Statistics

Outline of Stats Report Step 1 : Combination : Case Study (Kiran Ghuman and Alex Molloy) & Use of secondary data (IDAC, OFFA, HESA) which employ non-random sampling (Concentrating on poor population) Step 2 : 7 critical components : 1. Source of research and of the funding : Source = Poor students who apply for bursaries / Government funding – to make better funding policy decisions. 2. The researchers who had contact with the participants – Students Loan Company & agencies within the article 3. The individuals or objects studied and how they were selected - selected by postal code (poor population) 4. The exact nature of the measurements made or questions asked – What is your definition of poor / marginalized – based on family income “most deprived English postcodes” – probably based on tax data / exact nature of measurements to be found on website 5. The setting in which the measurements were taken – within 2006 – 2008 / climate of the economy affects education 6. Differences in the groups being compared, in addition to the factor of interest – “rich” compared to poor eg. Poorer students missing out on bursaries – factor of interest applies to people in poor postcode areas : who’re getting into university and who’re getting the bursaries 7. The extent or size of any claimed effects or differences – N/A Step 3 : Chapter 4 – Slide 33 Difficulties : (a) Not reaching the individuals selected because they were unresponsive (one in five failed to claim their entitlements in 2006-7) low response rate compared to 97% the previous year Assumption : only those who were reached were entitled to bursaries (b) 12,000 students – but if they don’t tick the option allowing information to be shared, they do not qualify as one of the participants – hindered response rate (c) Change the format of the application form format – to opt out instead of opt in this increased the number of participants (refer to Wilson’s link) [difficulties of not being able to reach out to everyone] Step 4 : “And there hasn’t been much improvement since 2002-3” – vague, in response to Mr Turner’s rhetorical question. Very problematic. Step 5 : Generally accepted knowledge : Social mobility is poor – poor cannot get to universities However... “But this perception could be about to change” because statistics prove otherwise Yes, it makes sense in the larger scope – it proves that government aid can help to alleviate social inequality – as seen in many socialist societies (Eg. Norway, Sweden) where the welfare state is heavily padded with sufficient funds to improve equality as a whole Step 6 : These poorer students could be experiencing a change in traditional mindset – garnering support from the family to pursue a higher education, as opposed to the traditional mindset of going out to work when you reach a certain age. They may be able to apply for grants offered by banks, instead of relying solely on the government bursaries. Active participation of the institutions that gave talks which educated the masses about the importance of University education – also aided in changing the mindset [crux of article praises the government’s act of providing more bursaries as the main reason why the number of poor students going to university are increasing] Step 7 : It changes our perspective that once you are born into a poor family, you will be locked in that social condition with no avenue out.