Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Biffer]

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.

[Paddington Bear]

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.

[Random1]

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.”

[Tichtheid]

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.

[Tichtheid]

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.

[Random1]

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.

[Random1]

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.

[Paddington Bear]

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.

[Tichtheid]

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.

[Biffer]

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.

That’s not really where I’m going with it. Basically my point is that we all agree that some groups in society need additional accommodations and assistance. We just disagree which ones. The problem is when people refuse to accept they’re doing that, and insist there’s a point of principle at play, rather than a discussion on where on a very wide spectrum of potential assistance we should each compromise on to reach a society the majority can be comfortable with.

It’s a feature of the deliberate divisions that have been created over the last forty years or so, insisting there’s a fundamental point of principle at play, rather than a matter of scale.

[Random1]

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.

That’s not really where I’m going with it. Basically my point is that we all agree that some groups in society need additional accommodations and assistance. We just disagree which ones. The problem is when people refuse to accept they’re doing that, and insist there’s a point of principle at play, rather than a discussion on where on a very wide spectrum of potential assistance we should each compromise on to reach a society the majority can be comfortable with.

It’s a feature of the deliberate divisions that have been created over the last forty years or so, insisting there’s a fundamental point of principle at play, rather than a matter of scale.

What if the principle is based on two precepts;

1 - identifying and working to remove causes of unequal opportunity

2 - the lack of opportunity must be objective and measurable.

That feels principled and something I could get behind.

That works for disabled parking.

[Random1]

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.

Absolutely agree that we aren’t exploiting the potential talent out there. But lowering standards isn’t a good approach to sorting that for me. The better way in my view is that we should identify the barriers using proper scientific method and work to remove them to allow people to flourish.

[Biffer]

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.

That’s not really where I’m going with it. Basically my point is that we all agree that some groups in society need additional accommodations and assistance. We just disagree which ones. The problem is when people refuse to accept they’re doing that, and insist there’s a point of principle at play, rather than a discussion on where on a very wide spectrum of potential assistance we should each compromise on to reach a society the majority can be comfortable with.

It’s a feature of the deliberate divisions that have been created over the last forty years or so, insisting there’s a fundamental point of principle at play, rather than a matter of scale.

What if the principle is based on two precepts;

1 - identifying and working to remove causes of unequal opportunity

2 - the lack of opportunity must be objective and measurable.

That feels principled and something I could get behind.

That works for disabled parking.

My point here isn’t to agree where on that scale we should be, it’s to agree that we are only arguing about the scale rather than some fundamental difference in principle.

[Tichtheid]

Absolutely agree that we aren’t exploiting the potential talent out there. But lowering standards isn’t a good approach to sorting that for me. The better way in my view is that we should identify the barriers using proper scientific method and work to remove them to allow people to flourish.

I fundamentally oppose the idea that this is lowering standards, if that was really the case then the university would not be reporting that their contextualised offer students were achieving above average results at the uni.

[Random1]

That’s not really where I’m going with it. Basically my point is that we all agree that some groups in society need additional accommodations and assistance. We just disagree which ones. The problem is when people refuse to accept they’re doing that, and insist there’s a point of principle at play, rather than a discussion on where on a very wide spectrum of potential assistance we should each compromise on to reach a society the majority can be comfortable with.

It’s a feature of the deliberate divisions that have been created over the last forty years or so, insisting there’s a fundamental point of principle at play, rather than a matter of scale.

What if the principle is based on two precepts;

1 - identifying and working to remove causes of unequal opportunity

2 - the lack of opportunity must be objective and measurable.

That feels principled and something I could get behind.

That works for disabled parking.

My point here isn’t to agree where on that scale we should be, it’s to agree that we are only arguing about the scale rather than some fundamental difference in principle.

No, there’s definitely a principled point. Did you look at the comic strip posted before?

It refers to everything from race, to sex to family expectations impacting a person’s ambition. None of which are measurable, other than to measure outcomes. For example, how much more difficult is it for a black guy to get a degree compared to a white guy? How much more difficult is it for a black woman to get a degree compared to a black man? Indeed, is it more difficult at all?

Everything is so person centred and subjective, that it just isn’t possible to objectively measure the impacts. Which means any intervention is going to have to be upon observations on demographic achievement - which requires segmentation on a broad group basis eg race, sex etc , they can lead to segregation and animosity.

Equality doesn’t do that. It is based around the two precepts I listed above.

[Random1]

Absolutely agree that we aren’t exploiting the potential talent out there. But lowering standards isn’t a good approach to sorting that for me. The better way in my view is that we should identify the barriers using proper scientific method and work to remove them to allow people to flourish.

I fundamentally oppose the idea that this is lowering standards, if that was really the case then the university would not be reporting that their contextualised offer students were achieving above average results at the uni.

You’re making that call on fairly poor, anecdotal evidence. This is part of what I’m trying to get across. Decisions based on equity are made with poor evidence and there are just no longitudinal studies into the impact of these policies. It all feels a bit ideological to me.

And, bringing it back to the tories - that’s why they’re continuing with the culture wars - they see that this ideology hasn’t been taken into the bosom of the general public and there are votes in railing against it. (Even though they actually implementing the stuff behind the scenes!).

[sefton]

Anybody who thinks either the entry to grammar schools or the Russel group universities should be based on a contextless entry system because it is meritocratic is either a simplistic fuckwit or is well aware that the system embeds privilege and is happy for such a privilege to continue.

[Tichtheid]

Absolutely agree that we aren’t exploiting the potential talent out there. But lowering standards isn’t a good approach to sorting that for me. The better way in my view is that we should identify the barriers using proper scientific method and work to remove them to allow people to flourish.

I fundamentally oppose the idea that this is lowering standards, if that was really the case then the university would not be reporting that their contextualised offer students were achieving above average results at the uni.

You’re making that call on fairly poor, anecdotal evidence. This is part of what I’m trying to get across. Decisions based on equity are made with poor evidence and there are just no longitudinal studies into the impact of these policies. It all feels a bit ideological to me.

And, bringing it back to the tories - that’s why they’re continuing with the culture wars - they see that this ideology hasn’t been taken into the bosom of the general public and there are votes in railing against it. (Even though they actually implementing the stuff behind the scenes!).

Nope

UCAS -
"Evidence shows, students from disadvantaged backgrounds do at least as well, and sometimes better, in degree attainment, than comparable groups of more advantaged students."

These are students who would not normally have access to the courses they do if it is left to a so-called "meritocracy".

[Simian]

Absolutely agree that we aren’t exploiting the potential talent out there. But lowering standards isn’t a good approach to sorting that for me. The better way in my view is that we should identify the barriers using proper scientific method and work to remove them to allow people to flourish.

I fundamentally oppose the idea that this is lowering standards, if that was really the case then the university would not be reporting that their contextualised offer students were achieving above average results at the uni.

You’re making that call on fairly poor, anecdotal evidence. This is part of what I’m trying to get across. Decisions based on equity are made with poor evidence and there are just no longitudinal studies into the impact of these policies. It all feels a bit ideological to me.

And, bringing it back to the tories - that’s why they’re continuing with the culture wars - they see that this ideology hasn’t been taken into the bosom of the general public and there are votes in railing against it. (Even though they actually implementing the stuff behind the scenes!).

Huh? Widening access policies in higher education are based on extensive empirical evidence.

I’m sorry if it ‘feels a bit ideological’ to you, but you couldn’t be more wrong that they aren’t data driven

Edit: where have you got this idea that what are essentially massive businesses decided to do this simply because they thought it would be a nice thing to do?

[Random1]

I fundamentally oppose the idea that this is lowering standards, if that was really the case then the university would not be reporting that their contextualised offer students were achieving above average results at the uni.

