Dumb/Lazy White British

Across the UK, private school attendance is about 6% of population. In London it is 14% (and rising), with 46% of private schools being based in London and the SE. Across the whole UK, private schools are about 75% White British (and falling), I've been trying to find a breakdown for London, but the data doesn't appear to be available.

So without full evidence to back up this statement, I'm proposing this:
Minorities in London do better than their counterparts because of relatively ambitious parenting as said in the article. The most ambitious of parents choose to send their children to private schools if they can afford it. White British Londoners are more likely to be able to afford private education, and so send their kids there. This means that there are less White British children in state schools than would be assumed from ethnicity alone, and thus test more poorly on average.


In the original report, private schooling is entirely ignored.
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2014/wp333.pdf
 
The research doesn't need to exclude those factors because that is not the aim of the research. The research aims to answer 2 very simple questions:
1) Does the 'London Effect' of higher average school performance exist.
2) What is the main reason for this.

Does not equal what they put here:

"It is argued that ethnic minority pupils have greater ambition, aspiration
, and work harder in school. This is the main argument here – London has more of these pupils and so has a higher average GCSE score than the rest of the country"

Sorry but that is correlation not proven causation. It is however being applied as and is presented as causative.

Reasons why other cities like Birmingham are also above average are not part of the research questions. No claim is made that what happens in London is replicated nationwide.

Yes, I wonder why that is? Is it because the Birmingham results would disprove that it is not the fact they are from an ethnic minority but something else?

You are trying to look for something that simply isn't there.

Yes, I am looking for sound valid science that has a purpose not something looking for correlating factors that are most likely inconsequential

The research is not about why immigrant children perform above average, but why London is above average when measured across all school children. These are very different questions that you are trying and failing to collapse into one.

No, this research is aims to provide a pro-uncontrolled immigration argument. It fails to address known causative factors and uses a potentially limited to correlating factor to draw its conclusions. There is a reason for that - the research is biased. It reeks of it

Here is a another example:

There is a large box containing 1000 apples. An average apple weighs 6oz, so the whole box should weigh 6000oz (375lbs), but when weighed it is actually significantly more, 6300oz. To find out why investigators examined the apples and found that 700 apples came from farmer Jones and those apples did indeed average 6oz but 300 apples came from farmer Smith and those apples weighed 7oz on average. Therefore the reason why the average of the 1000 apples is more than 6oz it is sufficient to simply explain that farmer Smith's apples weigh above average. There are likely reasons for this (additional sun/water/fertilizer etc.) but those factors aren't important in to answering the question. You seem very focused on the reasons why farmer Smith's apples are above average but all of those reasons like sun or water are already well understood and researched so it is not important to answering the question. No one is doubting that more fertilizer wont help both farmer's apples but that is irrelevant to the question asked: why is the box of apples above average, well some apples are from farmer Smith and his apples weigh more than average.

Here is an example:

People in India and China eat rice!
People in Ireland eat potatoes!
People in India and China predominately have brown eyes!
People in Ireland predominately have blue eyes!

Therefore, rice makes you eyes go brown and potatoes makes you eyes blue!

Daily Mail "Increase in Chinese eye problems linked to consumption of rice!"

Of course there are many reasons why immigrant children in London do well, no one is discounting them. Those reasons are well researched independently so don't make valuable research in understanding the London effect. As you point out, those other factor explain the differences, not the skin colour or ethnic background. That is very important to note to prevent racial arguments, and the paper and the BBC article make that point very clearly. The same care has to be taken whenever discussing why, for example, black people are over represented in certain crimes. As long as you understand that conflating factors exist and don't assume differences are related only to skin colour or race then there is no issue in discussing these topics.

But the London effect is better explained by the factor we already know to create a difference and that will still hold to be true across other cities that show different patterns to London ...

Finally, your argument that the paper is flawed seems to be that some people like the OP have made racists remarks (purportedly lighthearted). The paper specifically states there is no inherent differences and the authors can not be responsible for other peoples interpretations or statements when it makes this point very clear.

The paper is flawed because it tells us nothing meaningful or useful and has been produced at a time when its conclusions could be used for political gain. The fact is phrases its limited and meaningless remit to include that is interesting.
 
[FnG]magnolia;27202416 said:
groen, are you aware of the inherent irony of you being opposed to immigration? Genuine question, not starting fires.

Holy crap! I didn't realise that anything I dont mind is groen, all those posts make SO much more sense (figuratively) now!
 
In the abstract of the study it says quite plainly that it sets out to try and prove that london does better because of diversity.

This paper contributes to understanding the ‘London Effect’, focussing on the role of the ethnic composition.

Focusing spelt wrong as well. pfft

This in my opinion is a major problem in the uk education system, Ive said it before, it is not focused on economics enough and economics does not play a big enough role in all the different subjects. The left is obsessed with equality/diversity/multiculturalism their understanding of most subjects comes out of this equality mantra, they base their understanding of reality on this equality mantra.

This in my opinion is why we have a "lazy british" because they are not taught about economics or that they have the potential to be productive people. They are taught that there is a class based society and that the only way they can achieve success is through equality, no jokes. While from my perspective equality does not exist and never will and everyone has the same opportunities in front of them they just need to work hard and put the effort in.

Oh and re magnolia, not ignore the question... I am not against immigration (what made you think that) and if you implying that i am immigrant? i am english, i just grew up in south africa.
 
Last edited:
OCUk has always been very biased and has a terrible historic reputation for racism and homophobia. OCUK forums have been known as technical support for the BNP.

Yes it does and that is the impression I was given before coming here. And for someone who does not 'ethnically' derive from GB I did take note. But the problem isn't racism, that's one component the problem is discrimination and lack of equality for people - not just for things that have the weight to have law enshrined for there special -ism.

OCUK is much more balanced these days and the forum moderation take more care to stop anti-Muslim, antisemitism, homophobic and coloured racism threads before they get out of control in order to restore OCUK's reputation. OCUK does not have a history of white racism, quite the opposite, and that is why is likely why the thread o black criminal representation was stopped early before it went out of control and this thread remains (although it has been ruined by people unable to comprehend the research)

Yes, people will be more sensitive in certain areas when there is a historical reference point but that doesn't mean you can ignore things elsewhere. That just looks to be what it is unequal treatment and it fosters resentment.

As for the not understanding the research - which I am guessing is partially aimed at me - I would think when the like of me (a very pro-controlled needs based immigration supporter who is an immigrant themselves), RDM (a teacher ie someone professionally qualified in the specific area of concern), Elmarko (left wing), and a whole load of other people all taking to task the research presented in the OP then you should take a step back and check whether you've actually got it correct and should maybe think again ... because you are the only one who seems to think it is valid and is arguing as such.

and if you implying that i am immigrant? i am english, i just grew up in south africa.

Well I am British - my passport says so - but I grew up in Persia, India and Russia - which also makes me an immigrant - they are not mutually exclusive. Unless you were born in England which I believe you were not.
 
Last edited:
Does not equal what they put here:

"It is argued that ethnic minority pupils have greater ambition, aspiration
, and work harder in school. This is the main argument here – London has more of these pupils and so has a higher average GCSE score than the rest of the country"

Sorry but that is correlation not proven causation. It is however being applied as and is presented as causative.

You are trying to argue that since correlation does not equal causation, correlation never derives form causation. That is flawed logic, correlation is a natural outcome of causative factors which is why it is one of the most fundamental tools in science and statistics. Professor Burgess has examined the data statistically and presented the results along with a hypothesis relating the a possible causal factor (ambition and aspiration) to the observed data. This is presented as an argument and not proof, hence the phrase "It is argued". That is typical across all fields of science: correlation studies can indicate links between variables and potential causal factors can be presented. Further evidence is needed to prove those causal factors in future research. Perhaps Professor Burgess will be researching those factors in future work, go ask him if you want.

Socioeconomic status and childhood performance (plus language ability, adult health) is also only linked by correlation with various causal factors postulated but unproven. Strong correlations exist and sound reasons are argued, but they aren't proven except in a few specific cases.

Yes, I wonder why that is? Is it because the Birmingham results would disprove that it is not the fact they are from an ethnic minority but something else?

The Birmingham results are completely irrelevant to the study of London, as are results from Bangkok, Mumbai, Addis Ababa or Tashkent Uzbekistan. The study only researched London, why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Yes, I am looking for sound valid science that has a purpose not something looking for correlating factors that are most likely inconsequential

Most likely inconsequential in your opinion. This science does have a purpose, to investigate if the average London performance is better than the English average and what the main reasons for that effect are. The first sentence in the abstract sums up the goals perfectly:
This paper contributes to understanding the ‘London Effect’ , focussing on the role of the ethnic composition.


No, this research is aims to provide a pro-uncontrolled immigration argument. It fails to address known causative factors and uses a potentially limited to correlating factor to draw its conclusions. There is a reason for that - the research is biased. It reeks of it

Where is your evidence that the research is biased and driven by an agenda? If you have evidence it is biased then you can let Bristol University know because I am sure they wont want to be associated with biased research or unsound science. It doesn't try to address causative factors so it can't fail to address them. Furthermore, your argument is things like socioeconomic status of parents have a significant effect that is not accounted for - that effect is only known from correlations, there are no proven causation either.

Here is an example:

People in India and China eat rice!
People in Ireland eat potatoes!
People in India and China predominately have brown eyes!
People in Ireland predominately have blue eyes!

Therefore, rice makes you eyes go brown and potatoes makes you eyes blue!

Daily Mail "Increase in Chinese eye problems linked to consumption of rice!"

Again, you are trying to postulate that correlation is never an outcome of causative factors. That is flawed reasoning, correlation naturally follows from causation (and other non-causative coincidental factors).

But the London effect is better explained by the factor we already know to create a difference and that will still hold to be true across other cities that show different patterns to London ...

Is the London effect better explained by other factors? Do you have proof of that? Furthermore, do you have proof that these other factor are statistically independent of the ethnic background?

Your opinion is that school performance correlates positively with parental socioeconomic status. That is fine, the research doesn't seek to disprove that, in fact that might be one of the mechanisms that accounts for the results. Socioeconomic status also correlates positively with ethnic background/immigration status in London. Therefore ethnic background correlates with child school performance in London, which is supported by the data. You seem hellbent to recurse to a deeper level of research to prove why children from different ethnic backgrounds perform differently. That is valid research but is irrelevant to the the work done at Bristol University.



The paper is flawed because it tells us nothing meaningful or useful and has been produced at a time when its conclusions could be used for political gain. The fact is phrases its limited and meaningless remit to include that is interesting.
Even if the results are not meaningful to you personally doesn't make them flawed. They are a high level analysis of demographic differences in London compared to the rest of England. Not least the paper has provided additional evidence to support the existence of the London effect.

The timing of the research is just a natural outcome due to the "London effect" receiving increased research recently. The research was made in response to reports from the CFBT and IFS,
http://cdn.cfbt.com/~/media/cfbtcorporate/files/research/2014/r-london-schools-2014.pdf

Although there is substantial evidence of improvement in London schools, there is much less evidence of the causes of impact

The research by Prof Burgess is just work along the same direction, reaffirming the phenomenon exists and this time finding important ethnic differences in average performance that help explain the results. To explain why the immigrant children do so well, yes, you will have to look at other
factors
 
This is not new to me. When I started my PGCE Teacher training at Uni many, many moons ago we were presented with information that showed that Chinese students scored highest followed by Ind/Pak/others of same area next followed by Afro/Caribbean then white national last. This was the generation post slaughter of heavy industry in the UK.
 
So hold on, let me get this straight.

White folks are dumb and lazy.

Yet white folks on average earn more than other races in the UK, commit fewer crimes based upon population percentage and have lower birth rates.

