Vikki Boliver

The Grandparents Effect in Social Mobility: Evidence from British Birth Cohort Studies

Using data from three British birth cohort studies, we examine patterns of social mobility over three generations of family members. For both men and women, absolute mobility rates (i.e., total, upward, downward, and outflow mobility rates) in the partial parents-children mobility tables vary substantially by grandparents’ social class. In terms of relative mobility patterns, we find a statistically significant association between grandparents’ and grandchildren’s class positions, after parents’ social class is taken into account. The net grandparents-grandchildren association can be summarized by a single uniform association parameter. Net of parents’ social class, the odds of grandchildren entering the professional-managerial class rather than the unskilled manual class are at least two and a half times better if the grandparents were themselves in professional-managerial rather than unskilled manual-class positions. This grandparents effect in social mobility persists even when parents’ education, income, and wealth are taken into account.

Exploring Ethnic Inequalities in Admission to Russell Group Universities

This article analyses national university applications and admissions data to explore why ethnic minority applicants to Russell Group universities are less likely to receive offers of admission than comparably qualified white applicants. Contrary to received opinion, the greater tendency of ethnic minorities to choose highly numerically competitive degree subjects only partially accounts for their lower offer rates from Russell Group universities relative to white applicants with the same grades and ‘facilitating subjects’ at A-level. Moreover, ethnic inequalities in the chances of receiving an admissions offer from a Russell Group university are found to be greater in relation to courses where ethnic minorities make up a larger percentage of applicants. This latter finding raises the possibility that some admissions selectors at some Russell Group universities may be unfairly rejecting a proportion of their ethnic minority applicants in an attempt to achieve a more ethnically representative student body.

Do comprehensive schools reduce social mobility

This paper investigates the claim that the shift from a selective to a comprehensive school system had a deleterious effect on social mobility in Great Britain. Using data from the National Child Development Study, we compare the chances, for both class and income mobility, of those who attended different kinds of school. Where media attention focuses exclusively on the chances for upward mobility of those children from lowly origins who were (or would have been) judged worthy of selection into a grammar school, we offer more rounded analyses. We match respondents in a way that helps us to distinguish those inequalities in mobility chances that are due to differences between children from those due to differences between the schools they attended; we look at the effects of the school system on the mobility chances of all children, not merely those from less advantaged origins; and we compare comprehensive- and selective-system schools, not merely comprehensive and grammar schools. After matching, we find, first, that going to a grammar school rather than a comprehensive does not make low-origin children more likely to be upwardly mobile but it helps them move further if they are; second, that grammar schools do not benefit working-class children, in terms of class mobility, more than they benefit service-class children, but, in terms of income mobility, such schools benefit low-income children somewhat more than they benefit higher-income children - that benefit relating only to rather modest and limited movements within the income distribution. Finally, however, the selective system as a whole yields no mobility advantage of any kind to children from any particular origins: any assistance to low-origin children provided by grammar schools is cancelled out by the hindrance suffered by those who attended secondary moderns. Overall, our findings suggest that comprehensive schools were as good for mobility as the selective schools they replaced.

Are there distinctive clusters of higher and lower status universities in the UK

In 1992 the binary divide between universities and polytechnics was dismantled to create a nominally unitary system of higher education for the UK. Just a year later, the first UK university league table was published, and the year after that saw the formation of the Russell Group of self-proclaimed ‘leading’ universities. This paper asks whether there are distinctive clusters of higher and lower status universities in the UK, and, in particular, whether the Russell Group institutions can be said to constitute a distinctive elite tier. Cluster analysis of publicly available data on the research activity, teaching quality, economic resources, academic selectivity, and socioeconomic student mix of UK universities demonstrates that the former binary divide persists with Old (pre-1992) universities characterised by higher levels of research activity, greater wealth, more academically successful and socioeconomically advantaged student intakes, but similar levels of teaching quality, compared to New (post-1992) institutions. Among the Old universities, Oxford and Cambridge emerge as an elite tier, whereas the remaining 22 Russell Group universities appear to be undifferentiated from the majority of other Old universities. A division among the New universities is also evident, with around a quarter of New universities forming a distinctive lower tier.

Misplaced optimism : how higher education reproduces rather than reduces social inequality.

Many sociologists of education, including myself, have optimistically regarded educational expansion as a socially progressive development, one that promises to ameliorate socioeconomic inequalities by providing a ladder of opportunity for those from poorer backgrounds. During the second half of the twentieth century, sociologists looked to secondary education to boost social mobility as industrialised nations introduced free, universal and compulsory secondary schooling and progressively increased the minimum school-leaving age. Over this period, social class differences in rates of progression from primary to secondary education equalised in almost all industrialised countries (Breen et al. 2009), but social class disparities in levels of academic attainment at secondary level proved remarkably stubborn (Social Mobility Commission 2016). Towards the close of the twentieth century, sociologists turned their attention to higher education as rapid worldwide expansion facilitated mass enrolment in often highly stratified national higher education systems (Schofer and Meyer 2015). But despite absolute increases in higher education enrolment rates for all social groups across the industrialised West, socioeconomic differences in relative rates of progression to higher education have so far shown no sign of equalising

Which are the most suitable contextual indicators for use in widening participation to HE

Abstract Universities are increasingly making decisions about undergraduate admissions with reference to contextual indicators to identify whether an applicant comes from a disadvantaged family, neighbourhood or school environment. However, the indicators used are often chosen because they are readily available, without consideration of the quality of possible alternatives. A review of existing research literature to assess potential contextual indicators yielded around 120,000 reports, and 28 categories of indicators. Each indicator was assessed on the basis of existing evidence concerning its relevance, reach, availability, accuracy, reliability and completeness. Many possible indicators are not readily available, or accurate enough for use in practice. Indicators concerning individual circumstances are generally safer than area-based or school characteristics. There are some indicators for very small categories that can be used relatively un-problematically as long as the data can be made available at time of candidate selection. None of these is a solution to the more general issue of contextualised admissions. Having a disability or special educational need is clearly linked to lower attainment and participation but not for all categories. The most suitable general indicator is eligibility for free school meals (FSM), based on the number of years an applicant has been known to be FSM-eligible.

Social mobility: the politics, the reality, the alternative

Social mobility – something we all think is wonderful, or do we? Certainly all the UK’s major political parties appear to be all for it, expressing concern about clear evidence that mobility between social classes in Britain has levelled off, and more contested evidence that there is now less mobility up and down the income ladder than there used to be. But what exactly do politicians and academics mean when they talk about social mobility? And is a more socially mobile society as achievable or even as desirable a goal as many seem to think?

How Can Contextualised Admissions Widen Participation

As with many countries, the UK is attempting to allow wider participation in higher education for all social groups. UK universities are increasingly making decisions about undergraduate admissions with reference to contextual indicators which are intended to identify whether or not an applicant comes from a disadvantaged family, neighbourhood or school environment. However, the indicators used are often chosen because they are readily available, without much consideration of the possible alternatives. This chapter suggests which of the potential contextual indicators are worth pursuing and which are not of high enough quality or might lead to greater injustice. It is based on a large systematic review of prior international evidence, and individual-level student statistics for all students in England from 2006 onwards.

Exploring ethnic differences in the post-university destinations of Russell Group graduates:

The high aspirations of British ethnic minorities are evident in their high rates of participation in higher education. However, some ethnic minority groups remain strikingly under-represented in the most selective universities, and recent studies have shown that university graduates from ethnic minority backgrounds are less likely than otherwise comparable white graduates to gain employment in a higher salary, graduate-level job after their degree. This is likely to be due partly to the effects on graduate labour market outcomes of subject studied and university attended. However, no study to date has explored the graduate labour market outcomes for ethnic minority students in the UK’s most ‘prestigious’ universities, defined here as one of the 24 member institutions of the Russell Group. This article draws on data for recent graduates (2009–2013) from the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education survey compiled by the UK’s Higher Education Statistics Agency. We explore ethnic differences in attainment in five distinct graduate destinations (employment in professional occupations; further study; employment in non-professional occupations; inactivity; and unemployment), controlling for educational and social background. Our results suggest that ethnic minority graduates of Russell Group are less likely than their white counterparts to fare well in the labour market and are more likely to adopt a compensatory strategy of further educational investment, that is a strategy of entering postgraduate education to avoid short-term unemployment or underemployment in a non-graduate job. Our findings challenge a key assumption of the governments social mobility policy agenda that graduating with a good degree from a highly selective university enables ethnic minorities to realise aspirations for upward social mobility.

Book review : Natasha K Warikoo, 'The diversity bargain : and other dilemmas of race, admissions, and meritocracy at elite universities'.

In 2015 the number of black students admitted to Oxford University reached an all-time high of 37, or 1.5 per cent of the entering class. Although an improvement on the 20–30 black students admitted annually during the preceding decade, something closer to 100 black students would need to be admitted to Oxford each year to match the ethnic composition of young people nationally. Harvard University in the USA does rather better. African Americans made up 13.7 per cent of Harvard entrants in 2016, also a record high, and a figure that is only a few percentage points shy of the African American share of 18 year olds nationally. The figure for Brown University, another ‘elite’ US institution, was rather lower at 6.7 per cent in 2015. However, compared to Oxford, both Harvard and Brown are exceedingly ethnically diverse, with ethnic minority groups making up a little over half of all admitted students. In the USA, as in the UK, black students are less likely than their white peers to achieve the very high academic entry requirements set by elite universities. Key to achieving an ethnically diverse entering class at Harvard and Brown, therefore, is their use of affirmative action when deciding whom to admit. Natasha Warikoo’s book, The Diversity Bargain, explores the meanings and implications of ethnic diversity on campus, and of affirmative action as a means of achieving that diversity, from the perspective of students attending Harvard, Brown and Oxford. The study draws on interviews, conducted by Warikoo’s research assistants, with 76 US-resident students from the white, black, Hispanic and Asian ethnic groups at Harvard and Brown, and with 67 British-born white and ethnic minority students at Oxford. The first half of Warikoo’s book focuses on students at Harvard and Brown, and begins by elaborating the different ‘race frames’ students used when talking about ethnic diversity on campus. The vast majority of students, regardless of ethnicity, largely employed what Warikoo calls a ‘diversity frame’, involving explicit recognition of ethnic and racial differences on campus and a positive regard for diversity as enriching the college experience. Half of the white and Asian students (but notably none of the black or Hispanic students) also invoked a ‘colour-blindness’ frame at times, rejecting the idea that ethnic differences are relevant or noticed, or talking about their own efforts to avoid seeing or responding to difference. Around half of all black and Hispanic students (but 692926 SOC0010.1177/0038038517692926SociologyBook Review book-review2017