Mobility.

rick_chasey

Of the social variety.


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Gua ... cahrts.png

So the findings of a study into social mobility have found:

Britain has some of the lowest social mobility in the developed world - the OECD figures show our earnings in the UK are more likely to reflect our fathers' than any other country

• Social mobility hasn't changed since the 1970s - and in some ways has got worse. For every one person born in the 1970s in the poorest fifth of society and going to university, there would be four undergrads from the top fifth of society. But if you were born in the 1980s, there would be five

• 24% of vice-chancellors, 32% of MPs, 51% of top Medics, 54% of FTSE-100 chief execs, 54% of top journalists, 70% of High Court judges …went to private school, though only 7% of the population do

• Education is an engine of social mobility. But in the UK, achievement is not balanced fairly - for the poorest fifth in society, 46% have mothers with no qualifications at all. For the richest, it's only 3%

• Parental influence still makes a big difference to a child's education in the UK, especially compared to other countries - in fact in the UK the influence of your parents is as important as the quality of the school - unlike Germany, say, where the school has a much bigger role

• Higher education is not evenly balanced either in terms of aspirations - 81% of the richest fifth of the population think their child will go to university, compared to 53% of the poorest

• … or achievment: 49% of the poorest will apply to university and get in, compared to 77% of the richest

• There is a strong link between a lack of social mobility and inequality - and the UK has both. Only Portugal is more unequal with less social mobility

• If you are at the top, the rewards are high - the top 1% of the UK population has a greater share of national income than at any time since the 1930s

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... ta-charts#

There are links at the bottom of said blog to the raw data I believe.

EKE_38BPM

Grammar schools. Get rid of them and you remove the best way for the cream to rise to the top (smarts-wise).
Yes, rich/posh parents will pay for extra tuition to get little Tarquin into those grammar schools that Wayne's parents can't afford, but hopefully Wayne's brains will be spotted and he could get a grant or bursary.

If Tarquin is that dumb that even with the private tutor he can't get in, his parents may be able to send him to a fee paying school with no entrance exam.

The grammar school will allow Wayne to work to a higher level, which will open more doors (both in his mind and in terms of opportunity) so he may be able to try jobs he would never have tried before.

I doubt many judges went to Crack Addict Comprehensive.

notsoblue

It seems that as a country we've decided that social mobility just isn't a priority.

TheStone

The problem is the governments.

Bail out the rich, bail out asset prices, subsidise speculation, bribe the poor
.... and make everyone in the middle pay for it.

rjsterry

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Grammar schools. Get rid of them and you remove the best way for the cream to rise to the top (smarts-wise).
Yes, rich/posh parents will pay for extra tuition to get little Tarquin into those grammar schools that Wayne's parents can't afford, but hopefully Wayne's brains will be spotted and he could get a grant or bursary.

If Tarquin is that dumb that even with the private tutor he can't get in, his parents may be able to send him to a fee paying school with no entrance exam.

The grammar school will allow Wayne to work to a higher level, which will open more doors (both in his mind and in terms of opportunity) so he may be able to try jobs he would never have tried before.

I doubt many judges went to Crack Addict Comprehensive.

So how exactly do Grammar schools solve the problem, when by your own admission, people can still effectively buy their way in? There's no real reason why ordinary state schools can't push brighter pupils as well as those less academically gifted - mine certainly did.

Also, whilst academic ability obviously gives you an advantage in life, it's a bit simplistic to think that if only all the clever poor people had access to better education, everything would be alright. We all know that who you know is as important as what you know, and this is one of the main advantages of private education. A school could be the best in the world for teaching, but if it didn't have connections to universities and professions, it would still struggle to improve social mobility.

rjsterry

TheStone wrote:

The problem is the governments.

Bail out the rich, bail out asset prices, subsidise speculation, bribe the poor
.... and make everyone in the middle pay for it.

Oh, if only you were prime minister...;)

bunter

Nationalise the education system. Abolish faith schools. Admission to schools is by random selection taking account of the level of poverty in a given area, leading to actual mixing of children from different social backgrounds. Only when the rich have a direct interest in improving education for the masses (because their children now actually participate in mass education) will the system improve and attract the investment it needs.

This is the only solution I can see but I don't believe anyone would vote for it...

EKE_38BPM

rjsterry wrote:

So how exactly do Grammar schools solve the problem, when by your own admission, people can still effectively buy their way in? There's no real reason why ordinary state schools can't push brighter pupils as well as those less academically gifted - mine certainly did.

