CLASSISM & SEXISM
Low-income students and girls are steered away from “risky” creative careers at school
A new report finds that class and gender inequalities in the UK’s creative industries are linked to students’ experiences at school, where “educational hierarchies” steer them away from subjects like art, music and drama.
Schools, families and social pressures are channelling young people – especially girls and poorer students – away from studying creative subjects because they are considered low-status or financially “risky”, a report says.
The University of Cambridge study argues that the underrepresentation of women and people from lower-income backgrounds in the creative industries reflects a “narrowing pathway” that begins at school, and steers students away from subjects like art, music and drama as their education progresses.
The study, funded by the social and economic well-being charity, the Nuffield Foundation, used the educational records of 1.7 million students in England, longitudinal data about 7,200 young people’s progress into work, and interviews and surveys with people studying and working in creative fields.
Although almost half of 14-year-olds said they enjoyed creative subjects, just one in 25 was working in a creative occupation by their early 30s. In between, the study found that participation drops at every stage: at GCSE, post-16 and in higher education. The fall-off is especially steep among poorer students and girls, with girls from lower-income backgrounds facing a “double disadvantage”.
The report is particularly critical of underlying educational “hierarchies” – the low status of both creative subjects, and of creative qualifications from further education (FE) colleges.
Professor Sonia Ilie, from Cambridge’s Faculty of Education, said: “If you have a university degree in a creative subject, you are much more likely to end up in a creative career. Young people from low-income families, however, and especially girls, are less likely to reach the point where studying for a creative degree is even an option.”
“That reflects wider societal structures, inequalities, cultural messaging and pressure on schools to deliver academic results. We need a more thoughtful conversation about the value of creative subjects – and frankly about the snobbery that still surrounds certain qualifications.”
While class inequalities in the creative sector have been raised in previous reports, the Cambridge study explored the problem’s underlying educational dynamics. The researchers mapped young people’s trajectories into and out of creative subjects such as art, dance, design, drama, media studies, music and photography; among others.
The longitudinal data showed that 42% of 14-year-olds indicated a preference for a creative subject, with girls more likely to do so than boys. This, however, did not translate into sustained study as they advanced through the education system.
Using the large-scale data from educational records, the study found that at age 16, 24.7% of students had made a creative subject choice. This proportion then fell to 16.9% post-16, and further, to 12.2%, at university. Only 3.8% of students who reached higher education had made creative subject choices at every possible stage.
Students eligible for free school meals (FSM) – a proxy for those from less wealthy backgrounds – were more likely than their peers to choose creative subjects at GCSE, but less likely to do so after 16. Girls were more likely than boys to choose creative subjects into post-16 education, but at university, the pattern reversed, with thousands of young women leaving the creative pathway before higher education.
The report describes a “push-pull” dynamic behind these trends. While many young people enjoy creative subjects – and some schools, colleges and universities offer substantial tailored support – they are often urged to prioritise “academic” subjects and advised that creative careers will involve greater financial risk.
Study participants said that teachers, family and friends had discouraged them from creative study. This does not reflect statutory guidance for schools, the report notes, but “seems to reflect cultural hierarchies that devalue creative work”.
Students from less wealthy families may also lack the resources to pursue creative interests, or the networks to break into the creative industries. Many cannot afford the unpaid internships or portfolio-building opportunities that often represent the first step in a creative career. At the same time, the report acknowledges the challenging reality of creative work: study participants often described this as hard and precarious – if artistically rewarding.
The report also highlights the often-underestimated role of FE colleges in creative education. It describes a “bifurcated system” in which hands-on creative education is concentrated in FE, but few FE students have the same employment opportunities as their university-educated peers. The mismatch means that disadvantaged students may face barriers to furthering their creative careers despite thriving in FE.
The study calls for a clearer post-16 framework to help students navigate the range of creative qualifications available in FE, and for universities and employers to recognise and value further education more. Ilie suggested that the Government’s newly announced vocational V-levels could help to make the system more navigable.
“The FE offer we saw in our study is clearly on a par with so-called ‘academic’ routes and is producing amazing students who could succeed in creative degrees and jobs,” Professor Pamela Burnard, co-lead on the study, said. “Equally, just because university is not a preferred route for some should not mean that they cannot access future employment.”
The report urges a system-wide rethink of how creative talent is supported. The authors argue for schools and policymakers to challenge the hierarchies that prize academic routes over creative options, and to provide students with clear, but also realistic, advice about how to pursue creative employment. They also call for targeted initiatives to support creative education among girls, low-income students and those in deprived areas.
“If things stay as they are, the patterns that develop throughout students’ educational careers are more likely to perpetuate inequalities in the creative industries, rather than disrupt them,” Ilie added.
Dr Emily Tanner, Education Programme Head at the Nuffield Foundation said: "With creative industries identified as among the highest-potential sectors in the UK's Industrial Strategy, this research is timely. It shows that ensuring equitable access to opportunities will require concerted action to remove barriers for girls and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds."
The full report will be available on the Faculty of Education website.
