Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:03:40.150Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 8 - Neoliberal Policy, Quality and Inequality in Undergraduate Degrees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2013

Andrea Abbas
Affiliation:
Teesside University
Paul Ashwin
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
Monica McLean
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In this chapter we analyse two contradictory framings of “a high-quality undergraduate education’ and reveal how neoliberal higher education policy is in danger of increasing inequality in England. The first framing, which is found in policy documents, sees the marketisation of the higher education system as essential to high quality. It views student employment as the key measure of high quality and suggests that disadvantaged students would prefer to pursue degrees that focus on employment training rather than study academic disciplines. The English university system is class-divided and most disadvantaged students, along with members of the lower middle class, attend lower-ranking universities (Roberts 2009). The policy documents definition of high quality has implications for curricula in these universities. The second framing is in current social science students’ accounts of what they value about the education they are receiving. These students, who are from diverse backgrounds and are based in higher- and lower-ranking universities in England, value the ways that engaging with disciplinary knowledge transforms them personally, empowers them socially and prepares them for employment.

Basil Bernstein's (2000) term “pedagogic rights’ provides a definition of “a high-quality undergraduate education’ that helps us evaluate these two very different perspectives. “Pedagogic rights’ signifies what higher education should contribute to democratic societies. Two elements of “pedagogic rights’ (enhancement and inclusion) map what students say they gain from studying social science at four universities which have been given pseudonyms to protect the identity of departments and students (see section on methodology).

Type
Chapter
Information
Organising Neoliberalism
Markets, Privatisation and Justice
, pp. 179 - 200
Publisher: Anthem Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×