One black guy went to Oxford last year

[AndyDT]

https://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/06/oxford-colleges-no-black-students

What the hell's going on?

[cthrubuoy]

Maybe all the black people didn't impress the Universities as much?
I don't see why statistics like this are linked to racism. If Political Correctness got it's way then people would be entered into University based on the colour of their skin to make up numbers, not their academic achievements.

[AndyDT]

13 years of a Labour government posturing about equality and one black guy was let in to Oxford.

[Jamesman42]

If Political Correctness got it's way then people would be entered into University based on the colour of their skin to make up numbers, not their academic achievements.

Which really, really sucks.

Admission to an academic stepping stone should not be based on anything but...wait for it...academic potential/success. And is Oxford not one of the biggest colleges in the UK?

[XJDenton]

Even if that were the case its still indicative of Black students being left behind, because in principle intelligence is not correlated with skin colour and therefore you would expect the admission of oxford to reflect the ethnic makeup of the UK if the playing field was even.

[Perpetual Change]

Even if that were the case its still indicative of Black students being left behind, because in principle intelligence is not correlated with skin colour and therefore you would expect the admission of oxford to reflect the ethnic makeup of the UK if the playing field was even.

This.

[SixDegrees]

.

[Super Dude]

I mean in the US, that discrepancy is more based on parental upbringing (in either direction), which is why inner city kids are often bussed to public schools in white suburbia or otherwise plucked from home.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

What's the black population in the UK as a percentage of total population?

[AndyDT]

Actually, there is a white-black intelligence gap in the US which used to amount to around 15 points (though it's believed to be closing). It's supposed to be due to differences in social and environmental factors, e.g. on average worse diet, average lower stimulation at an early age etc., rather than to fluid intelligence. Maybe there's an equivalent in the UK?

White working class are the worst performing group AIUI.

On the other hand, there's the less psychological explanation that Oxford is still perceived as upper-class white territory, and that puts some people off applying. Last I read, there were still disproportionate numbers of upper-class students at Oxford compared to national demographics.

Is it just perception though, or just fact with a mentality that's enforced socially?

[AndyDT]

What's the black population in the UK as a percentage of total population?

African and Carribean? Probably 3-5% I think.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

And figure that most of those (as far as I can deduce) are immigrants, and so secondary education isn't a priority. I dunno. I don't think it's as big a deal, but then again I don't live in the UK

[SixDegrees]

.

[AndyDT]

Until the Great War, Oxford and Cambridge only accepted pupils recommended to them by the headmasters of England's seven Great Public Schools: Eton, Harrow, Westminster, Rugby, Winchester, Charterhouse, and Shrewsbury.

Everybody else was considered too stupid to go.

Nice to see that things have changed so radically.

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336414/Oxbridge-whitewash-21-colleges-accept-black-students-academic-year.html#ixzz17RabqXVY

[SixDegrees]

.

[AcidLameLTE]

 

Edit: Just to clarify, I wasn't laughing at Andy's topic but the post above mine

[William Wallace]

Even if that were the case its still indicative of Black students being left behind, because in principle intelligence is not correlated with skin colour and therefore you would expect the admission of oxford to reflect the ethnic makeup of the UK if the playing field was even.

So, should students be accepted into the school even if they don't meet the requirements?

[Adami]

Even if that were the case its still indicative of Black students being left behind, because in principle intelligence is not correlated with skin colour and therefore you would expect the admission of oxford to reflect the ethnic makeup of the UK if the playing field was even.

So, should students be accepted into the school even if they don't meet the requirements?

Of course not. But that's assuming that every college/university has unbias people admitting those strictly on merrit.

[SixDegrees]

.

[ack44]

in principle intelligence is not correlated with skin colour

Asians have bigger brains. Just sayin.

[Perpetual Change]

Even if that were the case its still indicative of Black students being left behind, because in principle intelligence is not correlated with skin colour and therefore you would expect the admission of oxford to reflect the ethnic makeup of the UK if the playing field was even.

So, should students be accepted into the school even if they don't meet the requirements?

I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's just saying that this points to a bigger problem.

[ack44]

Even if that were the case its still indicative of Black students being left behind, because in principle intelligence is not correlated with skin colour and therefore you would expect the admission of oxford to reflect the ethnic makeup of the UK if the playing field was even.

Are you also expecting the applicants for enrollment in Oxford to reflect the ethnic makeup of the UK?

[XJDenton]

Even if that were the case its still indicative of Black students being left behind, because in principle intelligence is not correlated with skin colour and therefore you would expect the admission of oxford to reflect the ethnic makeup of the UK if the playing field was even.

So, should students be accepted into the school even if they don't meet the requirements?

I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's just saying that this points to a bigger problem.

Correct.

Even if that were the case its still indicative of Black students being left behind, because in principle intelligence is not correlated with skin colour and therefore you would expect the admission of oxford to reflect the ethnic makeup of the UK if the playing field was even.

Are you also expecting the applicants for enrollment in Oxford to reflect the ethnic makeup of the UK?

If the playing field was even I don't see why it wouldn't be.

[eric42434224]

If the playing field was even I don't see why it wouldn't be.

Why even talk about a "level playing field", when there never has been one, never will be one...and I am sure when one realizes the implications of creating one, sustaining one, and the effects it can create....why would anyone ever want one?

[XJDenton]

I'm sorry?

[eric42434224]

I'm sorry?

What are you sorry about?  Do you disagree that the "even playing field" is a bad thing?
I think it is.  Simply because in order to put everyone on a level playing field, you have to move everone to the middle.  That is great for the ones at the bottom, but it is penalizing the ones at the top.  So it really isnt even.

[XJDenton]

I'm sorry?

What are you sorry about?  Do you disagree that the "even playing field" is a bad thing?
I think it is.  Simply because in order to put everyone on a level playing field, you have to move everone to the middle.  That is great for the ones at the bottom, but it is penalizing the ones at the top.  So it really isnt even.

That's not at all what I am saying. When I say level playing field I mean that every kid should have access to the same quality of teaching, rather than social issues like poverty meaning that certain ethnic minorities are left disadvantaged from the start and are therefore less likely to be able to fufill their potential later. At no point does that drag the other achievers down.

[j]

I'm sorry?

What are you sorry about?  Do you disagree that the "even playing field" is a bad thing?
I think it is.  Simply because in order to put everyone on a level playing field, you have to move everone to the middle.  That is great for the ones at the bottom, but it is penalizing the ones at the top.  So it really isnt even.

That's not at all what I am saying. When I say level playing field I mean that every kid should have access to the same quality of teaching, rather than social issues like poverty meaning that certain ethnic minorities are left disadvantaged from the start and are therefore less likely to be able to fufill their potential later. At no point does that drag the other achievers down.

And like most issues of this nature, it actually has nothing to do with "race or ethnicity", but is a socioeconomic matter.

When it comes to legislation or public policy, the only things that should be addressed in terms of "race" are those where heredity/genetics of people of a certain ancestry play a role.  And practically all of those are health-related.

I'd add that a completely "level playing field" is an unattainable ideal the way things stand today.  The "poverty problem" has never been solved, and as long as it exists, the better teachers (which is difficult enough to measure by itself) will continue to opt not to teach in poverty-stricken areas.  Sad but true.

-J

[eric42434224]

I'm sorry?

What are you sorry about?  Do you disagree that the "even playing field" is a bad thing?
I think it is.  Simply because in order to put everyone on a level playing field, you have to move everone to the middle.  That is great for the ones at the bottom, but it is penalizing the ones at the top.  So it really isnt even.

That's not at all what I am saying. When I say level playing field I mean that every kid should have access to the same quality of teaching, rather than social issues like poverty meaning that certain ethnic minorities are left disadvantaged from the start and are therefore less likely to be able to fufill their potential later. At no point does that drag the other achievers down.

So youre only talking about a level or minimum "floor", which doesnt create any sort of level playing field, as the kids with more money or involved parents will still do better.

[XJDenton]

It smooths a few of the bigger bumps out.

[ack44]

Are you also expecting the applicants for enrollment in Oxford to reflect the ethnic makeup of the UK?

If the playing field was even I don't see why it wouldn't be.

I would assume applications wouldn't reflect the ethnic makeup because A) some ethnicities are richer than others, and B) there are many other factors such as culture that would influence different life choices for each ethnicity. Racism could be another factor but I'd assume it's a pretty minor factor. I guess I just don't know what you mean by a even playing field.

[zerogravityfat]

well that one black guy is going to have a pretty nice life.

[AndyDT]

I'm sorry?

What are you sorry about?  Do you disagree that the "even playing field" is a bad thing?
I think it is.  Simply because in order to put everyone on a level playing field, you have to move everone to the middle.  That is great for the ones at the bottom, but it is penalizing the ones at the top.  So it really isnt even.

That's not at all what I am saying. When I say level playing field I mean that every kid should have access to the same quality of teaching, rather than social issues like poverty meaning that certain ethnic minorities are left disadvantaged from the start and are therefore less likely to be able to fufill their potential later. At no point does that drag the other achievers down.

So youre only talking about a level or minimum "floor", which doesnt create any sort of level playing field, as the kids with more money or involved parents will still do better.

Improved access could involve subsidised homework clubs, extra tuition.

[eric42434224]

I'm sorry?

What are you sorry about?  Do you disagree that the "even playing field" is a bad thing?
I think it is.  Simply because in order to put everyone on a level playing field, you have to move everone to the middle.  That is great for the ones at the bottom, but it is penalizing the ones at the top.  So it really isnt even.

That's not at all what I am saying. When I say level playing field I mean that every kid should have access to the same quality of teaching, rather than social issues like poverty meaning that certain ethnic minorities are left disadvantaged from the start and are therefore less likely to be able to fufill their potential later. At no point does that drag the other achievers down.

So youre only talking about a level or minimum "floor", which doesnt create any sort of level playing field, as the kids with more money or involved parents will still do better.

Improved access could involve subsidised homework clubs, extra tuition.

That would still only create an opportunity floor (if it was truly accessible to 100% of students).  The wealthier, more involved parents who value education higher will still give their kids better opportunities.  Disadvantaged kids of certain socio-economic backgrounds are given opportunities for a good education all the time....but that doesnt mean they take advantage of it.  It goes way beyond having the opportunity for an education, it is more about changing the culture of specific groups to value the education.  You know...you can lead a horse to water......