities have not scored highly in the "social mobility" league tables is also of no surprise. These Universities generally demand good performance at A levels and high points scores to meet their entrance requirements which will often not be achieved by school students on Free School Meals. Graduate Salaries of Russell Group students are generally higher than average because many move to London and / or obtain jobs with those companies that pay the highest salaries. Given that many of the most able graduates seem to go into self employment / found start ups and in their first 5 to10 years will be happy to be on low salaries and more interested in medium term dividends and share values, putting a heavy weighting on salaries as a way of "identifying" the Universities that have made a positive difference for their students may be seen as the wrong metric to use.