Punishing private school pupils won’t make life fair
ONE set of my grandparents fled the Ukrainian pogroms early last century to build a life in Toronto, starting with nothing. The other were middle-class English who, through a series of trials, had fallen into what might be called ‘reduced circumstances’.
Their children – my parents – were curious, ambitious and aspirational. They forged successful careers with no banks of Mum and Dad to dip into or sophisticated social networks to give them a helping hand. They gave their children, myself included, the best upbringing they could – private schooling, university education and contacts who have helped us along the way. Although, unfortunately, still no bank of Mum and Dad.
I’ve always recognised I had these advantages at the start of my working life. But reading a new book, The Class Ceiling, Why It Pays To Be Privileged, by sociologists Sam Friedman and Daniel Laurison, I appreciate I also had other benefits I was unaware of.
T h e s e we r e those less acknowledged nuances that also affect social mobility: the cultural references you can lob casually into conversation, knowing how to navigate the social minefield of dress-down style and, crucially, the shared sense of humour that makes such a difference when it comes down to, not getting a job, but fitting in. (Anyone who thinks class attitudes don’t matter any more clearly hasn’t been following the furore over Mrs Brown’s Boys winning Best Comedy at the National Television Awards instead of Fleabag.)
So of course we should support the need to increase the number of pupils in our leading universities who don’t have the same advantages in their early life.
Ideally universities should be social melting pots – everyone learning from and about each other as much as how to interpret Beowulf.
A new initiative by the Office for Students has resulted in Oxford and Cambridge pledging to double their intake from what they call ‘ under- represented’ groups. It sounds good. Yes. But not entirely.
To achieve this end, they now discriminate against the privilege of private education. Denying pupils places on the grounds of where they were educated – even if many of their parents have worked their socks off to get them there – is not the answer. It’s a blunt axe that only creates a different set of problems. Why not consider adapting the interview process instead? Or look at other criteria for acceptance that more effectively embraces all, rather than discriminates against some?
If we assume that upward social mobility is desirable – indeed the whole point of all this debate – then why on earth should we penalise those who have achieved it? I’ve benefited from the hard graft my grandparents and parents put i n. I certainly don’t want my child or future grandchildren to be deprived of opportunities because of it.