This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 06 December 2014, At: 21:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of EducationalAdministration and HistoryPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjeh20

Mature Students and HigherEducation: The FurtherEducation and TrainingSchemeRay Mason aa Tile Hill College of Further Education ,CoventryPublished online: 07 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Ray Mason (1989) Mature Students and Higher Education:The Further Education and Training Scheme, Journal of EducationalAdministration and History, 21:2, 35-45, DOI: 10.1080/0022062890210205

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022062890210205

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and

should be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

53 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Mature Students and Higher Education: TheFurther Education and Training Scheme

Increasing the access of mature students to higher education is an issue exercisingthe minds of educationalists and politicians alike. With industry warning of ashortage of graduates in key areas, and the projected decline of suitably qualified18 year olds coming forward for higher education (the nadir is likely in 1994-5with a fall to 630,000 at the current Age Participation Rate (APR)), maturestudents are increasingly being perceived as one way of bridging the gap. TheUniversity Grants Committee/National Advisory Body 'Standing Committee onContinuing Education', for example, has recently welcomed Access courses andcalled for their increased development,1 and the search is on for a valid way ofassessing the potential of adults for higher education.2 The barriers to entry formature students are hastily being lowered.

Given that mature students have been thrust centre-stage after so many yearsof relative neglect, it is perhaps an apposite moment to shed some further lighton a scheme set up during the Second World War which boosted considerablythe numbers of mature students in higher education, and increased significantlythose whom we would refer to today as non-standard entrants (that is lackingthe necessary minimum entry requirements). The scheme initiated by the wartimegovernment was called the Further Education and Training Scheme (FETS).Under this innovative scheme men and women were eligible for an awardcovering fees and living expenses provided that they had been engaged in workof 'national importance' (either voluntarily or under conscription), could showthat they had had their careers as students interrupted by the war, and were ableto gain entrance to a full-time course either at university or some other FurtherEducation establishment. Unlike either state or local scholarships the award wasnot the result of a competitive examination, and educational institutions wereinstructed to give preference to ex-servicemen and women over school leavers.3

The architect of the scheme was one S. H. Wood, Principal Assistant Secretaryin the Teaching Training Section of the Board of Education. Wood had been incharge of a similar scheme set up after the First World War, but FETS differedfrom its predecessor on a number of counts. First it was larger: over 86,000people received FETS awards compared to 26,500. Secondly, it included women,unlike the First World War scheme which had been exclusively for men. Althoughthis was the case it should be noted that only approximately 7 per cent of FETSawards were actually taken up by women. This is partly explicable by the factthat women were under-represented in the jobs that were defined as being of'national importance', but this is clearly far from the whole story. Thirdly, theFirst World War scheme was only for the 'forces', and officers accounted for 40per cent of the total number of awards. FETS on the other hand cast its net

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

53 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY

wider, with students drawn not only from H.M. Forces but also from theMerchant Navy, Civil Defence, Police Auxiliary, Civil Nursing Reserve and soon. Although, as we shall see later, it is at present impossible to say how sociallyinclusive the net was, the Ministry of Education was at least partially right whenin 1948 it commented that the FETS 'has doubtless enabled many thousands ofyoung men and women [sic] to follow full-time courses at Universities andelsewhere who would certainly not have done so in the ordinary way'.4

The scheme was generously administered with fewer than 1 in 25 applicationsto the Ministry of Education being refused. The awards themselves could varyfrom six years for say a medical degree, to a few weeks for a refresher course,and were still available to all those called up until 30 September 1947. They werenot ungenerous, with the average award of around £250 per annum beingapproximately three-quarters of the average industrial wage.5 The impact onstudent numbers was, of course, considerable with the universities, for example,rising from a pre-war 50,000 students (1932) to over 83,000 in 1951. At the peakof the scheme, around 1948-9, FETS students constituted around 55 per cent ofthe total full-time student population. In all, something like 720 educationalinstitutions benefited from this influx, with a rough 55:45 split in favour of theuniversities. As the universities accounted for something like 60 per cent of theoverall full-time student population in this respect FETS mirrored fairly closelythe national picture.

With such a magnitude of awards and their relative generosity, the commitmentto the scheme both by the war-time government and its Labour successor isevident. What therefore was the thinking that underpinned the scheme, whatprovided the rationale for such a level of expenditure and a new departure inHigher Education? The FETS seems to have had a twin agenda, part economicand part ideological. Explicitly there was the manpower planning principle, thatis to ensure an adequate supply of men and women for the occupations andprofessions that the war had either depleted or shown to be crucial for economicand military success. A shortage of scientists and engineers was perceived asbeing particularly problematic,6 coupled with the loss of 30,000 men who wouldnormally have graduated with an arts degree. Planning of course implied anassessment of whether or not targeted goals had been achieved, and it wasintended, therefore, that some sort of record should be kept of the subsequentcareers of FETS award holders: the failure to do this was seen as one of theinadequacies of the First World War scheme. Wood himself was in no doubt thatthe First World War scheme had in fact benefited the national interest: 'Themoral effect, from a national point of view, of generously satisfying the immediateambitions of a large number of somewhat restless, impatient men, was incalcul-able'.7 Given the infamous reputation of some of these students his judgementmay well have been sound.8 Despite the good intentions, however, and assurancesfrom the Ministry of Education in 1948 that it intended to ask all award holdersto relay details of their careers three years after the satisfactory completion oftheir course, and that the 'first requests have been sent out and replies are beingreceived',9 no such data seems to exist, and all that is available is the intended

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

53 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

6.04-53.05.83-11.6

14-62.9

6-32-3'•45-9

27-31.0

14-3

2 . 1

13-40.73-o

H . 2

0.30 . 0

0.43-2

10.0

0-30 . 0

23-59.6

19-3

THE FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING SCHEME

careers of students who received FETS awards, given at the beginning of theircourse (Table i).

Table i: Intended Careers of Students who Applied for an Award(l)

Men Women

ArchitectureArtChemistryCivil ServiceCommerceDentistryEngineeringLawMedicineMusic and DramaPharmacyReligionTeachingWelfareRemainder

(<) Ministry of Education, Education in ig}} (i9$6).

Secondly, there was what we might call the 'hidden curriculum' of FETS aspart of the post-war reconstruction. Reports from the Army Bureau of CurrentAffairs, and incidents such as the 'Cairo Parliament', made it seem that 'restlessand impatient' men were also likely to be returning from the Second World Warlooking for improvements in the country for which they had so recently fought.This new reality was recognised early on by R. S. Wood, Deputy AssistantSecretary to the Permanent Assistant Secretaries Committee and colleague ofS. H. Wood, when he prophetically remarked that 'the war . . . is moving moreand more in the direction of Labour's ideas and ideals, the planning would bemore towards the left than many people currently supposed'.10 The FETS, bypotentially opening up access to higher education for thousands of peoplepreviously denied entry, was a tangible and immediate expression of the newconsensus of welfare social democracy, the period of 'hegemony by consent' asStuart Hall has called it. By signifying that it was possible to expand highereducation and that the expansion carried with it a commitment to some form ofsocial justice, FETS helped break the ideological link with the ossified classsystem of the 1930s. It was a marker for the new principle of equality ofopportunity which was to prove a powerful weapon in arguments about theexpansion of higher education in the post-war period.

