Posh and Posher:Why Public School Boy Run Britain
Discussion
Very depressing, and his conclusion is obviously spot on about grammar schools - but it is a complete political no-go.
I'd be interested to see a follow up focussing on the professional politicians, and the almost complete lack of science educated people in particular in the parliament. Compare our cabinet with that of China, where more than half have got an engineering or science degree.
I'd be interested to see a follow up focussing on the professional politicians, and the almost complete lack of science educated people in particular in the parliament. Compare our cabinet with that of China, where more than half have got an engineering or science degree.
A very sobering programme indeed, highlighting some serious issues with the current system of political candidate selection.
A PPE degree from Oxford (Politics, Philosophy and Economics), seems to be the sure-fire way of being fast-tracked into a top political job.
'Meritocracy' was bandied about quite a lot in the programme, and with the demise of Grammar Schools, and the lack of an effective route into politics via a Trade Union - providing an alternative route for 'normal' people - it would appear that meritocracy is well and truly dead in this country; certainly as far as politics concerned.
Whether or not you agree with their politics, I can't see a John Prescott, or even a Margaret Thatcher or a Harold Wilson getting a top political job in the current climate.
A PPE degree from Oxford (Politics, Philosophy and Economics), seems to be the sure-fire way of being fast-tracked into a top political job.
'Meritocracy' was bandied about quite a lot in the programme, and with the demise of Grammar Schools, and the lack of an effective route into politics via a Trade Union - providing an alternative route for 'normal' people - it would appear that meritocracy is well and truly dead in this country; certainly as far as politics concerned.
Whether or not you agree with their politics, I can't see a John Prescott, or even a Margaret Thatcher or a Harold Wilson getting a top political job in the current climate.
I was watching this programme. And turned it off in disgust. And 30 seconds later had it back on again as this stuff is incredibly important to know IMHO
I made the point to SWMBO that next time I vote, I will not be voting for a mainstream party because in no way do they reflect the life I lead, look out for the people that pay them, live in the real world or are even true to their ideologies. I will be looking very hard at the backgrounds of these people next time and making a decision from there.
Programmes such as this need to be compulsive viewing for people along with a lot of Charlie Brooker's stuff for example so people know how much we are stitched up by the politicos and the media.
I made the point to SWMBO that next time I vote, I will not be voting for a mainstream party because in no way do they reflect the life I lead, look out for the people that pay them, live in the real world or are even true to their ideologies. I will be looking very hard at the backgrounds of these people next time and making a decision from there.
Programmes such as this need to be compulsive viewing for people along with a lot of Charlie Brooker's stuff for example so people know how much we are stitched up by the politicos and the media.
The old adage that those most suited to running a country are highly unlikely to want to be politicians. And those that do want to be politicians are unsuitable to run the country...
"You get the government you deserve" - we're a celebrity-obsessed, PC-worrying nation of people afraid to say what they think for fear of the villification. Unsurprisingly our government is populated with MPs who think of themselves as celebrities and only say what they think their voters want to hear.
"You get the government you deserve" - we're a celebrity-obsessed, PC-worrying nation of people afraid to say what they think for fear of the villification. Unsurprisingly our government is populated with MPs who think of themselves as celebrities and only say what they think their voters want to hear.
Edited by ewenm on Thursday 27th January 14:29
ewenm said:
"You get the government you deserve" - we're a celebrity-obsessed, PC-worrying nation of people afraid to say what they think for fear of the villification. Unsurprisingly our government is populated with MPs who think of themselves as celebrities and only say what they think their voters want to hear.
The cult of the celebrity and consumerism is the Zeitgeist, and is all the majority seem to care about; it's very sad to see this country in the state it's in at the moment. Edited by ewenm on Thursday 27th January 14:29
We are rushing toward a dystopian society of our own making.
davepoth said:
So what do people think about Grammar Schools then? Should we split off the promising state school students and send the rest to technical school?
I'm in favour of state grammar schools (as I went to one from 87-94). My LEA had grammar schools and comprehensives with the 11+ exam to get into the grammars. Targeted teaching for the abilities of the pupils seems a sensible idea, which can only be more difficult with a wider range of abilities. Of course, testing at 11 years-old for the next 7 years is harsh...Edited by ewenm on Thursday 27th January 17:00
ewenm said:
I'm in favour of state grammar schools (as I went to one from 87-94). My LEA had grammar schools and comprehensives with the 11+ exam to get into the grammars. Targeted teaching for the abilities of the pupils seems a sensible idea, which can only be more difficult with a wider range of abilities. Of course, testing at 11 years-old for the next 7 years is harsh...
I don't think testing 11 year olds is harsh at all. I went to a grammar school after sitting the 11+, my two brothers and sister didn't.Edited by ewenm on Thursday 27th January 17:00
What is wrong with educating children based on their proven academic ability - even comprehensives have "sets" for different subjects, splitting the pupils up by ability and even allowing them to take different exams for different grades, don't they?
youngsyr said:
I don't think testing 11 year olds is harsh at all. I went to a grammar school after sitting the 11+, my two brothers and sister didn't.
What is wrong with educating children based on their proven academic ability - even comprehensives have "sets" for different subjects, splitting the pupils up by ability and even allowing them to take different exams for different grades, don't they?
It's not the testing of 11-y-o per se, but the fact that doing well or badly on that day can change the next 7 years of their life, and probably beyond.What is wrong with educating children based on their proven academic ability - even comprehensives have "sets" for different subjects, splitting the pupils up by ability and even allowing them to take different exams for different grades, don't they?
Nothing wrong with streaming pupils at all IMO.
jains15 said:
I was watching this programme. And turned it off in disgust. And 30 seconds later had it back on again as this stuff is incredibly important to know IMHO
Quite, it was uncomfortable viewing, but a must see. I have never voted for any of the homogeneous parties, they are all the same. What irritates me is the feckless retarded people who will always vote Tory/Labour/LD, there are real alternatives out there.ewenm said:
The old adage that those most suited to running a country are highly unlikely to want to be politicians. And those that do want to be politicians are unsuitable to run the country...
Never been truer
IMO the best thing they could do is implement a rule that you must have lived in a constituency for 'x' amount of years before you can stand as an MP. If nothing else it would stop the top brass in the parties from parachuting their bum chums into safe seats and booting out local people like the Stoke Labour MP.
Symbolica said:
IMO the best thing they could do is implement a rule that you must have lived in a constituency for 'x' amount of years before you can stand as an MP. If nothing else it would stop the top brass in the parties from parachuting their bum chums into safe seats and booting out local people like the Stoke Labour MP.
I would agree with that.ewenm said:
It's not the testing of 11-y-o per se, but the fact that doing well or badly on that day can change the next 7 years of their life, and probably beyond.
They also used to have 13+ which partly remedied this problem (especially as boys tend to mature later), but yeah it's pretty hard on those who don't make the grade (that day) and broke alot of friendships as i recall. Me and my siblings are passed 
fido said:
ewenm said:
It's not the testing of 11-y-o per se, but the fact that doing well or badly on that day can change the next 7 years of their life, and probably beyond.
They also used to have 13+ which partly remedied this problem (especially as boys tend to mature later), but yeah it's pretty hard on those who don't make the grade (that day) and broke alot of friendships as i recall. Me and my siblings are passed IIRC there were regular review periods where students could move between both normal and grammar if they were struggling or excelling in the current one.
Symbolica said:
IMO the best thing they could do is implement a rule that you must have lived in a constituency for 'x' amount of years before you can stand as an MP. If nothing else it would stop the top brass in the parties from parachuting their bum chums into safe seats and booting out local people like the Stoke Labour MP.
All they need to do is introduce open primaries. Then constituents can select who their candidate is - if they want the party big wig then they should have the ability to select him, but they would also have the opportunity to select someone local.MaximumJed said:
fido said:
ewenm said:
It's not the testing of 11-y-o per se, but the fact that doing well or badly on that day can change the next 7 years of their life, and probably beyond.
They also used to have 13+ which partly remedied this problem (especially as boys tend to mature later), but yeah it's pretty hard on those who don't make the grade (that day) and broke alot of friendships as i recall. Me and my siblings are passed IIRC there were regular review periods where students could move between both normal and grammar if they were struggling or excelling in the current one.
As for the continually monitoring, this is a good idea in my opinion as long as it's not too disruptive. Moving kids between "sets" based on their end of year exams is fine in my view, but moving them more often or between more disparate streams is too much meddling for too little gain.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff