If you eat a lot of data it leaves you feeling hungry

After looking at some data suggesting that in at least one case, overall staffing at a university was overwhelmingly non-academic two questions arose: 1) What do they all do?  2) What proportion would be appropriate?  The data here (which has been partially discussed here) has some answers.

Page 38 of  the Equality in Higher Education: Statistical Report 2012, Part 1 Staff classifies non-academic staff into groups. Within the classifications of the data, non-academics in a university fill these sorts of roles:

Laboratory, engineering, building, IT and medical technicians (including nurses); Student welfare workers, careers advisors, vocational training instructors, personnel and planning officers; artistic, media, public relations, marketing and sports occupations, library assistants, clerks and general administrative assistants; Secretaries, typists, receptionists and telephonists; chefs, gardeners, electrical and construction trades, mechanical fitters and printers; Caretakers, residential wardens, sports and leisure attendants, nursery nurses and care occupations; Retail and customer service occupations; Drivers, maintenance supervisors and plant operatives; Cleaners, catering assistants, security officers, porters and maintenance workers.

There. That is what they do, at least in broad categories. Question 1 answered.

Is there anything to help with the question 2? Yes. Consider page 19 of the report. It shows that the proportion of academic staff in UK HEIs has grown over the last ten years. This is a good trend. 

Why?

It is good, because as important as chefs, gardeners, and drivers are, people do not pay to go to university to eat, look at grass, or drive stuff around. They are unlikely to go to a university where they can’t eat, where the landscape looks like a tip (a dump for Americans), and everything stays in the loading dock, so, yes, these roles are important, but not the purpose of the organisation. Students and their families do not envision “Operations Support Officers in the Student Experience Team” when they sign up to ~£30k of debt.  What they want are highly qualified experts in their fields who can teach. So, the trend is encouraging.

The growth has been slow, from 44.4% to 47.5% over roughly a decade but this is positive change. Professional and support staff is still the majority and this sector average seems reasonably healthy. 

What about the variance? You may have heard about the statistician who drowned in a river with an average depth of 3 feet.

Alas, this information is missing. Like all statistical studies, those 222 pages make you realise that one bit of information you want has been left out. The standard deviation is missing. Individual institution data is absent so you can’t compute it yourself. However, it is clear that within a sector averaging 47.5% academic staff, any institution with 17-34% academic staff is a long way from the norm.

What about the underlying mechanism producing the change? Is the change because all the cleaners are being let go and replaced by an external contractor? Are institutions focusing (albeit slowly) on their teaching and research missions, and hiring more academic staff and using the others more efficiently? I don’t think anyone knows. 

That is the bad thing about data, it always leaves you hungrier for more. Good thing brains don’t get fat because I have been eating data like a pig.

A failure to look: Equality and the Zero Hours Contract

One of the maddening things about the UK HE system is its bureaucracy: the forms, the spreadsheets, the surveys, the even more forms and spreadsheets, and the bean counting. This maddening bureaucracy also makes possible one of the things I love. Data. There is all sorts of data, just waiting for someone to make sense of it. If you love trawling through data the UK higher education system is your friend. But you have to give some if you want to get some. 

For example, a survey I was asked to fill out relating to equality issues left me here when I completed it. My curiosity got the better of me and I ended up looking at the Equality in Higher Education: Statistical Report 2012, Part 1 Staff all 222 pages of it. It has 222 pages of tables, graphs, numbers, and a bit of descriptive text. It is a delightful read J. Were it something a student of mine turned in, it would get a comment to the effect of “the presentation is almost wholly descriptive with little or no interpretation or context.” 

I will try to provide some.  

There is much to celebrate in the data. At least if you don't get out very often. As an example, the trend in gender equality is getting inexorably better in Universities, at least as long as you don’t look at support staff or have concerns about trends in individual subject areas. There is no progress in support staff and despite the broad trend toward equal representation in academic positions, the subject areas are well segregated by gender, as are professor roles and higher academic management. 

In a previous post, I discussed some data from an HEI suggesting academic staff represented  somewhere between 17% and 34% of people employed at a particular university. At the time, in order to accept the higher figure (34%) you had to include hourly paid lecturers. 

