NPR

David in Gwent wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 6:12 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 4:39 pm

David in Gwent wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 10:11 am What's even worse is that ........people still won't vote Labour into power with any kind of working majority so go figure.

I see you didn't mention the pandemic in there but hey-ho.

The evidence that the Tories have sunk the economy and ruined many of our public services is pretty irrefutable now and I am glad you aren't willing or don't feel able to debate that point. In terms of who succeeds in the next election then I am pretty sure that Labour have a fairly large majority over the Tories in all the recent polling? Whether it will be enough to translate into a majority in HoC we will just have to wait and see. At the current rate of self destruction, the small boats week went swimmingly well, the Tories seem to be doing a good job themselves of handing a majority over to Labour.

There is another thread on this board for the pandemic if you want to discuss that there. Lets not confuse the issues, not that I would accuse you of trying to deflect from the issues in hand!

Slightly disingenuous, the economy is always going to be fucked when you've pissed billions upon billions up the wall in the greatest transfer of wealth in human history.

You have in effect described the Tory economic policy in a single sentence. Well done!

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 10:39 am

David in Gwent wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 10:37 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 10:36 am


People like me?

Working class, grew up on a council estate, always did semi-skilled labour for a living, is that what you mean?

Are you a progressive liberal?

Dunno mate, I believe in equality if that is what you mean.

Equality or equity?

Random1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 9:06 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 10:39 am

David in Gwent wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 10:37 am

Are you a progressive liberal?

Dunno mate, I believe in equality if that is what you mean.

Equality or equity?

The former is a goal, the latter is a means of getting there

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 9:57 am

Random1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 9:06 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 10:39 am


Dunno mate, I believe in equality if that is what you mean.

Equality or equity?

The former is a goal, the latter is a means of getting there

That doesn’t make sense. And it’s also one of the reasons the Torys still get votes.

Equity based upon protected characteristics has the unpleasant impact on reducing the opportunities provided to the white working class. I suspect the culture war will remain a fight for as long as equity is enacted.

Random1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 10:31 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 9:57 am

Random1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 9:06 am

Equality or equity?

The former is a goal, the latter is a means of getting there

That doesn’t make sense. And it’s also one of the reasons the Torys still get votes.

Equity based upon protected characteristics has the unpleasant impact on reducing the opportunities provided to the white working class. I suspect the culture war will remain a fight for as long as equity is enacted.

You’ve just said that disabled parking spaces at the supermarket should be abolished

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 10:48 am

Random1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 10:31 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 9:57 am

The former is a goal, the latter is a means of getting there

That doesn’t make sense. And it’s also one of the reasons the Torys still get votes.

Equity based upon protected characteristics has the unpleasant impact on reducing the opportunities provided to the white working class. I suspect the culture war will remain a fight for as long as equity is enacted.

You’ve just said that disabled parking spaces at the supermarket should be abolished

No I haven’t.

Disabled parking spaces are an issue of equality, not equity. They really began gaining traction following the Equality Act.

Reasonable adjustments to allow equal opportunity to access a service as previously there was a physical, objective barrier to a certain section of society.

Reasonable - weasel word that’s open to interpretation and means nothing is set.

'tis an interesting take that disabled parking spaces are a matter of equality not equity. had I been asked I would have plumped for it being a matter of equity, given the idea that you're providing varying degrees of support/service to attain a more equal outcome

not that I've ever looked into this, if it is thought of as a matter of equality fair enough. maybe process Vs outcome thinking

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 1:12 pm Reasonable - weasel word that’s open to interpretation and means nothing is set.

Think weasel word is a bit harsh. It’s just a legal term to recognise that expectations can change with context.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 1:24 pm 'tis an interesting take that disabled parking spaces are a matter of equality not equity. had I been asked I would have plumped for it being a matter of equity, given the idea that you're providing varying degrees of support/service to attain a more equal outcome

not that I've ever looked into this, if it is thought of as a matter of equality fair enough. maybe process Vs outcome thinking

The difference between equality and equity is such a hot topic and really interesting. As ever with the activists, there’s a blurring of language, which will lead to us normal people talking at crossed purposes sometimes.

