{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023062381852551984, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00775047258979206, 'mean_word_length': 5.344124700239808, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reappraising the importance of class in higher education entry and persistence

Abstract Social class is a major determining factor of people's life chances. Much sociology-based research shows that socio-economic position is still one of the best predictors of who will achieve success, prosperity and social status and, in particular, who will enjoy the highest levels of educational outcomes. Survey data and qualitative studies alike confirm that many people continue to see class as a feature of everyday life, in ways that are connected with their understanding of learning and its possibilities. However, despite its continued significance in people's lives, class has virtually disappeared from modern adult learning research. This paper concludes that in an era when governments across Europe are setting about the dismantling of social support and collective protection produced by social democracy and trade unionism, class analysis presents an important means of understanding change and changing understanding. The existence of persistent social class inequalities in access is a repeated theme of research into higher education (HE) participation. Moreover, socioeconomic inequalities persist in spite of the considerable enlargement of higher education systems that has taken place in many countries since the 1950s (Field, 2003; Alon, 2009; Boliver, 2011; Reay 2012). Moreover, survey data and qualitative accounts confirm that many people continue to see class as an everyday aspect of their lives, in ways that are connected with their understanding of learning and its possibilities. This paper looks at the ways in which experiences and constraints of social class were experienced and ‘storied’ by a group of non-traditional students in higher education. It starts out with reflections on the current status—or rather absence—of class as a key category of critical analysis in adult learning. We then examine briefly the question of class in the context of mass higher education. While much has changed in the social composition of the undergraduate population as a consequence of expansion, taken as a whole there seems to have been relatively little change in undergraduates' socio-economic status. While the overall number of students from broadly working class backgrounds has grown, their relative share of the undergraduate population has not greatly altered (Boliver, 2011). In England, it seems that the proportion of students from poorer families declined during the expansion period of the mid- to late-1990s and recovered to its original position during the early years of the current century (Chowdry et al., 2013). In Scotland, Ianelli concludes that similar fluctuations mean that ‘overall the relation between social class of origin and educational attainment has not significantly changed over time’ (Ianelli, 2011: 257). What does this mean for the experiences of students from working class backgrounds? We explore this question through a discussion of RANLHE interviews in Scottish higher education. We interviewed a sample of 83 students from three HEIs—one a highly selective institution, one a former central institution (roughly akin to a polytechnic) and one with a mixed mission emphasising both teaching and research. We recruited students through direct email contacts (both targeted and general), appeals in newsletters, intermediaries such as course leaders, and—once we had started—by snowballing; some also approached us, having heard about the project by word of mouth. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, with hesitations and repetitions included. We read and re-read the transcripts, which included responses to a standard question on class. Posed late on in the first or early in the second interview, the interviewer asked ‘How you would describe your background in terms of class?’ and the student's reply was then followed up. The interviewer did not provide a definition of class, though the follow-up discussion could explore definitional issues if the interviewee raised them (hardly anyone did, at least not explicitly). Responses during this initial discussion of class gave us a baseline for a preliminary thematic analysis which, in turn, provided a springboard for undertaking an iterative thematic and contextual examination of the ways in which different people spoke about class or—in some cases—deflected a discussion of class. We distinguished between how people spoke about membership of a particular class and how they talked about class as a phenomenon. The students in our sample spoke about class in relation to their own educational disadvantage and/or experiences/perceptions of HE. Often they discussed class obliquely, or in ways that can be understood through socio-cultural perspectives. One arts student, for example, talked of relating the circumstances of Tracey Emin's childhood (material disadvantage, abuse) to the context in which she grew up and being completely alienated during a class discussion by what she perceived as classist and misogynistic contempt shown towards Emin by fellow students. In addition, class affected student experiences in more material ways, both for mature students who had worked themselves and for young students who came from working-class families.