| So in the past 48 hours 16:48 - Mar 31 with 7388 views | bluelagos |
We've been told that structural racism isn't a problem in the UK, that the Met police's refusal to facilitate a safe vigil and subsequently arresting women at a vigil is hunky dory and nothing at all to do with the inappropriate pressure from the Home Secretary, and Boris having an affair with a woman whilst simultaneously directing public money her way is "acting with honesty and integrity".
What next? |  |
| |  |
| So in the past 48 hours on 14:58 - Apr 2 with 968 views | GlasgowBlue |
| So in the past 48 hours on 11:34 - Apr 2 by jeera |
I wouldn't classify O'Neil as an authority on anything.
This is the man who called the investigation into Saville "a media-led witch hunt" in which "the victims would be better off keeping quiet."
The man is a piece of sh1t and it's impossible to see why anyone in their right mind would support his cause. |
Funnily enough, when I first linked the story about Saville on here, which was featured on the "old'n" or some such blog (About two weeks before the mainstream media picked it up) and how the senior members of the BBC were involved in turning a blind eye to his vile acts, your mate Vapers weighed straight in accusing me of Beeb bashing.
Anyway, game's on now. |  |
| |
| So in the past 48 hours on 16:45 - Apr 2 with 943 views | Kievthegreat |
| So in the past 48 hours on 11:56 - Apr 2 by lowhouseblue |
so, your first point, (but read the section of the report on education - it is careful, nuanced and includes recommendations which you'd probably support), the report finds that "Data on entry rates to higher education showed that in 2020 White students were the least likely to go to university at 32.6%, followed by students from the Mixed (39.0%), Black (47.5%), Asian (53.1%) and Chinese (71.7%) ethnic groups". it then goes on to discuss different patterns between different minority ethnicity groups (a key element to the report and one of the most significant issues), the universities different groups go to and the outcomes they achieve. it identifies a particular issue with black students being more likely to go to lower tariff universities and looks at why that is the case.it includes recommendations on how to address that and how to improve carrier progression. vocational training is one of the reports main areas for recommendations looking at how apprenticeships in a particular can be promoted to minority ethnic groups.
but in terms of the headline there is nothing to suggest that race is the major determinant of opportunities in post-compulsory education - it is white students who have the lowest progression rate.
the decline in the race wage differential is much longer-term than that. but whatever the reason for it wage outcomes aren't not now significantly determined by race.
rather than just repeating stuff you've seen on twitter and editorialising it so it fits your group thinked worldview - READ THE REPORT |
You mention one issue about black students going to lower tariff universities, but it also points out:
White students are the most likely to attend high tariff universities
White students have the lowest non-continuation (drop out) rates. Black students have the highest.
Black students drop out rates are even higher at higher tariff universities.
White Students get the highest percentage of 1st class degrees, black students get the least
Black African, black Caribbean, other black, Bangladeshi and Pakistani have the lowest rates of post graduate earnings. White groups are amongst the highest along with mixed, Indian and Chinese.
Now here's something intersting. They offer 2 explanations, one is that students from higher tariff universities compete better than those from lower tariff universities. They spend one paragraph and no sources.
The next is that poor career guidance might be to blame. On this they spend 8 paragraphs and quote multiple sources. It should be a warning sign when one explanation is made almost flippant with no explanation and another is actually articulated and sourced. They are putting their thumb on the scale and getting the answer they want.
The first paragraph reads "Another explanation is that ethnic minority students, and especially Black students, from lower
social status backgrounds are not being well advised on which courses to take at university. About 40% of Black African people and 39% of people from the Bangladeshi ethnic group are overqualified for their roles, compared with 25%."
From that you might expect they'd found a report that identified students from those backgrounds not being well advised on courses. Except of course that's not what the source says. The source is discussing how to improve employment advice. It's not looking at qualifications are studied. So where did the report find the evidence that black students are taking the "wrong courses"? Well it never says. It never provides details of this.
It instead moves onto a new source, the source is a series of focus groups, in total it was the experience of 192 graduates who came exclusively from working class backgrounds (do you see the thumb on the scale again?). On this study it will spend the next 5 paragraphs. However it will not supply any secondary sources to link the points made in these focus groups to actual quantitative data. It also will not report some of the key findings of the report, namely "Barriers based on ethnicity: Working-class young people from Black and South Asian backgrounds faced additional disadvantages in the labour market. These included a lack of role models in education and employment, and experiences of racism when applying for and working in high-skilled occupations."
It hones in on a report that addresses it's seemingly preassessed conclusion that it's all class based, but still glosses over the key finding that racism played a massive role in post graduate employment for ethnic groups. I mean if you've identified that students from some backgrounds earn less and your source explaining says that racism plays a massive role, you can't with a straight face say it's not racism?
I've read one section and it's shoddy, amateurish work. I'll be f*****d if I'm reading another 200 plus pages, because if they are in anyway reflective of that section, the whole thing is a joke.
Government report: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-commission-on-race-
(Higher education starts on page 93)
Report regarding "overqualification": https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/poverty-ethnicity-labour-market
Focus groups: https://natcen.ac.uk/our-research/research/cred-employment/ |  | | |
| So in the past 48 hours on 23:32 - Apr 2 with 871 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| So in the past 48 hours on 16:45 - Apr 2 by Kievthegreat |
You mention one issue about black students going to lower tariff universities, but it also points out:
White students are the most likely to attend high tariff universities
White students have the lowest non-continuation (drop out) rates. Black students have the highest.
Black students drop out rates are even higher at higher tariff universities.
White Students get the highest percentage of 1st class degrees, black students get the least
Black African, black Caribbean, other black, Bangladeshi and Pakistani have the lowest rates of post graduate earnings. White groups are amongst the highest along with mixed, Indian and Chinese.
Now here's something intersting. They offer 2 explanations, one is that students from higher tariff universities compete better than those from lower tariff universities. They spend one paragraph and no sources.
The next is that poor career guidance might be to blame. On this they spend 8 paragraphs and quote multiple sources. It should be a warning sign when one explanation is made almost flippant with no explanation and another is actually articulated and sourced. They are putting their thumb on the scale and getting the answer they want.
The first paragraph reads "Another explanation is that ethnic minority students, and especially Black students, from lower
social status backgrounds are not being well advised on which courses to take at university. About 40% of Black African people and 39% of people from the Bangladeshi ethnic group are overqualified for their roles, compared with 25%."
From that you might expect they'd found a report that identified students from those backgrounds not being well advised on courses. Except of course that's not what the source says. The source is discussing how to improve employment advice. It's not looking at qualifications are studied. So where did the report find the evidence that black students are taking the "wrong courses"? Well it never says. It never provides details of this.
It instead moves onto a new source, the source is a series of focus groups, in total it was the experience of 192 graduates who came exclusively from working class backgrounds (do you see the thumb on the scale again?). On this study it will spend the next 5 paragraphs. However it will not supply any secondary sources to link the points made in these focus groups to actual quantitative data. It also will not report some of the key findings of the report, namely "Barriers based on ethnicity: Working-class young people from Black and South Asian backgrounds faced additional disadvantages in the labour market. These included a lack of role models in education and employment, and experiences of racism when applying for and working in high-skilled occupations."
It hones in on a report that addresses it's seemingly preassessed conclusion that it's all class based, but still glosses over the key finding that racism played a massive role in post graduate employment for ethnic groups. I mean if you've identified that students from some backgrounds earn less and your source explaining says that racism plays a massive role, you can't with a straight face say it's not racism?
I've read one section and it's shoddy, amateurish work. I'll be f*****d if I'm reading another 200 plus pages, because if they are in anyway reflective of that section, the whole thing is a joke.
Government report: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-commission-on-race-
(Higher education starts on page 93)
Report regarding "overqualification": https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/poverty-ethnicity-labour-market
Focus groups: https://natcen.ac.uk/our-research/research/cred-employment/ |
Just imagine if folk realised that class and race face similar barriers and united to remove them, now wouldn't that be a thing! |  |
| |
| So in the past 48 hours (n/t) on 00:29 - Apr 3 with 859 views | lowhouseblue |
| So in the past 48 hours on 16:45 - Apr 2 by Kievthegreat |
You mention one issue about black students going to lower tariff universities, but it also points out:
White students are the most likely to attend high tariff universities
White students have the lowest non-continuation (drop out) rates. Black students have the highest.
Black students drop out rates are even higher at higher tariff universities.
White Students get the highest percentage of 1st class degrees, black students get the least
Black African, black Caribbean, other black, Bangladeshi and Pakistani have the lowest rates of post graduate earnings. White groups are amongst the highest along with mixed, Indian and Chinese.
Now here's something intersting. They offer 2 explanations, one is that students from higher tariff universities compete better than those from lower tariff universities. They spend one paragraph and no sources.
