There does seem to be a problem with how we define class in this country. On one hand if you go to a top university, a lot of measures judge that this makes you privileged and so you no longer 'count' as working class representation.
On the other hand looking at someone's background and parents seems to suggest your class is set from birth and is unchangeable - a pretty uncomfortable thought.
As @TomChivers points out, we should expect people who went to some of the best universities in the world to be overrepresented just about everywhere. Why do we react with shock then when this stat is pointed out in, for example, politics and journalism?
Part of the issue seems to be that we don't really believe these institutions are meritocratic. There's an aristocratic legacy in Britain and we've never quite convinced ourselves that we got rid of it.
I'm not sure to what extent this isn't part of a wider crisis in our faith in our institutions. Top universities do require people from all backgrounds to work in order to get in but we're not really convinced that this qualifies as merit.
The more we have this discussion about class in Britain, the less convinced I am that:
1. We really know what we're talking about.
2. We have good ways of measuring it.
1. We really know what we're talking about.
2. We have good ways of measuring it.
