Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is it wrong that privately educated, middle classed people take most of the top jobs? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Yes, it is. It's a sad world when you can buy your way through education and to jobs.
    :yes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Money talks, homeskillet.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    no it's not wrong...those who have more money get further...thats the way it's always been..and that's the way it's always going to be...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reflexive)
    I will quote from Goldthorpe as I think it's interesting and relevant enough to warrant:

    '...Hayek agrees that it is beneficial to the operation of such societies that individuals should believe that their well-being depends primarily on their own efforts and decisions and, for this reason, he notes, such a belief is typically encouraged 'by education and governing opinion'. But there are at the same time dangers in 'an exaggerated confidence' in its truth. For it must then appear as 'a bitter irony and provocation' to those who have failed but who regard themselves as being - and indeed perhaps are - as able and deserving as those who have suceeded; while the latter are encouraged in their self-esteem and self-righteousness, which does not make them more popular. It is, as Hayek concludes, 'a real dilemma to what extent we ought to encourage in the young the belief that when they really try they will suceed or should rather emphasize that inevitably some unworthy will succeed and some worthy fail'.

    I don't mean to throw long quotes at people it just seemed very apt.
    Don't worry, I like long quotes and my hand-eye coordination is quite good.

    I might not have made myself clear, which often happens unfortunately, but I effectively agree with that quote. Ambition is vital if you intend to succeed, but it is by no means the decider in the levels of your success. In any decision regarding your career you have at the most a 50% influence on the result.

    The young need to learn how to make a jump and take a fall, but more importantly how to get back up again.
    Offline

    10
    Unfair no.

    Inequitable, obviously.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Total bull****. Bull**** finer than what you get from real cows
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jinglepupskye)
    But that assumes that privately educated... etc are the best qualified for the job. In reality that isn't true. But patronage from your dad's friends to help ease you into a job that an outsider would have no chance of getting is wrong on all levels.

    I have seen for myself that nepotism is rife in local councils and the result of that is not that the cream is rising to the top. On the contrary, it means that people who would normally struggle for a job and being given jobs beyond their capabilities and as a result ordinary people's lives get messed up.

    As for the comment about anyone being able go to university, that is rubbish, completely and utterly. A family with a low income need to have all members contributing as soon as they are able to. It's not like a rich family where you can ask your parents to give you money andgoods when you short of cash. A poor family doesn't have the capacity to do that. So their kids must contribute to the household cost.

    I live with my mother and the only reason that I can go to university is because I work part-time and can give that money and part of my student grant to my mother to help to pay for the household bills. Without that job there is no possible way that I could be at university. Why is that so hard to understand?
    I disagree, privately educated quite often means better educated, and results speak volumes. Better educated often means better capable to do the job, and employers know that. I'd agree with your second comment about unfair promotions though.

    As for your comment about low income households, I'm sorry but that is rubbish. I am myself from a low income household, and get over £9000 a year from the government to study. I don't need any help from my family what so ever (and I study in London!). Indeed I would say it is more difficult for middle income bracket familys because kids often don't get the help from parents that their suppose to.

    I don't believe you, why does your mother have to rely on you? Why can't she get a job? Why don't you just move out? The gov should give you enough money to pay for everything if your family is low income.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    nepotism might seem unfair but at the end of the day it will always be there. parents will always give priority to their kids.....what you gonna do make it illegal for parents to employ their kids?

    at the end of the day, i'd take the odd inequality here and there over a massive government that has millions of laws for everything intruding in every aspect of your life. laws preventing nepotism? come off it lol
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The only way to solve this problem is to bring state schools up to the same standard as public schools. Clearly, this will take years to achieve, and enourmous amounts of cash. At the moment, it is far easier to achieve a row of 'A's in a private school than in a state school; a state pupil who has mustered say AAB for A-Level with limited resources, with possibly poorer teachers and in more crowded classes could indeed have much more natural ability than a private pupil who got AAA. Good state-educated grades demonstrate a greater accomplishment than good private school grades. It realy is true that money can 'buy' good grades; if providing your child with an expensive education did not in some way boost their grades, and give them a real advantage over state pupils, then the entire enterprise of private education would be a meaningless waste of money.


