by Rabia Nasimi (@RabiaNasimi ), taken from a research project she recently conducted as part of her MSc
The LSE ‘has been ranked second in the world for social sciences for the third year in a row’ and is often referred to as a ‘global’, ‘elite’, ‘leading’ university due to its high-ranking position. It is claimed that such universities are occupied by high-scoring school-leaver students carefully selected from among the many well-qualified applicants who come disproportionality from the upper end of the socio-economic scale. However, this is not always the case. The LSE is also home to students not from professional or elite family backgrounds. I thought it would be interesting to understand a bit more about what students attending an ‘elite’ university, such as the LSE, feel about the relationship between their class, gender, race and ability to succeed. To help me answer these questions, I spoke to a current LSE student and heard what she had to say.
The student said that the ‘LSE has got a very good reputation’ and is a ‘prestigious university’, and this made her feel ‘more confident’. She also mentioned that as an individual from a ‘minority ethnic background’, attending the LSE gains greater significance among her family and friends. However, she also felt that people ‘assume straight away that you’re really smart’. When approaching teachers, she also felt like she didn’t quite connect; when asked to elaborate, she went on to say that ‘I feel a little bit like they don’t understand me as well’, and that she feels ‘a bit embarrassed’ if she does not understand something; she would prefer not to say anything at all. Through this example, we can begin to sense the lack of confidence instilled in this student’s perception of herself and her intellectual abilities. This lack of confidence means that she is not able to voice any concerns or questions as she fears that those around her may assume she is not able. It would be interesting to understand, in more depth, why approachability is difficult for her, as a student.
This response has shed light on possible viewpoints. There is a need for further research to ascertain why these feelings of inadequacy exist and how other variables, such as age, could affect the meanings students give to their experience at an educational institution. Looking at this response from Bourdieu’s perspective, the education system is one that is structured to legitimise class inequalities. He argues that success in education is facilitated by the possession of ‘cultural capital’ and ‘higher-class habitus’: as its traits are less common among lower-class pupils, their failure in the system is inevitable. Another interpretation of these statements relates to Heidi Mirza’s comment that ‘young black women, who identify with the notion of credentialism, meritocracy and female autonomy, strategically employ every means at their disposal in the educational system and classroom to achieve a modicum of mobility in the world of limited opportunities’.
I think I know the difference in the amount of cultural capital needed to be accepted by peers and teachers.
I lived in a kind of middle class family for about three years and later moved with my mom to another place. I developed a stutter and was then isolated from most children and adults. I lived in a housing project for five years. Later I went to live with my grandmother in nice place near West Palm Beach. I was so far behind my peers academically. With my then, terrible stutter, I was treated very different by teachers and peers. I was also placed in lower classes where the teachers would talk down to me also.
However, the silver lining was that I was “forced to think on my own and develop my own sense of values for all things and persons”. I could see that the children in the housing project and those in West Palm Beach were the same, but* greatly affected over time by our individual environments. These differences in language, stability, fluency, along with various more sterile weights and values given to those students in the more isolated, supported environments created a kind of social language in itself, which told others they are of their kind of “sort”. I noticed those students in the more stable environment were not as passionate or showed nearly as much feeling as my other group of peers from the housing project. The more stable group were more accepted and learned to play the game as they were given all the care, support, and needs required. As a result, those persons did quite well academically. However, they were not able to grow as persons in developing their “own mind” or original thinking.
I feel now I was double even triple blessed by having lived in both environments and also had a speech impediment at that time (although I had thought at one time thought about suicide as a child living there). I was forced by my environments to develop my own values and rules of thought ; care for others; and look more intensely at learning and growing in general. While everyone else was walking in the very worn paths of society, I was kind of driven into the “social woods” to develop new ideas about people, abilities, and what is more important in life. From those experiences, I learned our present views of genetics and sheer effort were totally false and our understanding of average stress was and is, totally incorrect.
I realized that average stress is made up of many, “maintained layers of unresolved, mental work from many past, present, and future (from many things)” that we become acclimated to, which create a large continuum of differences in acclimated layers of mental work or, average stress. These layers take up real mental energy, which *take away real mental energy from thinking, reflection, learning/motivation in other areas. I later learned how to begin, slowly understanding, resolving and then more permanently reducing/changing my previous, more faulty weights and values to begin more permanently reducing layers of mental work to continually improve my thinking, reflection and ability to change my life. This freed me from the awful false belief in genetic permanence in ability
The very grand advantage those persons in the more stable, knowledge-rich environments enjoyed over my friends in the housing project was the provision of all of the good things which enabled their growth. I have now learned to see the flaws in society’s present values of others. I now see and appreciate that “I am a person, due my learning theory” capable of continually changing and improving my life over time. I have learned to see that my innersecurity is what is most important and how those other persons who towed the lined and marched to the tune set before them by their middle class families, peers, and teachers, were just a never ending dog chasing its tail, and never ever reaching any point of innersecurity, I could obtain by my better understanding of people and its flawed values. I wrote and have continually revised my learning theory to help all students and adults free themselves from the terrible myth of genetic abilities. It is on my site: http://learningtheory.homestead.com