NUS double-talk on university admissions: a classic of the genre
This is only a brief post, but I thought it was worth doing
on account of a classic example of left-wing double-talk on the BBC Newsnight programme
last night which shows once more how our ideologies are completely blinding us
from reality.
The occasion was a little report on university admissions
outlining how the admissions service UCAS has accepted just 172,420 male admissions for
the coming academic year so far, compared to 224,570 from females. That
is 35% of male A-Level students going to university compared to 44% female
students.
National Union of Students (NUS) Vice President Joe
Vinson was interviewed for the segment and said the numbers were “not surprising” because “apprenticeships pay less for women
systematically; women earn less in the workplace, particularly when they don’t
have a degree. So it’s not surprising that women feel like they have to go to
university to better themselves, in order to compete with men on an equal level”.
So we can see how female students doing better than male,
not just at age 18 but all the way through our educational system, is actually
down to ‘systematic’ female disadvantage. This is a classic of the genre of prevailing
liberal-left ideology that assigns explanation to mysterious forces rather than any evidence or investigation into the behavioural
patterns and practices that are leading to these outcomes.
Now I am going to do a little speculation
of my own based on a bit of knowledge, experience and common sense. I doubt that hardly any of those successful female students
would think they have worked hard to get to university in order to defeat
systematic male domination in the workplace. I also doubt if girls achieving
better at lower ages is down to this factor, if indeed it can be called a
factor. I doubt whether many girls are even aware they are meant to be
systematically disadvantaged in primary school, let alone that their higher
achievement is driven by this.
As Simon Hogg, a Labour councillor for Latchmere ward in
Wandsworth, South London, said on Twitter: "The missing men are
from poorer communities". Also, as he pointed out, both guests on Newsnight - from UCAS and the
Girls' Schools Association - said that lack of male primary school teachers may
be a factor in boys' relative failure.
I think this is probably correct, though it cannot be
about the narrow identity of teachers. The real causes, if they can be called causes,
must surely lie more in customs and practices, including from within the
currently-prevalent teaching ideologies.
Incidentally, it is worth mentioning as an aside that Newsnight
discussed this issue in the studio using a female presenter and two female
experts. Now just imagine the uproar and outrage if a question of female
disadvantage had been discussed by three men! Myself though, I don’t see
anything wrong with this as long as they are qualified to speak impartially
rather than just out of narrow group ‘representation’.
I was also quite amused by presenter Fi Glover’s insistent
questioning about the need for positive discrimination to be used for boys, meaning
lesser standards for them to enter university. As she pointed out, this gets
used quite widely for other groups.
As with other cases, I don’t see affirmative action like
this as any sort of solution. We rather need to find out what is really going
wrong for boys as a group. I don’t think this should be too difficult to do if we can lay down the silly ideologies as expressed by our friend from the
NUS. Instead we should look at the...evidence (most particularly the subjective experience
of boys - and girls - in the schools system).
See Identity politics and the left page for more on this subject matter.
See Identity politics and the left page for more on this subject matter.
This piece might interest you ...
ReplyDeleteWell Done The Girls?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWellDonetheGirls.htm