But they don’t only judge on those things,irrespective of colour they also judge on area,accent etc.
I know plenty who got an education and are still living week to week,some on the dole,in the same working class areas they grew up in.
Discrimination is discrimination,when you’re discriminated because of your accent /where you’re from,it is no different than because of your skin colour.It is still an attack on who you are.
It may be cliche but i’ve never heard that word before nor do i know what it means.
My experience is there are a few academics with massive chips on their shoulders and a sense of entitlement. Instead of looking in the mirror they blame others. They resent those that went to private schools, which got them into top universities which I turn helped get them into top jobs.
I have a PhD, went to some poor schools. When I told my dad I was doing fencing as a hobby while at uni he thought I was building a fence. Everyone I mixed with went to private schools. If I am honest I was a bit insecure about it. But the truth is no one gave a shit.
Maybe 30 years ago things were different but go into any department and you will have Chinese, Germans, Americans. People from all over the world. Maybe 10% are British at British universities. In that sort of situation no one cares about social status. It’s actually a great leveller.
I found those who thought it was a problem were displaying their own insecurities or trying to justify why Dr X got a promotion above them.
Is there any credible evidence that unconscious bias training has an impact on behaviours?
I have searched but cannot find any in depth studies that suggest this training method is proven or brings about the desired changes in behaviour - which is, I suppose, what these companies are paying for. A list of companies that have met diversity targets is not proof that the training works - ( ie changes the employees behaviour) - that is just proof that the HR department have been instructed to hire more applicants from a diverse background.
There is also significant discomfort with the original scientific basis of the Implicit Association Test which is the cornerstone of unconscious bias theory.
I am not questioning the motivations behind this new money-making endeavour, but before accepting it as fact perhaps there needs to be a rigorous examination of the efficacy of this training. I am in complete agreement with the motivations behind these concepts but would like to see the evidence before supporting it.
My best guess is that it will go the same way as those other buzzword concepts “Company Mission Statements” and “Workplace Sustainability Initiatives.” Consigned to the rubbish bin when the narrative has moved along.
…and, once more with feeling, eradicating unconscious bias from recruitment processes would help stop discrimination on this as well as skin colour, sexuality, gender etc.
Yeah, I moved to London to get started.
But the issue there is availability of jobs and opportunities, and investment in deprived areas.
To be honest Jon, I think you’re unlikely accept any evidence given to you. You’ve already rejected the notion of companies increasing diversity as proof.
Absolutely I would accept the evidence - I have searched for it and cannot find any - I was hoping somebody could point me to the studies which affirm the worthiness of this training… Surely it is important to know that this actually works. All studies I have found - including a meta-analysis suggest, by and large the contrary.
Companies increasing diversity in the workplace is not proof that participants in training programs have altered their behaviours as a result of the training. All the evidence I have seen appears to illustrate that any benefit is very short lived and people quickly return to their historical way of thinking and behaving. Which begs the question what are these companies paying for?
A solution would be great - but is this type of training the correct solution and is it based upon fact - or just opinion?
Sorry for butting in but in your example do you think that this has simply become an ass covering exercise by company execs etc.
“We have provided guidance and training blah blah blah but Joe Bloggs has acted alone” type of thing.
I see a lot of this in Health and Safety training where there is obviously and effort to educate but it can wreak of execs building evidence that they fulfilled their obligations under H&S law more than actually ensuring that their staff have a good safety attitude (for want of a better term)
It’s difficult because it’s the right thing to do and it is 100% right that companies are forced to drive up standards but it can still be poorly received by the people that need it and ultimately benefit the most from it.
Not only that but there may be a real danger that a company that provides unconscious bias training can then claim that any particular decision was not motivated by unconscious bias. It could be that the training doesn’t provide any long lasting change in behaviour but does make it even harder for anyone who may actually have suffered from prejudice to succeed in a discrimination claim.
Yep but does it have to be unconscious bias training or perhaps it could be argued that any training contains some level of bias in one form or another?
if you are training someone aren’t you directing them towards a particular form of behavior or at least stating that this is the way we want you to behave.
This is frying my brain and I’ve a got a stupid amount of work to complete today.
I have no reason to disagree with your point, but it doesn’t address what I believe to be the main problem which is the difficulty state educated children face in gaining admission to the elite universities e.g. the Russell Group institutions, in the first place.
For example, despite only 6% of children being educated in private schools, in 23 elite institutions they represent more than 25 per cent of the intake.
An analysis of the figures by the PA news agency shows that the proportion of state school students is less than 75% in 23 universities and specialist colleges.
Of this list, nine are Russell Group universities — which are traditionally the most selective institutions in the UK.
Out of the 24 Russell Group institutions, 10 (41.7%) saw a fall in UK state-educated entrants between 2018/19 and 2019/20.
So if anything the situation appears to be getting worse, not better.
I wonder if these elite universities actually charge more?
I certainly know that university would have been extremely difficult for me if I would have had to pay the fees and the grant system wasn’t in operation.
The entry process for those universities itself is intentionally limiting. Not only do you need 3 A’s but then you have to appear for interviews, which could be prohibiting to low income families, and apply significantly earlier than other Universities. I think I remember there being extra fees to apply there also.
Obviously if you attend Eton etc you can receive coaching on how to pass those entry interviews whereas kids from most people’s backgrounds are left to figure it out themselves. Different issue but direct entry Army Officer selection is similar. When I appeared at selection most of the other people there had gone to private schools and had been coached on how to pass.
Yep. I have referenced my educational background before but I was very fortunate to have been able to go to a private school. I was brought up by my Mum, she received a small maintenance from my Dad but even with that she had to work two jobs to provide for myself and my sister. We were both fortunate to be able to get to go to a boarding school where the fees are means-tested. Rather than the school deliberately setting aside, say, 5% of entries for children from disadvantaged backgrounds just to maintain an illusory charitable status for tax purposes, the school my sister and I went to was founded specifically to support children from under-privileged backgrounds. It therefore limited to around 8% the spaces that could be offered to full-paying students. In other words, if your parents earned over a certain threshold you were unable to send your kids there. Financial circumstances weren’t the only factor to determine whether a child demonstrated a “need” but it was an important one.
This meant that nearly all parents paid only what they could afford to pay. More than 20% paid nothing at all. Those fees were, of course, nowhere near enough to actually fund the child’s cost of education so the school relied (still relies) on donations, a huge network of donation governors who ‘present’ children to the school, trade associations like the ironmongers etc, and income it receives from significant property portfolios it owns in London as a result of gifts from generous benefactors over the course of the last 400 years, or so. I recall my Mum paid £1,200 per year for my fees. That’s everything. You’d struggle to feed, clothe and board a child aged between 11 and 18 for 8 months of the year for that.
What you ended up with was a sort of hybrid. Kids from working class backgrounds with a private education. I wish everyone was afforded that opportunity because it’s important to bear in mind that private schools do churn out a higher proportion of kids who have been educated to a high standard. It’s not just the exclusive elitism that most well-off parents are paying for, it is that ‘better’ education as well. This is the inherent privilege that comes from being well-off. Private schools do tend to give better educational provision as well as broader opportunities in music, sport, drama, etc.
Putting pressure on universities to increase the proportion of admissions coming from state schools is, of course, necessary and important but until the fundamental imbalance of opportunity to receive the best education from a young age is addressed, there will remain disproportionate numbers of privately educated students going on to the very best universities.
Some would say you were lucky, I’d say you had an excellent mother. State education is something under which you can thrive despite the standard of education. That’s not a dig at teachers, it’s simply that you’re not educated in a bubble, you’ll always have mad Barry and Gavin in any class. I didn’t go to private school but I’m guessing at least half your lessons were not ruined by Jason the berk being a tosser. I was in a class earlier today (6 kids) and 2 of them where hauled out to the head’s office for swearing at the teacher (10 years old).
These are deeper issues that can easily take us away from the ism discussions here.
