1. The irony of access studies 'Excluding the excluded from research about exclusion‘ Stephen Gorard s.gorard@bham.ac.uk

2. ‘According to the LSE, the extra places made available by the expansion of universities in the Eighties and Nineties have largely been filled by students from better-off backgrounds’ (http://www.suttontrust.com/press068.asp).http://www.suttontrust.com/press068.asp 'The comprehensive system was brought in to try to improve social mobility, but the opposite has happened' Sir Peter Lampl (http://www.suttontrust.com/press068.asp).http://www.suttontrust.com/press068.asp International comparisons indicate that intergenerational mobility in Britain is of the same order of magnitude as in the US, but that these countries are substantially less mobile than Canada and the Nordic countries. Intergenerational mobility fell markedly over time in Britain, with there being less mobility for a cohort of people born in 1970 compared to a cohort born in 1958. Source: Blanden, Machin and Gregg (2005) Intergenerational mobility in Europe and North America, London: Centre for Economic Performance, p.2

3. Table 3: Transition Matrix for Britain, Sons Born in 1958 Sons’ earnings quartile aged 33 in 1991 Bottom 2nd3rdTop Bottom parent quartile (when son aged 16).31.28.23.17 Source: Blanden, Machin and Gregg (2005) Intergenerational mobility in Europe and North America, London: Centre for Economic Performance, p.8 Table 4: Transition Matrix for Britain, Sons Born in 1970 Sons’ earnings quartile aged 30 in 2000 Bottom 2nd3rdTop Bottom parent quartile (when son aged 16).38.25.21.16

4. Internationally comparable estimates of intergenerational mobility CountrySons bornSons earning measure Measure of parental status Partial correlation Britain1970Age 30Average parental 1980+1986.271 Norway1958Average 1992+1999 Father 1974.139 Denmark1958-1960Average 1998+2000 Father 1980.143 Sweden1962Average 1996+1999 Father 1975.143 Finland1958-1960Average 1995+2000 Father 1975.147 Source: Blanden, Machin and Gregg (2005) Intergenerational mobility in Europe and North America, London: Centre for Economic Performance, p.6

5. “Recent evidence suggests that mobility in the UK is low by international standards (Jantti et al, 2006) and that mobility fell when the 1958 and 1970 cohorts are compared (Blanden et al, 2004).” Source: Blanden, Gregg and MacMillan (2006) Explaining intergenerational income persistence: non-cognitive skills, ability and education, CMPO Working Paper Series 06/146 Source: Jantti, M., Bratsberg, B., Roed, K., Raaum, O., Naylor, R., Osterbacka, E., Bjorklund, A. and Erikson, T. (2006) American exceptionalism in a new light: a comparison of intergenerational earnings mobility in the Nordic countries, the United Kingdom and the United States, IZA Discussion Paper 1938, p.5 “The United Kingdom bears a closer resemblance to the Nordic countries than to the United States.”

6. Percentage of HE applicants by social class, UK, 1998-2001 Social class 1998199920002001 Professional12 Intermediate3837 Skilled manual15 Skilled non-manual12 Partly skilled8887 Unskilled2222 Unknown12141315 Source: UCAS

7. Percentage of HE applicants by occupational class, UK, 2002- 2005 Occupational class 2002200320042005 Higher managerial1817 16 Lower managerial25 24 Intermediate1312 Small employers6666 Lower supervisory4444 Semi-routine11 Routine5555 Unknown19212023 Source: UCAS

8. Percentage of HE applicants by occupational class, UK, 2002-2005 and households by occupational class, UK, 2001 census Occupational class 2002200320042005Census 2001 Higher managerial1817 1610 Lower managerial25 2417 Intermediate1312 6 Small employers66667 Lower supervisory44448 Semi-routine11 7 Routine55557 Unknown1921202338

9. Occupational class of HE applicants divided by class of households Occupational class 2002/Census2005/Census Higher managerial1.381.25 Lower managerial1.111.15 Intermediate1.601.50 Small employers0.640.73 Lower supervisory0.38 Semi-routine1.181.27 Routine0.55