NewsBreakingOnline

Universities peddling a traditional education to well-heeled students aren’t doing nearly as tough a job as those that nurture young people from less privileged backgrounds If Julian Fellowes, author of Downton Abbey, rather than Lord Browne had led the inquiry into the funding of higher education, we would have understood the upstairs-downstairs outcome sooner and perhaps even appreciated the witty interweaving of the life chances of the social classes in the English university setting. At the recent Guardian summit on higher education, the director of the Office of Fair Access, Sir Martin Harris, made nine references to our “elite universities” . But he appeared totally lost for words when it came to naming the other ones. The coalition’s spokesperson on access, Simon Hughes, did little better. Fifty years after the Robbins report, we have a largely unchanged concept of elite and mass provision. Its protagonists struggle to find some plausible account as to why Russell Group universities – with lamentable records of access and widening participation – should feel free to charge £9,000 in tuition fees , but those universities that have made real progress in drawing young people from poorer backgrounds into higher education must settle for £6,000. The fact is that there is still an assumption that a few are far better than the rest, and that they naturally command higher prices. A more balanced analysis of the costs of teaching and widening access soon reveals that it is more expensive to recruit, progress and secure achievement among students who come from under-represented sections of our society. What universities with strong records of widening access do is provide high quality teaching and learning which lifts candidates with weaker school exit qualifications and provides them with a platform for their higher education. Harris is right when he attributes the truly dreadful record of access at Oxford and Cambridge to the low levels of school achievement by those from poorer backgrounds, compared with the private school pupils who snap up 45% of the places on offer. But if these universities were as good as they claim to be, they should be able to lift the standards of candidates with lower school qualifications. This is called teaching. Oxford now proposes to let academically successful students from poor families – those who received free school meals – pay much lower fees . Many in the sector view this as a cynical publicity stunt. On the basis of Oxford’s track record over the last decade, the scheme is unlikely to produce recruits in double figures. A number sufficiently small, I suspect, to allow members of the Bullingdon club to have a whip round to ensure they can continue to receive free dinners without too much strain on the wallets of the elite. • Professor Stuart Bartholomew is principal of the Arts University College at Bournemouth Arts University College at Bournemouth Higher education Oxbridge and elitism Students Access to university University of Oxford guardian.co.uk