You’re making that call on fairly poor, anecdotal evidence. This is part of what I’m trying to get across. Decisions based on equity are made with poor evidence and there are just no longitudinal studies into the impact of these policies. It all feels a bit ideological to me.

And, bringing it back to the tories - that’s why they’re continuing with the culture wars - they see that this ideology hasn’t been taken into the bosom of the general public and there are votes in railing against it. (Even though they actually implementing the stuff behind the scenes!).

Nope

UCAS -
"Evidence shows, students from disadvantaged backgrounds do at least as well, and sometimes better, in degree attainment, than comparable groups of more advantaged students."

These are students who would not normally have access to the courses they do if it is left to a so-called "meritocracy".

Interesting. Can I have the link please?

[Random1]

I fundamentally oppose the idea that this is lowering standards, if that was really the case then the university would not be reporting that their contextualised offer students were achieving above average results at the uni.

You’re making that call on fairly poor, anecdotal evidence. This is part of what I’m trying to get across. Decisions based on equity are made with poor evidence and there are just no longitudinal studies into the impact of these policies. It all feels a bit ideological to me.

And, bringing it back to the tories - that’s why they’re continuing with the culture wars - they see that this ideology hasn’t been taken into the bosom of the general public and there are votes in railing against it. (Even though they actually implementing the stuff behind the scenes!).

Huh? Widening access policies in higher education are based on extensive empirical evidence.

I’m sorry if it ‘feels a bit ideological’ to you, but you couldn’t be more wrong that they aren’t data driven

There are studies to say that allowing students in by lowering the entrance grades lead to good outcomes?

I’m aware that by offering bursaries etc to enable lower socio economic students to be able to afford uni is a great piece of equality work. But that’s different and something I utterly support.

[Tichtheid]

You’re making that call on fairly poor, anecdotal evidence. This is part of what I’m trying to get across. Decisions based on equity are made with poor evidence and there are just no longitudinal studies into the impact of these policies. It all feels a bit ideological to me.

And, bringing it back to the tories - that’s why they’re continuing with the culture wars - they see that this ideology hasn’t been taken into the bosom of the general public and there are votes in railing against it. (Even though they actually implementing the stuff behind the scenes!).

Nope

UCAS -
"Evidence shows, students from disadvantaged backgrounds do at least as well, and sometimes better, in degree attainment, than comparable groups of more advantaged students."

These are students who would not normally have access to the courses they do if it is left to a so-called "meritocracy".

Interesting. Can I have the link please?

https://www.ucas.com/file/86786/download?token=zVfQ-oho

[Tichtheid]

I’m aware that by offering bursaries etc to enable lower socio economic students to be able to afford uni is a great piece of equality work. But that’s different and something I utterly support.

Deary me, again that is really good example of equity - that money is not offered to all students, if it were it would be an example of equality

[petej]

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.

It is pissing around the edges towards the end of someones education. Tbh I would be removing private school charity status as a bare minimum. Shutting them down would be a preference. I guess they could remain open for rich foreigners. Grammar schools can also just turn into normal schools.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

You’re making that call on fairly poor, anecdotal evidence. This is part of what I’m trying to get across. Decisions based on equity are made with poor evidence and there are just no longitudinal studies into the impact of these policies. It all feels a bit ideological to me.

And, bringing it back to the tories - that’s why they’re continuing with the culture wars - they see that this ideology hasn’t been taken into the bosom of the general public and there are votes in railing against it. (Even though they actually implementing the stuff behind the scenes!).

Huh? Widening access policies in higher education are based on extensive empirical evidence.

I’m sorry if it ‘feels a bit ideological’ to you, but you couldn’t be more wrong that they aren’t data driven

There are studies to say that allowing students in by lowering the entrance grades lead to good outcomes?

I’m aware that by offering bursaries etc to enable lower socio economic students to be able to afford uni is a great piece of equality work. But that’s different and something I utterly support.

For kids from less good schools, yes.

