Sharpening elbows
When a Labour prime minister asks a former Labour cabinet minister to look at "fair access to the professions", some might well expect a bit of class war: a report full of cunning ways to disempower privileged and pushy parents; an attack, perhaps, on the advantages of wealth - private schools, private tutors, the old boy network.
But Alan Milburn and his panel of senior professionals - most of who enjoyed the advantage of private school themselves - have agreed a different strategy (Unleashing Aspiration [613Kb PDF]): not to try and blunt the sharp elbows of the upper middle-classes, but to sharpen up the elbows of everyone else. Theirs is a plan (in the old Blairite mantra) "for the many, not the few".
Mr Milburn strikes a populist tone in his foreword. "Britain's got talent - lots of it," he says. "It is not ability that is unevenly distributed in our society. It is opportunity."
His panel doesn't shy away, though, from accusing the professions of what it calls "opportunity hoarding" - limiting access to people like themselves.
The common practices include offering work experience to the children of friends of friends; internships restricted to those whose parents can afford for their children to work for nothing and selection procedures geared to those with the wherewithal to navigate their offspring through the best schools to the best universities and into the best jobs.
Indeed, the panel produces evidence that the professions have become even more elitist over the past decades.
"The UK is a highly unequal society in which class background still too often determines life chances. A closed shop mentality in our country means too many people, from middle income as well as low income families, encounter doors that are shut to their talents."
This chart illustrates what has happened. Comparing professionals born in 1958 with those born in 1970, it is clear that access to the most sought after jobs are increasingly restricted to the rich.
Take accountancy. A typical accountant in his early fifties will come from a family which earned an average income. A typical accountant in his late thirties will come from a family earning something like 40% above the average. It is a similar story with journalists and bankers, lawyers and doctors.
The report calculates what the trends mean for bright youngsters today.
• the typical doctor or lawyer of the future will today be growing up in a family that is better off than five in six of all families in the UK
• the typical journalist or accountant of the future will today be growing up in a family that is better off than three in four of all families in the UK
• the typical engineer or teacher of the future will today be growing up in a family that is better off than two in three of all families in the UK
There are a few careers which have widened access - teachers, artists and musicians - but overall, says the report, "if action is not taken to reverse the historical trend, it would mean that the typical professional of the future will now be growing up in a family that is better off than seven in ten of all families in the UK".
However, you won't find criticism of ambitious families, those prepared to do and to pay what it takes to give their offspring the best start in life. The title of today's report is "Unleashing Aspiration", and, if anything, it is parents who strive for their children who are the role models.
The plan is to create structures which allow talented young people from whatever background to enjoy the same advantages as those from what the jargon describes as "the higher professional managerial" class. How? Well, for a start, government careers services need to be abolished. Particular criticism is levelled at the system in England.
"Throughout our work we have barely heard a good word about the careers work of the current Connexions service. We can only conclude that its focus on the minority of vulnerable young people is distracting it from offering proper careers advice and guidance to the majority of young people. This is simply not good enough and the service requires a radical rethink."
Instead, government is urged to provide a broad, high-quality system which acts as a sort of surrogate pushy parent: inspiring ambition, instilling self-confidence, offering encouragement.
And helping with the practical: university applications, CVs, accessing work experience.
Yesterday, I met Chenai Mautsi, a young black woman from Forest Gate in east London. Applying to medical school? Becoming a doctor? That kind of thing wasn't for people like her. Despite stellar exam results at GCSE, she almost threw her university application into the wastepaper basket.
"I was filling it out and then I got scared and said I'm not going to apply for medicine. My chemistry teacher took me to the side and he was like, 'you're going to do this because you can get in - if you don't fill out this application form, I'll be so disappointed in you'. Just seeing someone else believing in me I was like, 'okay - maybe I'll do it and see what happens'. I was so scared I didn't even tell my parents until I got an acceptance letter."
Chenai was accepted by the world-famous King's College London medical school - a model for the kind of widening participation programme today's report would like to see as the norm.
Each year, the college accepts 50 students from local comprehensive schools, even if they don't have the grades normally required. One entrant came with a C and two Ds at A-level. But she rewarded their faith, going on to pass with a first-class honours degree to her name.
Dr Pamela Garlick, who runs the programme, says there is no question of the university lowering its standards:
"They have to take exactly the same exams as the conventional students and they have to get exactly the same pass mark. They have no advantage because of the backgrounds that they've come from. In fact, they're not going to be second-class doctors at all. If anything, I think they're going to be better doctors than some of the conventional students."
Today's report comes up with many examples of programmes which have unlocked talent by inspiring ambition. Morpeth Comp in the London borough of Hackney was a school where few saw themselves staying on past 16, never mind going on to higher education.
