On Friday, Reform hosted a panel discussion on the role of the most selective universities in ensuring a more diverse elite. Around 90 per cent of senior civil servants and high court judges attended one of the most prestigious universities, half of the Cabinet and almost a third of top business leaders are Oxbridge alumni. The role of these universities in ensuring greater access to positions of influence cannot be denied.
The keynote speaker, David Lammy MP, referred to this mechanism as a "conveyor belt" into the elite, and one that is dominated by white middle and upper-class young people. While recognising the greater structural problems surrounding this mechanism – the factors that make these young people more likely to achieve the necessary grades and apply, as well as the labour market over-emphasising these institutions – Lammy argued that systemic and dramatic change is needed to give people from disadvantaged backgrounds greater access to elite universities.
Last year, Reform published a report addressing the lack of diversity at top universities. It highlighted how slow progress has been, and sought to rank institutions according to their 'access performance' (see below).
Research into the universities that have made greater progress showed a focus on admissions systems and use of 'contextualisation'. This came up at Friday’s panel, with Professor of Sociology at Durham University, Vikki Boliver, arguing that universities should consider lowering their offers as much as six or seven grades for disadvantaged applicants. Considering that around 1 per cent of students who were eligible for free school meals at school receive AAA at A-level, outreach to encourage this group to apply is not going to make a radical difference. Reaching out to the 10-15 per cent who achieve BBB to CCC might do so. Boliver also highlighted that as some of the selective universities have expanded students numbers, acceptable grade boundaries have gone down, but not in a way to systematically diversify participation.
Russell Group Chief Executive, Dr Tim Bradshaw, responded to comments with recognition that there is further to go when it comes to access, but also by pointing to efforts already undertaken by widening participation teams, suggesting that there is no need to impose measures such as school sponsorship.
Imposing practices on universities is controversial. Yet HESA data on widening participation, published today, suggest that universities continue to make incremental improvements to access, and not the radical strides called for on the panel. The average proportion of disadvantaged young students in the latest intake at the 29 universities ranked above was 6.2 per cent, and the average increase from 2015-16 to 2016-17 was 0.2 percentage points. The average annual increase in the five years prior (the first column in the table above) was 0.17 percentage – not what one could call dramatic change.
Perhaps universities need to be braver, bolder and more "lion-hearted" in the words of Anne-Marie Canning, Director of Social Mobility and Student Success at King's College London. Calling for institutions to stop taking part in a “blame-game”, she argued that it is an absolute moral imperative to contribute to social mobility, and especially to support young people in the local area.
The most immediate measure available lies with admissions. According to Boliver, about half of the most selective universities have started to think differently about merit, recognising achievements in the context in which they have been made. This slow change in perceptions of who have 'earned’ a place at the most elite institutions won’t change the representation in top professions at the pace needed and desired by the public. Top universities must therefore adapt their thinking at a faster pace to do their bit for more diversity at the top.
