“Diversity is our greatest strength. We don’t need to explain why this is. We just know it to be true. Just like how we know that the sun revolves around the earth, and only
racists heretics would ever question the obvious wisdom of that”.
Well it seems that diversity is being threatened in the UK. For reasons that are completely unexplainable (but most likely caused by racism), black students are failing to graduate from university at the same rate as their white counterparts. Because diversity and equality of outcome are more important than holding everyone to the same high standards as each other, something needs to be done about this ASAP.
Universities could be punished unless they give a higher proportion of top degrees to black students, under new proposals drawn up by the regulator.
Notice how there’s no mention of a requirement for the black students having to actually achieve the grades necessary to earn a top degree? They just have to be given it anyway.
The Office for Students (OfS) has announced plans to overhaul its guidelines for boosting diversity in higher education, in what it says is the “biggest shake up” since 2004.
Are they ever going to explain why boosting “diversity” is such an important thing to do? What are the actual benefits of this increased diversity? Why is it so essential? Why do we need it so badly, that we need to do away with “fairness”, and “merit” in order to achieve it? In what ways will the benefits of this increased diversity, outweigh the benefits of maintaining the current high standards?
They will never answer these questions, because quite frankly, there is no logical answer to them. This is purely based on ideology, rather than common sense.
If institutions fail to comply with the regulator’s new “tougher” national targets for increasing the number of disadvantaged students, they could be penalised through a fine or even de-registered.
So they say it’s about helping “disadvantaged” students, but at the same time, are specifically focusing on race, rather than economic background. As far as they’re concerned, a black student from a rich family is disadvantaged, when compared to a white student from a poor family. Of course, anyone with any knowledge of what is going on, knows this is not really about helping students from disadvantaged backgrounds. It’s simply about hurting the prospects of white people.
Chris Millward, the OfS director for fair access and participation, said that universities will no longer be able to “mark their own homework” on their plans to up their intake of 18-year-olds from poor backgrounds.
Instead, the new regulator, which came into force earlier this year, plans to set a series of national targets that all universities will be expected to meet.
These will not be limited to targets for admitting more school leavers from deprived households, but will also include addressing the gap in degree attainment between black and white students, according to OfS proposals.
They never consider the idea of investigating WHY this gap in degree attainment exists in the first place. Understanding the root causes of the gap and trying to go from there to solve it, is not part of the agenda. Instead, they just want to manipulate the results and achieve equality of outcome without an equality of merit.
There has been an almost 50 per cent increase in the number of black and ethnic minority students in England between 2007 and 2016.
“Mass, replacement level immigration is just a Neo-Nazi, white supremacist, conspiracy theory.”
78 per cent of white students graduated last year with a first class of upper second class degree, compared to just 53 per cent of black students.
Qualifications before attending university, although a key factor in degree outcomes, do not explain the differences between ethnic groups, according to data analysed by Universities UK.
No, but I’ve got a theory on what could explain the difference instead.
In a consultation document, published today, the regulator sets out a number of areas that universities should work on, such as combatting the higher drop-out rate among poorer students compared to their middle-class peers.
Mr Millward said: “Universities have always set their own targets, and have used different measures of success. They were kind of marking their own homework.
“We are going to set clearer national targets which they will refer to: not just looking at access but do students finish their courses? What is their degree outcome depending on background?”
I can guarantee you that this will all fail miserably. Governments are too incompetent to make anything work right.
Mr Millward said that universities have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on measures aimed at diversifying their intake of students, but have paid little or no attention to whether their schemes were effective.
Hundreds of millions of pounds down the toilet in order to pursue this obsession with diversity, and we’ve still yet to hear an explanation about why this diversity is even desirable. Be perfectly honest with yourself. Even ignoring the financial cost, and just focusing on everything else that has happened, has any country at all benefited from increased diversity? Has Sweden benefited? Has Germany? Has Italy? Has France? Has the UK? Has *insert any country here*? Seriously, what are the actual benefits of this diversity? Will anyone ever actually answer the question?
“I don’t doubt that universities are committed to improving access. They are spending a lot of money and doing a lot but they don’t understand enough about whether it’s working,” he told The Daily Telegraph.
It’s never going to work. Just like the way the first world has thrown trillions of dollars at Africa in foreign aid and development over the past 50 years, and if anything, a lot of the countries there are going backwards rather than forwards. You can keep throwing money at the problem all you want, but it’s never going to make a difference, because a lack of funding is not the cause.
“We are upping the expectation on evaluation. Once we know that, we can target [budgets] where it can make a difference.”
Last year, universities spent a total of around £800 million on projects to increase access and around half of this was spent on bursaries for students from poor households.
“I’m not arguing against bursaries being provided, particularly because students can be really challenged by the cost when they are at university,” Mr Millward said.
And yet despite spending that much money, they’re no closer to solving the “”problem”.
“But there is very little evidence that bursaries improve access. That is a really obvious areas where we need to evaluate. [We need to] ask why it is spent and what impact it is having?”
He actually said something that I agree with.
Dr Tim Bradshaw, chief executive of the Russell Group, said he welcomes the emphasis on evaluation
“There is a great deal of activity to improve access taking place across the sector but what we need now is a clear overview of which interventions make the biggest difference,” he said. “We need to be clearer on what works, and what doesn’t, if we are to shift the dial.”
Unfortunately, they’re not going to use the scientific method when trying to figure this situation out. They will automatically refuse to consider certain possibilities, limit the scope of what they will actually investigate, fail to find a possible solution, and either just go back to throwing money at the problem (and getting nowhere in the process), or just creating a two tier system, were black students are held to lower standards than white students, and see their graduation rate increase that way instead.
And this is what they call “”Equality”.