    So, in short, the most obvious route to greater equality among poor and well-off students is to improve the state sector, as difficult as that is. Obviously, this does not change the current culture of "It ain't what you know, it's who you know" which prevails among elite (and often privately-educated) society. This is a problem which be around for years to come, believe me.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Not if they're the best people for the jobs.
    It'd be doubly unfair to prevent these people from reaching the top based on some half-baked scheme to 'create' equality. Plus, arguments like these completely ignore intelligence as an inherited factor.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    also, what's with people criticising kids whose parents give them money for uni?

    you do understand....the whole ******* point of a MEANS TESTED system is that it is done on the presumption that higher income offspring recieve money from their parents...hence creating a need for poorer kids to get government finance to create a level plain field. if higher income parents DON'T give their kids money to compensate this then their kids are poorer off.

    that's fair isnt it? replace inequality with another inequality....

    i dont understand what the problem with parents who can afford it giving their kids uni money...but i'm not a bitter, spotty, left wing layabout

    ''BUT ZOMFG. DEY HAS WELL OFF PARENTZZZZ...THEY DEZERVES TO HAS IT HARD ZOMFG....WAAAAAAAHHH''
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LurkerintheDark)
    The only way to solve this problem is to bring state schools up to the same standard as public schools. Clearly, this will take years to achieve, and enourmous amounts of cash. At the moment, it is far easier to achieve a row of 'A's in a private school than in a state school; a state pupil who has mustered say AAB for A-Level with limited resources, with possibly poorer teachers and in more crowded classes could indeed have much more natural ability than a private pupil who got AAA. Good state-educated grades demonstrate a greater accomplishment than good private school grades. It realy is true that money can 'buy' good grades; if providing your child with an expensive education did not in some way boost their grades, and give them a real advantage over state pupils, then the entire enterprise of private education would be a meaningless waste of money.


    So, in short, the most obvious route to greater equality among poor and well-off students is to improve the state sector, as difficult as that is. Obviously, this does not change the current culture of "It ain't what you know, it's who you know" which prevails among elite (and often privately-educated) society. This is a problem which be around for years to come, believe me.
    it's a nice idea. Problem is, the minute this happens the demand for private school will become obsolete...increasing pressure on the state sector even more thus causing them to temporaily fall by the wayside in the meantime...during this period private schools will appear the better option and kids willg et sent back to them.....then the same wqill happen over and over

    a private sector is a good thing imo. i go to a crap comprehensive. also, i hate the idea of a govt having a monopoly on education....which, if you think about it, is what will happen if state school, as free goods, are made as good as private (though as i have shown. this would be very hard to achieve in the first place)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Those who go to the best schools get the best jobs? Shocking
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    newspapers are full of ****! AM I RIGHT OR WHAT?!?!?!?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAPAdawg)
    it's a nice idea. Problem is, the minute this happens the demand for private school will become obsolete...increasing pressure on the state sector even more thus causing them to temporaily fall by the wayside in the meantime...during this period private schools will appear the better option and kids willg et sent back to them.....then the same wqill happen over and over

    a private sector is a good thing imo. i go to a crap comprehensive. also, i hate the idea of a govt having a monopoly on education....which, if you think about it, is what will happen if state school, as free goods, are made as good as private (though as i have shown. this would be very hard to achieve in the first place)
    My ideal is that everybody has the best possible education (I do not believe in bringing everybody down to the same, mediocre level for the sake of equality). But it seems reprehensible to me that a certain class of people dominate the upper echelons of society; a sphere of power and influence which is is near impenetrable by anybody 'beneath' that class. But as I said, the extent of your education is not always enough; having connections in a said profession can be extremely valuable, connections that many working-class students alltogether lack.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Let's go full left, fellow revolutionaries. [/sarcasm]

    I'm drafting into the medic line - no family history of it, out of a comprehensive school, after holding a part time job down for over a year now. That said, my family are definitely in the middle class range (but not up at the high end of private schooling and the like).

