Perspective Chapter: Gender, Social Class and ‘A Sense of Belonging’ at University – A Historical Perspective

Abstract

A sense of belonging is a critical aspect of the university experience for undergraduates. However, with greater heterogeneity in the backgrounds of students in mass higher education systems, it is recognised that those with marginalised identities are less likely to develop a sense of academic and social belonging. This chapter offers a historical perspective of how gender and social class have impacted a sense of belonging for students over a one hundred year period. First, this chapter reflects on how participation in higher education in the UK has increased, with 4357 students graduating from an undergraduate degree in 1920 compared to 359,115 graduating in the academic year 2020–21. Second, how the number of women studying in higher education has changed since 1920 is considered, alongside patterns of degree subject choices for women. Third, the social class composition of university students and the extent to which ‘working-class’ students have ‘fitted in’ to the university environment are explored. Fourth, funding and financial challenges experienced historically and currently by less advantaged students are discussed. Finally, this chapter concludes by suggesting that women’s experiences of university have improved significantly, but social class continues to impact on a sense of belonging for many undergraduates.

1. Introduction

In the United Kingdom (UK) participation in higher education has increased dramatically in one hundred years. In 1920, 4357 students graduated from an undergraduate degree [1] compared to 359,115 graduating in the academic year 2020–21 [2]. However, further analysis of these figures shows distinct patterns of participation in relation to gender, for example 1212 women received degrees in the UK in 1920 [1]. By 1950, 3.4% of the UK population had access to a university education [1]. In 1962/1963, ‘in the case of women only 7.3% of the age group entered all full time higher education …compared with 9.8% in the case of men’ [3]. In 2020 in the UK, 31% of men and 43% of women started university [4]. Like many countries, over a one hundred period the UK has moved from university being a limited opportunity to a privileged few, towards a ‘mass’ higher education system [5].

As countries move towards ‘mass’ higher education systems with greater heterogeneity in the demographic characteristics of students, developing a sense of academic and social belonging becomes increasingly important to support student achievement and minimise attrition [6]. A sense of belonging, defined here as: ‘valued, included and accepted’ [7] is key component of a successful transition to university. Furthermore, a university student with a sense of academic belonging is likely to have positive emotions about studying their degree subject and have increased levels of academic motivation—which in turn is likely to both enhance student achievement and decrease student attrition [7]. A student with a strong sense of academic belonging will be confident and satisfied about their attainment and achievement levels [8]. However, in a mass higher education system, not all students start university with a strong learner identity or ‘high’ academic confidence [9]. Pedagogic practices to support university students to develop a sense of academic belonging is of central concern to many universities in the twenty-first century [10]. Conversely, social belonging was of great concern in the early twentieth century [11] as universities came under increasing pressure to diversify their homogenous student intake of men and to offer access to women [12, 13]. The Suffrage movement alongside challenges to previously held notions of women’s innate intelligence and women’s role in society were contested and brought pressure on higher education institutions to allow access to women.

The University of London was the first English university to award women degrees in 1878 [14]. Other countries had begun awarding degrees to women earlier than this, for example, a Canadian university awarded its first degree to a women in 1875—a Bachelor of Science degree to Grace Annie Lockhart [15]. Thirty-two women enrolled in Spanish universities between 1872 and 1882, with twenty-eight of these women receiving degrees in Medicine [16]. Australian universities were slightly later than the University of London in conferring degrees on women, starting in 1881 [17]. The University of Cambridge was the last English university to award women full degrees in 1948. Nevertheless, by the end of the 1920s, women’s participation in higher education had reached a high of 28% [18].

The proportion of women graduating ‘remained stuck at 23–24% until the 1960s’ [18]. A number of factors are likely to explain the lack of growth in women entering higher education. In the early twentieth century, teaching was the most feasible career option for women after university, but teaching opportunities became scarcer in the 1930s due to limited government spending [18]. There also tended to be less scholarship opportunities offered by Local Authorities for women. However, the 1944 Education Act, with changes to secondary schooling meant that an increasing (although limited) number of women and working-class men were likely to hold the requisite qualifications to be eligible for a university place.

