Retired people could work for pensions..

lessonlearned

PaulF81 wrote: »

Show me someone in the media who made it from scratch past the age of 40. In other words, not been trying for years and got a break, truly turned their life around past that age and made it.

Late Bloomers

Col Sanders founded KFC aged 65
Sylvia Liberman - childrens author - first book published aged 90
Jack Weil - founded Rockmount aged 45
Raymon Chandler - first published aged 51
Paul Gaughin - began painting aged 43

Actors
Linda Gray
Brenda Blethan
Karthy Bates
Liz Smith started at 50
Samuel L. Jackson - 46 big break in Pulp Fiction
Alan Rickan - 42 Die Hard

School drop outs and no hopers
Winston Churchill
Isaac Newton
Einstein

Steve Jobs
Bill Gates
David Geffen - Dreamworks

Just a few examples. Some took a few years to become successful but some started from scratch well after 40 having had prior interests or careers.

You are never to old to make your dreams come true and educational achievement isn't the be all and end all.

seven-day-weekend

lessonlearned wrote: »

Late Bloomers

Col Sanders founded KFC aged 65
Sylvia Liberman - childrens author - first book published aged 90
Jack Weil - founded Rockmount aged 45
Raymon Chandler - first published aged 51
Paul Gaughin - began painting aged 43

Actors
Linda Gray
Brenda Blethan
Karthy Bates
Liz Smith started at 50
Samuel L. Jackson - 46 big break in Pulp Fiction
Alan Rickan - 42 Die Hard

School drop outs and no hopers
Winston Churchill
Isaac Newton
Einstein

Steve Jobs
Bill Gates
David Geffen - Dreamworks

Just a few examples. Some took a few years to become successful but some started from scratch well after 40 having had prior interests or careers.

You are never to old to make your dreams come true and educational achievement isn't the be all and end all.

Bill Gates also has Aspergers Syndrome. Just goes to show that sometimes being single-minded and obsessive can be useful.:)

Churchill suffered from depression. Just goes to show that a disability need not stop you functioning in every area of your life.

ash28

ukcarper wrote: »

The problem you have is that you have no experiance of the old system and how it failed lots of children. I am all for streaming children by ability but you need a system where things aren't set in stone at 11. Perhaps it would be better to look for ways of improving present system than going back to an old system that benefited a few at the expense of the many.

I'd rather be a socialist if that is what if I am than someone who has no empathy.

I have to agree with you about streaming.

One of the most successful education systems in the OECD is Finland - there is no streaming. Finland is at near the very top every time for reading, maths and science - we are some where in the middle.

When Finland reformed it's education system the goal of the reforms Finland instituted, was not excellence it was equity.

Since the 1980s, the main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or location. Education has been seen not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.

Finland starts with the basics and offers all pupils free school meals, psychological counselling, and individualised student guidance.

Finnish schools assign less homework and engage children in more creative play.

In fact academic excellence wasn't a particular priority on the Finnish to-do list, so that when Finland's students scored so highly on the first PISA survey in 2001, many Finns thought the results must be a mistake. But subsequent PISA tests confirmed that Finland unlike similar countries such as Norway was producing academic excellence through its focus on equity.

Finland has no standardised tests. The only exception is what's called the National Matriculation Exam, which everyone takes at the end of a voluntary upper-secondary school, roughly the equivalent of high school.

I could live with that.........

http://www.sefi.be/wp-content/uploads/oecd%20pisa%202009%20exec%20summary.pdf

GeorgeHowell

ukcarper wrote: »

I'd rather be a socialist if that is what if I am than someone who has no empathy.

Oh dear that is rather a give away of the accuracy of the popular notion that socialists vote with their hearts whilst conservatives vote with their heads.

ukcarper

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Oh dear that is rather a give away of the accuracy of the popular notion that socialists vote with their hearts whilst conservatives vote with their heads.

It's funny how you got defensive there is that what you think. I was just referring to Paul who seems to show no empathy towards anyone.

ruggedtoast

This site basically tells you everything you need to know about the past and will probably provide great opportunities for nostalgic whimsy for those of the boomer persuasion:

http://www.retrowow.co.uk/retro_britain/60s/britain_in_the_sixties.html

The big question.....Overall, do you think life was better in the 60s than today?

This was a difficult question for most people to answer. For some the sixties was better, but only because they were younger. For others it was a case of "Yes and No". Technological change and greater social freedoms balanced the loss of community and a simpler life.

These are some of the answers:

Yes, but only because I was younger
Life was not so complicated in the sixties, but more physical as there were not so many household gadgets
Safer, cleaner and children could be disciplined
Less crowded
Work culture different
Difficult to equate
Less material
Better? Not sure!
Possibly life was slower
In a way, yes
Prefer 2004 - travel - equality TV, information, computers
Yes, but no responsibility then

Sigh. I wish it could still be 2004.

lessonlearned

ruggedtoast wrote: »

This site basically tells you everything you need to know about the past and will probably provide great opportunities for nostalgic whimsy for those of the boomer persuasion:

http://www.retrowow.co.uk/retro_britain/60s/britain_in_the_sixties.html



Sigh. I wish it could still be 2004.

"The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there" (L P Hartley - "The Go-Between".

Or as the Japanese proverb goes, "That was then and this is now".

Looking backwards and pining for a mythical "golden age" - and trust me I was there - the 60's were not that golden:rotfl:- serves no purpose.

What counts is not what was but what is and what will be. Today and tomorrow.

GeorgeHowell

ukcarper wrote: »

It's funny how you got defensive there is that what you think. I was just referring to Paul who seems to show no empathy towards anyone.

Not defensive in the sense you mean. But it is socialist empathy that leads to things like paying people to live on welfare all their lives, dumbing down education so that no one excels too much over others, putting the interests of victims over criminals, and allowing economic migrants into a country that is already grossly overcrowded. Those who argue against such things are routinely portrayed as "lacking empathy". Such emotive arguments are used by the left because no rational arguments exist.

ukcarper

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Not defensive in the sense you mean. But it is socialist empathy that leads to things like paying people to live on welfare all their lives, dumbing down education so that no one excels too much over others, putting the interests of victims over criminals, and allowing economic migrants into a country that is already grossly overcrowded. Those who argue against such things are routinely portrayed as "lacking empathy". Such emotive arguments are used by the left because no rational arguments exist.

I think you can be a socialist and not want the things you mention and I don't think all conservatives lack empathy.

System

lessonlearned wrote: »

School drop outs and no hopers
Winston Churchill
Isaac Newton
Einstein


l.

Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitler