Social Inclusion and Higher Education

Basit, Tehmina N, Tomlinson, Sally

• Publisher: Policy Press
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781447321644
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Educational Policy

This book is about the experiences of students in institutions of higher education from 'non-traditional' backgrounds. The expansion of Higher Education world-wide shows no signs of slowing down and there is already a large literature on who has access to higher education and to qualifications that offer higher life-time incomes and status. However to date there has been minimal focus on what happens to the students once they are in the institutions and the inequalities that they face. This book aims to fill this gap in the literature. The chapters demonstrate that the students and their families are findingways of acquiring forms of capital that encourage and sustain their participation in higher education. Contributions from the UK, the USA and Australia reveal that the issues surrounding the inclusion of 'non-traditional' students are broadly similar in different countries. It should be read by all those leading, managing, or teaching in, institutions of higher education and all students or intending students whatever their background.

Part One

Issues in social inclusion

ONE

Capitals, ethnicity and higher education

Tariq Modood

Introduction

Savage, Warde and Devine (2004) argue that if we accept the shift in definition of class as macro-relationships such as exploitation to the possession of resources by individual actors – as many sociologists have done – then an argument can be made for the importance of concepts like cultural capital. They argue: ‘If social class is a matter of categories of people accumulating similar volumes and types of resources, and investing them in promoting their own and their children’s life chances, the metaphor of capital is helpful’ (2004, p 7). I find this conception of social class as a likelihood of members achieving certain socio-economic goals (eg sustaining a position in or entering certain kinds of occupations) helpful. For the idea of class as life chances means that the definition of a class system depends not just on the existence of a hierarchy of classes, but on the probabilities of movement between classes. I also find the metaphorical extension of the idea of capital beyond the financial helpful. Yet, I want to argue here that both class and a Bourdieuian concept of cultural capital have certain important limitations in that neither of them is able to deal sociologically with some contemporary ethnic phenomena in relation to resources, capital and the likelihood of mobility.

This chapter arises in the context where, among sociologists, class is seen to be a much more substantial concept than ethnicity (see eg Fenton, 1999, 2003); where the influence of Bourdieu in the sociology of education is immense (Reay, 2004) and is believed to be transferable to ethnicity studies (May, 1999); and where the concept of cultural capital is enjoying a currency and an expectancy among those who believe that cultural pursuits have something to contribute to the amelioration of social exclusion. I want to challenge these positions by focusing on a major empirical question: why are non-white minority ethnic groups in Britain so over-represented in applications to and among students in higher education? The fact that they are is so counter-intuitive that while British sociologists have developed several lines of inquiry to explain the scholastic underachievement of non-whites (a phenomenon that has failed to occur, except in pockets), there are no theories to explain the phenomenon that has occurred. Initially, one might expect that this phenomenon might be most amenable to a cultural capital class analysis, given that it is about the acquisition of credentials for upward mobility in a stratified society and, after all, ethnicity is something to do with ‘culture’. I shall show that this expectation cannot be fulfilled. Instead, I shall suggest, a version of or a derivation of the idea of social capital is more promising. The promise can be redeemed by studying some American sociology in which the Bourdieuian distinction between cultural capital, which is acquired through the family, and social capital as benefits mediated through social relations is not maintained; indeed, the former is swallowed up within the latter. An older influence on my thinking comes from an approach in British anthropology that was sometimes called ‘ethnicity as a resource’ (eg Wallman, 1979; Werbner, 1990a, 1990b; Ballard, 1996), although its interest was more in employment, especially self-employment.

In addition to the sociological puzzle, I am also motivated by a practical concern. Broadly put: how to achieve a society in Britain that is not racially stratified but in which recent non-white migrants and their progeny can come to have a genuine sense of belonging to Britain without having to disavow their ‘ethnic’ identities. My understanding of this is that it requires the possibility of significant intergenerational social mobility in which higher education has a critical role. A more specific concern (which informs the project mentioned in note 1) is about Pakistani young men. For, while Pakistani young men are not demographically under-represented in higher education and are more likely to go to university than their white peers, they are also over-represented among those with no or low qualifications and there are some indications that this latter group are not making, perhaps even not trying to make, the progress that their female peers exhibit.

The chapter is in three parts. First, I shall make the empirical case about the scale and character of minority ethnic representation in higher education. Second, I shall refer to some explanations for why this is the case. Here I will offer some answers that I believe to be true, some based on evidence and some speculative. Finally, I shall consider whether the concepts of cultural and social capital are of any assistance in organising and improving some aspects of what I believe are the answers. My interest is not in evaluating social capital theory per se, but in answering my earlier question.

Minority ethnic groups in higher education¹

Contrary to the claims of most commentators at the time, when admissions to higher education began to be ‘ethnically monitored’ in 1990, they did not reveal an under-representation of minority ethnic groups (Modood, 1993). Moreover, all minority groups, with the possible exception of Caribbeans, have increased their share of admissions since then. Minority ethnic groups as a whole are much more successful in achieving university entry than their white peers. There are, however, important differences among and within groups.

Table 1.1: Higher education entrants (Home [UK] acceptances only), 2009

	%	Male–Female%
White	80.0	44–56
Black African	4.3	44–55
Black Caribbean	1.6	36–64
Black Other	0.3	39–61
Indian	3.6	49–51
Pakistani	2.7	49–51
Bangladeshi	1.0	49–51
Chinese	0.8	49–51
Asian Other	1.5	49–51
Mixed – White and Asian	1.0	47–53
Mixed – White and Black African	0.4	45–55
Mixed – White and Black Caribbean	0.9	38–62
Mixed Other	0.9	39–61
Other	1.0	45–55

Source: UCAS. Available at: http://www.ucas.com/figures/index.html

Note: Cases where ethnic origin was unknown are excluded.

Table 1.1 shows that by 2008, non-whites constituted 20% of higher education places offered to new students, this being almost double their share of the population. The national advantage established by women is also evident, although not all groups reflect it to the same degree. South Asian women are only slightly more likely to be offered a place. Older data show that while Indian women achieved parity with Indian men at the end of the 1990s, Pakistani women were eight percentage points behind male peers in 1997, and Bangladeshi women 12 percentage points behind (Modood, 2004, p 89), so the view that Asian Muslim girls are not allowed by their parents to be educated to the same level as boys is now quite outdated. The most significant gender gap is that Caribbean men continue to be a long way behind their female peers, and this gender gap is continuing; in 1997, the male–female ratio was 40–60 and had become in 36–64 in 2009. The 1990s was a period of considerable expansion in student places in higher education and much of it was accounted for by non-whites. While this partly reflected demographics, the trend analysis in Table 1.2 shows that between 1994 and 1999, at a time when the number of entrants to higher education rose by more than 20%, most minority groups increased by 40–85% (the Black Caribbean numbers, though, grew by just under 20%). At the end of the 1990s, the government set itself the target of getting 50% of young people into higher education by the age of 30. Table 1.3 shows the state of play by ethnicity. By the year 2001/02, the likelihood of white students entering higher education was only 38%, which was not only much lower than that of minority ethnic students taken together, but also lower than every single minority ethnic group. Sometimes it was not much lower (eg when compared with Bangladeshis and Black Caribbeans) and sometimes it was nearly half as low (eg when compared with Black Africans and Indians).² So we have the extraordinary situation in Britain where white people are far from achieving the government target, but all the minority groups except two have very nearly achieved it or greatly exceeded it (Connor et al., 2004, pp 43, 150). Later data for young people show that the minority advantage in participation is increasing (Broecke and Hamad, 2008).

