<\/p>\n
Many people imagine that an easy way to make educational opportunities<\/a> fairer for everyone is to expand the number of available places in schools, colleges and universities. The policy sounds like an uncontroversial \u201dwin-win\u201dfor all.<\/p>\n Disadvantaged students should gain access without taking places usually enjoyed by the privileged, so the system becomes fairer. Across the western world, for example, the recent massive growth in higher education is often defended on this basis. Many take comfort in thinking that educational expansion has reduced inequality<\/a> of educational opportunity between social classes.<\/p>\n Sadly, these hopes have proved to be groundless. As the French say: \u201cPlus \u00e7a change, plus c’est la m\u00eame chose.\u201d Indeed, far from equalizing opportunity, expansion can actually increase inequality<\/a>. That\u2019s not just a quirky outcome in a single country. It\u2019s true pretty much everywhere.<\/p>\n In a recent paper with my colleague Eyal Bar Haim, I analysed what happened across 24 European countries to children who were born between the 1950s and the 1970s. On average (across the 24 countries), educational expansion failed to reduce inequality of educational opportunity.<\/p>\n What explains this strange paradox? First, let\u2019s get one point absolutely straight. Usually, when the capacity of universities increases, access for students from poorer communities<\/a> does indeed improve.<\/p>\n However, the biggest beneficiaries are groups whose children are geared up for higher education<\/a> \u2013 the affluent classes. They are likely to have the financial resources to pay tuition fees and other costs, as well as to forgo employment for education.<\/p>\n They are also better endowed with the cultural resources that help a student to do well<\/a>, such as educated parents who can help children with schoolwork<\/a> and guide them towards better academic progress<\/a>. Educated parents can also serve as role models who shape children\u2019s ambitions and motivations.<\/p>\n \u201cEducationally, it is as if everyone is climbing a down escalator, but the poorer classes can never climb fast enough to catch up with the affluent.\u201d<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n There is one important exception to this rule.<\/p>\n Once the affluent classes have all the education they could possibly want \u2013 be it primary, secondary or higher education \u2013 then the poorer classes at last can expect to get a bigger slice of the pie.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But, as the well-off reach what Raftery and Hout call their \u201csaturation\u201d point, there is a cruel twist to the story. The pie begins to taste a little stale. Everyone is getting a fairer share, but employers, for example, become less impressed. Expansion of one education level<\/a> to the point where everyone gains good access results in its devaluation.<\/p>\n So, for example, once everyone gained primary education, it no longer offered much advantage in the job market. The same is increasingly becoming true of secondary education in developed countries and may eventually apply also to higher education.<\/p>\n It\u2019s as if everyone is climbing a down escalator, but the poorer classes can never climb fast enough to catch up with the affluent. Despite all the activity and movement, class stratification in education remains largely unchanged.<\/p>\n One further development, coinciding with educational expansion, also conspires against fairness. The growth of higher education<\/a> is often associated with an increasing distinction between upper-tier and lower-tier programs and institutions.<\/p>\n These days, many people can gain admission into an American two-year college, but very few are selected for Harvard. Prestigious universities maintain their place in the educational market by enhancing their distinction.<\/p>\n So they put in place more stringent selection procedures for admissions. The affluent are more likely to meet these criteria because, as I\u2019ve said, they have the resources to do so. Meanwhile, less-prestigious institutions have an economic interest in attracting as many students as possible, so they keep their selection criteria to a minimum.<\/p>\n Typically, the two tiers pull away from each other. Employers recognise the difference, selecting and rewarding graduates accordingly.<\/p>\n What, then, is an effective method for reducing inequality<\/a> in educational opportunity? We should recognise that inequality of educational opportunity is primarily a reflection of economic and cultural inequalities between families in the different social classes.<\/p>\n We cannot tackle the problem without taking measures to reduce class inequalities in economic and cultural resources.<\/p>\n \u00a0Shavit Y & M\u00fcller W (eds.) (1998), From school to work: A comparative study of educational qualifications and occupational destinations<\/a>,<\/strong>\u00a0Clarendon Press<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0Shavit Y & Blossfeld H-P (eds.) (1993), Persistent inequalities: A comparative study of educational attainment in thirteen countries<\/a>, Westview Press<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0Bar Haim E & Shavit Y (2013), Expansion and inequality of educational opportunity: A comparative study<\/a>, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 31<\/em><\/p>\nReferences<\/h4>\n