Introduction
Higher education institutions in both the UK and the US aspire to be engines of social mobility and reflective of the diverse societies they serve. However, historical legacies and ongoing societal inequalities present significant challenges in achieving equitable access and outcomes for students from all backgrounds, particularly those from underrepresented racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. Both countries have implemented various policies and initiatives aimed at widening participation (UK) or promoting diversity and affirmative action (US), but their approaches, legal contexts, and measures of success differ. This article compares the efforts towards diversity, equity, and access in UK and US universities.
Defining the Goals: Widening Participation vs. Diversity and Affirmative Action
United Kingdom:
-
Widening Participation (WP): This is the dominant framework in the UK. It primarily focuses on increasing access and success for underrepresented groups, defined largely by socioeconomic indicators (e.g., eligibility for free school meals, living in low-participation neighborhoods – POLAR/TUNDRA quintiles), being first-generation students, care leavers, disabled students, and certain ethnic minority groups who are statistically underrepresented in higher education.
-
Access and Participation Plans: Universities receiving public funding must have approved Access and Participation Plans (regulated by the Office for Students – OfS) outlining targets and strategies for improving access, continuation, completion, and progression for WP students. These often involve outreach programs, contextual admissions, bursaries, and targeted support.
-
Legal Context: UK equality law prohibits direct discrimination based on protected characteristics (including race) in admissions, meaning explicit quotas or race-based preferences are generally unlawful. Contextual admissions (considering background alongside grades) are used instead.
United States:
-
Diversity and Affirmative Action: US efforts have historically focused on increasing representation of specific racial and ethnic minority groups (particularly Black, Hispanic, and Native American students) who have faced systemic discrimination, alongside considerations of socioeconomic status and other factors contributing to a diverse student body.
-
Affirmative Action (Historical Context): For decades, many selective universities considered race as one factor among many in a holistic admissions review to achieve educational benefits associated with diversity. However, the legal landscape has been highly contentious.
-
Supreme Court Rulings: Landmark Supreme Court cases (e.g., Bakke, Grutter, Fisher) placed limitations on the use of race in admissions. In 2023, the Students for Fair Admissions ruling significantly curtailed the ability of universities to explicitly consider race as a factor in admissions decisions, forcing institutions to re-evaluate their strategies for achieving diversity, often shifting focus towards socioeconomic factors and personal essays discussing background.
-
Holistic Review: Many US universities continue to use holistic review, evaluating applicants based on a wide range of factors beyond grades and test scores, including essays, extracurriculars, recommendations, and personal context, which can indirectly support diversity goals post-SFFA.
Key Strategies and Initiatives
United Kingdom:
-
Outreach Programs: Extensive programs working with schools in low-participation areas to raise aspirations and attainment (e.g., summer schools, mentoring).
-
Contextual Admissions: Using additional information about an applicant’s background (e.g., school performance, postcode data) to interpret academic achievement. Offers may be made at slightly lower grade requirements for eligible students.
-
Financial Support: Bursaries and scholarships targeted at students from low-income backgrounds.
-
On-Course Support: Targeted academic and pastoral support for WP students to improve retention and success rates.
United States:
-
Targeted Recruitment: Efforts to recruit students from underrepresented high schools and communities.
-
Fly-In Programs: Programs that bring promising low-income or underrepresented minority students to visit campus.
-
Need-Based Financial Aid: Generous need-based aid policies at wealthy private universities significantly improve access for low-income students (of all backgrounds). Pell Grants are federal aid for low-income students.
-
Diversity Offices and Programs: Dedicated diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices providing support services, cultural centres, mentoring programs, and campus climate initiatives.
-
Post-SFFA Strategies: Increased focus on socioeconomic factors, geographic diversity, overcoming adversity essays, and partnerships with diverse high schools.
Challenges and Criticisms
United Kingdom:
-
Attainment Gaps: Persistent gaps in degree outcomes (e.g., achieving a ‘good’ degree – First or 2:1) between students from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds.
-
Defining Disadvantage: Debates continue about the most effective ways to measure and target disadvantage.
-
Selective Institutions: Concerns remain about fair access to the most elite universities for students from state comprehensive schools compared to private schools.
United States:
-
Legal and Political Battles: The highly politicized and litigious environment surrounding affirmative action creates uncertainty and challenges.
-
Persistent Inequalities: Despite efforts, significant disparities in access and completion rates persist, particularly for Black, Hispanic, Native American, and low-income students, especially at selective institutions.
-
Legacy Preferences: Criticism of legacy preferences (favouring children of alumni) and athletic recruitment practices, which often benefit wealthier, white applicants.
-
Campus Climate: Issues related to campus climate, inclusion, and belonging for underrepresented students remain ongoing challenges.
Measuring Success
United Kingdom:
-
Success is largely measured against targets set in Access and Participation Plans, tracked by the OfS using national data on representation, retention, and outcomes based on WP markers.
United States:
-
Universities track enrollment demographics (race/ethnicity, Pell Grant eligibility, first-generation status). Success is often framed around achieving a diverse class profile and closing completion gaps, though metrics and transparency vary. Legal constraints now heavily influence how success related to racial diversity can be framed and pursued.
Conclusion
Both the UK and US higher education systems are grappling with the complex challenge of ensuring equity and diversity. The UK employs a widening participation framework focused heavily on socioeconomic indicators and contextual admissions, driven by regulatory requirements (Access and Participation Plans). The US approach has historically involved affirmative action with race as a factor, but recent legal shifts are pushing universities towards race-neutral strategies focusing on socioeconomic status, holistic review, and essays detailing lived experiences to achieve diversity. While strategies differ, both systems face persistent challenges in overcoming systemic inequalities and ensuring that talented students from all backgrounds have a fair opportunity to access, thrive within, and graduate from university. The ongoing debate and evolving policies in both countries underscore the enduring importance and difficulty of creating truly equitable higher education systems.