Slaying dragons: Myths as barriers for addressing inequalities in Higher Education Dr Jessica Gagnon Senior Research Fellow @Jess_Gagnon Arif Mahmud Senior Research Associate @Arif_Mahmud1

Overview % Perceptions vs. Reality Why Myths Persist The Backfire Effect Just World Theory Gaps by the Numbers Slaying Dragons Myth: Degree subject choice Myth: Tariff on entry Myth: Type of qualification Myth: Low tariff = high risk Myth: Who is biased? Suggested Strategies % Sam mouth

Perceptions vs. Reality Teenage pregnancy: the British public think 15% of girls under 16 get pregnant each year, when official figures are around 0.6%. Religion: the British public estimate the proportion of the population who are Muslims is 24%, when the reality is that Muslims make up 5% of the population in England and Wales. The British public estimate the proportion of Christians is 34%, when the actual proportion is 59% in England and Wales. Immigration: the British public think that 31% of the population are immigrants, when the official figures are 13%. Even estimates that attempt to account for illegal immigration suggest a figure closer to 15%. Age: the British public think that 36% of the population are 65+, when only 16% are. (Ipsos Mori, 2013)

Why Myths Persist: The Backfire Effect We would like to think that when a person’s beliefs are challenged with facts and evidence, they incorporate the new knowledge and alter their opinions based on the evidence. However, Research has consistently showed that when someone’s deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, their beliefs get stronger. This is called The Backfire Effect. (Peter and Koch, 2016; Trevors et al, 2016; Wood and Porter, 2016)

Why Myths Persist: The Just World Theory The Belief in a Just World (BJW) Theory (also called The Just World Theory or The Just World Fallacy), suggests that people generally desire to believe that the world is inherently just and that other people get what they deserve, no matter how much evidence of injustice is presented to the contrary. When faced with possible proof that the world is not inherently just, people are more likely to engage in victim blaming as way of coping without having to give up their Belief in a Just World. People who benefit from systemic inequalities believe they are more deserving, as if their privileges are rightfully and justly earned. Conversely, they believe that those who are socially excluded, oppressed, or disadvantaged are equally deserving of their lot in life . (Pietraszkiewicz, 2013; Bénabou and Tirole, 2006; Lerner, 1980).

National Gaps by the Numbers Home/EU BME students are 15% less likely to receive a 1st or a 2:1 to compared to Home/EU White peers (ECU, 2017). Students from the least advantaged backgrounds are 14% less likely to receive a 1st or a 2:1 to compared to students from more advantaged backgrounds (Mountford-Zimdars et al, 2015). Black students are 50% more likely to withdraw from university in England than their White and Asian peers (UPP, 2017). 8.8% of students from low socio-economic backgrounds withdraw from university compared with less than 5% withdrawal rates among students from the most advantaged backgrounds (OFFA, 2017). More Gaps by the Numbers: http://mindsets.port.ac.uk/?p=1259

Myth: Degree subject choice “Contrary to received opinion, the greater tendency of ethnic minorities to choose highly numerically competitive degree subjects only partially accounts for their lower offer rates from Russell Group universities relative to white applicants with the same grades and ‘facilitating subjects’ at A-level. Moreover, ethnic inequalities in the chances of receiving an admissions offer from a Russell Group university are found to be greater in relation to courses where ethnic minorities make up a larger percentage of applicants.” Boliver, 2016, p. 247

Myth: Tariff on entry Examining the five years of pre-cohort data across the Changing Mindsets project, the analysis of student outcomes by tariff on entry does not account for persistent attainment gaps within the schools and programmes participating in cohort one of the project. This finding is consistent with similar findings by Mountford-Zimdars et al (2015).

BME Attainment Gaps by Tariff: CCI

BME Attainment Gaps by Tariff: HUMSS

BME Attainment Gaps by Tariff: SCI

BME Attainment Gaps by Tariff: FBL

BME Attainment Gaps by Tariff: TEC

Myth: Low tariff = high risk

Myth: Type of qualification The type of qualification on entry may not explain persistent attainment gaps. In three out of the four schools in which we are running the Changing Mindsets intervention at UoP, White students who entered with BTECs were more likely to have attained a good degree compared to their White peers with A-levels. Over five years, 38.4% white students entered the school with A levels and 17.8% white students entered with BTECs 26.4% BME students entered with A levels and 20.8% BME students entered with BTECs For example, in one participating intervention school, the five year attainment data average showed that White students who entered with BTECs were more likely to receive a good degree (79.1%) than White students with A level qualifications (77.3%). However, BME students with BTECs were significantly less likely to receive a good degree (39%) compared with BME students with A level qualifications (51.9%) and with White students with BTECs and White students with A levels.

Mamoudou N'Diaye, Cognitive Behavioural Neuroscientist Myth: Who is biased? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfbKj1vYsQ&t=1s 30 seconds in to start Mamoudou N'Diaye, Cognitive Behavioural Neuroscientist

Suggested Strategies University strategies to address inequalities should be multi-faceted, including multiple research-informed and evaluated approaches, and should be embedded within the institutional culture in order to contribute towards the possibility of real, lasting change. University strategies for tackling attainment gaps should include myth-busting campaigns to dispel widely-held erroneous beliefs about why inequalities in student experiences and outcomes, including attainment gaps, persist. Universities should develop strategies to tackle attainment gaps using learner analytics to examine existing institutional data to better understand patterns of inequalities at the school or programme level. Given the potential for variation in attainment gaps even within the same faculties (or similar disciplines) within the same institution, university strategies to address inequalities should be tailored to account for those differences. Since the Changing Mindsets project initial findings indicate that most staff and students are likely to want to actively work towards creating inclusion, universities should provide opportunities for staff and students to work in partnership to address inequalities.

References http://bit.do/Slaying-Dragons

Raising Awareness Raising Aspiration Funded by: