William Collins: HEPI Report on Male Underachievement in Higher Education

The latest outstanding piece from William Collins. We agree fully with his analysis.

The HEPI report has two references linking to our website, #60 and #62 (p.36). We thank Steve for pointing out that The Independent today ran a piece on the HEPI report. From near the end:

The report has not gone down well with the National Union of Students (NUS), though. [Normally a reliable sign of a report’s quality, obviously.] Sorana Vieru, NUS vice president of higher education, said it takes a “complex and nuanced issue and turns it into a ‘battle of the sexes’.”

She added: “It obscures the socio-economic issues that impact young working class men’s progression after school into education and employment.

“The report bizarrely positions women teachers as the reason young men don’t do as well as young women in school, when there is no evidence of this.

“The report also relies on quotes from discredited sources such as Mike Buchanan, leader of the Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them) Party.”

Sorana Vieru is mistaken. The report doesn’t contain even one quote from me, nor from anyone associated with J4MB. It contains an extract from a Department for Education response to our FOI request to Nicky Morgan, Education Secretary, Minister for Women & Equalities (reference #62). William Collins’s piece links to that FOI request, and the DfE response.

That minor detail aside, I’m delighted that Ms Vieru described me as a ‘discredited source’. Had she said anything complimentary about me, I’d have been livid, and demanded a public apology.

3 thoughts on “William Collins: HEPI Report on Male Underachievement in Higher Education

  1. I see this in the telegraph. Not sure I’d agree with it all but good to see the story getting an airing. And there is a vote if you want to.
    Also from the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36266753 The surprising bit about this report was it was pretty good (got through the Beeb’s feminist thought police) and even reported the UCAS head’s view that the feminisation of school teaching is likely to be a cause. Put me in shock from the Beeb.

  2. Treating women in a preferential manner can only be practiced in a society where women do not participate in professional and public life, but are home makers only. If this is practiced in a society where women live the same lifestyles as men, such as ours today, the result is evident throughout and has a destructive impact on men, and eventually on the whole society. If women insist on living the exact same lifestyle as men, then men must insist that women be treated in exactly the same way as men, to the dot. Otherwise you end up with a scenario where men are artificially pushed down and women up. We see this pattern all over our society these days.
    Is it fair ? No. Is it right? No. is it productive or efficient? no. Is it democratic? No. Is it making such a society prosperous? No. So why practice it ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.