In terms of the Equality Act, there are objective categories which allow society to identify where one cohort is at a clear and demonstrable disadvantage in terms of opportunity to others, then it’s a matter of equality to try and give that cohort as equal an opportunity as possible.

Random1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 12:42 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 10:48 am

Random1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 10:31 am

That doesn’t make sense. And it’s also one of the reasons the Torys still get votes.

Equity based upon protected characteristics has the unpleasant impact on reducing the opportunities provided to the white working class. I suspect the culture war will remain a fight for as long as equity is enacted.

You’ve just said that disabled parking spaces at the supermarket should be abolished

No I haven’t.

Disabled parking spaces are an issue of equality, not equity. They really began gaining traction following the Equality Act.

Badged parking and allocated spaces have been around for 50 years in the UK, the Equality Act came into being in 2010

Disability is one of several protected characteristics

Chapter 1 Protected characteristics
4.The protected characteristics
5.Age
6.Disability
7.Gender reassignment
8.Marriage and civil partnership
9.Race
10.Religion or belief
11.Sex
12.Sexual orientation

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

before the above the Act mentions Socio-economic conditions

As ever with the activists, there’s a blurring of language, which will lead to us normal people talking at crossed purposes sometimes.

It's often the case that people advocating against progress and change paint themselves as "normal" or say "it's just common sense" when what they really mean is "the way things have been for a long time"

In terms of the Equality Act, there are objective categories which allow society to identify where one cohort is at a clear and demonstrable disadvantage in terms of opportunity to others, then it’s a matter of equality to try and give that cohort as equal an opportunity as possible.

What you are talking about there is pretty much the definition of equity in this context.

Sample of the fake propaganda "newspapers" flooding local communities...

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 10:05 am

Random1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 12:42 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 10:48 am

You’ve just said that disabled parking spaces at the supermarket should be abolished

No I haven’t.

Disabled parking spaces are an issue of equality, not equity. They really began gaining traction following the Equality Act.

Badged parking and allocated spaces have been around for 50 years in the UK, the Equality Act came into being in 2010

Disability is one of several protected characteristics

Chapter 1 Protected characteristics
4.The protected characteristics
5.Age
6.Disability
7.Gender reassignment
8.Marriage and civil partnership
9.Race
10.Religion or belief
11.Sex
12.Sexual orientation

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

before the above the Act mentions Socio-economic conditions

As ever with the activists, there’s a blurring of language, which will lead to us normal people talking at crossed purposes sometimes.

It's often the case that people advocating against progress and change paint themselves as "normal" or say "it's just common sense" when what they really mean is "the way things have been for a long time"

In terms of the Equality Act, there are objective categories which allow society to identify where one cohort is at a clear and demonstrable disadvantage in terms of opportunity to others, then it’s a matter of equality to try and give that cohort as equal an opportunity as possible.

What you are talking about there is pretty much the definition of equity in this context.

You’re sort of making my point for me on parking spaces being an equality issue rather than an equity one. I wasn’t saying parking badges were invented by the equality act. Your point that parking badges pre-existing the equality act implies that making reasonable adjustments for disabled people are acts of equality rather than equity doesn’t it? Otherwise it’d be the equity act.

On your second point about language: are you really of the view that language isn’t being forcefully manipulated in this equity movement? Definitions of everything from ‘racism’ through to ‘woman’ have been redefined to be intentionally obtuse to accommodate the logical fallacies the activists are trying to avoid.

On your view that the equity regime is progressive; I’d disagree. Progressivism moves things forward. Moving to a world where we have things like segregation due to skin colour and the loss of women’s spaces, is regressive, not progressive.

On your final point; no, what I’ve described equality to be, is distinct from equity. Equality is the wish to create equal opportunities. Equity is seeking ‘fair’ outcomes. The latter sounds good on paper, but in practice, it has some very regressive consequences.

I'll give an anecdotal example. My daughter was given lower entrance requirements from a Russell Group university because the school she went to has a large majority of socio-economically disadvantaged students compared to other applicants (we are really talking about fee-paying schools as the competition for places, as she discovered when she went to uni).

She in fact didn't need the reduced offer, but she was given it anyway, she went on to gain first class degree and then a Masters from another RG uni.

The help she was offered in terms of entrance was equity, it gave her an equal opportunity, equal to those who have large resources at their disposal up through their school years.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 11:16 am Sample of the fake propaganda "newspapers" flooding local communities...

IMG_20230820_114737_444.jpg

It's interesting how the Tory Party's election literature and similar have almost completely removed the colour blue (for green FFS) and the word "Conservative".

Equity cannot work without giving everyone a racial/societal bracket and the evidence that this is a good thing for society is very thin on the ground

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:01 pm Equity cannot work without giving everyone a racial/societal bracket and the evidence that this is a good thing for society is very thin on the ground

Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:12 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:01 pm Equity cannot work without giving everyone a racial/societal bracket and the evidence that this is a good thing for society is very thin on the ground

Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:22 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:12 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:01 pm Equity cannot work without giving everyone a racial/societal bracket and the evidence that this is a good thing for society is very thin on the ground

Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

I'm quoting you but please don't feel it's incumbent on you to answer; I'd like to hear the arguments against reduced Uni entrance offers for less privileged kids.

Months ago I went looking for this cartoon strip regarding another topic, I didn't find it then but I did whilst looking for something else just now - typical!

It's relevant to this discussion, I think


https://digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration ... e_vignette

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 11:53 am

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 11:16 am Sample of the fake propaganda "newspapers" flooding local communities...

IMG_20230820_114737_444.jpg

It's interesting how the Tory Party's election literature and similar have almost completely removed the colour blue (for green FFS) and the word "Conservative".

A cynic would say these fake newspapers are no different to the Sun/Mail/Express/Telegraph.

I have received one of these fake newspapers. I have also received a number of letters from the Tory MP (five or so), addressed to me personally on parliamentary headed paper, but clearly machine generated junk mail "xyv has happened in your area". In both instances they're now resorting to taking credit for what random private companies are doing on a hyper local level, there's never any mention of national issues or being Tories. They've got to the stage of sending a personalised letter out for the opening of a small Tesco.

I haven't received any regular Tory leaflets in years, but they definitely still leaflet in a regular fashion (in blue using their name). Their strategy seems to be: if the area is poor they get a regular leaflet, if the area is poor and mostly not white they get a leaflet in baby level English (you have to see these to believe it they're mostly pictures with heavily spaced simple English, not the sort of thing journos on Twitter with a lot of followers would get, or anyone with something to lose would risk pointing out) and at council level the candidate is never white in these areas even if that means they're rubbish, if the area is better off they get a personalised message that doesn't mention the Tories and must be expensive to produce/distribute.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:34 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:22 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:12 pm


Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

I'm quoting you but please don't feel it's incumbent on you to answer; I'd like to hear the arguments against reduced Uni entrance offers for less privileged kids.

Because simply it is very obviously not equal. I would be looking at where it is less about grades as everyone's grades are good with regard to university entry.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:34 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:22 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:12 pm


Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

I'm quoting you but please don't feel it's incumbent on you to answer; I'd like to hear the arguments against reduced Uni entrance offers for less privileged kids.

My short take would be that there’s little point in standardised tests if we don’t use them in a standardised way.
Fwiw I believe Universities should return to setting their own entrance exams and major employers most notably the civil service should do the same. Coursework, personal statements etc are much easier to game

A first google tells me that private school costs around £20k per year, their business is getting their students into the top universities, they do this by smaller class sizes, tutor groups and a hell of a lot of exam prep. The public sector can't compete with that due to funding - average spending in England per comprehensive student is almost £7.5k pa.

My daughter went to Bristol, from Bristol's site;

"Once here, data shows that our contextual offer students achieve above average academically."

They see the value of potential in kids who wouldn't normally get in to their establishment.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:34 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:22 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:12 pm


Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

I'm quoting you but please don't feel it's incumbent on you to answer; I'd like to hear the arguments against reduced Uni entrance offers for less privileged kids.

I'm against it in principle because it's a sticking plaster solution to fundamental issues with the education system*. Lowering entry offers is a tacit admission that we're failing kids while they're at school, but it's cheaper to do than making the required investment in schools to ensure:
- that teaching is a profession sufficient numbers of people want to do. The more teachers we have the better we're able to ensure manageable class sizes
- more support staff and alternate learning pathways for problem learners (that covers kids with everything from behavioural to literacy issues. As a teacher, nothing was more frustrating than spending a solid chunk of lessons dealing with kids who misbehave until you chuck them out, it compromises the learning of every other pupil in the room. It also does nothing for the problem kid, they just get further and further behind which often encourages a vicious cycle of acting out because they're unable to engage with the material and thus feel bored and/or frustrated then being thrown out because the lesson isn't supposed to be about managing one child, but teaching 30.
- also more support staff to take on the pastoral work many teachers often have insufficient training to deal with even if they have the time and inclination on top of all their actual teaching associated responsibilities. This would also feed back into the point on making teaching a profession people actually want to do. Some teachers love the pastoral stuff, but I was among a number at my school who didn't feel particular equipped to be good at it either due training, temperament or a combination thereof and resented that it would extend my days by eating up time I was hoping to use for marking or filling out some of the unending paperwork the job generates.

I also don't think it does much for social cohesion if university students know some among their number didn't have to meet the same attainment criteria as them to get a place, while also being too young and lacking in life experience to necessarily appreciate why that was the case.

That said, I understand why it's done in the absence of adequate education funding.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 1:11 pm A first google tells me that private school costs around £20k per year, their business is getting their students into the top universities, they do this by smaller class sizes, tutor groups and a hell of a lot of exam prep. The public sector can't compete with that due to funding - average spending in England per comprehensive student is almost £7.5k pa.

My daughter went to Bristol, from Bristol's site;

"Once here, data shows that our contextual offer students achieve above average academically."

They see the value of potential in kids who wouldn't normally get in to their establishment.

There’s a lot to discuss here, one anecdotal data point that others may well have also noticed from their time at uni:
Those of us from middle class/upper middle families had a clear idea from day 1 that 1) first year doesn’t count and 2) a 2:1 is your passport to a decent job, nobody cares beyond that. Getting a 2:1 if you’re clever enough really isn’t that hard, and if you know that in advance you can spend most of uni on clubs/societies/nights out.

Those from less privileged backgrounds generally seemed to have a point to prove and tended to really really want a 1st, and put the hours in to do that, tended to do less ‘extra curricular’ stuff and generally seem to have less fun.
Not sure how relevant or not it is

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:22 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:12 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:01 pm Equity cannot work without giving everyone a racial/societal bracket and the evidence that this is a good thing for society is very thin on the ground

Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

So the point of disagreement isn’t the principle in itself, it’s where you start it, which groups should benefit from it etc.

petej wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:52 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:34 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:22 pm

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

I'm quoting you but please don't feel it's incumbent on you to answer; I'd like to hear the arguments against reduced Uni entrance offers for less privileged kids.

Because simply it is very obviously not equal. I would be looking at where it is less about grades as everyone's grades are good with regard to university entry.

But if you haven’t had an equal opportunity to flourish at school, due to poorer teaching / larger class sizes / different school priorities / whatever, then that’s not equal either.

You can hypothesise about how you’d like the system to be, and that’s dandy. But the approach of offering places to students with poorer grades from less advantageous backgrounds deals with the world as it is now. If you don’t have something that works for 17 year old kids applying for university now, then you’re saying to them ‘tough shit’ and throwing them aside.

Biffer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 1:36 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:22 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:12 pm


Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

So the point of disagreement isn’t the principle in itself, it’s where you start it, which groups should benefit from it etc.

No I’ve explained my disagreement with the principle - allocation of resources/jobs etc based on race or other characteristics rather than attempting to do so on more objective criteria is going to end very poorly.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 11:38 am I'll give an anecdotal example. My daughter was given lower entrance requirements from a Russell Group university because the school she went to has a large majority of socio-economically disadvantaged students compared to other applicants (we are really talking about fee-paying schools as the competition for places, as she discovered when she went to uni).

She in fact didn't need the reduced offer, but she was given it anyway, she went on to gain first class degree and then a Masters from another RG uni.

The help she was offered in terms of entrance was equity, it gave her an equal opportunity, equal to those who have large resources at their disposal up through their school years.

Couple of things here;

Congrats on the daughter’s success - love it when people succeed.

I’m not a fan of that system.