Also, whilst academic ability obviously gives you an advantage in life, it's a bit simplistic to think that if only all the clever poor people had access to better education, everything would be alright. We all know that who you know is as important as what you know, and this is one of the main advantages of private education. A school could be the best in the world for teaching, but if it didn't have connections to universities and professions, it would still struggle to improve social mobility.

I don't think grammar schools solve the problem, but they can go some way towards reducing it. A good school doesn't just teach facts and figures. It teaches a mindset, a can-do attitude, a way of thinking. If you are surrounded by other pupils who also want to learn, more can get done in each lesson, if the teacher spends a large chunk of each lesson dealing with diciplinary issues then less teaching will get done and therefore less learning.

There are good ordinary state schools and there are bad ordinary state schools. I think it is rare for the brightest pupils to be pushed hard at a bad ordinary state school. That bright kid in a bad school probably ends up getting bullied for being a swot (or whatever the hip new name for a swot is) and their spirit could get crushed, leading to lower expectations and a job in Tesco.

I completely understand what you say about connections. Alumni who have done well are more likely to send their kids to that school and that leads to connections, both between schools and universities and between schools and industry.
e.g. a friend of mine is a teacher at our old school. He did well at university then did well in industry but wanted to be a teacher and went back to teach at our old school. Now, ten years later, the department he works in is one of the leaders in the country and he took his best pupils to California to an international competition. My old school came in the top twenty (I think) in the world in this specialist field and easily the best from the UK.
The trip was part funded by a former classmate of ours who is doing very well in industry. The industry this former classmate is in was introduced to him through industry links that the school had/has when we were all there.
I went to an ordinary state school, but a good one with good connections. Not Crack Addict Comp.

I think it used to be a grammar school.

rjsterry

EKE_38BPM wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

So how exactly do Grammar schools solve the problem, when by your own admission, people can still effectively buy their way in? There's no real reason why ordinary state schools can't push brighter pupils as well as those less academically gifted - mine certainly did.

Also, whilst academic ability obviously gives you an advantage in life, it's a bit simplistic to think that if only all the clever poor people had access to better education, everything would be alright. We all know that who you know is as important as what you know, and this is one of the main advantages of private education. A school could be the best in the world for teaching, but if it didn't have connections to universities and professions, it would still struggle to improve social mobility.

I don't think grammar schools solve the problem, but they can go some way towards reducing it. A good school doesn't just teach facts and figures. It teaches a mindset, a can-do attitude, a way of thinking. If you are surrounded by other pupils who also want to learn, more can get done in each lesson, if the teacher spends a large chunk of each lesson dealing with diciplinary issues then less teaching will get done and therefore less learning.

There are good ordinary state schools and there are bad ordinary state schools. I think it is rare for the brightest pupils to be pushed hard at a bad ordinary state school. That bright kid in a bad school probably ends up getting bullied for being a swot (or whatever the hip new name for a swot is) and their spirit could get crushed, leading to lower expectations and a job in Tesco.

I completely understand what you say about connections. Alumni who have done well are more likely to send their kids to that school and that leads to connections, both between schools and universities and between schools and industry.
e.g. a friend of mine is a teacher at our old school. He did well at university then did well in industry but wanted to be a teacher and went back to teach at our old school. Now, ten years later, the department he works in is one of the leaders in the country and he took his best pupils to California to an international competition. My old school came in the top twenty (I think) in the world in this specialist field and easily the best from the UK.
The trip was part funded by a former classmate of ours who is doing very well in industry. The industry this former classmate is in was introduced to him through industry links that the school had/has when we were all there.
I went to an ordinary state school, but a good one with good connections. Not Crack Addict Comp.

I think it used to be a grammar school.

Can't really argue with much of that. I was more thinking that grammar schools are great for getting the most out of bright pupils, but arguably the people who need most help with their social mobility are those who didn't pass their 11+.

cyclingprop

For me there's a balance to be struck between the gifted and able of any demographic.

Regardless of ability, some people will always have better/more appropriate/more detailed education or background to a specific situation which will likely support their success. Equally I think young people have been done a disservice by being sold the idea that a degree will solve everything. It won't, unless you view debt as an achievement. Appropriate training and vocational direction will always be more useful and meaningful to some regardless of an ideological drive to get everyone a degree.

As a citizen, I want those in power to be the best for the job at any given time (accepting I have little control over who the population actually vote for). As an employee, I want my lords and masters to have the background to understand the consequences of the economic environment and how it affects our business. As an individual I want to succeed, so I put the effort and the hours in. I recognise that not everyone wants the same things as me.

rick_chasey

It's weird with education here. In theory, education should be the great leveller.