There are also important differences within institutions and subjects. While some minority ethnic groups are very well represented in competitive subjects, they are (with the exception of the Chinese) still generally more likely to be in the less prestigious, less well-resourced post-1992 universities. This is especially true of Caribbeans, who are also more likely to be mature students (more than half of Caribbean women students are over 25 years old) and part-time students – all factors that have implications for career prospects. A level scores,³ subject preferences, preference for local institutions and type of school or college attended are all factors that explain the concentration of minority ethnic groups (again with the exception of the Chinese) in the new universities. Nevertheless, one analysis shows that, even accounting for these factors, there is a clear institutional effect (Shiner and Modood, 2002). Comparing similarly qualified candidates and controlling for factors such as public schools, gender and so on, new (post-1992) universities respond more positively than old universities to non-white applicants and, within this sector, Chinese, Bangladeshi and Indian candidates appear to be favoured over whites. When applying to old universities, however, there is strong evidence that minority candidates face an ethnic penalty. Institutions within this sector are most likely to select white and, to a lesser extent, Chinese candidates from among a group of similarly qualified applicants.⁴ Given the much larger proportion of applications from minority ethnic groups, although minority ethnic applicants may be admitted to old universities in reasonable numbers, they generally have to perform better than do their white peers in order to secure a place. As the type of institution from which you graduate can make a big difference to your career prospects, this bias makes older universities complicit in an institutional discrimination that hinders and slows down the dismantling of ethnic stratification.⁵

Table 1.2: Percentages of home-accepted applicants to degree courses

Ethnic origin	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	% change 1994–99
White	85.37	84.27	82.59	81.17	79.64	79.3	12.64
Black Caribbean	0.95	0.97	0.97	0.99	0.95	0.94	19.88
Black African	1.31	1.48	1.55	1.54	1.45	1.51	40.41
Indian	3.23	3.33	3.6	3.67	3.92	4.13	55.01
Pakistani	1.58	1.77	2	1.98	2.11	2.17	66.39
Bangladeshi	0.43	0.52	0.57	0.55	0.6	0.66	85.03
Chinese	0.76	0.81	0.88	0.88	0.9	0.94	50.89
Total (n)	228,685	240,710	246,503	276,503	272,340	277,340

Source: UCAS Statistical Bulletin on Widening Participation (2000: 13, Table 5.2).

Table 1.3: Higher Education Initial Participation Rates (HEIPRs), England, full time and part time, 2001/02

Ethnic group	Male	Female	All
White	34	41	38
All minority ethnic groups	55	58	56
Black Caribbean	36	52	45
Black African	71	75	73
Black Other	56	72	64
Indian	70	72	71
Pakistani	54	44	49
Bangladeshi	43	33	39
Chinese	47	50	49
Asian Other	74	94	83
Mixed ethnic	35	44	40
All (known ethnicity)	37	43	40

Source: Connor et al. (2004).

Some possible causes

Class

For most British sociologists, class is the best explanation of educational outcomes. For example, Goldthorpe’s theory of social mobility holds that:

individuals of differing class origins will differ in the use they make of available educational opportunities. Those from more advantaged class backgrounds, pursuing strategies from above, will exploit such opportunities more fully than will those from less advantaged backgrounds, pursuing strategies from below – and with the backing of superior resources. (Goldthorpe, 2003; see also Goldthorpe, 2000)

However one defines and operationalises it, class is important; but it may be far from the whole story. Some of the other factors may be to do with proximity to good schools or aspects of individual biographies, including the interests and efforts of one’s parents. In the case of minority ethnic groups, there will be factors distinctive to particular groups or to the condition of belonging to a minority ethnic group in Britain today, such as racialised exclusion. Some of these distinctive factors will work to reinforce or deepen class effects; others to lessen them. Or, to put it another way, some of these factors will work to worsen the socio-economic position of a minority ethnic group relative to the rest of society; other factors may have the opposite effect. For example, a study of young people that systematically controlled for social class attributes found that the likelihood of achieving 5 GCSEs at A*–C for Pakistanis and Indians (analysed separately) was 10% higher than their white social class peers; for Black Caribbeans it was 8% less (Bradley and Taylor, 2004). Ethnic group membership, then, can mitigate or exacerbate class disadvantage; and this may, of course, change with the circumstances.

Again, while it is generally true that the minority ethnic groups with the largest proportions in higher education, especially in pre-1992 universities, have a more middle-class profile than other minority ethnic groups, it is not invariant; Pakistanis have a worse occupational, earnings and household profile than Caribbeans, but a larger proportion in higher education. Moreover, the undiluted class model is no help in explaining why minority ethnic groups (all of whom have or till recently had a [much] worse cla...