Essay: Differences between white working-class/East Asian cultures & how they affect access to higher education

In recent years there has been a more noticeable difference between the rates of students from white working-class backgrounds and East Asian households going on to higher education. As this topic has become more prevalent, it has become clearer that this issue is mostly caused by differences in these cultures and the way pupils are raised. For example, although the lack of social mobility within Britain have a strong effect on white working-class by making them feel as though they can’t achieve, it has less of an impact on students from East Asian families as they’re largely influenced by their ‘culture of aspiration’. This topic is a highly important one, as in modern society education is usually a crucial and deciding factor in an individual’s prospects, especially those relating to jobs. The job prospects of the individual then link into the annual income of a person which can spiral on to effect things such as living situations and health. This also affects wider society, as a large amount of essential job roles (such as doctors, teachers etc) requiring a qualification from higher education. This topic is viewed as so important that countless programmes (e.g. schemes like MAP) and government policies are being made to improve the issue. The overall aim of this work is to review what the differences between white working-class and East Asian cultures are and how they affect a student’s access to higher education.
Firstly, a key difference between the two cultures is the different levels of cultural capital. The concept of cultural capital was created by Bourdieu, who defined embodied capital as “long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body.” (Bourdieu, 1983, p.242). This means the traits of a person that have been learned as early as childhood (during primary socialisation) via actions and behaviours of a parent. The reason there is a difference in cultural capital is due to the views of these cultures. East Asian cultures (especially Japan and China) generally have high aspirations and believe determination will pay off, and that working hard in education is compulsory to get a well-paid job and a better life quality. This largely contrasts with the culture of the white working-class, who commonly believe that their future aspects are dictated by the entrenched class system and are unable to move up the social ladder. This supports Buchmann’s (2002) idea that the types of parental investment (via embodied and objectified capital) would change depending on the countries culture and educational system. (cited from Yamamoto and Brinton, 2010, p.68). For example, rigorous entrance examinations for every level of schooling, followed by regular testing once within the school continues to be the central feature of Japanese education. (Yamamoto and Brinton, 2010, p.4). This means that it’s common for Japanese (and other East Asian) families to enrol their children into ‘shadow education’ that includes extracurricular exam preparations and tutoring as explained by Stevenson and Baker (1999, pp. 1639-57). A recent poll of over 2,500 secondary school children revealed that over half of Asian pupils have had a tutor, compared to just a quarter of white children. (The Telegraph 2017). However, it is worth noting that families who are in the top fifth of the income range in the UK are four times more likely to get a private tutor (Guardian 2015). This means that although some white students are receiving tutoring, it is mostly the white upper classes that can benefit from the increased help, resulting in the working-class getting lower levels of capital. This is not the case for East Asian families (especially Chinese) as they are shown to do consistently well no matter the class. In summary, the students who get cultural capital (the white upper-class and East Asians) become predisposed to an academic lifestyle and gain the skills and traits needed to succeed at university (e.g. hard-working, organised, determined) whereas the white working-class who don’t are left feeling as though they aren’t ‘made’ for higher education and lack the skills needed.
Another feature that varies between the white working-class and East Asian cultures would be a difference in expectations for pupils and their achievements from both parents and teachers. As Schneider and Lee (1990, pp. 358-377) argued, the way in which a family would base their expectations and encourage the learning activities of their children is dependent on the parent’s personal economic and cultural experiences. East Asian parents would have experienced education for a longer period than white working-class parents who, many of which, would have gone straight into work at the age of 16. For East Asians these experiences mean that as a culture they have “placed a high value on education as a means for achieving upward mobility, social respect and self-improvement” (Lee, 1987- cited from Schneider and Lee, 1990, p.362). However, this is greatly different from the white working-class who, as Stevenson and Stigler (2006, p.21) argue, have highly misjudged ideas about the personal and economic investments involved in gaining high levels of academic achievement, especially regarding universities. This point about parental experiences and intentions for their child is crucial, as it’s been found that most children develop “self-expectations” based around what they know of their parent and teacher’s hopes for them (Schneider and Lee, 1990, p.362). Schneider and Lee (1990, p.362) also made the point that once the child has formed these self-expectations they then go on to “translate these standards into performance”. This means the child forms certain characteristics and behaviours that correspond with the expectations of them, regardless of whether they’re good or bad features to have. The previous points have been found in many studies making them highly reliable and more commonly known as a self-fulfilling prophecy. An example of the characteristics that East Asians form would be industriousness, docility, and an intense motivation to achieve academically, which Schneider and Lee (1990, p.360) argue are the major reasons for Asian academic success. For the white working-class, as their parents hold less value on education, they would feel less pressured to do well in school therefore causing them to be more relaxed and not gain similar characteristics to the East Asians. Teachers label them as louder, more disruptive students who are less inclined to learn and do well, making them less favoured. This contrasts the positive label that teachers give to East Asians, believing they will achieve. This process of teacher labelling shapes the teacher’s behaviour towards the student, which then begins to affect the student’s views and achievements. The white working-class pupil is mostly given negative feedback and attention from teachers, making them form a fatalistic view and feel as though they can’t succeed in higher education therefore there isn’t any point in considering it as an option. Meanwhile the East Asian students are continually pressured to do well and form a positive outlook and set of characteristics that will motivate them to attend higher education.
The cultures contrasting attitudes towards learning difficulties (especially that of a parent) can affect access to higher education. As Nayoung Kim (2010) argued, the views of what is considered both normal and deviant are constructed by the surrounding society, meaning that different cultures have different definitions of disability. Due to this, the view of the parents doesn’t necessarily match with the professionals. This leads onto the point that “Asians are less likely (than Europeans) to believe that their child has a learning disability” (Nayoung Kim, 2010, p.1-5). This idea is supported by various studies that show Asians being more inclined to blame the child’s effort and other environmental factors for a child’s poor achievement (Stevenson and Stigler, 2006, p.8). It’s apparent that generally, East Asians have negative views towards disabilities and mental health issues. This is most likely because, as McCabe (2007) and Schwartz (1995, cited from Nayoung Kim 2010, p. 1-5) explained, Asian parents are judged by their children’s achievement and while their child’s success brings honour to the family, their failures bring shame. These points are largely contrasting to the white working-class, who were found to be more willing to blame student’s mistakes on “disabilities and innate abilities” (Stevenson and Stigler, 2006, p.8). This is mostly because learning disabilities are much more commonly diagnosed in the UK (especially among the working-class) and are more socially accepted. It’s interesting to note that these respective views may strongly link to their governments concept of disabilities and the support they give regarding them. In China for example, there are only three main types of disabilities recognised (visual impairment, hearing impairment and mental retardation) (Lo, 2008, cited from Nayoung Kim 2010, p.1-5). This choice by the government means that Chinese schools very rarely recognise things such as autism and other learning disabilities. When you compare this to the UK, there are vast forms of help available to students depending on their struggles and even exclusive schools which cater specifically to these pupils. The government also created more options for those who have disabilities and struggle with the workload that higher education has, such as paid apprenticeships, which are essentially non-existent in East Asia. Not only are white parents generally more accepting of learning difficulties, it also means that higher education isn’t the only option for working-class students and there are other paths to take that may be more suited to their needs. This isn’t the case for East Asian pupils, as higher education remains the most common and socially accepted route for the cultural reasons mentioned earlier. This causes a decrease in the amount of white working-class students going into higher education and an increase in the number of East Asians attending university.
In conclusion, the white working-class culture is highly different to that of the East Asians, and although there may be other features playing a part, the many differences in the cultures are the main reason there is such a gap between the number of students that attend higher education from each of the demographics.