Elitism and meritocracy in UK universities: the UK needs investment

published or not. The documents may come

Introduction

Many writers argue that a university education system should be equitable ('fair'), in the sense that each person should have equal access to a university place irrespective of gender, ethnicity, religion and social class. This is consistent with 'meritocracy', in which a powerful and prestigious job is occupied by the person with the most appropriate talents: 'meritocracy is a social system where individual talent and effort, rather than ascriptive traits, determine individuals' placements in a social hierarchy' (Alon and Tienda, 2007, p. 489). In this view, prejudice is harmful to society, by preventing talented individuals from achieving success in the labour market. Someone awaiting a major operation would want employees (surgeon, anaesthetist, nurse) to be the best possible, rather than having obtained their job due to an expensive education at a private school, while lacking appropriate talents; any prejudice or barrier against employing the smartest employee increases the risk of the patient dying.

Unfortunately, UK is inequitable. For example, an intending lawyer [...] would do well to come from a background which is financially secure and preferably have some form of independent income with which to supplement the leaner times of training and early experience. Not surprisingly, surveys have shown that many lawyers do come from middle-class and uppermiddle-class backgrounds: for example, studies of judges, who are traditionally recruited from the barristers, clearly show a predominance of public schools and Oxford or Cambridge university educational backgrounds. Not only is the legal profession predominantly middle-and upper-middle class: it is also a profession long dominated by white male practitioners. (Harris, 2007, p. 433, emphasis in original) This paper reports evidence that exclusive universities fail to achieve meritocracy: universities such as Oxbridge take an excessive number of students from privileged backgrounds (that is, pupils who attended private secondary schools).

An additional problem is that students from disadvantaged backgrounds may be less able to obtain a successful degree than are students who have wealthy parents, because poor students often take paid employment during their time as students, often in vacations but in many cases during term-time. Paid work appears to restrict those students' ability to study and learn at university. This paper examines UK universities, regarding their role in teaching as opposed to research. University research is fundamental to long-term well-being in society but this is beyond the scope of this paper. Nothing in this paper should be interpreted as a criticism of focusing a large fraction of university finances on research: the UK can (and must) pay for both teaching and research in universities. However, UK universities seem underfunded compared with other countries, which may be harmful for the UK economy in future. This paper claims that extra public funding is appropriate and that it should be targeted towards the students most likely to benefit from it.

There is too much previous research to report it all here but the following section gives a flavour of some controversies. A key issue is each theory's attitude to meritocracy: should we attempt to improve the current education system, or are universities already as good as they can be? The paper then reports new evidence on UK universities and it concludes with recommendations for targeting and increasing university funding.

Literature review

This review begins with a somewhat provocative economic perspective. In 'signalling theory', the determinants of labour market performance are factors such as personality, rather than education (van der Merwe, 2009, p. 1); this theory suggests education spending should be reduced [START_REF] Quiggin | Human capital theory and education policy in Australia[END_REF]. It suggests the role of education is to divide people into 'winners and losers': there are many undesirable jobs, such as cleaners, and few desirable jobs such as judges. Society must decide who will be the lucky few to become rich; this could be done at a young age, for example, an IQ test for all citizens at age five, where pupils with the highest score get desirable jobs such as Chief Executive Officer. Signalling theory suggests we need not concern ourselves with equal access to universities: all universities should be closed down because universities harm society, by keeping people out of the labour market.

Mainstream economics rejects signalling theory, relying instead on 'human capital theory': this claims education confers skills on students (van der Merwe, 2009). Skills increase productivity, for example, a graduate with computer skills is usually more productive at work than someone who cannot tell a mouse from a muse. This implies universities are essential for the economy: each country needs engineers, programmers, medics and other specialists. Human capital theory, like the 'meritocracy' view, suggests that society should appoint the best person to each job, regardless of background (ethnicity, gender, class). A mathematician skilled at solving differential equations may, or may not, be a Muslim woman; her gender and religion are irrelevant but her mathematical skills may make the difference between an aeroplane which flies and one which crashes. Architects need skills such as 'visual memory'; not everyone has such abilities. To encourage equal access to highly-skilled jobs, human capital theory argues that universities should provide equal opportunities to applicants, so training is received by students best able to gain from it. Education is thought to have positive 'externalities': if one person is more educated, then other people also tend to benefit (for example, a scientist is more likely to discover new medicines and benefit patients if he or she is better-educated).

functioning of society, so there's no reason for a government intervention to change the distribution of work or rewards: structural-functionalism 'accepts the cultural status quo unproblematically' (Trowler and Knight, 1999, p. 183). However, Marjoribanks (1991, pp. 211-2) argues that structural-functional sociologists (such as the 'Wisconsin model' of status attainment) advocate meritocracy, while acknowledging that it is not always achieved due to imperfections in school education. Given that there are 'barriers to entry' on well-paid professions, who will occupy such jobs? Rich parents seek to help their children and the private schools, which can charge high fees, are those that get most students into exclusive universities.