The lack of any follow-up study means that any assessment of how successfulFETS was in achieving its objectives will remain essentially perfunctory. How-ever, fragmentary evidence drawn from the Ministry of Education, contemporary

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

53 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY

commentators, early research and my own current research, enables us to piecetogether at least a partial picture and begin to make some qualified judgements.Initially it is clear that in general terms FETS was taken to be, with somereservations, a success story. FETS students were perceived as hardworking,mature and well motivated. As the editor of the Times Educational Supplementobserved, 'they applied themselves to their studies with a seriousness andconcentration which won deserved praise from their tutors and teachers'." Thismaturity and application was not however without its downside for somelecturers. A number undoubtedly had problems in adjusting to students whowere both older, many given their experiences 'old beyond their years', anddisinclined passively to accept arguments they perceived as wrong. For some,FETS students were distinctly j anus-faced.

In terms of pass rates FETS students fared a little worse than their traditional18-year-old counterparts with an overall failure to complete rate of 20.57 P e r

cent for women and 18.76 per cent for men. The Ministry of Education concludedthat this could be offset by the number of award holders who probably took upfull-time employment, transferred to part-time degrees and completed theirdegrees subsequently outside the FETS scheme. No real evidence exists for thisassumption, but it is indicative of the benign light in which the FETS schemewas viewed. A number of more specific questions remain unanswered, however.First, just how mature were the FETS students? An answer to this might givesome indication of whether or not they were mostly deferred initial entrants(DIE), that is those who would have gone to university in the normal course ofevents except for the intervention of the war, or whether they were genuine lateentrants who would not have traditionally gone into higher education. As arough rule of thumb, the older the student at the time of entry the more likelythey would be to belong to the latter category. Secondly, what relationship, ifany, existed between age and degree performance? It has been the usual case formature students to perform equally well in the Arts/Humanities and worse inthe Sciences.13 And thirdly, what chance did FETS give to working-class males- we have already seen that by and large it excluded women? Did it reallyprovide true equality of opportunity? As we have previously suggested there canfor the moment be no unequivocal answers to these questions. However, evidencedrawn from Birmingham University (N = 625) and Leicester University (N = 66)will hopefully go some way towards providing at least a provisional assessment.

In terms of age distribution, Figure 1 clearly indicates a negative skew towardsthe younger student, with a mean age of 22.9 (Birmingham) and 23.0 (Leicester).

Calculating how many FETS students were mature as opposed to DIE is nota straightforward matter. However, if we make certain assumptions then it ispossible to arrive at our approximate figure. First, all those over the age of 27at the time of entry can almost certainly be included on the basis that had theycommenced as a full-time student they would, with the odd exception, havecompleted before the outbreak of war or shortly afterwards. Therefore, it isunlikely that they would be either a DIE or returning to complete a courseinterrupted by the war. From our sample this constitutes 7.02 per cent of thepopulation. Extrapolated to the FETS scheme as a whole this gives just over38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

53 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING SCHEME

Figure i: Age Distribution of FETS Students (Birmingham and LeicesterUniversities)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

53 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY

social background is not susceptible to statistical analysis early on, provides someanecdotal evidence in its 1953 report where it talks of an 'increasing tendencyfor students to enter paid employment during the vacation'.'3 One is left to drawthe conclusion that this implies an increase in the number of working-classstudents rather than some general upsurge in the level of the Protestant ethicamongst the middle classes.

Quantitative evidence is equally thin on the ground. Little research wasundertaken in the pre-war period. What was done suggested something like 10to 15 per cent of British university students originated from the homes of skilledand unskilled manual workers,'4 although the separate figures for Scotland andWales are generally taken to be somewhat higher.'5 In the immediate post-warperiod the Political and Economic Planning Survey (1950) of the 1947-8 universityintake compared an ancient English university (Camford), a modern Englishuniversity (Greentown), and an English university college (Rising UC) and acollege of the University of Wales (Welsh College) and found percentages ofchildren of manual workers as follows:"5 Camford, male 7.7, female 6.6; Green-town, male 21.6, female 19.2; Rising UC, male 19.7, female 17.1; Welsh College,male 28.8, female 28.6. Clearly, therefore, with the possible exception ofCamford, the children of manual workers had greater access to university,although this was still far from representative, with their fathers making up 66.1per cent of the total male workforce. Although this seems to suggest that FETSdid indeed open up opportunities for the working class, the picture is muddiedsomewhat by the fact that 17.5 per cent of the male intake at Greentown, 12.5per cent at Rising UC, 13.0 per cent at Welsh College and 2.0 per cent atCamford failed to give their father's occupation on their application forms, andthat 'Most of those who failed to record this detail were ex-service students'.'7

