Diverse, is it?

Shail Bhatt looks at the attainment gap across UK academia, especially in STEM subjects, and how this can be addressed.

UCL prides itself on being a highly international and diverse university, with over 150 nationalities represented on campus. It’s what drove many people, including me, to apply here in the first place, and this mélange of cultures and ethnicities makes the university experience much more enriching. But have you noticed that as you advance down the academic pathway, this diversity slowly wanes and dwindles? It turns out that this isn’t just a faculty or university-wide problem, it’s prevalent across the nation. It is in this context that we need to examine the lack of diversity in STEM subjects.

The attainment gap

In the 2017/2018 academic year, there were just under 16,000 full time home PhD students in their first year of study. Just 3% of those students were Black. It’s surprising to note that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups are more likely to do their postgraduate degrees but are almost half as less likely than white students to do a PhD programme. What’s even more bizarre is that over the past 3 years, over 20,000 PhD scholarships have been awarded by research councils in the UK, but only 250 of these were awarded to Black students. What’s really going on?

Studies have revealed that BAME students are less likely to graduate with a first or 2.1 degree, less likely to feel satisfaction and part of a community at university, and more likely to discontinue their studies than white students. Contrast this with evidence that claims BAME students actually should have a greater probability of getting a first/2.1 based on their trajectories, and a problem emerges. There is an attainment gap, a broken pipeline of sorts, and the proportion (not the numbers) of BAME students down this pipeline from undergraduate to PhD decreases quite precipitously. This seems to stem from intrinsic biases that can put these students at a disadvantage; the fact that the framework for dealing with this is imperfect doesn’t help either.

Universities underscore the importance of previous grades, so the 24% gap between White and Black home students in receiving a first or a 2.1 immediately disadvantages certain ethnic groups in advancing down the pipeline. Another key finding is that 50% of all Black PhD students work part-time, are usually self-funded, and don’t have access to the same guidance while applying for studies (this applies to undergraduate and postgraduate students as well). When coupled with socioeconomic factors, BAME groups are generally at a disadvantage to begin with, and there is an opportunity gap that they face.

Diversity in STEM

Diversity in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics fields is a very unique case. Starting at the first step towards higher education, the numbers of students taking science subjects in their A-levels is rapidly increasing, but the outcomes vary between ethnicities. Research has shown that teachers’ expectations vary towards different genders and races as a product of their subconscious bias, and this can impact the confidence of some of these students when it comes to taking STEM subjects in university. At the same time, it’s positive to note that BAME representation in STEM is increasing at the university level. As we go from undergraduate to PhD levels, this proportion decreases for many reasons, including the fixed notions about academia and its influence, pay, and time put in. This does not mean that these students aren’t interested in STEM careers, but the BAME students coming from lower-income households are simply not aware of the expansive choice of careers available.

Is diversity important?

Having diversity in race and ethnicity, as well as gender or sexual orientation, in a group is immeasurably advantageous. Diversity can bring in a multitude of points of view, opinions, and backgrounds together, and fosters creativity and innovation. In addition, having a diverse set of opinions can allow for more informed decision making and is, as a whole, more profitable. Social group experiments showed that between a homogeneous group of individuals (with the same race) and a diverse group (with different races), the diverse group is much better at problem solving. The truth is that diversity forces us to work harder. In a group where everyone thinks differently and has a different background, there is bound to be a variety of perspectives; as a result, we tend to spend more time trying to better our stances and this creates a more conducive environment. In fact, a diverse group would not only have conducive arguments, but would also be more likely to lead to a breakthrough and advance the thinking forward.

How can we improve?

Of course, more data needs to be collected from a plethora of different universities and locations, but perhaps redefining the meaning of academic excellence by looking at the competency and skills a candidate brings to the table might be the way forwards. Ensuring that admission panels are diverse and well-represented would also be a vital step in allowing these biases to be cut short. Furthermore, reaching out to disadvantaged communities and providing the correct advice and guidance is also vastly important. At the end of the day, students should be happy, and should have all the information available to them, free of any bias and patronisation. We need to celebrate the importance of diversity and embrace the benefits it brings, because it allows us to think harder, work better, and develop stronger ideas.