Post on 15-May-2023
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
REPRESENTATIONS AND REALISMS:
SOCIAL CLASS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
‘CAN WIDENING PARTICIPATION OVERCOME CULTURAL
HEGEMONY’?
- 1 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE Page
BACKGROUND 03
INTRODUCTION 04
1. FINANCIAL BARRIERS 05
2. CULTURAL BARRIERS 08
CONCLUSION 13
- 2 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
BACKGROUND
Higher Education (HE) Participation by social class
groups (1960 – 2000)
‘One of the most pessimistic statistics about modern Britain is
the lack of improvement in social mobility over recent
decades, but one of the most optimistic facts is the way in
which higher education can wipe out prior educational
advantage’. David Willetts, (www.bis.gov.uk,
2011:6)
- 3 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
We have entered a political era of a coalition
government where ‘realpolitik’ is the rhetoric of
politicians looking to remain electorally palatable. David
Willett’s language again represents the potential of
higher education to assist social mobility however the
historical realism of the graph suggests otherwise! The
purpose of this report will be therefore to explore
representations and realisms of social class in HE and ask
whether Widening Participation (WP) can ever overcome the
hegemony of a two tiered HE system, ideologically
entrenched in meritocratic principles and where ‘elitism
is built into the very fabric of HE’ (Reay et al., 2005: 163).
INTRODUCTION
The underlying assumption of hegemony theory is a
view of society or institutions where inequalities in
power exist between social groups and those with power
exercise their influence culturally rather than by force
(Barry, 2009). Before considering dichotomies of social
class representations within HE it should be explicit that
semiotic examinations cannot be innocent. Textual analysis
- 4 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
of media images have largely been completed within
cultural studies frameworks, which recognises that no
media text is neutral; class specific cultural and
political struggles are accepted and reproduced in media
representations (Hall, 1973).
Media concepts such as Reception theory have moved on
from views that the public can be intravenously injected
with dominant ideologies as suggested by Frankfurt
School’s ‘Effects Model’ (Abercrombie, 1996). Instead it
is suggested groups react and interpret preferred meanings
of media text based upon their social and cultural
background (Hall, 1973). That said, the epistemological
position of this report confirms the UK has a mass system
of HE in the 21st century (Hayton & Paczuska, 2002) but
argues that it is still not open to all social classes and
institutionally is a passive promoter of hegemony.
To illustrate this supposition the report will
explore selected representations and explanations of
financial and cultural social class barriers to HE.
Academics will argue WP is a complex subject with
enumerable barriers however it is not possible within this
- 5 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
report to consider them all. Therefore the report will
focus on these two barriers as they are topical and
pervasive in terms of access and participation to HE.
Secondary aims will be to highlight the polysemic nature
of representations to analyse if they intentionally or
unintentionally represent cultural hegemony.
CHAPTER ONE – FINANCIAL BARRIERS
It is well rehearsed that children from richer
backgrounds are more likely to access and participate in
HE than children from poorer backgrounds. Equally known is
the ‘absolute gap in participation between higher and
lower social groups, has not narrowed over past decades’
(Bekhradnia, 2003: 2). The purpose of this chapter will be
to explore the arguments that financial barriers
principally tuition fees have historically precluded lower
social classes entering HE. This has contemporary
relevance in light of the recent political ramifications
that have ensued as denoted by the representation below:
- 6 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
This representation was selected because it is
polysemic and contains denotative and connotative messages
which are open to different cultural interpretations. The
image seems fairly unambiguous; it represents protests
against proposals to allow universities to increase
tuition fees to a maximum of £9000. However upon closer
inspection there are numerous enigma codes or messages (O’
Sullivan et al., 1998) ‘Grants for All’, ‘Fair Access’ ‘Admission
Impossible’ and ‘No to Marketisation of Education’. These meanings
can be linked to provide a critical reader with important
historical foundations for exploring two problems that
have plagued HE for decades. How do universities provide
fair access to students from lower socio-economic
- 7 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
households and secondly how do universities fund
themselves in competitive global marketplaces where every
nation aspires for world class HE institutions to support
a knowledge economy (Browne, DBIS, 2011).