This may well account for the similarity in the percentages of males and females.Given that 93 per cent of FETS students were male, if FETS had had a majorimpact one might have expected a greater discrepancy since it would haveoperated disproportionately in favour of males. In respect of FETS students,therefore, the P.E.P. study is far from conclusive.

The data from my own sample of Birmingham and Leicester students islikewise extremely limited. The student records in four out of five of the facultiesat Birmingham contained no reference to father's occupation, the exception beingthe medical faculty. Unfortunately what is true today is almost certainly true ofthe 1940s - that medical students are more likely to have their origins in themiddle classes than the average student.'8 Table 2 confirms this impression.

The information from Leicester is even more restricted with only a total of 26fathers' occupations traceable. However, with students drawn from right acrossthe different disciplines, it is consistent with the Birmingham data. This evidence,scant though it is, would therefore tend to suggest that FETS by and large simplyincreased the numbers of middle-class students who went into higher education.However, before we overhastily reach such a conclusion, two important ridersneed to be made. First, with Birmingham and Leicester we are dealing exclusivelywith universities (Leicester at the time being a university college taking Londondegrees). It may well have been the case that many working-class students chose40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

53 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING SCHEME

Table 2: Social Background of FETS Students in the Medical Faculty(University of Birmingham)

Professional

Doctors

EngineersAccountants

Teacher/Lecturers

Pharmacists

ChurchBankerTax InspectorsSurveyorsDirectors/owners

of businessesManagersGolf professional'Gentleman'

Farmer

Totals:

9

44

3

2

I

I

32

6

5111

43

Lower white-collar

CommercialTravellers

ClerksCivil Servant

Insurance Agent

Inspector(G.P.O.)

2

2

1

1

1

7

Skilled manual

Groundsman

ToolmakersMechanic

Carpenter

Master Baker

1

2

1

1

1

6

Semi-/unskilledmanual

Railway worker

WarderSheet-metal

worker

1

1

1

3

other higher or further education institutions in preference to the universitiesbecause of the latter's middle-class image. The local technical college may wellhave looked rather more welcoming than the rather ivory-towered academia ordesultory life of the university. Although not perhaps quite finishing schools forgentlemen, Mountford's description of many pre-war university students as 'oldlags who stayed on year after year and occasionally passed an examination'19 issurely not too wide of the mark. Secondly, contemporary commentators werein no doubt that FETS had a major impact on opening up higher education to aclass of people previously denied access. One distinguished educationalist andFETS old boy, A. H. Halsey, for example, talks of the scheme as 'breaking theelitist British HE system'.20 However, before any definitive answer can be givenmore research is clearly necessary on institutions outside the university sector.

Finally there is the question of performance. As we have previously stated themajority of studies from the Second World War onwards have tended to confirmthe hypothesis that mature students perform equally as well, if not slightly better,in the arts/humanities, and rather worse in the sciences. This holds true formature students who come into higher education as standard or non-standardentrants. In this respect two questions can be asked of our FETS sample. Did

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

53 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY

their degree performance decline with age? How well did it match the performanceof the 'straight from school' normal 18-year-old entrant? The first question canbe relatively easily answered, the second less so.

Any relationship between age and degree performance can be elicited byallocating students to categories of performance and matching them against age.In this instance we have taken a conventional distinction between 'good' degrees(ist and 2:1), 'average' (2nd and/or 2:2) and 'poor' (3rd, Ordinary, Pass, Fail,Withdraw), and 23+ as the 'cut off age on the grounds that this has been atypical definition of what constitutes a mature student. Using this procedure theBirmingham and Leicester data give the data indicated in Table 3.

