Race or Poverty?which is the largest contributing factor to life outcomes?

[motorbird83]

I was reading a study recently from the UK Dept of Education and Skills that asserted that it appears that much of the achievement gap between certain ethnic minorities and the white British population was attributable to socio-economic background. However, due to a lack of discrete data on race, economic background and achievement, it was impossible for the study to verify this statistically. Given the recent data coming out of the US regarding the narrowing of the black-white achievement gap, the simultaneous widening of the income achievement gap, and the growing size of the black middle class (estimated to be circa 50% of the black American population now) made me curious if anyone is aware of any studies that have been carried out that adjust life outcomes for minorities for socioeconomic background either in the US or the UK? I wonder if race would still be statistically significant once socioeconomic background was taken into consideration?

So much of the discourse on achievement in school, crime etc. centers on race when it is possible that the most significant determinant might actually be poverty. For me, it then raises the question why certain minorities are over-represented among the poor and what the best strategies are to increase social mobility for all people in the lowest socioeconomic bracket.

[????]

I think there was a recent study that shows white working class males are now the poorest achievers academically in the UK.

[Undisputedtruth]

Can you place a link for the DfES report? It sounds as though the report is quite old as the Department for Education and Skills predated the Tories.

[motorbird83]

Sure, here is the link.

http://jastoy.plus.com/pdf/minority_ethnic_attainment.pdf

[Huguenot]

Unless you are genuinely suggesting that the colour of your skin could affect your intelligence or aptitude then you're asking two separate questions:

Does social history mean that certain ethnic groups are disproportionately represented in poorer social segments?

Does this impact their social opportunity?

Either way, that study is cretinous. It's clear from the authors that a university education or employment and the University of Birmingham doesn't bestow energy into a dead brain.

I'd have chucked that study out at the point that I read the phrases 'Black, Pakistani, Bangldeshi, White, Gypsy/Roma, Chinese or Indian...'

Apart from frankly stupid use of capitalisation, it's making a gormless fudge between genetic issues (black or white), nation states (Chinese), religion (Pakistani/Indian) and culture (Gypsy/Roma).

The fact that this is based upon the census is irrelevant. The census makes a reasonable compromise based on popular prejudice to investigate social beliefs and identity, but makes no attempt to extrapolate this to wider behaviours.

I'm furious that studies like this have prompted kind people like yourself motorbird to pursue the debate as if it has merit.

If you genuinely want to investigate this then you need to ask other questions:

What are my beliefs?

What is my social environment?

What are my resources?

What are my influences?

What are my expectations?

What is my methodology?

What have I achieved?

You'll discover quite quickly that distinctions about skin colour are quite irrelevant.

[motorbird83]

Huhuenot, I am certainly not suggesting that aptitude or criminality have anything inherent to do with skin color. I believe the exact opposite of that.

There is a lot of monitoring of life outcomes and crime based on race (particularly in the US but also here) to asses and quantify progress in various achievement gaps etc. that have historically existed as well as a host of theories about why such gaps exist. My question is how significant is race when economic factors are controlled for statistically and does anyone know of a study. If the over-representation of certain minorities among the poor completely explains the phenomena then the focus of debate should shift to understanding why certain groups are over-represented amongst the poor and start defining policy strategies to address social mobility rather than focusing on race so much. Often times (including on this forum) "black culture" itself has been blamed which I have always felt instinctively was nonsense. Even if as a group certain ethnic minorities have an achievement gap for instance, if those gaps don't exist at all for the middle class members of that group vis-a-vis the white middle class, then I think it really re-frames the debate...

Part of the reason I am asking is because I grew up in America where there is a significant and growing black middle class (despite the country's legacy of racial discrimination etc), and I am really shocked by how small the black middle class is in London, where I was expecting it to be thriving given the generally greater tolerance and openness I believe exist here. I don't want to jump to conclusions about the differences between the two countries or even that the hypothesis above is correct which is why I am hoping to hear other views and if possible be directed to any hard studies on the matter that exist.

Thanks!

[Huguenot]

I can't see the relevance of the skin colour at all.

I'm aware of the US obsession with race, and that doesn't make it any more correct. The existence of countless studies on the subject is just an illustration of the number of idiots in the world.

If you want to study social mobility, start with beliefs, environment, resources, influences, expectations and infrastructure.

If you can just get through that, you'll discover that those are the key criteria and the colour of their skin means nothing.

If you can manage that as a work of genuine intellectual maturity you'll avoid adding to the ever increasing pile of barely concealed academic racism asserting 'is it coz I is black?'

[motorbird83]

Thank you ????-- I have been trying to find the original study you mentioned but I am struggling. I do know now that the government committed to target working class white boys and give them additional support following the release of the report. Some have also argued that previous targeted support for certain ethnic minorities was successful and is responsible for the relative change in performance within the working class.

Government policies like this are what worry me. If anyone has taken the time to study the most important non-racial factors, a better targeted approach could be adopted. For instance, I am sure there is significant heterogeneity even within the working class. For example, if being in care, being a recent immigrant, etc are the most significant factors, the government?s racially targeted programs don?t appear to be the most effective use of tax revenue to improve outcomes. For me this is really a public policy issue and I can?t see that appropriate research adjusted for race has been carried out. If anyone else knows of anything, that would be great. The right research would allow us to properly identify the most important factors and specifically target those most at risk of not achieving their potential.

If poverty as many speculate is the most predictive variable, my other concern is why are certain ethnic minorities disproportionately in poverty (it might be historical issues such as a greater portion of low-skilled migrants which has is now entrenched by a lack of social mobility but that is pure speculation). Whatever the underlying reason is, in Britain it appears based on report by the OECD that social mobility is harder achieve for all groups in this country relative to other developed countries. Even education is not enough (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf). Research on the underlying causes of poverty and a lack of social mobility and how/ if they disproportionately impact certain groups in my view would lead to better policies than the existing approaches such as the government policy at the link below

http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/aio/10114284

Unfortunately, I am not sure anything like this exists yet but was hoping someone on the forum could point me in the right direction.

[HAL9000]

In case anyone missed the kernel of wisdom buried amongst all that loquacious prose above, I paraphrase:

Those who think or even suspect that genetics and intelligence are linked are racists.

Scientists and academics who try to resolve the question are idiots.

 

[gamerr]

.

[motorbird83]

That is not what I am saying. I don't think researchers are idiots or racists. I think a lot of research assumes that discrimination or ethnic minorities "sub-culture" are potentially more important than non-racial variables in determining life outcomes. This is a big assumption that should be tested so that the best research and public policy can be put in place.

[HAL9000]

I'm sorry, Frank. I think you missed it.

[Undisputedtruth]

@motorbird, Hal's post was not aimed at you or the report for that matter.

This report reminded me about the time when I was at school. Twelve of us took O'level maths a year early and we were told that getting a 'C' grade was regarded as failure. We all passed but there was one person who got a 'C'. He was definitely one of the brightest guys in the group and should have got an 'A'. He was black and I can't help feeling that it was his background that played a part in his downfall.

[motorbird83]

That's interesting Undisputedtruth. What exactly about his background do you think contributed to him not living up to his potential. I'm just curious what made you feel that way.

Gamerr- if you are asking that I acknowledge that there are significant social issues in the US, I readily do so. What exactly though do you think the statistics you quoted me are indicative of? I'm not being snide, I want to understand your point better. The Met's percentage of street crime suspects that are caught shows a similarly skewed patter (12% of London's population is black vs. 54% of the caught suspects). The national UK prison population follows a similar pattern: 14% of the prison population vs. 2.0% of the general UK population.

[HAL9000]

@motorbird83 - Apologies if you have already done this:

If I were asking such questions, I would probably look at comparable crime statistics in those countries where the ratio of blacks to whites are biased in the other direction.

For example; South Africa and the countries of Central and West Africa. It might be a good idea to include some Caribbean islands like Jamaica, too, which may help to better model the black minorities within predominantly white populations.

If one were to Google something like "Crime in Africa" or "Crime in the Caribbean" quite a lot of articles are found.

This NationMaster regional index page provides access to country-by-country crime statistics, apparently.

Surely, such a comparison would provide some insight into whether nature or nurture has the upper hand at various loci on the human spectrum?

[Huguenot]

"He was definitely one of the brightest guys in the group and should have got an 'A'. He was black and I can't help feeling that it was his background that played a part in his downfall."

You of course get the problem with this statement?

The colour of his skin is a genetic specification, if "it was his background that played a part in his downfall" then the reference to his skin colour is pointless - any reference to it is to draw a racist conclusion about his background based on his genetics.

There is no doubt that the legacy of disenfranchisement, involuntary relocation and enslavement of a group of individuals results in a poor foundation upon which to build a secure future, but it is issues that are unrelated to skin colour that have the impact.

In other words beliefs, environment, resources, influences, expectations and infrastructure.

If you start making assumptions about individuals by extrapolating from the general to the specific based on genetic coding (in other words 'blacks have these problems so it's a black issue') you are simply being racist. That's all.

