Fairness and 'social mobility'
Discussion
Timmy35 said:
Manks said:
Elroy Blue said:
There's been a lot on the news over the last few days about 'fairness and social mobility'. I don't think there is any other subject that gets my blood boiling more.
Why don't they just say what they mean...if you work, we're going to tax you to death so the Stella swigging, benefit scrounging underclass can have a new 50" TV!
The problem appears to me that politicians are aiming for equality of outcome as opposed to equality of opportunity. So the feckless have far better opportunities thrust upon them to compensate for their fecklessness.Why don't they just say what they mean...if you work, we're going to tax you to death so the Stella swigging, benefit scrounging underclass can have a new 50" TV!
andy400 said:
otolith said:
Fittster said:
‘But it is far from clear that a society in which it is easier for middle class people to be downwardly socially mobile would be a more content society. Behavioural economics teaches us that the pleasure of upward social mobility (getting something we didn’t have before) is less than the pain of downward social mobility (losing something we have now). So the net social contentment impact of increasing relative social mobility (disregarding other knock-on effects) is negative. In other words the one thing all leading politician say they want more of is something that will make us less happy as a society!’"
That doesn't explain the children of resolutely middle class parents who horrify their parents by dropping out of university and deciding that a life of dole and dope is preferable to putting in the work to achieve things for themselves. Some people do choose downward mobility, and as a permanent lifestyle choice not a temporary fad.With a few exceptions, I've only ever known middle class people, and I can't think of one who has dropped out and gone on the dole, actively choosing 'downward mobility'.
theaxe said:
Jasandjules said:
Timmy35 said:
It is not your parents, but your work ethic and application of your talents that determines your life outcome.
Not in every occupation. There are still plenty of jobs where mummy and daddy count far more than actual intelligence/ability.Thanks mostly to New Labour, social mobility has been significantly curtailed by the cost of going to university and buying somewhere to live. These two costs now average £25,000 and £166,000 respectively.
Now if we take a hypothetic young person from a poor family who has no money, then even with the motivation to do well in life and a good education, these costs are extremely difficult to fund. Historically further education was free, and housing was approximately half in terms of multiples of salary. Until we address these two problems social mobility will only get worse.
Now if we take a hypothetic young person from a poor family who has no money, then even with the motivation to do well in life and a good education, these costs are extremely difficult to fund. Historically further education was free, and housing was approximately half in terms of multiples of salary. Until we address these two problems social mobility will only get worse.
Olivera said:
Thanks mostly to New Labour, social mobility has been significantly curtailed by the cost of going to university and buying somewhere to live. These two costs now average £25,000 and £166,000 respectively.
Now if we take a hypothetic young person from a poor family who has no money, then even with the motivation to do well in life and a good education, these costs are extremely difficult to fund. Historically further education was free, and housing was approximately half in terms of multiples of salary. Until we address these two problems social mobility will only get worse.
Social mobility has nothing to do with sending kids to university.Now if we take a hypothetic young person from a poor family who has no money, then even with the motivation to do well in life and a good education, these costs are extremely difficult to fund. Historically further education was free, and housing was approximately half in terms of multiples of salary. Until we address these two problems social mobility will only get worse.
Regarding house prices many kids who left school at 16 and worked ended up with six years income behind them by the time their supposedly destined to be richer classmates had got themselves into 20K of debt to get a degree that wouldn't pay them back for another ten years.
Education was only free for two generations, everyone else paid for it.
otolith said:
You can't level the nature/nurture playing field - but what you can (and should) do is to ensure that the state education system offers each child the opportunity to be equipped to fulfil their potential. If they don't take it, well, you can lead a horse to water.
Trying (for example) to get elite universities to lower their standards for bright kids from underprivileged backgrounds is an admission of failure by the state education system to offer those kids the best education they could benefit from, IMO.
So why have grammar schools essentially been scrapped...Trying (for example) to get elite universities to lower their standards for bright kids from underprivileged backgrounds is an admission of failure by the state education system to offer those kids the best education they could benefit from, IMO.
I am not from a "priviledged" background, my dad does alright for himself but only in the last 5 years or so and my mum didn't work after me and my twin were born to look after us. So in many ways i concider my upbringing "normal"...
but anyhow, I was lucky enough that I live in an area with grammar schools and that I passed my 11+ (my brother and sister did not and went to "normal" schools). Therefore I went to grammar school and was treated to an education that short of attending £12k a year private schools is not seen much in this country. 3 years after leaving 6th form im in a good job, my company is paying me to go university and providing i keep my head down for the next few years things are looking rosy. My brother unfortunately went to one of the worst schools in the country where those who did want to work couldn't due to poor discipline/teaching/facilities and the fact the class only moved as fast as the slowest link in the chain. Therefore a lot of bright pupils who could have done well did not, and ended up having to settle for jobs in retail and as labourers which is OK when you are 18, but when you are still not climbing the pay scale 5-10 years later it is time to worry...
Now, here's the conundrum.
Is it fair that I should have much better opportunities by going to a grammar school (still only opportunities, still had to work to take them)?
Is it unfair that my brother didn't pass a test when he was 11 and didn't have as great opportunities?
Would it have been fair if I had been sent to a crap school and been deprived of opportunities?
the way I see it, saying that "because one person cannot have it, nobody can" like socialist governments seem to do is much worse than the "life isn't fair, but if you work hard and with a bit of luck you can have it" philosophy of those on the right... life isn't fair, some people will always have doors opened for them whereas others will have to struggle to kick them down...
jimbobsimmonds said:
So why have grammar schools essentially been scrapped...
Dogma.jimbobsimmonds said:
Is it fair that I should have much better opportunities by going to a grammar school (still only opportunities, still had to work to take them)?
Is it unfair that my brother didn't pass a test when he was 11 and didn't have as great opportunities?
Would it have been fair if I had been sent to a crap school and been deprived of opportunities?
You have to decide who can benefit somehow. Perhaps the 11+ was flawed, and perhaps there would be better ways of doing it if we looked at it again now. The current system fails the most able.Is it unfair that my brother didn't pass a test when he was 11 and didn't have as great opportunities?
Would it have been fair if I had been sent to a crap school and been deprived of opportunities?
Edited by otolith on Thursday 19th August 10:25
jimbobsimmonds said:
My brother unfortunately went to one of the worst schools in the country where those who did want to work couldn't due to poor discipline/teaching/facilities and the fact the class only moved as fast as the slowest link in the chain. Therefore a lot of bright pupils who could have done well did not,...
Discipline is the issue. The sort of school that your refer has vast resources thrown at it and usually has very committed teachers, and more of them, than better schools.It's the kids who are from single parent families, and have 5 siblings each with a different father and a mother who resents all forms of authority and has no aspiration whatsoever, who hold everyone else back. The classrooms are battle-grounds - there are no effective sanctions against disruptive pupils, the vast majority if whom don't want to be there.
Sure, the odd one does go on to better things, but that's nothing short of a miracle.
Deva Link said:
Discipline is the issue. The sort of school that your refer has vast resources thrown at it and usually has very committed teachers, and more of them, than better schools.
It's the kids who are from single parent families, and have 5 siblings each with a different father and a mother who resents all forms of authority and has no aspiration whatsoever, who hold everyone else back. The classrooms are battle-grounds - there are no effective sanctions against disruptive pupils, the vast majority if whom don't want to be there.
Sure, the odd one does go on to better things, but that's nothing short of a miracle.
Indeed, and there's even an ethos that not learning is cool, learning is 'gay'.It's the kids who are from single parent families, and have 5 siblings each with a different father and a mother who resents all forms of authority and has no aspiration whatsoever, who hold everyone else back. The classrooms are battle-grounds - there are no effective sanctions against disruptive pupils, the vast majority if whom don't want to be there.
Sure, the odd one does go on to better things, but that's nothing short of a miracle.
Btw Jimbo, was it the Math? If so, me too.
otolith said:
You have to decide who can benefit somehow. Perhaps the 11+ was flawed, and perhaps there would be better ways of doing it if we looked at it again now. The current system fails the most able.
I see no need for grammar schools. I went to a streamed comp with mixed form classes. You could (at least in theory) get promoted/demoted from one stream to another based on performance, right through secondary school.Dumping underachieving 11 year olds in a "secondary modern" or whatever they were called was just crazy. Different kids develop at different rates. One of my uni friends was a prodigal three year old who went on to a series of prestigous London schools on scholarships. By uni everyone had caught up and she had problems dealing with this. I think she ended up with a Douglas.
HundredthIdiot said:
otolith said:
You have to decide who can benefit somehow. Perhaps the 11+ was flawed, and perhaps there would be better ways of doing it if we looked at it again now. The current system fails the most able.
I see no need for grammar schools. I went to a streamed comp with mixed form classes. You could (at least in theory) get promoted/demoted from one stream to another based on performance, right through secondary school.otolith said:
I also went to a streamed comp with mixed form classes. I did very well academically, but it was in spite of the system rather than because of it. The selective system may not have been perfect, but I think for the more able kids it was better than the comprehensive system. I don't think the gulf between the outcomes of children in the private and state sectors can be entirely closed, but the width of it indicates to me that what we are doing is not working.
I don't really think that academic achievers need cossetting in a separate school. They just need a calm classroom atmosphere and some decent teaching.If the issue is about how to ensure that the bright streamed comp kids do as well as the privately educated kids, then I'm not sure I really care. For those kids it all works out eventually. If the universities are doing their job right they'll be selecting candidates based on aptitude not school test results.
For instance, I got an interview with Cambridge. They decided not to give me an offer, because they correctly determined by talking to me that I was too stupid. If I'd been better prepared (privately) for the interview, I might have gotten an offer, but I would have failed badly after getting in.
I care more about the academic outcomes of those currently failing in the system. There are far too many kids who leave school almost illiterate and innumerate.
Edited by HundredthIdiot on Thursday 19th August 12:25
HundredthIdiot said:
I don't really think that academic achievers need cossetting in a separate school. They just need a calm classroom atmosphere and some decent teaching.
Either the comprehensive state system is not providing that, or that is not sufficient. It also seems to me that a school where bright children are the majority rather than the minority will be better able to accommodate their particular needs.HundredthIdiot said:
If the universities are doing their job right they'll be selecting candidates based on aptitude not school test results.
They should be selecting the most able, irrespective of how they got there. Fudging university selection just hides the failings of the state sector. The employment market will have no such generosity.HundredthIdiot said:
I care more about the academic outcomes of those currently failing in the system. There are far too many kids who leave school almost illiterate and innumerate.
I would like to see every child enabled to maximise his potential.otolith said:
HundredthIdiot said:
If the universities are doing their job right they'll be selecting candidates based on aptitude not school test results.
They should be selecting the most able, irrespective of how they got there. Fudging university selection just hides the failings of the state sector. The employment market will have no such generosity.Why can't the selection wait until the employment market? Why does it have to be at the gap between school and uni? Uni is still state education.
jimbobsimmonds said:
otolith said:
You can't level the nature/nurture playing field - but what you can (and should) do is to ensure that the state education system offers each child the opportunity to be equipped to fulfil their potential. If they don't take it, well, you can lead a horse to water.
Trying (for example) to get elite universities to lower their standards for bright kids from underprivileged backgrounds is an admission of failure by the state education system to offer those kids the best education they could benefit from, IMO.
So why have grammar schools essentially been scrapped...Trying (for example) to get elite universities to lower their standards for bright kids from underprivileged backgrounds is an admission of failure by the state education system to offer those kids the best education they could benefit from, IMO.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnist...
I went to a grammar school and we may in theory have been bright intelligent boys but in practice that ceratinly didn't mean that we all wanted to learn. It was also true that our school had a worse drug problem than the secondary modern or comps nearby - mainly due to the kids at grammar school coming, in the main, from more middle class richer backgrounds. Whilst it was a grammar school it seemed to take its success (or lack of it) for granted and there was little effort to really make us push ourselves. On the odd occasion a teacher thought to try and push you they were often so f
ked up that they failed - being told half way through my further maths A level that I wasn't going to achieve anything simply because I didn't care if I did better than the boy next to me wasn't going to make me try harder as after all I wasn't competing against the boy next to me given our differing plans for degrees.In contrast my wife went to a comp that, for historical reasons, acted like a fee paying school and they had a much greater number of people going to Oxford/Cambridge than my school despite the comp being in amuch more working class area.
You can help people to achieve and the education system should do that - what you can't do is prevent people favouring their "own". When I joined the world of work most of the partners were from an Oxford/Cambridge background and as a result the interview process was shorter if you came from the same background.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff