‘Social mobility’ — What is it and why isn’t enough being done in education?
Recently, the concept of ‘social mobility’ has gained increasing attention in academic, business and political settings. As a result, GotDis thought it would be a good idea to give you an overview of social mobility — the definition, the types and the influences.
Social mobility is typically defined as the movement of individuals, families, households, or other categories of people within or between social strata in a society. In other words, social mobility refers to the link between our starting point in life, and where we end up. When our starting point strongly determines where we end up, mobility is low. But if people from all starting points and backgrounds have a good chance of achieving any outcome, then mobility is high.
According to Nunn et al. at The University of Huddersfield, social mobility can be defined in both absolute and relative terms. Absolute social mobility refers to processes of adjustment in the income or occupational structure of the economy. This is measured as the percentage of people in a different occupational class to their parents. The UK has experienced relatively stable occupational mobility for decades.
Alternatively, relative social mobility, also known as social fluidity, is associated with an individual’s opportunities for progression within the social hierarchy.
Social mobility can also be thought of as intra-generational, relating to the opportunities for social progression within an individual’s own lifetime, as well as inter-generational, relating to a comparison of achieved social position with that of one’s parents.
So, what factors influence social mobility?
- Education
- Skills and training
- Structure of society
- Economic prosperity
- Level of aspiration and achievement
- Demographic structure
- Occupational status
- Capital
Education provides one of the most promising chances for upward social mobility and attaining a higher social status, regardless of current social standing. There are three types of capital that place an individual in a certain social category: economic capital; social capital; and cultural capital. Economic capital includes economic resources, such as cash, credit, and other material assets. Social capital includes resources one achieves based on group membership, networks of influence, relationships and support from other people. Cultural capital is any advantage a person has that gives them a higher status in society, such as education, skills, or any other form of knowledge. Usually, people with all three types of capital have a ‘high status’ in society.
Although absolute social mobility outcomes have improved over previous decades, relative social mobility, otherwise known as social fluidity, has been hindered by the barriers in establishing cultural, economic and social capital that enables upward mobility. This is known as the theory of capital deficiency. Legacies of racism, sexism and discrimination also hinder particular individuals from achieving upward social mobility, even in the presence of education and economic, social and cultural capitals. The stratification of social classes and high wealth inequality directly affects educational opportunities and outcomes.
In other words, social class and a family’s socioeconomic status directly affect a child’s chances for obtaining a quality education and succeeding in life. For example, according to the Brookings Institution, by age five, there are significant developmental differences between working class, middle, and upper class children’s cognitive and non-cognitive skills. Even where cognitive skills are similar between individuals from different classes, differences in aspirations, risk perceptions, and financial issues deter individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds from pursuing higher education (HE).
If HE is considered, individuals from either lower socioeconomic backgrounds or first-generation households are more likely to attend a ‘new’ university, whilst those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds who have attended fee-paying private schools are more likely to attend Oxbridge or Russell Group universities. The consensus in the literature is that socioeconomic diversity in the workplace is negatively affected when education data, specifically university attended, is used in recruitment selection. This makes sense — if more students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds attend Oxbridge and Russell Group universities, a recruitment bias towards these universities will inevitably impact socioeconomic diversity in the workplace. The negative impact on socioeconomic diversity is particularly prevalent in certain traditional industries, such as law, life sciences, and investment banking. The salaries, social resources and education of the individuals working in these sectors are higher than average, which reinforces the social status of individuals from higher socioeconomic backgrounds who are more likely to enter these industries.
As we can see, the barriers to upward relative social mobility faced by individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are perpetuated by pre-university and higher education institutions alike, as well as biases established in recruitment selection amongst traditional industries. The solutions to these issues must tackle the disparities at pre-university education, particularly the improvement of social and cultural capitals of individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, in order to improve their ability to pursue upward social and income mobility. Additionally, HE institutions must work harder to increase participation amongst students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Previously, Oxbridge have skewed their statistics to appear favourable on state school admissions, when in reality, their admissions pool considers single-sex grammar schools as ‘state, non fee-paying schools’, despite grammar schools’ student pool containing less students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than non-grammar state schools. For example, according to The Sutton Trust, only 2.7 per cent of grammar school entrants are eligible for free schools meals, despite 18 per cent of UK students qualifying for free school meals. HE institutions should start paying more attention to students’ household income level, the professional occupation of their parents and whether they are a first-generation student, in order to reduce the skew in their statistics. The problem is not necessarily whether enough state-schooled children are attending Oxbridge and Russell Group universities, it is whether enough is being done to mobilise the poorest students in society towards attending these institutions.
Finally, we must tackle the barriers to upward social mobility faced by ethnic minorities, migrants, women, disabled people, the LGBTQ community and indigenous peoples, as their ability to experience relative social mobility is hindered by societal foundations that perpetuate racist, discriminative and sexist narratives.
