Geoffrey Vos QC wrote the following letter to the Sunday Times, and an edited version appeared in the paper on Sunday 16th August 2009:

Do we need to hammer the middle classes to improve social mobility?

Sir

Since Alan Milburn’s report on Fairer Access to the Professions was published in July, two themes have predominated in the press. First, in relation to admissions policies of top universities, it is said that it would be wrong to admit students with lower A-level grades from poorer backgrounds, in preference to more privileged applicants with higher grades. Secondly, there is the complaint that social mobility has only declined because of the abolition of grammar schools.

It is a great shame that the press makes so much of these two points, since there is cross-party support for both the objective of greater social mobility, and the main recommendations of the Milburn report. But since commentators have obsessed about these two points to the exclusion of almost all else, it is as well to answer them head on.

It must surely be uncontroversial that university places should be available to the most able students from all backgrounds. The question, therefore, is simply how one identifies the most able students. Nobody would suggest that this is easy. There have been disappointed applicants to Oxbridge for decades. But I would suggest it is very hard to support the proposition that a student who has attained 3 A grades at A-level from the poorest inner city state school has only equal ability and potential to a student with identical grades from the most privileged public school in the country. The poorer students have certainly overcome massive barriers to achieve at such a high level. The privileged ones have merely achieved what is expected of all their peers.

Thus, when Lord Mandelson expresses interest in university admissions policies that accord, on objective principles, greater weight to high grades obtained at low-achieving schools, he is not contradicting the first principle upon which almost all agree – namely that there should be a level playing field. He is simply acknowledging that talented students from poor backgrounds face significantly greater hurdles than their more privileged peers. Since universities want to admit the best students from all backgrounds, they need to make sure that they accord proper weight to the successes of the less privileged. These students have simply not been playing in the same ball park as those in privileged public schools. That is why their achievements may be assessed, objectively, as worth more.

The proponents of the reintroduction of grammar schools conveniently forget that, when their abolition commenced in 1965, they educated only about 25% of secondary school pupils. And only 6% of school students then went on to university, compared to approaching 50% now. It would be both impossible and counter-productive to bifurcate the state school system with the objective of separating out those destined for university at age 11 – or any other age for that matter. Of course, we need a high quality school system, with good teaching for all, aimed at raising the aspirations and realising the potential of all pupils. We cannot achieve this by creaming off an elite of school students, when half of all students at all schools will, in practice, end up at university.

It is simply wrong to suggest that improving social mobility will lead to the middle classes being hammered. In fact, the middle classes will themselves benefit from the implementation of Alan Milburn’s recommendations, in the form (for example) of professional work experience, internships and mentoring. These things should be provided for all, so that the most talented from all backgrounds can achieve to the best of their ability, and go on to the best universities, and into top jobs.

None of this is or should be a party political debate. Few doubt that not enough has yet been done to promote social mobility. Now that Alan Milburn has identified a series of achievable and affordable measures that will create a real improvement, we should all be working together to implement his recommendations. Privileged parents and students have nothing to fear from fair competition with their less privileged peers. The interests of UK plc demand that our top universities select the most able from whatever background they may come.

Geoffrey Vos QC
Chairman of the Social Mobility Foundation