Mobility.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

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

Which is worse. Red jeans or bright green chinos?

Chinos.
Chinos are for old men and golf.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

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

I'm not sure, I think it may actually be quite controversial. Or perhaps people just have different ideas as to what social mobility is and how to encourage it.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Would I take sexual advice from a virgin?

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

hehe

flimflam_machine

notsoblue wrote:

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.

It's the government's job to come up with a competent strategy for maximising social mobility and overall wellbeing but, pragmatically, they have to realise that fighting against something as strong as the parental urge to do the best for your kids is a non-starter.

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.

The "rising tide" argument is applicable here. Dispassionately it's perfectly reasonable to believe that living in a meritocracy, in which important position are filled by those best able to do them rather than by those with a particular family background, is beneficial for everyone. The problem is that the timescale of this type of social change is several generations while parents are making decisions about their kids right now that will take effect much faster. To sacrifice the latter for the former is something that very few people have the social or political convictions to do.

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.

Well, if interest in the welfare of your children is "self-interest" then yes. I think that until you become a parent you don't realise just how daft it sounds to suggest to parents that they should do anything other than do the best for their children.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

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?

But the bit of the background that is most important is the connections that the well-off parent and/or the private education can provide, rather than the supposed quality of the education. The wealth of the parent just allows (buys) access to these connections.

DonDaddyD

I go to work everyday, strive to earn more money and maximise the money I've already got in order to provide for my child.

What was the point of all that hard work if it is now somehow socially wrong (in the "World according the Chasey") to provide the best for my child? Should they benefit from my hard work by getting an elevated status? Yes. That's partly what I worked hard for in the first place! So my kids can sneer at the chavs (i.e. the offspring of the c*nts that bullied me at school).

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

I go to work everyday, strive to earn more money and maximise the money I've already got in order to provide for my child.

What was the point of all that hard work if it is now somehow socially wrong (in the "World according the Chasey") to provide the best for my child? Should they benefit from my hard work by getting an elevated status? Yes. That's partly what I worked hard for in the first place! So my kids can sneer at the chavs (i.e. the offspring of the c*nts that bullied me at school).

It's not about your kid.

It's a macro discussion about the nation.

No-one saying you shouldn't play the system to the best you can.

Some people are saying the system should be changed, since the system isn't very fair. Like me. I'm saying that.

I'm not saying anything about your parenting.

bails87

Yes, I think some people are missing the point, as I suggested earlier.

It's not about what I should do for my child, but how society helps all children.

flimflam_machine

rjsterry wrote:

But the bit of the background that is most important is the connections that the well-off parent and/or the private education can provide, rather than the supposed quality of the education. The wealth of the parent just allows (buys) access to these connections.

That's a big claim. It may be true in some very specific situations (like the tory cabinet), but for the most part I think the value of a good education is the education itself. If an employer sees two CVs with different educational backgrounds, all other things being equal, they'll choose the person with the degree from the "better" university/school. Plus, as many people have mentioned, a large part of a good education is the instilling of confidence and life skills that encourages you to go for the job in the first place.

notsoblue

flimflam_machine wrote:

It's the government's job to come up with a competent strategy for maximising social mobility and overall wellbeing but, pragmatically, they have to realise that fighting against something as strong as the parental urge to do the best for your kids is a non-starter.

I agree, to a certain extent. I think much of it is about how the policies are presented to the public though. I don't think that the current government is struggling with the above as individual motive (parental urge) is part of conservative philosophy. Theres no political motive to maximise social mobility in the UK government. They're using the economy and populism as cover for effecting their own ideological change. I reckon

flimflam_machine wrote:

The "rising tide" argument is applicable here. Dispassionately it's perfectly reasonable to believe that living in a meritocracy, in which important position are filled by those best able to do them rather than by those with a particular family background, is beneficial for everyone. The problem is that the timescale of this type of social change is several generations while parents are making decisions about their kids right now that will take effect much faster. To sacrifice the latter for the former is something that very few people have the social or political convictions to do.

Agreed.

flimflam_machine wrote:

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.

Well, if interest in the welfare of your children is "self-interest" then yes. I think that until you become a parent you don't realise just how daft it sounds to suggest to parents that they should do anything other than do the best for their children.

Yeah, I do realise this. That was one of the points of my post. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

Its interesting to think that the policies that would have the best outcome for most in a democracy are pretty unlikely to be put in place because of the rational self interest of voters.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I go to work everyday, strive to earn more money and maximise the money I've already got in order to provide for my child.

