Skip to main content

Dodgy Statistics at the Labour Conference

This week’s Labour Party conference has put forward a proposal to radically restrict private schools. In essence, the policy seems to have three strands - remove the beneficial tax arrangements, restrict the entry to universities from private schools to 7% of the entry and, at the most extreme, to get rid of the private schools entirely, taking over their assets.

The first of these seems eminently doable. Most commentary seems to suggest the last is just rhetoric and is unlikely to happen. But what interests me with a statistical hat on is that 7%.  Because it makes no sense at all.

While it is true that only 7% of children attend private schools, this isn’t a sensible number to apply here. If you want a flat attendee number, then what’s important is the number of students taking A-levels, where the percentage is more like 15%. But even this figure is misleading.

The problem is that far more private schools are selective than are state schools. It would be ridiculous to expect the same percentage to get into universities from a non-selective and a selective school. So if Labour want to apply a percentage it would have to be weighted to account for this.

I have no axe to grind for private schools - I don’t particularly like them. The school I attended is now a private school, but was a grammar school when I attended it. My children went to the local comprehensive. But to misuse statistics in this way is just as insidious as the infamous Brexit bus. When are politicians going to stop misusing statistics to try to mislead the public?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more