The UK¡¯s ¡°elite¡± universities might be keen to hang on to that term as a marker of academic excellence but they are equally anxious to shed it when it comes to their histories of domination by privileged males.

But while the statistics might point to rising proportions of female and state-school admissions in recent years, the campus culture that confronts those new admissions is, all too often, still one of exclusion.

Particularly within male-dominated subjects, informal peer networks among men shape who is heard, deferred to and regarded as intellectually credible. These dynamics are often subtle and not necessarily exclusionary by intent, but they reinforce existing power structures. Through shared humour, cultural shorthand and assumed authority, these male networks tend to marginalise women, non-binary students and others who lack the same social cues or background. If universities are truly serious about widening access, it is high time that they confronted this barrier head-on.

The term ¡°male homosociality¡± describes emotionally significant and socially powerful relationships between men. The American feminist philosopher Marilyn Frye has argued that such bonds uphold patriarchy by prioritising relationships between men over those with women. And the literary critic Emma Smith, in?This Is Shakespeare, explores how male trust networks dominate many of Shakespeare¡¯s plays. In?Othello, for example, Othello¡¯s misplaced trust in Iago ultimately outweighs his love for Desdemona. Smith shows how loyalty between men can override reason. This remains a relevant insight in elite institutional cultures.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

In academic and social spaces at universities such as Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, male peer groups often build credibility through shared reference points. This could include quoting political philosophers, referencing elite schools or using sports metaphors. At the 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of Oxford, where I am a student, undergraduates in politics, philosophy and economics (PPE) might casually reference Hobbes or make remarks in Latin, signalling an intellectual fluency that is culturally coded and often rooted in classed educational experiences. These habits might appear benign but they tend to exclude those not socialised into the same traditions.

Such dynamics are not confined to ancient institutions. At the London School of Economics, political societies bond over policy competitions and debating backgrounds. At Durham and Edinburgh, students¡¯ unions and common rooms often revolve around sporting camaraderie or debating cliques. These groups can cross ethnic and class lines but typically reinforce a masculine identity that equates confidence and assertiveness with credibility.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

One of the most powerful trust-building tools in many male-dominated circles is banter. Women and non-binary students might join in but its subtle sexualisation and dismissiveness of emotional vulnerability can put them off, invite exclusion or accusations of being humourless. By contrast, taking part too enthusiastically might compromise female students¡¯ reputations, particularly among female peers ¨C who may judge their participation as normalising these behaviours.

All this affects confidence, participation and ambition. According to Oxford¡¯s 2022 examination data, male PPE students were 12 percentage points more likely than female students to achieve first-class degrees, and a 2023 survey published in?The Oxford Student?found that 47 per cent of women in PPE-related courses reported feeling interrupted or undermined in tutorials, compared with just 18 per cent of men.

At LSE, meanwhile, men hold a majority of leadership roles in political societies, despite gender-balanced course enrolments. Similar dynamics have been reported at UCL and Durham 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ, particularly in debating societies and student political clubs.

Informal knowledge exchange also sustains male dominance. Male students, often from wealthier backgrounds, benefit from peer-to-peer sharing of resources such as essay strategies, internship contacts and guidance on reference letters. These are not formal privileges but they create a cycle in which male students gain confidence and visibility more easily. Equally capable students outside these networks often lack the same access.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

Addressing this imbalance requires more than widening admissions. Targeted mentorship schemes can help. Institutions such as UCL and King¡¯s College London have derived strong results from pilots of programmes connecting under-represented students with experienced mentors.

Affinity groups also play a vital role. Societies such as Women in Government or Women in Philosophy provide space for students to develop leadership and confidence outside male-dominated structures. In disciplines where women are under-represented among students and faculty, these groups are not just support networks. They are engines of institutional change, and universities should do more to encourage their students to join them.

Curricula matter, too. PPE and related fields still centre male-dominated reading lists, subtly reinforcing the notion that intellectual authority is male. Some universities, including SOAS and the 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of Bristol, are diversifying syllabi and decolonising curricula. This is not just about fairness but about improving academic rigour through broader perspectives.

Seminar culture and academic discussion also deserve scrutiny. Gender-balanced panels, inclusive moderation and thoughtful facilitation can reduce the dominance of informal male codes. Universities cannot afford to treat these habits as harmless tradition. They affect who speaks, who is listened to and who advances.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

This is not a call to eliminate male friendships or humour. Rather, it is a call to recognise how informal peer networks shape who is taken seriously, who leads societies, who feels entitled to speak. This matters not just for individual students but for the future of public life; Oxford¡¯s PPE course, for example, is famous for (all male so far). Today¡¯s student cultures become tomorrow¡¯s policymaking environments.

If UK universities are serious about inclusion, they must look beyond recruitment and attend to how social power circulates once students arrive. Influence is not only earned through grades. It is learned, performed and reinforced in everyday interactions. Recognising and challenging male homosocial codes is vital for building institutions where all students can thrive on equal footing ¨C not just those fluent in the right kind of banter.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

Ava Doherty is a history and politics undergraduate at the 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of Oxford.