Jnl Soc. Pol.

(2015), 44, 3, 487–515 © Cambridge University Press 2014

doi:10.1017/S0047279414000634

Who Gets the Top Jobs? The Role of Family

Background and Networks in Recent
Graduates’ Access to High-status
Professions

LI N D S EY MACM I LLAN ∗ , CLAI R E TYLE R ∗∗ and AN NA VI G N OLE S ∗∗∗

∗
Department of Quantitative Social Science, Institute of Education, London
email: [email protected]
∗∗
Department of Quantitative Social Science, Institute of Education, London
email: [email protected]
∗∗∗
Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge
email: [email protected]

Abstract
There is currently debate in policy circles about access to ‘the upper echelons of power’ (Sir
John Major, ex Prime Minister, 2013). This research explores the relationship between family
background and early access to top occupations. We find that privately educated graduates
are a third more likely to enter into high-status occupations than state educated graduates
from similarly affluent families and neighbourhoods, largely due to differences in educational
attainment and university selection. We find that although the use of networks cannot account
for the private school advantage, they provide an additional advantage and this varies by the
type of top occupation that the graduate enters.

1. Introduction
The UK government has stated that it aims to create a society in which
each individual, regardless of background, has an equal chance of realising
their potential (Cabinet Office, 2011). Yet educational achievement still varies
significantly by socio-economic background and, partly because of this, the UK
has relatively low levels of intergenerational income mobility (Ermisch et al.,
2012). One specific aspect of this problem has been investigated by Alan Milburn
in his reports on fair access to higher paying professions.1 Milburn found that
individuals from more advantaged backgrounds continue to be more likely to
secure a higher-paid professional role, with many employers recruiting from a
very limited range of universities and degree subjects. For example, he reported
that even in 2012, of the top 200 civil servants only one in five was educated
at a state comprehensive. Just over 40 per cent of barristers had gone to a
private secondary school and one third had attended Oxbridge. In this paper,
488 lindsey macmillan, claire tyler and anna vignoles

we contribute new evidence to this debate, exploring the relative importance of

educational achievement and social networks in explaining the socio-economic
gap in graduates’ access to high-status ‘top’ occupations.
We define what we mean by high-status occupation below, but broadly these
are occupations that have high earnings, more job security and better longer-term
income prospects (Goldthorpe and McKnight, 2006; Bukodi and Goldthorpe,
2011a). We contribute to the literature by focusing on the extent to which family
background is correlated with being employed in one of these specific occupations
for a recent cohort of graduates, even after allowing for educational achievement.
We also assess whether social networks play a significant role in perpetuating
unequal access to these jobs. We use data from the Higher Education Statistics
Agency2 on first degree graduates leaving higher education in 2006/07 and who
have been surveyed at six months and at around 3.5 years after graduation.
We need to better understand access to these high-status occupations as this
will influence the later occupational status, job quality and crucially the earnings
and resources available to the individual over their lifetime. Indeed, in the UK
we have lacked good data on the lifetime earnings of graduates, instead having
to rely on early measures of graduates’ earnings which may not be a good guide
to their longer-term economic prospects, as many graduates earn less in their
early career due to shorter tenure and a focus on training. Assessing graduates’
transitions into occupations that have good long-run economic prospects is one
way to get partially around this data problem and to illicit some insight into the
influence of socio-economic background on the long-term labour market success
of graduates.

2. Related literature
This paper contributes to the extensive research that has identified low levels
of intergenerational income mobility in the UK (Blanden et al., 2013; Corak,
2013; Crawford et al., 2011). Educational attainment in the UK also varies by
socio-economic background (Devine and Li, 2013; Gregg and Macmillan, 2010;
Goodman et al., 2011; Chowdry et al., 2012; Crawford et al., 2010; Jerrim, 2012;
Green et al., 2012) and is a key driver of persistence in incomes across generations
(Blanden et al., 2007).
Our research focuses on access to elite occupations by family background.
Access to managerial and professional careers are of particular interest as they are
expected to account for approximately two million additional jobs in the next
decade, increasing their share of total employment in the UK from 42 per cent
to 46 per cent (Wilson and Homenidou, 2011; Brewer et al., 2012). While there
have been a number of official reports published on this topic (Cabinet Office,
2009, 2012), academic research on potential barriers to professional careers is
limited (Langlands, 2005; Sutton Trust, 2005, 2006). Macmillan (2009) found an
 who gets the top jobs 489

increase in the proportion of professionals originating from wealthier families

between 1958 and 1970 in nine of the 12 professions examined, and Bukodi
and Goldthorpe (2011b) highlight the influence of education, particularly higher
tertiary qualifications, and class origin on access to the salariat (defined as NS-
SEC classes 1 and 2).
We build on this work, focusing on elite occupations (NS-SEC 1 only),
incorporating analysis of female graduates and attempting to isolate the
relationship between background and occupation by taking fuller account of
individuals’ school and university experiences, including subject of degree and
institution attended. Our work is also closely related to the international research
on the extent to which children are employed in the same organisations as their
parents (Corak and Piraino, 2010; Bingley et al., 2011), although we take a wider
approach, considering a number of measures of background and measuring the
extent to which children with parents working in elite occupations are more likely
to work in these high-status occupations themselves.
We also assess whether the use of networks explains a significant proportion
of the socio-economic gap in access to high-status occupations. Networks
represent informal channels of job search, including employee referrals and social
connections (Rees, 1966) and are one important element of social capital (Loury,
1977; Coleman, 1990). Numerous theoretical contributions have modelled the
influence of networks on labour market outcomes (Montgomery, 1991; Calvo-
Armengol, 2004, 2007; Casella and Hanaki, 2005; Granovetter 1973, 1974(1995)).
Networks are considered to be productive and low-cost methods of generating
job offers (Holzer, 1988), usually with benefits for income and job tenure (Loury,
2006). However, reliance on networks may also cause a mismatch between
occupational choice and productive advantage, thus lowering wages (Bentolila
et al., 2010). Ioannides and Loury (2004) outline the widespread use of networks
and find significant variation in the usage and productivity of networks between
job seekers.
This variation and complexity provides mixed evidence on the role of
networks in accessing top jobs. Marsden and Gorman (2001) present evidence
that network contacts are more likely to be used by firms where high-
quality information about workers’ likely performance is important, such as
in managerial and professional positions. However, evidence to the contrary
indicates that informal recruitment processes may be used less frequently than
expected for ‘top jobs’ (Pellizzarri, 2004; Rivera, 2012). Pellizzari (2004) further
finds that use of personal contacts leads more frequently to jobs in small- and
medium-sized firms, perhaps indicating that networks may be more valuable for
securing top jobs in smaller firms rather than larger firms that are more likely to
have formalised recruitment processes.
Networks also provide privileged access to valuable work experience
opportunities, which are crucial stepping stones to securing a top job (Kramarz
490 lindsey macmillan, claire tyler and anna vignoles

and Skans, 2006; Francis and Sommerlad, 2009; Rolfe and Anderson, 2003).
Several US studies have conducted evaluations of ‘school to work’ initiatives,
which often include work experience opportunities but also mentoring and
employer engagement (Neumark and Rothstein, 2006; Kemple and Willner,
2008). The findings from these studies are mixed. An AIR UK (2008) report for
the UK government indicates that only a few similar robust evaluations have been
undertaken in the UK, but, for those available, school links with employers have
positive effects on student attainment, employability and initial wages. Mann
(2012) also found that young people in the UK who have had regular contact
with employers while in education are five times less likely to be NEET (‘not
in education, employment or training’) and earn, on average, 16 per cent more
than their peers who did not have the advantage of this regular contact. More
broadly, the importance of finding work experience, internships and placement
opportunities is also regularly highlighted by national reviews and graduate
recruitment research (Wolf, 2011; Association of Graduate Recruiters, 2012; CBI,
2011), thus again highlighting the disadvantage faced by students without access
to relevant networks.

