We should be clear: schools, universities, and leading firms all have a part to play in the continuation of elitism and social class discrimination
We should be clear: schools, universities, and leading firms all have a part to play in the continuation of elitism and social class discrimination
According to a study by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, published today, the UK is still “deeply elitist”, dominated in top positions by people educated at independent schools and Oxbridge.
Alan Milburn, who heads the Commission, said that many institutions that matter appear to be more like a “cosy club”.
The findings today show of certain leading professions, the proportion of people who went to fee-paying schools included:
- 71% of senior judges;
- 62% of senior armed forces officers;
- 55% of permanent secretaries (the most senior civil servants);
- 53% of senior diplomats;
- 45% of chairmen and women of public bodies;
- 44% of the Sunday Times Rich List;
- 43% of newspaper columnists; and
- 26% of BBC executives.
This news is hardly likely to elicit too much surprise. In 2010 David Lammy MP made a series of Freedom of Information requests which found Oxford University’s social profile is 89% upper and middle class. Similarly the Cambridge student body is 87.6%. At the time the average for universities in Britain was 66%.
The questions that remains is where it all goes wrong? Are companies themselves in top institutions and fields of excellence to blame? Are Universities themselves to blame? Or is there a wider problem within education more broadly?
A study on fair access to universities published in May last year in the British Journal of Sociology gained access to Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) data for between the years of 1996-2006. It found that as regarding access to Russell Group universities very little had actually changed following the introduction of tuition fees in 1998 and their initial increase to £3,000 a year in 2006.
However rather shockingly, applicants from lower class backgrounds and state schools remained the group least likely to apply to Russell Group universities than their comparably qualified counterparts from higher class backgrounds and private schools. For various reasons despite performing as well, the least privileged group were the least likely to make those applications.
Similarly Russell Group applicants from state schools and Black and Asian ethnic backgrounds were less likely to receive offers of admission from Russell Group universities in comparison with their equivalently qualified peers from private schools and the White ethnic group – which suggests the error for lacking diversity lays squarely with the universities themselves.
One of the most telling findings of the research is that pupils from state schools needed to be the equivalent of two grades better than privately educated pupils to be as likely to apply for Russell Group universities.
Another study from 2012 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society found that poor achievement in secondary schools is more important in explaining lower rates of participation in high education among pupils from low income backgrounds. The research concludes by suggesting that schools, not necessarily higher education institutions, need to be doing more for HE participation and fair access.
One other study, this time in the Journal of Professions and Organization, found that discrimination within leading law firms in the City of London was based on two things: the need to attract talent (the suggestion perhaps being that talent is harder to come by if a diversity policy is put in place) and the need to reduce risk and enhance image (which again may suggest that diversity policies may be too risky, and impact negatively on the image of the firm).
Although this sample of research might appear in conflict with one another, I think together they show us the extent to the problem, and their possible solutions: namely, schools need to do more to build up the educational achievements of young people from low income backgrounds, Russell Group universities need to do more to ensure young people from low income backgrounds with comparable qualifications as their better-off peers are admitted, and that professional institutions curb discrimination based upon social class.
When it comes to continued British elitism there is a broad sweep of problems at play, and we should be clear that the buck doesn’t just stop at one door. Schools, universities, and leading firms all have a part to play in continued social class discrimination.
Carl Packman is a contributing editor to Left Foot Forward
42 Responses to “Elitism and social discrimination persist, but what is to blame?”
Leon Wolfeson
No, *financially* it’s the cold, hard statistical truth. Why would I believe your disclaimer about free, really?
The data’s there, and your anecdote – bluntly – doesn’t matter. Most jobs would offer 24-25k to the Graduate…3 years difference in that, plus repayments…
And no, repayment is 9% over 21k…and when mortgage availability is so low, yes, it’s significant. (Moreover, years of earnings is a factor too!). There’s 5.5% interest, too.
Kryten2k35
Financially, you’re talking bullshit. Without a degree in the field I’m pursuing, I wouldn’t be earning, in 10 years, that which I can earn off the bat.
Leaving University with skills in PHP, Ruby, Javascript SASS, C#, .NET, C++, Java, Oracle, MyISAM, MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc etc and a degree that featured two years of advanced computational mathematics puts me in line for a lot more jobs than if I had just left college with a BTEC.
FACT: My college qualifications had jobs starting at £16k a year. Topping off at £28k
FACT: My University degree has jobs starting at £24k a year, topping off at £80k a year
And what I said was right, but I’ll take your word that it has since changed since I started University.
Fact is, you’re a cunt if you want to try and make people feel bad for having gone to University, trying to tell them they’ll be financially worse off, when in fact, they won’t.
Leon Wolfeson
What matters in that area is very much skills, the degree is a side issue for 99%+ of jobs
(excepting some in banks and aerospace etc. where you need to be able to *prove* formal models, for which a degree is required, but those are an exception and in many cases don’t even pay that well!)
There are non-wage reasons to go to University, but the key here is that the funding system needs to be changed, radically.
Not defended frantically. And not calling people’s cunts for telling the truth – we have a terribly low graduate premium and a terrible university funding system.
Most graduates WILL be worse off. That’s afaik unacceptable, and must be *changed*. When they benefit the economy as a whole. Otherwise, we’re going to see either lots of graduates going abroad, or isolationism.
Kryten2k35
No, they won’t be worse off, but I know better than to bother arguing with you.
Keith M
If we are to create a level playing field we need to abolish private schools and academies and return education to democratically elected local control. Additional funds should be allocated to the most deprived areas. In short a socialist education policy.