Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

It is impossible to achieve equality of opportunity watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    "It is impossible to achieve equality of opportunity"
    Discuss.

    I wouldn't say it is impossible but it wont be happening any time soon that is for sure. True equality of opportunity is where everyone has the same start in life and everyone is able to get to any position. Now that is seemingly the case in the UK and people at the bottom do get to the top. But the fact is that there are so few of them. Meanwhile there are so many at the top who don't deserve to be there. The primary example I like to give is rich children. If you focus on the richest of the rich, people that are on Made in Chelsea for example. They go on lavish holidays, drink in posh bars and have wild parties when they simply don't deserve it. This is also characterised by the "Surrey girl" stereotype. People that just go out and get money given to them by mummy and daddy. Recently one of my friends got a car for his birthday and looking at his future prospects realistically, had his parents not bought him that, he would never be able to afford the car. I know I may sound really jealous, but I just think its unfair that people are born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Even looking academically, its hard to deny the fact that so many Oxbridge students go to private schools and so many privately educated children get good grades. I'm not denying that the haven't put hard work in or don't deserve what they have, I'm just questioning whether they would be getting those places or grades if they were born into a poor household. At the same time, you look at one of the more hard working and dedicated people at comprehensive schools who may not have unlocked their full potential because they didn't get the support others got. Primarily the reason for this initial disparity is inequality of opportunity because their parents are in different situations financially and nothing to do with the children. Also the fact that so many rich children are able to sit around and do nothing, knowing the bills are being paid for, while there are children who have to go to work in order to help their parents put food on the table for other siblings.

    Now that brings me on to the point that it is impossible to achieve equality of opportunity. The fact that some children have more than others is simply down to parents. Rich parents will get their children privately educated, or pay for tuition, or pay for books, or let them go on holidays, or buy them phones, buy them cars ,etc. Meanwhile poorer children wont have that support. If everyone was put into the same school with no external support, it can be safe to say that those that do better will not necessarily be the ones who's parents are richer. The only real true way to achieve equality of opportunity is by raising all children in the same environment, away from the influences of their parents. Kind of like the society described in "The Giver" but maybe not as authoritarian.


    Also a key problem is inheritance. Richer children know that they will get their parents wealth once they pass away, and therefore may not necessarily save for pensions etc. An amazing example I have is two friends of mine. One is incredibly rich (his father owns a dairy empire), while the other is comparatively less well off. The richer one went to private school and had a very good upbringing and didn't focus on education that much because he was enjoying life. The other spent time working and was training to be a professional swimmer but that didn't work out (maybe because of the lack of support). Eventually, they both ended up being primary school teachers. One is still living in his parents' mansion and is living life to the max, while the other has had to live out and is struggling to make ends meet. The fact is, academically they are both equal and in terms of effort it is clear the poorer one puts in more than the other. But in terms of quality of life the richer one still has it better.

    The obvious arguments against this that raising children acts as an incentive as you want your children to have a good life so you'll earn more etc. But if there was a true meritocracy, then the fact that your quality of life is determined by you should provide enough of an incentive. The other argument is that a family atmosphere helps a child grow up, but how do we know this for sure. There have been no tests of all children being brought up equally. Furthermore, perhaps there could be a family atmosphere but maybe one where children are brought up the same way (idk how this could be achieved specifically).

    With all that said and done, there is still no social or political appetite for this. People still oppose inheritance tax for crying out loud. I would say its safe to say that we wont have equality of opportunity in my lifetime at least.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    Like most big societal ideals, I don't disagree with them, but practically it's not completely possible. Whilst I will support many of these grand principles, and think we can do a lot more to get closer to them, I don't think we can ever achieve complete equality of opportunity.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Any sort of equality whether it be equality of opportunity or equality of outcome is bad/discriminatory.

    Equality of opportunity is unfair. Giving the same opportunity to everyone when no two people are the same is unfair. I've given this example before but I will give it here because I think its relevant to this thread. Equality of opportunity would give both women and men an equal say in things like abortion. Is that fair? Is it fair for a man to have an equal say in abortion as a woman when abortion presents different responsibilities and risks to both genders? The answer is no. Equality of opportunity is not fair. Even if equality of opportunity was possible. Would you want it when its not fair.

    Equality of outcome is even worse. Expecting the same outcomes from different categories of people is unfair, when we all have different strengths and limitations.You cannot for example expect women to carry out physical tasks to the same standard as men who are physically superior. in a world where we have equality of outcome both men and women who apply to the army or the police force or the fire service have to perform to the same level. Of course that is not fair. Equality of outcome is unfair.

    Equality as a whole is unfair. It is a communist concept and it is what destroyed the USSR.

    Equity. Look that word up.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    This whole concept of equality, whether it be equality of opportunity or outcome, is foolish.

     I wouldn't say it is impossible, but it won’t be happening any time soon that is for sure.

    Of course, it’s impossible. We are all different are we not? Can you convincingly say that a disabled person deserves the same as a able bodied individual? Life is unfair, it sucks, but crying after an idealistic aim is nonsense.

     True equality of opportunity is where everyone has the same start in life and everyone is able to get to any position.

    You’ve just proved my point. That is essentially impossible. Disabled people cannot have the same start in life as able-bodied people. People inherit attributes from their parents. Some look very handsome or beautiful because their parents are such and go onto become models – this will never be possible for ugly people. Kids with smart parents end up smarter than kids with parents who didn’t pass their GCSEs. These are all statistically fact. You can never have equality of opportunity, if that is your definition of it.

     Now that is seemingly the case in the UK and people at the bottom do get to the top. But the fact is that there are so few of them.

    Define ‘the top’. If you’re talking millionaire level – of course there’s only a few of them. Not everyone can be a CEO or Hedge Fund Manager. If you’re talking about income mobility, the UK is very good at that. 75% of people in the UK, if they graduate secondary school, get a job and don’t have kids before marriage end up in a higher income bracket. Wealth mobility is alive and well in the UK.

     Meanwhile there are so many at the top who don't deserve to be there.

    Simply an arrogant and pompous statement riddled with jealousy.

     I know I may sound jealous, but I just think it’s unfair that people are born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

    Why is it unfair? If inheritance of wealth is unfair, why is inheritance of attributes and skills any different? Kids of musicians are likely to have a natural tendency to be attracted to music. Kids of doctors, and likely to end up in the medical profession. Kids with smart parents are likely to be smart. Given this, and given that some kids have a NATURAL advantage of others whether that be inherently smarter, better looking or more confident, why are so annoyed by wealth?

     Even looking academically, its hard to deny the fact that so many Oxbridge students go to private schools and so many privately educated children get good grades. I'm not denying that they haven't put hard work in or don't deserve what they have, I'm just questioning whether they would be getting those places or grades if they were born into a poor household.

    Some of them certainly wouldn’t. But why is that a problem for you? As long as you work hard, you’ll have a high chance of being successful.

     Also the fact that so many rich children are able to sit around and do nothing, knowing the bills are being paid for, while there are children who have to go to work in order to help their parents put food on the table for other siblings.

    And where do you think this will get them? Money runs out. 85% of rich families lose their wealth after 2 generations.

     Now that brings me on to the point that it is impossible to achieve equality of opportunity. The fact that some children have more than others is simply down to parents. Rich parents will get their children privately educated, or pay for tuition, or pay for books, or let them go on holidays, or buy them phones, buy them cars ,etc. Meanwhile poorer children wont have that support. If everyone was put into the same school with no external support, it can be safe to say that those that do better will not necessarily be the ones who's parents are richer.

    That’s a completely fair statement, but again, kids inherit a lot more from their parents than wealth, like a mentioned earlier, like attributes. Smart kids will usually have smart parents. According to you this is unfair.

     The only real true way to achieve equality of opportunity is by raising all children in the same environment, away from the influences of their parents.

    Nope, kids will still inherit attributes from their parents. Sure, it may achieve MORE equality of opportunity, but fair from complete. That’s not even considering the ethical problems or the fact that this ideology stunts progress and it riddled with a crude jealousy.

     One is incredibly rich (his father owns a dairy empire), while the other is comparatively less well off. The richer one went to private school and had a very good upbringing and didn't focus on education that much because he was enjoying life. The other spent time working and was training to be a professional swimmer but that didn't work out (maybe because of the lack of support). Eventually, they both ended up being primary school teachers. One is still living in his parents' mansion and is living life to the max, while the other has had to live out and is struggling to make ends meet. The fact is, academically they are both equal and in terms of effort it is clear the poorer one puts in more than the other. But in terms of quality of life the richer one still has it better.

    Do you think the guy with rich parents will stay rich forever? As cited above, all that money will vanish in a generation or two. As for the other guy – he’s stupid. He should have known that becoming a professional swimmer is no easy task. To actually think he didn’t make it due to lack of support is laughable.

     The other argument is that a family atmosphere helps a child grow up, but how do we know this for sure.

    The lack of a mother or father figure is disastrous.

    http://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/cgi...ntext=edd_diss

     I would say its safe to say that we wont have equality of opportunity in my lifetime at least.

    We’ll never have it, and I think I’ve established that. Even in communist Russia or china life was far from equal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    This whole concept of equality, whether it be equality of opportunity or outcome, is foolish.

     I wouldn't say it is impossible, but it won’t be happening any time soon that is for sure.

    Of course, it’s impossible. We are all different are we not? Can you convincingly say that a disabled person deserves the same as a able bodied individual? Life is unfair, it sucks, but crying after an idealistic aim is nonsense.

     True equality of opportunity is where everyone has the same start in life and everyone is able to get to any position.

    You’ve just proved my point. That is essentially impossible. Disabled people cannot have the same start in life as able-bodied people. People inherit attributes from their parents. Some look very handsome or beautiful because their parents are such and go onto become models – this will never be possible for ugly people. Kids with smart parents end up smarter than kids with parents who didn’t pass their GCSEs. These are all statistically fact. You can never have equality of opportunity, if that is your definition of it.

     Now that is seemingly the case in the UK and people at the bottom do get to the top. But the fact is that there are so few of them.

    Define ‘the top’. If you’re talking millionaire level – of course there’s only a few of them. Not everyone can be a CEO or Hedge Fund Manager. If you’re talking about income mobility, the UK is very good at that. 75% of people in the UK, if they graduate secondary school, get a job and don’t have kids before marriage end up in a higher income bracket. Wealth mobility is alive and well in the UK.

     Meanwhile there are so many at the top who don't deserve to be there.

    Simply an arrogant and pompous statement riddled with jealousy.

     I know I may sound jealous, but I just think it’s unfair that people are born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

    Why is it unfair? If inheritance of wealth is unfair, why is inheritance of attributes and skills any different? Kids of musicians are likely to have a natural tendency to be attracted to music. Kids of doctors, and likely to end up in the medical profession. Kids with smart parents are likely to be smart. Given this, and given that some kids have a NATURAL advantage of others whether that be inherently smarter, better looking or more confident, why are so annoyed by wealth?

     Even looking academically, its hard to deny the fact that so many Oxbridge students go to private schools and so many privately educated children get good grades. I'm not denying that they haven't put hard work in or don't deserve what they have, I'm just questioning whether they would be getting those places or grades if they were born into a poor household.

    Some of them certainly wouldn’t. But why is that a problem for you? As long as you work hard, you’ll have a high chance of being successful.

     Also the fact that so many rich children are able to sit around and do nothing, knowing the bills are being paid for, while there are children who have to go to work in order to help their parents put food on the table for other siblings.

    And where do you think this will get them? Money runs out. 85% of rich families lose their wealth after 2 generations.

     Now that brings me on to the point that it is impossible to achieve equality of opportunity. The fact that some children have more than others is simply down to parents. Rich parents will get their children privately educated, or pay for tuition, or pay for books, or let them go on holidays, or buy them phones, buy them cars ,etc. Meanwhile poorer children wont have that support. If everyone was put into the same school with no external support, it can be safe to say that those that do better will not necessarily be the ones who's parents are richer.

    That’s a completely fair statement, but again, kids inherit a lot more from their parents than wealth, like a mentioned earlier, like attributes. Smart kids will usually have smart parents. According to you this is unfair.

     The only real true way to achieve equality of opportunity is by raising all children in the same environment, away from the influences of their parents.

    Nope, kids will still inherit attributes from their parents. Sure, it may achieve MORE equality of opportunity, but fair from complete. That’s not even considering the ethical problems or the fact that this ideology stunts progress and it riddled with a crude jealousy.

     One is incredibly rich (his father owns a dairy empire), while the other is comparatively less well off. The richer one went to private school and had a very good upbringing and didn't focus on education that much because he was enjoying life. The other spent time working and was training to be a professional swimmer but that didn't work out (maybe because of the lack of support). Eventually, they both ended up being primary school teachers. One is still living in his parents' mansion and is living life to the max, while the other has had to live out and is struggling to make ends meet. The fact is, academically they are both equal and in terms of effort it is clear the poorer one puts in more than the other. But in terms of quality of life the richer one still has it better.

    Do you think the guy with rich parents will stay rich forever? As cited above, all that money will vanish in a generation or two. As for the other guy – he’s stupid. He should have known that becoming a professional swimmer is no easy task. To actually think he didn’t make it due to lack of support is laughable.

     The other argument is that a family atmosphere helps a child grow up, but how do we know this for sure.

    The lack of a mother or father figure is disastrous.

    http://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/cgi...ntext=edd_diss

     I would say its safe to say that we wont have equality of opportunity in my lifetime at least.

    We’ll never have it, and I think I’ve established that. Even in communist Russia or china life was far from equal.
    Fair enough. I never actually thought of it that way with the inheritance of attributes.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james_arthur_1)
    Fair enough. I never actually thought of it that way with the inheritance of attributes.
    Sweet! Sorry if I came off a little aggressive in my earlier comment
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

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.