3. Data
We use data from the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE)
‘early’ and ‘longitudinal’ surveys carried out by the UK Higher Education
Statistics Agency (HESA). The ‘early survey’ is conducted approximately six
months after graduation,3 with a total 453,880 eligible leavers in 2006/2007, of
which 332,110 (73.2 per cent) responded: the response rate is in line with previous
years (HEFCE, 2011). A longitudinal survey was conducted up to 3.5 years after
graduation4 for a sub-sample of students,5 with 49,065 valid responses from the
332,110 students who responded to the census survey.6 Of these, we limit our final
sample to 24,980 graduates who finished higher education in 2006/2007 during
the reference period, completed the survey at 3.5 years after graduation, studied
for an undergraduate degree, were aged 18–25 on 31 July 2007 and provided
occupational data (Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) 20007 ). Appendix
Table A1 suggests that this restricted sample looks very similar to the ‘early survey’
sample in terms of student characteristics. We focus our analysis on graduates
some 3.5 years after graduation because the period immediately after graduation
is transitional. Some graduates may take temporary jobs or no job at all. We are
more confident that their occupation 3.5 years after graduation is a better guide
to their future occupational status.
The occupational status of graduates at 3.5 years after graduation is measured
using 5-digit SOC 2000 codes. We aggregate this into a form that enables us to
rank the socio-economic status of occupations. We assign each individual an
analytical National Statistics Socio-economic Classification8 (NS-SEC) codes 1 to
 who gets the top jobs 491

7.9 Individuals’ positions within this scale have been shown to be a major influence
on their economic life chances (Chan and Goldthorpe, 2007).10 We define
high-status11 occupations as those in the top NS-SEC grouping (29.8 per cent
of the total sample of graduates).
We also consider three separate groups of occupations within the top NS-SEC
in our analysis: (a) higher managerial (NS-SEC 1.1 occupations), (b) business,
medical and law professionals and (c) other professionals (including educational,
built environment, scientist and other NS-SEC 1.2 occupations). Occupations
within these groupings are listed in the Appendix. These high-profile occupations
within the top NS-SEC are the focus of government policies for promoting fair
access, and there are clear differences in the labour market reward by groups of
occupations: on average, individuals working in higher managerial occupations
earned £81,000 in 2011 compared to £51,000 for business, medical and law
professions and £39,000 for other professions compared to £24,000 for all other
occupations (NS-SEC 2–7).12 Table 1 shows the proportion of graduates in our
sample employed in these high-status occupations at 3.5 years after graduation
(column 1) and the average annual earnings in 2011 by occupation grouping.
We have three measures of family background available: parental NS-SEC,
the neighbourhood participation rate in higher education and type of secondary
school attended. Undergraduate students entering higher education through
UCAS are asked to provide information on their parents’ occupations, though
some choose not to do this, particularly mature students, which may explain the
relatively high rate of missing data. Missing parental NS-SEC data (18.8 per cent
of our sample) includes graduates for whom the occupation of their parents is
either unclassified (14.4 per cent) or unknown (4.4 per cent). Appendix Table A2
illustrates the proportion of our sample with missing information. The extent of
missing data is identical for those in top NS-SEC occupations as it is for NS-SEC
2–7 occupations.
Our measure of neighbourhood higher education participation is based
on the POLAR3 classification, which contains rankings of higher education
participation by area (Census Area Statistic wards). From this, quintiles of areas
are constructed, ordered from 1 (those with lowest participation) to 5 (those with
highest participation). School type is binary: private (independent) schools and
state schools.13
Columns 3 to 8 of Table 1 illustrate the socio-economic background of
graduates employed in our various definitions of high-status occupations
3.5 years after graduation. Of those with professional or managerial parents,
31.5 per cent work in high-status occupations compared to 27.3 per cent with par-
ents working in a lower NS-SEC occupation. Of those from low higher education
(HE) participation areas, 24.2 per cent enter top jobs compared to 29.8 per cent
from higher HE participation areas, and 40 per cent of private school pupils enter
an NS-SEC 1 occupation compared to 28.1 per cent of state school pupils.
492 lindsey macmillan, claire tyler and anna vignoles

TABLE 1. Family background of those entering into high-status professions

Parent Neighb’hood School

NS-SEC participation type

Average
Frequency earnings Not
(percent) (2011 £s) 1–2 3–8 Low low State Private

Top NS-SEC 29.8 52,024 31.5 27.3 24.2 29.8 28.1 39.8
NS-SEC 2–7 70.2 24,163 68.5 72.7 75.8 70.2 71.9 60.2
Total 100.0
Within top NS-SEC
Higher managerial 6.1 81,057 6.6 5.7 5.3 6.1 5.5 9.8
NS-SEC 1.1
Within NS-SEC1.2
Business 4.6 64,691 5.0 4.5 3.3 4.6 4.0 8.6
Medical 3.5 46,496 3.0 2.2 2.2 3.6 3.2 5.6
Law 2.4 52,672 3.0 2.1 1.8 2.4 2.2 4.2
Education 3.1 37,775 3.8 2.8 2.4 3.1 3.1 3.2
Built Environment 8.4 40,218 8.3 8.3 7.1 8.4 8.4 7.2
Scientists 1.5 39,740 1.5 1.7 2.2 1.5 1.6 1.0
Other 0.3 54,316 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.4
Total 29.8

Notes: Data in column 2 from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE)
average annual earnings for 2011 for all workers by 4-digit SOC code. Occupations
within professional groupings: business – accountants, economists, statisticians, brokers,
underwriters, tax specialist; legal – judges, barristers, solicitors; life science – doctors, dentists,
pharmacists, psychologists, veterinarians; education – higher education teachers and
researchers, secondary and primary head teachers, senior administrators; built environment
– engineers, IT consultants, architects and surveyors; scientists – chemists, biologists,
physicists, astronomers, mathematicians; other – clergy, probation officers, aircraft pilots.

Within the top NS-SEC, there are notable differences in the family
background of those entering different careers. Graduates from higher parental
NS-SEC backgrounds, higher HE participation areas and who attended a private
school are more likely to enter into higher managerial or business, medical and
law professions. The picture for other professions is more mixed. State school
pupils are more likely to enter into built environment and scientist occupations
than private school pupils. Scientists are more likely to be from lower parental
NS-SEC families, from low participation areas and state educated on average.
When considering the role of networks, we use information on the channels
that the graduates used to find out about the job that they are employed in
3.5 years after graduation. Three types of network are identified: professional
(professional, work or educational contacts or networks), personal (personal
contacts, including family, friends and social networks) and already/previously
having worked for the organisation. Our baseline category includes students
who found out about their job in other ways, using non-network channels
 who gets the top jobs 493

TABLE 2. How those entering high-status occupations found out about their
jobs (per cent)

NS-SEC 1 1.1 1.2 1.2 2–7

Top Business, Other
Destination NS-SEC Higher medical Other graduate
outcome: job managerial and law professions jobs

Professional networks 11.2 8.5 11.1 12.5 8.2

Personal networks 12.4 16.1 10.5 12.1 14.3
Previously worked for employer 9.2 10.4 7.9 9.7 9.6
Other: 65.0 60.9 68.2 64.2 66.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Within other
Career services or web 38.8 30.4 44.9 37.7 38.5
Recruitment agency 15.9 19.5 11.6 17.7 18.1
Other way 10.3 11.0 11.7 8.8 9.7
Total 65.0 60.9 68.2 64.2 66.3
Networks missing 2.3 4.1 2.2 1.5 1.7

Notes: Other professions include: education, environment, scientists and other occupation
groups from NS-SEC 1.2.

(recruitment agency, career service, employer website, media advertisement,

speculative application or other).
In reality, graduates are likely to have used numerous job search channels.
However, the DLHE survey only permits one channel to be reported. Graduates
may also systematically under-report their use of networks due to the perception
of not gaining employment on the basis of merit alone. These measurement issues
indicate that the true propensity of graduates to use networks may be higher than
observed in our analysis, although it is unclear whether this would vary by final
occupation grouping.
The descriptive statistics presented in Table 2 show the use of different types
of networks by occupation grouping. Professional networks are used by 11.2 per
cent of those working in the top NS-SEC compared to 8.2 per cent in NS-SEC 2–7
occupations. Personal networks are actually used less in top NS-SEC jobs than in
lower NS-SEC 2–7 jobs but within top NS-SEC jobs they are used by 16.1 per cent
of graduates entering higher managerial occupations compared to 10.5 per cent
of graduates entering business, medical and law professions.

