Dr. Andrea Abbas
Centre for Educational Research and Development
My hope for this blog is that it will generate debate about what kinds of activities and practices could improve the public perception of the value and worth of University of Lincoln students. Whilst in some respects our students actions as graduates (and even as undergraduates through initiatives like the Lincoln Award) should and do speak for themselves and their reputations are often made by their own actions, it is generally very difficult to challenge the powerful ideology which suggests that students from more highly ranked (usually pre-1992) universities and those from universities like Lincoln (normally the post-1992) are akin to different species.
This myth that different universities produce different quality graduates (regardless of their degree classification) has tangible consequences for students. The importance of this assumption in maintaining the power of the elite is evident from the fact that the distinction endures. Such divisions impair confidence, restrict opportunities and shape the lives of graduates. Overt and covert practices sort applicants for graduate schemes according to their universities. The situation is not helped by the intolerable “classist” representations of students from some of our universities that are generated and perpetuated by the media who often denigrate students from post-1992 universities.
On top of my general outrage at such class bias being permitted in British society my interest in stimulating action is also based upon my research findings. A three year mixed-method empirical study (conducted with colleagues Monica McLean, Nottingham and Paul Ashwin, Lancaster) funded by the ESRC explored in considerable depth what students in four differently ranked sociology departments learned at university and what types of transformation they underwent. The aim was to see if what we found challenged or complied with league tables representations about differences between universities and students.
Our findings based upon an analysis of a wide range of data relating to students, curricula and pedagogies suggest that the similarities between the transformations students undergo and the curricula and pedagogies are vastly underplayed. These findings suggest that differences between students are fabricated and exaggerated in popular culture and reinforced by league table representations. Our research indicates that this is because the things which are measured do not relate to good quality education in any meaningful way. They are based upon input\output measures of for example, students’ entry grades (which are inextricably related to their social background) and Staff Student Ratios which are related to the wealth of the university which tell us little about the quality of practices, processes and relationships which are important to learning and teaching.
When a survey of over 700 students measured things which our qualitative analysis (and a host of previous academic research) indicated were important to good teaching the picture of the quality of university degrees becomes much more complex. For example, our two lower status universities (which we called Community and Diversity) scored significantly more highly on good teaching. You can find out more about this project and the findings here http://www.pedagogicequality.ac.uk/
Given the state of play I feel that it is incumbent upon us as teachers to make effort to challenge the stereotypes and misperceptions that permeate the media and our daily culture. Of course there are often material circumstances which prevent even the most confident students of progressing in the way they would like to once they leave university. Unpaid internships, the costs of masters’ courses and other forms of postgraduate study were impairing financially less well off case study students from our project by their third year.
Whilst political campaigning against discriminatory systems and unfair financial arrangements are crucial it is also important to challenge the myths of difference and hierarchy and to empower students to build the confidence to challenge such injustices themselves. An example might be to devise cross university activities for Lincoln students with like-minded colleagues in more elite universities. If students begin to realise they are as capable as students at universities with better reputations this may help. My colleague Monica McLean from Nottingham was involved in such an activity with students studying for an English degree. The theory is that if students themselves can begin to see behind the mythical representations of differences between them might begin to envisage new possibilities.
Our research indicates that there are sociology students who are confident that the differences between them and students at elite institutions are ideological and unjust. However, at the moment they are often left to work this out for themselves and presumably this is easier for students studying critical social sciences to make this leap. As my experience is only with social science students I am wondering if colleagues in other disciplines have identified similar issues or have wished to address them with their students.