Jason Arday, Cambridge Plagiarist, thread two

[Angeruish]

We are nearing our 1000-post limit on the original thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5561878-jason-arday-cambridge-plagiarist?reply=153910946

I have now removed the question mark after "plagiarist".

I can't believe the sequel will be as good as the original, but you never know...

Nobody cared about Arday until he got a job at Cambridge and even then it was only about race. The complainant was someone who believes that Black people are only at elite institutions due to DEI.

The evidence was running Arday's PHD through an APP and even after being cleared the media decided they had to find something on him.

Despite all the claims of Arday's lack of ability it took 10 years after his PHD to notice he was incapable and even then it wasn't a complaint about his employment at any of the universities he worked.

What this tragic event shows is that there are spaces that black people generally don't belong in according to many and it's really not worth trying to enter them especially if you are not from a wealthy background.

It's not like all the white people working at Cambridge are there on merit alone

There is plenty of evidence showing that Jason was underperforming in terms of tutorial supervision and lecturing at Cambridge but valid criticism was quickly shot down with accusations of racism. I wonder if this pattern had happened at any of the other universities? It takes courage to whistle blow if you are in danger of being branded racist.

Re: the claim that black males have worse academic results. It's a varied picture. Iirc those from Ghanaian / Nigerian and west African origin had higher than average attainment whilst those of Carribbean were below*. Arday, from that New Statesman piece was of Ghanaian origin. From the summaries he cites his family as a driving force for him to achieve. It's very aspirational and it's not unthinkable that like with south Asian and east Asian parents I'm familiar with they saw him getting a straight academic career as the ultimate proof of his success.

• If we're talking about black academics being vilified then Dr Tony Sewell found himself absolutely pelted by a number of activists (who are currently calling for vengeance for Arday) for this finding with his report.

https://archives.battleofideas.org.uk/2021/speaker/dr-tony-sewell-cbe/

I wonder if this pattern had happened at any of the other universities?

He didn't spend more than 18 months in any job so not even time to supervise a single PhD. My suspicion is that he got continually promoted upwards to get rid of him once they realised that despite any personal qualities how useless he was at actually doing the job he was hired for.

Same. Have been feeling quite sorry for the way she has been treated by Labour - as a woman, and as a black woman to boot - but then she ploughs in with all this ill considered uncritically evaluated ideological claptrap and I just can’t overlook her stupidity. If you say anything about anything and are not black, you are a racist in her eyes.

I am pretty sure in any other profession/industry, that would be the conclusion drawn. My DH wouldn’t hire anyone who had moved around as much as he did and had not stayed in role/company for a minimum of 5 years, as his inference was that he was a ‘managed’ employee - ie one they could not get rid off without a tribunal/being accused of some sort of discrimination, so they manoeuvre them into wanting to leave of their own volition.

Some times an ‘on paper’ promotion that springboards them into another position somewhere else is a tactical move. A dishonest one, yes, but if you make it so hard to question someone’s performance and attitude because of DEI protections, how else can you do it?

@N0tAnAcadem1c I won’t write an essay on the Sarah Ditum comment but basically she talks about claims in his book that are false: some clearly very exaggerated claims that were rejected by the publisher and a childish brazenness to his exaggeration and inventions. She mentions that a journalist at the Guardian also investigated Arday’s harassment claims and another one who wrote about him exploiting autism to cover his actions .

She says he had a single 1:1 supervision during his PhD at LJMU. Arday also had reported a journalist from the THE to the police. Carter Ruck defamation lawyers were used by Arday and the THE backed off from asking further questions. She feels there was some racism in the agenda of a few, but had everything been out in the open and truthful, and dealt with appropriately, there would have been limited interest.

She lists who was harmed by his self-mythologising: academics, early career lecturers, Sen families, students. She had also reviewed his book and talks about his celebrity and media rounds when he was appointed. Most academics don’t get do this. She raised doubts when she reviewed the book and feels he chose the spotlight. She’s aware of the media storm and feels he’s now been cast as a martyr. She believes the issues raised by numerous people should have been dealt with earlier by various institutions and he should never have been promoted as a somebody and the book should never have been published. She thinks Arday wanted his lies to be the truth but the unluckiest thing that ever happened to him was that he was successful in getting what he wanted and thought he deserved.

Hope that’s a good summary.

Here is an archive link to the article

https://archive.ph/wF3p5

"If we have black males on average getting worse grades than white males at school this is a societal problem that should be addressed by schools and society at large."

We don't. I haven't gone into all the statistics, but:

"For example, of those eligible for free school meals (FSM), only 34% of White British boys, 35% of mixed White and Black Caribbean boys, and 36% of Caribbean boys attained grade 4 in both English and maths GCSEs in 2023."

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2024-0043/

Nobody destroyed Jason Arday. They questioned his claims, which is going to happen to anyone who gains publicity and position from them.

Nobody is digging into my past because there is nothing of interest and I'm not claiming that there is.

https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/access-to-advantage-university-admissions/

This is a few years old but it explores the issue.

Lots of allegations but not any real factual evidence at this stage. Suspect more details will be known after the completed investigation.

If there were complaints at other universities then I'm surprised Cambridge wouldn't have been aware of them.

Surely Cambridge would know that employing Arday would come with scrutiny. It's not like he's the first black person to kill themselves after being accused of exaggerating their CV and accomplishments based on hounding by the media.

Then the task is to get more to apply to Oxbridge....

If grades on average don't differ between ethnicities what exactly is the axe that DEI advocate s want to grind?

Exactly. But they’ve got to hone their skills for the next victim I suppose. Or maybe they are guiltily trying to justify their meanness?

Again, it feels like MumsNet is one of the few corners of the internet where open nuanced discussion about complex issues possible. Similar to the gender ideology topic.

Thanks!

We don't have DEI in the UK.

The argument is that those who select tend to select those who look and come from similar backgrounds as those selecting.

The idea it that organisations with low numbers of under represented groups should look at whether there are any reasons other than merit why these groups are under represented. If there are then measures should be put in place to try to increase the numbers.

The idea isn't basically to select based on race as some seem to be suggesting when it comes to ethnic minorities.

I watched this expecting to be outraged by Cofnas and I wasn't. I was helpful to understand the background from his perspective and examine the case for DEI.

That study doesn’t support what you claimed. Your claim was specifically about Oxbridge.

You said that an independent student was more likely to be admitted than a state school pupil with the same grades which implied there is bias in the system where independent pupils are preferred over state school.

The research you linked to examines the phenomenon of independent pupils aiming high and state school pupils aiming less high in their university/course choices. That is a different issue that should be addressed (most likely at school level) but it isn’t one of bias in university admissions.

The report also was examining the less able cohort at independent schools not the top cohort which wld be the ones applying for Oxbridge.

So I think - without evidence - it is misleading to suggest independent school pupils are accepted into Oxbridge preferentially over state school pupils with the same grades. I am happy to be convinced otherwise by data.

It wasn't cofnas who exposed him I thought. There'd been the other academics in sociology who'd been gently raising issues over his work and getting knocked back

You could hardly be more wrong.

The UCL study that you cite does not, as far as I can see, take into account A-level subject choices. This would be a serious weakness because pupils in private schools are known to sit on average more academically demanding A-levels. Furthermore, the focus of the study was specifically not on elite universities. The present discussion is about Cambridge, and Cambridge's analysis of its results was posted earlier in this thread. The evidence here is not of "a system that results in independent school pupils getting places ahead of more able state school pupils. Indeed, we know that currently an independent school pupil is more likely to be admitted than a state school pupil with identical grades" - far from it.

FOI requests have repeatedly shown a pattern, Oxford requiring higher GCSE grades from private schools, and other RG universities requiring higher A-level results, see for example https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/30/private-school-pupils-twice-likely-need-top-grades-universities/ ; and when Cambridge made admission decisions based on UMS scores, tutors were explicit about privately educated applicants requiring a 2-3 point premium.

As a consequence at Cambridge, state school attendance is a strong independent predictor of poor performance. Privately educated students are now nearly 50% more likely to achieve firsts than pupils from comprehensive schools, and more than 25% more than students from grammar schools. If you want a system that treats applicants from state and private schools fairly you would have to go back to 2012 when they truly were of the same ability and had similar outcomes.

Ethnicity is an even stronger predictor of a poor outcome than school type, as you can see in the figures for percentage marks in Samoylova's multiple regression analysis: Black estimate = -3.30, SE = 0.62, t = -5.35, p< 0.001 vs Comprehensive estimate = -0.70, SE = 0.19, t = -3.63, p< 0.001. If you want to see DEI done badly, look no further than Cambridge.

I think it’s both.

That is quite old and based on data from 2017, so almost 10 years old, and doesn’t reflect the significant leaps that London state schools in particular have achieved in getting their students into top universities (Oxbridge and Russell group).

It does show that success rates for independent schools are similar to grammar schools, both of which are higher than state 6th forms and then state comprehensives.

It does also note: The results of students accepted to Russell Group universities were similar across school types, equivalent to between AAA and AAB on average. At Oxbridge this rises to Astar A star A.

So it doesn’t support PP original claim.

I'm sorry, but have read the responses to your earlier comments? Do you not understand the wider ramifications of all of this?

Because they are significant. This has all been explained and I'm not wasting my time going through it all again.

Edited to delete as posted twice.

@Marchesman The outcomes for private school pupils might well reflect only the absolute elite are now the only ones who get it! The number of them getting a 2:1 has reduced because this cohort have been removed. Not so from other schools.