What Do League Tables Tell Us About Representation At University?
Apparently ‘anyone can go to university these days’, or at least this is the usual trope thrown in young people’s faces. If you’re in the early days of applying, or just considering university, this is usually a welcome phrase. It means you’ll definitely end up going somewhere to study the thing you enjoy most (hopefully). Whereas, if you’re on the other side of the equation - i.e. entering the job market - then this is usually the argument used to explain why you haven’t got a job yet.
Either way, statistically it is true: there is a 90% acceptance rate of students continuing to higher education. So, if everyone can go to university these days, and higher education is more accessible than ever, then what’s all this talk of representation about?
Discussions of ‘representation’ at university need to encompass a range of issues, which often intersect. It includes student representation in terms of the material studied, the professors who teach, in your ability to attend the university you truly deserve, in geographical representation, in your ability to flourish, and in how your degree can translate into actual job opportunities. Even the way in which we talk about representation continues to evolve, as terms used to encompass issues on ‘class’ and ‘race’ develop with the changing times and demographic makeup. With that being said, let’s take a crack at it.
To start, let’s talk numbers. Students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, as well as minority ethnic students, are continually underrepresented in higher education, with the numbers of students from a disadvantaged background getting smaller the higher up the rankings of institution you go. One study found that, whilst only 6% of young people are privately educated, they make up 55% of students at Russel Group universities, with admissions from state schools actually having fallen this year.
Despite pressure from NGO’s, and institutional efforts from government agencies to increase attainment from disadvantaged students entering higher education, state school students are still most likely to enter ‘lower and middle tier universities’ as opposed to ‘higher tier’ ones attended by often whiter, richer demographics. Attending a Russel Group university does not necessarily determine that you will lead a successful life, and ‘non-Russel’s’ often feature just as high or higher in the league tables. But whilst Oxbridge and Russel Groups are not everyone’s cup of tea, or not fundamental to everyone’s career path, it is unfair that students from comprehensives or state schools, who may have achieved the same or similar grades as those who went to private schools, do not apply or are not admitted to those universities. This is usually due to the issues of geographical segregation, or for being actively discouraged from believing they could get in in the first place. Sutton Trust’s report indicated that 40% of teachers they interviewed would not encourage their brightest students to apply to Oxbridge. Whilst at the end of the day we must live as if we are the masters of our own universe, in the conversations I have had with my peers, I can certainly recall their ‘discouragement’ from applying to elite universities. It is an unfortunately real and influential experience for many prospective students.
Adding to this, studies indicate that the ‘North-South’ divide goes deeper than the debate over the correct pronunciation of the word ‘scone’, and seems to have some influence on the admissions process of more competitive universities. The Office for Students warns that access to university so far has been a ‘postcode lottery’, with students from rural and coastal communities, industrial heartlands, and military towns (northeast and southwest of England) being much less likely to apply or go to university than those from London. Questions on ‘class’ immediately come to mind, however, the Sutton Trust suggests that this trend may be due to a higher investment from London universities (as opposed to regional ones) in outreach programmes targeting students coming from disadvantaged areas. Yet, whilst London may seem flash, it also ranks first place for highest poverty rates compared to the rest of the UK. The working class exist in peripheries as well as in city centres, and poorer students nationally are not getting the deal they deserve.
Furthermore, Professor (and activist) Kehinde Andrews explains how university league tables also essentially reflect racial hierarchy, with newer universities (the post 1994 group) admitting more diverse cohorts of students than ‘established ones’. In a web-series on ‘Decolonising the Curriculum’, he also went on to scrutinise the marketisation of ‘diversity’ at university.
We’ve all seen the awkward picture-perfect university brochures and videos. You know, the ones with the picture of a multicultural group of friends sitting in long green grass, laughing, surely debating whether the rise of populism is a potential force for good or evil…or maybe string theory (whatever it is science people talk about). But the reality is that Russel Group universities are pretty white, and black and brown students, in their own words, are tired of pretending otherwise, as evident by the all the letters, articles, blogs, plaques and reports that have recently come out since the BLM upsurge. (Please check out some of the great voices here on the Everyday for more on this!).
And yes, England is a majority white country, and therefore we can expect a higher number of white students overall in university (did you read that line in the same tone I did?). I mean white in a way that whitewashing of historical narratives; white in university’s failure to hire black and brown professors; white in their ability to co-opt black and brown students into their marketisation without really addressing their needs as individuals alienated from majority white institutions. Whilst I am aware this is starting to sound like a liberal self-flagellation piece, these are legitimate issues stemming from decades of under-representation of black and brown voices in Higher Education, ones which are acutely felt in elite institutions.
One study suggests that diversifying staff could improve recruitment and therefore representation of BME students by impacting the aspirations and self-confidence of applicants. However, recently, some students from the University of Oxford have been disappointed in the university’s failure to acknowledge some of the issues mentioned above (namely racism), and no longer feel comfortable being used as part of the university outreach programmes. This speaks volumes when considering the performativity and use of tokenism by elite universities in their claims to represent minority ethnic students.
Somehow, the extensive investments from organisations into making universities more proportionally representative to student demographics is not creating the desired change, and students feel it.
So, how do we make universities more representative if not through creating social inclusion benchmarks? Though it has been the subject of debate, one way to open up access to students from less privileged backgrounds is to have offers based on contextual data (such as in geography and family income). Whilst I appreciate the nuances in the debate, if evidence indicates that many students have been able to buy their way to the top (crudely put), then in theory I don’t see why the tables can’t be turned. To be clear, I don’t think the solution to social mobility is to bash the private school students, but we do need to look at the issue of access at more than a mere surface level problem. Data driven solutions have been of use but clearly, as the failure of £250 investment in access programmes suggests, money is not the only issue. Maybe it’s a question of cultural expectation?
Before we even look to universities for answers, perhaps we should look at what teachers are telling their pupils in secondary school, and what employability data is telling us about certain degrees enabling certain opportunities. This has to be in a way that doesn’t discourage students from applying for a subject like Classical Studies if they want to - a stereotypically highly ‘prestigious’ or potentially ‘useless’ degree depending on who you ask, or where you study it. Ultimately, if we’re discouraging students from disadvantaged backgrounds from even applying to university in the first place, how can we hope to address the consequences of these gaps in diversity in higher education, and in elite professions, later on in life?
Written by Clara Martinelli
Hi, I’m Clara. I’m an International Relations and Politics graduate currently doing volunteer work in London and looking to make my corner of the world a better place one step at a time. When I’m taking a break from being existential you can find me on the sofa watching police dramas and eating stupid amounts of pasta.