Social mobility

the_flying_pig

What must be true is that grammar schools are good at helping a small number of merely middle class kids compete on truly equal terms with kids of the true elite. Which is one form of 'social mobility'. Comps are probably better at getting large numbers if people to a merely good standard.

olly300

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

Do you think we will have a new rash of "new" money trying to marry into "old" as happened in the mid C19th and early C20th??

People tend to marry who they meet in their social circles.

So the Beckhams are as likely to marry old money as they are to marry people who are equivalent to themselves.

Due to their schooling and the fact that the people in control will still remember the name of their father, the doors will open for them.

olly300

michaels wrote: »

I am probably naive to think it used to be different but in my imagination in the 50s/60s the 11+ really did just split the bright and hard-working from the rest whereas in the remaining grammar school areas nowadays, as I put in my post, those whose parents know how to work the system will get the places and these parents will almost certainly be those who already have a higher position in the society/income spectrum.

It just enabled the girls to get a better type of husband.

Seriously lots of older woman I know where prevented of reaching their full potential regardless of their background.

The poorer ones weren't allowed to go to Grammar School due to the expense even if their families thought it was a good idea. The next lot if they were allowed to go had to leave as soon as legally possible to earn money.

The richer ones were encouraged to get just enough education whether it was at a Grammar School or a private school to ensure they could nab a good husband.

All were expected not to work once they got married.

There are still women in their 40s and 50s whose families where born and bred in the UK, whose parents openly had these attitudes.

BobQ

I think its too easy to equate class with income/wealth and education.

A professional footballer may be able to take himself from a Birmingham council estate and carve out a lucrative career playing for Manchester City. He may mix with landed gentry in local pubs and restaurants or the local golf club, but it does not mean he is accepted as one of them. Likewise bankers can come from rather modest roots but they will not necessarily be accepted as anything other than someone who now has money.

I think one of the things that has changed in my lifetime is in the world of work people are not judged by their background although clearly that may depend on which areas of employment are being considered.

The 11+ was I agree a way of creating social mobility in that it filtered out the 5% who were destined to go to what would now be called the Russell Group (but then was just "Universities"). University did enable the higher echelons of society to have a better idea of who could be admitted and so it lent itself to controlling social mobility based on academic ability.

Today so many go to University the factors that determine whether you progress in social mobility terms are more complex. Well educated parents can make a difference to their offspring and wealthy parents can make a difference by buying a more privileged education for their offspring.

BobQ

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

[

A very valid point and one worth expanding on. It would be very interesting to fast forward 20-30 years, and see how the modern day rich elite are perceived in a generations time.

Whilst the Beckham children are possibly an extreme case (their parents are in their own little celebrity Royalty world...) it would be interesting to see if the phrase "oh, Daddy made a mint playing for Chelsea in the Noughties" opens as many doors as the old "Daddy was a QC/Ambassador/Chairman of the Board" in 2040.

Do you think we will have a new rash of "new" money trying to marry into "old" as happened in the mid C19th and early C20th??

To be honest, what worries me (or infuriates, depends on the weather!) is the new breed of super rich offspring who seem to be getting even richer just because they are rich already? Paris Hilton? The Ecclestones? At least under the old system there was an assumption that at some point you would have to do something....forces/farm/follow Daddy onto the Board. Now, you just have to go to swanky bars and occasionally get your face in the paper for buying multi million pound houses as a birthday treat to yourself?!

How long before the "brashness" of their wealth becomes assimilated into respectability?

D_S

A good question, I suspect it still comes back to behaviours. I think they will be easily assimilated if they are well educated, well mannered and seen to be "one of us". Others who just demonstrate their ignorance and brashness will just be seen as rich.

Of course their will be some who have the right behaviours but would be appalled to think of themselves as in any way elite.

olly300

BobQ wrote: »

I think its too easy to equate class with income/wealth and education.

A professional footballer may be able to take himself from a Birmingham council estate and carve out a lucrative career playing for Manchester City. He may mix with landed gentry in local pubs and restaurants or the local golf club, but it does not mean he is accepted as one of them. Likewise bankers can come from rather modest roots but they will not necessarily be accepted as anything other than someone who now has money.

They pay for their children to be educated privately to ensure they can marry into and mix into those circles with ease.

BobQ wrote: »

I think one of the things that has changed in my lifetime is in the world of work people are not judged by their background although clearly that may depend on which areas of employment are being considered.

Oh but they are.

Whether you are 17 or 50 you are judged on your background.

People try to work out if you will fit in and part of that is looking at your background - sex, age, religion, race etc.

I wouldn't have got some of the jobs I've done if it wasn't due to discussing some of my diverse hobbies at interview.

I wouldn't have got the diverse hobbies if I hadn't been to university and mixed with people from all types of backgrounds. After all if your house mate is a classic musician and has a performance you can come along to and you are free you aren't going to say "No" even if you think everyone there will be a snob.

BobQ wrote: »

The 11+ was I agree a way of creating social mobility in that it filtered out the 5% who were destined to go to what would now be called the Russell Group (but then was just "Universities"). University did enable the higher echelons of society to have a better idea of who could be admitted and so it lent itself to controlling social mobility based on academic ability.

Wrong.

There are universities which are not Russell Group universities and have never been polytechnics which were around when the 11+ was still in full force.

There are former-polytechnics which are a lot older than some of these universities and as about as old as some of the Russell Group universities.

Polytechnics and Universities had different educational aims - one was suppose to educate people who did things and the other was suppose to educate people who were more likely to administrate, manage and research things.

I'm related to someone who is now retired but was extremely successful and went to a polytechnic but then again it was in a field you couldn't study at a university.

BobQ wrote: »

Today so many go to University the factors that determine whether you progress in social mobility terms are more complex. Well educated parents can make a difference to their offspring and wealthy parents can make a difference by buying a more privileged education for their offspring.

It's about networking.

You pay for your kid to go to the right private school so they make a network of friends that will be useful through out their life. They also participate in the "right" activities.

You also have a good network of friends and family yourself who know each other.

So if your kid is interested in pursuing a career someone in your network is bound to help (unless they are a little sh*t).

Your kid then leaves home knowing how to network and does that at university by joining the "right" clubs and societies.

Then if they can't get a graduate job by just applying they use their networking skills to get a job elsewhere i.e. like certain MPs.

Devon_Sailor

Olly,

You raise an interesting point. Thinking about it logically, one would assume that the youngsters of today are much more instinctively good at networking (even if they don't realise it). In the past, "networking" was limited to school, outside sports and social groups and odds and sods organisations such as the Scouts, Young Farmers, etc, etc. Today, with the likes of Facebook, Bebo, et al, and the explosion of the Internet (opening up international opportunities via web based gaming), the net is spread so much wider.

D_S

PaulF81

Forces is a good one. I used to love working with all walks of society, with one common trait... Everyone is a grafter and if you ask for some ing to get done, it gets done.


I have worked for both the sons of working class and the supposed 'elite', all had a personal touch and its why I despise socialism, which says one thing and achieves the complete opposite. Everyone in the uk has a fair shot at a good life in the uk, it seems to me it's those with a genetic disposition to self pity that don't get on in life. I have seen plenty from such backgrounds break free through their own hard work and make it big time.

Not true about all arms of the armed forces, but information flowed both ways in the organisation I worked for and more juniors were taught from an early point to question stupid ideas, improvise and work autonomously.

vivatifosi

olly300 wrote: »

It's about networking.

This (I don't know how to make the sign so imagine me pointing upwards).....


If you are confident enough to think people are all people and to find out what makes them tick, if you are interesting and engaging, then it won't matter if you don't pronounce things exactly right or went to the wrong school. It will for some, but the small-minded can be discarded as irrelevant.

When I was growing up, my parents who were born before the war were working class. Dad was a builder, my mum a factory worker and cleaner. We lived on a council estate. But they are both bright, engaging people who have always moved in circles that include people like doctors, opera singers, MPs, barristers and peers; as well of course as other builders, bookies, truck drivers, cabbies and the like. They were also very keen to meet people of different ethnic groups and open our minds to the fact that different cultures exist.

We've always been taught that life is meritocratic and have made a good living as a result. Of course barriers still exist and we worry about the world my nephews will leave school into - but if you go looking for barriers and obstacles you will find them. You need, drive, ambition and a kindness to, and understanding of, the people around you. That's what matters, not some irrelevant notion of class.

In terms of networking today and whether the young are good at it, I am concerned that if you take part in introspective activities for too long a time, for example hours on an XBox or tablet, that you aren't developing your social skills enough. Everything, from playing the piano, speaking French, killing terrorists on a computer game to networking takes practice.

BobQ

PaulF81 wrote: »

Forces is a good one. I used to love working with all walks of society, with one common trait... Everyone is a grafter and if you ask for some ing to get done, it gets done.


I have worked for both the sons of working class and the supposed 'elite', all had a personal touch and its why I despise socialism, which says one thing and achieves the complete opposite. Everyone in the uk has a fair shot at a good life in the uk, it seems to me it's those with a genetic disposition to self pity that don't get on in life. I have seen plenty from such backgrounds break free through their own hard work and make it big time.

Not true about all arms of the armed forces, but information flowed both ways in the organisation I worked for and more juniors were taught from an early point to question stupid ideas, improvise and work autonomously.

What has this got to do with despising socialism? Being hard working is nothing to do with socialism. I can think of people who are bone idle and refuse to work, one sponges off the taxpayer the other off their Dad. I can also think of people who would call themselves socialists who work very hard.