The next is that poor career guidance might be to blame. On this they spend 8 paragraphs and quote multiple sources. It should be a warning sign when one explanation is made almost flippant with no explanation and another is actually articulated and sourced. They are putting their thumb on the scale and getting the answer they want.
The first paragraph reads "Another explanation is that ethnic minority students, and especially Black students, from lower
social status backgrounds are not being well advised on which courses to take at university. About 40% of Black African people and 39% of people from the Bangladeshi ethnic group are overqualified for their roles, compared with 25%."
From that you might expect they'd found a report that identified students from those backgrounds not being well advised on courses. Except of course that's not what the source says. The source is discussing how to improve employment advice. It's not looking at qualifications are studied. So where did the report find the evidence that black students are taking the "wrong courses"? Well it never says. It never provides details of this.
It instead moves onto a new source, the source is a series of focus groups, in total it was the experience of 192 graduates who came exclusively from working class backgrounds (do you see the thumb on the scale again?). On this study it will spend the next 5 paragraphs. However it will not supply any secondary sources to link the points made in these focus groups to actual quantitative data. It also will not report some of the key findings of the report, namely "Barriers based on ethnicity: Working-class young people from Black and South Asian backgrounds faced additional disadvantages in the labour market. These included a lack of role models in education and employment, and experiences of racism when applying for and working in high-skilled occupations."
It hones in on a report that addresses it's seemingly preassessed conclusion that it's all class based, but still glosses over the key finding that racism played a massive role in post graduate employment for ethnic groups. I mean if you've identified that students from some backgrounds earn less and your source explaining says that racism plays a massive role, you can't with a straight face say it's not racism?
I've read one section and it's shoddy, amateurish work. I'll be f*****d if I'm reading another 200 plus pages, because if they are in anyway reflective of that section, the whole thing is a joke.
Government report: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-commission-on-race-
(Higher education starts on page 93)
Report regarding "overqualification": https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/poverty-ethnicity-labour-market
Focus groups: https://natcen.ac.uk/our-research/research/cred-employment/ |
in terms of your set of points relating to non-continuation etc you miss out the report's first explanation: "This is in part a selection effect, due to the higher rates of progression to university among ethnic minorities." ie higher proportion of ethnic minority groups go into higher education and they are therefore statistically going to be over-represented in lower tariff universities - which obviously have higher non-continuation rates and lower post-graduation salaries (that's a very well established fact - I don't think the report really needs to establish the link between lower tariff universities and lower post-graduation earnings). you also omit the report's assertion that "Attainment at A level in schools and colleges is the most important factor influencing entry to the highest tariff courses and universities." The report includes discussion of the importance of reducing that school attainment gap - that is a major conclusion from the report.
in terms of post-graduate earnings the fact that the white group are not the highest earners also makes it hard to explain all of this primarily in terms of racism.
but the report isn't claiming in any way that racism doesn't exist or that it isn't a serious problem. your examples of racism in recruitment etc aren't disputed in the report - it's point is that there isn't evidence that statistically race is a powerful explanatory variable for socio economic inequality. the fact is that different minority ethnic groups now have significantly different outcomes - and in many cases out-perform the white population on key measures. despite the issues in higher education which the report discusses, ethnic minorities are now over-represented relative to population in some the highest status and highest paid professions - eg law and medicine. surely that's a very good thing - but it really isn't compatible with race alone determining mobility and outcomes.
[Post edited 3 Apr 2021 1:03]
|  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| So in the past 48 hours on 00:39 - Apr 3 with 847 views | Kievthegreat |
| So in the past 48 hours on 23:32 - Apr 2 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Just imagine if folk realised that class and race face similar barriers and united to remove them, now wouldn't that be a thing! |
Indeed. Reminds me of thus clip from John Amaechi.
| | | |
| So in the past 48 hours (n/t) on 03:32 - Apr 3 with 796 views | Kievthegreat |
| So in the past 48 hours (n/t) on 00:29 - Apr 3 by lowhouseblue |
in terms of your set of points relating to non-continuation etc you miss out the report's first explanation: "This is in part a selection effect, due to the higher rates of progression to university among ethnic minorities." ie higher proportion of ethnic minority groups go into higher education and they are therefore statistically going to be over-represented in lower tariff universities - which obviously have higher non-continuation rates and lower post-graduation salaries (that's a very well established fact - I don't think the report really needs to establish the link between lower tariff universities and lower post-graduation earnings). you also omit the report's assertion that "Attainment at A level in schools and colleges is the most important factor influencing entry to the highest tariff courses and universities." The report includes discussion of the importance of reducing that school attainment gap - that is a major conclusion from the report.
in terms of post-graduate earnings the fact that the white group are not the highest earners also makes it hard to explain all of this primarily in terms of racism.
but the report isn't claiming in any way that racism doesn't exist or that it isn't a serious problem. your examples of racism in recruitment etc aren't disputed in the report - it's point is that there isn't evidence that statistically race is a powerful explanatory variable for socio economic inequality. the fact is that different minority ethnic groups now have significantly different outcomes - and in many cases out-perform the white population on key measures. despite the issues in higher education which the report discusses, ethnic minorities are now over-represented relative to population in some the highest status and highest paid professions - eg law and medicine. surely that's a very good thing - but it really isn't compatible with race alone determining mobility and outcomes.
[Post edited 3 Apr 2021 1:03]
|
Point 1, there is "in part" a selection effect. However it points out that black students have the highest non-continuation Overall at high tariff providers, but also in STEM courses (the "secure routes to success") at all tariff levels as well. You can load the data and see. It's consitently the case that at every level black students drop out more than black and for 90%+ of the available data points rank the worst. It's all well and good saying a selection effect impacts the overall rate, but it does nothing to change the fact that across the board black students drop out more regularly than every group in nearly every circumstance.
Also, WRT "attainment at A level", black students are half as likely to achieve 3 A grades at A-level than all other groups. It mentions again the differing rate between different groups, but every single black or mixed demographic is below white British at this level. I didn't go into A-Levels it as it was diverging away from higher education, but the same story plays out. Black students are less likely to perform well, which feeds into University, which feeds into graduate job prospects.
Point 2, the highest earning group are Chinese. There is a significant difference to how those of a Chinese origin have come to the UK. It's not actually just a graduate thing. They are actually the 2nd highest earners as per latest data from ONS. Why might this be? Well a large number of black people in the UK will be from the Windrush generation or their descendants. They were brought to the UK to boost the workforce and typically worked at lower end jobs and the policy was open door. However that avenue has not been open to Chinese. Instead you have a selection effect whereby those with qualifications and skills required (better educated), or financial means (less deprived) are more likely to be able to enter the UK. It's also something seen in the US too and often used as a stick by white nationalists to point out that "there can't be racism because Chinese/Asians earn more".
My point is that the report doesn't show any attempt to find or disprove, with statistical evidence, any position WRT higher education. It's recommendations for higher education aren't based on numbers. The thing the report seeks to do and which you echo is that there are some groups doing okay, so racism can't be the issue. It's a well rehearsed hymn sheet and why the report is described as a green light for racists. With higher education, White students attend the higher universities, get better grades, drop out less and end up with better salaries than almost everyone, in every case. Of course that doesn't factor into the conclusions though.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworking | | | |
| So in the past 48 hours (n/t) on 09:47 - Apr 3 with 701 views | lowhouseblue |
| So in the past 48 hours (n/t) on 03:32 - Apr 3 by Kievthegreat |
Point 1, there is "in part" a selection effect. However it points out that black students have the highest non-continuation Overall at high tariff providers, but also in STEM courses (the "secure routes to success") at all tariff levels as well. You can load the data and see. It's consitently the case that at every level black students drop out more than black and for 90%+ of the available data points rank the worst. It's all well and good saying a selection effect impacts the overall rate, but it does nothing to change the fact that across the board black students drop out more regularly than every group in nearly every circumstance.
Also, WRT "attainment at A level", black students are half as likely to achieve 3 A grades at A-level than all other groups. It mentions again the differing rate between different groups, but every single black or mixed demographic is below white British at this level. I didn't go into A-Levels it as it was diverging away from higher education, but the same story plays out. Black students are less likely to perform well, which feeds into University, which feeds into graduate job prospects.
Point 2, the highest earning group are Chinese. There is a significant difference to how those of a Chinese origin have come to the UK. It's not actually just a graduate thing. They are actually the 2nd highest earners as per latest data from ONS. Why might this be? Well a large number of black people in the UK will be from the Windrush generation or their descendants. They were brought to the UK to boost the workforce and typically worked at lower end jobs and the policy was open door. However that avenue has not been open to Chinese. Instead you have a selection effect whereby those with qualifications and skills required (better educated), or financial means (less deprived) are more likely to be able to enter the UK. It's also something seen in the US too and often used as a stick by white nationalists to point out that "there can't be racism because Chinese/Asians earn more".
My point is that the report doesn't show any attempt to find or disprove, with statistical evidence, any position WRT higher education. It's recommendations for higher education aren't based on numbers. The thing the report seeks to do and which you echo is that there are some groups doing okay, so racism can't be the issue. It's a well rehearsed hymn sheet and why the report is described as a green light for racists. With higher education, White students attend the higher universities, get better grades, drop out less and end up with better salaries than almost everyone, in every case. Of course that doesn't factor into the conclusions though.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworking |
your second para on the school attainment gap re-iterates that there is a problem - and a problem which is then significant in explaining the rest of the data on the h e experince (type of university, non-continuation rates, post-graduation earnings). but it doesn't establish that racism is the cause of the school attainment gap. the report shows that it is specific to particular groups in particular geographies and there are other factors, including class and historic racism, which do explain it. there is also a big attainment gap for various white communities and geographies. you can't assume that any differences between ethnic minority groups are necessarily explained by racism - there are other factors involved. again the recommendations in the report look to address the attainment gap by focusing on best practice and the things that have led certain communities and places to excel.
your 3rd para then actually uses class as the explanatory factor - you explain the different outcomes for different ethnic minority groups without relying on racism - which is entirely consistent with the findings of the report.
in that para you therefore accept that racism alone can't explain why different ethnic minority groups are doing better or worse. we need then to bring geography, demographics, class, historic racism*, family experience of he, etc to explain the particular experience of each community. and again you don't address any on the macro data on key current economic outcomes - the earnings differential from the white group has largely disappeared and ethnic minority groups have equal access to high pay and high status professions.
you can't start from the assumption that difference in the experience of different groups are explained by racism without also considering other key differences in characteristics across those groups.
remember also that the report's recommendation on h e necessarily start from what the OfS is already doing - which is hugely data based and is already focused on addressing the tariff issue.
finally your end para repeats the points about different h e experience - all of that may well comeback to the school attainment gap. there are very good explanations for the school attainment gap based upon class and social structure. there isn't evidence of widespread racism in the compulsory school system - and again if there were how would you explain the various ethnic minority groups who do out-perform the white group at school and how do you explain the significant geographical variation and within the white community and amongst the various ethnic minority groups? you can't just avoid the need to explain why many ethnic minority groups are now doing well and are achieving significant mobility - if racism is your prime explanatory variable it simply can't explain all of that.
* on historic racism and it's impact on particular groups the section on stop and search goes into it in greater detail.
anyway - thanks for the discussion. it makes a change on here for someone to address the points made rather than pile on to the poster. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| So in the past 48 hours on 17:49 - Apr 4 with 622 views | Herbivore |
It appears they've been misrepresenting research left, right and centre in the report:
Incredible really to see people defending it and trying to claim that it's findings are important. It's got more holes than a colander. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| So in the past 48 hours on 18:02 - Apr 4 with 611 views | DanTheMan |
| So in the past 48 hours on 17:49 - Apr 4 by Herbivore |
It appears they've been misrepresenting research left, right and centre in the report:
Incredible really to see people defending it and trying to claim that it's findings are important. It's got more holes than a colander. |
Started seeing this sort of stuff coming up after people have dug deeper into the report. BMJ was fairly damning among others.
Seems like a very long gish gallop but the damage will have already been done. People who don't really want to listen can point to this and say "See? Everything is fine, carry on". |  |
| |
| So in the past 48 hours on 18:23 - Apr 4 with 587 views | Darth_Koont |
| So in the past 48 hours on 17:49 - Apr 4 by Herbivore |
It appears they've been misrepresenting research left, right and centre in the report:
Incredible really to see people defending it and trying to claim that it's findings are important. It's got more holes than a colander. |
Saw someone sarcastically referring to the method used as “policy-based evidence” which hit the nail on the head. |  |
| |
| So in the past 48 hours on 18:39 - Apr 16 with 482 views | Herbivore |
| So in the past 48 hours on 18:02 - Apr 4 by DanTheMan |
Started seeing this sort of stuff coming up after people have dug deeper into the report. BMJ was fairly damning among others.
Seems like a very long gish gallop but the damage will have already been done. People who don't really want to listen can point to this and say "See? Everything is fine, carry on". |
A bit more dissection going on here: https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/16/government-race-report-evi
Some of the views on this thread are starting to look, I'll say charitably, misguided. | |
| |
| So in the past 48 hours on 18:42 - Apr 16 with 478 views | SpruceMoose |
Usual suspects? |  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| So in the past 48 hours on 18:55 - Apr 16 with 465 views | Darth_Koont |
The first casualty of war is the truth.
Which suggests that the Culture War is a very real one for the Tories. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
