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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LurkerintheDark)
    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.
    meh, if the odd bit of nepotism here and there is the price of a free market economy where my liberty is protected then i'll take that over a state where people are told who and who not to employ and my right to send my kids to the school i want is repealed anyday thanks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    If you thin everyone should be born with equal opportunity, then yes. Most people seem not to think that though.



    For medical statistics purposes they put people into classes, and for someone to move between those classes (motility) it is pretty rare.
    What sort of classes? I'm confused :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What is classed as middle-class? Aha
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The key issue in my mind is that unless you can secure your kids a significant advantage over everyone elses kids, what is the point in working hard?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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...

    I think perhaps that I rambled too much and missed my own point...


    Basically someone isn't going to get decent qualifications and go onto university without the expectation that it is 'for them', their parents spending power or not.

    For example the tailor that used to alter my suits, etc... had a son (only son IIRC) that they were very proud that he had got into Oxford, and then an internship in the city (I can't remember if it was an IB, or a consultancy of some kind). They were certainly far from rolling in it, in fact I think that their commercial rent must have gone up too much as they are no longer there anymore, I have no idea if they have moved or just shut up shop.

    Anyway, my point is that it is aspiration that is by far the most important ingredient in whether a child does well academically, and then goes on to get a decent degree and makes all the right decisions that leads to a good job.


    That being said, parental income can and often does make a big difference towards firstly whether a child is brought up in a family where those aspirations exist in the first instance, as put quite simply it is pretty much expected for middle class children to go to university, indeed it is almost shameful if they don't, akin to driving a clapped out old Ford instead of a decent VW or maybe even a BMW.


    And of course second to that is the fact that if parental income is enough, then the child can be sent to a private school, or hire private after-school tutors, etc... to better ensure that a place at a decent university can be secured, or for that matter a place at a good grammar school prior to this (I am sure that we will try this with our girls, personally I'm against private education largely because of the parents that send their kids to private schools are IMHO by and large a bunch of self-important tossers).

    And of course it also opens up those professions that do have large costs associated with training, like medicine and law (simply because of the length of training), as the parents will be better able to financially support the child through this.



    Of course I am aware that 'now' there is increasing support for students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. But as a result we are starting to get something akin to the situation in the US, where it takes most of the lifetime of a child to save up for their university education, so only the very gifted poor and the very wealthy can afford the best universities, whilst those that are somewhere in the middle are restricted in their choice because they don't qualify for bursaries, etc... But their parent's haven't managed to save enough to fully fund it themselves... Ok, it's not quite that bad yet, but it may get there soon, especially with public finances being squeezed by the recession...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Meritocracy.
    Society requires some people to fail but it doesn't force anyone to fail... anyone can succeed.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone here saying anything's possible with aspiration and hard work clearly have a very restricted impression of the world. There's a reason why the current Tory party is littered with Etonians.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    Everyone here saying anything's possible with aspiration and hard work clearly have a very restricted impression of the world. There's a reason why the current Tory party is littered with Etonians.
    That's the sad truth.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Of course it is wrong. Anyone who argues against that is clearly just a WUM. It is especially funny as many people are confusing "middle class, private school people getting top jobs" with "everyone can get what they want if they work hard for it"; which as you should be able to see, is inherently contradictory. These are the typical responses of those blinded by some sort of anti-leftist hysteria.

    Anyways, yes it is wrong, as everyone should have the same opportunities in life, or what's the point in trying? A truly meritocratic society is the only thing that will create those societal features masturbated over by the right; a majority striving to achieve and will reduce class conflict.

    Yet, unfortunately, the Right is confused with what it wants. It shows unrequited love to capitalism and the capitalist dream (everyone who works hard can achieve), yet is adamant with sticking with the status quo, which only rewards those who have been born lucky.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Totally agree with Ewan and everyone pointing out that uni is absolutely possible for absolutely anyone that wants it enough.

    (Original post by jinglepupskye)
    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?
    Fair point but what makes you think that you shouldn't have to have a job? My parents don't contribute towards my uni costs, I support myself with part time work, without which I couldn't be at uni - Its what becoming an independent adult is all about and seems perfectly fair to me. Anyone who wants aa university place should be willing to contribute towards it. That place is then the platform from which to achieve a good career etc...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    New slant then. Are the classes a bit more dynamic in recent times - i.e, have people's perceptions of what each class represents changed?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    Of course it is wrong. Anyone who argues against that is clearly just a WUM. It is especially funny as many people are confusing "middle class, private school people getting top jobs" with "everyone can get what they want if they work hard for it"; which as you should be able to see, is inherently contradictory. These are the typical responses of those blinded by some sort of anti-leftist hysteria.

    Anyways, yes it is wrong, as everyone should have the same opportunities in life, or what's the point in trying? A truly meritocratic society is the only thing that will create those societal features masturbated over by the right; a majority striving to achieve and will reduce class conflict.

    Yet, unfortunately, the Right is confused with what it wants. It shows unrequited love to capitalism and the capitalist dream (everyone who works hard can achieve), yet is adamant with sticking with the status quo, which only rewards those who have been born lucky.
    You're boring me.

    Oxbridge can't give places to everybody. Get over it mate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    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.



    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.



    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.



    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.
    repped :eek3:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ewan)

    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.
    1. My mother does work but she is deaf and can't get a job over minimum wage in my area.

    2. I'm a student physio. As such I get £169 per month bursary, which is just over £40 per week. And I get £1500 student loan, which works out at about £30 per week. A total of about £3500 per year, way below what you get and the maximum to what I am entitled.

    4. I work part-time at Asda and get 11 hours work at £6.12 per hour. I'll leave you to do the maths.

    5. I live at home and contribute to all the normal expenses of the home. Why shouldn't I? I'm an adult and pay my way, just as I would if I lived in halls or with other people.

    Why don't I move out? Because then we would be paying two lots of rent, more council tax, two lots of gas, electricity, phone, tv license... You get my drift. Together we have a reasonable standard of living. Apart we would both be grubbing around to make ends meet. Welcome to the real world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ewan)
    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 disagree that privately educated quite often means better educated. I know many people who have been to state schools (myself included) who have gained better GCSEs than those at private schools. Moreover, education isn't always academic, and I strongly believe that state schools provide a more well-rounded education, thus producing broad-minded individuals which are highly valued by employers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't say its wrong. But it is social engineering. And until state schools are up to scratch it's gonna be hard for this to change.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laus77)
    Totally agree with Ewan and everyone pointing out that uni is absolutely possible for absolutely anyone that wants it enough.



    Fair point but what makes you think that you shouldn't have to have a job? My parents don't contribute towards my uni costs, I support myself with part time work, without which I couldn't be at uni - Its what becoming an independent adult is all about and seems perfectly fair to me. Anyone who wants aa university place should be willing to contribute towards it. That place is then the platform from which to achieve a good career etc...
    I've been working since I was 17. I love my job and don't begrudge a second that I spend on it.

    My point was, that you can't say that poor people can go to university because there are grants and so they get plenty of money. A person from a poor family, in most cases, is expected to contribute towards the family income.

    So the money they get is not just for them, it's also to help to provide the money that they would have given their family, as a contribution to rent/living expenses, if they were working rather than going to university.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    private education may get you the grades but for the most part these students are less independant than others. i think private school pupils have a higher dropout rate at uni, and infact i know for sure that a privately run school near me cheats on its courses by giving the students an esssay to copy off the board and send away to be marked.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    Everyone here saying anything's possible with aspiration and hard work clearly have a very restricted impression of the world. There's a reason why the current Tory party is littered with Etonians.
    Or it could be because that the only people who have the same ideas as the Tories and who would want to give their lives working to perpetuate those ideas are public schoolboys...

    seriously, do you think 'working-class' (hate this term but i don't know a better one) people support the tories?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's not that companies specifically only target people from such backgrounds. It just happens to be that most of the people with the top jobs come from these backgrounds simply because for the majority of cases, privately educated people are better educated hence more qualified for such jobs.

    It's just statistics really, students at private schools have better results and go on to the best universities for the most competative courses than students at state schools. That's why it's called a private school, charging tens of thousands per term. If I was an employer, I would employ the most qualified, most skilled and able candidate. If that means there's going to be more from private schools than state schools so be it. Business is business.

    Besides, I'm from a working class background at a state school and to be honest those that are clever enough end up in the top universities and find the top jobs anyway. It's not as if going to private school automatically guarantees success, the students there have to work hard too. Difference is the teaching and facilities would be better therefore the success rate is greater than that of state schools.

    Personally I don't think private or state education matters much considering GCSEs/A-levels are not extremely challenging and for those that are capable will get A's in it regardless of the teaching standards.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    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

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