A mentoring scheme gave 25 youngsters one-to-one support and encouragement. Of those 25, 21 went to University. Some are now mentoring at the school themselves, people like Leon Williams who became the first in his family to get a degree after a trip to a university campus changed his life.
"I was very naughty at school, excluded many times. At 15 you start to hang out more on the streets, start making more and more friends, girls, start to become involved. You're more active. You don't think about academics that much. I was clever but I didn't think of further education as a target for me until I went on the university trip."
Supporting able students is only part of the equation. Today's report urges ministers to measure schools' performance by how pupils do after they leave. It recommends that universities publish details of the social background of pupils admitted to every course they run and that some professions do the same - perhaps starting with the senior civil service. It calls for work experience to be put on a more formal footing, so that all can access it.
You cannot legislate away all the advantage of supportive, ambitious, wealthy and well-connected families. But today's report hopes, at the very least, to inspire a debate about how to ensure children from every background can enjoy some of those advantages too.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~14~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
With the ongoing removal of grammar schools and the prevalence of mixed ability classes you have a recipe for a mediocre education. Add to that the removal of grants and the charging of annual fees and it's little wonder that the people going for the longer and 'tougher' university courses that lead to working in one of the professions is becomes more and more the preserve of those that can afford the debt and could afford a higher standard of education for themselves.
Labour have shot themselves in the foot, repeatedly.
Complain about this comment
Milburn's suggestion may make a marginal difference but I say for an understanding of the problems you need to start with primary education which is a mess and grossly under resourced particularly in the inner city and urban areas. The resourcing issue is manifest in the increasing use of unqualified TA's to fill in where qualified supply or temporary teachers used to be. In addition both teachers and headteachers seem to have to undertake a wide range of administrative, clerical and organisation duties that add no value to the child's education. Furthermore there are more and more pupil casualties of the broken society requiring mental health treatment and support.
The reducing availability of employment continuity and family breakdown militate against equal opportunities for what use to be called working class children. Career advisors with sharp elbows will have little impact.
Complain about this comment
Well, making people pay tuition fees and take out student loans is a very good way of ensuring that the wealthy are the only people who can access jobs requiring a degree (medicine, law, accountancy). Self-evident, I'd have thought.
Additionally, high-paid jobs are mainly in London. Many capable people can't afford to move to London for a job that pays nothing (e.g. internships) but leads to better things. Since policy-makers and the journos who 'hold them to account' all live in London, they don't seem to even register this as an issue. This metrocentric assumption then becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.
The whole political/economic/financial/media/cultural system is totally Londoncentric. I mean, all your examples here, Mark, are from London. The Today Programme even carried out interviews about the pain of inequality from, wait for it, Hampstead. Inequality? Equal access to foccaccia? Where's my placard?
Complain about this comment
The biggest problem has been the Labour addiction to equality of education. not everyone is made the same, nor can they achieve the same things in life. PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. So the bizarre situation arises. This government has done everything it can to reduce opportunity for good students from poorer backgrounds to excel(grammar schools etc etc). they now wish to penalize those who have given up on the disastrous public sector education and scrimp and save to give them a proper education where they can excel and find the best in themselves. All the while the PM talks of competing on the national stage for jobs industry etc. We hobble our work force education and then crow about competing with nations who do all they can to giuve their childred the very best eduaction they can and dont shy away from competition in schools. Thius must be the joined up government Tony Blair and Gordon Brown spoke of. Fools
Complain about this comment
A crucial factor is private school education, especially at the top schools.
An opportunity to abolish private education was missed when this was not included in the Butler education act at the end of ww2. At that time, because of the war, class was temporally not seen as so important and upper class parents might not have objected so vigorously to their children being educated along with lower class children, as they would now. In any case respect for the upper classes had diminished as a result of them being seen at close quarters by many people in the services.
Abolishing private education is politically out of the question now, but something should be done to diminish the unfair advantages it confers on the children it educates.
Discrimination on the basis of school, parental friends and contacts, etc should be made illegal, as it is for race or religion. Although this would be difficult to enforce, just as it is for the existing laws for race and religion, it would be worth having such a measure on the statute book.
Charitable status for bodies which have such a malign influence on our society is not acceptable.
Universities should be not only urged to reduce the proportion of privately educated students they take, but told that if the do not reduce the proportion to a target level in say, three years, they will lose all state funding.
Complain about this comment
Surely the main factor as several have already pointed out is finance.
It already costs an arm and a leg to put a child through a normal 3 year university course even with grants/loans etc. When that is finished it is often necessary to undertake some further course or training often with no salary and yet more cost. Then to get into a profession it is usual to have to take an unpaid internnship. Even then the student is left with massive (say £20K) loans to the student loans company.
This means our children are financially dependent on their parents until well into their 20s and it really is only the rich who can afford to fund their child through a year of them earning precisely nothing whilst they take an internship. There is still no guarantee of a job.
Presumeably at the end of all this and with a well-paid professional job it is all worth it but the costs involved in getting to this happy outcome are well beyond the reach of most families.
Complain about this comment
"internships restricted to those whose parents can afford for their children to work for nothing"
Just like politics then.
Look at the w4mp website (work 4 MP) which lists all the vacancies in the political arena and all the entry level positions are for no pay, and a zone 1 railcard if you're lucky.
Even after many of my peers suggested I would be good in politics I never got the chance to try because I couldn't afford to work for free in London.
Complain about this comment
It now just depresses me to see how many people are eager to find fault with parents who are willing to pay for their children's education. My children were in a State School and I had no problem with that, until my daughter came home, aged 6, and asked my about sniffing aerosol cans and her friend got a letter saying "I want to have sex with you". Yes, that scared the hell out of us and our children are now in an Independent school. I had to move 3 counties to find a school we could afford (oddly enough in Surrey!). I did not do this because I was an upper class snob - I am, after all, an immigrant and your class system is a joke to me - I did it because I don't want my daughter to turn into a 14 year old mother working at the checkout and sniffing things for the rest of her life. The opinion that this is easy also makes me laugh - the majority of the mothers at the school work as their children's education needs to be paid for - they do not believe it is their "right" to stay at home and be with their kids, they sacrifice that time to ensure their children are educated and can get by in life without the governments (sorry MY) tax money.
I also come from a country where nothing is free and you have to work to survive, maybe that's what some people need. To actually get up and get jobs and teach their children how real life works, get a job, go to work and lead by example or stop complaining.
It is sad that so many children are in this position, sadder still that so many parents see it as the governments problem.
This truly is the land of opportunity and it is possible for anyone to succeed here if they are willing to do the work, however they need two things: the willingness and motivation to do the work and the understanding that eduction is not a right it's a privilege.
Complain about this comment
"The common practices include offering work experience to the children of friends of friends"
What a shame James Naughtie wasn't presenting the Today programme this morning - you could've mentioned his son's work experience for Newsnight as an example.
Complain about this comment
I fully agree with the comments of #1 Gothnet and #8 AfricanExport, apart from the last sentence, which I would rephrase to say "good education is not a right it's a privilege".
What I find really depressing about the statistics is the %age rises in "professions" where merit plays little part in career advancement eg. Banking, Accounting and Journalism/Broadcasting whose collective average salaries would (I suggest) far exceed the collective averages of the other professions listed.
I would suggest that Labours commitment to "Equality of Education" has directly led to an inequality of opportunity. Mixed ability classes benefit no-one and guarantee the lowest standards of education for all. The clever (irrespective of class) are unstretched and bored, the "academically challenged" are completely lost and bored and the average (at whom the levels of attainment are aimed) are distracted by the disruptions created by the former groups. The problem is we (as with everything else) lean towards the American Model where "public education" amounts to little more than temporary incarceration and increasingly more expensive "private education" gives access to privilege and "connections". Yet America is supposedly a classless society.
Complain about this comment
It would be telling to compare the figure for the percentage of families with above average income, both in the 50s and the 70s. I suspect that the skew on that distribution would have become worse too, although there is a chance that it might have improved, in which case the above charts are less shocking.
However, the whole thing is quite depressing. If you are only picking doctors from 50% of the population, then we may be picking only 50% of the most able for the positions available. That affects all of us that use health services - both private and public - including the rich.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I must object to you highlighting a political stunt from the Labour party, if you must become a mouthpiece for political parties at least make your article balanced.
And yes this pathetic report does smack of class war, and shame on you for letting your own left wing views get the better of your judgement.
Complain about this comment
I wonder how much of it is finance-related? When I went to university all the fees were paid and we got a grant, so there was some level of cushion. Applying now, especially for longer courses, undergraduates know they'll be building up a large debt unless they've got wealthy parents, or have had an upbringing that gives them the right connections so they know they'll be OK in a future job. I would have given serious thought to not going to university had I been in today's circumstances. As far as I know, I was the first in my family to go to university, despite being one of the youngest of uncountable cousins, so perhaps even 25 years ago it wasn't so common.
Of course, the ultimate opt-out of home education and avoiding even private schools is now under threat from the government. One has to have fairly sharp elbows to deal with interference from the authorities, which probably helps at university application time.
Complain about this comment
>> You cannot legislate away all the advantage of supportive, ambitious, wealthy and well-connected families
So all supportive parents are wealthy and well-connected, Mark? That's the catchall that betrays the BBC New Labour agenda, doesn't it. Attack parents who want the best for their kids, blame them for the failure of the New Labour 12-year programme and promise of 'Education, Education... etc'. The billions of extra £ tax-paid funding wasted in dumbing down education and destroying standards, you have betrayed a generation on the altar of half-baked idealogy and serial incompetence.
The BBC's uncritical acceptance of the Labour analysis really does sicken - and we are compelled to pay for this in the licence fee.
Complain about this comment
#5 stanblogger
Do you mind describing why you find the idea of private schooling so abhorrent, why you say it has a malign influence?
Why should we strive to reduce the advantage that they give children? Are you trying to imply that those fortunate enough to have achieved higher academic grades due to better schooling ought to be kept down and discriminated against?
Are you saying parents should not be allowed to confer the advantages of the wealth they have earned onto their children? Are private, after-school tutors to be banned too? Parental help with learning? Just to make sure that everyone gets the same as those whose parents don't care?
I'm all for improving schooling for everyone, but forcing universities to turn down better prepared and better educated pupils because of their schooling background is nothing short of backwards thinking socialism. Not everyone gets such a good start so we should hold back those that do!
How great that would be for the UK!
This is exactly the type of thinking that's got education into the mess it's in. Ban grammar schools because they "discriminate"! Put everyone in the same class so that they get the same opportunities!
In the mean time, those that wish to learn are disrupted by those that don't, those that can't learn at the same pace as others are left behind, whilst the brightest are left to get bored, disinterested and eventually fail. You describe and advocate a *perfect* model for mediocrity and a stagnant Britain.
Complain about this comment
So, let's see:
- Grammar schools disappeared mid-late 70s ?
- So, '58 cohort went to grammar / technical / secondary modern based on ability.
- And, '70 cohort went to public school or comprehensive, based on parental income.
- And, professions show more bias to high parental incomes for '70 cohort than '58.
No, forget it, must be a red herring, can't possibly be a connection there...
Complain about this comment
Having left school with a poor education it took until the age of 29 before I attend evening classes, gaining many qualifications. After gaining an A level in British Social Economic History, I became aware of the gulf which now divides this nation, its young people and their ability to gain good employment opportunities.
Redundant, after 25 years working in a tube mill, my qualifications did help me find employment for the past 5 years, but once again I have joined the unemployed ranks. With retirement on the horizon, I guess my working days are over. My concern is for the thousands of young people, hundreds where I live in Walsall, who have little prospect of achieving any worthwhile position in life. The critics are out apportioning the blame on immigration through to a lack of funding etc, I dont fully share this view. I recall one evening sitting in an evening class perplexed by the inability to enter data into an excel spread sheet, a smiling little Asian girl sitting adjacent to me, soon showed me the procedure, she was just aged 10. I spent six months receiving private tuition in computers studies, on most occasions the class was attended by children, their parents were not rich or snobbish, just working people eager to see their kids achieve. Besides opportunities existing to succeed, parents must share the responsibility of helping their children in their studies after school hours. However in many working class areas, parents have never been educated to a degree which enables them to help their childrens education. The education system is in a torrid mess, large classes encumber the brightest from expressing their full potential, lack of equipment and social deprivation ensures that teachers double up in many areas as social workers. I now enjoy teaching my great nieces with the knowledge Ive gained, but how many more Education Acts are required before this quagmire is sorted I truly dont know.
Complain about this comment
if you remove the upper tier sadly there will be nothing for the lower tiers to push against and wether it is education, jobs or society as a whole its a plan for disaster may be this government has decided to take the country down with them creating such a weak uk that we can no longer do anything without financial support from overseas.
some one has to stop this madness before its too late and hold a general election.
Complain about this comment
Born in a working class family living in a council house, went to grammar school then went to university for free, in fact they paid me a grant, became a lawyer..... went into international business, now a university professor...so it can be done, but of course i had the advantage of a great education..something that the children today cannot obtain at a dumbed down comprehensive and cannot afford at a fee paying university... The labour party has betrayed the working class by ruining the education of a generation.
Complain about this comment
I think there's potentially an alternative explanation here ... consider a case where professional families beget professional children. If the wages of professionals have increased faster than average wages then this would explain the results and would lead to quite different conclusions.
Complain about this comment
I was always told (from a brood of 6) that I was the clever one by my family. This from a very early age. There was a weight of expectation placed on my shoulders. I was conscious of this as and when circumstances arose or discussing schooling. There must have been some truth to it as when I was 8 my then teacher a Mrs Allsop (Stockingford Junior School circa 1972) in maths moved me from the general group of about 20 kids into the advanced group of about 5 working on a seperate table. At the time I had an almost overwhelming feeling that she had made a mistake and I did not belong at that table. I always wondered what it was that she saw in me that marked me as capable of more advanced study. I have always wondered whether or not that was the difference (in so many ways) between my career options without it and those I have actually had.
