Are poor kids usually bad at STEM subjects?

I would actually argue the exact opposite, that kids from poorer backgrounds can be even more likely to study STEM subjects than not.

Firstly, from experience during my undergrad, I had very few people doing maths with me from independent schools (I did maths). In fact they saw it as a trophy, that they did a hard degree from scratch and not been ‘taught’ to do it.

I think lots of people from less privileged backgrounds might choose stem cause they know there’s money at the end of it, or cause they found it ‘easier’ subjects than others, so laziness prevailed or they accidentally fell into it because it’s what they liked. Plus if ‘genius’ is identified in state schools, you could argue they’ll be encouraged to do stem more than others, particularly maths and medics.

Secondly, while this is a very select view, it’s worth taking a look at Oxfords split between state and independent schools for each subject (page 17)
https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/Oxford%202018%20Annual%20Admissions%20Report.pdf

In fact it’s stem subjects which tend to do slightly better for state. I think it’s because when you’re at school from a more privileged background, pressure is put on to go to uni, but not ‘which’ Subject, so independent school kids will do what they either did average at or enjoy, like English, classics, geography. I think this is a ‘freedom’ element if privilidged, which is no matter what you do you’ll end up on your feet (don’t know what it is to struggle in the rat race of life/mum and daddy will always help) so just do what you enjoy. Those less privileged are powered by money, security and what they find easy.

Although at the other end of the spectrum, you’ll have poorer kids considering uni to be an achievement in general, and not care about the course, where they consider tourism at ‘steak-house technical college’ to be just as good as a top 10 Russel group for comp scI.

Summary: I think it depends.

Are children from poorer families usually bad at STEM subjects compared with non-STEM subjects or is it just popular opinion that they are bad at / not expected to do well at STEM subjects?

It's all a complicated situation and potentially a function of several variables - although the establishment may try to simplify things (for themselves) by looking only at one variable at a time.

Does gender and ethnicity play a large part? For example, are kids from poor families in certain ethnic groups more strongly encouraged to excel in STEM subjects (or actually excel in STEM subjects) over kids from other ethnic groups or white indigenous British kids are? Are girls from poor families in certain ethnic groups discouraged from excelling in STEM or families actually believe that girls should be bad at STEM subjects because they are deemed masculine? Are kids from poor families where English isn't their first language generally better at STEM subjects than humanities because of issues relating to language barrier? Is the reverse true for kids from poor families where English is the first or only language? Do certain identifiable groups have strengths and / or weaknesses in particular STEM subjects?

Indeed, according to that Oxford analysis CompSci has the highest share of Acorn 4&5 (ie the most socially disadvantaged) of any course at Oxford, while Classics has the lowest.

Indeed, according to that Oxford analysis CompSci has the highest share of Acorn 4&5 (ie the most socially disadvantaged) of any course at Oxford, while Classics has the lowest.

That may well be true but I think it's dangerous to extrapolate this figure or consider it to be a snapshot of the bigger picture. Only a very small fraction of college leavers go to Oxford anyway.

The demographic picture in higher education could be strikingly different to school age students.

There could be a potential scenario of kids from poorer families generally being worse than kids from more affluent families at STEM subjects at secondary school age, but a higher proportion of the fraction which is good at STEM subjects takes them beyond GCSE level - hence the situation with the computer science vs classics at Oxford.

As I previously stated, I'm more interested at school level rather than higher education.

Ok, so provide some data that supports your thesis... as we've already established - there isn't any.

I'm the one who is asking for data!

A parenting forum might provide more faithful information than TSR with the demographics it has although 'hard' data might not exist.

Or perhaps there isn't any data because no such relationship has been shown to convincingly exist (as per the data that was already linked).

In the absence of hard data (at this moment in time) it appears like you are trying to brush the issue under the carpet.

I'm concerned that kids from certain backgrounds are being written off by the education system or wider society because of assumed expectations that may be erroneous.

There's a very clear relationship between social background and a general lack of progression to university, and that's what needs to be tackled.

University is not the be all and end all of everything. My own stance is that university is not always the best choice for children regardless of the socioeconomic status of their parents. I deplore the idea that school education should first and foremost be designed as a stepping stone for university rather than a useful education in its own right or a preparation for non-university higher education / apprenticeships / industry training courses.

If there's anything that needs to be tackled in schools in relation to children from poorer families accessing university then it's C grade mediocrity I have written about several times. Perhaps if league tables were abolished then secondary schools could focus more effort onto enabling students to achieve top grades rather than meeting government targets.

As I have previously stated, this discussion is about school age children and not university.

It's *a* measure of progression though.

It may indeed be a measure of progression in the eyes of governments and the educational community but whether it actually benefits children from poorer families is a completely different issue.

I'm interested in knowing which school subjects children from particular communities tend to be good and bad at, and why.

Is culture also a factor rather than pure finance? I have known parents from poor families who tell me that countless other parents from poor and lower class families never buy their children educational books but still find money for ****, booze, takeaways, designer clothes, Sky TV, expensive toys, Christmas tat, decadent parties, and other frivolous stuff. They have raised questions whether large numbers of parents believe that school should provide 100% of education and parents 0%.

Is culture also a factor rather than pure finance? I have known parents from poor families who tell me that countless other parents from poor and lower class families never buy their children educational books but still find money for ****, booze, takeaways, designer clothes, Sky TV, expensive toys, Christmas tat, decadent parties, and other frivolous stuff. They have raised questions whether large numbers of parents believe that school should provide 100% of education and parents 0%.

I usually find claims about "university/education" being a rich middle-class thing, absolutely laughable. There's a reason why rich and poor exist in a capitalist society...it's very simple. One group, have worked themselves through hard-work/dedication plus ambition and they are in the prosperous situation for that reason alone. The poor people, it's vice versa. Rich/middle-class parents will always instill education into the minds of their children from a young age and make that their priority. The exception here is with the poor Asian communities, who are very ambitious.

Education has nothing got to do with being middle-class, it all comes down to ambition in life. It just happens to logically work out that the middle class will encourage their children to work hard in life. Whilst, the working-class will have zero ambition in life....even if there is ambition, there will be no hard-work.

In UK, majority of the white working-class girls become mothers by the age of 20, ending any sort of ambition they may have in life. In fact, intellectualism is commonly mocked by the working-class and anti-intellectualism is the culture of the working class, so of course poorer children will always underachieve than their richer peers.

The government will never be able to change or improve the standard of the education of the poor working class people. The resources are there for the taking....but it's not being used.

Why are so many TSR people now coming out with opinion pieces on an apparently 'popular opinion' that nobody has ever heard of in their lives? Seriously, it's endemic right now