Last week, by chance I came upon a slim publication about the social and academic background of extra-mural students and part-time teachers on courses delivered by the then Glasgow University Department of Extra-Mural Education collected in the spring of 1964,  the year I left school (Dees and Parsons, 1964).  Reading it prompts some interesting reflections on how much has changed in the intervening (almost) half a century.

The paper analysed data about students from the enrolment cards of almost 3000 students based in Glasgow city and a further 625 students from the more rural Dumfries-shire area, together amounting to about half of the total enrolment of the Department at the time.  There are some striking observations made from the data. For example, with regard to occupation, as  Dees and Parsons put it, 'the conclusion is inescapable that university adult education is largely enjoyed by the higher intellectual strata of society'.   The proportion of students who did manual work of any sort was 'insignificant' at less than 4%, and the proportion categorised as 'not in paid employment' was only slightly larger at some 5%, and of these it was pointed out that many were either self-emplyed, retired or were 'persons of independent means'. Interestingly too, overall around 1 in 5 students were categorised as 'housewives' .  The reseachers found that teachers formed a sufficiently large part of the extra-mural audience 'to demand a category of their own' (at some 17% of enrolments).

With respect to age, over half the enrolments from Glasgow city were under 35 years of age and almost 85% were under 50. In Dumfrieshire, students tended to be older with almost 30% being 50 or over, twice the proportion from Glasgow.  It is suggested that this difference reflects the different proportions in the city pursuing the vocational or professional courses on offer rather than the more general education courses which tended to be favoured in Dumfries.

There was concern too about the influence of technology on participation in learning.  Overall three quarters of the students had television, whilst that proportion dropped to around half for the so-called long term students in the sample, who had enroled consistently for several years.  Also it is interesting to note that overall less than half (46%) of the students had access to a car, a proportion that fell to around one quarter for the long-term students.

Of the tutors, most were graduates with 1st or 2nd class honours degrees, and 40% had post-graduate qualifications. Of the small number of non-graduates, most had professional qualifications in the field they taught.  Interestingly, of the male tutors, some 40% were graduates either of Edinburgh or Glasgow Universities, whilst for women around 3 in 4 gained their qualifications from elsewhere.  Of the 158 tutors who provided data, 18 said they were involved in political work when not teaching, 15 in religious activities and a further 17 in some form of youth or social work.  The report observes that these proportions were probably smaller than in 'earlier days of adult education'.

The report asks about tutors' motivations for conducting adult education:  some 13% said their motivation was financial, whilst 62% said their main motivation was 'educational'.  For the remainder they could not decide, although some 15% pointed to the intellectual stimulation and challenge in discussion with adult learners.

So how much as changed?  There would appear to have been some progress on widening access;  there are still issues about the relationship between technology and learning - even though there is now wide access to the internet and social networking.  And what are the motivations of adult educators now?