Last time I read up on it, going to a decent private school was worth about one grade per subject relative to a state school. i.e. kids of the same ability will get better grades at private schools (water is wet, grass is green)

Therefore, if the universitry is trying to pick on ability, it should be lowering the offers for kids from worse ranked schools.

[Random1]

I’m aware that by offering bursaries etc to enable lower socio economic students to be able to afford uni is a great piece of equality work. But that’s different and something I utterly support.

Deary me, again that is really good example of equity - that money is not offered to all students, if it were it would be an example of equality

Yeah, I think I can get on board with that being equity. And it could be a good way of assessing the other equity programmes at the minute.

You can means test socio economic status and the result of helping someone from a low status to a higher status is measurable too. And there isn’t a ratio limit eg there isn’t a quota to hit.

Do you see any difference with race, sex etc? Is there a difference in your head on these? Or are they one and the same for you?

[Tichtheid]

I’m aware that by offering bursaries etc to enable lower socio economic students to be able to afford uni is a great piece of equality work. But that’s different and something I utterly support.

Deary me, again that is really good example of equity - that money is not offered to all students, if it were it would be an example of equality

Yeah, I think I can get on board with that being equity. And it could be a good way of assessing the other equity programmes at the minute.

You can means test socio economic status and the result of helping someone from a low status to a higher status is measurable too. And there isn’t a ratio limit eg there isn’t a quota to hit.

Do you see any difference with race, sex etc? Is there a difference in your head on these? Or are they one and the same for you?

I feel that equity is necessary because inequality exists, I don't see it as controversial to say that sexism and racism exist in all areas of life, from work to play.

I used to think that progress towards equality was inevitable, however slowly, but not any more, the recent reactionary lurch to the right and the drumming up/weaponising of culture wars against that progress has me very concerned.

[Random1]

Deary me, again that is really good example of equity - that money is not offered to all students, if it were it would be an example of equality

Yeah, I think I can get on board with that being equity. And it could be a good way of assessing the other equity programmes at the minute.

You can means test socio economic status and the result of helping someone from a low status to a higher status is measurable too. And there isn’t a ratio limit eg there isn’t a quota to hit.

Do you see any difference with race, sex etc? Is there a difference in your head on these? Or are they one and the same for you?

I feel that equity is necessary because inequality exists, I don't see it as controversial to say that sexism and racism exist in all areas of life, from work to play.

I used to think that progress towards equality was inevitable, however slowly, but not any more, the recent reactionary lurch to the right and the drumming up/weaponising of culture wars against that progress has me very concerned.

I’m not sure it’s a left and right thing anymore (to be fair, I don’t even think those arms exist at all anymore).

The reason the tories are staying with the culture wars is that it’s a vote winner outside of the metropols.

You’ve stopped short of answering my question on the race and sex stuff though. I’m really interested in your thoughts on whether they have the same qualities as the socio economic piece.

[Random1]

Yeah, I think I can get on board with that being equity. And it could be a good way of assessing the other equity programmes at the minute.

You can means test socio economic status and the result of helping someone from a low status to a higher status is measurable too. And there isn’t a ratio limit eg there isn’t a quota to hit.

Do you see any difference with race, sex etc? Is there a difference in your head on these? Or are they one and the same for you?

I feel that equity is necessary because inequality exists, I don't see it as controversial to say that sexism and racism exist in all areas of life, from work to play.

I used to think that progress towards equality was inevitable, however slowly, but not any more, the recent reactionary lurch to the right and the drumming up/weaponising of culture wars against that progress has me very concerned.

I’m not sure it’s a left and right thing anymore (to be fair, I don’t even think those arms exist at all anymore).

The reason the tories are staying with the culture wars is that it’s a vote winner outside of the metropols.

You’ve stopped short of answering my question on the race and sex stuff though. I’m really interested in your thoughts on whether they have the same qualities as the socio economic piece.

Sorry, just to qualify why I mentioned outside of the cities; is because there’s a lot of deprivation outside of the cities too. So there are traditional lefties that look at equity with a suspicious eye, because something that’s not mentioned about equity is that it tends to mean taking from one cohort and giving to another.

[Biffer]

What if the principle is based on two precepts;

1 - identifying and working to remove causes of unequal opportunity

2 - the lack of opportunity must be objective and measurable.

That feels principled and something I could get behind.

That works for disabled parking.

My point here isn’t to agree where on that scale we should be, it’s to agree that we are only arguing about the scale rather than some fundamental difference in principle.

No, there’s definitely a principled point. Did you look at the comic strip posted before?

It refers to everything from race, to sex to family expectations impacting a person’s ambition. None of which are measurable, other than to measure outcomes. For example, how much more difficult is it for a black guy to get a degree compared to a white guy? How much more difficult is it for a black woman to get a degree compared to a black man? Indeed, is it more difficult at all?

Everything is so person centred and subjective, that it just isn’t possible to objectively measure the impacts. Which means any intervention is going to have to be upon observations on demographic achievement - which requires segmentation on a broad group basis eg race, sex etc , they can lead to segregation and animosity.

Equality doesn’t do that. It is based around the two precepts I listed above.

No there isn’t. You just think it’s a point of principle because that’s what we all do, subconsciously, to justify our positions. What level of disability do we allow parking spaces for? Why that level? If the disability isn’t one that’s visible, does that count? If it’s self inflicted from a car crash, does that count? What about self inflicted from drunken driving? What about obesity? That’s all on a sliding scale as well, it’s not a point of principle. And the evidence base for educational attainment from different societal backgrounds is pretty large, so just writing that off because you don’t like it isn’t a point of principle. Should disabled people get advantaged acces to education?

[fishfoodie]

The thing that pisses me off about all of these things is how lacking in critical thinking the people who've decided, or been influenced that what they're against, is a, "bad thing" !

Lets start with the simple example discussed, of disabled parking spaces. What is the cost of them ?, a negligible increase in architectural plans, & a few quid on paint. But what is the benefit ?, for retail premises, it probably isn't obvious, or even for commercial operations, but across society, combined with incentives, is allows a cohort of people who would otherwise be completely dependent on carers, & welfare, to achieve some level of independence !

I've had the pleasure of working with a number of young people who had some level of physical disability, & all they wanted was an opportunity to show what they were capable of, & be able to access work in the same way as the rest of us take for granted.

In the same way, what's the objection to knocking down barriers to further education, to groups who typically have less access ?

All the statistics say that if someone gets a 3rd level qualification, they earn more, & end up paying more tax, so society overall is better off; whats wrong with that ??

There's also the follow on fact, that the children of those who accessed 3rd level education, are significantly more likely to access it; so by giving a small leg up to one generation, you probably lift the whole family up in the next generation !

All of this boils down to the same bullshit that the 1% have used for centuries; setting one group against the other, with the lie that someone was getting something for nothing, & that poor person A getting a loaf of bread from the state, meant that poor person Bs children would starve, & there was nothing the Lord in his manor could do about it.

[Random1]

My point here isn’t to agree where on that scale we should be, it’s to agree that we are only arguing about the scale rather than some fundamental difference in principle.

No, there’s definitely a principled point. Did you look at the comic strip posted before?

It refers to everything from race, to sex to family expectations impacting a person’s ambition. None of which are measurable, other than to measure outcomes. For example, how much more difficult is it for a black guy to get a degree compared to a white guy? How much more difficult is it for a black woman to get a degree compared to a black man? Indeed, is it more difficult at all?

Everything is so person centred and subjective, that it just isn’t possible to objectively measure the impacts. Which means any intervention is going to have to be upon observations on demographic achievement - which requires segmentation on a broad group basis eg race, sex etc , they can lead to segregation and animosity.

Equality doesn’t do that. It is based around the two precepts I listed above.

No there isn’t. You just think it’s a point of principle because that’s what we all do, subconsciously, to justify our positions. What level of disability do we allow parking spaces for? Why that level? If the disability isn’t one that’s visible, does that count? If it’s self inflicted from a car crash, does that count? What about self inflicted from drunken driving? What about obesity? That’s all on a sliding scale as well, it’s not a point of principle. And the evidence base for educational attainment from different societal backgrounds is pretty large, so just writing that off because you don’t like it isn’t a point of principle. Should disabled people get advantaged acces to education?

So, can you run me through what you think equity would look like for race please.

[Random1]

The thing that pisses me off about all of these things is how lacking in critical thinking the people who've decided, or been influenced that what they're against, is a, "bad thing" !

Lets start with the simple example discussed, of disabled parking spaces. What is the cost of them ?, a negligible increase in architectural plans, & a few quid on paint. But what is the benefit ?, for retail premises, it probably isn't obvious, or even for commercial operations, but across society, combined with incentives, is allows a cohort of people who would otherwise be completely dependent on carers, & welfare, to achieve some level of independence !

I've had the pleasure of working with a number of young people who had some level of physical disability, & all they wanted was an opportunity to show what they were capable of, & be able to access work in the same way as the rest of us take for granted.

In the same way, what's the objection to knocking down barriers to further education, to groups who typically have less access ?

All the statistics say that if someone gets a 3rd level qualification, they earn more, & end up paying more tax, so society overall is better off; whats wrong with that ??

There's also the follow on fact, that the children of those who accessed 3rd level education, are significantly more likely to access it; so by giving a small leg up to one generation, you probably lift the whole family up in the next generation !

All of this boils down to the same bullshit that the 1% have used for centuries; setting one group against the other, with the lie that someone was getting something for nothing, & that poor person A getting a loaf of bread from the state, meant that poor person Bs children would starve, & there was nothing the Lord in his manor could do about it.

Ok, can you try it with something more complex like sex please. What does equity in relation to sex look like?

[Biffer]

No, there’s definitely a principled point. Did you look at the comic strip posted before?

It refers to everything from race, to sex to family expectations impacting a person’s ambition. None of which are measurable, other than to measure outcomes. For example, how much more difficult is it for a black guy to get a degree compared to a white guy? How much more difficult is it for a black woman to get a degree compared to a black man? Indeed, is it more difficult at all?

Everything is so person centred and subjective, that it just isn’t possible to objectively measure the impacts. Which means any intervention is going to have to be upon observations on demographic achievement - which requires segmentation on a broad group basis eg race, sex etc , they can lead to segregation and animosity.

Equality doesn’t do that. It is based around the two precepts I listed above.

No there isn’t. You just think it’s a point of principle because that’s what we all do, subconsciously, to justify our positions. What level of disability do we allow parking spaces for? Why that level? If the disability isn’t one that’s visible, does that count? If it’s self inflicted from a car crash, does that count? What about self inflicted from drunken driving? What about obesity? That’s all on a sliding scale as well, it’s not a point of principle. And the evidence base for educational attainment from different societal backgrounds is pretty large, so just writing that off because you don’t like it isn’t a point of principle. Should disabled people get advantaged acces to education?

So, can you run me through what you think equity would look like for race please.

You’re kind of missing the point here, but I’m not answering your questions if you won’t answer mine, that’s only polite.

[fishfoodie]

Ok, can you try it with something more complex like sex please. What does equity in relation to sex look like?

Why do you care ? Why are all of these things zero-sum gain for people ?

What does it cost you is 51% of the population gets access to 51% of the positions in the CS, or dog forbid, they get paid the same as the other 49% ?

It's the same with transgender rights, but an infinitely smaller group, who are just seeking the same equality as the rest of society.

It's very simple really; if it was you, or your child, what would, "fair", look like, & if you're going to ask why, then at the same time ask, "why not ?"

Modern societies put together massive infrastructure to provide services for the population & the reality is that adding to that infrastructure to allow group A equal access is small change; but again, the 1% insist that the spending an amount of money that is a fraction of that pissed away on the Rwanda, fascist wet dream, is somehow excessive.

I think we need to start quantifying these things in meters of tacky gold wallpaper, or how many people are impacted by these things.

[weegie01]

I fundamentally oppose the idea that this is lowering standards, if that was really the case then the university would not be reporting that their contextualised offer students were achieving above average results at the uni.

When I was a student back in the 70s, back in the days when it was the academic top 10% ish who went to university, it was well known that students from state schools with the same level of qualification as those from private schools were academically brighter, and tended to do better at university. It was uncontroversial even then that, on average, it was harder for a state school pupil to achieve a certain level of results than a private school pupil.

It was also generally recognised that, relatively speaking, once they hit the job market, the private school kids followed the normal distribution on the achievement bell curve from over to under achivers. The state school kids tended to cluster at the ends, with a somewhat higher number than expected at the under achiever end.

Private school pupils tended to understand that getting the degree, getting the job, was where the real work started. The state school pupils who understood this went gang busters as they tended to be very highly motivated to succeed. But many faltered when they hit the jobs market as they they tended to think that getting the degree was the hard part, and from then on it was cruising from 9 to 5 every day getting a decent salary. Some recovered, some never did.

Back then firms firms tended to recruit 'people like us' as they knew what they were getting, whereas state school kids may have had gems amongst them, but were more unpredictable quality.

Fast forward nearly 50 years and my wife's firm makes no bones about recruiting 'people like us'. The difference is that my wife went to a state school, as did the CEO who is the only person senior to her in the firm. They still recruit a disproportionate number of private school kids, but the state school origin is higher. The problem they see in state school recruitment now is that it is very polarised, and it reflects the polarisation of society. My two sisters who have spent their careers teaching in state schools echo this. Pupils coming out of schools like Cults Academy, Boroughmuir High School, Linlithgow Academy (where my older sister's kids went) Jordanhill and others may not have quite the achieviement of the better private schools, may not have quite the polish, but their quality is discernible. Meanwhile the products of many state schools are so poor it is pretty much impossible to ascertain in a selection process if they can be developed. 'People like us' also tends to include far more women and minorities than it did back in the day .

I am 8 years retired now. Former colleagues tell me they can't wait to follow suit for a number of reasons. One of those is that the quality of recruit across all levels has fallen. It has fallen because there is now a points based selection process. In that process, points for being from a minority, a state school and other factors outweighs actual ability to do the job, even at quite senior levels.

That to me is going too far. Give the able who have not been given the extra polish a helping hand, but do not recruit / promote those less able purely to satisfy a desire for equity in outcomes such as 'we must have x% black employees'. By all means work hard to support less advantaged kids in schoools, in universities etc. But there comes a point where the decision has to be made purely on ability to execute.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

So long story short, old people retired or near to retiring consider they're smarter than the young upstarts? Who knew

[Sandstorm]

One of those is that the quality of recruit across all levels has fallen. It has fallen because there is now a points based selection process. In that process, points for being from a minority, a state school and other factors outweighs actual ability to do the job, even at quite senior levels.

What industry is this? Public sector??

I've recruited 5 new staff members this year and not once did we look at the school they went to or what colour their skin was. We interviewed and picked the best candidate for the role. Period.

[weegie01]

So long story short, old people retired or near to retiring consider they're smarter than the young upstarts? Who knew

If that relates to my post, I can't imagine how you could be more wrong.

[weegie01]

One of those is that the quality of recruit across all levels has fallen. It has fallen because there is now a points based selection process. In that process, points for being from a minority, a state school and other factors outweighs actual ability to do the job, even at quite senior levels.

What industry is this? Public sector??

I've recruited 5 new staff members this year and not once did we look at the school they went to or what colour their skin was. We interviewed and picked the best candidate for the role. Period.

Retail banking.

I think there is an element of banks now trying very hard to be seen as socially aware, serving the community etc., and rather over doing it.