Moving away from a meritocratic system leads to a slippery slope oppression olympics. Should black poor kids get an even lower admission level? How about disabled black people?

Should asian people have to get a higher admission grade? Like they did to get into Harvard?

Opening that door leads to all sorts of slippery slope issues.

Plus, there’s a fundamental issue here about what universities are for; they’re for the smartest people to maximise benefits to society and to drive excellence. Facilitating access on quotas undermines the entire enterprise.

Fixing the school system is harder work, but it needs to be grappled with, rather than sticking plasters at the back end.

petej wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:52 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:34 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:22 pm

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

I'm quoting you but please don't feel it's incumbent on you to answer; I'd like to hear the arguments against reduced Uni entrance offers for less privileged kids.

Because simply it is very obviously not equal. I would be looking at where it is less about grades as everyone's grades are good with regard to university entry.

Completely agree - it is objectively measurable. Equity is based upon trying to account for subjective unfairness based upon how people perceive their oppression. It is just not objectively measurable.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 1:57 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 1:36 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:22 pm

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

So the point of disagreement isn’t the principle in itself, it’s where you start it, which groups should benefit from it etc.

No I’ve explained my disagreement with the principle - allocation of resources/jobs etc based on race or other characteristics rather than attempting to do so on more objective criteria is going to end very poorly.

But you’re happy to allocate resources based on another characteristic, disability.

Biffer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:38 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 1:57 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 1:36 pm

So the point of disagreement isn’t the principle in itself, it’s where you start it, which groups should benefit from it etc.

No I’ve explained my disagreement with the principle - allocation of resources/jobs etc based on race or other characteristics rather than attempting to do so on more objective criteria is going to end very poorly.

But you’re happy to allocate resources based on another characteristic, disability.

Appreciate I’ve entered into a bear trap labelled ‘bear trap’, however disabled parking places are manifestly not comparable to university admissions, hiring decisions or wider public policy, and it’s quite a typical rhetorical ploy of radical politics to pretend something that upends society is actually mundane. Nobody should fool for it.
Not to mention the fact that in most car parks the only thing stopping the able bodied parking in those bays is a sense of shame rather than statute.

Biffer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 1:36 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:22 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:12 pm


Well, despite what yer man there says, the act of providing parking spaces for blue badge holders and allowing parking on yellow lines etc is an act of equity, it produces a more equal outcome in terms of access by means of an unequal provision.

Offering less-privileged children access to the top universities is similar in equality of opportunity by means of an unequal offer but it's also sensible in terms of looking at the potential of students as well as headline results of kids aged 17-18.

The provisions in the Equality Act are varying degrees of the above.

Almost no one has an issue with disabled parking.
But as you say there are varying degrees to this. Plenty disagree with reduced offers to less privileged children, and hard majorities oppose the prioritisation of certain racial groups, however it is allowable based on the equality act and increasingly a feature rather than a bug in British society. It will take a while to work its way through, but we’ll regret it and the political forces it will unleash are deeply unpredictable

So the point of disagreement isn’t the principle in itself, it’s where you start it, which groups should benefit from it etc.

Don’t want to pox Paddington with my views, but I’d state it like this;

Almost everyone wants a more equal society.

Equality tries to do that by focussing on equalising opportunity for all.

Equity tries to do this by allotting opportunity to traditionally under represented groups to create a more equal outcome.

Another way of looking at equity would be; “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Another way of looking at equity would be; “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

There we go, anyone who sees a problem with the inequality in the status quo is a Marxist.

I brought up parking spaces because I was looking for something that we could all agree was a "good thing", and by the way parking in a disabled bay without a badge will get you a parking fine, so it's not just good will stopping people doing it.

I wanted an area of agreement in principle before looking at more controversial areas such as "affirmative action" etc. The university entrance thing surprises me, I thought it was pretty damn obvious that results from private schools being compared at face value to those obtained in that bog standard comprehensive™ is not a like for like comparison, you are looking at someone doing years of the right training with the right equipment running a 100m race against someone in wellies who hasn't done this before (exaggeration for effect), the idea that the higher achievement at uni by those from less privileged backgrounds is down to just pure brains and natural talent shown by the upper classes who spend their uni days on the lash but get a good degree anyway, whilst Alf Tupper is working his nuts off over his essays is not a persuasive argument to me - eg my daughter had to work her way through uni at bars and at the local Co-op as well as doing her studies, her extra curricular time was also spent doing sport etc

To my mind your parents buying you a place at uni is not a meritocracy.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 3:09 pm

Another way of looking at equity would be; “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

There we go, anyone who sees a problem with the inequality in the status quo is a Marxist.