:confused:

Too lazy to rob and shag perhaps...but where does this end up with us thickos in good jobs?
 
No, I am saying that there is no need to place emphasis on something that is correlated in one region when we have things shown to be causative across all regions ...

They aren't shown to be causative in general, almost all the correlations have no proven causation. most of the results look like this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17269519
Correlation between high risk obesity groups and low socioeconomic status in school children.
http://nau.edu/COE/eJournal/_Forms/spring2014/Hernandez/
The study found that SES had a strong correlation with the standardized test mathematics score

http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/lec321/Sirin_Articles/Sirin_2005.pdf
The author conducted a replica of White’s (1982) meta-analysis to see whether the SES–achievement correlation had changed since White’s initial review was published. The results showed a slight
decrease in the average correlation.

http://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=education_ETD_masters
ls There a Positive Correlation between Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement?

http://www.academia.edu/407935/PARE...E_PRIMARY_SCHOOL_IN_MALABATOWN_COUNCIL-UGANDA
The results showed that there was a positive correlation between the parents’ level of education,income and occupation with pupil’s educational performance


We are a long way of proving causal relationships, almost all studies can only report correlations. Research in to causal mechanisms is only just beginning, e.g.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/needlab/Publications/Noble et al., 2012 DevSci.pdf
the neurobiological pathways through which socioeconomic
status (SES) shapes development remain poorly understood.
...Likely mechanisms include..
Even with the begging of neurological evidence this research is only at the correlation stage, hence the conclusions simply list possible causal factors to try to explain the correlation in neurological differences, there is no proven neurological mechanism put forth, merely a correlation.

http://ilabs.washington.edu/kuhl/pdf/Raizada_etal_2008.pdf
a correlation between SES and the degree of hemispheric specialisation in the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), a region which includes Broca's area.

Maybe in the future there will be proof of the causal relationships but for now all the work is based on correlation studies, as is most science.


And even if you believe there is proof of causative reasons behind the correlation between socioeconomic status and child performance then that doesn't detract from the fact that socioeconomic status correlates with ethnic background and thus school performance correlates with ethnic background.

Your logic is flawed b trying to discredit research reporting correlations while trying to employ other known correlations to support your opinion.
 
Last edited:
So hold on, let me get this straight.

White folks are dumb and lazy.

Yet white folks on average earn more than other races in the UK, commit fewer crimes based upon population percentage and have lower birth rates.

:confused:

Too lazy to rob and shag perhaps...but where does this end up with us thickos in good jobs?

No, read the article and try again.
 
There is a point when the correlation becomes that repeatable and consistent then we can assume it is likely causative in the same way we can hold truth to occur in science even if we know its strict definition to be never be fulfilled. Unless of course you are suggesting that correlation is a binary concept?

But fine you think this research is relevant and fine. I don't.

And I suggest your really look at things before you say my logic is flawed you've just basically repeated the exact thinking behind my example of poor logical in post#162.

Indian people have brown eyes.
Indian people eat rice.
Rice makes your eyes go brown.

Sometimes you have to take a step back and look at more sensible reasons.
 
This is not new to me. When I started my PGCE Teacher training at Uni many, many moons ago we were presented with information that showed that Chinese students scored highest followed by Ind/Pak/others of same area next followed by Afro/Caribbean then white national last. This was the generation post slaughter of heavy industry in the UK.

The figures have changed since, the information we were given were Chinese still score highest, then Indians, then white, then Afro Caribbean. Though there is certainly an issue with underachievers as far as white boys go which has corresponded with the push for 50% University attendance leaving limited vocational choices as the schools focus on the academic.
 
I would say the real question in a modern society is why is white=British? As a second generation immigrant and father of mixed race children, I hate to think that my children aren't British enough ...
 
White does not = british. White British who ancestors go back 1000s of years on the same land will of course feel a much more nationalistic tendency to the land than someone who has been here for two or three generations. It is not a matter of british enough. The question in this thread is whether the white british have become lazy and whether immigration is some kind of solution for this laziness.
 
Back
Top Bottom