REPRESENTATIONS AND REALISMS: SOCIAL CLASS IN HIGHER EDUCATION ‘CAN WIDENING PARTICIPATION...

EDUC 2351 – Summative Assignment Two - Student – Z0906870

REPRESENTATIONS AND REALISMS:

SOCIAL CLASS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

‘CAN WIDENING PARTICIPATION OVERCOME CULTURAL

HEGEMONY’?

- 1 -


CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE Page

BACKGROUND 03

INTRODUCTION 04

1. FINANCIAL BARRIERS 05

2. CULTURAL BARRIERS 08

CONCLUSION 13

- 2 -


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 -

http://www.bis.gov.uk/


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -

http://www.bis.gov.uk/


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/s/10-1208es-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report-summary.pdf



http://www.hepi.ac.uk/466-1117/Widening-Participation-and-Fair-Access-An-Overview-of-the-Evidence.html

http://www.hepi.ac.uk/466-1117/Widening-Participation-and-Fair-Access-An-Overview-of-the-Evidence.html


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&section=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 -



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 -


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.


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 -

http://www.bis.gov.uk/news/speeches/david-willetts-uuk-spring-conference-2011

http://www.bis.gov.uk/news/speeches/david-willetts-uuk-spring-conference-2011


http://www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/HEcomm.pdf

REPRESENTATIONS AND REALISMS: SOCIAL CLASS IN HIGHER EDUCATION ‘CAN WIDENING PARTICIPATION...

Documents

Transcript of REPRESENTATIONS AND REALISMS: SOCIAL CLASS IN HIGHER EDUCATION ‘CAN WIDENING PARTICIPATION...