Mandelson's mobility masterplan?

Business secretary Lord Mandelson’s new vision for higher education, which includes proposals to make universities more socially inclusive, has sparked a furious outpouring of rage on newspaper comment sites.

I counted no less than 50 posts tacked onto the end of The Guardian’s news report and around 25 on The Times’ - the vast majority of which were vehemently against the proposals and indicate that the public does not really believe universities and colleges are the appropriate place for attempts at social and economic regeneration.

For those who missed Mandelson’s announcement, the main bones of contention were: 1) that he called for businesses to be more involved in the design and content of university courses and offer work placements to prepare students for employment, and 2) that students from deprived backgrounds should be given more consideration during the university admissions process regardless of the standard of their academic work (so that they can still study at high-calibre institutions and be given a better chance later on in life).

Responses ranged from the well thought out (“If you let employers design the courses you will end up with dry vocational courses that Mr Gradgrind [from Dickens’ damming critique of utilitarianism, Hard Times] would be proud of - designed to churn out the next generation of office drones”) to the downright angry (“It's a joke that the universities are in the hands of the business secretary, and for all the stuff about social mobility and student choice, what it’s saying is that employers must be the ones to determine what people should learn about. I can remember hearing the same crap from Sir Keith Joseph 25 years ago. It was nonsense then, and it's nonsense now.”).

A few others had to be removed from the Guardian site - presumably because they were too aggressive/controversial for publication.

Meanwhile, the Bristol Evening Post reported that Bristol University has firmly stated that it would not be changing its admissions policy. “Our bias is towards academic commitment and potential, not towards people from any particular kind of background. We have no interest in social engineering. The outstanding individuals we teach can be found in every part of society, and we're very active in seeking them out and encouraging them,” a university spokesman said.

Where do you stand? Is the business secretary right to attempt to use university admissions to boost social mobility?

By SARAH TOWNSEND

Academic aspirations

An analysis of figures on university admissions by the Tories indicates that double the numbers of young people from England’s wealthier neighbourhoods go to university than their counterparts in poorer parts of the country. This is indicative of Labour’s failure to promote social mobility, claims shadow universities minister, David Willetts, who says that the millions spent by the Government on widening university access have been ineffective.

But these statistics should be treated with caution. A closer inspection of the data indicates that the picture is not as clear cut as the Tories make out. There are some areas where, in spite of poverty and deprivation, many school leavers do make it onto degree courses. In Leicester, for example, one of Britain’s poorest neighbourhoods sends almost one in two of its children to university: in Spinney Hills, more than 41 percent of young people went to university – not bad in a neighbourhood where 83 percent of residents are considered ‘income deprived’.

It is interesting though to see the Conservatives talking positively about social mobility and widening access – hardly the traditional backbone of Tory policy. Willetts failed to set out any policies for rectifying the problem of educational inequality but it is significant that the party is at least speaking out about this problem. Watch this space, perhaps?

In the meantime, politicians - of whichever hue – might do well to bear in mind that increasing access to universities is not necessarily a panacea that’s appropriate for all promising youngsters, whichever neighbourhood they hail from. Many of today’s graduates are surfacing from academic life saddled withhuge debts and facing the prospect of a bitter battle to secure the few worthwhile graduate posts available in today’s decimated job market. Not much to aspire to.