The fact is that any person subject to the same sort of variables (beliefs, environment, resources, influences, expectations and infrastructure) will respond in exactly the same way.

You grow up in France, you'll speak French.

Ergo the colour of their skin is irrelevant.

Population and genetics are based on standard deviation bell curves, and whatever modal differentiation can be drawn between racial groups based on genetic variation such as athleticism or pugnaciousness, the vast proportion (99%+) of the various populations overlap.

Therefore it is clearly alternative metrics that come in to play: namely beliefs, environment, resources, influences, expectations and infrastructure.

As a result, any policy aimed at resolution of poverty issues when based on these metrics is more likely to deliver if it addresses these key issues rather than their skin colour. The victims (by legacy, family, genetic coding or otherwise) will be addressed proportionately to their misfortune.

QED any study based on a racial resolution to these problems both misses the point and will fail in its execution.

Stop being racist, and you'll have a chance of a study worth pursuing.

You don't need a study or a grant to work that out - just the application of commonsense and mathematics.

[Huguenot]

Incidentally, the frustration and righteous anger of the white underclass is entirely predicated upon the fact that some daft academics are insisting on producing resolutions based on race or religion rather than the self-evident reality that these are simply missing the point.

If you want scoial cohesion, which I'm sure motorbird does, stop being prejudiced and focus on the real issues.

[HAL9000]

I think it is plausible to read the reference to 'background' within the cited context as meaning someone with a black ancestry, which is how I interpreted it ? otherwise it would be open to your criticism.

[HAL9000]

It would be interesting to hear your views on the work of Hans Eysenck and The Bell Curve?

Edited because I pressed post instead of preview, doh!

[gamerr]

.

[HAL9000]

I disagree, at least in respect of the UK, where everyone has access to education, health care and welfare benefits. We often see penniless, immigrants become multimillionaires through hard work and ambition. Actually, I know of a few illiterate, penniless, immigrants who have done very well for themselves.

Other factors must be at play.

[nashoi]

HAL9000 Have you read the links I posted on another recent thread

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?27,831644,832019#msg-832019

A huge amount of money has been made in recent decades by psychologists selling IQ and psychometric tests to corporate HR depts.

Personally, I agree with Huguenot, as long as you maintain the clear distinction between race and ethnicity.

[motorbird83]

HAL9000-- thanks for the link. I am not really trying to see if increased criminality is inherent in certain races genetically as I don't believe it is (that's my personal conviction). I think cross country analysis when the socio-economic profile and culture of the countries are so different can also lead to false conclusions. For example, Jamaica is crime ridden but there are several other black west-Indian islands that have very little crime. Also, Jamaica wasn't always so violent. Race hardly seems to explain the phenomenal increase in violence and crime in that country over the last 30 years. However, immigration from countries steeped in a culture of violence is an interesting element of the picture we are all trying to put together. The academic response to the Bell Curve (Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns) seems to suggest additional research is needed. IQ is always a tricky one. For years, average IQ scores were increasing suggesting the average human being was becoming rapidly more intelligent. However, many analysts believe that the test in part measures a specific type of modernity which is as an inherent bias in the test. Now the test has to be reset accordingly ever so often to adjust the mean score as the average person becomes more "modern". The test itself is imperfect and what the race gap might be more broadly indicative of I don't know. It could just be a lag in the Flynn effect between the two groups that will tale off over time. If the gap has been steady over the years (I don't know), as the Flynn effect tales off for one group (as it has done for certain nations after a certain point) and continues for another group, whatever bias there is in what IQ is measuring will taper off. From what I understand, the gap has already started to narrow which to me suggests it can't be measuring any true / permanent genetic differential. In the UK, as another poster pointed out, working class black boys outperform working class white boys which to me suggests that we should not build any kind of policy around some idea of genetic inferiority.

Nashoi-- that study is really interesting. There was a study commissioned last year that reported that black middle class parents routinely express concerns that teachers have lower expectations of their children which would tie in quite interestingly to what you are saying. http://www.ioe.ac.uk/Study_Departments/CeCeps_The_Education_Strategies_Summary.pdf

The question of immigration is a tough one as well. In the US at least, the children of immigrants from Africa and the West Indies tend to do significantly better in school / life outcomes than their African American counterparts. Patterns of immigration (specific countries, educational background of immigrants prior to moving ect) seems to be relevant. As we all know, certain ethnic minorities more than outperform and how much of this can be explained by patterns of immigration would be interesting to know (the UK specifically recruited Indian professionals after World War II, whereas in the West Indies the recruitment drive was for bus drivers-- no joke-- and blue collar workers). It really raises the question if poverty, institutional expectations, or family expectations is the most significant factor in determining if someone lives up to their potential. There are certainly cases of poor minorities including immigrants being very successful. There are a lot of contributing factors but within the matrix of variables there must be a few that are the most influential.

The complexities of the issues involved demand much deeper analysis than the really superficial analysis and programs that are currently being carried out. I believe that as difficult as these issues are to tackle, we can as a society make progress but only if we really understand what is going on. Identifying what backgrounds (socio-economics, immigration pattern, etc) are most at risk and creating targeted programs is key. For instance if family and institutional expectations seem to be the most important, creating strong mentor programs might be much more effective than other approaches.

Like you gamerr, I have no idea what the crime statistics mean or any research that has been done to really try to explain / tackle them. The only arguments I hear are that they are indicative of institutional racism from the police and while that might explain some of it, it doesn't feel to me like a full explanation of the over-representation.

Unfortunately, I have been looking for detailed data on which regression analysis could theoretically be performed but like one of the reports I posted bemoaned, discrete data in sufficient detail hasn't been collected to really get at root causes.

Very interesting comments from everyone.

[HAL9000]

motorbird83 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... I am not really trying to see if increased criminality is inherent in certain

> races genetically as I don't believe it is (that's my personal conviction). ...

With respect, no serious academic researcher using scientific methods would make such a statement. You have all but admitted to cherry picking data that supports your preconceived notions.

Before the questions you ask can be answered accurately, the underlying genetic components of, for example, intelligence (which has a heritability of ±0.75 according to the prevailing scientific consensus) or criminality, etc., have to be quantified - a process that may or may not eliminate them from the equations on a sound scientific basis.

Ignoring such factors on the basis of personal conviction is pseudoscience.

[motorbird83]

Apologies for the long posts...

HAL9000, I think we are talking at cross purposes. First, I am not an academic researcher so sorry if I gave the impression that I am. I am just interested in the topic and want to learn more about the academic research.

Second, I agree that there is strong heritability to IQ and have never said otherwise. There is a lot of academic controversy surrounding the implications of environmental factors (i.e. familiarity with tackling certain types of critical / abstract thinking exercises, like taxonomy, test taking itself etc) on IQ. One of Rushton and Jenson?s most recent arguments (2010) against the mathematical likelihood that the Flynn effect could potentially narrow the race gap was the fact that the achievement gap was stable (actual school achievement implicitly in their view being most correlated with g or pure intelligence) and that secular gains illustrated of the Flynn effect were not heritable or predictive of academic attainment (which was only g). Very recent data in the US has now suggested that the racial achievement gap has narrowed significantly, which to some extent brings into question certain elements of that hypothesis. Recent studies have also suggested that socioeconomic background is the greatest predictor of academic attainment in the US (even more than the quality of schooling). Now another reason socioeconomics has been dismissed as an explanation of the race gap is that even when controlling for socio-economic background the achievement gap still persists in the US. However, the study we discussed earlier that shows that amongst the working class in Britain, white boys are the worst performers again brings this into question outside of the US. The racial achievement gap has shrunk in the US across all socioeconomic backgrounds further complicating the picture. You can find the names of the studies if you wish to read them in the NY Times article link below. Many have argued that IQ is a strong measure for intelligence due to its high correlation with academic attainment. The debate is clearly politically charged regarding what exactly constitutes IQ and more importantly, its implications for the potential academic success of certain groups. Each side of the debate accuses the other of poor methodology. However, recent evidence does seem to suggest that the picture is much more dynamic than some researchers previously contended. If what we are really concerned with is attainment and success, doing analysis adjusting for IQ is complicated. Studies like the Pygmalion in the Classroom cannot be easily dismissed nor can the widening achievement gap between rich and poor (unless we think the intelligence of the poor or that of the rich is experiencing significant shifts as well).

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/education/education-gap-grows-between-rich-and-poor-studies-show.html?pagewanted=print

Third, my point about criminality was twofold. First, I am not aware of a major school of thought that suggests that certain races have a genetic predisposition to street crime or violence though perhaps I am just not aware of it (I have heard the low IQ argument regarding street crime). It had not occurred to me to find any studies or data to prove or disprove this in anyway. My emphatic statement was to clarify my position as it?s easy for misunderstandings when communicating via a forum. My second point was that I wasn?t sure your suggested methodology of cross country analysis was appropriate anyhow given there would be so many variables to try and control for.