In reality, education is the cornerstone of the deeply entrenched UK class system. After all, people ask where you studied / what school you went to before the ask what you did. Chap in my office went to Eton but ended up getting a third in art history - that gets more traction than any other proper degree or qualification in the office.

I've always been in favour of sending your kind to the local school. Period. No choice.

That way you don't get brain drains from certain schools.

Funny story: When mum first moved to the UK - she was talking to some parents who were bragging on about sending their kid to private school. In the Netherlands 'private school' is where you send a problematic or disturbed child to get special schooling. "Why, what behavioural problems does your child have?"

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

I've always been in favour of sending your kind to the local school. Period. No choice.

That way you don't get brain drains from certain schools.

Sure you will...

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/per ... index.html

bompington

bunter wrote:

Nationalise all businesses. Abolish private enterprise. Pay is decided by random selection taking account of the level of poverty in a given area. Only when the rich have a direct interest in making the masses wealthier (because they might wind up in the masses themselves) will the system improve and attract the investment it needs.

This is the only solution I can see but I don't believe anyone would vote for it...

FTFY. The old Leveller philosophy is alive and well, for sure, but are you ever going to be able to stop those with more resources (whether intelligence, money or connections) from using those to improve their own future, and the future of those they care about? The problem with social mobility is that it implies downwards as well as upwards mobility, and it is pretty totalitarian to stop people from fighting against it.

If, as certainly seems to be the case, social mobility is worse in the UK than elsewhere, then it would be more profitable to look at how other countries improve it.

I work kids from the very, very bottom layer of society, and it is easy to see how not only has the system failed them, but the culture they live in gives them very little chance of escaping. One of the saddest things I find in my job is the lack of practical day-to-day ambition - when everything in your life tells you that it's not worth trying, because you won't succeed anyway, it's hard to be motivated. And there's always the crumb of comfort that you can just blame somebody else for your situation.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I've always been in favour of sending your kind to the local school. Period. No choice.

That way you don't get brain drains from certain schools.

Sure you will...

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/per ... index.html

Me no Comprende.

I know of quite a few examples where friends have gone to private school. A big gaggle of about 8 guys, all to the same school. I asked them why, to which their response was "the state school's a sh!thole", which, in fairness, it was. Poverty stricken intake, behavioural problems abound, etc etc. Now, if everyone at said private school went to the 'sh!thole', the performance would go up, blah blah blah, etc etc etc.

bails87

I know of quite a few examples where friends have gone to private school. A big gaggle of about 8 guys, all to the same school. I asked them why, to which their response was "the state school's a sh!thole", which, in fairness, it was. Poverty stricken intake, behavioural problems abound, etc etc. Now, if everyone at said private school went to the 'sh!thole', the performance would go up, blah blah blah, etc etc etc.

But the wealthy people would move to a place with a good school.

Just like they already do, it's called shadow pricing. Within state education there is no price competition (it's all free), but a proxy market exists in housing. You 'buy' a place at a good school by paying more for a house in that catchment area.

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

I know of quite a few examples where friends have gone to private school. A big gaggle of about 8 guys, all to the same school. I asked them why, to which their response was "the state school's a sh!thole", which, in fairness, it was. Poverty stricken intake, behavioural problems abound, etc etc. Now, if everyone at said private school went to the 'sh!thole', the performance would go up, blah blah blah, etc etc etc.

But the wealthy people would move to a place with a good school.

Just like they already do, it's called shadow pricing. Within state education there is no price competition (it's all free), but a proxy market exists in housing. You 'buy' a place at a good school by paying more for a house in that catchment area.

Is better than the current system though, isn't it?

Also housing is not the most efficient. For sure, the above happens, but people are not totally mobile when it comes to houses.

bunter

bompington wrote:

bunter wrote:

Nationalise all businesses. Abolish private enterprise. Pay is decided by random selection taking account of the level of poverty in a given area. Only when the rich have a direct interest in making the masses wealthier (because they might wind up in the masses themselves) will the system improve and attract the investment it needs.

This is the only solution I can see but I don't believe anyone would vote for it...

FTFY. The old Leveller philosophy is alive and well, for sure, but are you ever going to be able to stop those with more resources (whether intelligence, money or connections) from using those to improve their own future, and the future of those they care about? The problem with social mobility is that it implies downwards as well as upwards mobility, and it is pretty totalitarian to stop people from fighting against it.

If, as certainly seems to be the case, social mobility is worse in the UK than elsewhere, then it would be more profitable to look at how other countries improve it.

I work kids from the very, very bottom layer of society, and it is easy to see how not only has the system failed them, but the culture they live in gives them very little chance of escaping. One of the saddest things I find in my job is the lack of practical day-to-day ambition - when everything in your life tells you that it's not worth trying, because you won't succeed anyway, it's hard to be motivated. And there's always the crumb of comfort that you can just blame somebody else for your situation.

I don't think you did FTFM, thanks (in fact I think you mischaracterised what I said). Applying this policy to one important area of our society does not mean that it should be applied universally.

Obviously because people are resourceful in trying to improve their own lot that means it is pointless trying to do anything at all to to improve social mobility or equality. This is somewhat like the argument that if we ask the rich to pay tax they will just leave - better give them a tax cut, just in case.

I work in education in one of the poorest boroughs in the country. I agree with you about the lack of ambition and expectation (imagination) of these young people. What are you suggesting should be done?

gtvlusso

interesting scenario where I live:

Down the road from me we have a very well appointed State School - it has an 'excellent' rating. The catchment is a very small area, luckily my house is in the catchment.

However, allot of the bigger houses where I live are now divided into flats, there has been an investigation by the school and various Councillors into some of the parents buying up flats and second properties in the catchment for the school to enable their kids to go to the school.

Allot of the people buying these 'second' houses and flats in order to get in the catchment for a good school are denying the actual local populace school places - the most irritating point of this is that the second home brigade can quite clearly afford to send their kids to a private school, but are choosing to make a bit of money on the side and also get a good education for junior......whereas everyone else in the area does not have the choice.

There was a classic case that raised the concern in the first place: A family that live in Clifton in Bristol (the most expensive area of Bristol) bought a house 5 doors from my house. We assumed they were moving in or 'downsizing', but no, and they were quite open about this, they were renting out the property as an investment and using it in order to get the kids into my local school, as they felt that, ethically, they could not send their kids to Clifton College or Badminton, their local private schools, as they disagreed with the politics of private schools - the secondary that they were offered near Clifton was not up to their standards.

Champagne socialism or what?!?!?!?!?!?!

And that's what it comes down to: 'I'm alright jack....' mentality and the power of having a few quid. They can simply override the common family and influence their lives without a thought.

Headhuunter

"24% of vice-chancellors, 32% of MPs, 51% of top Medics, 54% of FTSE-100 chief execs, 54% of top journalists, 70% of High Court judges …went to private school, though only 7% of the population do"

Love the way the Guardian lists journalists in the same breath as Vice Chancellors, top medics and chief execs! Ha ha...

bails87

Headhuunter wrote:

"24% of vice-chancellors, 32% of MPs, 51% of top Medics, 54% of FTSE-100 chief execs, 54% of top journalists, 70% of High Court judges …went to private school, though only 7% of the population do"

Love the way the Guardian lists journalists in the same breath as Vice Chancellors, top medics and chief execs! Ha ha...

Damn, if only my parents had sent me to Eton, then I could have ended up like this guy:

Oh well, a man can dream.

Rick: I'm not saying the current system is good, bad or ugly, I'm just pointing out that markets will appear, if not in education itself then in the thing that gets access to the better education. Especially while the inequalities in education make moving house worthwhile.

TheStone

Headhuunter wrote:

Love the way the Guardian lists journalists in the same breath as Vice Chancellors, top medics and chief execs! Ha ha...

This is so true.

Other than a couple of incidents, I'm convinced no-one cares about the Leverson enquiry, except journalists who force it upon us every day.

bails87

TheStone wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Love the way the Guardian lists journalists in the same breath as Vice Chancellors, top medics and chief execs! Ha ha...

This is so true.

Other than a couple of incidents, I'm convinced no-one cares about the Leverson enquiry, except journalists who force it upon us every day.

I do! :oops:

If you don't want to read about it then buy the Sun, for some reason their 'journalists' have barely mentioned it......

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

I've always been in favour of sending your kind to the local school. Period. No choice.

That way you don't get brain drains from certain schools.

Of course you will. Case in point: The People's Democratic Republic of Islington. Lots of high earning professionals who won't send their children to the local state primary or secondary schools. Were you to prevent them from sending their children out of borough, or to private schools, they certainly won't knuckle under. They will move house.

Anyway, you're still a long way off having kids. I will predict that once you have done so, and have visited a few schools for Rick Jnr/Rickella to attend, your views on education will shift. There are *very* few parents willing to compromise their children's education to make a point of principle that no one will notice, and will not make any difference to anything.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I've always been in favour of sending your kind to the local school. Period. No choice.

That way you don't get brain drains from certain schools.

Of course you will. Case in point: The People's Democratic Republic of Islington. Lots of high earning professionals who won't send their children to the local state primary or secondary schools. Were you to prevent them from sending their children out of borough, or to private schools, they certainly won't knuckle under. They will move house.

Anyway, you're still a long way off having kids. I will predict that once you have done so, and have visited a few schools for Rick Jnr/Rickella to attend, your views on education will shift. There are *very* few parents willing to compromise their children's education to make a point of principle that no one will notice, and will not make any difference to anything.

My parents did. It's the way it's done elsewhere in Europe, and they have better social mobility figures.

greg66_tri_v2.0

bails87 wrote:

TheStone wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Love the way the Guardian lists journalists in the same breath as Vice Chancellors, top medics and chief execs! Ha ha...

This is so true.

Other than a couple of incidents, I'm convinced no-one cares about the Leverson enquiry, except journalists who force it upon us every day.

I do! :oops:

If you don't want to read about it then buy the Sun, for some reason their 'journalists' have barely mentioned it......

An aside:

Outside the RCJ this morning were some placard and a bloke wearing a sandwich board. The placards said "Fukushima disaster = global extinction", and "Leveson ignores Fukushima - media cover up".

I think some people don't really get what the Leveson enquiry is about...

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

It seems that as a country we've decided that social mobility just isn't a priority.

Think that's the jist of it.

It's not seen as desirable.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

There are *very* few parents willing to compromise their children's education to make a point of principle that no one will notice, and will not make any difference to anything.

My parents did. It's the way it's done elsewhere in Europe, and they have better social mobility figures.

Really? I doubt that voluntary demographic mixing is the reason for better social mobility in northern europe... What makes you say that?

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

There are *very* few parents willing to compromise their children's education to make a point of principle that no one will notice, and will not make any difference to anything.

My parents did. It's the way it's done elsewhere in Europe, and they have better social mobility figures.

Really? I doubt that voluntary demographic mixing is the reason for better social mobility in northern europe... What makes you say that?

Maybe I've misunderstood.

'rentals had the opportunity to send me to private school, like all the other kids from a similar economic background. All the kids of my fathers colleagues went etc. The local state school had poor reports. On principle that I should got the local school, I went to the local school.

They had the choice (unlike most) and choice against the private school.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

There are *very* few parents willing to compromise their children's education to make a point of principle that no one will notice, and will not make any difference to anything.

My parents did. It's the way it's done elsewhere in Europe, and they have better social mobility figures.

Really? I doubt that voluntary demographic mixing is the reason for better social mobility in northern europe... What makes you say that?

Maybe I've misunderstood.

'rentals had the opportunity to send me to private school, like all the other kids from a similar economic background. All the kids of my fathers colleagues went etc. The local state school had poor reports. On principle that I should got the local school, I went to the local school.

They had the choice (unlike most) and choice against the private school.

You seem to be saying that the children of your father's colleagues went to private school, but your parents bucked the trend. How do you get to "that's how it's done in Europe"? Your statistical sample seems to be, errr, you.

How that experiment turned out is a whole different thread...

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

It seems that as a country we've decided that social mobility just isn't a priority.

Think that's the jist of it.

It's not seen as desirable.

I think people are seeing efforts to encourage social mobility as a threat to their own interests. Given the "current economic climate" people are feeling insecure and don't like to see the tax (they're increasingly less able to afford) being spent on social projects.

I suppose the problem is that we have a government that doesn't believe in heavy state investment into education and other efforts to improve social mobility. I'd say theres a correlation between easy access to education and social mobility, based on the graph in your OP. Its possible to have free higher education, you just need to make the choice to budget for it, like they have done in countries like Denmark. They pay high taxes, but they get an awful lot back for it. Britons are more conservative and wouldn't tolerate the same system here.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

'rentals had the opportunity to send me to private school, like all the other kids from a similar economic background. All the kids of my fathers colleagues went etc. The local state school had poor reports. On principle that I should got the local school, I went to the local school.

They had the choice (unlike most) and choice against the private school.

I don't think your parents decision is the norm in Europe though. But then to be fair, that decision may not really be necessary. Perhaps the streaming of children in NL means that schools are categorised by the ability of the pupils rather than their location. So parents aren't faced with sending their kids to either mixed ability comprehensives or public school. I'm not sure though, I was a kid in the system rather than a parent who evaluated it all properly.