La sociedad anarquista en Au temps d’harmonie

Even though consecutive governments have celebrated more young people entering higher education, deeply rooted inequalities that impact future career trajectories persist. This was recognised by the SMCPC in its 2015 Bridging The Social Divide report which described Britain as ‘elitist’ for the overrepresentation of people from private schools in top jobs (SMCPC 2015a, p.5). Degree inflation and a saturated labour market means that more is expected from candidates to stand out from the crowd; and “…having an exemplary academic record is no longer enough” (Cabinet Office 2009 p.69).

This has seen an emphasis on ‘soft skills’ as opposed to the ‘hard skill’ of obtaining a qualification (Brown et al 2011; Brown 2013; Bathmaker et al 2016; Allen and Bull 2018). ‘Soft skills’ include elements of a person’s demeanour and personality such as: work ethic, time management, communication skills, character and resilience, determination and grit, and extracurricular activities that may help build ‘character’ (Cabinet Office 2009; HM Government 2011; Paterson et al 2014). Methods of getting ahead such as work placements and internships are problematic due to their largely unpaid nature, as only certain types of people can apply for such placements (Bathmaker et al 2013; Bathmaker et al 2016; Abrahams 2017). Many of the academic critiques of the class ceiling and the reliance on soft skills come from a Bourdieusian perspective discussing these inequalities in terms of capital resources (Bourdieu 1984). If you have enough financial resource (economic capital), know the right kinds of people (social capital), and have the correct cultural tastes and demeanour (cultural capital), you will be able to ‘play the game’ of individual social mobility better (Bathmaker et al 2013; Goldthorpe 2013; Friedman et al 2015; Savage et al 2015; Bathmaker et al 2016).

The SMCPC has shared its concern about access to the top professions, even stemming back to Alan Milburn’s first ground-breaking report in 2009 entitled Unleashing Aspiration: The Final

Report of the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions (Cabinet Office 2009). In 2017, the

SMCPC, now known as the SMC, even employed the work of sociologists Friedman et al (2017) to highlight the prevalence of the class ceiling and pay gap at the top of society. Friedman et al (2015) established the presence of the class ceiling when they demonstrated disadvantage within professional occupations, as those who had been the most mobile were often paid less than their colleagues from higher class origins. Much of the class ceiling work has suggested that people in the top professions from lower social class backgrounds are less likely to want to progress and obtain promotions, due to a clash in habitus and a lack of sense of belonging (Friedman 2014; Friedman et al 2015; Friedman 2016a). The Bourdieusian literature suggests that there is a cultural, implicit barrier that can stop working-class professionals from wanting to progress if they feel they lack the appropriate cultural and social capital to get ahead, often not wanting to be perceived as ‘getting above their station’ (Bathmaker et al 2013; Savage et al 2015; Abrahams

2017; Mallman 2018). Many of these professions, they argue, are dominated by a middle-class implicit value system. The class ceiling can be seen as evidence to suggest that widening access to higher education and creating a seemingly ‘level playing field’ has not reduced class inequalities for those who do attempt to be socially mobile through higher education. As Fishkin (2014, p.5) notes, the outcome of every competition is the input for the next competition, and so there is a need to mitigate inequalities at every stage of the trajectory. Widening access to higher education in itself is not enough.

The opening up of higher education means we now see what Brown (2013) describes as social congestion. There are many graduates with degrees and so new methods of filtering out who are deemed ‘better’ for higher level jobs are required. Both Savage et al’s (2015) work on the Great British Class Survey13 _{and Bathmaker et al’s (2016) work on the Paired Peers project}14 _{helped to}

illuminate how certain types of institutions place graduates in better stead for jobs because of their prestige and reputation. As universities have been marketised and competition increased, degrees become positional goods where students from universities that are ranked higher are seen as preferable to those from lower ranking universities (Brown et al 2011; Boliver and Byrne 2013; Savage et al 2015; Bathmaker et al 2016; Boliver et al 2018). Within this there is another class element, as those more prestigious universities have a much higher intake of middle and upper- class students, compared to those ranked lower which may have lower entry requirements. Therefore, as Bathmaker et al (2016) and Callender and Dougherty (2018) suggest, higher education has itself become a stratified system, where those with the capital advantages still manage to get ahead and secure their advantage in higher education.

Needing to stand out from the competition has led to a focus on ‘soft skills’ which the Character

and Resilience Manifesto describe as “at the very heart of the drive to improve social mobility”

(Paterson et al 2014). Linking back to the discussion of character and resilience in section 2.2.2, the emphasis on ‘soft skills’ arguably implies a moralised, middle-class value system or habitus is required to get ahead (Lawler 1999; Brown 2013; Allen and Bull 2018). Embodied cultural capital or habitus such as your accent, the way you dress, and the way you communicate, all need to be of a certain, middle-class standard for you to be considered professional and legitimate (Lawler 1999; Friedman 2014; Friedman et al 2015). Scholars argue that there is often a worry of pretence or being ‘found out’ when working-class people are in middle-class fields (Lawler 1999; Friedman 2014; Ingram and Abrahams 2016). Other class disadvantages such as working-class students being unable to afford to take on unpaid internships and having fewer social capital 13 _{The Great British Class survey is one of the largest, most recent attempts at gaining survey data on social} class in Britain. I explore it further in Chapter Three.

14 _{The Paired Peers project worked with pairs of students from a new university (University of the West of} England) and an elite university (University of Bristol) to explore the experience of attending either type of university as a working-class or middle-class student.

resources15 _{means that middle-class graduates are usually better positioned for higher level places}

in the labour market compared to their working-class counterparts (Bathmaker et al 2013; Savage et al 2015; Bathmaker et al 2016).

Those aiming for the ‘top’ of society from working-class families are often still closed off from ‘elite’ positions16_{, and whilst widening participation measures are important to encourage those}

from all backgrounds to have an opportunity to work in any profession, this individualistic social mobility focus does not address society’s entrenched social inequalities (Bathmaker et al 2016) and has a very narrow understanding of success and value (Fishkin 2014). Government social mobility policy has placed much attention on higher education being the driver for social mobility, but the academic literature suggests that class inequalities are omnipresent throughout the higher education system and as a result, in society more widely. The individualistic social mobility discourse has many flaws, one of them being the assumption that attending university will lead to a guaranteed, fulfilling social mobility trajectory.

It is also important to look at social policy within the Welsh context of devolution to explore whether the dominant narrative around social mobility and self-improvement is as prominent in a nation that traditionally has a more socialist and collectivist ethic.

2.4. Clear red water: The role of Welsh devolution on social policy in