UK education system- not meritocratic shocker

matt b

Indexing all opinion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5157598.stm


once again the sutton trust miss the point:

Sutton Trust chairman Sir Peter Lampl said: "This research shows clearly that there is a very strong case for opening up top independent day schools to talented pupils from non-privileged backgrounds, so that they too can benefit from the academic and social advantages a private education brings."

no. it shows that the old-boy network is alive and well and should be addressed by government, particularly as the 'top' private schools are currently developing a new qualification to replace A levels in their establishments. this new qualification will not be endoresed by the QCA, so won't be used in the public sector, thus increasing inequality and access to the 'top' universities.


incidently, about 10 years ago i applied for a job at the sutton trust which would involve going to FE colleges and encouraging students to apply to oxbridge. i didn't even get an interview despite meeting all the requirements. so, i rang them up and asked why. the answer? i didn't go to oxbridge.
 

swears

preppy-kei
hmmm...
Still think it's 90% down to the student to succeed.
Also, their homelife is a factor as well. A stable home with parents who value academic success is more likely to encourage kids to actually be bothered to learn.
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
swears said:
hmmm...
Still think it's 90% down to the student to succeed

i assume that statistic is made up?

if not, you're saying kids from wealthy backgrounds try harder?

swears said:
Also, their homelife is a factor as well. A stable home with parents who value academic success is more likely to encourage kids to actually be bothered to learn.

so you're saying the wealthy value academic success more than those whose kids attend state schools?
 

jenks

thread death
Can't agree that it is that simple swears.

Too many other, obvious, factors affect success. My personal feeling is that issues such as class size and access to resources are hugely significant to success. And if you can run small classes cos you don't have to worry about government funding then you will find students getting good results.

The same with a well stocked library and access to computers etc.

Also having staff with reasonable timetables, staff who have the opportunity to plan, prepare and assess without becoming over burdened. Staff that can remain enthusiastic and interesting. Staff that have not been ground down by yet another initiative from QCA or some other three letter acronym.

I once spent three days as a guest of Cambridge University as they attempted to persuade me to send my brightest and best up to them. Consequently, i sent the brightest student i have ever taught for interview, a girl who has read more than most English teachers, and , you guessed it, they rejected her on the grounds that she hadn't read enough. Utter bullshit. She had an estuary accent and didn't tug her forelock.

matt b - nothing much surprises me here and ,of course, that is the shame
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
it just fucks me right off.

the public schools that feed the 'elite' universities and the universities themselves are, with the governments' help re-creating an institutional two tier education system*, which clearly discriminates against those without money.

another example: the LNAT, BMAT, UKCAT tests which students who want to do law, medicine, vetinary science and dentistry at places like oxbridge, nottingham, bristol imperial college etc HAVE to take cost between £20-£60. the student pays.

these are aptitude tests. public schools are already training their students for these.
the universities won't tell how they use the results.


*not that it went away.
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
jenks said:
Can't agree that it is that simple swears.

Too many other, obvious, factors affect success.

the single most important factor is social class.
 

swears

preppy-kei
matt b said:
the single most important factor is social class.

Yes and no. You get broke families with "Middle class" values and you get reaonably well off families where neither parent really values education (like mine, my dad has no qualifications, reads the sun and runs his own business). I never bothered going to uni mostly because it was never really expected of me. There was no pressure. Whereas a few friends of mine who have parents that didn't have much cash, but read broadsheets, books with no pictures in etc, just went on to further education no question.

It depends.

i assume that statistic is made up?

if not, you're saying kids from wealthy backgrounds try harder?

lol, just a guesstimate. You have a point. it's more like the kids from wealthy backgrounds see the point in trying harder.
 
Last edited:

matt b

Indexing all opinion
swears said:
Yes and no.

well, yes and yes would be more accurate, as 30+ years of research backs up ;)




swears said:
You get broke families with "Middle class" values and you get reaonably well off families where neither parent really values education (like mine, my dad has no qualifications, reads the sun and runs his own business). I never bothered going to uni mostly because it was never really expected of me. There was no pressure. Whereas a few friends of mine who have parents that didn't have much cash, but read broadsheets, books with no pictures in etc, just went on to further education no question.

It depends.

so what are you saying?
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
swears said:
it's more like the kids from wealthy backgrounds see the point in trying harder.

really?
some of the most motivated kids i have ever seen were the ones with all the odds stacked against them.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
swears said:
lol, just a guesstimate. You have a point. it's more like the kids from wealthy backgrounds see the point in trying harder.

Kids from wealthy backgrounds have less need to try harder because they will be supported no matter what.

They have all the advantages that this society offers - the best health, resources, teachers, space, etc.

They have none of the disadvantages, like having to work in shitty jobs whilst studying.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
matt b said:
no. it shows that the old-boy network is alive and well and should be addressed by government.

Yes I'm sure they'll get their best, Eton-educated, civil servant RIGHT ON THAT ONE. LOL.
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
john eden said:
Yes I'm sure they'll get their best, Eton-educated, civil servant RIGHT ON THAT ONE. LOL.

hi john!

i hold no hope of it happening, obviously:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4514156.stm


AND its getting worse:
A recent LSE study[... ]showed that the chances of an individual moving to a different income group from the one they were born into are significantly lower in Britain and the USA than in more equal societies such as Canada and especially the Nordic countries. Additionally, in contrast to the USA where relative intergenerational mobility has remained stable, in Britain it has fallen over time (Blanden, Gregg and Machin 2005). In other words, people born into a manual worker family in 1970 had less chance of moving into a higher occupation than people born in similar circumstances in 1958.
http://www.ippr.org.uk/articles/index.asp?id=1992
 
Last edited:

swears

preppy-kei
john eden said:
Kids from wealthy backgrounds have less need to try harder because they will be supported no matter what.

They have all the advantages that this society offers - the best health, resources, teachers, space, etc.

They have none of the disadvantages, like having to work in shitty jobs whilst studying.


I came from a relatively wealthy background, (3 bedroom semi, two cars, no crime, etc,) but didn't really get much support academically from my parents. I was sort of left to my own devices. I think it's important for people to at least feel like it's all down to them. No one should just be able to throw up their hands and say "Well, I'm poor and thick. Sod school, people like me can't do this."
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
swears said:
No one should just be able to throw up their hands and say "Well, I'm poor and thick. Sod school, people like me can't do this."

you're right. they shouldn't. but such views come about because they are drummed into kids by teachers, the media etc etc or they see the practical results of trying really hard and not getting anywhere (see above link).
 

swears

preppy-kei
Our popular culture seems to lean toward these really weird anti-intellectual attitudes.
Being hard or attractive or cynical or flippant are all seen in different ways as being important attributes. Being smart isn't. (Unless it gets you a high paying job, of course.)
 

bassnation

the abyss
swears said:
I came from a relatively wealthy background, (3 bedroom semi, two cars, no crime, etc,) but didn't really get much support academically from my parents. I was sort of left to my own devices. I think it's important for people to at least feel like it's all down to them. No one should just be able to throw up their hands and say "Well, I'm poor and thick. Sod school, people like me can't do this."

no, of course. but for many people they just don't know the rules of the game.

public schools give people tremendous confidence and self belief. its such a big thing that you can't put a price on it. theres a noticable difference in the way people from a state school view themselves (and personally, i find some privately educated people to be hugely immodest regarding their very modest talents).

if no-one shows that belief in them or bothers to build their esteem up is it any wonder that people don't make the best of themselves? where i grew up, people just weren't aware of the opportunities, simple as that.

of course theres individual responsibility, but you seem to be arguing that the priveledge of a private education offers no advantage. if that was the case, people wouldn't pay big bucks for it.
 
Last edited:

matt b

Indexing all opinion
swears said:
Our popular culture seems to lean toward these really weird anti-intellectual attitudes.

interestingly, those who create popular culture are often public school/ university educated individuals.
i wonder if they feel threatened. "all for ourselves and nothing for anyone else"
 

swears

preppy-kei
matt b said:
interestingly, those who create popular culture are often public school/ university educated individuals.
i wonder if they feel threatened. "all for ourselves and nothing for anyone else"

It's money. The lowest common denominator is going to be the easiest to sell, Penguin paperback classics don't generate profits like action films or cheesy reality tv.
 

bassnation

the abyss
swears said:
It's money. The lowest common denominator is going to be the easiest to sell, Penguin paperback classics don't generate profits like action films or cheesy reality tv.

if you are following the pomo creed, surely high and low culture are fine (plenty lengthy pomo analyses of bloody football on the net if you need proof). its just the middlebrow that should be exterminated.
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
swears said:
It's money. The lowest common denominator is going to be the easiest to sell, Penguin paperback classics don't generate profits like action films or cheesy reality tv.


so how does that link to differential educational attainment?
are you talking about cultural capital (notice no 'k's)?
 
Top