Historically tuition fees have been a consistent
theme within landmark political enquiries into HE.
Increases in scholarships to lower social classes followed
the Barlow Committee’s comment ‘the scales are weighted in
favour of the socially eligible’ (1946, cited in Ross,
2006: 30). The Anderson Committee (1960) set out a system
of means tested grants for student maintenance based on
meritocratic principles of being available to ‘all those
with the ability and qualification to benefit from HE’
(Reay, 2005: 2). The Anderson system covered all fees
including those of overseas students which was criticised
as being ‘no more than a subsidy to scions of wealthy
families from anywhere in the world’ (Ross, 2005: 36).
Paradoxically the HE sector is currently accused of the
complete opposite and is under intense political scrutiny
for treating overseas students as ‘cash cows’ (Cashing in on
Degrees, 2011).
- 8 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
The Robbins Report endorsed meritocratic principles
but suggested financial barriers underpinned privileged
access (TLRP, 2008). However, ‘the Robbins Report wanted
tuition fees to cover 20% of institutional expenditure’
(Willetts, 2011: 2). Thirty four years later following
Kennedy and Dearing Reports a Labour Government introduced
tuition fees under the banner of ‘Education, Education,
Education’ for all. Historical and political ironies are
plain to see in that it was ‘the egalitarian spirit of
Atlee’s Labour administration’ (Ross, 2005: 30) that paved
the way for Barlow to introduce a system of scholarships
for lower social class students to meet the cost of
tuition fees.
Students today are told economic realities and
‘exigencies of a new global economy of knowledge’ (Jary &
Jones, 2004: 5) means that if they want a world class HE
experience, it will be expensive. The Browne Report (2010:
4) argued;
Current systems put a limit on the level of investment for HE. As a
consequence we are at risk of falling behind rival countries. Our
proposals introduce more investment for HE. HEIs must persuade
- 9 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
students that they should ‘pay more’ in order to ‘get more’.
The Browne Report was set up with cross party support
and its findings have received mixed responses from
universities. Vice Chancellors from top tier, research led
universities i.e. Russell Group amongst others, have
silently welcomed proposals because of a confidence of
charging higher fees but still attracting high calibre
students. Second tier teaching led universities are
fearful they will not be able to persuade students to pay
the higher fees required for high quality HE provision
(Thompson & Bekhradnia, 2010). This last point is evidence
to support the notion that despite universal WP
representations within HE the realism is that there is
still an atmosphere of hegemony to retain the philosophy
of a meritocratic two tiered system.
The Browne Report completed two decades where costs
of HE have shifted from tax payers to students (Gorard et
al., 2007). The angry representations of student protests,
implies this additional redistribution of costs will leave
poorer students facing higher financial barriers and
restricting fair access. These representations echo
- 10 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
concerns expressed in 2006 when tuition fees rose
substantially to £3000. Concerns were two fold; firstly
that costs decrease the motivation for HE amongst lower
social class students and marginal entrants with an
aversion to debt and risk and relatively low expected post
graduation earnings. Secondly the level of bursaries
available using the student support system were
insufficient and a barrier to WP (Gorard, 2006).
The realism however of evidence from Metcalf’s (2005)
study of the initial impact, of tuition fees suggests that
the composition of students do not change in favour of
those who can and do absorb the higher debt. In terms of
the second point on bursaries Bahram Bekhradnia (HEPI: 4),
Chair of a 2009 House of Commons Seminar entitled ‘Fair
Access Revisited’ argued ‘there’s no evidence at all in my view
that any student is being deterred from applying to
university because of deficient bursary arrangements’.
Furthermore he concluded that all the evidence suggests
the ‘choice of whether or not to go into HE or whether to
choose a particular institution is not determined
primarily financially’. In summary therefore it would seem
- 11 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
there is a general consensus that there is little direct
evidence to suggest that financial barriers alone preclude
lower class entrants to HE (Selwyn et al., (2006).
CHAPTER FOUR – CULTURAL BARRIERS
The cultural impact of the two tiered system of HE
will now be considered in this chapter because it has
important implications for WP both in terms of a student’s
initial decision to apply to HE and the choice of HE
institution.
The representation above has been selected because it too
is polysemic, in that its meanings can be interpreted in
at least two ways depending upon your cultural position.
The first impression of the representation out of any
context that could be referenced could suggest that it
- 12 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
will be now very expensive to attend HE and obtain a
degree. Conversely the representation through different
cultural and political eyes could confirm that by
attending HE and achieving a degree, a student can expect
to earn a very good salary and reap the rewards of a
successful career. Of course both interpretations have
merit and have elements of truth however more importantly
is the fact that this representation portrays the realism
of the ‘risk and reward’ dilemma (Archer & Hutchings,
2000) that faces many potential HE students from lower
social class backgrounds.
David Willetts (www.bis.gov.uk, 2011:6) suggested
‘higher education can wipe out prior educational advantage’. Academics
however suggest the realism of overcoming earlier cultural
and educational institutional disadvantages is the true
challenge for WP (Bowl, 2003). When conceptualising
choices of HE for lower social class students Reay et al.,
(2005: 19) uses the work of Pierre Bourdieu to suggest
academic success can be explained by the type of ‘cultural
capital inherited from the family milieu rather than by
measures of individual talent and achievement’. Cultural
- 13 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
capital encompasses an array of qualities that a student
can accrue from their family and school experience which
can either constitute advantage or disadvantage when
making HE choices. For example if the parents of a
potential entrant of HE attended university then for that
entrant ‘going to university is simply the next stage in a
seamless, taken for granted, middle class trajectory’
(Reay et al., 2005: 32). In a review of evidence on the impact
of family influences, Feinstein et al., (2004) showed that a
key influence on a child’s educational attainment and HE
trajectory included parental education.
Perhaps even more important in the WP process is the
critical role that the school habitus can play in either
preparing or unintentionally discouraging students from
lower social class backgrounds from applying to HE.
- 14 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
It has been suggested ‘students from lower socio-economic
groups appear to be guided from an earlier age, by reason
of habit, culture and professional or peer expectation, to
anticipate entry to the labour market rather than higher
education’ (Robertson & Hillman, 1997, cited in Archer &
Hutchins, 2000: 556). One of the reasons cited for the
wide spread under representation of lower socio economic
groups in HE has been the inadequate preparation that
working class children receive in early educational
stages. Experiences gained during initial schooling are
believed to be an important factor in shaping the long
term orientation towards learning and providing the
qualifications necessary to access HE (Gorard et al., 2006).
Clearly academic success or failure in schooling affects
the choice to enter HE and can importantly dictate the
type of HE institution open to students from lower socio-
economic backgrounds. However proponents of WP are also
signalling the quality and quantity of careers advice that
students from lower social classes receive in state
schools as having an important impact in narrowing and
limiting HE aspirations. It has been suggested that
- 15 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
schools and colleges may give differential help and
guidance to middle class and working class students (Reay,
1998).
This lack of quality HE careers advice alongside an
absence of state teachers who are ‘mentors or champions of
HE’ (Connor, 2001) compared to private schools has
resulted in the historical dominance of HE by middle class
groups. The culture of HE has thus been positioned by
lower class students as ‘unknown’ and ‘alien’ and
therefore less desirable or thinkable (McGivney, 1996,
cited in Archer & Hutchings, 2000: 557). This narrowing of
choice extends also to the type of university a potential
student considers when applying for HE. For there is an
academic consensus that the way governments have funded
the HE sector has resulted in a two tiered ‘stratified
system with a greater polarization of institutions’ (Jones
& Thomas, 2005: 623).
