Conference Agenda

Enrollments in education have been expanding constantly. Despite huge international differences in the timing and speed of expansion. This trend is clear throughout all world regions, income groups, and all levels of education (Marginson 2016). We know a lot about differences between countries’ trajectories in the expansion of higher education (HE) (for example Schofer and Meyer 2005; van der Wende 2017). Yet, dissecting this global trend unveils large inequalities between countries, regions, and individuals. Many studies show the pervasiveness of inequality in access to HE (Atherton, Dumangane, and Whitty 2016; Breen et al. 2010; Ilie, Rose, and Vignoles 2021; Shavit and Arum 2007). This paper adds to the existing literature in three ways: First, it focuses on access to rather than participation in HE by developing continuation rates, which, arguably, better measure the openness of HE systems. Second, it widens the scope of analysis by introducing an original data set on these continuation rates for a set of up to 183 countries from 1900 to 2020. Third, this paper rigorously tests theories on the expansion of education and quantitatively analyzes drivers for the recent expansion of HE.

Due to HE being outside the compulsory system, the use of enrollment figures in many studies overlooks crucial differences and developments in the inclusiveness of HE. Past studies have often equated participation in HE with access to HE. Although those two are connected, they should be operationalized based on the specific funnel-like structure of educational careers: students need to pass through the mostly compulsory primary education (PE) to secondary education (SE) and then to HE. Taking this structure seriously means that not every person in an age cohort has the same access opportunities. Most often, one can only enter HE when one has successfully graduated from SE. In the present paper I introduce a metric taking this into account by measuring who makes it from SE to HE. Indeed, the comparison with ordinary enrollment rates shows remarkable difference over time, with enrollments steadily increasing and continuation stagnating for the most part. This means that, globally, on average, approximately one-quarter of those who attended SE also gained access to HE. And this remained surprisingly constant from 1900 to 1990. Only in modern times did the development of continuation rates adopt the same logistic form as enrollment rates and continue to rise.

In the next step I set out to explain differences of this measure of continuation rates across time and space. Based on theoretical considerations of a) (micro-levels) Theories on Inequality, b) Sociological Institutionalism and c) Partisan Political Explanations I implement estimations in a regression discontinuity design and mixed-model regressions.

The estimations reveal that much of the expansion of access to HE in OECD countries can be explained by a shattered glass ceiling: increasingly more women continue to HE. In non-OECD countries, however, the glass ceiling is still a reality and girls’ education careers end in secondary school. Furthermore, I can show that right-leaning political leadership drives expansion in non-OECD countries. In OECD countries, however, elite (parties) seem to aim at limiting widespread access as long as possible. Additionally, notions of a threshold of enrollment after which expansion quickly increases in speed are shown to hold for women’s access to HE in the global sample, but not for males and neither overall.

This study examines social inequality in higher education subject choices. While educational expansion is often expected to enhance social inclusion, international research, particularly in European/US contexts, suggests that inequality may persist or be reconfigured through qualitative differentiation (Arum et al., 2007; Sullivan et al., 2018). China provides a unique setting because the state-oriented higher education expansion, rapid social transformation, and pronounced urban-rural and regional disparities create conditions that differ from Western cases (Marginson, 2018), allowing a comparative evaluation of whether mechanisms identified in Europe operate similarly in a non-Western, rapidly changing society.

Among such, subject choice is a particularly interesting dimension of educational stratification shaping academic trajectories, labour market outcomes, and long-term socioeconomic positions. In China, admission to higher education is largely determined by a highly standardised national examination (Gaokao). By contrast, subject choice offers greater agency, yet this decision is embedded within broader social and cultural disparities and intergenerational socioeconomic changes (Vaisey & Valentino, 2018).

The study aims to examine whether and how the mechanisms of subject choice inequalities diverge from established Western evidence while offering insights of international relevance. It focuses on the relative importance of family-based resources versus residential and institutional factors and the long-term trends across cohorts who experienced different stages of China’s reform and socioeconomic development (Hu & Wu, 2019; Kang, Peng & Zhu, 2021). It assesses how subject differentiation simultaneously reproduces social stratification and generates new pathways for inclusion.

In this light, this study addresses the following research questions:

1. How do family background and residential background shape subject choices, and how do these mechanisms differ from those observed in European contexts?

2. How have patterns of inequality in subject choices changed across generations, and how is the higher education expansion playing a role in it?

The research draws on Effectively Maintained Inequality (EMI) and Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction to engage in comparative dialogue with European scholarship. EMI highlights how, as access to a given educational level becomes widespread, advantaged groups shift strategies toward qualitative distinctions within that level, often reflected in subject choice (Lucas, 2001). Bourdieu’s concepts of capital, habitus, and symbolic hierarchy explain how subjects acquire differential social value aligned with students’ social origins (Bourdieu, 1998, 2002).

Classical European and US studies show that students from privileged families are more likely to pursue culturally prestigious fields, while disadvantaged students are often directed into technical or practical disciplines. The Chinese context provides a different perspective because long-standing egalitarian policies, the Gaokao, and the coexistence of socialist, nationalist, and market-oriented value systems produce dynamics not observed in Western countries. In addition, this study pays particular attention to residential and regional institutional factors, which are less emphasised in Western research. Due to spatial inequalities, such as differences in economic development, educational infrastructure, and local opportunity structures, these factors play an important role in shaping subject choices beyond the influence of family resources. Building on this insight, the study introduces the concept of “public capital” to capture the effects of collectively provided regional resources on students’ educational decision-making.