4. Methodology
We hypothesise that more socio-economically advantaged students will acquire
more human capital and in turn will access top jobs to a greater extent than
more disadvantaged students. To the extent that we can control for individual
human capital, however, we might expect socio-economic background to have
an additional independent impact on the likelihood of accessing a top job. This
494 lindsey macmillan, claire tyler and anna vignoles

might occur if more advantaged students can afford to invest greater resources in
their job search, taking more time to secure the top job they want. Sociological
theories also suggest that more advantaged students will be more likely to secure
a top job because they have greater levels of social capital. We cannot measure all
aspects of students’ human and social capital but we are able to assess whether
the use of networks plays a role in helping to secure a high-status occupation. We
use this as a proxy for their social capital.

Family background and accessing top jobs

We consider the raw association between family background and being
in a top job 3.5 years after graduation. This association captures the overall
relationship between family background and securing a top job, regardless of
the mechanisms driving this relationship. Given that entry into a top job is
a binary variable, we estimate equation (1) using a probit model, where F(.)
is the cumulative normal distribution and X a vector of family background
characteristics, including parental NS-SEC, quintiles of neighbourhood-level
participation in higher education and a state school indicator.
f amily
F (Top j obchild
i ) = (α + βX i ) (1)

The estimated parameters are presented as marginal effects, indicating the

percentage point change in the probability of entering a top job for a unit change
in X, evaluated at the sample mean.
We pool male and female graduates to maximise our sample size. Males
and females make different occupational choices and have different lifetime
earnings. However, our data are from the early years of graduates’ careers, when
the gender wage gap is approximately zero (Manning and Swaffield, 2008), and
by implication occupational choices are more similar.14 We also estimate the
model separately by gender: the coefficients on the variables of interest are not
statistically significantly different from one another15 though the smaller sample
size does cause some coefficients to become statistically insignificantly different
from zero (Appendix Table A3).
Ideally, we would like to measure the association between socio-economic
background and securing a top job allowing for the individual’s human capital.
There are other factors associated with family background and the chances of
entering into a top job that may be driving the observed association. First, we add
potential confounders to our model to control for observable differences across
graduates (equation (2)). Second, we add these in four blocks, first demographic
controls (D = ethnicity, age and gender), then controls for human capital as
measured by prior attainment, A, including UCAS tariff score, subject of degree
and degree class. We do this to remove differences in access to top jobs driven
by the academic achievement of the candidate and the subject specialism. Third,
 who gets the top jobs 495

we control for institution effects (I) to condition on the choice of institution and
region. This is to reflect the fact that studying at a prestigious institution can
provide an additional advantage to students in terms of future employment.
Finally, we condition on the type of postgraduate study undertaken up to
3.5 years after graduating (PG) to assess whether this is an important route into
the top jobs and if this accounts for differences in entry by family background.
g rad f amily g rad g rad g rad g rad
F (Top j obi ) = (α + βX i + γD i + δA i + ρI i + τPG i
)
(2)
The inclusion of these controls allows a ‘like-for-like’ comparison of graduates,
at least in terms of observed characteristics. For example, professional firms
often claim they recruit graduates based on academic attainment. Controlling
for degree class, subject choice, prior attainment and where the graduate went to
university ensures that we are comparing the chances of similar graduates entering
top professions. The results show whether or not socio-economic background
has an effect on occupational status over and above these controls. Despite our
attempts to eliminate the impact of other factors on occupational status, graduates
are still likely to differ in ways we do not observe, in particular in their aspirations,
preferences and other aspects of non-cognitive ability, which may be influential
in securing a professional career. We cannot control for these unobserved sources
of selection bias in our model and we return to this issue in our conclusions.
When we analyse entry to higher managerial occupations, business, medical
and legal professions and other professions compared to other graduate jobs
(NS-SEC 2–7), we use a multinomial logit model, presenting the marginal effects
of the probability of entering each occupation group relative to entering an NS-
SEC 2–7 job evaluated at the sample mean. The multinomial logit model requires
the assumption of the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA). This implies
that the relative likelihood of preferring one occupational group to another
must not depend on the availability of other irrelevant alternatives, which we
argue is not an overly strong assumption in this case. It requires, for example,
that a graduate’s relative likelihood of choosing a higher managerial occupation
compared to a business occupation would be unaffected by other career options
available to them. We argue that choice of occupation is dependent on a number
of factors, including human and social capital and, as such, the existence of
alternative occupation groupings is sufficiently independent to the individuals’
relative preferences, given their capital.

The role of networks

We add a measure of social capital to our models, namely the students’ use
of networks (N) to get their job (equation (3)). We consider whether networks
can account for any of the remaining socio-economic gradient in accessing top
occupations after controlling for a range of characteristics, or whether they have
496 lindsey macmillan, claire tyler and anna vignoles

an independent effect over and above family background.

g rad f amily g rad g rad g rad

F (Top j obi ) = (α + βX i + σNi + γD i + δA i
g rad g rad
+ ρI i + τPG i ) (3)

If higher socio-economic status graduates disproportionately use networks to

secure top jobs, then the inclusion of networks in the model should diminish the
direct effect of family background. If networks significantly predict entry to top
jobs but the remaining socio-economic gap remains intact, then this indicates
that networks are being used but cannot explain the remaining socio-economic
gradient in access.

5. Results
Family background and accessing the top jobs
Column 1 of Table 3 presents the marginal effects from our baseline probit
model in equation (1) to show the raw socio-economic gradient in access to
top jobs before conditioning on any further characteristics.16 Graduates with
parents in a top NS-SEC occupation are 4.7 percentage points more likely to be
working in a top NS-SEC occupation (baseline 30 per cent) compared to graduates
whose parents work in a routine occupation. There are no other significant
effects by parental NS-SEC, although graduates whose parents are long-term
unemployed are 17.2 percentage points less likely to work in a top NS-SEC
occupation compared to graduates with routine occupation parents (note the
unemployed parent group is very small).
A socio-economic gradient also exists in terms of the neighbourhood
measure of HE participation. A graduate from a low participation area is
3.1 percentage points less likely to enter a top job, while a graduate from a high
participation area is 3.9 percentage points more likely to enter a top job than a
graduate from an average participation area. The strongest gradient is observed
for those who attended state schools compared to privately educated graduates.
Figure 1 plots the private school advantage for each of the five specifications we
consider. As seen in the first bar, before conditioning on any other characteristics,
graduates who attended a private school are 9.5 percentage points more likely to
enter a top job 3.5 years after graduation than a state educated graduate.
Columns 2 to 5 add controls as discussed in the previous section. Adding
in demographic controls does little to the estimated socio-economic gradients
across the measures and in some cases accentuates the findings from the baseline
specification. However, when conditioning on prior attainment, degree subject,
degree classification and UCAS tariff point score, the socio-economic gradient is
reduced substantially.17 This implies that a main mechanism by which socio-
economic background impacts on access to a high-status profession is via
TABLE 3. Marginal effects from a probit model of family background on having a high-status occupation(top NS-SEC) 3.5
years after graduation compared to other occupations(NS-SEC 2–7)

Professional 0.047(0.018)∗∗∗ 0.066(0.018)∗∗∗ 0.018(0.018) 0.003(0.022) −0.001(0.022)

Lower manager 0.009(0.017) 0.026(0.017) −0.002(0.017) −0.011(0.020) −0.012(0.021)
Intermediate −0.001(0.018) 0.012(0.018) −0.007(0.018) −0.017(0.023) −0.020(0.023)
Small employer −0.007(0.020) 0.006(0.020) −0.018(0.019) −0.018(0.025) −0.021(0.025)
Supervisor 0.014(0.022) 0.025(0.022) −0.001(0.022) −0.008(0.024) −0.008(0.024)
Semi-routine −0.001(0.019) 0.09(0.019) −0.006(0.019) −0.014(0.025) −0.013(0.025)
Routine Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
Unemployed −0.172(0.066)∗ −0.171(0.069)∗∗ −0.100(0.087) −0.111(0.071) −0.110(0.070)
Low participation −0.031(0.013)∗∗ −0.029(0.013)∗∗ −0.021(0.013) −0.016(0.013) −0.013(0.013)
2nd quintile part. −0.016(0.011) −0.014(0.011) −0.011(0.011) −0.009(0.013) −0.009(0.013)
3rd quintile part. Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
4th quintile part. 0.009(0.009) 0.009(0.009) 0.006(0.010) 0.006(0.010) 0.005(0.011)
High part. 0.039(0.009)∗∗∗ 0.036(0.009)∗∗∗ 0.022(0.008)∗∗ 0.015(0.010) 0.015(0.009)
State school −0.095(0.010)∗∗∗ −0.087(0.010)∗∗∗ −0.060(0.010)∗∗∗ −0.033(0.013)∗∗ −0.025(0.013)∗
N 24,980 24,980 24,980 24,980 24,980
Pseudo R-squared 0.010 0.034 0.146 0.162 0.176
Controls
Demographics x x x x

who gets the top jobs 497

Prior attainment x x x
Institution x x
Post-grad. qual. x

Demographics: Gender, age, ethnicity. Prior attainment: UCAS tariff, subject, attainment. Institution: institution fixed effects, region of institution.
Post-graduate: higher research, taught, post-graduate certificate/diploma or other at three years. Robust standard errors in parenthesis. In models
including institution FE standard errors are clustered at institution level. ∗ 90% confidence, ∗∗ 95% confidence, ∗∗∗ 99% confidence.
498 lindsey macmillan, claire tyler and anna vignoles

Figure 1. Marginal effects of private school attendance on having a high-status occupation(top

NS-SEC) 3.5 years after graduation compared to other occupations(NS-SEC 2–7)
Demographics: Gender, age, ethnicity. Prior attainment: UCAS tariff, subject, attainment.
Institution: Institution fixed effects, region of institution. Post-grad: Higher research, taught,
post-grad certificate /diploma or other at three years.

enhancing educational achievement (human capital). There is little difference

now in the probability of accessing a top job by parental occupation. Living in a
high participation neighbourhood is associated with an additional 2.2 percentage
point advantage in accessing a top job. However, even when conditioning on prior
attainment, state school educated graduates are still 6 percentage points less likely
to enter into a top job than a comparable privately educated graduate, who took
the same subject and achieved the same grade in their degree (and A-levels).
Conditioning on the higher education institution attended further reduces
this negative state school gradient by 45 per cent: one mechanism through which
attending a private school increases a graduate’s chances of entering a high-status
occupation is therefore by increasing the chances that the student attends a high-
status university. It is less clear whether this is because private schools are better
able to help their students secure places in high-status universities or whether
their students just have a stronger preference for attending such institutions.
However, even when accounting for these different choices and conditioning
on post-graduate qualifications, the final column of Figure 1 shows that private
school graduates are still 2.5 percentage points (baseline 30 per cent) more likely to
access a top NS-SEC occupation than a comparable state school graduate who has
parents from a similar NS-SEC group, is from the same type of neighbourhood,
got similar A-levels and has the same degree classification in the same subject
from the same institution and has obtained similar post-graduate qualifications.
 who gets the top jobs 499

Figure 2. Marginal effects of private school attendance on having alternative high-status

occupations 3.5 years after graduation compared to other occupations(NS-SEC 2–7)
Demographics: Gender, age, ethnicity. Prior attainment: UCAS tariff, subject, attainment.
Institution: Institution fixed effects, region of institution. Post-grad: Higher research, taught,
post-grad certificate /diploma or other at three years.

Interesting differences in access to high-status occupations also exist within

the top NS-SEC occupations. Table 4 presents the marginal effects from a
multinomial logit model comparing access to (a) higher managerial (b) business,
medical and law professions and (c) other professions as compared to NS-SEC
2–7 jobs.
Graduates with lower managerial parents are 1.8 percentage points more
likely to work in a higher managerial occupation at 3.5 years after graduation
than graduates with a parent working in a routine occupation (baseline
6.1 per cent compared to NS-SEC 2–7 occupations). Those living in high
participation neighbourhoods are 0.8 percentage points more likely to work
in these top occupations as compared to graduates from an average participation
neighbourhood. Figure 2 illustrates that the private school advantage is large,
with privately educated graduates 3.4 percentage points more likely to work in
a higher managerial position than state educated graduates from a baseline of
6.1 per cent. When we condition on demographics and prior attainment, the SES
gradients remain intact suggesting that access to these particular occupations is
not related to gender, ethnicity, age or indeed prior attainment.
Controlling for the HE institution removes any differences by parental NS-
SEC, although an effect remains for neighbourhood participation and type of
school attended. Controlling for postgraduate qualifications further reduces the
 500 lindsey macmillan, claire tyler and anna vignoles
TABLE 4. Marginal effects from a multinomial logit model of family background on having alternative high-status
occupations 3.5 years after graduation compared to other occupations(NS-SEC 2–7)

Panel A: Higher managerial – 6.1%

Professional 0.012(0.010) 0.012(0.010) 0.013(0.010) 0.004(0.005) 0.003(0.004)
Lower manager 0.018(0.010)∗ 0.018(0.010)∗ 0.018(0.010)∗ 0.006(0.005) 0.005(0.004)
Intermediate 0.015(0.011) 0.015(0.011) 0.014(0.011) 0.004(0.005) 0.004(0.004)
Small employer 0.010(0.012) 0.011(0.011) 0.010(0.012) 0.004(0.006) 0.004(0.005)
Supervisor 0.008(0.013) 0.008(0.012) 0.010(0.013) 0.003(0.006) 0.003(0.004)
Semi-routine 0.006(0.011) 0.007(0.011) 0.006(0.011) 0.001(0.006) 0.001(0.005)
Routine Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
Unemployed −0.008(0.043) −0.010(0.059) −0.018(0.060) −0.016(0.028) −0.012(0.022)
Low participation 0.002(0.007) 0.001(0.007) 0.000(0.007) 0.001(0.003) 0.000(0.003)
2nd quintile part. 0.001(0.006) 0.001(0.006) 0.002(0.006) 0.001(0.003) 0.001(0.003)
3rd quintile part. Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
4th quintile part. 0.007(0.005) 0.007(0.005) 0.007(0.005) 0.004(0.002)∗ 0.003(0.002)∗
High part. 0.008(0.005)∗ 0.007(0.005) 0.008(0.005)∗ 0.004(0.002)∗ 0.003(0.002)∗
State school −0.034(0.005)∗∗∗ −0.034(0.004)∗∗∗ −0.035(0.005)∗∗∗ −0.013(0.002)∗∗∗ −0.010(0.002)∗∗∗
Controls
Demographics x x x X
Prior attainment x x X
Institution x X
Post-grad qual. X
TABLE 4. Continued.

Panel B: Business, medical and law – 10.5%

Professional 0.024(0.013)∗∗ 0.035(0.012)∗∗∗ 0.005(0.008) 0.001(0.004) 0.000(0.002)
Lower manager −0.003(0.011) 0.007(0.012) −0.008(0.008) −0.003(0.003) −0.002(0.002)
Intermediate 0.005(0.013) 0.012(0.012) 0.002(0.009) −0.000(0.004) −0.001(0.002)
Small employer −0.006(0.013) −0.000(0.014) −0.010(0.010) −0.003(0.004) −0.002(0.002)
Supervisor −0.006(0.015) 0.002(0.016) 0.003(0.011) 0.001(0.004) −0.000(0.002)
Semi-routine −0.012(0.012) −0.009(0.014) −0.005(0.009) −0.002(0.004) −0.001(0.002)
Routine Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
Unemployed −0.072(0.045) −0.078(0.095) −0.002(0.056) −0.005(0.016) 0.001(0.007)
Low participation −0.026(0.008)∗∗∗ −0.024(0.010)∗∗ −0.012(0.007)∗ −0.004(0.003) −0.002(0.001)
2nd quintile part. −0.018(0.007)∗∗ −0.018(0.008)∗∗ −0.014(0.006)∗∗ −0.004(0.002)∗∗ −0.002(0.001)∗∗
3rd quintile part. Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
4th quintile part. −0.004(0.006) −0.003(0.006) −0.004(0.004) −0.002(0.002) −0.001(0.001)
High part. 0.016(0.006)∗∗∗ 0.016(0.006)∗∗∗ 0.004(0.004) 0.000(0.002) 0.000(0.001)
State school −0.062(0.007)∗∗∗ −0.060(0.005)∗∗∗ −0.026(0.004)∗∗∗ −0.007(0.002)∗∗∗ −0.003(0.001)∗∗∗
Controls
Demographics x x x x

who gets the top jobs 501

Prior attainment x x x
Institution x x
Post-grad qual. x
 502 lindsey macmillan, claire tyler and anna vignoles
TABLE 4. Continued.

Panel C: Other professions – 13.3%

Professional 0.011(0.012) 0.016(0.012) −0.002(0.010) −0.004(0.007) −0.004(0.005)
Lower manager −0.005(0.012) 0.001(0.011) −0.007(0.010) −0.006(0.007) −0.005(0.005)
Intermediate −0.020(0.012) −0.015(0.012) −0.020(0.011)∗ −0.013(0.008)∗ −0.011(0.006)∗
Small employer −0.010(0.014) −0.004(0.013) −0.014(0.012) −0.009(0.008) −0.008(0.006)
Supervisor 0.011(0.015) 0.013(0.014) −0.009(0.013) −0.007(0.009) −0.004(0.007)
Semi-routine 0.003(0.014) 0.010(0.013) −0.004(0.011) −0.005(0.008) −0.004(0.006)
Routine Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
Unemployed −0.162(0.118) −0.160(0.112) −0.091(0.011) −0.066(0.060) −0.052(0.047)
Low participation −0.009(0.010) −0.009(0.009) −0.007(0.008) −0.003(0.006) −0.002(0.004)
2nd quintile part. −0.000(0.008) 0.001(0.008) 0.002(0.007) 0.001(0.005) 0.001(0.004)
3rd quintile part. Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
4th quintile part. 0.005(0.007) 0.003(0.006) 0.002(0.006) 0.000(0.005) 0.000(0.003)
High part. 0.014(0.006)∗∗ 0.011(0.006)∗ 0.007(0.005) 0.003(0.004) 0.002(0.003)
State school 0.017(0.007)∗∗∗ 0.021(0.007)∗∗∗ 0.017(0.006)∗∗∗ 0.013(0.004)∗∗∗ 0.011(0.003)∗∗∗
Controls
Demographics x x x x
Prior attainment x x x
Institution x x
Post-grad qual. x
N 24,980 24,980 24,980 24,980 24,980
Pseudo R-squared 0.011 0.037 0.185 0.208 0.226

Demographics: Gender, age, ethnicity. Prior attainment: UCAS tariff, subject, attainment. Institution: institution fixed effects, region of institution. Post-grad:
higher research, taught, post-grad certificate/diploma or other at three years. Robust standard errors in parenthesis. In models including institution fixed
effects, standard errors are clustered at institution level. ∗ 90% confidence, ∗∗ 95% confidence, ∗∗∗ 99% confidence.
 who gets the top jobs 503

socio-economic gradient. Comparing a privately educated and state educated

graduate from the same type of family and neighbourhood, with the same
prior attainment, from the same institution, with the same post-graduate
qualifications, the privately educated graduate has a small (1 percentage point
from a baseline 6.1 per cent) but statistically significant advantage over the state
school graduate. The neighbourhood HE participation rate and parental SES
measures are statistically insignificant.
A similar picture emerges when considering access to business, medical and
law professions, although for this grouping the raw private school association
is slightly larger (6.2 percentage point advantage on a baseline of 10.5 per cent),
and more of the background effect can be accounted for by prior attainment
(Figure 2). The significant association between having parents in the top NS-SEC
and entering a business, medical or law profession disappears once we control
for prior attainment. Even when conditioning on all of these variables, including
prior attainment, degree subject and institution and postgraduate qualifications,
there is still a small but significant advantage from a private school education:
privately educated graduates are 0.3 percentage points more likely to work in
these occupations than a comparable state educated graduate.
If we focus on other professions, the private school advantage is reversed,
as seen in Figure 2. Privately educated graduates are 1.7 percentage points
less likely than state educated graduates to work in these occupations in the
baseline specification and 1.1 percentage points less likely in the full model
(baseline 13.3 per cent). This finding is perhaps surprising, although it could
indicate different preferences between state and privately educated students. Top
state school graduates may choose to select into alternative types of careers
compared to privately educated graduates or, given the increased likelihood of
private school graduates accessing top managerial and business, medical and law
professions, state school graduates may be sorted into these other professions.

The role of networks in accessing top jobs

We explore one potential channel through which graduates from higher
status families may gain preferential access to these occupations, namely the
use of networks. Column 1 of Table 5 presents the relationship between socio-
economic status and entering a top NS-SEC job before controlling for the use of
networks (reproducing the last column of Table 3), whilst column 2 conditions
on the use of networks (equation (3)), both conditioning on the full range of
controls. It is clear that the residual socio-economic gap in accessing top jobs
remains unchanged whether or not the use of networks is controlled for. Columns
3–8 repeat this analysis from multinomial logit models of the more detailed
occupation groupings from Table 4. The inclusion of the network variable has
very little impact on the residual relationship between family background and
entering a top occupation. This suggests that, when conditioning on the full
 504 lindsey macmillan, claire tyler and anna vignoles
TABLE 5. Marginal effects of family background on having a high-status occupation 3.5 years after graduation conditioning on the
use of networks

Business, medical
Top NS-SEC Higher managerial and law Other professions

No No No No
networks Networks networks Networks networks Networks networks Networks

Professional −0.001(0.022) −0.002(0.022) 0.003(0.004) 0.004(0.005) 0.000(0.002) 0.000(0.003) −0.004(0.005) −0.005(0.006)

Lower −0.012(0.021) −0.012(0.021) 0.005(0.004) 0.006(0.005) −0.002(0.002) −0.003(0.003) −0.005(0.005) −0.007(0.006)
manager
Intermediate −0.020(0.023) −0.021(0.023) 0.004(0.004) 0.004(0.006) −0.001(0.002) −0.001(0.003) −0.011(0.006)∗ −0.014(0.007)∗
Small −0.021(0.025) −0.021(0.025) 0.004(0.005) 0.004(0.006) −0.002(0.002) −0.002(0.004) −0.008(0.006) −0.010(0.007)
employer
Supervisor −0.008(0.024) −0.008(0.024) 0.003(0.004) 0.003(0.005) −0.000(0.002) −0.000(0.004) −0.004(0.007) −0.005(0.008)
Semi-routine −0.013(0.025) −0.012(0.025) 0.001(0.005) 0.001(0.006) −0.001(0.002) −0.002(0.004) −0.004(0.006) −0.004(0.007)
Routine Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
Unemployed −0.110(0.070) −0.112(0.070) −0.012(0.022) −0.013(0.027) 0.001(0.007) 0.000(0.012) −0.052(0.047) −0.061(0.055)
Low participa- −0.013(0.013) −0.013(0.013) 0.000(0.003) 0.001(0.003) −0.002(0.001) −0.003(0.002) −0.002(0.004) −0.002(0.005)
tion
2nd quintile −0.009(0.013) −0.009(0.013) 0.001(0.003) 0.001(0.003) −0.002(0.001)∗∗ −0.004(0.002)∗∗ 0.001(0.004) 0.001(0.005)
part.
TABLE 5. Continued.

Business, medical
Top NS-SEC Higher managerial and law Other professions

No No No No
networks Networks networks Networks networks Networks networks Networks

3rd quintile Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
part.
4th quintile 0.005(0.011) 0.004(0.011) 0.003(0.002)∗ 0.004(0.002)∗ −0.001(0.001) −0.001(0.002) 0.000(0.003) −0.001(0.004)
part.
High part. 0.015(0.009) 0.016(0.009)∗ 0.003(0.002)∗ 0.004(0.002)∗ 0.000(0.001) 0.001(0.001) 0.002(0.003) 0.003(0.003)
State school −0.025(0.013)∗ −0.024(0.013)∗ −0.010(0.002)∗∗∗ −0.012(0.002)∗∗∗ −0.003(0.001)∗∗∗ −0.005(0.002)∗∗∗ 0.011(0.003)∗∗∗ 0.013(0.004)∗∗∗
Prof. network 0.053(0.012)∗∗∗ 0.003(0.003) 0.002(0.011) 0.017(0.004)∗∗∗
Pers. network −0.010(0.012) 0.005(0.002)∗∗ −0.001(0.009) −0.010(0.004)∗∗
Prev. worked −0.003(0.010) 0.005(0.003)∗ −0.005(0.002)∗∗ −0.000(0.004)
Controls
Demographics x x x x x x x x
Prior x x x x x x x x
attainment
Institution x x x x x x x x

who gets the top jobs 505

Post-grad x x x x x x x x
qual.
N 24,980 24,980 24,980 24,980 24,980 24,980 24,980 24,980
Log likelihood 0.176 0.177 0.226 0.229 0.226 0.229 0.226 0.229

Demographics: Gender, age, ethnicity. Prior attainment: UCAS tariff, subject, attainment. Institution: Institution fixed effects, region of institution. Post-grad:
Higher research, taught, post-grad certificate /diploma or other at three years. Standard errors are clustered at institution level. ∗ 90% confidence, ∗∗ 95%
confidence, ∗∗∗ 99% confidence. First two columns from probit models. Other six columns from multinomial probit models.
506 lindsey macmillan, claire tyler and anna vignoles

Figure 3. Marginal effects of the use of networks to find out about a job on having a high-status
occupation 3.5 years after graduation
Demographics: Gender, age, ethnicity. Prior attainment: UCAS tariff, subject, attainment.
Institution: Institution fixed effects, region of institution. Post-grad: Higher research, taught,
post-grad certificate /diploma or other at three years.

range of controls, the use of networks is orthogonal to socio-economic status

and not the main driver of these large residual socio-economic gaps in accessing
top jobs.18
The use of networks has a significant independent effect on the likelihood
of accessing top jobs. However, these effects are likely to be understated due to
network usage being under-reported as it may be regarded as non-meritocratic.
Using a professional network to find a job, rather than some other method,
increases the probability of working in a top NS-SEC job by 5.3 percentage
points. Figure 3 plots the association between using networks and access to
higher managerial, business, medical and law professions and other professions.
Use of professional networks is more strongly associated with accessing other
professions. Access to higher managerial occupations is improved marginally by
the use of personal networks and previous work experience.

6. Conclusions
Our findings are stark. There is a large socio-economic gradient in the likelihood
of a recent graduate accessing a top job, and differences across socio-economic
groups are statistically significant. Our baseline model predicts that 40 per cent
of graduates who attended a private school secured a higher status occupation,
 who gets the top jobs 507

compared to just 28 per cent of students from state school backgrounds. In

addition, 32 per cent of graduates who come from higher SES family backgrounds
(NS-SEC Group 1 or 2) enter top jobs compared to 27 per cent from lower SES
backgrounds (NS-SEC groups 3–7). Much of this socio-economic gradient is
because socio-economically advantaged graduates have higher levels of human
capital. They have higher achievement at Key Stage 5, are more likely to attend
an elite university and take subjects that have greater economic value in the
labour market. Even controlling for these differences in human capital, we still
find a modest socio-economic gradient in access to top jobs. When we include a
measure of social capital, namely use of networks, the socio-economic gradient
remains. Higher SES students are more likely to say they have used a network to
secure their job, but this does not explain the strong link between socio-economic
background and getting a top job.
It is worth noting that our models compare the likelihood of equally qualified
graduates from more and less advantaged backgrounds securing access to a top
job. This may understate the true socio-economic gap in access to the professions.
This is because we are comparing disadvantaged state school pupils who have
achieved very highly in the system, despite their background, against those from
more privileged backgrounds. The former group of students may not be fully
representative of disadvantaged students as a whole. They are likely to be more
motivated in ways we may not fully observe, and indeed they may achieve more
highly precisely because they intend to go on to a professional job. We would
therefore view our estimates as downward biased in this respect.
We have shown that it is not simply the case that socio-economically
advantaged students are better qualified or use their networks in order to access
top jobs. Our work discounts the notion that higher education completely levels
the playing field between students of differing socio-economic backgrounds.
Beyond academic achievement, our analysis suggests there are other reasons why
more advantaged students, and particularly those who attended a private school,
are somewhat more likely to secure a top job.
More socio-economically advantaged graduates may have other forms of
capital that are important for accessing top jobs. These could include non-
cognitive skills, including confidence and self-esteem, that help individuals in
interviews. Alternatively, these graduates could have greater cultural capital that
enables them to exhibit desirable behaviours and conversations in the interview
setting. They may have access to greater financial capital that enables them to
increase the period of their job search or take unpaid internships and hence
increase their likelihood of accessing a top job.19 Lastly, it may be the case that
more advantaged graduates have different preferences and motivations, opting
into higher status occupations. Our results comparing different occupation
groupings within the top NS-SEC indicate some degree of sorting of individuals
from different backgrounds into different career choices, which could represent
508 lindsey macmillan, claire tyler and anna vignoles

different motivations. Note that even if this is the case, this is likely to be linked to
differences in graduates’ social and cultural capital. To the extent that we cannot
measure all these factors, our identification strategy does not entirely eliminate
the possibility that graduates are sorted into top jobs on the basis of characteristics
unobserved by the researcher.
This research contributes to the literature by eliminating differences in
education achievement and use of social networks as the sole reasons for the
differences we observe in graduates’ access to top professions, though the former
is clearly very important. Further research is needed to establish which alternative
explanations are most important.
The policy implications are important. The research tells us that among
recent UK graduates, socio-economic background remains a significant factor
in explaining why some students secure top jobs. After many decades of policies
to improve social mobility and to widen participation in higher education, it
remains the case that a student’s family background has a major influence on
their job and their life chances. The fact that this relationship is largely but not
entirely explained by more advantaged students having demonstrably higher
levels of human capital would imply that we must strive to achieve greater
transparency in hiring practices so we fully understand why socio-economically
disadvantaged students are somewhat less likely to get a top job even when they
have the necessary human capital. Only when we understand this can we develop
policies to address it.

Acknowledgements
This work was part-funded by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission. We
are grateful for comments from John Micklewright, Paul Gregg and contributors to the
Intergenerational Mobility and Social Gradients in Children’s Life Chances conference hosted
by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission and the Centre for Market and Public
Organisation, University of Bristol.

Notes
1 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/±/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/
227105/fair-access-summary.pdf. See also Macmillan (2009).
2 http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/IR_FairAccess_acc2.pdf.
3 The Longitudinal Destination of Leavers from Higher Education.
4 Reference dates of 16 April 2007 (if the leaver obtained the qualification between 1 August
2006 and 31 December 2006) and January 2008 (if the leaver obtained the qualification
between 1 January 2007 and 31 July 2007).
5 The process used by HESA for constructing the subsample is explained here: https://www.
hesa.ac.uk/component/studrec/show_file/06019/Guidelines_for_use_of_the_DLHE_
Longitudinal_Survey_Dataset.html.
6 The HESA technical report indicates that the pattern of non-response from previous studies
meant that women older graduates and white graduates were more likely to respond and
this varied by subject and institution (HESA, 2009). Reference date 29 November 2010.
 who gets the top jobs 509

7 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/classifications/archived-standard-
classifications/standard-occupationalclassification-2000/about-soc-2000/index.html.
8 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/classifications/current-standard-
classifications/soc2010/soc2010-volume-3-ns-sec–rebased-on-soc2010–user-
manual/index.html.
9 Due to the lack of data on employment status, we are restricted to using the simplified
method of conversion between SOC 2000 and NS-SEC. This has around 88 per cent success
rate compared to the full method of conversion. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/
classifications/archived-standard-classifications/standard-occupationalclassification-.
10 Measures of earnings at age twenty-five may suffer from significant biases due to age-
earnings profiles and therefore understate the true role of family background (Haider and
Solon, 2006). Of course, occupation is likely to also change across the life-cycle although
appears stable after age thirty (Bukodi et al., 2011).
11 We acknowledge that status commonly refers to an alternative concept of social honour in
the sociological literature (Chan and Goldthorpe, 2007).
12 Data taken from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE http://www.ons.gov.
uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/index.html) average annual earn-
ings for 2011 for all workers by 4-digit SOC code.
13 Schools not classified as independent are deemed to be state schools, therefore students from
selective grammar schools, sixth forms and further education colleges are also included as
state schools.
14 The proportion entering higher managerial and business, medical and law professions are
the same across gender. There are more males working in other professions (20 per cent
compared to 8 per cent females), while there are more females in NS-SEC 2–7 occupations
(76 per cent compared to 62 per cent males).
15 Z score testing the difference between the two coefficients = 0.48
16 Note that we include parental NS-SEC, neighbourhood participation and state school
indicators together from the outset as we believe that each measure is contributing
additional information regarding the family’s socio-economic status. The pseudo R-squared
for parental NS-SEC alone is 0.003, for neighbourhood participation alone is 0.005 and
for state school indicator alone is 0.005. Attending a state school has a correlation of 0.31
with parental NS-SEC, 0.09 with neighbourhood participation and parental NS-SEC and
neighbourhood participation have a correlation of 0.11.
17 Prior attainment and degree classification are the important drivers here rather than degree
subject choice.
18 Indeed the correlation between the type of school attended and the use of networks is low
in these data: the correlation between state school attendance and personal networks is 0.01,
professional networks is 0.04 and previously working for the employer is 0.03.
19 Indeed private school pupils are more likely to be out of work than their state educated
counterparts (46 per cent and 40 per cent) six months after graduating, although the
majority of these individuals (70 per cent and 66 per cent) are enrolled in post-graduate
education. Ideally, we would observe these individuals 1.5 years after graduation to allow for
pupils to finish their postgraduate studies, but there is no data to observe this.

References
AIR UK (2008), The Involvement of Business in Education: A Rapid Evidence Assessment of
Measurable Impacts, Department for Children, Schools and Families, National Centre for
Social Research.
Association of Graduate Recruiters (2012), Graduate Recruitment Survey 2012, Winter Review.
510 lindsey macmillan, claire tyler and anna vignoles

Bentolila, S., Michelacci, C. and Suarez, J. (2010), ‘Social contacts and occupational choice’,
Economica, 77, 20–45.
Bingley, P., Corak, M. and Westergård-Nielsen, N. (2011), The Intergenerational Transmission of
Employers in Canada and Denmark, IZA Discussion Paper No. 5593
Blanden, J., Gregg, P. and Macmillan, L. (2013), ‘Intergenerational persistence in income and
social class: the impact of within-group inequality’, Journal of Royal Statistical Society,
Series A: Statistics in Society, 176: 2, 541–63.
Blanden, J., Gregg, P. and Macmillan, L. (2007), ‘Accounting for intergenerational income
persistence: noncognitive skills, ability and education’, Economic Journal, 117: C43–C60.
Brewer, M., Dickerson, A., Gambin, L., Green, A., Joyce, R. and Wilson, R. (2012), Poverty
and Inequality in 2020: Impact of Changes in the Structure of Employment, London: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
Bukodi, E. and J. H. Goldthorpe. (2011a), ‘Class origins, education and occupational attainment
in Britain’, European Societies, 13: 3, 347–75.
Bukodi, E. and Goldthorpe, J. H. (2011b), ‘Social class returns to higher education: chances of
access to the professional and managerial salariat for men in three British birth cohorts’,
Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 2: 1–71.
Bukodi, E., Dex, S. and Goldthorpe, J. H. (2011), ‘The conceptualisation and measurement of
occupational hierarchies: a review, a proposal and some illustrative analyses’, Quality and
Quantity, 45: 623–39.
Cabinet Office (2009), Unleashing Aspirations: The Final Report of the Panel on Fair Access to the
Professions, London: Information Policy Team, Cabinet Office.
Cabinet Office (2011), Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers: A Strategy for Social Mobility, London:
Information Policy Team, Cabinet Office.
Cabinet Office (2012), Fair Access to Professional Careers: A Progress Report by the Independent
Reviewer on Social Mobility and Child Poverty, London: Information Policy Team, Cabinet
Office.
Calvó-Armengol, A. (2004), ‘Job contact networks’, Journal of Economic Theory, 115: 191–206.
Calvó-Armengol, A. (2007), ‘Networks in labor markets: wage and employment dynamics and
inequality’, Journal of Economic Theory, 132: 1, 27–46.
Casella, A. and Hanaki, T. (2005), Information Transmission in Labor Markets: On the Resilience of
Personal Referrals, CEPR Discussion Paper no 4969, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
Chan and Goldthorpe, (2007), ‘Class and status: the conceptual distinction and its empirical
relevance’, American Sociological Review, 72: 4, 521–32.
Chowdry, H., Crawford, C., Dearden, L., Goodman, A. and Vignoles, A. (2012), ‘Widening
participation in higher education: analysis using linked administrative data’, Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 176: 2, 431–57.
Coleman, J. S. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) (2011), Building for Growth: Business Priorities for
Education and Skills – Education and Skills Survey.
Corak, M. (2013), ‘Income equality, equality of opportunity, and intergenerational mobility’,
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27: 3, 79–102.
Corak, M. (2006), Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults? Lessons from a Cross Country
Comparison of Generational Earnings Mobility, IZA Discussion Paper no. 1993.
Corak, M. and Piraino, P. (2010), The Intergenerational Transmission of Employers, IZA
Discussion Paper no. 4819
Crawford, C., Goodman, A. and Joyce, R. (2010), Explaining the Socio-Economic Gradient in
Child Outcomes: The Intergenerational Transmission of Cognitive Skills, London: Institute
for Fiscal Studies.
Crawford, C., Johnson, P., Machin, S. and Vignoles, A. (2011), Social Mobility: A Literature
Review, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Devine, F. and Li, Y. (2013), ‘The changing relationship between origins, education and
destinations in the 1990s and 2000s’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34: 5–6,
766–91.
 who gets the top jobs 511

Ermisch, J., Jantti, M. and Smeeding, T. (2012), The Intergenerational Transmissions of Advantage,
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Francis, A. and Sommerlad, H. (2009), ‘Access to legal work experience and its role in the
(re)production of legal professional identity’, International Journal of the Legal Profession,
16: 1, 71.
Goodman, A., Gregg, P. and Washbrook, E. (2011), ‘Children’s educational attainment and the
aspirations, attitudes and behaviours of parents and children through childhood in the
UK’, Longitudinal and Life Course Studies 2011, 2: 1, 1–18.
Goldthorpe, J. and McKnight, A. (2006), ‘The economic basis of social class’, in S. Morgan,
D. B. Grusky and G. S. Fields (eds.), Mobility and Inequality: Frontiers of Research from
Sociology and Economics, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 109–36.
Granovetter, M. (1973), ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360–80.
Granovetter, M. (1974 (1995)), Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers, 1st edn Harvard
University Press, 2nd edn 1995, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Green, F., Machin, S., Murphy, R. and Zhu, Y. (2012), ‘The changing economic advantage from
private schools’, Economica, 79: 316, 658–79.
Gregg, P. and Macmillan, L. (2010), ‘Family income, education and cognitive ability in the next
generation: exploring income gradients in education and test scores for current cohorts
of youth’, Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 1: 3, 259–80.
Haider, S. and Solon, G. (2006), ‘Life-cycle variation in the association between current and
lifetime earnings’, American Economic Review, 96: 4, 1308–20.
HEFCE (2011), Approaches to Measuring Employment Circumstances of Recent Graduates, Higher
Education Funding Council for England.
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) (2009), Technical Report destinations of Leavers
from Higher Education (DLHE) Longitudinal Survey 2004/05, http://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/
dlhe_longitudinal/Second_survey/Longitudinal_DLHE_0809_Technical_Report_
FINAL_280709.pdf.
Holzer, H. J. (1988), ‘Search method use by unemployed youth’, Journal of Labor Economics’, 6:
1, 1–20.
Ioannides, Y. and Loury, L. (2004), ‘Job information networks, neighbourhood effects and
inequality’, Journal of Economic Literature, 42: 4, 1056–93.
Jerrim, J. (2012), ‘The socio-economic gradient in teenagers’ reading skills: how does England
compare with other countries?’, Fiscal Studies, 33: 2, 159–84.
Kemple, J. and Willner, C. (2008), Career Academies Long-Term Impacts on Labor Market
Outcomes, Educational Attainment, and Transitions to Adulthood, Manpower Development
Research Corporation.
Kramarz, F. and Skans, O. (2006), ‘Nepotism at work? Family networks and youth labour
market entry’, unpublished manuscript, Symposium of Labor Economics (ESSLE).
Langlands, A. (2005), The Gateways to the Professions Report (‘The Langlands Report’),
Nottingham: DfES.
Loury, Glenn C. (1977), ‘A dynamic theory of racial income differences’, in P. A. Wallace and
A. Le Mund (eds.), Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination, Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books, Chapter 8.
Loury, L. (2006), ‘Some contacts are more equal than others: informal networks, job tenure,
and wages’, Journal of Labor Economics, 24: 2, 299–318.
Manning, A. and Swaffield, J. (2008), ‘The gender gap in early-career wage growth’, The
Economic Journal, 118: 983–1024.
Marsden, P. and Gorman, E. (2001), ‘Social networks, job changes, and recruitment’, in Ivar Berg
and Ame L. Kalleberg (eds.), Sourcebook of Labor Markets: Evolving Structure and Processes,
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 467–502.
Macmillan, L. (2009), Social Mobility and the Professions, Centre for Market and Public
Organisation, University of Bristol.
Mann, A. (2012), It’s Who You Meet: Why Employer Contacts at School Make a Difference to the
Employment Prospects of Young Adults, London: Education and Employers Taskforce.
512 lindsey macmillan, claire tyler and anna vignoles

