For a long time, we have been told one simple thing: school is the equalizer. This idea suggests that no matter who your parents are or where you grew up, hard work and good grades can help anyone succeed. But if two students work equally hard while starting from completely different positions, can we really say they have equal opportunities?

The idea that school is fair comes from a sociological perspective known as functionalism. From this point of view, people get ahead because they work hard or are naturally better at a subject. Schools act as neutral judges: everyone takes the same tests and follows the same rules, giving all students an equal shot at success. The hardest working students receive the best grades and eventually higher paying jobs.

However, Marxist sociologists criticize this view for ignoring class inequalities. Achieving the same grades does not necessarily mean students had the same opportunities.

One concept that helps explain this is cultural capital, highlighted by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. He explained that success isn’t just about money; it’s also about culture. Children from wealthier families often have greater access to educational resources and parents who understand how to navigate the education system. When these children enter school, the environment feels natural to them. Working-class children may have to learn a new way of behaving just to fit in, making school harder.

Another concept is the hidden curriculum. Schools don’t just educate; they also shape behaviour. Sociologists Bowles and Gintis argued that schools often prepare children for the types of jobs their parents have. Schools serving lower-income communities may emphasize following orders and discipline, preparing students for jobs with little independence. Meanwhile, elite schools focus on problem solving, leadership and public speaking, preparing students for management and leadership roles.

The biggest problem with believing school gives everyone equal opportunities is how society views those who struggle. Successful people may believe they earned everything alone, forgetting their starting advantages. Meanwhile, those who struggle may blame themselves and assume they were not smart or hardworking enough.

In Pakistan, language is a major barrier to equal educational opportunities. Higher education and many competitive examinations require English, putting students from public schools at a disadvantage. English is often taught as a rote subject rather than a spoken language. Students memorize rules to pass written exams but may struggle to speak fluently. As a result, confidence in English becomes closely linked to a privileged background.

English also acts as a filter in the job market and institutions. The Central Superior Services (CSS) examination, a pathway to positions of power and influence, places considerable demands on candidates’ English. Public-school students can face a disadvantage compared with those from elite schools. Interviews at multinational companies, banks and major corporations also often require English. Candidates who are not fluent may be seen as unprofessional or lacking confidence.

In university classrooms, some public-school students avoid discussions or debates because of anxiety about speaking English. Their silence can then be mistaken for a lack of knowledge or effort.

Does education give equal opportunities? Education remains an important way to improve life and career prospects. However, the sociological criticisms discussed here suggest that schools also reflect society’s inequalities. Until these are addressed, schools alone cannot fix the problem.

One way to improve opportunities would be to reduce the language barrier. Candidates could be given a choice of taking major competitive examinations, such as CSS, in English or Urdu. Allowing students to use the language they are comfortable with could make these examinations more accessible and reduce the advantage of elite backgrounds. Knowledge and effort could then play a greater role in success than fluency in English.

Another solution would be for the government to provide free educational resources, particularly in rural Pakistan. Students from wealthier backgrounds have better access to books, technology and other learning materials, giving them an advantage over working-class students. Providing these resources could help narrow the gap and give more students a fair chance. It could also help address some differences in cultural capital by widening access to learning opportunities.

Finally, the government could introduce training workshops for teachers in rural areas. These could improve teaching methods and the quality of education students receive. Simply providing resources cannot make much difference if teachers are not trained to use them effectively. Better teaching could help students understand subjects instead of only memorizing information for examinations. Alongside resources, this would give working-class students a fairer chance to succeed.

Overall, education can be a pathway to social mobility, but it cannot fully create equal opportunities when students enter schools with unequal cultural, social and economic advantages. Recognizing these differences does not mean dismissing hard work. It means understanding that hard work takes place under different conditions, and that a fair education system must take those conditions into account.