The Robbins Report recognised that there was an increasing demand for higher education places and not enough spaces. Robbins [3] in particular was keen to attract ‘all young persons qualified by ability and attainment to pursue a full-time course in higher education should have the opportunity to do so’. In terms of the participation of young women, Robbins recognised that although fewer young women were likely to stay at school to study GCE Advanced Levels (A Levels—the standard qualifications for entry into higher education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland since 1951), for the young women who did pass these exams—they were as likely to go into higher education as young men. The percentage of women accessing higher education has steadily increased in the UK since the Robbins Report. Women were 56.1% in 2020–21 of undergraduates [19], with women being the majority of undergraduates since 2010–11.

The ‘reserves of untapped ability’, who Robbins [3] had wanted to access higher education included those from working-class backgrounds as well as women. Robbins [3] cited 4% of higher education students as having fathers from skilled manual occupations in comparison to 45% of young people with fathers occupationally classified as being ‘higher professionals’. Robbins indicated that a combination of factors resulted in differential participation by social class background: parental income, parental educational levels and parental attitudes towards education. However, in terms of the demand for higher education he recognised that there were still increasing numbers of young people with the requisite qualifications from professional familial backgrounds and that the growth in demand for higher education would not be solely from those from the poorest financial backgrounds. A lack of heterogeneity in socio-economic background of university students remains an issue in many countries [20, 21].

‘Participation of Local Areas’ (POLAR) quintiles are used as a proxy for socio-economic background by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS). POLAR data classifies local areas based on the proportion of 18 and 19 year olds in that area going into higher education. The POLAR data is analysed using five quintiles—with quintile 1 being the lowest fifth of young people participating in higher education and quintile 5 the highest fifth of young people participating in higher education. UCAS [22] shows the proportion of UK 18 year olds accepted to university by POLAR quintiles. Those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds (Quintile 1) are increasingly like to accept a place at university—23.3% in 2020 up from 14% in 2011. However, the figure of 23.3% is a combined figure of 28.9% women from the most disadvantaged backgrounds attending higher education in comparison to 17.9% of men from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. This skew towards women being more likely to participate in higher education holds true in all quintiles. Whilst in Quintile 5—51.2% of young people attended university in 2020—this was proportionally 31.3% of men and 43% of women. This analysis indicates that women are now more likely to go to university regardless of social class background, but proportionally those from the least advantaged socio-economic backgrounds are still much less likely than their wealthier counterparts to access higher education.

The uneven pattern in the socio-economic characteristics of participants is likely to impact on feelings of belonging for undergraduates in a university environment. Reay et al. [23] seminally described working-class university students as ‘contingent choosers’. The term ‘contingent chooser’ reflects the difficult decision-making undertaken by students from less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds as they consider the potential rewards of becoming a graduate against the challenges and risks they are likely to encounter, particularly in relation to financial constraints, a focus on local higher education institutions and the chances of ‘fitting in’ in this setting. This can be compared with middle-class students who are more likely to have a familial pattern of accessing higher education with university being seen as a ‘natural’ part of their educational journey with lots of choices available. However, for much of the twentieth century, it was gender, rather than socio-economic factors that appeared to be a major issue in terms of developing a sense of belonging in a university community with women being in an academic minority.

2. Women as an academic minority

Women remained an ‘academic minority’ in higher education until the 1960s, when numbers of women began to steadily increase. The push for university education for women had led to the creation of separate women’s colleges at Oxbridge, for example Girton College at Cambridge which was co-founded by Emily Davies (although it was not able to confer full degrees on women) [24]. This women’s college was originally named the ‘College of Women, Hitchin’ in 1869 before moving to Girton in 1873. Women’s colleges were typically viewed in one of two ways, the first being that these were ‘safe spaces’ for women and enabled women to take on leadership roles. However, the second perspective was a sense of ‘inferiority’ for women not studying at one of the male colleges, which were deemed to be more prestigious. By 1939 all of the colleges of the University of London accepted women (except some medical schools and four women-only colleges). However, women’s colleges were increasingly seen as an anachronism and pressure mounted to move towards co-education. Consequently a predominant concern for the women’s colleges was that the male colleges would recruit the brightest women students. The University of London achieved full co-education in 1965 [13].

The Oxbridge women’s and men’s colleges moved more slowly than the University of London towards becoming co-educational with significant changes not happening until the 1970s, with the Sex Discrimination Act coming into force in 1975 (banning discrimination in areas such as Education on the basis of sex or marital status). Women in the previously all-male Oxbridge colleges which began to open-up in the 1970s) had been in a significant minority. Furthermore, Dyhouse comments ‘It was by no means uncommon for (male) senior members of the former men’s colleges to assert that the advent of women had left the “essential character” of the college completely unchanged’ [24]. There was limited evidence to suggest that the previously all-male colleges made any substantial attempts to ensure women felt welcome. Although, the civic universities which claimed ‘no distinction of sex’ also had examples of women being treated with ridicule and consequently feeling the need to keep a ‘low profile’ in the early twentieth century [25]. Likewise, men were a significant minority in the previously all-women’s colleges. The introduction of a BSc General degree in 1957 at Queen Elizabeth College, University of London gradually increased the interest of men to study at this previously all-women college [24]. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the previous women’s colleges did everything they could to make the men feel welcome, for example ensuring that they could share sporting facilities with other colleges and ensuring a male academic was part of the welcoming party [24].

Nevertheless, it should be noted that in some subjects, particularly in Arts Faculties, women had always been the majority of students—so subject choice was also likely to have impacted on the extent to which gender shaped a sense of academic and social belonging. Women in the early twenty-first century are still much more likely to study Arts and Humanities [26]. Men are much more likely to study Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM subjects) [26]. ‘The difference in the proportions of male and female students within certain subjects remains large. In 2020–21, 82.9% of engineering, technology and computing undergraduate entrants were male, compared to just 13.8% of those studying courses in education and teaching’ [27]. Women are currently 26% of STEM undergraduates, but a higher proportion in physical sciences, such as Chemistry at 43% in 2018–19 [28]. Therefore, gender ‘mix’ is still likely to shape the likelihood of co-educational cohorts for men and women in a range of academic disciplines at universities.

2.1 Gender and the civic universities

Unlike Oxbridge and some University of London colleges, the civic universities had always been organised upon co-educational lines and it became clear that academic co-educational opportunities were popular amongst many students. Teaching spaces and libraries had been ‘mixed’ from their inception at the civic universities. Although, Wakeling’s study [29] of a Scottish University, points to types of social gender segregation in the post-war period, such as the student body opting to keep separate Student Unions for men and women. Gender segregation included separate Halls of Residences. By the 1950s and 1960s university residential accommodation became more widely available to women at civic universities. Moving away from home to go to university became increasingly possible for students as financial support from local authorities became more accessible. However, concerns about propriety for women students meant that their behaviour was heavily regulated in university residential accommodation. Nevertheless, significant attention was also paid to developing a sense of belonging for these young women in their university accommodation.

2.2 Mother-Daughter system

Universities and teacher training colleges developed a strong focus on pastoral care for women in residential accommodation through the ‘Mother-Daughter system’. The Mother-Daughter system meant that each new woman undergraduate was allocated a ‘Mother’ (a student who had already completed their first year at university). The ‘Mother’ was responsible for the wellbeing of her ‘Daughter’, with some institutions insisting that each ‘Mother-Daughter’ pair would sit together during meal-times [30]. However, there was also curiosity about male students and there appears to have been some attempts to escape from the confines of all-women social interactions. Social occasions that enabled men and women students to mix were viewed positively by the women [31].

2.3 ‘Masculinity’ and male halls of residences

Whilst women students reported social events with men students positively in the 1950s and 1960s [31], there were concerns about how male students came to ‘belong’ socially. There were a number of examples of concerning initiation ceremonies for new male students in halls of residences [32], indicating that particular types of masculinity were dominant in male residences. Dyhouse [24] also reports a number of incidents of high jinks by male students who were admitted to the previously women’s colleges. On a number of occasions it appears that this type of behaviour led to male students being asked to leave the institution [32]. Segregation by gender in university life in the twenty-first century in the minority global North is unheard of, with mixed halls of residence accommodation, University Societies and university opportunities open to all regardless of gender. Though, socio-economic background impacts on the likelihood of being able to access the ‘university experience’ including living away from home [33].

3. Social class composition of universities

Today, students from less socio-economically privileged backgrounds, are likely to make comparisons with their more socio-economically advantaged peers contrasting ‘the (stereotypical imagery of the) ideal student life with their experience of gaining a degree through dedication and persistence’ [34]. Historically, the lack of university residential accommodation for women students at the civic institutions, with a general trend for students at civic institutions to commute to university from their family homes meant that social forms of gender segregation and socio-economic disparities, may not have had a significant impact on a sense of social belonging for men and women until university accommodation and improved funding became available in the 1960s. Wakeling’s study noted the sense of discombobulation felt by working-class students at a Scottish university with a relatively egalitarian student intake:

I did not meet anyone who was from a similar background to me. (1950s medical student, father a semi-skilled factory worker) [29]

I came from a very low income family and only got to university because of a) opportunities made available through comprehensive philosophy and b) generous student grants. In retrospect, I think that I felt out of my depth culturally and socially. There was little or no help available to prepare working-class students for this very middle-class environment. (1970s graduate) [29]

These interview quotes are indicative of a sense of not belonging due to a lack of social capital. Jackson and Marsden [35] cite their nine working-class boys at Oxbridge, with seven of these young men receiving third class or lower second degrees after promising starts. Jackson and Marsden believed that in part this was related to a lack of social belonging as having worked so hard academically for so long, they began to question the purpose of university and often felt widening barriers in their familial relationships. These concerns about socio-economic background impacting on a sense of belonging or not experiencing the ‘ideal’ student life do not appear to have abated for students in the twenty-first century:

No, I think one of the reasons why I always felt so negatively about my experiences was because they didn’t have that…it would have been a hell of an expense again taking a pragmatic, business point of view, why am I paying to be in worse accommodation, to eat worse food. It just didn’t make sense. They had all moved out and had the university, the social life… I didn’t have time to get involved in the societies and things like that. So I always felt slightly robbed of that. (Male, working-class university student) [36]

University students in the 1970s and 1980s were still in enough of a minority for maintenance grants to be available and ensure that as Robbins [3] had wanted those who were eligible and able to benefit from higher education were able to do so. However, as university provision has increased further, the burden of funding university education has shifted to the student (via a tuition fee system initially beginning in 1998), with tuition fee loans and student maintenance loans now embedded into the English higher education system. For those students who report being from a less financially advantaged background, the maintenance loans are generally insufficient to cover the cost of living-away from home.

4. Funding arrangements

Historically, funding was largely not an issue for the women who attended Oxbridge as they typically came from privileged backgrounds (although persuading their families to allow them to have a university education may have been very difficult). The women attending the civic universities were likely to come from relatively financial comfortable families with fathers working in Business or in a profession. It was more feasible for a working-class man to attend university with a variety of scholarships being aimed at men. Although women were generally happier to take the ‘Pledge’ to teach for five years after graduating and were able to receive financial support through this mechanism [37]. Local Education Authorities had more limited scholarships for women and at times would divide one scholarship between two women.

Although many universities are increasingly sensitive to some extent to the need for paid employment amongst students today, this has not always been the case. Groves [31] comments that there was a general sense of not having much money during 1954–55 at university. However, she also notes the lack of empathy the university had for students engaging in paid employment, with a friend who did not own a coat being told to give up their term-time employment in a public house. The account suggests that there was little acknowledgement of the financial precarity this placed the student in. It appears that financial precarity was not unusual historically, but it is often portrayed as an individual case of financial hardship. The pattern today appears to be a more uniform one which may be in part be due to the better access to university for students disadvantaged social backgrounds and concomitantly the reduction in financial support. Working-class university students in the twenty-first century recognise how their social class impacts upon their experience of university in comparison to middle-class students:

I feel like at uni there’s two types of students that you get. I’ve always been working class and everyone I have been surrounded by have been working class, so I’ve never really known that other side. But I think that being in that social class has changed my uni experience a lot. With the budgeting, you get some people who get their rent paid for them and I feel like coming to uni and having this set amount and having to budget for that, and I don’t really get any help from my parents, which I’m thankful for because it’s made me mature a lot quicker. A big part of uni has been learning how to do that, learning how to budget, prioritise. And I feel like maybe a lot of students don’t get that. And they leave and they haven’t had that life experience that they could have had. (Female working-class university student) [36]

Likewise, the reduction in financial support for many students today means that part-time employment is ubiquitous amongst the least financially advantaged students. There are both academic and social implications for developing a sense of belonging when engaged in extensive paid employment, with the time to study and engage with academic content becoming constricted.

I needed the money so I couldn’t just give up the job …I did get stuck in some jobs that I hated. At the end of [*large supermarket company] job I absolutely hated it, it was horrible treatment from managers and things but I couldn’t afford to leave because it would put me in a bad stead for university so I had to find something else and it had to overlap. (Female working-class university student) [36]

It is not only working-class students who need to engage in paid employment during term-time under the current funding arrangements, but it does appear that socio-economically disadvantaged students may be working a significant amount of hours:

I got a job up here. So I was balancing uni work last year, that was when I got a job. So it was quite a shock. It was weekend work which was obviously quite good in a way because it was like uni week/weekend work. But the problem was realistically after uni I wasn’t doing work on the weekdays because I was tired and I had excuses. So when I needed to be doing work on the weekend, I had work like 9 hours a day and I’d come home. And so it did get quite hard with that, knowing I had to do work in the week whereas I would normally rely on the weekend. That was quite hard at first. But then I spoke to her [manager] and was like I need one day a week work, it wasn’t that hard. Because me trying to balance 9 hours compared to some people I know trying to balance 30 hours work. (Female, middle-class university student) [36]

Therefore academic and social belonging is likely to be impacted by the extent to which a students can fully immerse themselves in a ‘student identity’. The need to be in paid employment and/or familial commitments can reduce the scope of a student to fully identify as a university student. Therefore socio-economic background is likely to impact significantly on the experience of being a university student in terms of both academic and social belonging.

5. Conclusion

This chapter concludes with suggesting that women’s experiences of university have improved significantly as their academic capabilities are valued by fellow students and academics. In fact, gender is rarely considered as an issue, unless related to women-only colleges, subject choice and graduate employment. There remains graduate pay disparities amongst men and women which in part are related to degree subject choice and women are still marginally less likely to be a postgraduate students. However, alongside a strong sense of academic belonging, women are active in university societies and generally have a sense of social belonging socially (with concerns about harassment and misogyny increasingly being addressed by higher education institutions). The progress for women broadly in higher education does not seem to be reflected in the same way in relation to social class. Social class continues to impact on a sense of belonging for many working-class undergraduates, with the emotional injuries of not having the same social, cultural and economic capital as their more privileged counterparts often being keenly felt. Strong learner identities for working-class students at elite institutions are particularly significant for succeeding, but many appear to ‘choose’ a safer, more local option where being working-class is socially accepted. As attitudes towards women at universities have changed for the better, it is hoped that not only is there an increasing recognition of the value of diversity in demographic backgrounds [38], but that it will be increasingly possible to feel a sense of social belonging and acceptance in learning environments that have historically been accessed only by the privileged few, for those with marginalised identities too.