There is something reassuring about the idea of an hourly paid lecturer, but it hinges on an underlying assumption  that someone appointed to an hourly paid position has a job. This assumption would be false. They have a contract, not a job. They might have a job but then again they might not.

An hourly paid position means you have a contract to do hourly paid work, nothing more.  Many hourly paid lecturers have a "zero-hours contract." This contract gives you a permanent position. It also comes with no obligation on either side – no obligation from the employer to offer any work and no obligation from the contract recipient to do any. For those familiar with the US system, this is very similar to the adjunct system. That system marginalises a whole class of sometimes excellent educators. A recent example, is the story of the death of an adjunct professor who taught at Duquesne University for 25 years and died in squalor. This is of course extreme, however, via my circle of friends and acquaintances I have come across other cases of marginalised educators working adjunct positions.

Much is known about adjuncts in the US. There has been relatively little said about the UK system. It is better in one regard, it comes with access to the National Health Service. Beyond that, anyone reading a recent article in the Guardian will be struck by the similarities: people unable to heat their houses, people unable to repair them, people working hard for a wage that is arguably below the minimum wage. The words marginalised and exploited, appear a lot. These are words associated with inequality. Just the sort of thing a set of statistics on Equality in Higher education would be well placed to address. What do the stats say?

I am sure they would have quite a bit to say about marginalisation, but...

... the data are not there. Some people don’t count. Wonderful as all this data is, like all data sets it is defined by what it leaves out. Some people just don’t rate high enough to be counted. People on hourly contracts don’t count. People on zero hours contracts don’t count. They were excluded. Little is known about this group. They don’t appear in the breakdowns by salary type. They do not appear in salary data. They do not appear in the data on disabilities, or gender, or ethnicity. 

What we have here is a failure to look. A 222 page report on equality in higher education with graphs and figures and occasional descriptive text will be a failure if it does not look at the realities of higher education. The only reference to zero-hours or hourly contracts is on page 13 where it indicates they were excluded. It is worse that they were excluded rather than overlooked. It suggests someone knew they were present but were not considered important enough to be considered equal.  To the credit of Unions, they are the only group trying to get data. UCU (a union) has made freedom of information requests to UK universities. Similarly, Unions have been trying to help Adjunct Professors in the US.  In the meantime if no one collects the data, it is license to discriminate. If ever there was a marginalised pool of workers, this is one.

What every academic needs to know about rape.

For many women, this will not be new. In my case, over the summer I finally "got" what people had been discussing half my life. I had always been concerned but had somehow missed the forest and was too worried about a small part of it.

Why does an academic need to know about rape? Because our students are at their peak risk years for becoming both victims and perpetrators of rape. Of women who are raped, more than half of the total are reported to have been raped before they turn 18.  Affected women in higher education will be dealing with acute responses to rapes suffered while at University and with the aftermath of earlier experience. Be ready to listen so that when someone speaks you can hear and be prepared to direct them to sources of support. Most Universities have counselling services. Be prepared with the contact details. A student may present other signs of distress such as loss of engagement with studies and indications of self-harm. Be prepared and try to get them support.

For men, studies indicate that rapists start in their early teens with the majority perpetrating their first rape by 29. Within this age range are our students. In one of the big studies I discuss below, there was considerable variation in rape both between countries and within countries. I believe that men are pretty much the same the world over, what varies is education and social structures. We can't fundamentally change the nature of men, but we can change their outlook and understanding. It is what we do. We are educators. For example, in one study, the two most common reasons men gave for raping was “entitlement” and “entertainment”. Both motivations could yield to education.  A study of the men in the US navy found that education works. By providing training and education, rape myth acceptance is lessened and empathy toward victims increased. We can try. It has to be better than not listening and turning our backs. We can do more.

Where does this come from?

The last year changed my understanding of rape. Several things contributed. There have been discussions in the news. Students have talked to me about rapes they have suffered. Friends and family have made me aware of rapes they have suffered. Most importantly, well informed female friends have brought articles to my attention about men and rape as well as older discussions and academic studies on the subject. 

There are many myths about rape. One is the stereotype is the stranger lying in wait in dark places who carries out violent sexual attacks on random women. This is “stranger rape.” This was my stereotype until recently. These people exist and they are very dangerous.  However, they do not seem to be the majority and when compared to other types of rapists the numbers are smaller. Violence also sends them to jail. It is the key difference between incarcerated and unincarcerated rapists. Of the women who made me aware of rapes they have suffered, none has fit this stereotype. They were raped by ex-partners, family members, and acquaintances.

The latter is more prevalent and goes by a variety of descriptions, “acquaintance rape”, “partner rape”, “date rape”, etc. None really describes the full range of situations but all fit a pattern of rape by someone who is known to the victim.  There has been an unfortunate amount of “controversy” about forms of rape that do not fit the stereotype.  There has been scepticism, denial, and avoidance of full discussion. I will be blunt, not enough people believed the figures when they were based solely on studies of female experience. That is unfortunate.

To avoid these old familiar discussions, let’s not listen to the victims for a moment. Let’s listen to the rapists. If you are doubtful about acquaintance rape, partner rape, or whatever term is being used to describe non-stranger rape, it is time you sit up and pay attention.

Let’s park something. If you are concerned about some hypothetical man in a bar or in a relationship who is worried his partner believes he raped her due to a miscommunication, put that concern aside for now. That is pretty messed up and that man needs to listen to himself say “I think she may believe I raped her by accident due to a miscommunication” enough times to go seek help. He may even end up in jail, but as messed up as he is, such a man doesn’t count in this discussion. Why not? Because he didn’t knowingly use force or intoxicants to get a woman he knew to have sex with him against her will.

Have I got your attention?  When the term “rape” is not used and the behaviour we call rape is described, a subset of the male population reports raping women. They rape a lot of women. They rape strangers, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and family members. They also rape some men. From the survey reports, they seem clear in their minds about what they are doing. Worst of all, they get away with it because it is very hard to prove in court.  In the absence of overt signs of violence it is easy to claim “it was consensual.” 

The facts:

In a large study in of men in asia, 24.5% reported subjecting their partners to sexual violence. This means they forced a partner to have sexual intercourse when she did not want to or had sexual intercourse with a partner when she did not want to. That’s rape.  17% of women report being raped during their lifetime. If anything women are under-reporting the degree of sexual violence they are subjected to; perhaps believing the men did not know what they were doing, didn’t mean to, etc. However, the evidence indicates the men knew what they were doing. To be clear: the percentage of men who report raping their partners EXCEEDS the percentage of women who report being raped in these studies.

In a related study of men in asia, 10.9% of men reported raping women who were not their partners. This is not women accusing men of rape, this is what men said they did and some of these were serial rapists who raped over 10 women. These men raped women because they felt entitled. They did it for entertainment. They did it because they were angry. Return to the hypothetical man wondering if his partner thinks he raped her. That man has a serious problem but taking him at his word, he is in an altogether different category. These are not men confused about signals a woman is giving them. These are not men worried about communication within their relationships. These are men who forced women to have sex against their will and many did so repeatedly.

In another study of 1882 male university students with an average age of 26.5 years, 6.4% of men self-reported acts that met the legal definition of rape. They averaged 4 rapes each. The majority of the 6.4% were repeat rapists. Some of these were very prolific. Doing the math, if all of these were unique victims it would more than account for all the women who report rapes. The 6.4% were also responsible for a wide range of other violent acts including acts of violence and sexual abuse toward children. Some of the repeat rapists reported between 9 and 50 rapes.

Some refer to 6.4% as a small proportion. It is not and other studies have found between 6 and 14% of men report acts meeting the legal definition of rape. It is not just one study. These are high numbers and if you are incredulous toward  the results of surveys of women, do the maths. Enough rapes were reported to account for 25.6% of the female population. In the study of men in Asia, 24.5% of men reported acts of sexual violence toward their partners. The proportion of women reporting being raped is LOWER probably due to some women being repeat victims.

The study also reported how the men did it. 80.8% of the men in this subset reported raping women incapacitated by drugs or alcohol. These men specifically target women in this way. The men also reported using force or threats of force but that was a much smaller proportion. Despite the limited use of force when raping, a subset representing 4% of the men in the study was responsible for 28% of the total violence IN THE ENTIRE SAMPLE of 1882 men. These men are not like most men. They are 7 times more violent and more likely to abuse children.

A study of new naval recruits found similar results, albeit with a higher proportion (13%) of men reporting acts meeting the definition of rape.  They used similar methods with intoxicants used more often than force. What this study also found was that they selected acquaintances (89%) preferentially over strangers (24%), and in this sample only used force on acquaintances.

This is what the MEN reported.  These studies show that women will tell us what we need to know about rape, if we are willing to listen. Men tell us much the same thing if we ask the right questions. The picture they provide fits with what I have learned from students, friends, and family. None said they were raped by a violent stranger. All were known to them.

As educators we could be doing more.

Notes:

Links to the main original articles are below:

Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists (2002)

Reports of Rape Reperpetration by Newly Enlisted Male Navy Personnel (2009)

Prevalence of and factors associated with non-partner rape perpetration: findings from the UN Multi-country Cross-sectional Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific (2013);

Prevalence of and factors associated with male perpetration of intimate partner violence: findings from the UN Multi-country Cross-sectional Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific (2013).  

A discussion of the issues involved in the first two studies changed my outlook and a similar perspective may be found here: Meet the Predators.

Shades of Spinal Tap in A-level grades: This one goes to A*

It has been about 2 weeks since students in the UK received their A-level results and there is an unlimited number of university places for students with ABB grades. But what do those grades mean? A lot depends on them.

Consider two presentations: trends in SAT scores (US system) and trends in A-level grades (UK system). Set aside any philosophical problems you might have with standardized tests; there are many reasons not to like them – SAT score is horribly dependent on ethnicity, race, and socio-economic status  and A-levels have gender issues (scroll to the bottom to the nicely presented spreadsheet) and type of school matters (if you can afford to pay your results will be better). There is much to dislike, but still...

...there is an interesting narrative embedded in the UK data courtesy of the BBC. There is a graphic telling us that from 1960 to about 1980, the proportion of A grades was flat at around 8-9%. Then things took off and by about 2008 over 25% of students were receiving A grades. This was not as helpful as it might have been, particularly in sifting out the best students, so... The A* was born. As of 2013, roughly 7% of students received A* grades. For more details about A-level grades see here. 

Contemplating this graphic and listening to the absurd commentary about the return to “gold standard” A-levels (c.f.: here) I am reminded of the famous scene in the film Spinal Tap where the musician is particularly proud of his guitar which has a volume control knob that goes to 11 (instead of 10). This is what the introduction of the A* grade is all about and my argument is the same as the interviewer. Why not have the same range covered by A-E, to which the response would be “but this one goes to A*”. SATs have shown no such “inflation.”

Let’s be charitable about what happened to A-level grades between 1985 and the present. Let’s pretend there was no grade inflation (just like we can pretend there has been no grade inflation in University degree class) and that the whole problem is due to us getting better and better at teaching and a greater and greater number of people able to teach the subject competently has been created so achievement overall is much better than it was before. Yeah right, but suspend disbelief for a moment and repeat after me “there is no grade inflation, there is no grade inflation...”

However, if eventually all students get 100% , it means they are all average. This is unhelpful.

What people want to know is how good a particular student is and how well prepared they are. This allows them to be tracked into the best place to serve their needs. When working with very large cohorts of students, the “curve” is probably the best way to go. No one really cares that a student only got 30% of the total possible IF they are the best in their cohort. 

In the US, many institutions indicate average SAT scores, but these are flexible and the more important metric from an SAT is the ranking by percentile. Getting a 600 on a particular SAT section is less meaningful than being in the 90^th percentile of students taking the test. The top 10% will the top 10% no matter what you call the grade (A, A*, or A**) and 25% of students cannot be in the top 10%. It cannot be done.

The lesson here is that countries investing in education want to evaluate achievement. If we pretend that grade inflation does not exist, long term trends toward increased grades can be likened to a car with a speedometer that only goes to 50 MPH. Once upon a time that would have been pretty fast, but it isn’t any longer. The measurement should change with the cohort. The SAT has done a much better job over time than the A-level system as long as we recognise its limitations with regard to ethinicity, gender, and socioeconomic background.