Are fewer poor students entering the best universities?

"Why is it that there are fewer children from poor backgrounds who make it all the way to the very best universities than there were in the 1960s?" Boris Johnson, The Telegraph, 22 September 2013

In article for the Telegraph, Boris Johnson argued that Labour's "war" against grammar schools and competitive education had undermined equality in the education system. So much so that, he claims, we're seeing fewer children from poor backgrounds in the top universities than in the 1960s.

The claim itself is not sourced, and taken on its own it raises a number of questions:

• Fewer? - Did Boris Johnson mean fewer in absolute or relative terms? Given there's been a marked increase in the number of university students since 1962, it's more likely Boris Johnson was referring to the proportion of "poor" students entering higher education. 
• A "poor background" - Socio-economic background can be measured in a number of ways. It is standard for higher education institutions like UCAS and its predecessor UCCA to use parental occupation as a proxy for social class. The socio-economic groups were divided into 6 categories. It was replaced in 2001 by the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC) which includes 7 categories. 
• The best universities - It's not entirely clear which universities Boris Johnson is referring to, however it's common for the Russell Group of leading research universities to be used as a proxy for "the best universities" in the country. We could also narrow down the focus to Oxford and Cambridge. 

So, with these points in mind, here's what we do know about the social class of top university students in the 1960s and now.

Cambridge students from "poor backgrounds" in the 1960s and now

When we contacted the Russell Group, we were told they didn't have any data on the social background of entrants going back to the 1960s. Likewise, Oxford University told us they have "no records of this sort of information that is more than five years old." So we had to dig further.

A Commons Library standard note on higher education and social class cites a 1957 report by the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals of Universities in the UK. The report surveyed students in 1955 and 1956 and found that 9% of students entering Cambridge University came from families where the parents were either skilled or unskilled manual workers.

In comparison, 10.3% of Cambridge students in 2011/12 belonged to the bottom four socio-economic groups. The two figures for 1955/56 and 2011/12 are not dissimilar, however we should be careful comparing them given the fact that the social classification in the 1960s was different. 

UK: 4% of over 18 year olds from poor backgrounds went to university in the 1960s

In 1960 4% of over 18 year olds from the bottom three social groups entered higher education, compared a national average of 5%. According to data published in the 1997 Dearing Report, carried out by the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, the two figures are close because the occupations in the bottom three groupings formed a larger part of the population in the 1960s. The report also found that since the 1960s there's been "a steady improvement in participation rates amongst lower socio-economic groups."

In contrast, UCAS' most recent report on entry rates to higher education showed that 22% of young people from the most disadvantaged fifth of the population entered higher education by age 19. Once again, comparing socio-economic groups which are 50 years apart can be tricky. A UCAS spokesperson told us that compared to the figures found in the Dearing report, the UCAS ones account for a smaller age range (18 to 19, as opposed to 18 to 21) and for a smaller section of the population, given that - as mentioned earlier - occupations in the bottom three groupings formed a larger part of the population in the 1960s.

The Sutton Trust report

Though Boris Johnson did not point to a source, a report from the Sutton Trust presents evidence that might support his claim.

In 2005 the Sutton Trust commissioned a study on intergenerational mobility in Europe and North America which compared the "life chances" of children born in the 1950s, 1970s and 1980s. One of the conclusions drawn was that:

"Education participation in the 1990s was characterized by a narrowing in the gap between the staying on rates at 16 between rich and poor children, but a further widening in the inequality of access to higher education."

The report also found that:

"The expansion of higher education since the late 1980s has so far disproportionately benefited those from more affluent families."

The conclusions in this report are close to Boris Johnson's own assessment, and it's possible that this was his original source. However, higher education is used here in broad terms, and the findings did not relate specifically to the very best universities. 

This research suggests that across all universities expanding higher education hasn't aided social mobility. However, we don't have enough information to track how the social make-up of students in the top universities has changed over the last half century.