I now have two daughters (aged 13 and 17), and the youngest has always been academically and most probably intellectually ahead of her elder sister. Her capacity to recall, rationalise, argue, and comprehend I never saw in myself at her age. I am in awe of her learning skills and I regularly have to remind her of how very clever she is when ever she has self doubt. The circle of life illustrating itself to me most aptly.
Complain about this comment
There is so much a bright disadvantaged student has to contend with than just academics. For students whose parents never attended college its like a quantum leap just believing that they are somebody and that they are worthy of even attending college. That is why colleges should host student weekends frequently throughout the year so that a child gets used to a college he/she might want to later attend. Upper income students don't worry about how college is paid for, spending money, bus fare. These are really insurmountable problems to a young person and let's face it the government doesn't make it that easy for disadvantaged children to easily get the money to attend. In my daughter's case, I was ecstatic that she was accepted to Durham but then reality set in and I wondered how am I going to pay for it? Somehow we managed but she had to take a part time job. She was then accepted to LSE and again had to work while going to graduate school. I think its a lot to ask of a poor student. We struggle very hard to get our children highly educated, We pay the same as children of Prime Ministers, Presidents, Kings. Our brilliant children aren't well connected. They fight tooth and nail for every advantage that comes their way. Our children are smarter, harder working, more deserving yet, they remain invisible. I don't envy students from priveleged backgrounds but often their esteemed positions aren't based on merit but default.
Complain about this comment
Artists, Musicians, Writers, Stockbrokers and Traders, Journalists and Broadcasters ...... since when were these Professions ?
The first 3 are "talents" with which a small few are born.
The others are a talent-less mix of spivs, chancers and crooks with not an ounce of moral fibre between them.
None require professional training, none are Professions ! !
Complain about this comment
Actually I think this quite positive - although Labour are still much inclined to patch the problem (rig university acceptances and the like in favour of their preferred groups) there seems at least some recognition that the poor performance of state schools might be at the heart of the problem.
When they finally realise that parents who save to send their children to private school (the majority) do so not as a class statement but because they are not happy with the state's offering. Of course parents this motivated could be an advantage, too; but you do not have to be wealthy to be motivated...
Complain about this comment
As a council estate raised, comprehensive school taught, average bloke can I make the following observations.
My second child has just finished secondary school, one of the best in our South East, affluent town. The standard of knowledge that the kids are leaving the school with is staggeringly low, yet they will all get excellant grades to take with them. This is all very well but the value of any qualification is now becoming devalued. As an example there was a receptionist job advertised recently that was asking applicants to have 4 A level passes or above.
I have 18 years in management but lost my job last summer. Every position I was applying for was only open to applicants with degrees, so I have now started a degree course in Business Management learning what I have been practising for the last 18 years. However, again I am shocked by the lack of skills held by some of the younger students on the course, yet they will leave with a degree in a couple of years time as the University will do all possible to get them a pass as the alternative is a fail which reflects badly on the Uni's stats and puts their status at risk.
So we will end up in a state of mediocraty where everyone holds qualifications that are meaningless and the brightest will be pulled back rather than being pushed. As a consequence the only reliable method of selection for higher jobs will be by who you know, or what your background is and so opportunity for progression will be less than it is at the present time.
Complain about this comment
The tripartite system of education at least ensured that the brightest pupils could receive a Grammar School education, which in the end was as good as a Public School education. Mixed-ability teaching has lowered standards for everyone. As uncomfortable as it may be to admit this, one less-able (or less-willing) pupil can ruin a whole class.
Parental choice has made things even worse. A bright child from a poor family may well end up trapped in a school from which all the better-off parents have withdrawn their little darlings, leaving mainly ineducable chavs whose parents cannot be bothered about them. Only a minority will survive that experience to emerge with good examination grades.
Then there is the problem of grade distortion by the privatised matriculation boards. Schools want to be able to show high pass rates, encouraging boards to set easy examinations.
We need to take a hard line and re-introduce segregation by ability; as opposed to the present situation which, to all intents and purposes, is segregation by ability to pay. Yes, some children are not as smart as others. We ignore that at the peril of the smartest.
Complain about this comment
#22 Joan Olivares
You had my sympathy up until that last sentence. I agree that we as a country should be funding the brightest students, not forcing them into debt.
But why did you feel the need to say this -
"Our children are smarter, harder working, more deserving yet, they remain invisible. I don't envy students from priveleged backgrounds but often their esteemed positions aren't based on merit but default."
I'm intelligent and worked very hard to get good grades and go to university. I've worked damned hard to progress my career for the last ten years. To say that I've achieved what I have by default and not merit is insulting.
I don't work for "Daddy's" friends. I don't work for someone that went to my school. I didn't get my University position or my job based on who I knew or who I was, I got them through the same hard work and innate wit that everyone else does.
Your children are not smarter. Your children are not harder working. They have done well, but that doesn't make them better than me. Take your superiority complex and shove it up your...
Complain about this comment
Dear Gothnet,
Calm down. It's just a conversation we're having and please don't be disrepectful. If you used your privelege and worked very hard then I congratulate you. But George Bush was a "C" student at Yale and still became President only because of his father's connections and money. This money merit system is inherently unjust and perpetuates a lot of mediocrity though in your case this, according to you, wasn't the case. Do you you think PM's have an inherent right to lead because of their birthright? Many bright, better qualified poor children are never given a chance because the system isn't skewed in their favor. That's simply my point. And honestly, yes, I do believe that there are more intelligent poor kids than rich ones.
Complain about this comment
Joan,
Your problem is that you think everyone that went to a public school is rich.
You miss out the masses upon masses of hard working families that strive to make a decent living and choose to send their children to a public school because they have no faith in the state school system. They are not rich. I am not rich. I am not George Bush, my dad is not George Senior.
"Do you you think PM's have an inherent right to lead because of their birthright?"
Erm, remember John Major, son of a circus performer? One of the best we've had in my opinion. No, I do not for a moment support dynastic progression in politics or the "old boys network" that exists in the financial worlds.
I do object to you characterising those of us who had some advantages in starting out their lives as being less intelligent, without merit and having got where we are without working for it. It's offensive.
Complain about this comment
"Do you you think PM's have an inherent right to lead because of their birthright?"
Let's look at the proffessions of fathers of recent prime ministers. We have:
Brown - Priest
Blair - University lecturer
Major - Circus performer/music hall artist
Thatcher - Grocer
Callaghan - Navy officer
Wilson - Industrial chemist
Heath - Carpenter
Douglas-Home - Peer of the realm
So, you have to go all the way back to 1964 before you find a PM from an upper class background.
Complain about this comment
I'm 32, I spent 10 years unemployed due to living in a commuter town (Braintree, Essex) where there is very little work if any for what I am qualified for and the skill set that I have and I was turned down frequently for positions in supermarkets and other shops within the town.
My father was made redundant during the 80s, thank you Mrs Thatcher, and my mother worked and still does work in a supermarket earning circa. £12k PA.
It is only in the last 3 years that I have exceed the salaries earnt by my parents by achieving an IT helpdesk job that pays £15k PA.
I was caught in a catch 22 situation, never having enough money to seek employment more than 16 miles away and never having enough money to put myself through higher education to be able to achieve a better status for employment.
I feel that had I have had the advantage of having wealthy connected parents I wouldn't have had such a tough time. Yes there are those that break the mould but they are anomolies.
Some people on here say there is nothing wrong with being connected and using those connections to get your children a better position but I disagree. It is grossly unfair and discrimanatory for companies to take the son of X because X is good friends with X person at the company. Especially when a lot of the time the persons being employed are not suitable for the role.
The sooner those recruitment methods are made illegal and abandoned the better.
The wealthy have had it good for too long. It's time that those of us lower down the food chain who are just as capable at doing the same jobs had a chance to show that.
Complain about this comment
31 Raven
The problem is that there is a lack of option for children to be lifted out of the mediocrity that we have generated and be given a chance to succeed.
At least the old grammer school route gave that chance by taking young children and funding a better education which leads on to better higher education qualifications (such as Law or Medicine, rather than Media or Leisure Studies).
The Grammer school system was not perfect, but in the absense of a streamed system then all we will end up with is over rewarding an average standard. In an ideal world this would not be the case, but as we all know we don't live in an ideal world.
Complain about this comment
"Each year, the college accepts 50 students from local comprehensive schools, even if they don't have the grades normally required. One entrant came with a C and two Ds at A-level."
Terrifying - that is a standard that implies they can barely read and write. My dog could probably get that.
Two questions here...
1) Why have the kids from the local comprehensive got such poor marks? Huge amounts of money are spent on these schools, with disproportionate amounts going to inner city comprehensives. If these kids are so capable, why are their marks so low?
2) What evidence is there that after standards are lowered at entry to medical school, they are not compromised through out the course?
