Mobility.

bails87

SimonAH wrote:

streaming within schools and the ability to rise through the streams with achievment.

Unfortunately some kids will be in the bottom streams, but that is the way it is.

Isn't that how things are now? Certainly the impression I get from colleagues with kids, and friends who are teachers/TAs.

SimonAH

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Stuff..


On a subject as emotive as "should you do what's best for your children or best for your principles?", I strongly suspect that many people would regard the opinion of a parent on what a person should do as carrying more weight than that of a non-parent.

I think that's where we're diverging then. I'm not particularly interested in what's best for your child, or indeed, my hypothetical child. I'm interested what's best for all children.

Let me put it this way. Are you comfortable with the UK being one of the least socially mobile 'developed' nations?

I'm not.

I think that this is precisely the point. Once you do have your own child then that child comes first and you will walk over the bodies of those you crush to ensure that your child gets the best.

After that you worry about other children.

With regard to the UK being one of the least socially mobile developed nations - let's take a second to think WTF that means.

Only a hundred years ago we had a tierd, structured, deeply upstairs / downstairs society. Now we don't. With remarkably few exceptions there are no barriers to moving between strata - I seem to recall a girl named Kate taking a few rungs on the ladder recently?

And anyway, let's be honest, are we defining 'social' in terms of a) rank / power b) money or c) 'anyone who has more than me and it's not fair'

If it's either a or b then I would say that there are no barriers to social mobility at all. If it's c then meh.

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

streaming within schools and the ability to rise through the streams with achievment.

Unfortunately some kids will be in the bottom streams, but that is the way it is.

Isn't that how things are now? Certainly the impression I get from colleagues with kids, and friends who are teachers/TAs.

That's how I understand it - though only or the core modules.

For the non-core, like history, music etc - they weren't. Certainly in history our teacher found it a problem. Top end were bored and chatted constantly, the bottom end were not interested, and the middle got ignored as a result.

But all others, English, maths, sciences, languages, PE - all streamed.

SimonAH

bails87 wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

streaming within schools and the ability to rise through the streams with achievment.

Unfortunately some kids will be in the bottom streams, but that is the way it is.

Isn't that how things are now? Certainly the impression I get from colleagues with kids, and friends who are teachers/TAs.

To an extent I suppose. I would take it further though TBH.

il_principe

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm interested what's best for all children.

rick_chasey

Il Principe wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm interested what's best for all children.

.

flimflam_machine

SimonAH wrote:

Only a hundred years ago we had a tierd, structured, deeply upstairs / downstairs society. Now we don't. With remarkably few exceptions there are no barriers to moving between strata - I seem to recall a girl named Kate taking a few rungs on the ladder recently?

I wonder how much of the lack of social mobility is down to our having tried to dismantle our class system without having anything substantial or realistic to replace it with. In the past we had a fairly obvious class system based largely on family history. People could aspire to be more like those “above” them in this hierarchy or join the class above them through marrying into it (in the case of the upper classes) or getting enough cash (in the case of the middle classes). This type of hierarchy, based mostly on accidents of birth, was pretty appalling but it at least offered clear aspirations.

Now, many attempts to “better” oneself, for example through education, are seen as reprehensible social climbing and class treachery. You can find any number of stories of people who were trapped in communities in which education is seen not just as irrelevant but as slightly suspicious. “What, being a [insert tedious, menial, dead-end job here] like your Dad isn’t good enough for you?!” We’ve, quite rightly, abandoned the notion that your value as a person is dependent on what family you were born into, but we also need to ditch the idea that certain characteristics and levels of education are associated with “class”.

rjsterry

SimonAH wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Stuff..


On a subject as emotive as "should you do what's best for your children or best for your principles?", I strongly suspect that many people would regard the opinion of a parent on what a person should do as carrying more weight than that of a non-parent.

I think that's where we're diverging then. I'm not particularly interested in what's best for your child, or indeed, my hypothetical child. I'm interested what's best for all children.

Let me put it this way. Are you comfortable with the UK being one of the least socially mobile 'developed' nations?

I'm not.

I think that this is precisely the point. Once you do have your own child then that child comes first and you will walk over the bodies of those you crush to ensure that your child gets the best.

After that you worry about other children.

With regard to the UK being one of the least socially mobile developed nations - let's take a second to think WTF that means.

Only a hundred years ago we had a tierd, structured, deeply upstairs / downstairs society. Now we don't. With remarkably few exceptions there are no barriers to moving between strata - I seem to recall a girl named Kate taking a few rungs on the ladder recently?

And anyway, let's be honest, are we defining 'social' in terms of a) rank / power b) money or c) 'anyone who has more than me and it's not fair'

If it's either a or b then I would say that there are no barriers to social mobility at all. If it's c then meh.

Absolute barriers? Well probably not. Obstacles? Hell yes. I think you have rather a rose-tinted view, and Kate didn't do all that much climbing. That was her parents - and good luck to them btw.

I was going to use the term nouveau riche, and that tells you quite a lot about the tribal nature of the British class system. The Middletons are self-made millionaires, but depending on your viewpoint, they could be described as working class, middle class or upper class. I wonder which schools they (Kate's parents) went to.

rick_chasey

The study defines mobility in terms of earnings.

So if you father earns a lot, the likelihood is you will too. Conversely, if you father doesn't, the likelihood is you won't.

We can all list exceptions for either - that's why it's good we get the proper data on the matter.

bails87

Rick Chasey wrote:

The study defines mobility in terms of earnings.

So if you father earns a lot, the likelihood is you will too. Conversely, if you father doesn't, the likelihood is you won't.

We can all list exceptions for either - that's why it's good we get the proper data on the matter.

But the daughter of a millionaire married a prince, so, problem solved. Right?

daviesee

This debate feels like a Friday :?:

I could have sworn it was only Tuesday.
But then I only went to a comprehensive and my Dad didn't earn much

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

This debate feels like a Friday :?:

I could have sworn it was only Tuesday.
But then I only went to a comprehensive and my Dad didn't earn much

Yeah sorry. The weather does funny things to my head

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

The study defines mobility in terms of earnings.

So if you father earns a lot, the likelihood is you will too. Conversely, if you father doesn't, the likelihood is you won't.

We can all list exceptions for either - that's why it's good we get the proper data on the matter.

Which rather takes us back to my earlier point. We can't all move up the social (in reality economic) ladder and become well paid professionals - some of us like to think we can, and that's partly why we end up importing manual labour when there are two and a bit million unemployed.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The study defines mobility in terms of earnings.

So if you father earns a lot, the likelihood is you will too. Conversely, if you father doesn't, the likelihood is you won't.

We can all list exceptions for either - that's why it's good we get the proper data on the matter.

Which rather takes us back to my earlier point. We can't all move up the social (in reality economic) ladder and become well paid professionals - some of us like to think we can, and that's partly why we end up importing manual labour when there are two and a bit million unemployed.

I don't buy that, but that's a separate issue.

It's more what your earning/access to education to you receive should be a reflection of your ability, rather than your background. The study suggests that your background in the UK is more important in this regard than other European nations. That's obviously not cool, at least, not to me.

Daz555

I'm sure our social mobility stats are impacted heavily by the parents who frankly don't give a toss. They did crap at life and have no inclination to try and do any better for their kids. My wife is a teacher and her school is awash with low-expectation, learned-helpless kids - the exact opposite to how I was raised. I am more successful (and have an easier life) than my parents as they were in turn in comparison to my grandparents. I hope the same for my own children.

"It is ok to be born on a council estate. Dying on one is an entirely different matter."

Of course a lot depends on the hand you are dealt as well. I'm sure it is hard to get yourself up the ladder if you lack the basic talent. I'm sure it is far easier for the intellectually gifted to rise above their social standing. As for me - I'm a bloody genius! Of course it is entirely unfair that intellectually challenged buffoons get to run the country just because daddy owns half of Surrey.

DonDaddyD

G66 wrote:

axiomatically

I had to google that badboy just to be sure. I cannot wait to drop that one in my next (IRL) argument.

veronese68

SimonAH wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think that's where we're diverging then. I'm not particularly interested in what's best for your child, or indeed, my hypothetical child. I'm interested what's best for all children.

Let me put it this way. Are you comfortable with the UK being one of the least socially mobile 'developed' nations?

I'm not.

I think that this is precisely the point. Once you do have your own child then that child comes first and you will walk over the bodies of those you crush to ensure that your child gets the best.

This is the point regarding kids. It's all very well to be concerned about what happens to all children. But you will care more for your children. After all, some are more equal than others.
Regarding streaming my son's school (the only one I can comment on) has 3 main sets for all subjects. This is then further split for the core subjects. He's doing very well in this system. He didn't get into the local grammar as he didn't do well on the day of the test. This is one of the problems with the grammar school system. He is more capable than many of the kids that did get in. I know of several that were tutored to within an inch of their lives to get in. I don't think that's a good thing as they will always struggle to keep up. As it turns out he is now top of the pile in his own little world and is thriving on it. Who knows how he would have got on at the grammar school. But I'm happy with how it turned out.
So grammar schools can be good for some. But a well run, streamed, comprehensive can also be very good.

DonDaddyD

I'm sorry but i struggle to accept the controversial views of a non-parent telling me, a parent, what is best for all children.

If the poor think the Tories are out of touch then is it not then axiomatically correct to believe a non-parent is out of touch with the plight of a parent and subsequently that of the children.

veronese68

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The study defines mobility in terms of earnings.

So if you father earns a lot, the likelihood is you will too. Conversely, if you father doesn't, the likelihood is you won't.

We can all list exceptions for either - that's why it's good we get the proper data on the matter.

Which rather takes us back to my earlier point. We can't all move up the social (in reality economic) ladder and become well paid professionals - some of us like to think we can, and that's partly why we end up importing manual labour when there are two and a bit million unemployed.

If not the point it's an important point. There has to be someone doing the menial tasks. How many people won't do a job because they consider it beneath them? There are always going to be high earners, low earners and various in between. We can't all be high earners.

rick_chasey

Veronese68 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The study defines mobility in terms of earnings.

So if you father earns a lot, the likelihood is you will too. Conversely, if you father doesn't, the likelihood is you won't.

We can all list exceptions for either - that's why it's good we get the proper data on the matter.

Which rather takes us back to my earlier point. We can't all move up the social (in reality economic) ladder and become well paid professionals - some of us like to think we can, and that's partly why we end up importing manual labour when there are two and a bit million unemployed.

If not the point it's an important point. There has to be someone doing the menial tasks. How many people won't do a job because they consider it beneath them? There are always going to be high earners, low earners and various in between. We can't all be high earners.

For sure, but people earning a high amount should be there by merit, not background. The study suggests that if your parents are poor, you don't have the same opportunity to be a high earnier.

That's the point. No-one's saying people shouldn't earn more than others. It's about what decides that.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

G66 wrote:

axiomatically

I had to google that badboy just to be sure. I cannot wait to drop that one in my next (IRL) argument.

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm sorry but i struggle to accept the controversial views of a non-parent telling me, a parent, what is best for all children.

If the poor think the Tories are out of touch then isn't it then axiomatically correct to believe a non-parent is out of touch with the plight of a parent and subsequently that of the children.

Well done!

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm sorry but i struggle to accept the controversial views of a non-parent telling me, a parent, what is best for all children.

Bummer.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The study defines mobility in terms of earnings.

So if you father earns a lot, the likelihood is you will too. Conversely, if you father doesn't, the likelihood is you won't.

We can all list exceptions for either - that's why it's good we get the proper data on the matter.

Which rather takes us back to my earlier point. We can't all move up the social (in reality economic) ladder and become well paid professionals - some of us like to think we can, and that's partly why we end up importing manual labour when there are two and a bit million unemployed.

If not the point it's an important point. There has to be someone doing the menial tasks. How many people won't do a job because they consider it beneath them? There are always going to be high earners, low earners and various in between. We can't all be high earners.

For sure, but people earning a high amount should be there by merit, not background. The study suggests that if your parents are poor, you don't have the same opportunity to be a high earnier.

That's the point. No-one's saying people shouldn't earn more than others. It's about what decides that.

But what is merit? If you mean ability to do the job, then that ability is composed of so many things, so many of which are significantly dependant on one's background. I can't see how it is possible to separate out the influences (one's background) from any innate ability. Are we saying jobs should be allocated on the basis of IQ scores?

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

But what is merit? If you mean ability to do the job, then that ability is composed of so many things, so many of which are significantly dependant on one's background.

I tend to disagree here.

If we have more equal opportunities in the education system, I reckon the UK would become 'more socially mobile' by the measurements of the study.

If one's ability to do a job was so dependent on background, why are other nations different to the UK?

notsoblue

bails87 wrote:

I think there's obviously two seperate discussions.

1. What's best for all children and the country as a whole.

2. What's best, given the current system, for my child.

It is perfectly possible to discuss 1 without having kids, but when you have kids you're likely to put 1 lower in your priorities and put 2 higher up.

So to say "I'm not going to discuss 1 with you because you don't have kids" is a bit silly. To argue that you'd stick to your theoretical principles and disadvantage your child for the good of society is something entirely different.

I think this distinction is very important. What we're discussing here is obviously #1. I don't believe a government can come up with a competent strategy for anything if they considered the individual motive stronger than the societal one. As others have hinted in this thread, social mobility is something that goes against the individual motive because it involves to some degree a redistribution of wealth and privilege. Anyone who has (or aspires to have) above average income would as an individual perceive themselves to lose out from efforts to improve social mobility. Similarly, it isn't surprising at all that those with children would be against social engineering that might be seen to put their children at a disadvantage for the sake of raising the national average. Being a parent doesn't necessarily make you any better qualified to comment on this subject. It just makes you far more self-interested about a topic that is really about wider society.

Given how conservative the coalition is, its to be expected that the individual motive is becoming more important for policy decisions. Which is a shame, because I think that kind of decision making can only lead to more inequality.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm sorry but i struggle to accept the controversial views of a non-parent telling me, a parent, what is best for all children.

Bummer.

Parents always know best (even when they don't).

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm sorry but i struggle to accept the controversial views of a non-parent telling me, a parent, what is best for all children.

Bummer.

Parents always know best (even when they don't).

It's not controversial to want more social mobility is it?

If that's controversial then I am out there, man.

cyclingprop

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm sorry but i struggle to accept the controversial views of a non-parent telling me, a parent, what is best for all children.

Bummer.

Parents always know best (even when they don't).

It's not controversial to want more social mobility is it?

If that's controversial then I am out there, man.

Red trousers. Nuff said. (coriordan, I include you with this).

rick_chasey

cyclingprop wrote:

Red trousers. Nuff said. (coriordan, I include you with this).

Which is worse. Red jeans or bright green chinos?

DonDaddyD

Would I take sexual advice from a virgin?

So why should I listen to a non-parent about what's best for children?