Beyond demographics: what gets missed when we hyper-individualise inequality?
This blog was kindly authored by Dr Nathalie Benesova, Senior Lecturer in Management, Dr Nicholas Jackson, Associate Professor in Organisational Behaviour and Stacey Mottershaw, Associate Professor (Teaching and Scholarship) at Leeds University Business School.
The Sutton Trust’s Crossing Paths report offers a nuanced account of how gender, ethnicity, place and background interact to shape educational and labour market outcomes. Crucially, it shows that headline narratives rarely tell the full story. Outcomes vary significantly across groups, regions, and stages of the education-to-employment journey, reminding us that (dis)advantage is neither uniform nor easily explained.
Yet there is a risk in how such findings are interpreted. When demographic characteristics become the primary lens through which outcomes are understood, responsibility can subtly shift away from institutions and systems onto marginalised individuals and communities. Data intended to illuminate inequity can then unintentionally reinforce a deficit view of marginalised groups. This concern echoes Dr Shahenda Shehata’s HEPI blog on academic gaming behaviours. As Shehata argues, metrics can be valuable diagnostic tools, but problems arise when measures become targets and complex realities are reduced to what is easiest to count.
A similar dynamic may shape discussions of social mobility and graduate outcomes. If particular groups are repeatedly identified as ‘underperforming’, attention can become fixed on their characteristics rather than on the structures and organisations that shape opportunities. Demographic data then risks functioning as a convenient explanation – outcomes are attributed to place, gender or ethnic background, instead of prompting deeper questions about institutional cultures, unequal access to resources, and the uneven distribution of opportunity itself.
Individuals within institutional structures
For some students, these difficulties are compounded by their personal circumstances. International students may encounter unfamiliar academic cultures and communication practices. Commuting students may struggle to integrate socially into university life, while mature students may be returning after substantial periods away from formal study. Disabled or neurodivergent students may face additional barriers to accessing information and navigating institutional processes. Although their experiences differ, the underlying challenge is remarkably consistent – navigating a system that was not designed with them in mind.
Dinishak (2016) has provided a comprehensive account of how labelling students from underrepresented and disadvantaged backgrounds can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We believe a deficit perspective locates the causes of poor outcomes primarily in students themselves, rather than in institutions, teaching practices or wider social structures, allows hidden institutional problems to remain unexamined. Students may then internalise this ambiguity as personal inadequacy – if they struggle, disengage or underperform, they assume they lack the ability, motivation, academic skills, cultural knowledge or readiness needed for university. Responsibility for success or failure is pushed onto the student, while institutional structures and practices – including curriculum design, teaching methods, and assessment – receive less scrutiny. Students who do not align with the expected model are positioned as lacking or deficient, reinforcing narratives that frame difficulty as a personal shortcoming rather than a systemic issue.
Rather than viewing student experience through the lenses of deficit, preparedness or individual resilience, greater attention should be paid to the accessibility of higher education systems themselves. Understanding how students learn to navigate these systems offers an important alternative perspective on participation, engagement and inequality and on the institutional work required to make participation genuinely inclusive.
How does this impact employment?
A recent study at Leeds University Business School (to be published) examined the changing graduate market and the skills and knowledge employers seek in junior staff and graduates. The findings return us to questions about what we develop in students, how we communicate and assess skills and knowledge, and how these practices affect them. They also bring student characteristics and institutional systems to the fore, requiring us to revisit student-institution dynamics and ask whether well-intentioned interventions might sometimes make matters worse for graduates.
Universities often judge graduates’ work-readiness and job prospects through academic performance, personal characteristics and demographic context. The study suggests that employers do not typically think in these terms – what they consistently emphasise is the right attitude, a mindset of continuous learning and the drive to advance and improve. Yet systems anchored in a deficit model may fail to foster those qualities, instead encouraging students to see themselves as lesser than their peers.
Those of us who work with students from underrepresented backgrounds will have met students who, despite extensive university support being available, want to distance themselves from it – not because they do not need help, but because they want an equal experience and to learn how to overcome challenges using their own resources. For many, that is part of the purpose of university – to transcend the limitations that society places on them. The fundamental question, then, is what universities should focus on to support and strengthen students in their success. Perhaps the solution lies in the basics. Students arrive at university with great hopes and aspirations and with considerable talent. While we have an obligation to respond to their needs, the question is how to provide support while keeping the university’s primary goal in view – helping students develop their talent, the right mindset and confidence.
Summary
The value of Crossing Paths lies not in ranking groups according to success or failure, but in revealing where systems produce unequal returns on talent. The challenge for policymakers, universities, and employers is to resist treating demographic patterns as explanations in themselves and instead ask which systemic and institutional conditions produce differentiated outcomes.
Comments
Jonathan Alltimes says:
The determinants for attainment in school and for employment prospects vary by geographic location and demographic characteristics, of which socio-economic class of the parents is the major determinant and itself is unevenly distribution by geographic location. The report promises that the pupil premium directed towards geographic locations and demographic characteristics can control the effects of socio-economic class on school attainment and employment prospects. But can the policies work? The report assumes schools are the most powerful institution for improving equality of attainment and employment. The report does not trace how the causal processes between socio-economic class and school attainment and employment dominates geography and demographic characteristics, followed by which expenditures for the pupil premium are most likely to work. In effect, the report assumes funding government policies in schools can emulate the effects of socio-economic class for school attainment and employment prospects by substituting teaching practices. The evidence is based on interpretations and syntheses of teaching practices (Sutton Trust, Pupil Premium Toolkit). The scientific approach is dubious, as it relies on an implicit theory that there is a uniform static hidden structure on which the teaching practices are more or less causally effective. For example, the school interventions of physical activity, parental engagement, and feedback are substituting for the socio-economic effect of class, as if the socio-economic class of parents determines their behaviour towards their children in these three practices.
We have had 81 years of State education. State education can not emulate private schools, religious schools, charitable schools, and private tutoring. As the system of attainment and the structure of schools have been reformed, are the standards and performance of State schools necessarily and consistently better since 1965? Looking backwards at geographic and demographic characteristics excludes the effect of the reforms, the schools, and teaching practices. These reforms were also supposed to control the effects of socio-economic class (and variation in teaching).
Time is at a premium and the school curriculum is too ambitious (and over-administered?). What is the core of the subject-specific exam specifications? What are you supposed to know? With the assistance of a teacher’s exposition, every pupil should be able to understand the specifications. There is often a gap between what you should know for examination and what you are taught. Geographically determined employment prospects are mostly outside of the control of schools. No school can overcome decades of industrial decline and neither can parents and the effects are experienced by the schools: look at the internal migration for work and commuting for schools. The private sector can divest very rapidly, whereas education requires years and decades to respond.
The October 2026 budget will see greater competition between the budgets of government departments, it is better to focus on funding one policy very well than spreading the funding around a list, as I have advocated elsewhere for government-funded science, technology, innovation, and research.
Reply
Add comment