On this site's education page there have been numerous articles on lecturers being forced to lower standards to ensure 'widening participation' students don't fail by the hundred. A mass 'whistle blowing' by academics was also featured, many remaining anonymous due the level of intimidation being applied to them at their universities. MPs have described it as 'degree fraud' according to one article.
Personally I don't want to be treated by a doctor who was selected on the basis that they came from a school in an area that votes Labour: lets have the selection on the basis of ability.
Complain about this comment
My Dear Gothnet,
Please don't take me so seriously. I'm just a contrarian. Actually, my daughter is a product of the public English school system, a scholarship student. She like you, has worked very hard to get to the level that she's at and I believe a lot of that has to do with her values, seeing her mother struggle to find every advantage for her and of course you're right, some children understand the sacrifices their parents make for them and achieve beyond their parent's wildest dreams others take it for granted. In today's world, most children in the USA in boarding school are on some type of assistance.
I think there are many hurdles disadvantaged students face in going to the university. Money often gives children a sense of self confidence or importance not shared by poorer children. Money can buy private instruction, tutoring, extra curricular classes, summer camp. So called "spoiling" a child in this way gives them a sense that they're special. Children are oftentimes quite brutal to each other. Obstracizing those who don't have the "right" dress, car or blablabla.... Closing this gap somewhat, giving them educational opportunities, helps them feel as though they've arrived and that they're only somewhat different from the spoiled rich kid down the street. That is why I believe, every child should be given these opportunities. It doesn't ameliorate the sharp sting but it assuages it somewhat. When my daughter turned eight and asked me, "Mommy are we poor?" I said "No!" and then gave her a long winded explanation about how people choose to spend their money. I told her that giving her a great education was my focus because knowledge is like having a huge bank account, you can access it whenever you want. She seemed a bit bewildered but intrinsically understand my point. Without care and support, diasadvantage is just too big of an emotional hurdle for any child to overcome. That's why investing in children's futures works. As adults, we can make this a reality for all children otherwise the gap will widen and the world will become less and secure for everyone.
Complain about this comment
Tom P. Willis,
Thank You. Point Taken. Forgive me. I'm American.
Complain about this comment
Why has this country become so hung up on university?
Firstly, every society needs people wih different skills, from plumbers to joiners to welders. These people are as valuable as most so called professions as without them we would still be living in mud. They can also earn salaries on par with many professions and carry job satisfaction to boot.
Secondly, why does this issue need to be solved with reverse discrimination. This article, whilst not to be taken seriously, actually goes staight to the root of the problem of proposed quick fixes.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/report-proposes-royal-college-of-mouthy%2c-teenage-skanks-200907211918/
Complain about this comment
"Each year, the college accepts 50 students from local comprehensive schools, even if they don't have the grades normally required. One entrant came with a C and two Ds at A-level."
My son worked bloody hard for his A-levels, is likely to get straight As and wasn't even granted an interview for a place at medical school. He also would make a damn good doctor, but finds himself caught between the monied middle classes at private schools and the so-called disadvantaged in the inner cities.
Discrimination of any kind is not fair, whether it be positive or negative.
Complain about this comment
The problem here is that nowadays one needs a certificate of some kind to even get an interview and that is the fault of the employer who thinks wrongly that someone who has gone through a uni or college is more capable of doing a job than someone who has no degree...of course we who have worked for many many years know that is rubbish and we also know that if firms could be bothered to take the time to do proper interviewing they will get the right person for the job...now I do understand that there are certain jobs that require a further education in job specific training but the best person for any job is the one who has intelligent drive and interest and not the one who relies on his 2nd in geography
Complain about this comment
What makes me laugh is all the parents who 'struggle' to send their kids to private school which they can clearly ill-afford.
Every single one of these people is doing it because their mis-guided belief is that if their kids go to a private school they will be able to achieve much greater achievements than they did themselves.
(it's called living your life through your children).
I find this attitude incredibley selfish and does no good for the child who may no want to go to stuffy private school. It also doesn't help the development of comprehensives (you'll see why further down)
The reality is that most kids are either successful or not before they even reach school - in the ages 0 - 5 they develop most, fastest and it defines their entire lives. I know this because I have experimented with my nephew - a lad from a single parent background - who unfortunately left school at 16, inner city comprehensive and mixed race who's destiny (going off statistics) was to be a school drop-out. However I started educating him early and he arrived at school being able to read / spell / count explain some complicated concepts (for his age) - such as what a Dodecahedron is and what it looks like - along with every 3d shape leading up to the 12 sided monster. The teachers were amazed at his progress and keep asking how he knows all this - his knowledge has also had a marked positive effect on the other pupils in his class - it encourages him to learn and for him to teach the others what he knows.
He also arrived being able to use a computer - something which I didn't actively teach him but he picked up from watching me - such is the childs thirst to learn.
