GOGSoc Episode V: The GOG Strikes Back

Scroll to see replies

Reply 980

flying plum

Original post by Craghyrax

Don't become a lawyer. I won't like you anymore :no:

what's wrong with lawyers? :frown:

Reply 981

Supermerp

Original post by Athena

I think it's supposed to stop the rich getting ever richer, generation on generation, although now it impacts quite a large proportion of the population because houses are worth so much - suddenly lots of people have this massive asset that their children have to sell to pay the inheritance tax so they can receive it...

But that's then surely part of stopping the rich (in this case, people who have valuable houses) from getting even richer. Do you have to sell houses in those circumstances anyway? Isn't it possible to get a mortgage or something?

Reply 982

The Lyceum

What so I purchase and take care of a house and my children, should they wish to retain it, are expected to take out a mortgage? How is that remotely fair? This country punishes success and aptitude far, far, too much.

Why not just be like all my school friends, get some idiot girl pregnant, get a subsidized house and spend all my time drinking, doing pot and having "fun"?

The system is crap. I'm going to stick all my money in a Cyprian account and retire elsewhere.

Reply 983

flying plum

Original post by Drogue

Surely that statement also applies to ability, to at least some extent. Are we to stop discrimination based on that? The point I'm alluding to is that, if someone has been given a leg up through something that wasn't their choice, is it wrong to pull them back in a way that levels the playing field? I wouldn't go anywhere near as far as Adorno in espousing harsh state discrimination against all private schools, but I do think, for example, that universities should look at grades in the context of what is average for that school, as well as in absolute terms.

I agree with this. As someone who went to a private school, and is grateful for the experience, i still have a lot of personal conflict over the advantage it has given me. I'm not sure I'd send my children to private school, even if I could afford it (which seems unlikely at this point).

That said, I can see why parents do - it's very hard to stick to your principles when you're potentially affecting an innocent third party. Even though you know you're perpetuating a cycle of inequality, to deliberately put your child in a position of potential disadvantage would be hard for a lot of parents to do, I think, and I can see why political views may often give way to selfish pragmatism...

Reply 984

kka25

Hey

What are the things you only *know* (positively/negatively) after you applied for your PhD or started your PhD?

Reply 985

the_alba

Original post by flying plum

That said, I can see why parents do - it's very hard to stick to your principles when you're potentially affecting an innocent third party. Even though you know you're perpetuating a cycle of inequality, to deliberately put your child in a position of potential disadvantage would be hard for a lot of parents to do, I think, and I can see why political views may often give way to selfish pragmatism...

This is very true. There's nothing like parenthood to turn people into political hypocrites. There are so many self-described 'left-wing' couples who would feel bound to send their eleven-year-old to private school if they found the local state provision wanting. They would do this, and continue to self-identify as left-wing. God knows, if I'm still living in Hull when I have children that age, I'll be in a tough situation as Hull schools are the worst in the country. If I'd been sent to one at 11, I'd have wondered what I'd done to make my mother hate me so much. So why would I inflict that on a child? It's easy to judge these 'left-wing' education-purchasers, but as a self-contradictory and selfish position it's not that different from describing oneself as an animal lover but eating meat (which is the default position of most Britons). People are hypocrites.

Unfairnesses should be levelled out by looking at grades in the context of the school, but this assumes that the main advantage of attending a private school is grades; it's not. It's the confidence necessary to apply to university in the first place, the self-esteem, the sense of being able to make ones mark on the world, the firm foundations. These things take much longer to learn than A-grade exam answers, and in the long run are more important. Anecdotal I know, but when I look at my friendship group from primary school (all really intelligent, all comp-bound) and from the private school I briefly attended (not nearly as intelligent), I find it weird that the latter group are all universally successful in their careers, all but one living in London, and this despite getting very average grades and attending very mediocre universities. My primary friends are all still living in the area they grew up in, despite in some cases having degrees from Warwick and Oxford. The only ones in 'professional' careers are primary teachers. I just find the contrast very stark, and quite depressing actually. To me it seems all about the self-confidence private school gives most pupils. Weirdly though, my private school took my confidence away, which is why I left (it was because I was the non-fee-paying kid :rolleyes:

)

PS. Typing box is misbehaving :mad:

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 986

the_alba

Original post by The Lyceum

What so I purchase and take care of a house and my children, should they wish to retain it, are expected to take out a mortgage? How is that remotely fair? This country punishes success and aptitude far, far, too much.

