Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    So he's going to do the exact opposite and ensure nobody of working class background is allowed with in 100 metres of a good job?

    Thought so.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    I managed to arrange quite a fair bit of work experience, volunteering and actual paid work through contacts made at my school. I'm also still friends with quite a lot of rather ambitious people at top Universities which may come in handy one day if I ever needed to give one of my children work experience in a field. I didn't make friends with them for that reason but it's all part of the package with going to a private school.

    I've always felt I didn't quite deserve to go to a private school. It gave a massive advantage in terms of academia, work experience and everything else.

    Naturally, if someone asked whether to send their child to a private school (or whether or not I would), I would heartily recommend it for the exact aforementioned reasons I wish to see the institutions that gave me such an advantage destroyed.
    I guess different people have different experiences, but the bold line I disagree with. I found all my own work experience and paid work without contacts. It wasn't 'part of the package' at my school.

    It seems counterproductive to ban schools that produce good results.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    I guess different people have different experiences, but the bold line I disagree with. I found all my own work experience and paid work without contacts. It wasn't 'part of the package' at my school.
    Maybe you didn't take advantage of them? I know several people who didn't at my school, never bothered to look up the volunteering lists or talk to any advisers or ask friends for any help with work experience. But it's possible no such things at your school.

    Out of curiosity, would you have gone to a grammar school if there was one in your area? Since you mention the only real advantage was academic then surely grammar schools would fit the same bill. There weren't any grammar schools where I lived but I was assured, every year, that my mum would rather I was at a grammar than a private school but no such institution exists within a hundred miles of my home.

    And finally, how much did you pay per year? I've found people are always evasive about this one so feel free to ignore if you wish. The current prices at my school are £14,000 a year not including £2,000 or so 'optional' for quite pointless trips to Paris, Geneva or Berlin and other various expenses such as the exact school uniform, school p.e. clothes and such. A significant number of people, nay households, live on that much or less.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    Abolishing private schools, as a private school leaver, would help a great deal. They definitely provide an advantage academically and provide a significant advantage in regards to networking. It would level the playing field, although I'm more inclined to converting fee-paying private schools to selective (on ability) grammar schools up and down the country than abolishing them and converting them to comprehensives in order to continue to provide opportunity for the academically inclined without basing education on wealth
    We shouldn't try and create a level playing field by lowering the rich, we should be trying to create a level playing field by raising the poor.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    We shouldn't try and create a level playing field by lowering the rich, we should be trying to create a level playing field by raising the poor.
    Or we can sidestep that entire issue by converting private schools into grammar schools, therefore neither the poor nor rich (though I suspect the rich can afford tutors more readily for the exams) but the academically inclined can get the advantage. It might be biased towards the wealthy but it's better than the complete lack of opportunity in a lot of areas right now.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajp100688)
    I see no problem with tying it to the same regime as EMA's and Student Loan applications. Namely that if you family has an income of less than £25k p/a you're from the lowest economic class and thus you'd qualify for such a scheme. I just feel that the government does so much to try and help supposedly disadvantaged communities within the UK that they totally ignore the statistically largest one, namely working class white Britain.
    Would there be an age restriction on these internships? If it goes by household income, I would qualify as working class. But I'm only supporting myself, and I have parents who are able to help me financially, but as they don't live with me that wouldn't count.

    I just think it could be easily abused, like how EMA and student loans are.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well the front page of the Evening Standard was certainly interesting today:
    "Nick Clegg attacks wealthy families for leg up BUT daddy got him bank job"

    It's an interesting idea, but I think it would be very hard to enforce.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    which seems to make the implication that all high class individuals will always succeed over their lower class counterparts, a fact which, has been disproved many times.
    strange, considering the number of times i've heard dumber private school pupils overtake their clever non-private peers by the age of (11?)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CharlotteM/)
    They could just abolish private schools. That would stop it. Why should some people get a significantly better education than the rest of us? All it does is perpetuate the class system.
    Because the whole country, or the main tax payers, can't afford to run all schools like private ones are run.

    So it's either you are saying you don't want someone to get a better education because they can afford it, but you'd have no problem everyone else getting it as long as it was free? But in turn tax would jump a crap load, and then you'd whinge about that.


    Honestly, the average Briton doesn't know what's good for it or how to run a country. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by london12)
    strange, considering the number of times i've heard dumber private school pupils overtake their clever non-private peers by the age of (11?)
    You can prove they are dumber how?

    Anyway, i said the graph explicitly makes the implication that ALL private school pupils will overtake their state counterparts, a statement which is quite frankly falsified and plainly untrue. To use high profile figures as an example [Alan Sugar, Simon Cowell, Duncan Bannatyne], there is a trend towards the idea that individuals who REALLY have to try to climb from hard backgrounds and succeed, will often do better than the majority private schooled counterparts, who tend to work in more 'regular' high-end jobs.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CharlotteM/)
    They could just abolish private schools. That would stop it. Why should some people get a significantly better education than the rest of us? All it does is perpetuate the class system.
    Then what about people who go to really good state schools? Like me, I go to a majority state-funded grammar school that also gets some outside money from another source (sponsered by livery company), it's a very good school which selects on ability and gets extremely good results. Is that an unfair advantage, for the people who can pay for tuition for 11+ tests, for those generally more wealthy parents who push their kids to achieve more, for those who can afford for their kids to travel to a school a long distance away? Would you abolish us too? What about really good comprehensives, surely parents who play the system and move closer in admissions year or pretend to be religious, that's giving their kids an unfair advantage ultimately based on class...education is not a commodity that you can ensure entirely equal provision for. People will always want the best for their children, but some want/are able to give it much more than others.

    Therefore it is these parents, who very much tend to be middle class professionals, who get their kids into decent state schools or send them to private schools. You can try and reduce educational inequality between schools, you can try and induce aspirations in young people, but ultimately there will always be more of an uphill struggle for poorer, lower class kids to get a good education, and it is impossible to eliminate this entirely. We live in a capitalist society, and people can spend the money they earn in the way they choose, and if they (admirably) want to spend it on their kids, why shouldn't they? Surely a better way of going about it would be a standards drive in state schools to make them compete and to make the vast majority of private schools obsolete. I know I for one wouldn't send any future children to a vast majority of state schools in their current states if I could afford not to, just because I'd want the best for them that I could get.

    Without an entirely intrusive and orwellian society, it is absolutely impossible to eliminate all advantage people get from knowing people, being born into a certain family etc....you can try and help those less fortunate, and you can try and increase social mobility, but there's no getting away from the fact that people want the people they know and care about to do well, and if they can, they'll give them a helping hand.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Would there be an age restriction on these internships? If it goes by household income, I would qualify as working class. But I'm only supporting myself, and I have parents who are able to help me financially, but as they don't live with me that wouldn't count.

    I just think it could be easily abused, like how EMA and student loans are.
    Not so hard, just make sure that you have to be enrolled at a recognised university. There you go it stops the abuse. If your parents are supporting you it goes off their wealth, if you're supporting yourself it goes off your wealth. Same as student loans.

    So he's going to do the exact opposite and ensure nobody of working class background is allowed with in 100 metres of a good job?

    Thought so.
    Working class people are not going to be stopped from going to Uni by the reforms, money will still be forwarded up front and they'll have lower monthly repayments than now. The only difference is that they'll be repaying longer.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    Why is the colour of their skin relevant? Isn't the idea about creating opportunities for all working class people to succeed?
    It isn't. My point was that white working class Britain is often overlooked in the government's zeal to portray itself as helping our ethnic minorities achieve rather than ghettoising them. This leads to a multitude of access schemes and internship schemes to give them a foot up on the ladder and has the side effect of them ignoring the very real problems that exist within white working class families. Thus ethnic minorities have opportunities open to them that white working class families don't.

    What I suggested wouldn't have any racial qualifications, if you're working class you should be given help, regardless if you're White, Black or Chinese. In contrast to the modern day where ethnic minorities are given a lot of help and the White working class are ignored.
    Offline

    13
    How would the government even go about stopping this? What a stupid thing for the state to concern itself with.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Besides, how do you clamp down on an activity so common that recruiters openly set aside time for 'networking'?
    Bleh... In my (limited) experience, that's really just a fancy way of saying "socialising".

    The only way it would help you get a job is by helping you find out more about what a particular job entails, or helping you learn of the existence of certain types of job (by meeting the people who do them), rather than a case of "Oh yeah I met this imbecile at a networking event - I now really want to give him the job in preference to the genius who also applied".
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    In what way are medics abusing their connections?
    I never said period all medics abuse their connections, but it is somewhat unfair if you know a doctor you should have a better chance than another perfectly able candidate who lacks these connections, this was simply an example.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S1L3NTPR3Y)
    I never said period all medics abuse their connections, but it is somewhat unfair if you know a doctor you should have a better chance than another perfectly able candidate who lacks these connections, this was simply an example.
    A better chance at what?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrislpp)
    Because the whole country, or the main tax payers, can't afford to run all schools like private ones are run.

    So it's either you are saying you don't want someone to get a better education because they can afford it, but you'd have no problem everyone else getting it as long as it was free? But in turn tax would jump a crap load, and then you'd whinge about that.


    Honestly, the average Briton doesn't know what's good for it or how to run a country. :rolleyes:
    Guess what? You're also an average Briton.

    You can't just call the people who hold opposite views to yours idiots. Well, you can but it's... unsportsmanlike.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    Or we can sidestep that entire issue by converting private schools into grammar schools, therefore neither the poor nor rich (though I suspect the rich can afford tutors more readily for the exams) but the academically inclined can get the advantage. It might be biased towards the wealthy but it's better than the complete lack of opportunity in a lot of areas right now.
    Which is lowering the playing field for the rich. As good as grammar schools are, they aren't as good as private schools. You want to create a progressive society? How exactly is lowing the Rich progressive? Why would you want everybody to be at your level, instead of everybody to be at theirs?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Or is there nothing to worry about? The graph below shows that 'class' is the most important factor in a child's ability by the age of 10. In that case, it isn't that people with connections are being given the advantage because of that, rather they are better educated. Then we ought to focus more on closing that gap as it is probably having the biggest impact on who gets what job.
    Do you think that "closing the gap" per se, is the main priority here? Or do you think the priority is, more specifically, raising the teaching standards and hard-work culture of those institutions generally attended by the working class population, to match those of independent schools?
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.