By integrating EMI and a context-sensitive reading of Bourdieu, this research contributes to the literature by examining how social and institutional mechanisms shape changing subject choice in a rapidly transforming society. It highlights processes of both inclusion and diversion that emerge under conditions of educational expansion, urban-rural disparities, and intergenerational change. In doing so, the research not only provides insights into the Chinese context but also tests and extends theoretical perspectives originally developed in European settings, offering a basis for a more nuanced comparative understanding of educational inequality and intergenerational transformation.

Introduction

With the benefits of higher education (HE), including upward mobility, improved job opportunities, and enhanced life trajectories, public demand for HE has steadily increased since the 1960s. In response, governments across Europe initiated policies to increase access to HE, thereby aiming to provide both economic benefits and social justice. In relation to this, several studies indicate that access to HE across Europe has increased significantly, with schooling rates reported to have risen from 50% in 2000 to 66% in 2019 in Italy and from 51% to 68% in France (Marginson, 2016b; Triventi, 2013). Similarly, across OECD countries, the share of tertiary degrees rose from 27% in 2000 to 48% in 2021 (OECD, 2022).

Despite this remarkable expansion of HE, it is difficult to claim that all students realized these outcomes (Karen, 2002; Roksa, 2010; Triventi, 2014). In other words, expanded access does not ensure meaningful participation and equitable outcomes. Research indicates that students from disadvantaged backgrounds often encounter difficulties in navigating HE due to limited social, cultural, and economic capital (Moreau & Leathwood, 2006). As a result, HE may have limited effectiveness in supporting their development. This evidence suggests that access to HE, while necessary, is inadequate to provide a just and fair HE system. Instead, social justice in HE requires attention to how institutional arrangements shape students’ opportunities to participate and transform their lives (Wilson-Strydom, 2011).

Despite the fact that inequalities inevitably permeate HE, this study adopts a critical perspective, arguing that HE can reduce inequalities when institutions actively cultivate socially just mechanisms, support students’ agency, and enhance capability development. In this regard, even elite HEIs, criticized for reproducing privilege, may also function as a transformative space for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. By creating inclusive institutional mechanisms, this study argues that these institutions can provide resources that function as capability inputs, guiding students in converting capabilities into valued outcomes through their agency.

Theoretical framework

This study utilizes the capabilities framework (CF) to examine how personal, social, and institutional factors, identified as conversion factors, impede/support students’ development in HE. The CF accounts for social arrangements (Robeyns, 2017) and complex structures and also highlights the opportunities and freedoms available to each student (Robeyns, 2017) that they can translate into their desired outcomes (Wilson-Strydom, 2017). Each individual has agency (Sen, 1999) to pursue the goals they value, which is also shaped by their social, political, and environmental assets.

HE plays a critical role in this process by providing capabilities and supporting self-formation. Marginson (2024) indicates HE as an instrument of freedom by widening capabilities and supporting agency, while Sen (1999) emphasizes education as a fundamental capability that stimulates other capabilities and cultivates empowerment. Despite HE’s importance to human development, the question of ‘how’ remains less addressed.

Also, there is an emerging scholarship indicating the redistributive and recognitive effects of institutional practices such as financial support, mentoring, and extracurricular engagement, highlighting their positive impact on students’ sense of belonging, participation, and well-being (Harrison et al., 2018; Marshall & Case, 2010). However, less attention has been paid to how these practices interact with institutional structures to support capability development and student transformation. Addressing this gap, the present study explores how an elite HEI can mitigate accumulated disadvantage through institutional mechanisms that enhance students’ capabilities by answering the following questions:

1. What are the structural and individual barriers to access to elite HE?
2. What are the structural mechanisms that diminish the effects of the earlier barriers?
3. How do these mechanisms affect the transformation of students?

Education is the main root that enables individuals to attain freedom, wealth, peace, and social justice, given the opportunity. Especially at the higher education level, the contribution of education to society is of utmost importance as universities are the hubs for knowledge production, research, and innovation, as well as environments for cultivating a humanitarian approach to raise democratic, creative, productive, and democratic youth that will serve society in return. Therefore, universities also aim to fulfill the role of improving public service and enabling a sustainable, democratic, and just social system.

On the one hand, for John Rawls, social justice forms the skeleton of a society and determines the fair distribution of goods and resources. This, he suggested, necessitates the smooth execution of procedures, which will allow the protection of the welfare of the most disadvantaged individuals in society through the liability of the government (Rawls, 2017). On the other hand, from the perspective of the Capabilities Approach (CA) of Amartya Sen (1999, 2003) and Martha Nussbaum (2011), when social justice is examined in the educational context, the approach focuses not only on equity but also the extent to which each student is given the same opportunities that they can choose from (Nussbaum, 2011). Although this approach has been used worldwide in different contexts ranging from economics to science, few scholars, like Wilson-Strydom (2011), have adapted it to the field of higher education. He emphasized the importance of providing equal resources and equity-based outcomes through education so that students from different socio-economic backgrounds can have the opportunity to convert the given resources into capabilities and functionings, the two main components of the CA. Given this background, the present study aims to explore the social justice perspectives of university students living in the United States of America (USA), considering the necessities of the 21st century through the lens of CA. The following research questions guided the study:

1. How do American university students perceive social justice in the 21^st century?

2. What do American university students think about social injustice issues living in society?

3. What solutions do American university students suggest for a more socially just society?