Table 3: Degree Performance and Age (FETS Students at Birmingham andLeicester Universities)

AGE

19-2324+

GOOD

13563

OverallAV.

13573

POOR

19986

GOOD

122

58

ScienceAV.

9158

POOR

38484

Arts/HumanitiesGOOD

H5

AV.

4416

POOR

2 0

8

Applying a chi2 test this gives results of x2 = 1.349, x2 = 1.921 and x2 = 0.042respectively and confirms the impressionistic evidence that no relationship existsbetween age and degree performance, either overall or in the arts and sciences.However, a further chi2 test taking 27 as the cut off point on the basis that 27+fell outside of the DIE category and was likely to contain a high percentage ofnon-standard entrants yielded the following, x2 = 6.093 (Table 4).

Table 4: DegreePerformance

of FETSStudents

Aged 27 andAbove

AGE

19-2727+

GOOD

1926

OverallAV.

1979

POOR

26621

This result is significant at the 5 per cent level and would therefore tend toindicate that whilst age and performance are not necessarily linked amongst oursample of FETS students, whether they were standard entry or not may be asignificant variable. These results are obviously far from conclusive but they dosuggest that the performance of non-standard entrants warrants further attention.

The question still remains as to how FETS students measured up to theirtraditional 18-year-old counterparts. FETS generated its fair share of academic'stars', A. H. Halsey, Desmond Morris and Professor Alan Walters amongstthem, but was being a FETS student in itself a predictor of how well or badly astudent was likely to perform? Mountford's21 study in 1956 of a three-year intakeinto Liverpool University gave the results shown in Table 5.42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

53 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING SCHEME

Table 5: Three-year Intake into Liverpool University

1st 2nd 2(1) 2(2) 3rd Ord. Abandoned

Ex-servicemen 4.9 6.4 6.7 5.6 0.3 46.3 16.8State Scholarships 29.9 8.1 24.1 5.8 2.3 29.9 —Privately funded 4.4 6.6 2.8 2.5 3.8 43.1 18.6Overall Total 8.0 6.3 8.9 6.6 2.8 44.8 13.1

As we can see FETS students were out-performed by the state scholars butmore than matched those who were privately funded, and were only slightlybelow the overall student performance. The Birmingham and Leicester data showa rather wider spread with a greater percentage of Firsts but also more abandoned(Table 6).

Table 6: Spread of Degree Performance of FETS Students at Birmingham andLeicester Universities

1st 2nd 2(1) 2(2) 3rd Ord/Pass AbandonedW

Birmingham 18.76 1.18 10.49 2925 1.48 15.36 23.49Leicester 5.19 10.39 5*9 6.49 3.90 20.78 48.05

The differences in the Birmingham sample may well be a reflection of the factthat it contains a high percentage of science students who were likely to generatemore first class degrees and a greater number of failures compared with theircounterparts in the arts/humanities. The rather poor performance of the Leicestersample is at the moment inexplicable, although it may be connected with thestatus of Leicester as a university college, which may in itself have generated ahigher failure rate compared with the traditional universities.

So far we have concentrated exclusively on FETS students involved in degree-level work but this misses out an important dimension - those taking one- ortwo-year diplomas. At Birmingham, for example, FETS students proved them-selves both on the Malting and Brewing Diploma, with 43 out of 49 successfullycompleting, and the Diploma in Social Studies, with 15 successes from a totalof 17 entrants. Evaluation of the performance of mature students has tended tosuffer from a certain 'degree myopia'; degrees are only one of things that studentstake away from universities and should not be the exclusive measure of successor failure. Although somewhat difficult to quantify it may well have been thecase that many FETS students left university or college with an enhanced senseof self esteem and a new ability to engage with political, economic and culturallife.

