of its Social Mobility Measures? The progress in ten years ). Figure 1 illustrates the % and numbers (as the different sizes of the balls) from the most disadvantaged areas (POLAR area quintile 1) to elite Russel Group Universities and the rest; pre and post-92 institutions. The differential is stark and shows that the newer universities are taking up the bulk of the disadvantaged students. The most advantaged students go to the most elite universities and still grab the top jobs through internships and contacts. Thus there is an illusion of social mobility through access to university that government likes to promote, but behind the scenes little has changed.
terminal arrogance towards their students. However, it would be wrong to say this is anywhere near representative. The AUT stance of being more concerned about the expansion affecting recruitment of staff, standards and pressure on resources might reflect the position of a union who work for their staff and this was reported in the press at the time (see Fig 2). The authors might have tried to refer to the official submissions of the AUT to the Robbins Committee, even though it is hard to source online . A later TEFS Blog will reassess Robbins and the Social Mobility agenda.
Mike Larkin, retired from Queen's University Belfast after 37 years teaching Microbiology, Biochemistry and Genetics.