A clear hierarchy has emerged in which elite research
universities, predominantly pre – 1992 Russell Group
institutions are in the top stratum and the bottom stratum
- 16 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
of teaching led institutions are compromised of post 1992
institutions. A legacy of this two tiered system is
research led universities lobby government funding for
important research and development projects to cement
their standing as world class HE institutions and the
lower stratum of teaching led institutions secure their
funding by being the main vehicles for WP (Jary & Jones,
2004). The implications for WP are far reaching because
elite meritocratic research funded universities
continually attract overwhelmingly white, middle class
applicants and the second tier of HE institutions
aggressively canvass and attract students from lower
socio-economic backgrounds to secure WP funding (Gorard et
al., 2006). It is this system of funding that is the
foundation of the institutional hegemony within the HE
sector. Critics suggest that it is debatable whether WP
strategies can ever achieve a socially representative
university sector while these institutional inequalities
remain and ‘government funding protects and perpetuates
elitism (Archer et al., 2006: 197).
- 17 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
The situation is compounded further by evidence that
suggests non traditional students are prioritising their
HE choices based on whether they believe they possess the
‘cultural capital to fit into institutions which they
perceive as elite and middle class’ such as the Russell
Group (Reay et al., 2005: 106). It could argued, that such
perceptions are not helped by some of the representations
and images that universities use to promote their
universities. For example by examining the representation
below it is not difficult to recognise that this
matriculation image is from a Russell Group university.
Such images arguably compound the institutional hegemony.
Hall (1973) stressed the role of social positioning
in the interpretation of media images in that
interpretations are dependent on a number of socio-
- 18 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
economic frameworks outside the text of the image
including class, gender, age education and ethnicity. The
importance of image and representation in WP has been
recognised by David Willetts who complained on the BBC
Daily Politics Show (2011) that media images of the HE
sector are often unintentionally damaging when trying to
persuade non traditional students to apply to Russell
Group universities.
CONCLUSION
The realism is that despite the increase in tuition
fees, the ‘penalty for not going to university is and will
continue to be considerable’ (Thompson & Bekhradnia, 2010:
8). Gorard et al., (2006) analysis of the labour market
rewards for graduation suggests that participation in HE
remains a good investment for the average student. In
terms of WP policies there is generally a consensus that
the responsibility for WP does not rest solely with the HE
- 19 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
sector. Bekhradnia (HCS, 2009) argues ‘the principal
efforts to induce people to go into HE need to be made
much earlier in a students trajectory through the
education system’. Educational policy aspirations should
be that Primary Schools lay the foundations of scholarly
success and every secondary school should then have a
champion of HE who offers pastoral care and academic
guidance to potential HE students.
Such policy advocacy for earlier intervention
continues to gather momentum and somewhat deflects
attention away from HE responsibilities. Most HEIs make
presentations in schools and arrange parent focused
activities with the aim of WP (Pennell et al., 2005). In light
of vociferous reactions to new tuition arrangements it is
likely proponents of WP will have more difficult
challenges in persuading non traditional students to take
the risk of HE. This challenge has been made harder by
failed media campaigns by the coalition government when
presenting the case for increasing tuition fees. Finally a
more enlightened representation of the tuition debate has
been hindered by the relative silence of Vice Chancellors
- 20 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
from top tier universities who wish to continue the
hegemony and path dependency of a two tiered system.
Politically the policy trajectory will not be electorally
palatable to the public if universities are perceived to
be disconnected from a vigorous commitment to WP.
References
Abercrombie, N. (1996) Television and Society. Polity Press.
Cambridge.
Archer, L. & Hutchings, M. (2000) ‘Bettering Yourself?
Discourses of risk, cost and benefit in ethnically
diverse, young working class non participants’
constructions of higher education’. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, Vol. 21. No 4. 555 – 574.
Archer, L., Hutchins, M., & Ross A. (2005) Higher Education
and Social Class: Issues of Exclusion and Inclusion. Routledge Farmer.
London.
Barry, P. (2009) Beginning Theory: An Introduction To Literary and
Cultural Theory. Manchester University Press. Manchester.
Bekhradnia, B. (2003) Widening Participation and Fair
Access: An Overview of the Evidence. Higher Education
Policy Institute. (HEPI) February. Available Online at:
- 21 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
http://www.hepi.ac.uk/466-1117/Widening-Participation-and-
Fair-Access-An-Overview-of-the-Evidence.html
Browne Review (2010) Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher
Education. Available online at:
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/s/10-
1208es-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-
report-summary.pdf
‘Cashing in on Degrees’ (2011) Dispatches. Channel Four. UK, 4th
April.
Bowl, M. (2003) Non - Traditional Entrants to Higher Education: ‘They talk
about people like me’ Trentham Books Limited. Staffordshire.
Connor, H. (2001) Deciding For or Against Participation in
Higher Education: the Views of Young People from Lower
Social Backgrounds. Higher Education Quarterly, 0951 – 5224.
Volume 55, No 2, 204 – 224.
Daily Politics Show (2011) BBC Television. London. 11 March.
Feinstein, L., Duckworth, K. & Sabates, R. (2004) A model
of inter-generational effects of parental education.
Research Brief. DfES. Nottingham.
- 22 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
Gorard, S., Adnett, N., May, H., Slack, K., Smith, E., &
Thomas, L. (2007) Overcoming the barriers to Higher Education.
Trentham Books Ltd. Staffordshire. England.
Hall, S. (1973, 1980): 'Encoding/decoding'. In Centre for
Contemporary Cultural Studies (Ed.): Culture, Media, Language:
Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-79 London: Hutchinson. 128-
38.
Hayton, A. & Paczuska, A. (2001) Access, Participation and Higher
Education: Policy and Practice. Kogan Page Ltd, London.
House of Commons Public Seminar (2009) ‘Fair Access Revisited’
Available Online at:
http://www.hepi.ac.uk/466/Reports.html
Jary, D. and Jones, R. (2004) Widening Participation: Overview and
Commentary (Higher Education Academy).
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources.asp?
process=full_record§ion=generic&id=513
Jones, R. & Thomas, L. (2005) The 2003 UK Government
Higher Education White Paper: a critical assessment of its
implications for the access and widening participation
agenda. Journal of Education Policy. Volume 20. No 5. 615 – 630.
- 23 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
Metcalf, H. (2005) Paying for University: The impact of
increasing costs on student employment, debt and
satisfaction. National Institute Economic Review. 191: 106 – 117
O’Sullivan, T., Dutton, B. & Rayner, P. (2003). Studying the
Media (2nd edn). Arnold: London.
Pennell, H., West, A. & Hind, A. (2005) Survey of Higher
Education Providers 2004. Evaluation of Aim Higher: Excellence
Challenge. Department for Education and Skills.
Reay, D. (1996) ‘Always knowing’ and ‘never being sure’:
familial and institutional habituses and HE choice. Journal
of Educational Policy. Vol. 13: 519 – 529.
Reay, D. David, M.E. & Ball, S. (2005) Degrees of Choice: Social
Class, Race and Gender in Higher Education. Trentham Books Limted.
Staffordshire.
Ross, A. (2005) Higher Education and Social Access: To the
Robbins Report. In Archer, L., Hutchins, M., & Ross A.
(2005) Higher Education and Social Class: Issues of Exclusion and Inclusion.
Routledge Farmer. London
Selwyn, N., Gorard, S. & Furlong, J. (2006). ‘Adult Learning in
a Digital Age’. Routledge. London.
- 24 -
EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870
TLRP (2008) Widening participation in higher education: A
commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research
Programme. http://www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/HEcomm.pdf
Thompson, J. & Bekhradnia, B. (2010) The Government’s proposals
for higher education funding and student finance – an analysis.
http://www.hepi.ac.uk/466/Reports.html
Willetts, D. (2011) Department for Business Innovation and
Skills. Available Online at:
www.bis.gov.uk/news/speeches/david-willetts-uuk-spring-
conference-2011
- 25 -