Access isn’t enough: why universities must make the hidden curriculum visible
This blog was kindly authored by Imran Mir Programme Lead and Campus Head at Apex College Leicester and Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy.
Widening participation has resulted in massive improvements in the higher education sector – students from underrepresented backgrounds are entering higher education in greater numbers. This is due, in part, to decades of promotion of outreach, contextual admissions and access initiatives. Office for Students data show that, in 2023/24, 24.9% of full-time undergraduate entrants came from the most deprived areas of England, measured using Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile 1. This compared with 18.5% of entrants from the least deprived areas, measured using quintile 5.
Yet access only tells us part of the story.
The OfS data also show that inequalities still exist throughout the student lifecycle. Students from the most deprived backgrounds have a continuation rate of 83.8%, whilst students from the least deprived backgrounds have a continuation rate of 93.1%. Completion rates have shown a similar divide: 81.8% of the most deprived students complete their studies, compared with 92.7% from least deprived backgrounds. Once learners graduate, inequalities still exist. Only 66.5% of graduates from the most deprived backgrounds progress into professional employment, further study or another positive outcome within 15 months, in comparison with 74.7% of graduates from the least deprived backgrounds. These figures show that widening participation cannot just be measured solely by who enters university, but who succeeds when they are there.
The question is why.
Much attention is predominantly focused on financial hardship, wellbeing and academic preparedness – these are undoubtedly very important factors. However, there is one area which receives very little attention despite being a major element when it comes to shaping students’ everyday experiences: the hidden curriculum.
The hidden curriculum consists of the unwritten expectations, behaviours and cultural norms which students are expected to understand without actually being taught. How to approach lecturers during office hours, interpret assessment feedback, participate more confidently in seminars, build professional networks or ask for further support are sometimes seen as common knowledge when instead they are learned skills.
For some of these students, these expectations feel intuitive because they have encountered this before through family, school or social networks. Others who arrive with equal academic ability but without the same understanding of university culture.
This is not a deficit in students. It is a lack of institutional transparency.
The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu described this difference as cultural capital: the knowledge, experiences and behaviours that allow individuals to navigate institutions successfully. Universities frequently reward this familiarity without sufficiently recognising that it is unequally distributed. Confidence is often interpreted as capability, while uncertainty is mistaken for a lack of potential.
The consequences can be seen in the sector’s own data. Office for Students analysis highlighted a 17.9 percentage-point gap in achieving a first or upper second-class degree between students from the most deprived and least deprived backgrounds. Ethnicity gaps also remain substantial. In 2023/24, 80.3% of White full-time first-degree qualifiers achieved a first or 2:1 compared with 59.9% of Black full-time first-degree qualifiers. These differences cannot be explained solely by talent or effort. They point towards structural barriers that continue long after students have crossed the admissions threshold.
The hidden curriculum is very relevant when it comes to first-generation students, commuter students, mature learners and care-experienced students, who perhaps have had fewer opportunities in order to develop institutional knowledge before they arrive at university. There are also additional challenges which are faced by many neurodivergent learners. Expectations around professional communication, interpreting ambiguous instructions or navigating informal academic relationships often rely upon unwritten social conventions. When these expectations remain implicit, students who think or communicate differently are disadvantaged before teaching has even begun.
This is why I believe the sector should rethink its conversation about belonging.
Belonging has become an important priority within higher education policy, and rightly so. Students who feel connected to their institution are more likely to engage, persist and succeed. Yet belonging is rarely created by welcome weeks or social events alone. Belonging is often the result of understanding how an institution works.
The latest HEPI and Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey, which gathered the views of more than 10,000 undergraduate students, has shown a positive picture of teaching quality and student satisfaction in spite of the financial pressures that exist. At the same time, the 2026 survey has also shown that 65% of students undertake paid work during term time, highlighting the competing demands which learners face. These realities make it more imperative for universities to reduce unnecessary barriers which exist rather than expecting students to decode institutional expectations independently.
Making the hidden curriculum visible does not mean lowering standards. It means making expectations explicit.
Universities should teach academic conventions rather than assuming prior knowledge. Assessment criteria should be unpacked through authentic examples. Professional communication, office hours and feedback should be explained as part of the curriculum rather than left to chance. Peer mentoring should focus not only on academic content but also on helping students understand how university works. Induction should become an ongoing developmental process embedded throughout the student journey rather than a single week of information at the beginning of first year.
These changes benefit everyone. The principles underpinning Universal Design for Learning remind us that when learning environments become clearer and more transparent for those facing the greatest barriers, all students gain.
Universities have worked hard to widen participation. The next challenge is ensuring they widen understanding too.
If we continue to judge students against rules we have never explicitly taught, we risk confusing confidence with competence and familiarity with potential. Equality of opportunity will not be achieved simply by opening university doors. It will be achieved when every student understands the expectations behind them.
Comments
Paul Vincent Smith says:
More work on “explicit”, “transparent”… could you reveal the rules here? No, because they are situated, and learnt iteratively, and over time.
We need to be careful in attributing degree outcomes in particular to cultural capital. HEFCE data from the mid-2010s showed that students from broadly non-independent schools achieved at the same level in first degrees even if they entered with one lower A-level or equivalent UCAS points, hence headlines from the time about these students “outperforming” students from independent schools. This trend has changed, to be sure, but it seems difficult to attribute that to e.g. universities getting worse at communicating the hidden curriculum, as opposed to the prevailing infrastructural conditions of high rates of paid employment (as noted here).
I imagine Bourdieu would also have been sympathetic to the idea that once the hidden curriculum is revealed (even if logically possible), middle class families would simply find new ways of maintaining an advantage. I suspect I will be followed by other comments opining that universities cannot be held responsible for what happens after students graduate, even if they would like to be held responsible in the name of looking useful.
Peer mentoring: who undertakes this? students who have learnt the ropes, i.e. the learnable? Or do we see this as the classes interacting by the top-down sharing of cultural capital?
Ideas around universal design I always get on with. However, rather than suggesting universities codify the uncodifiable, or set out in advance what can only be grasped through experience, we might think about solutions such as building in opportunities to get things wrong, or not assessing students while they are building up practical knowledge and confidence.
Reply
Jonathan Alltimes says:
How the academic machine of higher education should work for the students.
Using aggregate data, the argument proposes that what the academic knows is not known by the particular class of students and so determines their performance on a few measures of success. The causal process between academics and the particular class student is matching the practices of academics to the performance measures as mediated by the changing expectations of the students. A variety of academic knowledge and practices are described, but the model does trace the causal processes to the performance measures. The model does not describe any real world historical examples. The model presumes academics know something the student does not know, which is of consequence for the performance for the student. The model presumes academics are totally in control of the performance of the particular class of students. Causality is assumed to be unidirectional in time, that is, changed expectations do change academic knowledge and practices later. Academic knowledge and practices are assumed not to change in time. Academic knowledge and practices are presumed to all the same. The effect of the other causal factors listed is not considered, along with other any causal factors. The likely magnitude of the effect of practices is not described. Students are assumed to be ready for higher education. We do not how the particular academic practices described are likely to change the performance of a particular class of students. It is possible that the performance of these particular class of students can not be improved within the structural conditions and constraints of a particular higher education provider or generally, as the knowledge and practices of academics is also structured and they do not have the freedom assumed from the experience of the proposer. The hidden knowledge described here, is likely to be written in induction documents which students are expected to read, understand, and follow.
The professions provide an alternative model of apprenticing students, which originates in the earlier academic practices of the college and is not the same as mass education by state schooling.
Reply
Add comment