Other sociologists reject structural-functionalism. The term 'conflict theory' refers to a range of radical views such as feminism and 'critical race theory' [START_REF] North | More than words? Delving into the substantive meaning(s) of 'social justice' in education[END_REF]. Versions of conflict theory differ in their focus but all argue that current arrangements are unjust. They claim inequalities between rich and poor are maintained by those who are privileged. This causes undesirable effects: any systematic discrimination harms the group experiencing discrimination. Hence, conflict theorists often advocate government support for victims of discrimination and promote laws to ban discrimination. Conflict theory advocates meritocracy, in order to be fair to victims of injustice.

Libertarianism and utilitarianism are two opposed political theories. The former is often assumed to be based on self-interest; libertarians might dispute the justification for state intervention in education, arguing that any social outcome we observe is as justifiable as any other possible outcome. Gordon Brown, the former UK Prime Minister, criticised Oxford University as being élitist; the Conservative Party responded by accusing him of rejecting excellence [START_REF] Jary | Editorial: the case of Laura Spence: inequalities in entry to élite universities in the UK, Widening participation & lifelong learning[END_REF]. Utilitarianism aims to increase happiness for the greatest number [START_REF] Cremer | Education and social mobility[END_REF][START_REF] Sims | E-Learning and the Digital Divide: Perpetuating Cultural and Socio-Economic Elitism in Higher Education[END_REF]. Utilitarians would claim that preventing some types of people from access to careers will generally reduce overall human happiness and is, therefore, inappropriate; the state should intervene to ensure an egalitarian outcome (Zajda, Majhanovich and Rust, 2006, p. 10).

Among education theorists, two approaches deserve mention. The 'deficit model' argues that if a group of people underperforms in education, their underperformance is interpreted as evidence that they are deficient in some sense (Jacobs et al., 2007, pp. 35-6). Acceptance of the deficit model may perpetuate inequalities (Beck, 1992, p. 100); some versions have been described as racist and as 'blaming the victim' (Valencia, 1997, p. 8). An alternative to the deficit model is egalitarianism, which claims that the education system in UK and elsewhere is unfair and should be improved (North, 2006, p. 511). A teacher or lecturer who is egalitarian will generally support meritocracy.

In summary, there are theoretical arguments from economics, sociology, politics and other disciplines that justify state intervention to ensure each person has an equal chance of success in their chosen career, regardless of their parents' wealth. Other arguments dispute such claims; the most extreme view being signalling theory, which sees no value in universities. In each academic discipline, the mainstream view is that meritocracy is desirable. This paper now turns to pragmatic, rather than theoretical, issues: is the UK higher education system 'meritocratic', in the sense that any talented person has equal chance of succeeding in their chosen career? This paper focuses mainly on two aspects: access to university places and performance whilst at university. Some universities are more difficult to get into than others. An extreme case is the Open University, which has no entrance requirements, just 'exit requirements', that is, students only obtain an Open University degree if they meet the required standard (Gourley and Lane, 2009, p. 57). While four out of five 18 year olds from senior managerial and professional backgrounds enter higher education, barely one in ten from unskilled and partly-skilled backgrounds does so (Robertson and Hillman, 1997). 'Despite mass and, until recently, free education at the point of consumption, the social make-up of Universities has changed little *…+ This clearly represents a massive waste of talent and must be regarded as a serious failing of the British system' (Greenaway and Haynes, 2000, p. 9). Some children are born to rich parents, who can afford to pay for extra help for their children, such as extra classes at weekends, or private schools. Such privileges may shape the pupil's life, giving children of rich parents more chance of gaining access to prestigious universities (Alon and Tienda, 2007, p. 491). There are parallels between private schools (able to get more pupils into the exclusive universities) and exclusive universities (able to get more graduates into highly-paid professions). Harris (2007, 432-3) claimed access to the legal profession 'still tend to favour the middle-and upper-middle-class' applicants, due to the high cost of undergraduate and subsequent training; 'For many potential recruits, these fee-levels may well be prohibitive'. Medicine is another profession in which people from working-class backgrounds are underrepresented [START_REF] Mathers | Why are there so few working-class applicants to medical schools? Learning from the success stories[END_REF].

Obtaining a university place is not enough: students need to survive financially. Student loans may help people from poor backgrounds; but Callender and Kemp (2000, p. 91) warned that 'debt aversion is greatest amongst the very students most in need of student loans, namely those from the poorest backgrounds [...] Ultimately these groups may be deterred from entry into HE because of debt'. [START_REF] Scales | The undergraduate experience of Cambridge among three ethnic minority groups: Summary report submitted to the Joint Committee on Academic Performance[END_REF] wrote; one factor has a significant relationship with examination results-that is parental contribution. Those who receive money directly from their parents are much more likely to gain good examination results. 74% of those who receive money from their parents got a 1st or 2:1 compared with only 45% of those who receive no money from their parents'. Barr (2004, p. 344) argued that loans are far from a complete answer, due to 'the fact that too few children from poor backgrounds go to university [...] Increasing university attendance by working-class children requires not only expansion of higher education but also and importantly, action to improve equity within the school system'.

Paid work is one way to cope with the financial burden. Metcalf (2003, p. 324) studied four UK universities and wrote 'Changes in higher education funding policy have led to a growth in term-time working [...] the consequences include a reduction in the quality of higher education, as students sacrifice study time for employment and an increase in disparities in higher education'. Metcalf (2003, p. 324) found 'Not surprisingly, students who did not receive financial support from their family were more likely to work during term-time'. This may be the only choice for some: 'some of the poorer students, such as students from social classes IV and V and lone parents who have heavy demands on their finances, may feel that they have no choice but to engage in paid work while studying' (Callender and Kemp, 2000, p. 127). [START_REF] Robotham | Combining study and employment: a step too far?[END_REF] studied a UK university and found 68% of students in his sample did paid work in term-time; most of them were employed over ten hours per week. For employed students, paid employment often leads to missed classes; less reading; and more stress (Metcalf, 2003, p. 316;[START_REF] Robotham | Combining study and employment: a step too far?[END_REF]. Metcalf (2003, p. 324) claimed term-time paid work 'does to some extent reinforce disadvantage': the financial system might lead to an increasingly polarised university system: those that facilitate term-time working and those that do not, with the more prestigious universities tending to be in the latter category. This would distort the university choice of those who needed to work during term-time, inhibiting their access to prestigious universities. (Metcalf, 2003, p. 315) Vacation employment might reduce financial problems of students from poor families. However, Scales and Whitehead (2005, np) reported that Cambridge University students who did paid work in vacations were much less likely to get a good degree; and 'Some students are in situations of severe financial hardship. Amongst these students are a number from single-parent families and larger families whose parents are less likely to be able to offer them financial help and support. Many of them have to work in the vacations to support themselves. ' Callender and Kemp (2000, 129) commented 'patterns of employment *...+ highlight the difficulties that women experience in combining paid employment and domestic responsibilities, especially when their children were on school holidays'. Alon and Tienda (2007, p. 491) argued that if universities take students with the best scores, they will tend to accept fewer ethnic-minority students, because black and other ethnic minority students tend to be from poorer backgrounds -and hence perform less well at tests; 'admissions officers should constantly remind themselves that test scores are unevenly distributed across groups and are imperfect predictors of student success' (Alon and Tienda, 2007, p. 508). Similar arguments apply to students from poorer social classes. A UK government report has a similar view: 'In assessing applicants' merit and potential, institutions may legitimately consider other factors in addition to examination results, including: the educational context of an applicant's formal achievement' (Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group, 2004, p. 7). Alon and Tienda discuss possible ways to achieve equity, when an apparently equitable method of choosing students (the best grades) is flawed, combining test scores with 'affirmative action': 'A higher education meritocracy so defined requires affirmative action' (Alon and Tienda, 2007, p. 504) Exclusive universities accept pupils from private schools who have less ability than applicants from state schools, which is not meritocratic.

There is evidence of racial prejudice in Britain [START_REF] Simister | Long-term trends in wage discrimination against ethnic minorities: USA and UK[END_REF]. 'The latest available statistics show that if you are black, you are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police, six times more likely to be in prison and three times more likely to be arrested than someone who is white' (Communities and Local Government, 2010, p. 29); page 34 of the same report implies that many black people feel they cannot achieve a university education. David Lammy, former Higher education minister, criticised Cambridge and Oxford Universities: 'black people make up almost 5% of the population, they account for less than 0.7% of Cambridge undergraduates *…+ In fairness to Oxford and Cambridge, both have tried hard to widen access in recent years. But it is still not good enough' (Lammy, 2004). Many non-white pupils do not even aspire to higher education: some historic challenges remain, such as the continuing 'ethnic penalties' faced by particular groups in the labour market -in other words a worse outcome which cannot be explained by education levels, age or where a person lives. There are complicated causes for these challenges which vary greatly between individuals but may include direct and indirect discrimination, lower expectations, and a relative lack of social capital. (Communities and Local Government, 2010, pp. 11-12) In 2008, 31% of black African applicants failed to obtain a university place, compared with 19% of white students (UCAS, 2010a); this suggests racism by UK universities. But the UCAS website doesn't tell us the fraction in each ethnicity group who are accepted by each university, so a non-racist university cannot use UCAS data to defend its reputation. It is regrettable that HESA report enough data for non-white students to feel victims of racism but not enough for an innocent university to defend itself: it would be helpful if UCAS report evidence on the fraction of each university's intake who are members of ethnic minorities. In a small sample of students, random variation may cause the proportion of students in an ethnic minority to be higher or lower than the proportion of that ethnic group in the UK. Hence, it may be inappropriate for HESA to report the number of ethnic minority X in course Y at university Z: a university department could be unfairly accused of racism when the real cause is pure chance. This argument should not be overstated. The 'central limit theorem' informs us that as sample-size increases, the sample mean tends to become closer to the population mean. If we look at the ethnic composition of a university with thousands of students, we could expect to see the proportion of non-white students close to the proportion in the UK population of that age-group. If private schools have few non-white pupils, researchers could control for this if more information were available. In this way, racism can be exposed and overcome and unjustified fears of racism avoided.

