Education and social mobility — FAQ

Sociologists do not argue that no social mobility exists, but rather that the system is structured to make upward mobility for the working class the exception, not the rule. Critical theorists suggest these individual success stories are often promoted by the elite to reinforce the 'myth of meritocracy'. This makes it seem that anyone can succeed through hard work alone, thereby deflecting attention from the systemic inequalities that prevent widespread mobility.

While exams appear to be an objective measure of merit, critics argue they are culturally biased. The content, language, and skills being tested often align more closely with the 'cultural capital' of the middle classes. For instance, Bernstein's concept of the 'elaborated code' is rewarded in essay-based subjects. Furthermore, unequal access to resources like private tuition, better-resourced schools, and parental help creates an uneven playing field long before the exam, undermining the claim that qualifications are a pure measure of innate ability.

The expansion of university places has increased 'absolute mobility'—more people have degrees than in their parents' generation. However, research on 'relative mobility' (a person's chances of moving up compared to others) is less positive. 'Credential inflation' has devalued degrees, meaning one is now required for jobs that previously did not need one. Moreover, the gap in life chances between graduates from elite universities and those from other institutions has widened, showing that class background still significantly influences outcomes even among the highly educated.