Re: GCSE results by race and sex
- From: anw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr A. N. Walker)
- Date: 9 Dec 2005 20:16:54 GMT
In article <1134086521.931069.66730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
The Harbinger <DontShootMeImJustTheMessenger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> [The statistics] are misleading if [normal] people are misled.
>And normal people are misled if they come to a different conclusion to
>you i suppose?
The only conclusion I came to was that the breakdown by
ethnicity was of no significance in the absence of information
about the breakdown by [some combination of] social or economic
status or quality of school. If you think otherwise, perhaps you
could explain what you think the significance is. People -- the
large majority even of intelligent adults -- with no statistics
background are unlikely to be able to judge that for themselves.
>Statistics are facts, however they are interpreted and people can, and
>will, come to their own conclusions whether you like it or not. If you
>have a point, make it, but don't try to spoil the thread because these
>facts conflict with your opinions.
What makes you think the facts conflict with my opinions?
The point I was making was that the facts do not give us any useful
information; so they do not conflict with *any* relevant opinion.
>I'm sure Maria is impressed by your concern to protect her from all of
>these confusing statistics.
>So you can explain how they are not significant then?
I already did. They are not disaggregated by [eg] social
status; so they are no more use to us than [eg] breast cancer
figures that are not split into results for males and females
[and perhaps into young and old]. If black people really are doing
worse than [eg] white people, then the conclusions and the political
consequences are quite different from those appropriate if they are
in fact doing *better* than white people but that fact has been masked
by the aggregation. Until we know the breakdown, we don't know which
of these has happened -- not even at the level of "it seems likely
that ...".
>But it is not a drug company, he has posted the figures that have been
>made available and we can all guess why a more complete set of figures
>is rarely available.
I can guess several possible reasons, and have no idea which
of them is true. If you are better informed, feel free to let us know.
>You have just contradicted yourself. Now explain how the Chinese
>outperformed every other racial group despite their obvious relative
>poverty?
What relative poverty? *All* the ethnic Chinese people I know
[quite a lot] are solidly middle-class or better; quite different from
the West Indians I know. It may be different in your neck of the woods.
It was certainly different in Morecambe; but I doubt whether many of
the cockle-pickers had children in the UK doing GCSEs.
>What happens when a bad school turns good is that the social makeup of
>the school changes . The head imposes discipline, caring and supportive
>parents send their kids to that school and even compete to gain entry
>and the troublesome kids merely end up somewhere else.
> It just rearranges the educational deckchairs.
A case highlighted locally was turned around in one year. The
children had almost all been at the school the previous year, when the
school was bottom of the table. Clearly, arranging the deckchairs is
one way to change a school, but far from the only way. Simply creating
a bit of stability goes a long way.
>> [...] I do however know
>> enough to know when statistics are verging on the "lies, damned lies
>> and ..." of popular myth.
>Nonsense, they just offend your liberal sensibilities so you rubbish
>them. If we ignore statistics we can base our conclusions on what
>exactly? Subjective experiences maybe? Political rhetoric perhaps?
I don't believe you know anything at all about my "liberal
sensibilities". Nor have I suggested that we ignore statistics. But
we *should* -- indeed, *must* -- ignore worthless statistics, and try
instead to obtain meaningful ones. Political rhetoric, especially
from the fringes, thrives on meaningless statistics.
> [...] The Chinese and Indians place great stress on education and
>subsequently outperform the indigenous population by an amazing amount.
We don't know that. From the figures given, it is perfectly
possible that they are badly underperforming. Or overperforming.
That is what worthless statistics do for you.
> [...] As to the relative wealth of immigrants
>on arrival I suggest that they all started from a similar position of
>almost total poverty.
Simply not true. *Some* of them of course arrived with nothing.
Many others came here from places like Hong Kong, Singapore, India, the
Middle East as businessmen of great wealth, or as students from wealthy
families, or as partners of UK citizens of a variety of backgrounds.
>There are few enough forums where issues like this can be discussed. I
>suggest if you don't like it or you can't make a valid contribution
>then don't try to browbeat the other posters with your snide comments.
What snide comments? For over 20 years now, I have tried
always [and only occasionally failed] to write helpful comments to
the Net, and to do so with politeness and consideration. I am sorry
if you think otherwise.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
anw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCSE results by race and sex
- From: The Harbinger
- Re: GCSE results by race and sex
- References:
- GCSE results by race and sex
- From: Energumen
- Re: GCSE results by race and sex
- From: Energumen
- Re: GCSE results by race and sex
- From: Dr A. N. Walker
- Re: GCSE results by race and sex
- From: The Harbinger
- GCSE results by race and sex
- Prev by Date: Re: Right-whingers never happy
- Next by Date: Re: Why the Left Really Hates Israel
- Previous by thread: Re: GCSE results by race and sex
- Next by thread: Re: GCSE results by race and sex
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