Why not just be like all my school friends, get some idiot girl pregnant, get a subsidized house and spend all my time drinking, doing pot and having "fun"? The system is crap. I'm going to stick all my money in a Cyprian account and retire elsewhere.

This is a pretty Daily-Maily brush-tarring of what people on benefits are like, and is pretty offensive (some idiot girl?) :colonhash:

Reply 987

obi_adorno_kenobi

Original post by Athena

I think the inheritance tax system probably needs to be rethought - you talk about the rich and valuable houses in the same breath, but it's not that clear cut. The current threshold is £325,000 - look here at average Cambridge house prices. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/html/12ub.stm Many, many people bought houses in the mid-late 90s that have doubled or trebled in value. The household income associated with this hasn't risen in the same way, so the bracket of people you 'want' to catch has shifted a long way into the middle and even working classes (who you probably don't want to catch). If you look at the threshold increases here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/iht-thresholds.htm you can see how it's changed with time. You buy a house for £150k in 1997 - in your wildest dreams will it ever suffer from inheritance tax. The housing market goes stupid, and by 2012, even with the housing market crash, it's worth £400k. But your take home pay has only gone up with inflation (if you're lucky). I'm not sure that would classify you as rich, or one of the rich getting richer...

That's a fair assessment of the issues with the threshold though whether it mitigates against the tax is another matter. Labour introduced it in the post-war government in an effort to stop the cycle of advantage from one wealthy generation to another and to try and balance opportunity out. I think their aims are still relevant today.

Reply 988

Kitty Pimms

Original post by The Lyceum

Well I think inheritance tax is another matter entirely. I don't really understand why it exists. Well I understand WHY it exists, it just seems odd ideologically: I make money, taxed. Anything I do with it, taxed. That money is now passed on to my children, taxed. Anything they purchase, taxed. Holy crap what? It's MY money.

Well not literally because I have no money. It has just always seemed....wrong from an ideological point no matter how useful in terms of practicality.

As for schools. Well as someone from a (relatively) poor background I think it's quite clear that most comps are terrible, though it depends on what area you're from and despite being overall left leaning I'm all for private schooling. If someone has the cash and wants to send their children to a private school, good for them. It's their money and their taxes (which are most likely significantly higher anyway) also contribute to state schooling.

The massive disparity between state and private doesn't exist solely in academic terms, there is a mentality at work more often than not. One of the things I genuinely hate about the UK compared to, say, Greece is the level of "reverse" snobbery. The BEST thing I've ever done, incidentally, was getting well shot of my crappy schooling and going into work for a few years where I could get away from all that crap and think. Working in a restaurant for 2 years did more for my education than the previous 7.

Danny Dorling runs a fantastic explanation of inheritance tax in 'Injustice' - this is a bit of a summary but the books is much better http://www.libdemvoice.org/danny-dorling-24194.html

I was debating education and class in my first year seminar the other day. Most of the kids were very switched on and engaged with the issue. It made me happy that by and large they were very thoughtful about the complexity of the problem even though most of them had had very privileged upbringings, and there were only a couple of 'why shouldn't people who've gone to Oxbridge run the country?' arguments. I was also quite heartened by one of the students who had been to a bad comp, and had had no support applying to university. He argued that teachers who provided links to universities would make a real difference in encouraging applications. He was really shocked to hear that I couldn't teach in a state secondary (no PGCE) but could happily get an independent school job (three years' seminar teaching experience). I suppose I'd never thought of it like that, but I guess he's right in many ways. I don't have a hope of getting onto a state maintained teaching scheme because I can't afford to take career time out for a PGCE, and I won't get onto a GTP because of my subject background. So if I want to impart my university knowledge, it'll have to be to rich kids. Which seems quite sad.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 989

obi_adorno_kenobi

Original post by IlexAquifolium

Yeah, that's an oddity which has been partly solved in the sciences and technology because of the schemes Labour introduced to get those with industry experience into teaching. Begs the question why it's not yet been applied to the arts and social sciences - presumably because of the squalls of students entering into teaching each year in the absence of owt better to do with their degrees. I wonder, though, whether the bigger fault is that we teach but are never formally entered for a teaching qualification. If universities got their act together and schools recognised that as an alternative to the PGCE, problem ... solved?

Reply 990

the_alba

Original post by IlexAquifolium

He was really shocked to hear that I couldn't teach in a state secondary (no PGCE) but could happily get an independent school job (three years' seminar teaching experience). I suppose I'd never thought of it like that, but I guess he's right in many ways. I don't have a hope of getting onto a state maintained teaching scheme because I can't afford to take career time out for a PGCE, and I won't get onto a GTP because of my subject background. So if I want to impart my university knowledge, it'll have to be to rich kids. Which seems quite sad.

I did not know this! :eek:

Is it possible to be shocked but unsurprised at the same time? Red tape, illogical self-defeating restrictions, and bureaucratic rigidity are the real downside to anything state-run.

Reply 991

Kitty Pimms

Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi

Agreed, one of the reasons I went to my postgrad university was that they offered a PgCert HE scheme for teachers, so that they had more chance of going into teaching jobs after...which they canned the year I started. Thanks, guys. I can understand why it's seen as important to be 'properly trained', but I do think that this discourages talented teachers who don't fit into the rigid little boxes necessary to get that training. I'd really like to teach in a state school, but it just ain't going to happen unless I can persuade an independent school to pay to put me through the GTP in another subject, which isn't especially likely at the moment.

Edit - even the GTP, which was supposed to enable people from academia and industry to become teachers, requires a 2.2, 6 weeks' prior teaching experience, and that you do the GTP in your university subject (which in my case means citizenship). How are those requirements conducive to attracting the first-from-Oxbridge banker types?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 992

obi_adorno_kenobi

Original post by the_alba

I did not know this! :eek:

Is it possible to be shocked but unsurprised at the same time? Red tape, illogical self-defeating restrictions, and bureaucratic rigidity are the real downside to anything state-run.

Comes with awesome flexible working patterns though! Otherwise working for the civil service has been a complete revelation (if only to confirm the characterisations from the outside) of the complete lack of creativity and independence of thought. If it isn't a purchase order, performance management review, or "minute" it's nothing. Paperwork is choking the public sector. That and completely anti-democratic decision making processes.

Reply 993

obi_adorno_kenobi

Original post by IlexAquifolium

We're going to nothing from universities for a long while. They're too busy squeezing arts departments to the bone. They advertised a load of jobs at Aberystwyth recently, one of which was in history. They've lost five posts in the last few years which haven't been replaced. Yet the university was parading its colours about huge levels of recruitment. It's funny, isn't it, that you look carefully at application forms for teaching-led posts in universities now and they ask for a teaching qualification as "desirable". Where are we going to get one of them now?

Reply 994

The Lyceum

Original post by the_alba

This is a pretty Daily-Maily brush-tarring of what people on benefits are like, and is pretty offensive (some idiot girl?) :colonhash:

I believe I specifically mentioned people I know from school, actually. Yes out of my old friendship group I am the only one without at least one child. Sorry if you find it offensive, I'm well aware not all people on benefits are like that.

Original post by IlexAquifolium

Oh I'm glad we're going to talk about this, teaching etc, actually since I have something to say that's been bothering me actually.

I am amazed at how utterly shady Independent schools are with their Classics departments and Oxford. Since I've started here nary a week or two goes by without a circular being sent around looking for Greek and Latin teachers.

Which is fine, except that by and far most of these are specifically looking for OxBridge teachers. The latest one is quite disgusting. It repeatedly stresses its links to Oxford (11%! 11%!!!) and talks about needing brilliant grads to challenge and be challenged by students (if you genuinely think your little kiddies present any type of challenge to a trained philologist that's laughable in itself) and a hoard of other crap. What is really galling isn't that they specifically target Oxbridge for their positions but the fact that its so....underhanded. This particular advert has been circulated to us now, will be placed in the paper later this week and online another week later.

Honestly if it wasn't for some remaining qualms I'd copy-paste it so you could see the plaintive wheedling. Very much thinking of writing a reply explaining why they should do one.

Reply 995

Drogue

Original post by The Lyceum

That argument applies to all tax though - it's all your money, whether earned, saved, inherited or spent. Do you think tax shouldn't exist? I can understand that ideologically, but the practicalities of a government without tax seems ludicrous to me.

On the debate between inheritance tax and income tax, I'd ask a simple ideological question: is it more worthy, noble or otherwise better to be gifted money your family earned rather than to earn it yourself? If not, why tax income higher than inheritance? Most people seem to have more respect for self-made wealthy people than for those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, so I'd argue this should extend to taxation.

Original post by The Lyceum

Wait, inheritance tax punishes success and aptitude? A tax paid by people receiving money they've done nothing to earn except be born to a specific family? Because inheritance tax is not a tax on dying, it's a tax paid by the people who inherit the estate. This argument seems ludicrous to me when the main alternative to inheritance tax is income tax, which directly punishes success and (indirectly) aptitude.

Government's need to raise a certain amount. People can argue over how much, but few would dispute it needs to provide some services and therefore raise some tax. This issue is about how, not how much. And my view is that inheritance tax is fairer and more efficient than income tax. It sends a clearer meritocratic message, it enables social mobility by reducing the ability of the rich to remain rich without any effort, and it provides a greater incentive to work, develop and earn.

Reply 996

the_alba

Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi

H-- Uni E-- Department has a very dictatorial HoD now, and she is routinely tearing down any democratic process still standing. There was a job advertised in December which I applied for and got rejected from before interview. Last week, David was sent an email saying 'an appointment has now been made' - the HoD has scrapped presentations (which staff members would attend and give feedback on), and has now started refusing to let any other member of staff see even who was shortlisted. The only member of the department to interview applicants was her, the head. She is known to recruit in her own image (ie. deeply stupid, incapable jobsworths) and is now legally able to singlehandedly destroy the standards of the dept from the inside. Morale amonst staff is rock bottom, and the students are being screwed over too. Power within these bureacratic structures is a very dangerous thing in the wrong hands. /rant over

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 997

Kitty Pimms

Original post by the_alba

xxxx has a very dictatorial HoD now, and she is routinely tearing down any democratic process still standing. There was a job advertised in December which I applied for and got rejected from before interview. Last week, David was sent an email saying 'an appointment has now been made' - the HoD has scrapped presentations (which staff members would attend and give feedback on), and has now started refusing to let any other member of staff see even who was shortlisted. The only member of the department to interview applicants was her, the head. She is known to recruit in her own image (ie. deeply stupid, incapable jobsworths) and is now legally able to singlehandedly destroy the standards of the dept from the inside. Morale amonst staff is rock bottom, and the students are being screwed over too. Power within these bureacratic structures is a very dangerous thing in the wrong hands. /rant over

That's quite scary. I know how much disagreement there usually is in my department's appointments committees (which include panel interviews, presentations, etc as is the case at most departments) - three hour blazing rows, in some cases. I can't imagine how they get away with having a hiring committee of one. Mental.

(PS - love the fact that Mr Alba's academic profile features a cat :biggrin:

)

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 998

obi_adorno_kenobi

Original post by the_alba

XXXX has a very dictatorial HoD now, and she is routinely tearing down any democratic process still standing. There was a job advertised in December which I applied for and got rejected from before interview. Last week, David was sent an email saying 'an appointment has now been made' - the HoD has scrapped presentations (which staff members would attend and give feedback on), and has now started refusing to let any other member of staff see even who was shortlisted. The only member of the department to interview applicants was her, the head. She is known to recruit in her own image (ie. deeply stupid, incapable jobsworths) and is now legally able to singlehandedly destroy the standards of the dept from the inside. Morale amonst staff is rock bottom, and the students are being screwed over too. Power within these bureacratic structures is a very dangerous thing in the wrong hands. /rant over

Urgh. Yeah morale in my office is at rock bottom. Actually, the closest I've seen to a lively enthusiasm in months was during the pension strike last November when we suddenly felt as though we had a purpose.

Reply 999

Craghyrax

Curse the bugs :angry:

I go away for 12 hours and suddenly ten social and political debates spring up! :grumble:

Original post by Drogue

I'd more think something being left (or right) wing enough to be remarked upon is an aberration, whether it's seen as positive or negative or simply unusual. It's not that being right wing is normal, especially not in this thread...

Do you mean an aberration in normative or descriptive terms? Namely are you simply saying that it inevitably extreme, or are you trying to suggest that an extreme view is always bad?

Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi

Potty and I are not exactly unknown to each other so she can do a virtual slap in me face in her own time. However when it comes to privately-educated individuals, I'm afraid I have much less respect than I do for those who aren't. Neither you nor Hobnob nor Drogue nor anyone else will ever change my mind on that. The schools should be abolished, their assets stripped and turned over to state schools that desparately need them, and there should be a penalty imposed on all those who have gone to private and public schools when it comes to jobs, university entrance, and the tax system. Then, and only then, will they truly "get it".

I completely disagree with it and think you should realise that you're giving anybody with left wing/socialist views a bad name. Your argument comes out of bitterness and resentment, not out of clear thinking.
It would serve no purpose at all, and indeed be utterly ridiculous, to punish people for being lucky in life.

I do agree that there should be no private schools. Getting rid of them would not magically make the inequalities go away, but it would still help. All the research I've seen has shown that any kind of 'setting and streaming', or splitting up of pupils by any categorising at all simply leads to certain groups getting all the respect and privilege, and others doing worse than they would otherwise have done thanks to the category they find themselves in getting negative stigma.

Original post by hobnob

Well no, quite literally not. :p:

But this isn't about the fact that apotoftea went to a posh private school and that Latin is a terribly middle-class subject and plenty of people can manage just fine without it. It's about the fact that it's annoying when schools prevent their students from taking the subjects they'd like to take because of a silly technicality. Surely when a private school does that it's just as bad as when a state comprehensive does it?

Agreed.

Original post by BO'H

scratch a lefty, find a totalitarian.

That is utter rubbish and displays a good deal of ignorance about the many hundreds of different views and opinions held by the Left. :nn:

Original post by flying plum

what's wrong with lawyers? :frown:

Bear in mind that my experience is tainted by Cambridge lawyers who aren't necessarily the same as lawyers elsewhere... the law friends I do have all did law somewhere else! In short I have just disliked most lawyers I've met, and found them to be very arrogant and to hold very offensive views. They also give the impression that lots of the finance/investment banking wannabes do on TSR... namely that they're hell bent on becoming as rich as possible, no matter what they have to do to get there. I don't personally value being wealthy, and I don't feel that its the only marker of success or happiness in life, so I can't relate to this particular motivation in life. Its just about different values, basically. A lot of lawyers start out wanting to be human rights barristers but end up just going into corporate law where all the jobs are. Actually studying law can have a negative socialisation effect on a person at Cambridge since the atmosphere is very competitive and cut throat, and also paints any interest in welfare/support as weakness. Many law students I know experienced a lot of abuse from academics in the Cambridge law department in the form of very extreme verbal abuse and attacks (frequent swearing, being told they'll get thirds/never amount to anything/are stupid/a failure, etc.), which probably doesn't have the best influence. The lawyer friends I get on with are all into human rights stuff rather than corporate law, or people who were in corporate law and then got out fast :dontknow:

Original post by the_alba

This is a pretty Daily-Maily brush-tarring of what people on benefits are like, and is pretty offensive (some idiot girl?) :colonhash:

The way taxation is calculated is very problematic, but if it were done fairly and proportionally then it would definitely be the right way to run society.@The Lyceum: it is definitely not just peoples' own hard work which allows them to become wealthy. The way that the economy is managed has a big effect on how much individuals can earn. Over the last 30 years income inequality has risen exponentially as a direct result of the introduction of neo liberal policies such as deregulation and the stripping off of constraints from the market, as well as the intensification of financial practices and flows across borders. Since being able to profit from such a scenario depends on your position in life and whether you're able or privileged enough to gain a high position in a corporation and business, I don't agree that anybody should be allowed to earn pots of money without tax. Furthermore most of the worst problems in society are correlated to income inequality, so its not healthy or in the national good to allow such extremes.