Fantastic comment piece from the Times on the giveaway to mortgage holders

lostinrates

kennyboy66 wrote: »

I'm sure they do, however until fairly recently, state students were rejected because "they wouldn't fit in". Not surprising when you see picture of the Bullingdon Club.

While an interview is important, it has the severe danger that people recruit in their own image.

A similar danger is we see pictures of the Bullingdon Club and equate that as fairly representative of th whole of Oxbridge, nothing could be further from the truth IMO.

kennyboy66_2

lostinrates wrote: »

A similar danger is we see pictures of the Bullingdon Club and equate that as fairly representative of th whole of Oxbridge, nothing could be further from the truth IMO.

Indeed.

The saddest thing is that some teachers don't even encourage their students to apply because of their own predjuidices.

lostinrates

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Indeed.

The saddest thing is that some teachers don't even encourage their students to apply because of their own predjuidices.

I'm reading lots of 'thank twice' posts recently. This is one of them.

DirectDebacle

Problem is we live in an elitist society and not a meritocrosy. The system is geared to ensure that the ruling classes remain there. This is refelected in our two tier education system. The wealthy 'buy' their children an education and ensure the 'jobs for the boys' culture is continued. The Govt. (of whichever colour) ensure this staus quo is preserved. State education has been reduced to the lowest common demoninator and the value of degrees has followed. In rough figures Oxbridge is supplied approx 50/50 private/state students. A true proportion should be more like 25/75.

When the day dawns that there are virtually no private schools because the state system is equal to private then we will have a good education system. That day in my opinion will never dawn as the establishment will never allow it to happen.

I see private education as providing a good education for children with potential and wealthy parents. The State provides a good education for some and the remainder are poorly served.

Discuss:D

lostinrates

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Problem is we live in an elitist society and not a meritocrosy.
Discuss:D

My father has been inspirational living proof to me that we do live in a meritocracy. Left (grammer) school at 15, because he hit 6 foot tall and his dad wouldn't pay to support a fully grown man read books. Spent long, commited career in public sector, with international oppertunity and at 50 years old left when 'done his time' for his pension, and succomb to a head hunters offer. Now does a job he likes for horrendous hours and dreads rtirement: work saw him excel in his own right. The 'bought' routes in exist, but ar there for a totally different reason.

DH, state education, Oxford, used no 'old boys network' (in fact flt they would be less than helpful) but rather got job on his outstanding record of work and acheivment in different areas to get his current job.

DirectDebacle

Good points and of course talent and hard work should be rewarded. I would agree there are many examples of people from humble backgrounds who emerge to become outstanding examples of success. My view is that the system makes this talent more difficult to shine through, as those from the 'right side of the tracks' with less talent do as well or not better.

If you think we have a true meritocracy when do you think we will have an Asian Prime Minister. I do not want to divert the thread to a race issue. I give this example as one that would be difficult to envisage with our current 'system'. The U.S.A. which promotes itself as a 'classless' society took how long to get Barack Obama elected.

We need the best people there are to do the most important jobs and I don't think we get as many as we should.

lostinrates

DirectDebacle wrote: »

If you think we have a true meritocracy when do you think we will have an Asian Prime Minister. .

Persoanlly, while I don't really are about race or gender, I'd rather have a British PM of whatever origin...Asian or otherwise. I guess my experiences have lead me to believe we are pretty cultural in fairly elevated circles (and have been for a longish while).


The USA is NOT classless. Far from it. I have attended some of the stuffiest dos ever in USA or at US outposts abroad.

DirectDebacle

We are in agreement. However I said the U.S.A. promoted herself as a classless society not that it was. It also promoted itself as the land of opportunity. Compared to the U.K. it is 'classless' and more inclusive but by no means perfect.

In many peoples minds we are still a society divided into 'upper', 'middle' and 'lower'. It is a remarkable achievment that the 'lower' classes are now referred to as 'working' class. It is something that has evolved in this country over centuries and bar another civil war the only way to alter it is through education. The higher you go up the food chain the less palatable this idea becomes. To keep the masses quiet lip service is paid to the idea of equality. People like John Prescott (can't get much more salt of the earth than him) from humble beginnings is allowed to rise to Deputy Prime Minister where he is effectively side-lined.

We get to the ludicrous situation where those kept at the bottom of the pile by a system designed to ensure they stay there are exploited by those administering it.

Although it seems like an age ago now it was only back in April that a good example of this occurred. Remember the 10p tax fiasco.

The bosses tried to use this to buy the votes of the middle classes by making the section of society least able to afford it, pay for it. So the bosses to quell the outcries decide that the middle classes who had already benefitted from this would be made even better off and some of those that lost out would be back to where they were. Other low income people would still be worse off, around 5 million of them.

A few months down the line we see posts on here that the benefit scroungers should be exterminated and that the middle classes are fed up with paying for them. Conveniently forgetting it was the low paid that financed their lower tax bills in the first place.

Is the gap between 'rich' and 'poor' widening?

Anne3333

Is the gap between 'rich' and 'poor' widening?

It most certainly is and the chasm is engulfing the most vulnerable members of our society! The number of UK children living in poverty has in fact increased an additional 100,000 since last year. Shame on a government that touts a target of halving the number of children living in poverty by 2010.

lostinrates

Anne3333 wrote: »

It most certainly is and the chasm is engulfing the most vulnerable members of our society! The number of UK children living in poverty has in fact increased an additional 100,000 since last year. Shame on a government that touts a target of halving the number of children living in poverty by 2010.

I do not dispute the stats, but I do wonder how they are collated. I should perhaps say right here and now I am as strongly in favour of children's right to be aided out of poverty as anyone.

But what is poverty now? (again a genuine question). Surely povrty includes a higher standard of living than might have been considered so in say, the 1940s?

Is it calulated as a percntage too? (not that any percentage is accptable). Its another thing that astounds me, that w hav people in genuine poverty yet people who it seems, acording to a recent thread :rolleyes: are considered well and truley average income, all receiving some help. How can this be?