Who Says Class Does Count?

[fka dagest]

Here's the link:

LSE Website

Extracts:

1. Researchers from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) have compared the life chances of British children with those in other advanced countries for a study sponsored by the Sutton Trust, and the results are disturbing.

2. careful comparison reveals that the USA and Britain are at the bottom with the lowest social mobility. Norway has the greatest social mobility, followed by Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Germany is around the middle of the two extremes, and Canada was found to be much more mobile than the UK.

3. Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton Trust, said: 'These findings are truly shocking. The results show that social mobility in Britain is much lower than in other advanced countries and is declining - those from less privileged backgrounds are more likely to continue facing disadvantage into adulthood, and the affluent continue to benefit disproportionately from educational opportunities.

So come on chums, it's clear you shouldn't sweep class perspective under the carpet!

[Mr Mosquito]

Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton Trust, said: 'These findings are truly shocking. The results show that social mobility in Britain is much lower than in other advanced countries and is declining - those from less privileged backgrounds are more likely to continue facing disadvantage into adulthood, and the affluent continue to benefit disproportionately from educational opportunities.

So come on chums, it's clear you shouldn't sweep class perspective under the carpet!

Great post with with an excellent academic link. It's still the same Royal family leading the same foreign ruling class families as was the case in Oliver Cromwell's time 350 years ago. I.e. roughly 10% of the population of this country still own 90% of the land and wealth as was the case during the English Civil War and even as far back as 1066 at the time of the Norman conquest of England. One thing has changed though - the Royal family and ruling classes are even more inbred than ever before and it shows.

[Barrs Court Red]

I would say Britain has changed since the results of this survey was taken, the 50's - 70's.

It's obvious to anyone that the explosion in IT for one thing has seen massive swing in the type of blue chip jobs available, as has globalisation.

[Redhyde]

You get paid to go to college... You can also work at the same time... You get your education fees funded if you can't afford them at University... and you can work... you don't have to pay your loan back if you don't earn enough after your degree...

There are no restrictions to anyone with the work ethic and ability to succeed.

[zookeeper]

The news (BBC Morning news) I saw the other morning was saying that young people today are going to struggle to overtake what there parents earn and in my case that's pretty much a definate.

I question the importance of higher education in gaining a good quality of life these days. Those people who have "benefited" from a independent education need it to adjust to real life, whilst where as before if you didn't go you were excluded from all professional type jobs with on the job training that isn't the case anymore.

I also think that with the salaries that trades people can earn these days as "generally" (and I hate generalisations) they have come from a lower social group.

It's an isolated report that looks at one aspect of society (higher education) and doesn't really give any great concluisions on class mobility.

[fka dagest]

You get paid to go to college... You can also work at the same time... You get your education fees funded if you can't afford them at University... and you can work... you don't have to pay your loan back if you don't earn enough after your degree...

There are no restrictions to anyone with the work ethic and ability to succeed.

Nonsense, of course there are restrictions. Economics apart people are still judged according to colour of skin, accent etc. And of course it's much harder to attain a degree if you have to spend many hours every week working when you could be studying. That in itself is a disadvantage. Additionally the threshold for paying back student loans is pretty low, so very, very few escape.

[Mr Mosquito]

Nonsense, of course there are restrictions. Economics apart people are still judged according to colour of skin, accent etc. And of course it's much harder to attain a degree if you have to spend many hours every week working when you could be studying. That in itself is a disadvantage. Additionally the threshold for paying back student loans is pretty low, so very, very few escape.

Education in the UK: this has three main roles; to justify and encourage acceptance of the economic and social order, in short to legitimise the status-quo; to organise young people's integration into society i.e. to make the most of the 'failures'; and to supply the knowledge and skills to the workforce that capitalism needs.

In an advanced capitalist country, such as the UK, with its new industries and growing service sectors, it is absolutely vital that the workforce is selfmotivated and educated to a reasonable standard. Brutal coercion by Gestapo Police will not programme computers, make hightech weapons, or inspire white collar workers to administer pension funds or insurance schemes. Nor will it force builders to build or drivers to drive. For advanced capitalism to work effectively, the workforce has to be 'educated' to identify and agree with the aims and values of the capitalists and they must feel involved in things, without this they will not be motivated. These ideas and values are called 'bourgeois ideology' by our political 'Left'.

"The great only appear great because we are on our knees. Let us rise."

James Connolly-Edinburgh born Irish socialist.

[Nibor]

Has anyone actually read any of the study?

The actual facts in that study are unsurprising but the quite provocative conclusions arrived at by Sir Peter Lampl are neither proven nor disproven by them. It focuses on statistical data for two groups of adults - one from 1958 and one from 1970. (Reasons for these years aren't given which is a bit weird).

The facts boil down to: there is a positive correlation between parental income, and the educational achievement and adult income of their children. That correlation was slightly stronger in the 1970 group than the 1958 one. So what exactly does that tell you? Not a lot more than that really, everything else is mere supposition unless you're able to actually conduct an experiment with a proper control group.

First of all, the education system that would have served either group bears absolutely no resemblance to the one that serves todays. There's a national curriculum, SATs, no 11+ grammar/comprehensive split, IT access for everyone, huge numbers of people from all backgrounds going into further and higher education.

Second, many factors are ignored in favour of arriving at the conclusion that kids of high income parents do well because of the money. The causal relationship could equally be the other way around - that people who are clever and hardworking do well educationally, get good, well paid jobs and pass those traits on to their kids who do the same - and hence earn more money. I mean, no one would be surprised to see the kids of successful athletes do well at sports - why is economic success any different?

Personally I'm sure that rich kids do have an advantage. I just don't see how that limits opportunities for kids whose parents aren't rich or puts them at a disadvantage. Why does someone else being rich stop me going to uni? I don't see how anything in that study (which is really just a statistical analysis built on other statistical analyses) supports that conclusion.

If you're a kid whose parents have low income, you can still go to school, get a good education, go as far as you want in the educational system and the only disadvantage you get is you might have more debt at the end of it which you have to pay back whereas someone else might have been lucky and got given money by their parents. How does that affect the quality of the education you receive or the job you get after finishing?

I've never met a student from _any_ background that had to work so hard at a job their education suffered. Shit, I've never met a student who had to work so hard at a a job or their study that their beer drinking suffered!

Incidentally my parents were a long way from high income and I chose not to go to uni because I didn't believe it would be more helpful than 4 years of experience. Worked out alright for me. I reckon if everyone focused on making their own circumstances better instead of worrying about how they compared other peoples' they'd be better off for it - but then perhaps some people do and that's the reason for the disparity?

[WTFiGO!?!]

Parental attitude is a major factor in eventual outcome.

That m/c parents are more likely to value and invest in their offspring's educational attainment is not the fault of the system.

Although this debate could run and run, had to write an essay on it once... that was fun I can tell you!

[fka dagest]

Quite right Gobbo. Although, it's also fair to say that my own experience with the intelligentsia was what made me the unbelieving cynic I truly am (I was once a happy-clappy Capitalist). There's clearly a flaw in the system somewhere. It's also possible that some of us are simply more disposed to question everything.

[Mr Mosquito]

Incidentally my parents were a long way from high income and I chose not to go to uni because I didn't believe it would be more helpful than 4 years of experience. Worked out alright for me.

In my opinion, you would have benefited from a University education.

[Mr Mosquito]

Quite right Gobbo. Although, it's also fair to say that my own experience with the intelligentsia was what made me the unbelieving cynic I truly am (I was once a happy-clappy Capitalist). There's clearly a flaw in the system somewhere. It's also possible that some of us are simply more disposed to question everything.

I don't believe you're any more cynical than any of the others that post on this particular forum, I just believe you've opened your mind a little more than the others and you have greater understanding as a result. One of the major flaws, that I perceive, is the current situation in the UK where radical or revolutionary criticism of the ruling upper classes and their Policing methods is discouraged and prevented, by force if necessary. Instead the ruling upper classes hope that discontent is channelled into harmless activities like petitions and elections instead of direct action against them.

[Nibor]

In my opinion, you would have benefited from a University education.

How?

[Mr Mosquito]

How?

Go to University or do an Open University degree course and find out for your goodself.

[fka dagest]

Has anyone actually read any of the study?

Not me, couldn't be arsed.

:tongue:

Personally I'm sure that rich kids do have an advantage. I just don't see how that limits opportunities for kids whose parents aren't rich or puts them at a disadvantage.

Surely recognition of an advantage, by logic demands the recognition of a disadvantage?

If you're a kid whose parents have low income, you can still go to school, get a good education, go as far as you want in the educational system and the only disadvantage you get is you might have more debt at the end of it which you have to pay back whereas someone else might have been lucky and got given money by their parents. How does that affect the quality of the education you receive or the job you get after finishing?

If this was true then why do private schools exist? Why are people willing to pay for the "best" schools, teachers and education? Lots of people even move house to find a decent education for their children. Do you honestly believe that a young man growing up in the social environment of say...Hartcliffe stands exactly the same chance of obtaining a quality education as some one who's child is paid to go to Eton or Harrow?

And just for the record, my own opinion is that class does not explain everything, but is an important factor and people should not dismiss it!

[Nibor]

Go to University or do an Open University degree course and find out for your goodself.

I'm really interested to know why you think that would benefit me, since you know very little about me? Do you think a degree benefits everyone?

I already have done the latter by the way - before I had figured out why it was pointless unfortunately.

[Mr Mosquito]

I'm really interested to know why you think that would benefit me, since you know very little about me? Do you think a degree benefits everyone?

I already have done the latter by the way - before I had figured out why it was pointless unfortunately.

Perhaps it would benefit you to go to University and study to take away your preconceptions about University students. A degree may well not benefit everyone but it's certainly a life experience gaining a degree in whatever takes your fancy.

Nibor BA (Hons) or Nibor BSc (Hons) - see you'll even get letters after your name.

[Nibor]

Surely recognition of an advantage, by logic demands the recognition of a disadvantage?

Not for me - in fact that's the assumption that galls me the most.

If this was true then why do private schools exist? Why are people willing to pay for the "best" schools, teachers and education?

Are Nikes better than Golas?

Lots of people even move house to find a decent education for their children. Do you honestly believe that a young man growing up in the social environment of say...Hartcliffe stands exactly the same chance of obtaining a quality education as some one who's child is paid to go to Eton or Harrow?

Socialisation has an effect of course, and I'm not saying that living in a £1m house in Clifton and attending a private school isn't an advantage - nor am I saying that kids from poor families have the exact same chance. I'm saying that everyone has the opportunity and there are no real barriers to success. Other people having the wheels greased for them a bit doesn't make any difference at all.

And just for the record, my own opinion is that class does not explain everything, but is an important factor and people should not dismiss it!

I'm not dismissing it, I just don't believe that other people being rich toffs is any barrier to you or me or anyone else.

[WTFiGO!?!]

Personally I just reckon you wanna do what's right for you and be happy!

If you wanna spend your life thinking about society and begrudging your role that's up to you.. don't know where the craic is but there we go.

It's your World Playground!

[Nibor]

Perhaps it would benefit you to go to University and study to take away your preconceptions about University students. A degree may well not benefit everyone but it's certainly a life experience gaining a degree in whatever takes your fancy.

Nibor BA (Hons) or Nibor BSc (Hons) - see you'll even get letters after your name.

What preconceptions?!?

Most of my mates went to uni and I spent plenty of time kipping on the floor of someone's halls room after drinking for most of a weekend as a result.

Life experience is what you make it, I didn't need to go to Uni to learn how to be independent or how to be successful at my chosen career.

I just wish I'd not bothered doing an OU degree until I'd worked out it was pointless for me and picked a subject I would have enjoyed for the same of it rather than one that added to my CV.

[Mr Mosquito]

I'm not dismissing it, I just don't believe that other people being rich toffs is any barrier to you or me or anyone else.

If I had all the Toffs and Snobs, that often blight our legal system and Government, loaded onto transport ships for exile in the former Soviet Gulags, would this not create more opportunity to be upwardly mobile for those that are left.

[Nibor]

If I had all the Toffs and Snobs, that often blight our legal system and Government, loaded onto transport ships for exile in the former Soviet Gulags, would this not create more opportunity to be upwardly mobile for those that are left.

Yep, then you could become one of those toff snobs. I knew that was your ambition all along - much like all the other "socialists".

[Mr Mosquito]

Yep, then you could become one of those toff snobs. I knew that was your ambition all along - much like all the other "socialists".

I know of no 'socialists' that have proposed my solution to the problem that is our ruling classes acting as a barrier to our progression to the top jobs.

[fka dagest]

Not for me - in fact that's the assumption that galls me the most.

Are Nikes better than Golas?

Socialisation has an effect of course, and I'm not saying that living in a £1m house in Clifton and attending a private school isn't an advantage - nor am I saying that kids from poor families have the exact same chance. I'm saying that everyone has the opportunity and there are no real barriers to success. Other people having the wheels greased for them a bit doesn't make any difference at all.

I'm not dismissing it, I just don't believe that other people being rich toffs is any barrier to you or me or anyone else.

I think you've gone mad! So, you don't think an Eton education is worth more than a Hartcliffe Education?

"Advantage" and "Disadvantage" are mutually related concepts. You can't claim someone has an "advantage" unless you also admit that someone has a disadvantage. You can't have one without the other because it becomes a meaningless term.

Socialisation has an effect of course, and I'm not saying that living in a £1m house in Clifton and attending a private school isn't an advantage - nor am I saying that kids from poor families have the exact same chance. I'm saying that everyone has the opportunity and there are no real barriers to success.

This is contradictory!

If all the best teachers and facilities are contained within private schools than surely this has to be to the disadvantage of everyone else?

Thanks for the compliments Gobbo - you're a man of impeccable taste!

[Nibor]

I think you've gone mad! So, you don't think an Eton education is worth more than a Hartcliffe Education?

My point is that a Hartcliffe education isn't a barrier, unless you spend your life worrying about people who were lucky enough to be born with money instead of working to improve your own lot.

"Advantage" and "Disadvantage" are mutually related concepts. You can't claim someone has an "advantage" unless you also admit that someone has a disadvantage. You can't have one without the other because it becomes a meaningless term.

An advantage does not logically imply a disadvantage at all because there is no reason whatsoever that two people with different educations can't be exactly as successful as they want to be.

This is contradictory!

No, it's English.

If all the best teachers and facilities are contained within private schools than surely this has to be to the disadvantage of everyone else?

It's sloppy thinking like this that leads to people idly whining about the general unfairness of life/the system/everyone else instead of sorting their shit out.

[WTFiGO!?!]

I think you've gone mad! So, you don't think an Eton education is worth more than a Hartcliffe Education?

"Advantage" and "Disadvantage" are mutually related concepts. You can't claim someone has an "advantage" unless you also admit that someone has a disadvantage. You can't have one without the other because it becomes a meaningless term.

This is contradictory!

If all the best teachers and facilities are contained within private schools than surely this has to be to the disadvantage of everyone else?

Thanks for the compliments Gobbo - you're a man of impeccable taste!

I think I'm a bit of a humanist daggy old baby, I've know kiddies from private schools who have completely dropped out - not yet to return, I've known two kiddies from the same family - one became a heroin addict the other a teacher. One lad I knew committed suicide, his brother is a mechanic - IT IS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL to play the cards they are dealt to the best of their ability.

I've also known people with 'the lot' be the most miserable uptight buggers one could imagine, and others with nothing the friendliest easiest going buggers imaginable.

The owner of the local business I'm currently working for is a millionaire and has all sorts of personal problems. He is also a bastard who I have nothing to do with (apart from work for).

[Dorset_Cider]

Here's the link:

LSE Website

Extracts:

1. Researchers from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) have compared the life chances of British children with those in other advanced countries for a study sponsored by the Sutton Trust, and the results are disturbing.

2. careful comparison reveals that the USA and Britain are at the bottom with the lowest social mobility. Norway has the greatest social mobility, followed by Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Germany is around the middle of the two extremes, and Canada was found to be much more mobile than the UK.

3. Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton Trust, said: 'These findings are truly shocking. The results show that social mobility in Britain is much lower than in other advanced countries and is declining - those from less privileged backgrounds are more likely to continue facing disadvantage into adulthood, and the affluent continue to benefit disproportionately from educational opportunities.

So come on chums, it's clear you shouldn't sweep class perspective under the carpet!

I get it......... but please define your personal understanding /interpretation of class perspective....... I'm interested

[fka dagest]

My point is that a Hartcliffe education isn't a barrier, unless you spend your life worrying about people who were lucky enough to be born with money instead of working to improve your own lot.

Of course it a barrier, the poorest standard teachers, facilities and social environment obviously count. What has worrying about "haves" and "have nots" got to do with anything?. Are you saying the only reason the poor actually exist is because they spend all their lives worrying about they haven't got? I thought that most of the poor spent their lives working So, in your mind do you believe that if everyone worked equally as hard and applied themselves on an exact level that everyone would reap the same rewards? Would we find ourselves in a kind of quasi-communism? No, of course not because the rich and poor (as absolutes) cannot exist without the other. The poor would be in exactly the same situation, albeit working themselves silly trying to get a larger piece of the cake (as many in fact do).

An advantage does not logically imply a disadvantage at all because there is no reason whatsoever that two people with different educations can't be exactly as successful as they want to be.

Yes, it does. How do you recognize or define an advantage or indeed a disadvantage? By what it isn't. This is now human perception works Nibor. Everything is defined by what it isn't or what makes it unique.

No, it's English.

Ah, flippant!

It's sloppy thinking like this that leads to people idly whining about the general unfairness of life/the system/everyone else instead of sorting their shit out.

Sloppy thinking eh? No need for cheap insults - I'm disappointed with the Poster of the Year

Wtfigo, my delightful old fruit, you're quite right the edges of all perceptions are frayed and as I said class doesn't explain everything. Just shouldn't be dismissed!

[Nibor]

Of course it a barrier, the poorest standard teachers, facilities and social environment obviously count. What has worrying about "haves" and "have nots" got to do with anything?. Are you saying the only reason the poor actually exist is because they spend all their lives worrying about they haven't got? I thought that most of the poor spent their lives working So, in your mind do you believe that if everyone worked equally as hard and applied themselves on an exact level that everyone would reap the same rewards? Would we find ourselves in a kind of quasi-communism? No, of course not because the rich and poor (as absolutes) cannot exist without the other. The poor would be in exactly the same situation, albeit working themselves silly trying to get a larger piece of the cake (as many in fact do).

No, it isn't a barrier because it doesn't prevent you doing anything. Why does someone else having it easier create a barrier for you?

You're confusing equality with opportunity. I am not suggesting they are equal, I am suggesting that anyone in this country has ENOUGH of an opportunity to achieve whatever they want.

You seem to be advocating communist style equality - it's OK that everyone's starving because at least it's fair! I'd rather have everyone be better off even if the system that makes that possible allows inequality, because those inequalities are often the result of hard work and frankly, Darwin's theory!

Yes, it does. How do you recognize or define an advantage or indeed a disadvantage? By what it isn't. This is now human perception works Nibor. Everything is defined by what it isn't or what makes it unique.

You're making my point absolutely crystal clear but not seeing it yourself.

The fact that you think anything can be defined by comparing it to something it isn't is exactly where I disagree with you.

If someone's born with £1m - does that mean I'm born with less than I would have been otherwise or that I can achieve less with my life? No, it doesn't. They're advantaged, I'm not disadvantaged by that in any way because I've got no reason to compare myself to them, they don't affect me in the slightest.

Sloppy thinking eh? No need for cheap insults - I'm disappointed with the Poster of the Year

I apologise profusely, I didn't realise it would be so upsetting for you

[Dorset_Cider]

I know of no 'socialists' that have proposed my solution to the problem that is our ruling classes acting as a barrier to our progression to the top jobs.

As you know Red Goblin........ I have nothing but the highest regard for you and your thoughts on this and many other subjects....... but is the truth that despite all the rhetoric...... many of the so called lower classes find it easier to condemn the so called upper classes just because they seem to be the haves as opposed to being the have nots and this plays a major part in the perspective of what you are.......... is the grass always being greener on the other side?

Is class about having money(?) , well no not in my books......... is it about having power over others.... well yes this might be closer to the truth?

That said money and power go a long way in the control of the masses, but that said you can do pretty much what you want in our society regardless of class......... is this not true for many of us?

Yes we may not think we have any power against the those that we perceive as being the ruling classes but what do they truly rule at the end of the day?

I don't care what anyone says............. we all die in the end...... true it is how you live your life but the way it is is that some will always do better than others........ on that note many 'Working Class' people have more than me....... and I work

Am I missing something here?

What class am I or is it just how you perceive the world and your place in it?

You can offer or make available everything to some people be they working class or the rich toffs you refer to but in the end they both just fark it up......... so what is the difference in them?