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

53 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY

Given the circumstances in which many FETS students undertook university-level work - a long time away from education, possible family commitments,and so on - it is difficult to disagree with Mountford's assessment that the results'confirm the general impression that was formed during the post-war years byall who taught ex-service students, that when due allowance was made for allthe difficulties with which many of them were confronted, they amply justifiedthe opportunities offered them'.26

A complete assessment of the success or failure of FETS must be put 'on ice'until rather more quantitative and qualitative evidence is available. That itprovided an opportuntiy to study in higher education for many people whowould otherwise not have done so seems indisputable. How far it proved to bea mode of access for a large number of working-class people remains a moreproblematical question. In at least partially breaking with the elite higher educationsystem of the 1930s, it was certainly a progressive force which perhaps unfortu-nately the universities in particular failed to build upon in the years followingthe demise of the scheme. For adult education FETS also raises interesting andimportant questions of direct contemporary relevance. For example, what impactdid these students have on the higher education system itself, and what sort ofresponses did it make; and what effect, if any, did it have on our understandingabout the nature of adult learning and intelligence? These questions deserve ourattention, and when we begin to answer them we may perhaps be able toconstruct an adequate yardstick by which the success or failure of this neglectedscheme can usefully be judged.

Ray Mason,Tile Hill College of Further Education, Coventry

1. Access courses are designed as an alternative route into higher education for mature students,by-passing the normal two 'A' level entry requirement. For a discussion on the concept of'access', see Journal of Access Studies, 1 (1) (1986), pp. 43-54.

2. The 18-months D.E.S./M.S.C. funded project to assess the applicability of the American'Student Potential Programme' to education and training in Britain is one example. Theevaluation is being carried out by the Unit for the Development of Adult ContinuingEducation.

3. The universities agreed to give priority up to 90 per cent of the total annual student intake,although ex-service students fell well short of that proportion.

4. Ministry of Education, Education in 1948 (1949).5. H. and H. M. Preston, 'The Further Education and Training Scheme', in Selma J. Miskin

(ed.), Recurrent Education (1973), for this calculation. However, as P. Cummins, How's YourGrant? (1951) shows, the award was not indexed to inflation and had declined by 18 percent by 1948.

6. Scientific Manpower: Report of the Committee appointed by the Lord President of the Council(1946), pp. 8, 11.

7. P.R.O., Ed. 136.8. Michael Sanderson (ed.), The Universities in the Nineteenth Century (1975), p. 232.9. Education in 1948, op. cit., p. 75.

10. P. H. J. H. Gosden, Education in the Second World War: A Study in Policy and Administration(1976), p. 248.

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

53 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING SCHEME

11. H. C. Dent, Growth in English Education, 1946-52 (1954), p. 29.12. J. Brennan, 'Student Learning and Capacity to Benefit: The Performance of the Non

Traditional Student in the Public Sector of Higher Education', Journal of Access Studies 1 (1)(1986), p. 23.

13. University Grants Committee, University Development: Reports on the Years 1947-52 (1953),pp. 24-5-

14. Political and Economic Planning, 'University Student - A Pilot Study', Planning 16 no. 310(i9S0. P- 2l6-

15. A. Collier, 'Social Origins of a Sample of Entrants to Glasgow University', SociologicalReview 30 (1936), pp. 161, 262.

16. Planning 16, op. cit., p. 238.17. Ibid., p. 237.18. Ibid., p. 234, shows that medical and law students were most likely to be drawn from the

fee-paying school.19. J. Mountford in University Quarterly 13 (3) (1959)-20. T. Clarke, 'Labour's View of Higher Education', Journal of the National Association of Teachers

in Further and Higher Education, Oct. 1986, p. 26.21. J. Mountford, How They Fared. A Survey of a Three Year Student Entry (1956).22. Ibid., p. 6.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

53 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2014