What was the point of all that hard work if it is now somehow socially wrong (in the "World according the Chasey") to provide the best for my child? Should they benefit from my hard work by getting an elevated status? Yes. That's partly what I worked hard for in the first place! So my kids can sneer at the chavs (i.e. the offspring of the c*nts that bullied me at school).

It's not about your kid.

It's a macro discussion about the nation.

No-one saying you shouldn't play the system to the best you can.

Some people are saying the system should be changed, since the system isn't very fair. Like me. I'm saying that.

I'm not saying anything about your parenting.

Let's expand it then.

Some people strive in life to make something of themseves. At some stage - as biology kicks in - they save, buy a home, marry a good woman and establish themselves. They have a child, for whom they feel responsible for. They want that child to benefit from a life their parents couldn't afford them. There is nothing wrong with that.

In actual fact that is a key principle and motivator of being successful in this society. We achieve to better ourves and later down the line our children.

There would be no benefit in wanting to work to live in that area, in that house to send you child to that school. If the rule was to simply send our children to the local failing school to give other people's kids, who we don't care about, a fair chance.

Success and supporting a family isn't about we you can do for others. I didn't go to Uni and I don't have this career for you and yours. And yes, it always comes back down to the individual.

UndercoverElephant

DonDaddyD wrote:

Would I take sexual advice from a virgin?

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

Would I take sexual advice from someone who'd just had their first five-minute fumble behind the bike sheds? So why should we listen to someone who's only just become a parent about what's best for children?

DonDaddyD

UndercoverElephant wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Would I take sexual advice from a virgin?

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

Would I take sexual advice from someone who'd just had their first five-minute fumble behind the bike sheds? So why should we listen to someone who's only just become a parent about what's best for children?

But that's the point. Experience.

Rick's opinionis valid, in as much as it is an opinion. But sometimes you need to listen to someone who has had more experience in/with the subject they are talking about.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

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?

Eh? You say (if I've got this right) that ability to pursue a financially rewarding (that being the social mobility criteria we are talking about) vocation is both independent of one's family/social background, *and* could be enhanced by a school system that (from your earlier posts) would amount to geographically based and mandatory comprehensive secondaries.

Perhaps you could unpack that a bit for me, because I can't follow it at all.

You seem to dismiss (or perhaps prevent - I'm not sure) nurture at the social/parenting level, but embrace it at the educational level. How does that work?

UndercoverElephant

DonDaddyD wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Would I take sexual advice from a virgin?

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

Would I take sexual advice from someone who'd just had their first five-minute fumble behind the bike sheds? So why should we listen to someone who's only just become a parent about what's best for children?

But that's the point. Experience.

Rick's opinionis valid, in as much as it is an opinion. But sometimes you need to listen to someone who has had more experience in/with the subject they are talking about.

Quite, in which case your viewpoint is only marginally more valid than Rick's.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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?

Eh? You say (if I've got this right) that ability to pursue a financially rewarding (that being the social mobility criteria we are talking about) vocation is both independent of one's family/social background, *and* could be enhanced by a school system that (from your earlier posts) would amount to geographically based and mandatory comprehensive secondaries.

Perhaps you could unpack that a bit for me, because I can't follow it at all.

You seem to dismiss (or perhaps prevent - I'm not sure) nurture at the social/parenting level, but embrace it at the educational level. How does that work?

No, that's not quite it.

I'm saying, if the education system was more equal, then the social mobility (as done by said study) would be improved.

Of course, total equality re-opportunities is not a realistic place to end up. It doesn't mean it's something not worth aiming for. I see poor social mobility is a bad thing, and I recon a fairer education system would improve that.

greg66_tri_v2.0

UndercoverElephant wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Would I take sexual advice from a virgin?

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

Would I take sexual advice from someone who'd just had their first five-minute fumble behind the bike sheds? So why should we listen to someone who's only just become a parent about what's best for children?

This "all opinions are equally valid" stuff should be recognised for the nonsense that it is. They aren't. It's a confusion of the right to voice an opinion and the weight that should be given to it. Voxpop TV and radio programmes, and Have Your Say on the BBC website don't change that.

If you don't believe me, try this. Find a professor of an obscure subject at your local Uni. Toddle along to him and have an argument on his specialist subject. Off the top of your head. See whose opinions the audience prefers.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Would I take sexual advice from a virgin?

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

Would I take sexual advice from someone who'd just had their first five-minute fumble behind the bike sheds? So why should we listen to someone who's only just become a parent about what's best for children?

This "all opinions are equally valid" stuff should be recognised for the nonsense that it is. They aren't. It's a confusion of the right to voice an opinion and the weight that should be given to it. Voxpop TV and radio programmes, and Have Your Say on the BBC website don't change that.

If you don't believe me, try this. Find a professor of an obscure subject at your local Uni. Toddle along to him and have an argument on his specialist subject. Off the top of your head. See whose opinions the audience prefers.

You're not a parent of all the nation's children though are you? Nor do you have a vested interest in all the nation's children.

That doesn't mean that taking a perspective to see what's best for all children is a poor perspective to form policy with. On the contrary, since policy is there to apply to all children in society, it should be tailored to be as good as possible for them all, not just your individual one. In my view, that means a more socially mobile society. I believe a fairer education system is a key component in achieving that.

DonDaddyD

UndercoverElephant wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Would I take sexual advice from a virgin?

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

Would I take sexual advice from someone who'd just had their first five-minute fumble behind the bike sheds? So why should we listen to someone who's only just become a parent about what's best for children?

But that's the point. Experience.

Rick's opinionis valid, in as much as it is an opinion. But sometimes you need to listen to someone who has had more experience in/with the subject they are talking about.

Quite, in which case your viewpoint is only marginally more valid than Rick's.

Maybe so, but I have at least had to seriously think about the implications of what school to send my child, where I'm going to live and how I'm going to afford it. We've been toying with the idea of renting near the one good school just so he can go there. We have thought about how would we feel if we knowingly sent him to a failing or under par school. I am having to rethink my career and, contemplating a £12,000 pay cut. This is real for us, as I'm sure it is for you. There is a spread sheet working out the sums, I have had sleepless trying to get my head around how we are going to afford nusery - if we can get him into one.

None of these things are a reality to Rick, he has never had to face the stark truth of it. So I guess you'll understand why I'm a little dismissive of his whimsical nonsense about "principles before what's best".

You'll never know what sacrifices you'll make until they're staring right back at you. - I'm sure you'll understand that.

UndercoverElephant

Greg66 wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Would I take sexual advice from a virgin?

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

Would I take sexual advice from someone who'd just had their first five-minute fumble behind the bike sheds? So why should we listen to someone who's only just become a parent about what's best for children?

This "all opinions are equally valid" stuff should be recognised for the nonsense that it is. They aren't. It's a confusion of the right to voice an opinion and the weight that should be given to it. Voxpop TV and radio programmes, and Have Your Say on the BBC website don't change that.

If you don't believe me, try this. Find a professor of an obscure subject at your local Uni. Toddle along to him and have an argument on his specialist subject. Off the top of your head. See whose opinions the audience prefers.

Depends, is the audience "Learned in the art"? Or, would they not know one end of the debate from the other and prefer the person with the nice voice and the shiniest shoes?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm saying, if the education system was more equal, then the social mobility (as done by said study) would be improved.

Ok. So what does "more equal" mean? It can't mean as to output. A major point of education is to test knowledge, and that is going to throw up inequalities of achievement and result.

Is the inequality in the education that you see simply the parental ability to pick a school (whether within the state or private system)?

greg66_tri_v2.0

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Would I take sexual advice from a virgin?

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

Would I take sexual advice from someone who'd just had their first five-minute fumble behind the bike sheds? So why should we listen to someone who's only just become a parent about what's best for children?

This "all opinions are equally valid" stuff should be recognised for the nonsense that it is. They aren't. It's a confusion of the right to voice an opinion and the weight that should be given to it. Voxpop TV and radio programmes, and Have Your Say on the BBC website don't change that.

If you don't believe me, try this. Find a professor of an obscure subject at your local Uni. Toddle along to him and have an argument on his specialist subject. Off the top of your head. See whose opinions the audience prefers.

Depends, is the audience "Learned in the art"? Or, would they not know one end of the debate from the other and prefer the person with the nice voice and the shiniest shoes?

Try it and see. Fairly sure I know the answer though.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Would I take sexual advice from a virgin?

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

Would I take sexual advice from someone who'd just had their first five-minute fumble behind the bike sheds? So why should we listen to someone who's only just become a parent about what's best for children?