    So, in answer to the question, I'm bored of these questions. Simple really.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stomm)
    You certainly cannot achieve much in this day and age without a degree, well not unless you happen to inherit a bucket full of cash or win the lottery and don't piss it all away in six months...
    The vast majority of jobs out there are unskilled, they don't require a degree whatsoever. It's only when you start looking towards more specialised occupations like medicine, veterinary science, law, etc that having a degree is a necessity (and rightly so). Even then though these jobs may be prestigious, they aren't necessarily that high paid compared to the amount of training, the debts involved, the long hours, etc.

    You make your own success. For every highly paid graduate there are scores of others who aren't privately educated or haven't been to university. A lot of it stems from taking the right opportunities and being driven.

    (Original post by Lizia)
    Going to university isn't about money. Anyone can afford to go to university these days. In fact, in a lot of cases, kids from poorer families can afford to go to university more than a lot of others. Universities throw money at poor kids. Heck, someone with a low family income will get £2,400 from UCL compared to my £300, for example, despite the exact same living costs. And I don't know many people of any class who were coached through their A-levels. You're putting the emphasis on money when it's irrelevant with regards to getting into uni. No one is poor enough that they can't afford to go to uni, they're just poorly educated about the real costs and benefits so they think it's a waste of time. Change that, and you've solved the working class aversion to uni.
    Bingo.

    I'd say that now we have a problem with too many people going to university. The funding is there that anybody can go without consequence, people aren't looking at the job prospects of certain courses, the costs or the benefits.

    I know scores of people who went to university 'for the experience' and expected a degree to be a ticket to a highly paid managerial job. Sadly they've found out that they're qualified for very little (if anything) and they're saddled with the prospect of needing further training, perhaps student debt and the loss of potential earnings due to the extra years they've spent in education. It's a huge waste of their time and money, but also the taxpayer's.

    (Original post by jinglepupskye)
    But that assumes that privately educated... etc are the best qualified for the job. In reality that isn't true.
    Private schooling offers a better standard of education which better prepares them for later in life, whether it's when they're applying to university or going for a job. Why else would people pay to put their children through it? Why is it that private and grammar schools on the whole get better results?

    In the vast majority of cases it's about which candidate is best for the job, it doesn't make sense to employ below par candidates (and they don't).

    In fact I'd say that in some cases institutions have swung in completely the other direction by positively discriminating towards state schooled pupils, ethnic minorities, women, people with disabilities, etc to address imbalance. To give you an example, the waiting list to join he Police for a white heterosexual male is significantly longer than that of an ethnic minority, woman, homosexual and/or disabled person.

    (Original post by jinglepupskye)
    As for the comment about anyone being able go to university, that is rubbish, completely and utterly. A family with a low income need to have all members contributing as soon as they are able to. It's not like a rich family where you can ask your parents to give you money andgoods when you short of cash. A poor family doesn't have the capacity to do that. So their kids must contribute to the household cost.

    I live with my mother and the only reason that I can go to university is because I work part-time and can give that money and part of my student grant to my mother to help to pay for the household bills. Without that job there is no possible way that I could be at university. Why is that so hard to understand?
    It isn't black and white, there is no magic line between who can pay tuition fees and who can't. There are multiple factors to be taken into account. Maybe the parents are approaching retirement, maybe they have a big mortgage, maybe they have multiple children, etc. There is no guarantee that these 'rich' parents will support their kids 100% of the way (and why should they?).

    These 'rich' people that you talk about who can afford to pay their children's tuition fees, rent, living costs, etc without equivocation are few and far between. The rest are forced to work (just like yourself) to make ends meet and/or take out huge loans (something which, as a grants student, you probably won't need to face).

    Being 'rich' doesn't sound so rosy any more. It may not feel it but you are very fortunate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well top jobs are due to a good work ethic and hard work. You don't just get a top job with an Oxbridge degree. A lot of the so called "privately educated" have been instilled at an early stage to achieve well academically and go for the best paying jobs etc. This kind of attitude is pretty important, but the fact of the matter is, unless you own your own business or something, pretty much everyone starts at the same level anyway.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.