The report falls short

Admissions reform is not enough to widen participation, say Louise Archer and Alistair Ross

Last week's select committee report on higher education access focused on the wrong end of the problem. Recommendations were made from the perspective of admission systems. It is true that these need attention because universities reproduce social division and exclusion, admitting just 17 per cent of students from working-class backgrounds.

Such gross inequity makes the defence of "quality" unacceptable, unless one believes that most of the excluded are irrevocably incapable of higher education. Attempts to increase working-class participation are thus necessary and right, but these must begin with the views of non-participants, not simply the mechanisms of the gatekeepers.

Our research exploring the perceptions of those in social classes C2, D and E - the people who would fill the extra places created by the government's 50 per cent participation target - suggests that there is no great demand for access among non-participants.

We commissioned a national MORI survey of 1,8 adults, aged 16-30. While up to 23 per cent of C1 respondents said they "planned" to go to university and 20 per cent said they "might go", 57 per cent were not thinking of higher education as an option. These figures appeared bleaker for C2 respondents, and were most extreme for D and E respondents, of whom only 10 per cent had plans to go, 18 per cent said they "might" go and 72 per cent said they would not go.

Focus groups conducted with 120 "non-participants" revealed that there is no single reason for non-participation. Working-class "cultures of non-participation" did not reflect a lack of aspiration or information. Reasons for non-participation were located within multiple structures of inequality, with higher education largely viewed as a risky, unknown option offering uncertain returns.

Many respondents valued advice and encouragement from family and friends when making decisions about education, but distrusted and felt alienated from official sources of information, including careers services. For these young people, "top-down" messages do not work.

Most respondents acknowledged the potential benefits of university if it led to success, but these were juxtaposed with the high social, economic and personal costs of participation and uncertain outcomes. Previous educational experiences meant that "failure" seemed a likely prospect, but respondents also worried that the vocational/access qualifications, which would provide their routes into higher education, might be a source of disadvantage.

Respondents were aware of a hierarchy of universities and felt participation to be riskier because their choices were often limited to local, post-1992 institutions. It was widely believed that widened participation had resulted in an increasingly competitive graduate job market in which working-class graduates from these institutions would lose out. It was also broadly recognised that the "best" universities were dominated by white, middle-class cultures and were therefore "not for us".

It is unlikely that changes to admissions systems that retain unproblematised notions of "quality" and defend the hierarchy can foster feelings of entitlement and belonging among working-class groups.

Finance is a key barrier to participation. Fear of debt, resistance to loan repayment, the need to earn money and other financial responsibilities were cited as reasons for not participating.

Non-participation and "sticking to what you know" appeared to be rational, pragmatic responses to disadvantage and the huge personal, social and economic costs that participation would entail. Working-class students who had decided to risk participation reported struggling to remain on course.

The views of working-class non-participants suggest important areas that have been neglected by the report. Increasing participation means asking those with most to lose to meet high costs and take the biggest risks. A determined assault on access needs to start by minimising these economic and social risks. We need partnerships linking across the whole educational system; simplified, increased student support; and changes to institutional funding and academic cultures, in order to support working-class learners and to facilitate a sense of entitlement.

Institutions require additional funds to support working-class students, not as an inducement, but to reflect the costs of helping students achieve their intellectual potential.

Louise Archer is a research fellow and Alistair Ross is director of the Institute for Policy Studies in Education, University of North London.