Racism is a problem in UK universities: Direct, organised racist action was mentioned, particularly in geographical areas with low numbers of ethnic minority people and where organised movements against asylum seekers were strong: "The BNP have been organising in town. This is very frightening and worrying for home ethnic minority students as well as for overseas students" (Jacobs et al., 2007, p. 28).

Over the years, I have been contacted by many black and minority ethnic students from different universities who have provided harrowing tales of harassment. These accounts, many of them evidence-based, show that a number of unions and universities, despite having an array of excellent public policies and practices, have failed to protect students from discrimination. [START_REF] Milton | Anti-racism initiatives by universities are failing to have an effect off campus[END_REF] Some UK universities, such as Oxford University [START_REF] Tysome | Oxford boosts equality drive after dismissal payout[END_REF] have been accused of causing (as opposed to failing to prevent) racism. At Cambridge University, ethnic minority students coming from comprehensive schools with a high ethnic diversity often found adjusting to the predominantly White culture of Cambridge difficult *…+ lack of a support network and friends leading to feelings of social isolation. If these factors are combined with severe financial hardship or constant worry about financial issues (and/or perhaps the necessity to work during vacations), it seems likely that academic performance could spiral downwards. (University of Cambridge, 2006) [START_REF] Woolcock | Handful of independent schools seize a third of Oxbridge places[END_REF] reported that one-third of Oxbridge admissions come from 3% of schools. About half of the students at exclusive universities are from private schools (top of Appendix Table 3), compared with about 1% of students in the most inclusive universities (bottom of Appendix Table 3). 'Minority ethnic families are twice as likely to be poor and it is often that poverty, rather than simply race, which has a devastating impact on their chances' (Communities and Local Government, 2010, p. 10). The above discussion focused on inequalities according to ethnicity, income and social class. There may also be other types of discrimination: for example, O'Connor and Robinson (1999) discussed evidence of prejudice against disabled applicants.

A 'league table' of universities, such as those produced by the Times, Guardian and Independent newspapers, tend to report similar results, with prestigious universities such as Oxbridge top of the lists. Methods used by each newspaper are explained on their websites; referring to the Guardian newspaper's ranking, MacLeod (2009) stated: we have rated courses against the following criteria:

 Teaching quality, as rated by final-year students in the national student survey (NSS)-percentage of students satisfied  Feedback (assessment), as rated by final-year students in the NSS-percentage of students satisfied  Spending per student-given as a banded score out of 10  Staff-student ratio-number of students per member of teaching staff  Job prospects-proportion of graduates who find graduate-level employment, or study full-time, within six months of graduation  Value added-comparing students' individual degree results with their entry qualifications -given as a banded score out of 10  Entry qualifications (UCAS tariff score).

The above criteria are questionable. The staff-student ratio (fourth item) may reflect privilege: wealthy universities tend to be able to employ more staff. Degree results (sixth item) suggests that a university awarding more first-class or upper-second-class degrees teaches well; but the number of 'good honours degrees' (upper second class or better) rose since HESA began compiling data in 1994, especially in 'Russell Group' universities (Yorke, 2009, pp. 2-3); Yorke (2009, p. 13) implies universities increase the proportion of students who get first and upper-second degrees in order to move up the university ranking.

In summary, most social scientists advocate meritocracy. However, the UK university system is not meritocratic: rather, a pupil is more likely to succeed if he or she has rich parents who support them at private schools and with financial help at university. There is a conflict between aiming for meritocracy at a society-wide level and advising an individual pupil. We should support every child's right to aim for the best university and career they can achieve; but we should be realistic about the financial situations of students. If we advise a pupil from a poor background to apply for an exclusive university he or she may be unable to survive because of the need to earn money, while other students at the same university do not need to take paid work because they get financial help from parents.

Data and methods

This paper uses data from several sources. The main source is the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA, 2009), which reports the fractions of various types of students at each university studied. This is supplemented by data from the Guardian's university ranking system (2009) and the National Student Survey [START_REF] Unistats | Download data extracts: NSS Full Time[END_REF]. For this paper, NSS data is limited to full-time students. Each NSS question was answered by students from 1 ('strongly disagree') to 5 ('strongly agree'); for this paper, responses were converted to an index from zero (strong disagreement) to 100 (strong agreement). Spending per student is calculated by the Guardian (2009); it represents the amount of money each university spends on its own students and is a proxy for government support received by each university (this is used as the vertical axis in Chart 3, below). The Guardian website also reports the staff/student ratio (used in Chart 5). This paper also uses data from the Universities and Colleges Admissions System (UCAS). Note that UCAS (2010c) do not report admissions by social class after 2008, so it may become difficult to assess equity in UK university admission in future.

This paper only includes universities in which there are at least 500 undergraduates, according to HESA (2009) reports, which excludes specialist universities such as Trinity Laban conservatoire of music and dance, giving an effective sample of 126 universities, with some missing data (see appendix). Middlesex University and University of Central Lancashire are omitted due to missing data on the HESA website, on the percentage of students from state schools. The Appendix (Table 3) lists data on the remaining 126 universities; they are divided into four approximately equal-sized groups, labelled 'most exclusive', 'fairly exclusive', 'fairly inclusive' and 'most inclusive' based on the percentage of student entry from non-private State schools. This division into four groups is also used in Tables 1 and2.

Data on the six variables used in the graphs are shown in the appendix, sorted into ascending order by accessibility: universities near the bottom of the Appendix (Table 3) are the most 'inclusive', which suggests they are most welcoming to disadvantaged pupils (from state schools). On the other hand, (exclusive) universities near the top of the Appendix (Table 3) take more privileged students from private schools.

Results

Evidence on qualifications is reported in Chart 1, to assess whether or not the more 'exclusive' universities accept applicants with better ('matriculation') qualifications, measured by 'UCAS points'. UCAS allocates a number of points for each qualification a pupil obtains. For example, a grade E at A-level is worth 40 points; an A-level with a better grade is worth more, up to 140 points for A* (UCAS, 2010b). The vertical axis of Chart 1 assesses grades ('A-level' or equivalent; A2; BTEC, etc). In every Chart in this paper, each circle represents a university in the Appendix (Table 3).

Chart 1: Median grade at A-level or equivalent, by inclusivity of university

Source: UCAS (2010c); HESA (2009).

Universities on the right of Chart 1 (near the bottom of the Appendix (Table 3)) are more 'inclusive', in that they accept more students who came from state schools. Chart 1 shows a clear trend, falling from left to right: there is a tendency for 'exclusive' universities such as Oxbridge to have higher average grades, whereas the more 'inclusive' universities have lower average grades. If an exclusive university accepts students with the best A-level grades, they could claim to be meritocratic. However, rich parents often spend a lot of money on private schools, at least partly because they want their children to get good grades and get to a prestigious university. If parents are discerning, their spending indicates that private schools are more effective than state schools; it follows that students with the best A-level grades are often from private schools and not necessarily the most talented applicants. Chart 1 is consistent with the hypothesis that pupils in private schools tend to get better grades than pupils in state schools.

Chart 1 appears to suggest UK exclusive universities are behaving in a meritocratic way, by accepting pupils with high grades; but a pupil from a private school may have better grades due to expensive school education, rather than because of greater talent. As discussed in the literature review, meritocracy requires universities to see beyond grades in order to measure potential: for example, to help an exclusive university produce better graduates (for example, to give that university more Nobel Prize winners: Alon and Tienda, 2007, p. 507).

In Chart 1, each university is arranged on the horizontal axis from fewest state-school pupils on the left, to most school pupils on the right; this may be a measure of equal opportunity for poor pupils. However, there are many ways of measuring equality; another way is to consider the fraction of pupils who are from poorer social classes. UCAS report data on social classes, based on this classification: higher managerial and professional (1); lower managerial and professional (2); intermediate (3); small employers and own account workers (4); lower supervisory and technical (5); semi-routine (6); routine (7) (UCAS, 2010c). The fraction of pupils who are from social classes 4 to 7 could be considered poor; this fraction (at each university) is on the vertical axis on Chart 2.

Chart 2: Students from poorer social classes, by inclusivity of university

Source: Guardian (2009); HESA (2009).

Apart from two 'outliers' (Oxford Brookes and Harper Adams universities), Chart 2 shows a very strong pattern: the universities that take most poor pupils tend to be the universities that accept most state school pupils (top right of Chart 2). At the other extreme, the bottom left of Chart 2 shows universities that accept only a small fraction of poor pupils (11% for Oxford and Cambridge: see Appendix (Table 3)); a large fraction of such universities are from private schools (almost half, in Oxford and Cambridge). All Charts in this paper use the same measure of inclusivity on the horizontal axis, based on the fraction of students who are from state schools; but a similar set of Charts could be produced using proportion of students from social class 4 to 7. For Table 1, the 126 universities are grouped into four equal-sized groups (see Appendix (Table 3)), to give an overview. Each of the five numeric columns gives information on a group of people who we might expect to face barriers to entering universities. The first column of Table 1 shows students from 'low-participation neighbourhoods', a measure of poverty similar to those used in Chart 2, the 'most exclusive' group of universities (which includes Oxbridge) have only 5% of students from the poorest parts of UK; whereas in the most inclusive universities (at the bottom of Appendix (Table 3) and grouped as the bottom row of Table 1) 15% of students are from poor neighbourhoods.

Table 1 does not suggest women face discrimination at universities-quite the opposite: a clear majority of students are women, in all four groups of universities. However, it can be argued that women still face discrimination in other respects (such as unequal pay) and hence we might wish to encourage more women to go to university in order to end glass ceilings. Table 1 shows that a bigger fraction of students at the most inclusive universities are women (60%), compared to the most exclusive universities (in which 52% of students are women). Table 1 also shows there are more disabled students, more mature students and more part-time students at the inclusive universities (compared to the exclusive universities). In summary, Table 1 confirms the picture from Chart 2, that the inclusive universities at the bottom of the Appendix (Table 3) are helpful in achieving social mobility and, hence, it can be argued, achieving a more meritocratic outcome for society.

People from poor backgrounds tend to be concentrated in the universities on the right of Chart 2 and the bottom of Table 1 and Appendix (Table 3). Such pupils face financial hardship and we might expect the UK higher education system to reward such universities for helping to achieve social mobility and meritocracy. Does the UK give more financial help to such universities? Chart 3 helps us to assess this: it shows spending per student on the vertical axis, calculated by the Guardian (2009) (Chart 3 excludes academics' wages, which are related to the staff-student ratio shown in Chart 5 below).

Chart 3: spending per student, by 'inclusivity' of each university

Source: Guardian (2009); HESA (2009) Chart 3 uses spending per student on the vertical axis, to assess whether some universities are better able to afford equipment such as electron microscopes (spending on lecturers is excluded by the Guardian from the spending data used for Chart 3, to avoid double-counting, because they also assess the staff-student ratio). Chart 3 shows a fairly clear downward trend, as we go from left to right; this indicates a tendency for the more 'inclusive' universities (at the bottom of Table 1 right-hand-side of Chart 3) to have less money than the 'exclusive' universities (top of Table 1; left-hand-side of Chart 3). We might expect UK governments to give more help to universities that take on more poor pupils (on the right of Chart 3); but the exact opposite happens, the government gives far more support to the exclusive universities on the left of Chart 3, even though many students at exclusive universities have rich parents (shown by the preponderance of students from private schools).

Universities require sufficient funding, if they are to provide the education that students (and the UK labour market) need. Equipment, such as lasers, is expensive but many students cannot learn the skills they need without such facilities. This problem of university funding is examined in Chart 4, in which the vertical axis represents answers to question 18 in the 2006-7 'National Student Survey' [START_REF] Unistats | Download data extracts: NSS Full Time[END_REF]. The NSS question wording was 'I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities or room when I needed to'.

Chart 4: Access to facilities, by 'inclusivity' of each university

Source: [START_REF] Unistats | Download data extracts: NSS Full Time[END_REF]; HESA (2009) Chart 4, as Chart 3, tends to decline from left to right. Thus, according to responses in the National Student Survey, the 'exclusive' universities (on the left of Chart 4) seem better able to provide resources such as laboratory equipment, compared with the 'inclusive' universities (on the right of Chart 4). Universities on the left of Chart 4 tend to have more money than universities on the right of Chart 4. This suggests inequality: inclusive universities do not have the same access to resources. Chart 3 reports evidence of spending per student; Chart 4 is evidence of the effects of such spending. Lefrere (2007, p. 204) discussed the possibility that while élite European universities seem able to obtain sufficient funding for equipment, the middle and lower ranking European universities may find it increasingly difficult to compete with universities in China and elsewhere. This funding problem is likely to harm not just individual students but the UK labour market if our workforce lacks skills needed in the twenty-first century.

Chart 5 also investigates the question of whether exclusive universities are better-funded than 'inclusive' universities. Chart 5 uses average spending per student on the vertical axis, from the Guardian (2009). The variable on the vertical axis of Chart 5 is calculated as 1000 divided by the staff-student ratio, to make Chart 5 look comparable to Charts 3 and 4 in this paper.

Chart 5: Staff-student ratio, by 'inclusivity' of each university

Source: Guardian (2009); HESA (2009) We can see a downward trend in Chart 5, as we go from left to right. 'Exclusive' universities such as Oxford (left side of Chart 5) tend to have a higher staff-student ratio; universities on the left of Chart 5 can afford tutorials with few students, which are thought to improve effectiveness of their education. At the other extreme, many 'inclusive' universities (on the right of Chart 5) cannot afford seminars or tutorials for small groups of students, so their students do not regularly meet tutors in an environment where they can discuss issues in-depth.

Chart 5 is consistent with Charts 3 and 4, in that it suggests universities near the bottom of the Appendix (Table 3), those with the highest proportion of State school entrants, are starved of resources, compared to richer universities (generally at the top of Appendix (Table 3)). Together, they tell us that the universities with most disadvantaged students (poorer social classes) tend to be at the universities where students are most likely to lack resources. Making universities accessible is of limited help, if students cannot learn essential skills due to lack of equipment (this is more of a problem in science subjects). Note that not all equipment in universities is paid for by the government: there are numerous sources, such as gifts from benefactors; while not wishing to criticise generosity of ex-students, fairness suggests the government should ensure each university can afford at least a minimum level of equipment. Each university has a different mix of subjects; some subjects (such as physics) require more equipment than others (such as English). Source: [START_REF] Unistats | Download data extracts: NSS Full Time[END_REF] The variable on the vertical axis of Chart 4 is based on findings from the National Student Survey (see data and methods section); further evidence from the same survey data is summarised in Table 2. In both cases, a higher score indicates more approval for the student's own university. The two numerical columns on the left of Table 2 suggests, on the basis of student satisfaction, that 'inclusive' universities tend to have less well-funded libraries and computer facilities than the more exclusive universities; a finding similar to Chart 4. But lecturers at the inclusive universities seem to be trying to overcome this disadvantage faced by poor students: the two right-hand columns of Table 2 suggest that students were more likely to receive detailed comments and feedback at inclusive universities, than at exclusive universities. One reason why ex-polytechnics are more helpful to students is perhaps because they attract lecturers who are less committed to research, and more interested in teaching. Chart 6 considers the extent to which students seem successful in their career, within six months of leaving university. It suggests students at exclusive universities on the left of Chart 6 are more likely to have successful careers than students from inclusive universities on the right. It seems plausible that the pattern in Chart 6 (universities' successes in achieving careers for their students tends to fall, looking from left to right) is a combination of various factors (such as lack of equipment, underfunding and poor staff-student ratios) at the Tables produced by the Guardian, Times and Independent newspapers encourage pupils to apply to exclusive universities; they rank universities in a similar order to Appendix (Table 3). To enhance their career, school pupils might feel it is appropriate to apply to the universities that are high up in these league tables but evidence, reported in this paper, suggests that these tables may mislead pupils considering where to apply: if students apply to prestigious universities (near the top of Appendix Table 3), they are more likely to face problems such as financial hardship. Students with poor parents may not survive in an exclusive university. A student who must support him/herself by paid employment while studying is more likely to fail; a student with a rich family may get financial support from their parents. Poor children may abandon exclusive universities, where competition for a good degree is fierce and unfair, to rich white people but, if they do, this perpetuates gaps between over-privileged and underprivileged. Each school teacher and careers adviser must decide how to advise their pupils; while poor pupils should be encouraged to apply for high-status universities they should be warned that there is no 'level playing field' in exclusive universities: a poor student is less likely to succeed, because they will compete with children of rich parents, many of whom do not need to take paid work while studying.

Conclusion

The literature review outlined some competing views. Academics from various fields such as structuralfunctionalism, utilitarianism and human-capital theory advocate meritocracy (and hence equity) in access to higher education. Society relies on universities not only to train experts but to decide who to train; economic efficiency and human happiness depend on equity. Most literature reported in this paper argues that UK universities should be equally accessible to all talented pupils. Some writers focus on ethnicity, or social class, others favour more places for disabled students. This suggests difficult choices: for example, is ethnicity more or less important than poverty?

The government need not anguish about which inequality to combat. In general, a university that helps one group of disadvantaged people is also likely to help other disadvantaged groups, based on evidence in Chart 2 and Table 1.

This paper highlights two imperfections in Britain: some students are disadvantaged at school compared to pupils at private schools and cannot get to the university they deserve; and many students are disadvantaged at university, because their financial situation forces them to take paid work, preventing them from competing on equal terms with children of rich parents. Both problems harm the economy in the long term, as well as being unfair to individuals unable to achieve their potential.

British governments since 1997 deserve credit for increasing the proportion of the population getting to university. The UK government claims to have made progress in improving social mobility but there are still 'families who experience persistent and chronic social exclusion' (The Cabinet Office, 2009, p. 2). Some writers suggest the British government should do more to help people from disadvantaged backgrounds to get to university. Metcalf (2003, p. 326) argues for changes to UK education policy: 'Such adaptations should be designed to offer equal access to education'. To most observers, racism and prejudice against poorer social classes is unacceptable but it is not clear how fairness can be achieved. There are reasons to reject simplistic solutions, such as quotas for ethnic groups and social classes. Another possibility is bursaries for gifted students from poor backgrounds [START_REF] West | Examining the impact of opportunity bursaries on the financial circumstances and attitudes of undergraduate students in England[END_REF].

Overcoming disadvantages facing ethnic minorities, poorer social classes and other disadvantaged groups requires collaboration between various professionals at universities, including lecturers, administrators and library staff [START_REF] Hull | Can librarians help to overcome the social barriers to access?[END_REF]. Gourley and Lane (2009, 64) wrote 'It is not only the OU UK's mission to promote social justice in our unequal and uncertain world. It should be the goal of every university'.

It seems unreasonable to blame rich parents for wanting their children to get the best education, or to blame teachers at private schools for helping pupils get into exclusive universities. It can be argued that admissions tutors at exclusive universities should not simply accept pupils with the best AS level grades: this may, inadvertently, lead to a large fraction of students at exclusive universities who are not especially talented but were taught to pass examinations at private schools. Rich parents and smart teachers in private schools create unfair advantages for rich children; hence, society must limit their power to prevent meritocracy. Exclusive universities could stop using GCSE and AS-level grades to allocate places, because private schools help rich parents give unfair advantages.

Chart 3 shows that an 'exclusive' university (such as Cambridge) spends several times as much per student as do 'inclusive' universities. ), Netherlands (43%), Austria (46%), Sweden (47%), Norway (50%), Switzerland (65%), Denmark (67%) and India (69%).

The many computer programmer jobs outsourced from UK to India confirm the Indian government's wisdom in investing in universities. Equity and competitiveness suggest the UK government should spend more on universities (specifically, inclusive universities near the bottom of Appendix Table 3) to bring their standards closer to exclusive UK universities, and reduce the funding gap between Britain and other countries. Such spending helps economic growth: Hanushek and Wößmann (2007, p. 7) studied OECD countries and reported 'Adding educational quality (to a model that just includes initial income and years of schooling) increases the share of variation in economic growth explained from 25% to 73%.' UK governments should increase the quality of university education, for the sake of everyone in Britain.

Chart 6 :

 6 Percentage obtaining jobs or further study, by 'inclusivity' of each universitySource:Guardian (2009);HESA (2009)

  . A report commissioned by the UK government indicated similar views: Everyone agrees that applicants should be chosen on merit: the problem arises when we try to define it. Merit could mean admitting applicants with the highest examination marks, or it could mean taking a wider view about each applicant's achievements and potential *…+ equal examination grades do not necessarily represent equal potential. The effect of social background on attainment begins to appear by the age of two. Many applicants have responsibilities at home or at work, or interrupted schooling, that can affect their educational achievement. And recent research shows that, all other things being equal, students from state schools and colleges tend to perform better at undergraduate level than students from independent schools and colleges. (Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group, 2004, p. 5)

Table 1 : access to university for disadvantaged groups, by exclusivity of university

 1

	Group of	Percentage of	Percentage		Percentage of	Percentage of
	universities	students from low-	of students	Percentage of students	students called	undergraduates
	Based on % entry	participation	who are	receiving Disabled	'mature students'	who are
	from State schools	neighbourhoods	women	Students' Allowance	by HESA	part time
	Most exclusive	5 %	52 %	4 %	10 %	22 %
	Fairly exclusive	10 %	54 %	4 %	18 %	40 %
	Fairly inclusive	13 %	59 %	6 %	25 %	35 %
	Most inclusive	15 %	60 %	5 %	36 %	52 %

Table 2 : Student's opinions on universities, by inclusivity of university Group of universities

 2

	Index
	Based on % entry
	from State
	schools

of students' agreement with the following statements:

		The library
		resources and	I have been able	I have received	Feedback on my work
		services are good	to access general	detailed	has helped me
		enough	IT resources	comments	clarify things
		for my needs	when I needed to	on my work	I did not understand
	Most exclusive	79	83	60	59
	Fairly exclusive	76	81	64	62
	Fairly inclusive	73	78	66	62
	Most inclusive	72	78	66	63

  Meritocratic access to universities is made more difficult by underfunding of UK education in recent decades. Replacing loans with grants causes problems for poor students; by abandoning grants to poor students in recent decades, British governments perpetuate differences between rich & poor and reduce social mobility. How does UK state university funding compare with other countries? In fiscal year 2005/6, the UK government spent £13.4 billion on 'tertiary education' and 'subsidiary services to education' (DCSF: 2008, Annex A); Self & Zealey (2008: Table 3.9) report there were 2541 thousand students in 2005/6, implying government spending of £5,267 per student. Is this sufficient to pay for buildings & staff, e.g. lecturers, librarians, & laboratory technicians? Dividing £5,267 by the average UK income of £18,357 (series YBGT in Dye & Sosimi, 2009: Table 1.5) gives a figure of 28%: i.e. on average, the UK government spends 28% of GDP per capita on each student in higher education. World Bank (2007) calculate a similar figure, public spending on tertiary education per student as a percentage of GDP per person; in 2005, Britain spent 28%, compared with 33% for the whole world; Britain lagged behind France (34%

Appendix