But that's the point. Experience.

Rick's opinionis valid, in as much as it is an opinion. But sometimes you need to listen to someone who has had more experience in/with the subject they are talking about.

Quite, in which case your viewpoint is only marginally more valid than Rick's.

Maybe so, but I have at least had to seriously think about the implications of what school to send my child, where I'm going to live and how I'm going to afford it. We've been toying with the idea of renting near the one good school just so he can go there. We have thought about how would we feel if we knowingly sent him to a failing or under par school. I am having to rethink my career and, contemplating a £12,000 pay cut. This is real for us, as I'm sure it is for you. There is a spread sheet working out the sums, I have had sleepless trying to get my head around how we are going to afford nusery - if we can get him into one.

None of these things are a reality to Rick, he has never had to face the stark truth of it. So I guess you'll understand why I'm a little dismissive of his whimsical nonsense about "principles before what's best".

You'll never know what sacrifices you'll make until they're staring right back at you. - I'm sure you'll understand that.

The great irony here is that if the government were to invest more in social mobility, you probably wouldn't have to go through all this.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm saying, if the education system was more equal, then the social mobility (as done by said study) would be improved.

Ok. So what does "more equal" mean? It can't mean as to output. A major point of education is to test knowledge, and that is going to throw up inequalities of achievement and result.

Is the inequality in the education that you see simply the parental ability to pick a school (whether within the state or private system)?

To a point.

I think that to have schools that are only available to people who can afford a certain amount is not fair, and something to be avoided.

You're right, children are judged on how they perform at school, and that should be appropriately differentiated so that an informed judgement can be made regarding their performance.

In the current system, lacking a certain amount of money restricts the opportunities available - so it's therefore not 'equal opportunities'.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm saying, if the education system was more equal, then the social mobility (as done by said study) would be improved.

That is just rose tinted. Affluency, social standing and status isn't solely dependent on education. I know the daughter of a very well known Right Honerable Lord Justice (because that's how I roll!). She has a degree. She has the same educational background as her husband, some of my friends and even less so than some other friends. Compared to her contemporaries how equal do you think she is on the social mobility front when considering that her Daddy has been knighted?

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm saying, if the education system was more equal, then the social mobility (as done by said study) would be improved.

That is just rose tinted as well. Affluency isn't solely dependent on education. I know the daughter of a very well known Right Honerable Lord Justice (because that's how I roll!). She has a degree. She has the same educational background as her husband, some of my friends and even less so than some other friends. How equal do you think she is on the social mobility front purely on the basis that her Daddy has been knighted?

I'm not saying it's the solution. I'm saying it's an improvement.

We all know exceptions to the rule, etc etc. We're talking macro here, about likelihoods.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

The great irony here is that if the government were to invest more in social mobility, you probably wouldn't have to go through all this.

I disagree, didn't Labour try this by attempting to make everyone middle class. Look bottom line is no matter how prosperous a country you are going to get areas with more wealth and affluency than others.

Furthermore, my career rethink and possible pay cut isn't down to social moblity it's the influence of having a child and wanting to spend more time with him. Fact is, you have to consider the individual circumstances and sometimes you can only do this once you have had a child.

I don't believe Rick's opinion on this can ever truly be 'informed' until he can speak from the perspective of a parent.

daviesee

People with money, power and influence will use it.
In other breaking news, the Titanic sunk.

Seriously though there is no way round this. Even in Commumist Russia some schools were better than others and guess who's children got in them.

Best solution is to up the quality of the lower schools, not target the better ones.
Much, much easier said than done.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

To a point.

I think that to have schools that are only available to people who can afford a certain amount is not fair, and something to be avoided.

You're right, children are judged on how they perform at school, and that should be appropriately differentiated so that an informed judgement can be made regarding their performance.

In the current system, lacking a certain amount of money restricts the opportunities available - so it's therefore not 'equal opportunities'.

So we abolish fee paying schools. And we prohibit geographic mobility when used by those who can afford to move to the catchment area of a better school from doing so. And then we chuck all the local children into their local school.

You say that will improve social mobility. Even though we will still grade those children during their time at school and when they leave.

I'm now genuinely very curious.

How will that improve social mobility?

Paulie W

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 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.

is it not then by extension difficult to accept the views on these matters of someone whose been a parent for five minutes when set against someone who has say 4 kids all of whom have been to school (and some out the other side)?