Tories showing their true colours again.

ILW

Kohoutek wrote: »

A lot of senior Tory politicians of the last 50 years owed their success to social mobility...the concept wasn't created by Labour or "jobsworths".

"People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn." – Margaret Thatcher

Is that why labour wanted to close down all the Grammar schools?

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

Is that why labour wanted to close down all the Grammar schools?

desperate attempt to divert attention from the question of the OP.

let's look at the policy that is being proposed shall we rather than rake over the merits or otherwise of the ancient policies of the opposition?

shortchanged_2

I see they have updated the story from the link I originally posted and they are now denying this is the case.

More cracks appearing in the coalition me thinks.

chucky

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Buying tuition at a university is not the same as buying a degree!

so with that logic if you can buy tuition you have more chance of getting a degree than a person that can't buy tuition and by default has no chance of getting a degree.

so we're going to use wealth to determine who has more chance of getting a degree instead of exams now...

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

It doesn't change anything for "intelligent people who should be going to university". The government allot a specific pot of money for subsidised higher education, allowing others to pay an non-subsidised amount doesn't hinder the amount of intelligent people who can go to uni!

how many students would this pot of money fund?

ILW

ninky wrote: »

desperate attempt to divert attention from the question of the OP.

let's look at the policy that is being proposed shall we rather than rake over the merits or otherwise of the ancient policies of the opposition?

It was just a response to another post.

But, Grammar schools were the way into university for many poorer kids in the past and were actually very meritocratic.

ninky_2

A spokesman for the Prime Minister David Cameron said social mobility would be improved "if we could increase the total number of university places".


er how does increasing the number of university places improve social mobility?

i just don't think the tories actually understand what social mobility is.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

It was just a response to another post.

But, Grammar schools were the way into university for many poorer kids in the past and were actually very meritocratic.

in the past of full fees and maintenance grants.

i agree labour must take some responsibility for dismantling that system. however the tories seem to be well and truly taking on the baton of reinvigorating the class of birth system once again.

mbga9pgf

ninky wrote: »

yes kids picking over the rubbish in slums so they have something to eat. that really taps into the potential of a population doesn't it?

honestly. some people are so idiotic.

if people achieve regardless of social intervention why bother having education at all?

I didnt question the importance of education. What has education got to do with social intervention? Nothing, nor should it. You could send inner city scum to eaton on a day schooling basis and it wouldnt change their subsequent outcome. Its down to how you are brought up, not how much money is around.

Lots of jealousy on these boards from anti monarchist idiots like ninky.

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

A lot of senior Tory politicians of the last 50 years owed their success to social mobility...the concept wasn't created by Labour or "jobsworths".

"People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn." – Margaret Thatcher

so basically the tories are now happy with an education system that wouldn't allow margaret thatcher to compete.

interesting.

ninky_2

mbga9pgf wrote: »

I didnt question the importance of education. What has education got to do with social intervention? Nothing, nor should it. You could send inner city scum to eaton on a day schooling basis and it wouldnt change their subsequent outcome. Its down to how you are brought up, not how much money is around.

Lots of jealousy on these boards from anti monarchist idiots like ninky.

education is a form of social intervention. of course parental influence is another. both have an important (and interacting) role to play in outcome.

your thinking is very confused. i wonder if we should blame your parents or your schooling. or possibly both.