The Sutton Trust report on achievement and social advantage seeks to examine the critical role of higher education in shaping social mobility and addressing entrenched socio-economic inequalities. By analysing the pathways of disadvantaged students into higher education and their subsequent labour market outcomes, the report aims to provide an evidence-based understanding of how universities contribute—or fail to contribute—to equalising opportunities across socio-economic groups.
The report’s purpose is twofold: first, to highlight the disparities in access to and success within higher education for students from different backgrounds, and second, to identify the institutions, subjects, and practices that are most effective in fostering social mobility. By doing so, it challenges prevailing assumptions about academic merit and institutional prestige, offering a nuanced perspective on how structural inequalities in education perpetuate privilege.
Ultimately, the report is a call to action for policymakers, educators, and universities to rethink their approach to access and attainment. It advocates for targeted interventions that not only widen participation for under-represented groups, but also ensure that these students achieve outcomes on par with their more advantaged peers. In doing so, the report underscores the potential of higher education as a driver of transformative social change, while also pointing to the work that remains to create a genuinely equitable system.
There is, however, another viewpoint from which to discuss this issue.
In an uninhibited employment market supposedly based on merit—where talent, intelligence, and capability are the primary determinants of success—people from advantaged backgrounds still often retain their socio-economic position. This is because structural advantages, rather than inherent ability alone, significantly influence outcomes. Even when merit is claimed to be the benchmark, its application is often entangled with existing social inequalities. Here’s why:
Why Do People from Advantaged Backgrounds Retain Their Position?
Unequal Starting Points
- Access to Enrichment Opportunities: Advantaged individuals benefit from better schooling, extracurricular activities, and private tutoring, which enhance their perceived “merit.”
- Early Development: Exposure to intellectually stimulating environments at a young age gives them a developmental head start, often mistaken for natural talent.
Bias in the Definition of Merit
- Cultural Bias in Meritocracy: Traits associated with privileged groups, such as polished communication or familiarity with elite culture, are often equated with intelligence or capability.
- Credentialism: Emphasis on prestigious qualifications as proxies for talent reinforces the status quo, as advantaged individuals are more likely to attend elite institutions.
Social Capital and Networking
- Who You Know: Advantaged individuals leverage family and professional networks to access high-paying jobs, bypassing competitive recruitment processes.
- Hidden Gatekeeping: Personal recommendations and “fit” assessments favour those from similar socio-economic or cultural backgrounds.
Economic Safety Nets
- Risk-Taking Without Consequence: Wealthier individuals can take career risks (such as unpaid internships or entrepreneurial ventures) without jeopardising their basic needs, giving them more opportunities to succeed.
- Recovery from Setbacks: Failures are less likely to lead to lasting downward mobility because financial and social resources act as a buffer.
Imperfect Meritocracy in Employment
- Unconscious Bias: Employers may favour candidates from prestigious universities or certain accents and demeanours, often correlating with privileged backgrounds.
- Access to Skills: Privileged individuals are more likely to acquire “marketable” skills, such as foreign languages or technological proficiency, due to their resources.
Is Merit Applied Independently of Social Class in University Selection?
Structural Barriers to Entry
- Educational Inequalities: Disadvantaged students often attend underfunded schools with fewer resources, resulting in lower grades and fewer opportunities to demonstrate their potential.
- Access to Test Preparation: Families with means invest in exam preparation, enhancing results even for students with average ability.
- Contextual Admissions: Some universities attempt to account for these disparities through contextual offers, but the practice is not uniformly applied and remains contentious.
Influence of Private Education
- Over-Representation: Private school students, who constitute a small fraction of the population, dominate admissions at top universities due to their access to superior resources, smaller class sizes, and tailored application support.
- Strategic Guidance: Private schools have deep expertise in navigating the admissions process, from personal statements to interview preparation, skewing outcomes in favour of wealthier families.
Limited Recognition of Non-Traditional Merit
- Narrow Definitions of Excellence: University selection processes often favour measurable achievements (grades, test scores) over less quantifiable qualities like resilience or creativity, disadvantaging those who excel despite challenging circumstances.
- Reluctance to Devalue Traditional Measures: Elite institutions are hesitant to downplay academic metrics, fearing reputational damage or accusations of lowering standards.
Legacy and Influence
- Alumni Privilege: At some universities, particularly in the United States but also in the UK to a lesser extent, legacy admissions (preferences for children of alumni) further entrench privilege.
- Donor Influence: Wealthy families may indirectly shape admissions policies or receive preferential treatment through financial contributions.
Even in a hypothetical meritocratic environment, systemic advantages enjoyed by people from wealthier backgrounds—better preparation, networking, and resilience against failure—ensure that they are disproportionately represented in high-status positions. In university selection, merit is not applied independently of social class. Structural barriers, uneven opportunities, and bias in evaluating potential mean that social mobility remains constrained.
A truly equitable system would require broad reforms, such as more significant contextual admissions policies, equal access to high-quality education, and greater accountability in employment practices to reduce the impact of privilege.
Many individuals from advantaged backgrounds often navigate the academic process with minimal challenge or effort, coasting on a sense of entitlement fostered by their privilege. This lack of pressure to excel or innovate can lead to the maintenance of the status quo rather than the development of new ideas or approaches. Such individuals are frequently prioritised in the education system due to bourgeois assumptions about cultural fit and inherited notions of capability, which are deeply counterproductive to a truly merit-based approach to academic achievement.
Rather than focusing solely on widening access, addressing inequality in higher education requires a shift towards narrowing access. This involves identifying and removing those who leverage their social privilege to secure opportunities without demonstrating the capacity or drive to contribute meaningfully to intellectual and societal advancement. Instead, efforts should prioritise individuals, including many from working-class backgrounds, who demonstrate exceptional critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving abilities but are often overlooked due to systemic biases.
The potential of working-class students to out-think and outperform their more entitled middle-class peers is substantial, but remains underutilised. By dismantling entrenched barriers that favour cultural conformity and inherited advantage, higher education institutions can cultivate a truly meritocratic environment, one that fosters genuine innovation and progress rather than perpetuating mediocrity and complacency among the privileged.