By Rosa Marvell
Sixty years ago, British Economist Lionel Robbins was appointed to evaluate UK higher education. The resulting report was seminal. The central principle of the 1963 Robbins Report was that “all young persons qualified by ability and attainment to pursue a full-time course in higher education should have the opportunity to do so”. Fundamentally, this challenged the established (and elitist) idea that only a select minority could benefit from university. In the intervening years, concerted policy efforts focussed on increasing the overall number of students at university and radically diversifying the profile of students. However, despite some gains, this did not happen on a level playing field. Barriers remain.
Financial barriers to university
Regardless of the UK’s student loan system, being at university carries a cost. It is not one that is shouldered equally. Some opportunities are simply out of reach for students without savings or family support. For example, Master’s degree fees are uncapped, and some institutions charge thousands of pounds more than the maximum loan students can obtain. Specific locations are also harder to access. With the rising cost of student accommodation and living, the fiscal penalty associated with the most expensive areas of the UK is severe. A 2021 survey for the National Union of Students estimated that student rents rose 16 per cent since 2018-19. For undergraduates living in London, this would take up 88 per cent of the maximum maintenance loan, leaving just £38 per week ‘spare’. For those without a ‘safety net’, this can mean working exceedingly long hours alongside study, prioritising work over study and forgoing engagement in wider university life, just to survive.
Financial barriers are not just an objective issue. Educational research now suggests that student debt is less of a deterrent overall. However, debt aversion remains legitimately off-putting for applicants who have experienced financial precarity or poverty. Alternatively, in my own research, Muslim students have shared the ‘inner conflict’ they felt about loans. This was often the only means of accessing university, but their faith typically prohibited loans that accrue interest.
Privileged information
Educational providers invest significant time and resources in marketing, communications and publicity. Similarly, the Office for Students – the UK regulator for higher education – champions making data available to ‘help students make choices’. However, sociological research consistently indicates that prospective students are more likely to listen to people they know. British Sociologist Stephen Ball calls this ‘hot knowledge’, arguing we trust it more than ‘cold’ knowledge from official sources. This can include the impressions, anecdotes, and experiences of our peers, loved ones and relatives.
However, we do not all have access to the same information. Access to privileged ‘hot knowledge’ which might open doors most easily is strongly differentiated by social class and race, among other factors. Well-networked, middle-class families might access ‘insider gossip’ to help children select courses and universities. More affluent, selective schools can have better flexibility and resources for specialist university support. Even within a single school, ‘streaming’ and ‘setting’ – separating students by perceived ‘ability’ – creates assumptions about who needs to know about different universities, or universities at all. As Professor Emeritus Diane Reay recalled on the Social Science Bites podcast, “I had to fight not to be in the bottom set; I was told that girls like me don’t go to university”.
(Not) fitting in
French Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu describes the way that some people ‘fit’ in social spaces as like ‘fish in water’ – effortlessly comfortable and at ease. This has, historically, been a fairly accurate description of many students from more advantaged backgrounds applying to ‘high status’ institutions. These universities often have staff and student bodies who are typically white, middle-class and of a similar ‘mould’. However, for those that do not match this profile, it can be profoundly unwelcoming. Students may get a sense of this very early, sometimes in their first encounter with a university. Scholars such as Lou Archer have explained how this can lead to minoritised students discounting certain universities. Feeling like you do not belong can result in prospective students being ‘squeezed out’ of spaces where they cannot see people ‘like them’ represented.
So, what now?
Despite the significant volume of government and university funding, fundamental barriers still exist for people from less advantaged backgrounds. As a result, students may be denied what could be a fundamentally transformative and meaningful experience. The higher education sector needs to continue to unpick the obstacles that are present. This means thinking harder about the financial support we offer, finding ways of connecting in a more meaningful way, and systematically working on improving the make-up of our institutions. Faced with a new policy direction from the central Government that appears to be aimed at narrowing participation – especially amongst newer providers and within the arts and humanities – the imperative is stronger than ever.
The author is lecturer in Sociology at University of Portsmouth (UK). Views are personal.