Montgomery, James D. (1991), ‘Social networks and labor-market outcomes: toward an

economic analysis’, American Economic Review, 81: 5, 1408–18.
Neumark, D. and Rothstein, D. (2006), ‘School-to-career programmes and transitions to
employment and higher education’, Economics of Education Review, 25: 374–93.
Pellizzari, M. (2004), ‘Do friends and relatives really help in getting a good job?’, CEP Discussion
Paper no. 623, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
Rees, A. (1966), ‘Information networks in the labor market, American Economic Review, 56: 2,
559–66.
Rivera, L. (2012), ‘Hiring as cultural matching: the case of elite professional service firms’,
American Sociological Review, 77: 6, 999–1022.
Rolfe, H. and Anderson, T. (2003), ‘A firm choice: law firms’ preferences in the recruitment of
trainee solicitors’, International Journal of the Legal Profession, 10: 3, 315–34.
Sutton Trust (2005), The Educational Background of the UK’s Top Solicitors, Barristers and
Judges. http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/educational-backgrounds-leading-
journalists/ (accessed 1 September 2014).
Sutton Trust (2006), The Educational Backgrounds of Leading Journalists. http://www.
suttontrust.com/researcharchive/educational-backgrounds-uks-top-solicitors-barristers-
judges/ (accessed 1 September 2014).
Wilson, R. A. and Homenidou, K. (2011), Working Futures 2010–2020, Evidence Report 41,
Wath-upon-Dearne: UK: Commission for Employment and Skills.
Wolf, A. (2011), Review of Vocational Education – the Wolf Report, Department for Education
Department for Business, Innovation & Skills

Appendix
Occupations within professional groupings:
Business: Accountants, economists, statisticians, brokers, underwriters, tax
specialists.
Medical: Doctors, dentists, pharmacists, psychologists, veterinarians.
Law: Judges, barristers, solicitors.
Education: Higher education teachers and researchers, secondary and primary head
teachers, senior administrators.
Built environment: Engineers, IT consultants, architects, surveyors.
Scientists: Chemists, biologists, physicists, astronomers, mathematicians.
Other: Clergy, probation officers, aircraft pilots
 who gets the top jobs 513

TABLE A1. Differences in the social origins of those in the early HESA
sample and those in the later longitudinal sample

Longitudinal sample Early sample only

Parents’ NS-SEC
Professional 13.1 12.3
Lower manager 16.3 16.3
Intermediate 7.9 7.7
Small employer 3.8 3.7
Supervisor 2.4 2.6
Semi-routine 5.3 5.8
Routine 2.4 2.6
Unemployed 0.1 0.1
SEC missing 48.8 49.0
Low participation 7.7 8.7
2nd quintile part. 12.6 13.3
3rd quintile part. 18.1 18.4
4th quintile part. 23.1 22.7
High participation 31.8 30.8
Low participation missing 6.6 6.2
State school 60.2 59.6
Private school 6.4 6.6
School type missing 33.4 33.7

Notes: Percentages based on the entire sample of respondents before additional

restrictions applied including aged eighteen to twenty-five, must be an
undergraduate leaver in 2006/7 and must have a 5-digit SOC 2000 code at 3.5
years.
514 lindsey macmillan, claire tyler and anna vignoles

TABLE A2. Social origins of those entering the top professions

NS-SEC 1 1.1 1.2 1.2 2–7

Top Business, Other
Destination NS-SEC Higher medical Other graduate
outcome: job managerial and law professions jobs

Parents’ NS-SEC
Professional 25.2 23.2 27.2 24.6 20.7
Lower manager 25.6 28.9 23.3 25.9 26.2
Intermediate 11.3 12.5 11.3 10.7 12.5
Small employer 5.6 5.9 5.2 5.8 6.4
Supervisor 3.6 3.4 3.0 4.3 4.0
Semi-routine 6.7 6.4 5.5 7.8 7.7
Routine 3.1 2.7 2.8 3.6 3.8
Unemployed 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
SEC missing 18.8 17.0 21.7 17.3 18.8
Low participation 5.9 6.3 5.0 6.4 7.8
2nd quintile part. 10.5 10.7 9.2 11.5 12.9
3rd quintile part. 16.2 15.3 16.1 16.6 18.0
4th quintile part. 23.2 24.3 22.0 23.7 24.1
High participation 38.9 38.0 41.8 37.1 33.6
Low part. missing 5.3 5.5 5.8 4.8 3.6
State school 72.4 69.1 68.5 76.9 78.5
Private school 14.8 17.8 19.3 9.8 9.5
State school missing 12.9 13.1 12.2 13.3 12.1

Notes: Percentages based on our final sample once additional restrictions applied
including aged eighteen to twenty-five, must be an undergraduate leaver in 2006/7
and must have a 5-digit SOC 2000 code at 3.5 years.
 who gets the top jobs 515

TABLE A3. Marginal effects of family background on

having a high-status(top NS-SEC) occupation 3.5 years
after graduation by gender

Males Females

Professional −0.029(0.027) 0.017(0.030)

Lower manager −0.026(0.027) 0.009(0.028)
Intermediate −0.041(0.030) −0.005(0.031)
Small employer −0.038(0.031) −0.008(0.032)
Supervisor −0.030(0.035) 0.007(0.034)
Semi-routine −0.017(0.031) −0.008(0.031)
Routine Baseline Baseline
Unemployed −0.327(0.001) 0.074(0.086)
Low part. −0.037(0.024) 0.012(0.020)
2nd quintile part. −0.029(0.019) 0.012(0.017)
3rd quintile part. Baseline Baseline
4th quintile part. −0.030(0.017)∗ 0.033(0.014)∗∗
High part. −0.004(0.014) 0.033(0.012)∗∗∗
State school −0.016(0.025) −0.029(0.011)∗∗∗
Controls
Demographics x x
Prior attainment x x
Institution x x
Post-grad qual. x x
N 10,664 14,316
Pseudo R-squared 0.148 0.194

Demographics: Gender, age, ethnicity. Prior attainment: UCAS tariff,

subject, attainment. Institution: Institution fixed effects, region of
institution. Post-grad: Higher research, taught, post-grad. certificate
/diploma or other at three years. Standard errors are clustered
at institution level. ∗ 90% confidence, ∗∗ 95% confidence, ∗∗∗ 99%
confidence. The Z-score from testing the difference between the two
state school coefficients is 0.48.