Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 5(2) 2017, 183–185 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v5i2.2708   183

www.jsaa.ac.za

Book review

Meyer, H.-D., St. John, E.P., Chankseliani, M. & Uribe, L. 
(Eds.). (2013). Fairness in Access to Higher Education in a 
Global Perspective: Reconciling Excellence, Efficiency, and 
Justice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Reviewed by Elisa Brewis*

*   Elisa Brewis is at the UCL Institute of Education, London, U.K. Email: linda.brewis.14@ucl.ac.uk

Fairness in Access to Higher Education in a Global Perspective: Reconciling Excellence, Efficiency, 
and Justice is an edited volume that aims to address the central question of how and why 
we can promote policies for fair access to higher education (HE). It takes a fairly common 
view of equity, exploring fair access in terms of racial, socio-economic and rural/urban 
background. The chapters on China and Georgia also consider fairness in the context of 
political favouritism and nepotism. The book’s primary focus is on access to HE, in other 
words, academic preparation, selection of students and affordability of HE. To a lesser 
extent, the book also explores the question of how to sustain participation in and completion 
of HE among disadvantaged groups.

From the outset, the editors make it very clear that the purpose of the book is to 
counter a neoliberal narrative. They wish to open up a space among HE researchers and 
practitioners to learn about and consider alternative models for HE.  The book aims to do 
this by giving us a systems-level perspective on HE policy, comparing post-WWII systems 
with current ones, and comparing systems across continents and political contexts. It 
does not, for instance, examine fair access policies via institutional behaviour or particular 
intervention programmes. The resultant ‘bird’s-eye view’ of HE systems provides us a 
comprehensive and empirically rich entry point to a discussion on fair access to HE, 
with an attempt to include some non-OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation 
and Development) experiences as well. Although the book is pitched as a critique of 
the neoliberal model of HE, it nonetheless adopts a consistently pragmatic tone. This 
is evident in the way the discussion on fairness (justice) is framed alongside the policy-
making concerns of improving quality vis à vis global competition (excellence) and funding 
constraints (efficiency).

Before launching into the country case studies, the book first addresses theoretical 
understandings of justice in HE. In line with the approach described above, this discussion 
is anchored in concrete notions of justice. For example, Heinz-Dieter Meyer’s chapter 
argues for an institutional-comparative approach (Sen, 2009) to reasoning about fair access 
to HE, as it “focuses our attention on the manifest and remediable injustices in a particular 
setting …” (p.  16). The context of race, class and HE participation in the U.S.A. provide a 

http://dx.doi.org/10.24085/jsaa.v5i2.2708
http://www.jsaa.ac.za
mailto:linda.brewis.14%40ucl.ac.uk?subject=


184   Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 5(2) 2017, 183–185 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v5i2.2708

backdrop for the next two chapters. Lesley Jacobs presents a case for the use of affirmative 
action policies, based on the ideological argument that diversity in HE is a positive, societal 
“plus”. Edward St. John, in turn, highlights a historical precedent for fair access policies 
even in the libertarian political climate of the U.S.A. He uses ample statistical data to 
demonstrate that equitable access to and full completion of HE were only achieved with 
serious political commitment and state funding, most notably via the GI Bill of 1944 and 
the Pell Grants introduced in 1972. 

Having established that fair access policies are both justifiable and historically 
precedented, even within neoliberal traditions, the second part of the book moves on 
to illustrate the successes and failures of national equity policies through a survey of 
nine country case studies – Finland, China, Colombia, Korea, Germany, Georgia, South 
Africa, Brazil and Australia. The central theme that emerges is the tension between 
concentrating limited state resources into pockets of excellence (for instance, the Chinese 
or Korean solutions), or spreading the resources thin for the sake of regional equality 
(for instance the Finnish or German models). Another recurring theme is the need for 
political commitment as an important precursor to adequate state funding. The case of 
Finland illustrates this very clearly. As Marja Jalava points out, an equitable distribution of 
access to HE across the heavily polarised urban/rural nation was only possible thanks to 
significant political support. The Agrarian League political alliance was able to lobby the 
interests of the non-elite metropole, while the strong leftist movement advocated against 
a vocationalisation or proletarianisation of HE. The result was the establishment of new 
research-based universities across several provinces.

It is laudable that the book also includes a third section dedicated to the student voice 
in countering neoliberal HE policies – even if the conclusions drawn are rather gloomy. 
Oscar Espinoza and Luis Eduardo Gonzales recount the mass social support for student 
protests in Chile. This support stemmed from the high burden placed on families to cover 
HE costs (79.2% of total expenditure on HE in comparison to 14.4% from the state, p.  243). 
Even with such a broad support base, it was still very difficult for the student movement to 
challenge the neoliberal status quo. In the American HE context,  Anna Schwenck reveals 
how a discourse on “excellence” has drowned out demands for a just and equitable society. 
It appears that even in California, the home of the Clerk Kerr HE “Masterplan” to promote 
social mobility, funding cuts have altered policy discourse and forced a wedge between 
students and HE management.

The final section of the book (Part 4) ends on some concrete policy recommendations. 
In the first chapter, the editors conclude that we urgently need evidence to counter the 
neoliberal model. They argue that current funding mechanisms rely more on “ideological 
arguments” than on an “evidence-based discourse about fairness” (p.  284). This book can be 
seen as one such concerted effort to make an evidence-based case for fairness. In the final 
chapter, Edward St. John and Heinz-Dieter Meyer propose a 10-point list of what a fair 
access policy might involve.  They concede that, if market models and loans are to be used, 
we need to at least temper their most serious ramifications for disadvantaged groups, such 
as using loans only as a last resort and making repayment terms lenient. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.24085/jsaa.v5i2.2708


Elisa Brewis:  Fairness in Access to Higher Education in a Global Perspective ...   185

Reflecting on the ‘call to arms’ in this book to collect more data on equity issues, it is 
promising that there are on-going attempts to do just that. For example, the Global Equity 
Index project is attempting to chart a global map on inequality in access to HE (Atherton, 
Dumangane & Whitty, 2016).  An example of a country-level initiative is the Siyaphumelela 
project in South Africa, which strives to use data analytics to improve student outcomes. 

The conclusion of the book is perhaps somewhat disheartening, however, as it focuses 
on ‘what can be done within a neoliberal funding model’ rather than returning to the initial 
discussion on ideological arguments in favour of  fair access policies. For example, it would be 
helpful to explore the way in which the social justice dimension of HE is often explicitly 
linked to national development plans in low-middle income contexts, and its potential 
to fuel fair access policies. Nevertheless, Fairness in Access to Higher Education in a Global 
Perspective is a timely book that makes an important contribution to the field of HE studies 
by offering an empirically rich exploration of fair access policies.

References
Atherton, G., Dumangane, C. & Whitty, G. (2016). Charting Equity in Higher Education: Drawing the 

Global Access Map. London, U.K.: Pearson.

Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Massachusetts, U.S.A.: Harvard University Press.

How to cite:
Brewis, E., (2017). Review on H.-D. Meyer, E.P. St. John, M. Chankseliani & L.  Uribe (Eds.). Fairness 

in Access to Higher Education in a Global Perspective: Reconciling Excellence, Efficiency, and Justice. 
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. (2013). Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 5(2), 183–185. DOI: 
10.24085/jsaa.v5i2.2708

http://dx.doi.org/10.24085/jsaa.v5i2.2708