Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Novascope)
    Yeah I totally agree with you there. But we can't rule out laziness altogether. What you said about the working class and the opportunities they get is so true. But why this is only targeted at white male working class students baffles me when the same pretty much goes for anyone from the working class
    Yes, but honestly, I think perhaps the only advantage of the under representation of minority groups in top jobs is that it instills a mentality of working hard to "prove the system wrong", and perhaps this is why we see white working class students working less hard. They don't really have any motivation.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexS101)
    Because their parents don't value education, and they don't get as many opportunities as other groups to see the value of education?
    No, I think they just like video games.

    Only half serious. I think boys don't like being average or below average, so if they can't be the best, they'll compete to be the worst (peer-driven). A soft approach to discipline (parents and school) will therefore harm average and below average boys more than average and below average girls who usually don't have such fragile egos.

    I don't think it has much to do with race or funding. Poor white boys are only a subpopulation of all white boys (who on average do better than the average of all black boys), and as a subpopulation they are likely to be less intelligent than their more affluent peers to begin with, for genetic and environmental reasons, so of course on average they will do worse than the average of all white boys or all black boys (or whoever).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Laziness is the only explanation.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    And this coming just a day after a female MP chuckled when a male MP suggested that there should be a men's international day to discuss men's issues...
    Lol I've even seen it described on Twitter that that MP was "criticised for standing up for women's rights", which would be hilarious if it wasn't so scary. Although of course the threads she received were completely unacceptable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    No, I think they just like video games.

    Only half serious. I think boys don't like being average or below average, so if they can't be the best, they'll compete to be the worst (peer-driven). A soft approach to discipline (parents and school) will therefore harm average and below average boys more than average and below average girls who usually don't have such fragile egos.

    I don't think it has much to do with race or funding. Poor white boys are only a subpopulation of all white boys (who on average do better than the average of all black boys), and as a subpopulation they are likely to be less intelligent than their more affluent peers to begin with, for genetic and social reasons, so of course on average they will do worse than the average of all white boys or all black boys (or whoever).
    Poor students of whatever race are less likely to have a good facilities to work with at home, so are more reliant of their schools facilities. Schools that receive more funding are able to update their facilities more often than schools that less funding, and schools that receive more funding can often fund opening of some facilities outside of school hours around exam times, which could allow their students more time to revise than students at poorer schools who struggle to work at home.
    It's a bit like saying that a badly funded NHS hospital is able to provide the same standard of care as a highly funded private hospital.
    Again if funding has no impact why do private schools always do so well?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    White boys underachieving - something wrong with the group.

    Any other group underachieving - something wrong with the system.

    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    So if women earn less money than men, on average, would it be considered acceptable for someone to say it's because women are lazier and not working hard enough?

    (I don't necessarily disagree with you btw, but I think there are huge double standards from the media on these issues.)
    No you can't really compare a career to education. One is supposed to get paid fairly for what they do for a contract signed. Where the other is entirely down to the person working hard to obtain good grades. So no you can't compare unfair wages to underachieving students.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
    White boys underachieving - something wrong with the group.

    Any other group underachieving - something wrong with the system.

    :rolleyes:
    Nope. All working class kids tend to underachieve compared to their middle/upper class peers. Why the focus is on white boys is beyond me. Or maybe it's because it IS due to their group alone.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexS101)
    Poor students of whatever race are less likely to have a good facilities to work with at home, so are more reliant of their schools facilities. Schools that receive more funding are able to update their facilities more often than schools that less funding, and schools that receive more funding can often fund opening of some facilities outside of school hours around exam times, which could allow their students more time to revise than students at poorer schools who struggle to work at home.
    I agree with you, that would be excellent.

    Again if funding has no impact why do private schools always do so well?
    Because most of them are selective.

    I personally think state schools should select based on behaviour. That would give poor but well-behaved boys the best chance to succeed.

    I do not care about the badly behaved.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by quentinhamilton)
    Laziness is the only explanation.
    I agree to some extent, but surely it cannot be the only reason? Parents contribute a large amount to a child's thought process, and if their parents do not care they will not either. Poor schools with terrible careers advice, coupled with parents placing less importance put on education and laziness is a recipe for disaster. I'd argue is more to do with upbringing more than anything else.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drowzee)
    I agree to some extent, but surely it cannot be the only reason? Parents contribute a large amount to a child's thought process, and if their parents do not care they will not either. Poor schools with terrible careers advice, coupled with parents placing less importance put on education and laziness is a recipe for disaster. I'd argue is more to do with upbringing more than anything else.
    I agree.

    Lazy parents who put no value to their children's education is the prime explanation.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Novascope)
    No you can't really compare a career to education. One is supposed to get paid fairly for what they do for a contract signed. Where the other is entirely down to the person working hard to obtain good grades. So no you can't compare unfair wages to underachieving students.
    But the pay difference between men and women isn't normally due to a contract being unfairly applied. After all, when you control for confounding variables, the gender pay gap essentially disappears.

    So, the equivalent to "revising hard for your exams", could be "working full-time and not taking time off for family reasons", for example.

    So I don't really understand your reasoning. You could quite easily say that, just like boys get worse grades due to not revising hard enough, women get paid less on average because they are more likely to take time off for family reasons.

    Furthermore, for example, at Cambridge University, there are working groups that investigate gender disparity in exam performance (usually more boys getting Firsts than girls). If exams are apparently only due to how hard someone works, why do they undertake such investigations?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Its wrong to compare white and non white kids by class. A lot of non white kids have parents with similar incomes as white working class parents but a lot of them have middle class aspirations or were middle class in their native countries but had to do low skilled jobs because their qualifications are not recognised in the UK. They get classified as working class but were or really want their kids to be middle class hence more pushy with their kids at school

    White working class people are working class because they are not academic and relied on gaining manual skills to make a living. They don't value academic achievement because they did not need it.

    I think its unhelpful to classify people as underachieving because they are not doing well academically but ignoring the fact they don't want to be academic in the first place because they don't think they need to be.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xGCSE_Studentx)
    If they are really bothered they should either help the white males or encourage them to do better, in my experience some white males just don't give a **** about education so i'm not too surprised
    m8 m8 m8, it's dem muslimics doe innit

    Name:  chavs.jpg
Views: 416
Size:  56.6 KB

    fookin comin over ere, stealing owe GCSE's
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masih ad-Dajjal)
    m8 m8 m8, it's dem muslimics doe innit

    Name:  chavs.jpg
Views: 416
Size:  56.6 KB

    fookin comin over ere, stealing owe GCSE's
    don't rep me then contradict yourself
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xGCSE_Studentx)
    don't rep me then contradict yourself
    as if I would rep a Muslim...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masih ad-Dajjal)
    as if I would rep a Muslim...
    and as if i could care less what you think
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xGCSE_Studentx)
    and as if i could care less what you think
    you quoted me :plz2:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masih ad-Dajjal)
    you quoted me :plz2:
    doesn't mean anything
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xGCSE_Studentx)
    doesn't mean anything
    Just like your life
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.