New research shows yet again that social mobility in Britain is dead. Politicians must act now

Progressive social mobility is a sign of a healthy society, and government must strive to improve this unacceptable situation

Graduates from richer families earn more 10 years after leaving university than poorer students (Getty Images)

The failure to improve social mobility in Britain is one of the biggest failings of successive post-war governments. The welfare state, the NHS, the comprehensive school system and (until recently, at least) free higher education have all been worthwhile initiatives in their own right, but have done little to tackle inherited opportunity, or lack of it.

The sad truth is that the family and circumstances into which you are born is still a bigger determinate of your future life prospects than any intervention by the state. So today’s report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, along with Cambridge and Harvard Universities, does not surprise or shock in its findings. The study showed that graduates from richer families earn significantly more 10 years after leaving university than poorer students who study for the same degree at the same institution.

Between the richest and the poorest graduates the differential was even starker. The 10 per cent highest earning male graduates from richer backgrounds earned about 20 per cent more than the 10 per cent highest earners from relatively poorer backgrounds – a gap that amounts to £10,000 a year.

There is little room for statistical doubt. The study matched up the educational records of a quarter of a million students with the tax records of their families and their own earnings after they graduated. This is as close as it comes to showing that social mobility in Britain still has a long way to go.

But if the report does not shock or surprise, what should be done? A starting point would be to fully implement the recommendations of the Social Mobility Commission’s 'State of the Nation' report last year. It called for a new early years intervention programme to ensure that every child whatever their background was ready for school at age five – and a new national definition of what 'school ready' is.

Within the school system itself, the Commission argued for a new zero-tolerance approach to schools where less than 40 per cent of pupils consistently achieve less than 5 A* to C grades at GCSE, including Maths and English. Such schools, it said, should be taken over or merged while new incentives should be trialed to encourage the best teachers to move to failing schools.

Universities themselves also have more to do – not just in equality of access to higher education, but also in ensuring that those students from poorer backgrounds who may be the first in their family to university make the most of that opportunity.

Those leading and running courses need to develop much closer links with prospective employers and develop internship schemes open to all and not just the old boys network of family connections.

Needless to say none of this will work overnight, and much more needs to be done to address income inequality more broadly. But progressive social mobility is a sign of a healthy society and politicians of all hues to should strive to improve and build on what is currently an acceptable situation.