Canada claims to be a meritocratic society “in which most or all statutes are achieved on the basis of merit”1 and obtaining higher level of education is an important factor which is allowing a person to have occupational mobility, earning higher income, and enjoying some degree of job security.
Statistic Canada reported that “so-called visible minorities tend to be younger than their so-called non-visible minority counterparts. In 2001, visible minorities had a higher proportion of persons in the 15-to-24 age group compared to non-visible minorities (20.9% compared to 16.1%). Results from the 2001 Census have also shown that the visible minority population is generally more educated than the rest of the Canadian population. In 2001, 23.6% of visible minorities held a university degree, compared to 14.2% of non-visible minorities. Among the different visible minority groups, the Chinese were the most educated, with 27.3% holding a university degree. Blacks had a slightly lower proportion of university graduates than the national average, with 12.7% holding a university degree. However, this group had a high proportion (18.2%) of persons with a college diploma as their highest level of schooling completed.”2 According to above statistical information visible minorities were interested to earn higher education, and it is assumed that higher education means better employment opportunity.
There was a stunning revelation that “despite being more highly educated than non-visible minorities, visible minorities have higher unemployment rates than their counterparts, namely 9.5% compared to 7.1%. Among the various visible minority groups, the Chinese had the lowest unemployment rate in 2001 (8.4%), while Blacks had the highest rate (11.5%). Visible minorities were also much more likely to live below the low-income threshold. According to the 2001 Census, 26% of visible minorities were members of a low-income family, compared to 10.6% of non-visible minorities. Among visible minorities, more Blacks lived in a low-income family (32.5%), than South Asians (22.0%) or Chinese (24.6%).”3 The low income cut-off line is defined “as the poverty line an estimate of the income level below which one might be considered to be living in (relative) poverty, defined by Statistics Canada as the level of income at which 56 percent of income is spent on basic necessities.”4 Relative poverty is defined “the state of existence in which individuals have significantly less income than most others in their society, causing their lifestyle to be much more restricted and their life chances substantially curtailed.”5 In addition, there is the concept of “life chance,” which is defined by Max Weber as “the opportunities for a higher standard of living and a better quality of life that are available to members of a given class.”6
Ethnic groups are more educated than non ethnic group in Canada, and still ethnic groups are ranked high on unemployment rate compare to non ethnic group. Also, ethnic groups’ life chance to have occupational mobility was low. Thus, Canada is not a meritocratic as it claims.
1 Brym, Robert. New Society: Sociology for the 21st Century. Harcourt Brace & Company Canada, Ltd. 1995. PG 2.28
2 http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85F0033MIE/2008015/find-en.htm March 15th, 2008. PG 1
3 http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85F0033MIE/2008015/find-en.htm March 15th, 2008. PG 1
4 Brym, Robert. New Society: Sociology for the 21st Century. Harcourt Brace & Company Canada, Ltd. 1995. PG 2.28
5 Brym, Robert. New Society: Sociology for the 21st Century. Harcourt Brace & Company Canada, Ltd. 1995. PG 2.28
6 Brym, Robert. New Society: Sociology for the 21st Century. Harcourt Brace & Company Canada, Ltd. 1995. PG 2.28
No comments:
Post a Comment