No, absolutely not. I agree there is a problem with inequality. I’m not a Marxist. I believe in equality of opportunity to become a success.

However, people that support equity are (usually) unwittingly, supporting a marxesque system. Note I don’t say Marxist. I don’t think it’s comprehensive enough to be called Marxist.

Communism on paper looks quite appealing. In practice, it requires authoritarian control of the government and associated quangos to manipulate society. There are some substantial parallels to the current Diversity, equity and inclusivity schemes for me.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 3:22 pm I brought up parking spaces because I was looking for something that we could all agree was a "good thing", and by the way parking in a disabled bay without a badge will get you a parking fine, so it's not just good will stopping people doing it.

I wanted an area of agreement in principle before looking at more controversial areas such as "affirmative action" etc. The university entrance thing surprises me, I thought it was pretty damn obvious that results from private schools being compared at face value to those obtained in that bog standard comprehensive™ is not a like for like comparison, you are looking at someone doing years of the right training with the right equipment running a 100m race against someone in wellies who hasn't done this before (exaggeration for effect), the idea that the higher achievement at uni by those from less privileged backgrounds is down to just pure brains and natural talent shown by the upper classes who spend their uni days on the lash but get a good degree anyway, whilst Alf Tupper is working his nuts off over his essays is not a persuasive argument to me - eg my daughter had to work her way through uni at bars and at the local Co-op as well as doing her studies, her extra curricular time was also spent doing sport etc

To my mind your parents buying you a place at uni is not a meritocracy.

I understand that - but your daughter didn’t even need the lower grade option. She got in there on merit. So, it is a good example of meritocracy working isn’t it?

Some rich kids buying a degree is definitely a weakness of a capitalist society. Capitalism is a shit system, but it’s the least shit one we know.

Not sure ‘buying grades’ is a fair description. Private schools work kids exceptionally hard for their grades and plenty don’t make the cut. The kids still need to do the hard work.

Random1 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 3:41 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 3:22 pm I brought up parking spaces because I was looking for something that we could all agree was a "good thing", and by the way parking in a disabled bay without a badge will get you a parking fine, so it's not just good will stopping people doing it.

I wanted an area of agreement in principle before looking at more controversial areas such as "affirmative action" etc. The university entrance thing surprises me, I thought it was pretty damn obvious that results from private schools being compared at face value to those obtained in that bog standard comprehensive™ is not a like for like comparison, you are looking at someone doing years of the right training with the right equipment running a 100m race against someone in wellies who hasn't done this before (exaggeration for effect), the idea that the higher achievement at uni by those from less privileged backgrounds is down to just pure brains and natural talent shown by the upper classes who spend their uni days on the lash but get a good degree anyway, whilst Alf Tupper is working his nuts off over his essays is not a persuasive argument to me - eg my daughter had to work her way through uni at bars and at the local Co-op as well as doing her studies, her extra curricular time was also spent doing sport etc

To my mind your parents buying you a place at uni is not a meritocracy.

I understand that - but your daughter didn’t even need the lower grade option. She got in there on merit. So, it is a good example of meritocracy working isn’t it?

The fact she didn't need it is immaterial to the provision for kids from areas and schools who do not often go to that university


My eldest went to an outreach programme put on by Brighton and Sussex Medical School, this was for state school kids because they were/are hugely under-represented in med schools. The guy who did the presentation on the first day said the applications from private school kids were infinitely superior (he was head of admissions) but in his experience that was no indication of the ability of state school students to become good doctors.

My eldest attended that programme for three years (one Saturday a month over the academic year) but ultimately chose another route, I have to say I'm glad that was the choice as the pressure put on young doctors, hell old doctors as well, is terrible.

My point here is that the medical profession is missing out on some outstanding talent by being focussed on the quality of the application rather than the quality of the candidate.