Lt Kije Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 With a report out saying that most of the UK's top jobs go to people from puplic schools, is it time to shut them to give other bright people a chance of breaking though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 No..... Part of the problem with this "anyone can do anything" society that labour have created is that it comes to pass that most people can't do things they think they can They have created a society where everyone now thinks it is their right to be able to go to University because they have passed a GCSE or two ot that they should be able to become a doctor because they have a degree in sports injuries of the left foot. In days gone by; people knew their place in society and didn't aspire to things they couldn't achieve (remember the Cleese and Corbett sketch years ago?) We had one of the richest societys in the world but since we have tried successive social engineering experiments; we have turned into a third rate nation IMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 I notice that you have changed your picture to a MB from a Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 It appears that the Nuliebour plan is now to embrace the Tory idea of allowing parents to choose schools, rather than schools choosing children, by giving credits (not vouchers, oh no!). The idea is that failing schools will be allowed to close and good schools will flourish. The best idea would be for government interference to end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 I notice that you have changed your picture to a MB from a Ford. Indeed... the only thing that has changed though Paul is the bills are bigger and I now have my own seat at the parts department near the Mascratt Manor! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 This, from a Government, that has presided over the creation of the biggest wealth gap since Kier Hardy's day. I noticed on the News, 3 medical students, that had been allowed into UNI, despite not having the requisite GSCE levels - a sign of things to come out of this report - which is a recipe for more dumbed down education and less meritocracy. IF, wealth controls one's level of success and life opportunities - control the wealth and make access to opportunity open to all - on the basis of ability - NOT through positive discrimination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Not sure if we are talking about the same report, but the version I heard made no mention of public schools or old school ties. It simply stated what, to me, seems obvious, that people entering the professions such as medicine, law, accountancy, etc tend to come from better off families. Surely this is only to be expected. Families tend to be well off because they are well educated. Well educated parents tend to produce well educated children. Thus, they get the best jobs. The survey suggests this trend has increased more recently and that it didn't happen so much 30 or so years ago. Well, yes, there was a period when social engineering enabled more people from poorer backgrounds to get into top jobs. The result has been a lowering of standards among professionals. So if the "natural order" has been restored I reckon its a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Slight flaw in your thesis Adam: IF "a better education" influences life outcomes, it means that such "outcomes" are NOT ordained by "nature", but are the result of social engineering IE: an improved and accessible education system. Your "natural order" theory presumes that all wealthy folk are bright and that all chavs are genetically thick, which is patently not the case. It is true however, to suggest that some folk are thicker than others, irrespective of wealth, educational and enviromental inputs. The purpose and point IMO of education, is to prepare folk to their maximum potential, for the world of work, so that they are streamed according to their talents into suitable employment. The problem with current nu-lab dogma is; that they somehow believe University is the be and end all, with the result of a dumbed down education system, with dumbed down examinations, with mickey mouse degrees, producing an increasing number of suspect "graduates". Meanwhile, vocational training is neglected, leaving a huge tranche of school leavers with no purpose in life, hence fewer qualified tradesmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 When I spoke of the "natural order", Observer, I was not meaning anything to do with genetics. I was simply observing that it is "natural" for educated parents to produce educated children. This is because people with a good education realise the value of that education, while those without one don't. In fact, there seems to be some sort of inbuilt resentment among the uneducated which blames the system rather than themselves. A free education has been available in this country for, what, 100 years? Yet few of us take full advantage of it. In fact, we tend to get looked down upon for being "swots" if we study too hard at school. There is nothing in my post to suggest that ALL wealthy folk are intelligent and all "chavs" are thick. There are always exceptions to every rule. I agree with everything you say about universities, dumbing down, etc. But there are no votes for a government which tells us all we are stupid and not worthy of going to university. Far better lower the standards and tell us all we are doing well. There are certain prejudices in society, whether we like them or not. They exist and we have to live with them. So there is little point in taking some bright kid from the back streets of Warrington, or anywhere else, and sending them to Oxford, unless we can teach him (or her) to speak with an Oxford accent. No matter how talented they are, few people will take them seriously if they still sound as if they come from the back streets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 all chavs are genetically thick, which is patently not the case. Really? Could have bloody well fooled me; unless of course intelligence is measured in claiming maximum benefits and backing the winner of the 3:15 at Kempton! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 If you asked an alien (if one happened to be around) who was the most intelligent, the person who starts his own business and fills in his tax returns and his vat and pays his public liability insurance, business premises insurance, energy bills, employees wages, national insurance etc etc and all for 4 weeks holiday a year or the person who gets all his bills paid by the government plus a wage which he promptly puts on the winner of the 3-15 at Kempton at 4/1, what do you think the alien would say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 I'll accept Adam, that you have a point in relation to "pushy parents", "swots" and "back-street accents"; also a cultural "resentment" of education by "chavs". Chavs tend to live in a cycle of ignorance, and it's difficult for any external entity to break that cycle. Conversly, middle-class folk (through education) live through a cycle of ambition and personal aspiration - this varies with ability to pay, and normally comes under the political heading of "choice" - to choose a private education for little Jonny if you can afford it, or to move house into "the best school's" catchment area, again if you can afford it. The reality however is, that education is no indicator of intelligence in itself; and IF we aspire towards a meritocracy, and producing the best out of our population (in our common economic interest); some form of social engineering is required. Intelligence therefore needs to be the principle criteria for opportunity, rather than wealth - otherwise we revert to a caste (or class) system, not worthy of the 21st century. Ironically, what this Government have done by presiding over an ever widening wealth gap, is to ensure that that divide is even harder to cross - and their attempts at positive discrimination are merely a recipe for mediocracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 If you asked an alien (if one happened to be around) who was the most intelligent, the person who starts his own business and fills in his tax returns and his vat and pays his public liability insurance, business premises insurance, energy bills, employees wages, national insurance etc etc and all for 4 weeks holiday a year or the person who gets all his bills paid by the government plus a wage which he promptly puts on the winner of the 3-15 at Kempton at 4/1, what do you think the alien would say? Bugger.... so you mean ET would think I'm the fool!!! I knew I was doing something wrong somewhere!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 The difference between the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor is, although they have similar interests in horse racing, and the time to pursue it - only the rich can afford to visit the race course! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithR Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 If you asked an alien (if one happened to be around) who was the most intelligent, the person who starts his own business and fills in his tax returns and his vat and pays his public liability insurance, business premises insurance, energy bills, employees wages, national insurance etc etc and all for 4 weeks holiday a year or the person who gets all his bills paid by the government plus a wage which he promptly puts on the winner of the 3-15 at Kempton at 4/1, what do you think the alien would say? Simply put, those who work for a living and those who don't, and it's those who do who are paying for those who don't. I think wolfie has a point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 .... which has been the case since around 1066! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.