UK spending power 'in heavy fall'

neverdespairgirl

jamescredmond wrote: »

the fact that grammar offered a w/class kid a chance to climb out of his/her condition can be demonstrated, but there can be no doubt that this system of schooling helped perpetuate socio - economic divisions that many now would simply not recognise.

I think socio-economic divisions are now more, rather than less entrenched.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

Socialists don't decrease poverty. Socialists like to control what other people do and how their money is spent.

I think you will find that is what Admen do.

Never mind the evidence, just stick to the dogma. Typical right-winger.

Right-wingers wanted deregulation, and wanted Capital to control our lives. Well, they succeeded, and we are reaping the "reward" with the Credit Crunch. Enjoy!

jamescredmond

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I think socio-economic divisions are now more, rather than less entrenched.

socio-econ. divisions more rigid and in a different guise.

lostinrates

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I think grammars actually could help contribute to social mobility, though. There are a lot of people like my Dad, who were all born late 40s / early 50s. Dad's family had never done post-compulsary education, but he went to a Grammar in Wallesey, Cheshire, and then university, and then Bar School. He got grants / support, although he also did have to work in the holidays. He started his career as a barrister broke, but not in debt.

Social mobility is now harder than it was. I mentioned, earlier in this thread, my flatmate for 5 years, now a doctor. She was going to drop out after he 2nd year, because she simply couldn't afford it. My Dad was horrified - and shelled out £50 a week during term-time to keep her going until she was qualified.



You didn't grow up in south London, I'm very sure of that.

Fascinating discussion, thanks all.

Grammar schools certainly aided social mobilty in my fathers case, and not because of qualifications but the believe that his hard work would be rewarded and that he could acheive. His father made him leave his s. london grammer school just before his 15th birthday and get a job. My father's job was no better than the ob he could have got with a comprehnsive education, but the aspiration given to him made him work hard and apply himself, knoing that he could and would rise with dedication. He really did.

It was with some doubt he let my mother put me through the private system (although it was kind of compulsory as they lived out of UK for most of my early childhood but kno I'd be rejoining th UK system pre exams). My DH's parents were both grammar school educated too....one barrister, one academic. They both decided their kids would not go through the UK state system after 7-8 years old, and thir eldest child was in private for a couple of years, then they went to Italy and the kids went through the Italian state system. An interesting system, based on the 'grammar' type kids going to a schools where the ancient languages and philosphy etc are highlights, then there are scintific school, and then art scools and then more technical schools.


The thing about social mobility now? I think its easier still...I don't get that its harder now without grammer schools, but only because aspirational careers are no longer law and medecine, but 'getting on the telly' or, up until recently, being a property developer :rolleyes:.

baby_boomer

It's actually much harder to motivate children from deprived backgrounds when they can think they could make it big by getting onto big brother. The illusion of easy money & fame is another factor working against them.

If Grammar Schools came back (no chance) then in today's world you'd want more to attend than 10%, more money invested in the alternatives (which was the mistake of the UK as opposed to Germany) and an opportunity at 14 for late developers.

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

You didn't grow up in south London, I'm very sure of that.

On the subject of hardening divisions in post Grammar School society, the % of London children in fee paying private schools is between 20% & 25% :eek:. Those that wear the state sector on their sleeve, like the Blairs or the Campbell/Millar partnership are those who can afford to choose where to live or have other ways of manipulating the system. Grammar Schools would be fairer than this.

lostinrates

baby_boomer wrote: »

It's actually much harder to motivate children from deprived backgrounds when they can think they could make it big by getting onto big brother. The illusion of easy money & fame is another factor working against them.

Exactly. and the idea of fulfilment from valuable work, or being a member of society valued for the important influences and improvements for everyone your work could have are replaced by the ambition of being able to 'go crazy' in top shop and not wince at the price.

WTF?_2

lostinrates wrote: »

Fascinating discussion, thanks all.

Grammar schools certainly aided social mobilty in my fathers case, and not because of qualifications but the believe that his hard work would be rewarded and that he could acheive. His father made him leave his s. london grammer school just before his 15th birthday and get a job. My father's job was no better than the ob he could have got with a comprehnsive education, but the aspiration given to him made him work hard and apply himself, knoing that he could and would rise with dedication. He really did.

It was with some doubt he let my mother put me through the private system (although it was kind of compulsory as they lived out of UK for most of my early childhood but kno I'd be rejoining th UK system pre exams). My DH's parents were both grammar school educated too....one barrister, one academic. They both decided their kids would not go through the UK state system after 7-8 years old, and thir eldest child was in private for a couple of years, then they went to Italy and the kids went through the Italian state system. An interesting system, based on the 'grammar' type kids going to a schools where the ancient languages and philosphy etc are highlights, then there are scintific school, and then art scools and then more technical schools.


The thing about social mobility now? I think its easier still...I don't get that its harder now without grammer schools, but only because aspirational careers are no longer law and medecine, but 'getting on the telly' or, up until recently, being a property developer :rolleyes:.

Doesn't matter how smart you are now if you're a kid - If you want to get into one of the 'good' schools you'd better hope you win the postcode lottery or your parents can afford to pay over the odds for a house in the catchment area.

When it comes time for university, given that you no longer get a grant and have to pay fees then mummy and daddy better have a large stash or you face having to borrow an absolute packet. The expansion of universities has lead to the creation of a multitude of mickey mouse degrees and even the good ones dropping standards to get the punters in, so degrees have been devalued overall. Meaning that the less well off are taking a very big risk in running up massive debts to get a uni education.

For rich kids though, it's party time. Mummy and Daddy pay the bills and courses are less demanding than ever.

Bottom line: Ordinary bright kids find it harder to get a good education, kids with well off parents find it easier to get into the good places regardless of their academic ability.

lostinrates

!!!!!!? wrote: »

When it comes time for university, given that you no longer get a grant and have to pay fees then mummy and daddy better have a large stash or you face having to borrow an absolute packet. The expansion of universities has lead to the creation of a multitude of mickey mouse degrees and even the good ones dropping standards to get the punters in, so degrees have been devalued overall. Meaning that the less well off are taking a very big risk in running up massive debts to get a uni education.
.

Hmm, but this is partly social attitude too. My dad pulled on me what his dad pulled on him when I chose my uni course (then a scientific course, now victim of popularity and dumbing down). I was eligable for no grants and was the first year paying course fees but university was important to me so, shock horror, I got a job and worked through university. i did resent it at the time but in fact it stood me in better stead I feel now.

Social inequalaty will ALWAYS exist what ever the system: what makes individuals inequal is the way we respond to this, IMO.

baby_boomer

!!!!!!? wrote: »

For rich kids though, it's party time. Mummy and Daddy pay the bills and courses are less demanding than ever.

Bottom line: Ordinary bright kids find it harder to get a good education, kids with well off parents find it easier to get into the good places regardless of their academic ability.

Yes, we've prostituted our education system in the interests of equality, without actually achieving social mobility or equality. India, China, the Far East, Brazil etc. must be laughing.

At my Grammar School no-one got 3As at A level on the arts side and we worked pretty hard. Now there are A-Level students who expect to get 3 or 4 As without hardly opening a book out of school time. And if they don't get them, it's the teacher's fault!

Sir_Humphrey

My father was from a wokring class background, and he is now one of the leading academics in his field, having been to a Comprehensive school.

I went to a Comprehensive, went to a state sixth form college, before going to Oxford.

In the London media bubble, Comps are associated with tough, Inner City locations, normally London. In reality is that they are not all Grange Hill. The problem, as usual, is economic deprivation entrenched by 30 years of Thatcherism.