Sadly I see too many parents 'too busy' with their lives to take the time to explain things properly. Too many times to parents hush their children up with a false or vague answer to a valid question - because they don't feel they have time to explain it properly.
I discovered this technique from experience, I went to the local comprehensive, but when I arrived at 5 I already had a reading age of 8 years old - mainly because my father and mother took the time to teach me to read at home first as well as not dumbing things down for the children.
You cannot substitute bad parenting by sending your kids to private school - which is what a lot of parents try to do. I didn't even do that well at school because I was easily distracted and found exams tiresome but strangely I sit near the top of my profession surrounded by people who think I'm clever - and yet I am one of the most un-qualified (on paper) people in the building. What I have over them is they all rely on 'learned knowledge' where if they have read it then they know it - however I rely on being able to work out things on the fly. Being able to remember every detail you have ever been taught is impossible, but I am able to simply apply logic and reason to come to the same learned conclusion.
Best of all I don't get mugged, beaten up or get teased because I'm seen as a 'posh boy' - which is the fate of most public school kids and the adults they become.
Comprehensives teach you a lot more than just schoolwork - they also teach you how to interact with people of all races, colours and creeds. Something which the secular private schools fail dismally with.
If I could do it all over again there is no way I would ever choose a private school over a comp. I have many friends who went to private school and I really think they missed out. Generally their learned knowledge is much better than most, but they cannot work things out for themselves.
....which is exactly how the banking crisis came about - they have all the facts taught to them about interest rates and competition - but not one of them could spot the 'street fraud' of toxic instruments - something someone from a comprehensive would have spotted a million miles away.
This is where the old boy network failed dismally. By keeping the people at the top from the same set of schooling - they created the biggest bunch of mugs in the world and no-one was there to point out the obvious.
The moral of this story is simply that you cannot buy your kids a good education - it must come from you, the parents and relatives. anyone who says different is probably from the local private school touting for business!
Complain about this comment
29 Gothnet
"I do object to you characterising those of us who had some advantages in starting out their lives as being less intelligent, without merit and having got where we are without working for it. It's offensive."
....but sadly this is true in most cases. People from priviliged backgrounds work out quite quickly that they don't have to work as hard as others - because of the priviliges afforded to them. This inherently makes them lazy - both mentally and physically.
This is why the ruling and middle classes despise the idea of the removal of inherited wealth. Whilst a minority would be OK, the majority would really struggle in the modern world without all their advantages.
If you don't believe me then simply look at the collection of people they call 'socialites'. These are the extreme form of inherited wealth downsides, a set of people who contribute nothing to socitey and yet have a much larger proportion of wealth than the average man or woman thanks to their rich parents and inherited wealth. They are often given the most advantages in life (best schools, best colleges, best universities) - and yet manage to evolve as the dumbest species on the planet!
I have also noticed a similar evolution happening in the entertainment world with Mark Derden Smith? now presenting 'Wish you were here' - for no other reason than his mother did it. The result is someone who doesn't actually fit the programme and who will never be able to show the talents he migth have because he's typecast into his role. The same could be said of many celebrity son / daughter.
As you have probably seen from numerous reality TV shows - when these people are put into a situation where they need their brains, craft and ingenuity - they are sadly found wanting. Being unable to boil an egg at 35 years old is disgraceful in my book - and not very encouraging when you consider the survival of the human race might depend on these people one day.
Even more pertinent is the fact that under our current Economic system these people are 'expected to invest their money responsibly to encourage growth and employment' by this Government and every Government since the 80's.
....so is there any wonder that they didn't invest responsibly and the result is the crashing Economy around us??
Complain about this comment
Dear witingsonthewall,
You're absolutely right. You don't need a private education. Most people send their kids to private school to get them away from tough, negative, gang ridden neighborhoods. Children start to emulate the people around them. Parents need to be better at noticing these tendencies and get help for their children early.
Complain about this comment
oldsitkaspruce wrote:
now I do understand that there are certain jobs that require a further education in job specific training but the best person for any job is the one who has intelligent drive and interest and not the one who relies on his 2nd in geography
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like so many of the posts of oldsitkaspruce, the posters own jealousy has come to the fore, if he is not making sexist comments about BBC female reporters he is making infantile class war statements.
Complain about this comment
Africanexport makes good points about hard work and the 'something for nothing culture' in which we live but the fact is that most independent schools are massively subsidised by being registered as charities; something that may have been true in the 16th century but is now laughable. As a libertarian I believe it's everyone's right to spend their money as they see fit but don't pretend public schools aren't subsidised. it's just by the back door. Of course, as the political elite benefit from this don't expect to see it change anytime soon.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS