OT - Why aren't students protesting over this?
Comments
-
Kudos to More Or Less again - they've just done this too. (R4, iPlayer if you want. @ ~24 minutes).
Oxbridge requires 3 x As to get in, excluding General Studies (IIRC).
Roughly 27000 'white' candidates achieved 3 As in 2009, of which 17% got into Oxbridge.
417 'black' - this being Black African, Black Carribean, Black Other, Mixed etc - got 3 As, of which 14% got into Oxbridge.
The figures are further muddied [oooh did I really say that...?] by the students who prefer not to answer the race question.
That's still a difference, but not the shouty misleading headline that only 1 black student gained entrance - there were actually 61 last year, which as a % of the 3 As candicacy is pretty much the going rate. no?
Nothing like a good old misleading headline and an internet debate to drown out the facts though.
:roll:0 -
I don't consider mixed ethnicity as black.
Just saying.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Why?DonDaddyD wrote:I don't consider mixed ethnicity as black.0 -
CiB wrote:
I'll storm the BBC on your behalf.DonDaddyD wrote:I don't consider mixed ethnicity as black.
Just saying.
Please, they won't let 'my lot' into the building. Thanks!notsoblue wrote:Why?
Really, wow.
OK well from a genetic point of view, they aren't are they. Well they are, as much as they are white (assuming we are talking about the offspring of one white parent and one black parent).
So why would you consider them black and in doing so dismiss the other 50% of their genetic makeup? If i was mixed ethinicity/race/bi-racial and proud of my white heritage I would find that rather insulting actually.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
In this instance, I'd suspect that the point was that 'mixed' was included in the 'black' tally to make clear the difference between 'white' and 'non white' candidates, as that was the basis of the original discussion; that [indigenous] whites have a much higher propensity to be offered a place compared to what is effectively 'everyone else'. In simple terms.
I didn't enjoy writing that one bit.0 -
CiB wrote:In this instance, I'd suspect that the point was that 'mixed' was included in the 'black' tally to make clear the difference between 'white' and 'non white' candidates, as that was the basis of the original discussion; that [indigenous] whites have a much higher propensity to be offered a place compared to what is effectively 'everyone else'. In simple terms.
I didn't enjoy writing that one bit.
The DDD in me wants to play with this and turn it into a racial debate about what is indigenous in this Country...
But I won't and for the most part, you're right. Difficult answer to type, well navigated sir.
Here's a question. The offspring of two mixed parents, what ethnicity box do they tick?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:notsoblue wrote:Why?
Really, wow.
OK well from a genetic point of view, they aren't are they. Well they are, as much as they are white (assuming we are talking about the offspring of one white parent and one black parent).
So why would you consider them black and in doing so dismiss the other 50% of their genetic makeup? If i was mixed ethinicity/race/bi-racial and proud of my white heritage I would find that rather insulting actually.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just think opinions on this are interesting. Mixed race people are often pigeon holed into broad categories that differ from how they see themselves. Black is a pretty complex, loaded term.
Anyway, sorry, OT
0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Here's a question. The offspring of two mixed parents, what ethnicity box do they tick?
Assuming the offspring had two 100% black and two 100% white grandparents, then the same box that their parents would tick. And that would depend on the culture they grew up in as much as the tone of their skin or the kink in their hair.0 -
Dunno the maths seems off on that one.
I don't see how they could be mixed ethnicity anymore....
Wierdly, I've never met a child whose parents are both mixed from the same two races.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
What would they be?DonDaddyD wrote:Dunno the maths seems off on that one.
I don't see how they could be mixed ethnicity anymore....0 -
notsoblue wrote:
What would they be?DonDaddyD wrote:Dunno the maths seems off on that one.
I don't see how they could be mixed ethnicity anymore....
The next step in evolution, I dunno. I really don't.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
X-Men should have been set in Brazil, Trinidad or Puerto Rico...0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Dunno the maths seems off on that one.
I don't see how they could be mixed ethnicity anymore....
Wierdly, I've never met a child whose parents are both mixed from the same two races.
As far as you know. If black people dig far back enough they can often find at least one ancestor who was white, and vice versa. Everyone thinks they know what 'black', 'white' and 'mixed race' mean, but when you actually try and define them precisely it's nigh on impossible.
Back on topic, I think I generally agree that Oxbridge isn't actively discriminating at the admissions stage, and that the causes are probably further down the chain, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem that needs addressing.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
W1 wrote:shouldbeinbed wrote:But what makes me really angry with the edu cuts and policy changes is cutting the EMA that was a genuine force for keeping the talented poor in education and the loss of that front end supplement rather than a hike in pay back after fees will be a decisive factor in the product of the Oldham Council Estate or Peckham tower block missing their shot at climbing the further education ladder.
EMA is being dropped as it isn't effective apparently. On QT last night Lian Fox was outlining that the money would go into scholarship schemes instead. Not sure how that works, but if EMA isn't actually encouraging (or keeping) poor young people in education then the money should be spent more effectively elsewhere.
Your thoughts?
Let me explain to you how this works: when the government makes a cut it has to justify that cut by saying that the thing they are cutting doesnt work, is a complete waste of money, etc. They cant say well we wanted to save some money and we didnt think anyone would care much about EMA. Just because the government says something is so doesnt make it so - try to remember that.
What they are trying to argue is that the majority of those who receive this money would continue into post-compulsory education anyway so the money is a waste but this is flawed on 2 levels: firstly, because the basis for this decision is a single very dodgy report; secondly, even if this was true the EMA has had a significant positive impact on many young people's lives, it has improved the experience of being at FE college better.0 -
What do I get next, a pat on the head?Paulie W wrote:Let me explain to you how this works: when the government makes a cut it has to justify that cut by saying that the thing they are cutting doesnt work, is a complete waste of money, etc. They cant say well we wanted to save some money and we didnt think anyone would care much about EMA. Just because the government says something is so doesnt make it so - try to remember that.
What they are trying to argue is that the majority of those who receive this money would continue into post-compulsory education anyway so the money is a waste but this is flawed on 2 levels: firstly, because the basis for this decision is a single very dodgy report; secondly, even if this was true the EMA has had a significant positive impact on many young people's lives, it has improved the experience of being at FE college better.
I'm fully aware of part 1 above, and I'd be interested in links to both the "dodgy" report and the evidence that it's actually effective as per para 2.0 -
W1 wrote:What do I get next, a pat on the head?
I'm fully aware of part 1 above, and I'd be interested in links to both the "dodgy" report and the evidence that it's actually effective as per para 2.
If you're aware of para 1 then perhaps it's time you stopped wheeling out every statement made by the Coalition as if it was fact. You clearly have no knowledge of this issue but still began you're post with the statement "EMA isnt effective apparently". I suspect you had no idea on what this apparent ineffectiveness was based.
Anyway, the report is Spielhofer, T. et al, National Foundation for Educational Research. Barriers to participation in education and training. Research Report DFE-RR009 - it's easy enough to find on the internet if you want to read it. One of its faults is that it has used questionnaire and interview data from students too young to receive EMA when questionned. In any case the government barely engages with this report in its paper on EMA - also easy to find - just quoting what it sees as the key figure of 12%. There is a mass of evidence presented by FE Colleges that EMA has been a positive force as well as other research reports e.g. from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which suggest that it has had a major impact on participation.
The key thing with this decision is the saving of almost £500m that will arise out of cutting EMA and replacing it with a half-arsed scholarship scheme. This is a classic example of an old school Tory approach of cutting money from an area where the recipients of the cut are not part and would never be part of a Tory demographic.0 -
Paulie W wrote:W1 wrote:What do I get next, a pat on the head?
I'm fully aware of part 1 above, and I'd be interested in links to both the "dodgy" report and the evidence that it's actually effective as per para 2.
If you're aware of para 1 then perhaps it's time you stopped wheeling out every statement made by the Coalition as if it was fact. You clearly have no knowledge of this issue but still began you're post with the statement "EMA isnt effective apparently". I suspect you had no idea on what this apparent ineffectiveness was based.
Hence the word "apparently" i.e. I'm not quoting it as fact. You'll also note I used the word "if" too. And hence why I asked. Is that OK with you?
Jeez. Careful of the blood pressure grandad.0 -
Oh, I see you were being open minded! Forgive me, it's just that in every other post you've ever made you've shown an unswerving ideological and political intransigence.0
-
Paulie W wrote:Anyway, the report is Spielhofer, T. et al, National Foundation for Educational Research. Barriers to participation in education and training. Research Report DFE-RR009 - it's easy enough to find on the internet if you want to read it. One of its faults is that it has used questionnaire and interview data from students too young to receive EMA when questionned. In any case the government barely engages with this report in its paper on EMA - also easy to find - just quoting what it sees as the key figure of 12%. There is a mass of evidence presented by FE Colleges that EMA has been a positive force as well as other research reports e.g. from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which suggest that it has had a major impact on participation.
The key thing with this decision is the saving of almost £500m that will arise out of cutting EMA and replacing it with a half-arsed scholarship scheme. This is a classic example of an old school Tory approach of cutting money from an area where the recipients of the cut are not part and would never be part of a Tory demographic.
Which IFS study are you referring to? Because the one I'm looking at doesn't appear to conclude that EMA makes a significant difference to participation.
"we generally find positive rather than negative point estimates of the
impact of the EMA these are typically small in magnitude and most are not statistically
significant. There is no statistically significant evidence that it increased the attainment of
females in the initial pilot areas. For males, we cannot find any evidence that the EMA
increased participation rates"0 -
W1 wrote:Paulie W wrote:Anyway, the report is Spielhofer, T. et al, National Foundation for Educational Research. Barriers to participation in education and training. Research Report DFE-RR009 - it's easy enough to find on the internet if you want to read it. One of its faults is that it has used questionnaire and interview data from students too young to receive EMA when questionned. In any case the government barely engages with this report in its paper on EMA - also easy to find - just quoting what it sees as the key figure of 12%. There is a mass of evidence presented by FE Colleges that EMA has been a positive force as well as other research reports e.g. from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which suggest that it has had a major impact on participation.
The key thing with this decision is the saving of almost £500m that will arise out of cutting EMA and replacing it with a half-arsed scholarship scheme. This is a classic example of an old school Tory approach of cutting money from an area where the recipients of the cut are not part and would never be part of a Tory demographic.
Which IFS study are you referring to? Because the one I'm looking at doesn't appear to conclude that EMA makes a significant difference to participation.
"we generally find positive rather than negative point estimates of the
impact of the EMA these are typically small in magnitude and most are not statistically
significant. There is no statistically significant evidence that it increased the attainment of
females in the initial pilot areas. For males, we cannot find any evidence that the EMA
increased participation rates"
Popped off and did a quick web search eh? Well done for finding a section that you liked the sound of. How about the following from the same report:
"Furthermore, combining both strengths of the data we have employed leads to one of the
most striking findings of this evaluation, whereby the attainment of ethnic minorities
experienced strong and significant increases in the pilot areas. Black females stand out as a case in point, with strong and significant improvements on every single indicator of
attainment that we measure. The gains among black males and Asians as a whole – while perhaps slightly weaker and more sporadic – are still impressive overall.
Another positive impact that can be taken from this study is that males and females in
relatively disadvantages areas did experience higher participation and attainment, and that these improvements are nontrivial relative to their base levels. For males in the most
deprived areas, however, the impacts are quite sparse and weak. These individuals, along with the lowest prior achieving males and females, may represent areas where support in pre- and post-16 education needs to be strengthened further so that improvements in participation are followed by improvements in qualifications".
You might also want to look at the studies of the pilot surveys which provided clearer evidence of increased participation and attainment and note this from the report you quote: " We...concede that where differences arise, previous research that used individual-level survey data should take precedence". i.e. our data isnt as good as the pilot studies.0 -
Have a nice weekend guys, turn the lights off when you're done.0
-
Paulie W wrote:W1 wrote:Paulie W wrote:Anyway, the report is Spielhofer, T. et al, National Foundation for Educational Research. Barriers to participation in education and training. Research Report DFE-RR009 - it's easy enough to find on the internet if you want to read it. One of its faults is that it has used questionnaire and interview data from students too young to receive EMA when questionned. In any case the government barely engages with this report in its paper on EMA - also easy to find - just quoting what it sees as the key figure of 12%. There is a mass of evidence presented by FE Colleges that EMA has been a positive force as well as other research reports e.g. from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which suggest that it has had a major impact on participation.
The key thing with this decision is the saving of almost £500m that will arise out of cutting EMA and replacing it with a half-arsed scholarship scheme. This is a classic example of an old school Tory approach of cutting money from an area where the recipients of the cut are not part and would never be part of a Tory demographic.
Which IFS study are you referring to? Because the one I'm looking at doesn't appear to conclude that EMA makes a significant difference to participation.
"we generally find positive rather than negative point estimates of the
impact of the EMA these are typically small in magnitude and most are not statistically
significant. There is no statistically significant evidence that it increased the attainment of
females in the initial pilot areas. For males, we cannot find any evidence that the EMA
increased participation rates"
Popped off and did a quick web search eh? Well done for finding a section that you liked the sound of. How about the following from the same report:
"Furthermore, combining both strengths of the data we have employed leads to one of the
most striking findings of this evaluation, whereby the attainment of ethnic minorities
experienced strong and significant increases in the pilot areas. Black females stand out as a case in point, with strong and significant improvements on every single indicator of
attainment that we measure. The gains among black males and Asians as a whole – while perhaps slightly weaker and more sporadic – are still impressive overall.
Another positive impact that can be taken from this study is that males and females in
relatively disadvantages areas did experience higher participation and attainment, and that these improvements are nontrivial relative to their base levels. For males in the most
deprived areas, however, the impacts are quite sparse and weak. These individuals, along with the lowest prior achieving males and females, may represent areas where support in pre- and post-16 education needs to be strengthened further so that improvements in participation are followed by improvements in qualifications".
You might also want to look at the studies of the pilot surveys which provided clearer evidence of increased participation and attainment and note this from the report you quote: " We...concede that where differences arise, previous research that used individual-level survey data should take precedence". i.e. our data isnt as good as the pilot studies.
You're talking about attainment. You said EMA had a "a major impact on participation". So are you going to link to the report you're referring to by the IFS that shows this, or not?
Regardless, my quote is still from your source isn't it?
Don't get your garters all upset, I'm only asking you to point me to the evidence that you cite so boldly. What did you expect me to do, justa accept what you say as fact?0 -
CiB wrote:Roughly 27000 'white' candidates achieved 3 As in 2009, of which 17% got into Oxbridge.
417 'black' - this being Black African, Black Carribean, Black Other, Mixed etc - got 3 As, of which 14% got into Oxbridge.
65 times as many 'white' candidates as 'black' got 3 As, how closely would this reflect British/English population?DonDaddyD wrote:I don't consider mixed ethnicity as black.
Just saying.
If you want to be genetically pedantic you're probably right. However this would mean that a large proportion of those who consider themselves as 'black' or 'white' probably aren't either.
If I discrimate against you because you are 'black' it is irrelevant wether or not your Great Great Great Grandfather was white.
These are really quite blunt ethnic categories.
Is Obama the first black president?
ETA
Or what RSTERRY said“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
The quote above refers to both attainment AND participation and explicitly links the two.0
-
Paulie W wrote:The quote above refers to both attainment AND participation and explicitly links the two.
So, you're not going to tell me which report you were referring to then?
Notable, but after your rhetoric, somewhat dissapointing.
Luckily I don't just accept what people say as "facts" isn't it?0 -
TailWindHome wrote:CiB wrote:Roughly 27000 'white' candidates achieved 3 As in 2009, of which 17% got into Oxbridge.
417 'black' - this being Black African, Black Carribean, Black Other, Mixed etc - got 3 As, of which 14% got into Oxbridge.
65 times as many 'white' candidates as 'black' got 3 As, how closely would this reflect British/English population?
Assume it doesn't (seems a safe assumption). What conclusion can you draw from that?0 -
W1 wrote:Paulie W wrote:The quote above refers to both attainment AND participation and explicitly links the two.
So, you're not going to tell me which report you were referring to then?
Notable, but after your rhetoric, somewhat dissapointing.
Luckily I don't just accept what people say as "facts" isn't it?
This is a brief relating to the pilot studies I referred to explicitly in an earlier post : http://publications.education.gov.uk/eO ... /RB678.pdf
Let me make it clear - the results of the various studies are varied but this one was pretty clear about particpation while the one you quoted was pretty clear about attainment as well as participation among girls and certain ethnic minorities.0
