The Social Affairs Unit

Print Version • Website Home • Weblog Home

Use the buttons below to change the style and font size of our site.
Screen version     Print version:   
July 11, 2012

Whatever Happened to Social Mobility? Lincoln Allison blames university expansion for its decline

Posted by Lincoln Allison

Lincoln Allison - Emeritus Reader in Politics at the University of Warwick - argues that the expansion in the number of those going to university has done the opposite of what its advocates were hoping for.

Captain E. J. Smith of the Titanic was described as "the highest paid seaman on earth" and "a celebrity in his own right". He was born in 1850 in a terrace house in Hanley, Stoke, the son of a potter. Sir William Robertson (Bart.) was born in 1860; the son of a Lincolnshire farm labourer, he rose to become C.I.G.S. - Chief of the Imperial General Staff. Ramsay MacDonald, the illegitimate son of a farm labourer and a housemaid, was born in 1866 and twice served as Prime Minister. Edgar Wallace, born in 1875 to a single, destitute actress became an immensely wealthy author and died in Beverley Hills in 1932. H. G.Wells probably made marginally less money than Wallace, but accrued more literary prestige; he was born in 1866 and his father was a jobbing gardener in Kent.

The force of all this struck me as I stood in front of an audience of a hundred or so journalism students. The lecture was on the history of sports journalism and I was talking about Sir Neville Cardus who started work for the Manchester Guardian round about the time Captain Smith was going down with his ship. It sounded like a fairy story. He walked into the office of the editor, the great C. P. Scott? And he'd left school at twelve? He didn't have a degree? Or an N.C.T.J. qualification? No five-figure debt just to give himself the theoretical chance of a decent job? He quickly became the chief music correspondent and the chief cricket correspondent? No period as an intern? No connections?

Cardus was born in either 1888 or 1889 (probably the former) to a Manchester prostitute. He had a large slice of luck when he became the cricket professional at Shrewsbury School and got on well with the Head, Giles Alington, who made him his secretary and offered him, in effect, a personal education. Cardus would have gone to Eton with Alington if he hadn't been waiting for a decision on his call-up, so when he was turned down for the forces because of his short sight (he was a bowler rather than a batsman) he went to the "M.G."

I had known this story all my life, but it suddenly struck me how odd it must look to those struggling to get on in 2012, especially as they have been brought up on bizarre theories of progress which imply that their life-chances should be better than those of a nineteenth century prostitute's son.

All of the men I have mentioned were born in the second half of the nineteenth century. None of them had degrees, though Wells attended the Royal College of Science (the predecessor to Imperial College). He left when his scholarship was taken away after he failed an exam, which was still possible in those days.

My audience was in some respects exactly the opposite of these men because they will train into their twenties for a job which very few of them will be allowed to do. Many of them will have a picture of themselves in gown and mortarboard the day they graduated from "Uni" which they can look at when they come back from the Tesco checkout or from signing on. The alternative answer to the question posed by Neil Kinnock and then Joe Biden ("Why am I the first Kinnock/Biden to go to university?") is "Because the world used to be less ossified; it had fewer restrictive practices".

If social mobility were some kind of military project it seems to have ground to a halt on many fronts. It must always tend to close down because those who have naturally try to look after their own progeny and to protect what they've got. Nowhere does this seem more true than in contemporary acting: every time I look up some rising star I seem to find that they are the progeny of people in the business (Benedict Cumberbatch, Emilia Fox, James Fox, Daniel Radcliffe, Keira Knightley, etc.) or extremely expensively educated (Dominic West, Damien Lewis, Emily Blunt, Rosamund Pike). Acting is, perhaps, now like the Bar in that you have to be well-heeled or have connections to afford the training and survive the period of low pay and under-employment.

There have always been institutions such as the medieval church and the Royal Navy which were conduits of upward mobility. And periods in which economic growth and rapid technological progress mean that it's a far more general phenomenon than in more static periods. Even now some parts of the computer industry such as the games industry work like that with the first class degrees sitting alongside the self-taught and being judged on what they can do. But business has tended to ossify into a world of MBAs and "graduates from good universities".

Another thing the successes I quoted had in common was a complete absence of visible tattoos and piercings. (I'm guessing Captain Smith might have had a discreet anchor somewhere about his person as my grandfather did; he was born in 1880 and joined the Merchant Navy from a fishing background, receiving his Master's Certificate and his first command in 1910.) These are the trivial evidences of a serious condition: what I mean is that none of them defined themselves as inferior they were respectable and self-respecting people in a respectable and self-respecting society. There is a suspicion now that more people than ever disqualify themselves from any kind of worthwhile job.

The standard target for explanatory accusations for all this is the comprehensive education system and there surely is a case to answer. You send a lower class lad or lass along to a proper grammar school and he or she can become emancipated from their background and receive a good education. The comprehensive school struggles all the time with discipline, standards, relevance and so on and leaves most of its inmates in essence just as they were. The middle-class children usually do all right, of course; my three sons went to the local comp (not my idea) and they all have good degrees, jobs, houses and so on. Occasionally they exchange a "How are you doing mate?" in a local pub with various likeable characters who haven't got a job or, sometimes, are just out of gaol.

But my personal view is that university expansion has done the most damage. In my generation there were still the John Majors and Alan Sugars who needed no education and tens of thousands of excellent solicitors, bank managers and accountants who went straight from school into a training on the job. But all this has now gone as a glass ceiling has slid over, denying opportunities to non-graduates. Put simply, when 5% go to university equality of opportunity is much greater than when 50% go.

Lurking behind any explanation of what has happened is the concept of equality and the status it has in our society. In a democracy it is necessary that governments and aspiring governments talk the language of equality. (It would be refreshing if they didn't, if those on the hustings stood up and said, "My policies are designed to appeal to inferior people".) But nobody really believes in equality: genes and families conspire to make us unequal in every possible respect. There's an interesting exploration of residual inequality in L. P. Hartley's dystopian novel, Facial Justice, first published in 1960: one implication is that when you have eradicated all the inequalities you can eradicate, the inequality of sexual attractiveness looms as large as all the others put together.

Utilitarianism justifies many forms of provision and redistribution: for example, some redistributive taxation works not only because the money is more valuable to the poor than to the rich, but because up to a point it makes economies work better. But, I submit, there is no sound Utilitarian argument for a policy of 50% of an age-cohort going to university and it has very bad economic effects. If you really believed in equality then 100%, not 50% would have to go.

One of the better arguments the late Brian Barry used to develop was that official doctrines of equality generally have the ideological function of justifying inequalities. Thus Communism had special shops for its upper class, the idea of racial equality is used to justify "positive" discrimination, multicultural equality aids the repression of Muslim women, bankers and footballers with ridiculous incomes can mumble about equality of opportunity. And so on the list is too depressing to extend.

"The counsel of perfection is the enemy of the good". It is a hackneyed quotation and I apologise for re-issuing it. Actually, it's usually quoted as "The best is the enemy of the good", which is a translation of Voltaire's "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" (he was talking about the theatre). But I prefer the version Miss Keighley taught me at primary school because I have nothing against the best or even against perfection; it is incoherent and unattainable aspirations to high ideals which are the problem. Equality is the enemy of social mobility.

It could all be about to get much worse or better. As higher fees for universities kick in this year applications are plummeting. This could mean fewer people on the right side of the glass ceiling. But it could also mean the glass ceiling eroding. I am seeing job ads including one for the police which insist that there is no discrimination in favour of graduates. This would be my legislative solution, to add to the prohibitions against discrimination we should have one against preferring graduates. The medics and the consumer groups might kick up a bit, but it would be worth it.

Lincoln Allison retired from an academic career at the University of Warwick in 2004 - and again in 2008 - to become a freelance writer and broadcaster. He remains Emeritus Reader in Politics at the University of Warwick and Visiting Professor in sport and leisure at the University of Brighton. His latest book is My Father's Bookcase: A Version of the History of Ideas, also available as a Kindle download from and from

Comments Notice
This comments facility is the property of the Social Affairs Unit.
We reserve the right to edit, amend or remove comments for legal reasons, policy reasons or any other reasons we judge fit.

By posting comments here you accept and acknowledge the Social Affairs Unit's absolute and unfettered right to edit your comments as set out above.

In order to Improve social mobility, one has to acknowledge the diverse range of obstacles that hinder, stagnate or prevent it in the first place.

In order to achieve Community development, one has to acknowledge how Public Policy works progressively with such aspirations and how Fairness and Justice is either supportive of such positive goals or how it fails to help and support those to achieve such a worthy outcome in these cases. If we accept as fact that those who stem from disadvantaged and vulnerable backgrounds, or who living this lifestyle, cannot afford to be failed again, who are the enforcers of 'Fairness' contained in public policy that helps these groups to regain a feeling of worthyness, to 'get back on their feet' and to regain a fluency in employment once again?

Social Mobility is only simplified when we have standing before us one who is 'forward thinking' and without, what some may consider, complicated hurdles that require BIG solutions - or at least a system with a role as'problems solvers.' If there is not a will or intent to 'problem solve' amid the positive goals one seeks in their life, this can well encourage a psychological depression and thus slow down or stagnate progress in the life of these individuals. The question is whether Public Policy is sufficiently robust in favour of Fairness and Justice for those who have been disadvantaged by this lack of policy and 'person' support.

Community Development, even Social Enterprising, needs to be problem solvers too. Though, I have never met a Social Entrepreneur who is willing to 'problem solve' by challenging appalling failings in our communities that are being confronted by an individual or individuals. Even the CAB only goes so far. If we have to place our confidence and trust into MPs, who have No Legal or Statutory Obligation to represent any of us, then 'who is measuring this quality of representation? The answer is 'NO ONE!'

Finally, the Leveson Inquiry has an interesting and significant part to play in all of this as it has already revealed the extent of fixation by the press on celebrities and elites over the previous decade. But, What about the press giving 'ordinary people' a 'voice' in which to gain the attention of policy-makers and a national inclusion to a story that reflect failings of a appalling kind. I know this happens because I am someone who has tried for far too long, over many years, to grab the attention of the press, but they do not want to know - even given the BIG evidence I have. Such weakness in communications between teh press and 'ordinary people' can also stagnate ones social mobility as the unfairness and injustice contained in the story can act like a psychological burden resting on ones mind and shoulders... for a long time.

The debate relating to achieving upwards social mobility always seems to be a simplified one by journalists, politicians and the news media in general. I have understood that there are much more complicated reasons why social mobility is not easy. And, the collaboration between the press and politicians have everything to do with it - as it fails to connect with 'ordinary people' and thus giving them a 'voice.'

Posted by: Ivor Sutton at December 12, 2012 11:37 AM
Post a comment

Anti-spambot Turing code

Creative Commons License
Except where otherwise noted, this site is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

The Social Affairs Unit's weblog Privacy Statement