Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

Britain's new class war

By Hasan Suroor

Some universities in Britain have been bending over backwards to deliver "social justice", predictably provoking a furious reaction from those who stand to lose their privileges.

AS YET, it is nothing compared to the famous Mandal reservations row that rocked India during the Janata rule, but there is no mistaking the tone of the debate, or the passion behind the arguments on both sides — one seeking a more pro-active policy to help the socially and economically disadvantaged groups and the other arguing against any attempt at "social engineering".

These past few weeks in Britain, political leaders, academics, students, parents and, inevitably, the media have been furiously engaged in resolving that old conundrum with which the Third World is all too familiar: how to deliver social justice without disturbing the status quo too much. Or, to put it more bluntly, without hurting the privileged class. The controversy has been triggered by the Government's proposal to peg university fee and funding to their intake of students from the poorer background as part of New Labour's policy to expand access to higher education and also make it more egalitarian.

The aim is to break the stranglehold of boys and girls from expensive private schools over Oxbridge colleges and other prestigious institutions. Unlike in India, where for all the snobbery that prevails in places such as St. Stephen's and Presidency College, there is still a fair chance for really bright students to get a place irrespective of their economic background, Britain's "ivy league" circuit runs a rigid class system.

Although both Oxford and Cambridge have been trying in recent years to expand their "catchment" areas, they are still very much a closed shop for children from state schools. Until a few years ago, the situation was so bad that the state school products did not even bother to apply to the more highbrow universities to avoid the embarrassment of being refused. Even now, there is a virtual monopoly of the upper classes over higher education. This is evident from the fact that while private schools contribute only 20 per cent of the prospective undergraduates, their alumni hog 40 per cent of the seats in the best universities.

Yet, research has shown that, academically, state students have greater potential than the smooth-talking and better-coached kids from fashionable schools. According to one research, the latter have an eight per cent lower chance of obtaining a first or good second in university than a student from a state school with the same level of competence at the time of admission. This despite the fact that many of the state schools are of "bog standards", in the rather rude words of the Prime Minister, Tony Blair's chief spin master, Alastair Campbell.

It was the "Laura Spence" case three years ago that first brought the issue on the political agenda. Laura Spence, who came from a state school, was refused a place in Oxford despite her outstanding academic record and she was later accepted by Harvard. A huge controversy ensued after the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown — one of the few chips of the Old Labour block still influential in New Labour — publicly attacked Oxford for its class bias. Three years later, he has put his money where his mouth is. While allowing universities to raise their tuition fee, which would also result in an increase in indirect state funding, he has prevailed upon the Government to appoint an "access regulator" to ensure that they also admit more students from poorer backgrounds even it means covert positive discrimination.

The pull of money — or the threat of losing it — makes even the most entrenched class system think again. So, lately, some universities have been bending over backwards to deliver "social justice", predictably provoking a furious reaction from those who stand to lose their privileges. A class war, aided and abetted by the right-wing press, has broken out as the alleged class bias threatens to turn in favour of the underprivileged.

In the summer of 2000, it was Laura Spence who became the public face of the pro-rich bias in British higher education. Three years on it is Rudi Singh who is being paraded as the victim of a new allegedly anti-rich bias. Singh, a pupil from a leading private school, was turned down by Bristol University despite his impressive credentials and, in an uncanny replay of the Spence episode, was grabbed by a better university — Cambridge, this time. The Singh case has brought a rash of complaints from other privately-educated students who were turned down by Bristol University, and in an unprecedented move heads of Britain's 400-odd independent schools, including Eton and Harrow, have announced a boycott of Bristol University and would tell their students not to apply to it.

After Oxford and Cambridge, Bristol is among the more elitist of British Universities (Imran Khan's wife, Jemima Goldsmith, attended it) and, it is claimed, there is always one Cabinet Minister's child on the campus. Its current crop includes Mr. Blair's son, Euan. It is said about Bristol that its students are so far removed from the real world that they are more likely to vote in favour of retaining fox-hunting than against high tuition fees.

The University is now trying to acquire a more egalitarian image, and has innovated its admission system which is seen to be tilted in favour of the underprivileged. Applicants are now considered as much for their school-leaving grades as for their potential, so that if two applicants — one each from private and state school — are competing for the same seat and have the same grades, the state student is more likely to find a place if he is seen to have more potential and has a record better than the average record of his school.

Other universities are expected to follow suit, and under a new plan applicants would be asked to disclose their parents' income and educational background — a move which has been angrily denounced. Critics say this is "social engineering" at the cost of "merit". It is also pointed out that not all parents who send their children to private schools are themselves rich or come from privileged backgrounds. Often, they spend their life-savings to make sure that their children get the best of school education. Some children get to go to a private school on Government scholarship, and it would be unfair to deny them a place in a good university simply because they were privately educated.

Newspapers have been flooded with letters from indignant parents, retired headmasters and well-heeled dons protesting what they believe amounts to "reverse" discrimination. Tips are being offered on how to beat the new, allegedly pro-poor, system and tabloids are full of sob stories about "bright" private school children being discriminated against in the name of social justice. They have been encouraged by Mr. Blair's cryptical please-all statement that merit alone should be the basis for access to higher education. (Mr. Blair himself has bought into the best of both worlds by sending his children to a Church school and then arranging private tuitions for them.)

The row is widely seen as an over-reaction by a middle-class, frightened at the prospect of more competition. The fact is that despite all the "social engineering," all major universities, including Bristol, are way behind the Government target of what their intake should be from state schools. But at the same time, there is a view that the Government is looking for shortcuts to social justice. The answer to the present skewed system is not quotas or lowering of admission standards but an improvement in the standards of state schools which are currently so pathetic that a bright student is more an exception. To use the jargon of the modern consumer industry, it would be easier to show and fight class bias if the "product" on offer is sufficiently "competitive".

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• The Assam attacks
• A dictator's resurrection
• Will digging resolve the problem?
• Britain's new class war
• Stay home, Mr. Prime Minister
• A very different war
• Discontinue MPLADS
• Are the Sikhs Hindus?
• Attack on Iraq
• Why these bandhs?
• Not cricket

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu