Mobility.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Academies do appear to be doing a superb job. The point of this though is that I strive to achieve and succeed in life so that my son doesn't need to consider an academy in a deprived area.

I still don't get why considering an Academy in a deprived area would be a bad thing. They seem to focus on discipline and maximising achievement, so the problems of disruptive pupils - btw, even posh kids can cause trouble - shouldn't be a particular issue. They seem to be well equipped and have plenty of extra curricular activities - Harris Academy, Purley does sailing! - what's not to like?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

I haven't seen any counter arguments yet

That is because, dare I say it to Nelson The Mighty Mod, when a counter argument is presented you tend to hold the telescopic up to your eyepatch, and announce "I see no ships".

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I haven't seen any counter arguments yet

That is because, dare I say it to Nelson The Mighty Mod, when a counter argument is presented you tend to hold the telescopic up to your eyepatch, and announce "I see no ships".

It's not that.

I find it difficult sometimes because things I say get extrapolated far beyond what I said. Things like "abolish the monarchy" despite the fact I never mention them. That kind of logic is diffuclt to argue against, since it's not really logic, and you get sucked into arguments that are besides the point - like what my parents did.

If that works for you then sure, but there comes a point when I stop playing ball - especially when it gets a little personal!

greg66_tri_v2.0

cyclingprop wrote:

What is your strategy for dealing with the inevitable media outcry and public dissatisfaction at "letting kids down". Oh yeah we have that now anyway :twisted:

Pint of doom anyone?

Ah, but you see from my world view, I haven't let anyone down. I've established a system that gives everyone an equal opportunity at greatness, and will allow everyone to float to their own level.

But yes, there will always be the media outcry/public dissatisfaction that little Tommy/Tommetta, a promising footballer/beauty therapist, who was bone idle at school thick as six short planks, but materially avaricious like you wouldn't believe isn't living in the semi with the cars and 50" LCD TV with Sky HD+ sub that they so richly deserve.

Boo me.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Academies do appear to be doing a superb job. The point of this though is that I strive to achieve and succeed in life so that my son doesn't need to consider an academy in a deprived area.

I still don't get why considering an Academy in a deprived area would be a bad thing. They seem to focus on discipline and maximising achievement, so the problems of disruptive pupils - btw, even posh kids can cause trouble - shouldn't be a particular issue. They seem to be well equipped and have plenty of extra curricular activities - Harris Academy, Purley does sailing! - what's not to like?

I can't put it into words your going to like. But you have to make a decision or help influence who they are going to be 'mixing' with.

When I was 14/15 I had to make a decision. Mostly hang around, on Fri-Sun, with my mates at school or mostly hang around with my mates that attended fee-paying.

Now I chose fee-paying, the most we would do is drink beer, go to the park play football etc, check girls. My mates at school, who did behave themselves at school, were doing other stuff or hanging around with guys doing other stuff (shoplifting, robbery, theft, mugging, selling drugs etc).

It's not just the school environment it's the exposure and closeness to outside influences I think people have to be mindful of and often don't consider when choosing a school.

It's why Will Smith's Mum sent him to Bel Air.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not that.

I find it difficult sometimes because things I say get extrapolated far beyond what I said. Things like "abolish the monarchy" despite the fact I never mention them. That kind of logic is diffuclt to argue against, since it's not really logic, and you get sucked into arguments that are besides the point - like what my parents did.

If that works for you then sure, but there comes a point when I stop playing ball - especially when it gets a little personal!

When you write this

Rick Chasey wrote:

You can't decide who your parents are, nor can you decide their socio-economic status so why should it affect your opportunities? It shouldn't.

That principle (absent some limitation which you didn't mention) leads to the question: "Why should Prince Charles have the opportunity I don't have to be King, just because of the family he was born into?".

You may not have expressly mentioned "the monarchy", but that's irrelevant. The breadth of the ideas you're throwing around like magic beans is quite astonishing. You can't really be surprised if someone points that out to you. My Nelsonian point was that you tend to ignore that, rather than going back and trying to clarify or narrow the point you were making. I'm afraid it looks a bit "Nahnahnah I can't hear you!!!".

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not that.

I find it difficult sometimes because things I say get extrapolated far beyond what I said. Things like "abolish the monarchy" despite the fact I never mention them. That kind of logic is diffuclt to argue against, since it's not really logic, and you get sucked into arguments that are besides the point - like what my parents did.

If that works for you then sure, but there comes a point when I stop playing ball - especially when it gets a little personal!

When you write this

Rick Chasey wrote:

You can't decide who your parents are, nor can you decide their socio-economic status so why should it affect your opportunities? It shouldn't.

That principle (absent some limitation which you didn't mention) leads to the question: "Why should Prince Charles have the opportunity I don't have to be King, just because of the family he was born into?".

You may not have expressly mentioned "the monarchy", but that's irrelevant. The breadth of the ideas you're throwing around like magic beans is quite astonishing. You can't really be surprised if someone points that out to you. My Nelsonian point was that you tend to ignore that, rather than going back and trying to clarify or narrow the point you were making. I'm afraid it looks a bit "Nahnahnah I can't hear you!!!".

For sure, it wouldn't surprise you that I'm a not a monarchist. But how significant is that on every day life? Not very. The Netherlands has monarchy and that's considerably more socially mobile.

It's not that I'm surprised you throw that at me, au contraire, but that it's worth mentioning beyond point scoring!

Chat about being jealous about my work colleague when I use an anecdotal story to illustrate a point is also beside the point, and deep down you must know it is, since it's not necessary to do so. You like making a little dig - which is fine (within reason).

But increasingly the responses are about me rather than the arguments I put forward - that's not conclusive to a debate about the issue, and it ends up getting side tracked and venomous which isn't necessary for everyone.

Rather than go on about it, sometimes it's better to leave it - if my ego allows obviously (which in this case it obviously hasn't!).

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Academies do appear to be doing a superb job. The point of this though is that I strive to achieve and succeed in life so that my son doesn't need to consider an academy in a deprived area.

I still don't get why considering an Academy in a deprived area would be a bad thing. They seem to focus on discipline and maximising achievement, so the problems of disruptive pupils - btw, even posh kids can cause trouble - shouldn't be a particular issue. They seem to be well equipped and have plenty of extra curricular activities - Harris Academy, Purley does sailing! - what's not to like?

I can't put it into words your going to like. But you have to make a decision or help influence who they are going to be 'mixing' with.

When I was 14/15 I had to make a decision. Mostly hang around, on Fri-Sun, with my mates at school or mostly hang around with my mates that attended fee-paying.

Now I chose fee-paying, the most we would do is drink beer, go to the park play football etc, check girls. My mates at school, who did behave themselves at school, were doing other stuff or hanging around with guys doing other stuff (shoplifting, robbery, theft, mugging, selling drugs etc).

It's not just the school environment it's the exposure and closeness to outside influences I think people have to be mindful of and often don't consider when choosing a school.

It's why Will Smith's Mum sent him to Bel Air.

Eh? Why do I need to like the words? I'm not suggesting you go and live in a rough area deliberately. I'm suggesting that if you had to live there because you couldn't afford anywhere else (I'm pretty sure you can) then it doesn't automatically follow that your choice is rubbish state school or private. Of course you need to keep an eye on who your child hangs around with, but that applies anywhere - there were wrong'uns who indulged in petty crime at my school, even in semi-rural South Gloucestershire.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

Eh? Why do I need to like the words? I'm not suggesting you go and live in a rough area deliberately. I'm suggesting that if you had to live there because you couldn't afford anywhere else (I'm pretty sure you can) then it doesn't automatically follow that your choice is rubbish state school or private. Of course you need to keep an eye on who your child hangs around with, but that applies anywhere - there were wrong'uns who indulged in petty crime at my school, even in semi-rural South Gloucestershire.

I don't disagree with what your saying.

cyclingprop

Greg66 wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

What is your strategy for dealing with the inevitable media outcry and public dissatisfaction at "letting kids down". Oh yeah we have that now anyway :twisted:

Pint of doom anyone?

Ah, but you see from my world view, I haven't let anyone down. I've established a system that gives everyone an equal opportunity at greatness, and will allow everyone to float to their own level.

But yes, there will always be the media outcry/public dissatisfaction that little Tommy/Tommetta, a promising footballer/beauty therapist, who was bone idle at school thick as six short planks, but materially avaricious like you wouldn't believe isn't living in the semi with the cars and 50" LCD TV with Sky HD+ sub that they so richly deserve.

Boo me.

Is that a no to the beer?

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

I recon that'll make things less socially immobile. That's all.

Ireckon it'll not help literacy much though

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

With my mod hat on:

You're entirely entitled to a) disagree with me and b) be thoroughly irritated by my opinions. < That's what a forum is about.

I've been quite civil bar a little family guy clip or two .

I suggest you don't start calling people names.

Rick. I'm not sure that it's right you do this. You've started a thread which will inevitably lead to you going 10 rounds with DDD and Greg 66. Now you're sticking the Mod hat on.

If you want to get into these threads you going to need to develope thick skin or else accept that you're a mod now and you don't get to play anymore.

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

With my mod hat on:

You're entirely entitled to a) disagree with me and b) be thoroughly irritated by my opinions. < That's what a forum is about.

I've been quite civil bar a little family guy clip or two .

I suggest you don't start calling people names.

Rick. I'm not sure that it's right you do this. You've started a thread which will inevitably lead to you going 10 rounds with DDD and Greg 66. Now you're sticking the Mod hat on.

If you want to get into these threads you going to need to develope thick skin or else accept that you're a mod now and you don't get to play anymore.

I'm happy for disagreement. That's what forums are about. Calling people names isn't, whether they're mod or not. Being mod doesn't mean my opinions change, it just means it's my job moderate if people mis-behave.

If there's a problem, feel free to flag it up with one of the other mods. After all, I don't think I've moderated anything in this thread at all.

EKE_38BPM

Rick Chasey wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

With my mod hat on:

You're entirely entitled to a) disagree with me and b) be thoroughly irritated by my opinions. < That's what a forum is about.

I've been quite civil bar a little family guy clip or two .

I suggest you don't start calling people names.

Rick. I'm not sure that it's right you do this. You've started a thread which will inevitably lead to you going 10 rounds with DDD and Greg 66. Now you're sticking the Mod hat on.

If you want to get into these threads you going to need to develope thick skin or else accept that you're a mod now and you don't get to play anymore.

I'm happy for disagreement. That's what forums are about. Calling people names isn't, whether they're mod or not. Being mod doesn't mean my opinions change, it just means it's my job moderate if people mis-behave.

If there's a problem, feel free to flag it up with one of the other mods. After all, I don't think I've moderated anything in this thread at all.

RC, you've missed a trick there. That was the perfect opportunity to wave the mod stick and say "Thread locked", and then lock the thread so that you have the last word, but since you haven't I will stick my oar in.

I think my position has been modified. Instead of my original statement about grammar schools (go back to page 1 if you can't remember it), I think I've shifted slightly to the Greg school (see what I did there?) of thought.
Ruthless annual streaming seems to be the fairest way.
Seeing as no-one will want to be in the 'thicko' stream it will need better names, so lets follow the football system.
Stream 1 for the brightest could be the called the Champions Stream. Then...
Stream 2: Europa Stream
Stream 3: Premiership Stream
Stream 4: Spurs Stream for the woeful underachievers.

Champions Stream kids are headed for parliament, heads of industry, the bench or jobs on the Guardian.
Europa Stream kids: Management, directors
Premiership: Middle management, supervisors
Spurs: Sky TV installers, Halfords Bikehut technicians, football manager

For this to work the tone will have to be pitched correctly to the kids and their parents. We can't all be in the Champions Stream and making multimillion pound decisions everyday, but they should be proud of being a Sky TV installer and should be the best Sky TV installer they can be.

I was listening to a programme on Radio 4 (hows that for social mobility, a boy born in Hackney to immigrant parents listening to Radio 4) and it mentioned that in the Fatherland many (if not most) of the company directors start off on the shop floor and work their way up. If this sort of mindset was applied to Greg's Ruthless Streaming (TM), that everyone can get to the top in the real world, then even the Spurs Stream kids would aspire to be the head of a football team (even if they cannot read very well).

jejv

DDD, have you talked to Westminster or St Pauls ?
Their headline fees might be stratospheric, but they have a lot of money in the bank for bursaries.
If you think your kid would be up for boarding, then there's Winchester and Eton.

I keep telling our 15YO that Harvard or Prague would be a lot cheaper than a UK University - for us.

jds_1981

I've been reading through the oecd meta-study. I don't think there's enough information there really to draw conclusions (not had the pleasure of finding the real underlying studies yet.)

The graphs from the study are a bit odd though and I'm finding it hard to interpret (after a nice beer.)

Appears that Denmark, Sweden and Norway have as high a parental influence on secondary education achievements as Britian & indeed the Netherlands has a higher correlation.
For Norway & Denmark these correlations don't then appear to be carried through to earnings (no data for the Netherlands.)

I'd suggest at any rate that the studies are too short term to be good for meaningful results.

Perhaps the low gini coefficient of income equality in Sweden & Norway discourages the academically able people from aiming for well paid jobs or pushing hard for promotion in their jobs?

rick_chasey

jds_1981 wrote:

Perhaps the low gini coefficient of income equality in Sweden & Norway discourages the academically able people from aiming for well paid jobs or pushing hard for promotion in their jobs?

I'd imagine that a low gini coefficient is the single biggest factor re-mobility. Given that Scandi GDP per head's pretty high I'm not sure there's a detraction to well paid jobs - they're relatively all well paid...certainly more productive per head than the UK.

EKE_38BPM

Rick Chasey wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Perhaps the low gini coefficient of income equality in Sweden & Norway discourages the academically able people from aiming for well paid jobs or pushing hard for promotion in their jobs?

I'd imagine that a low gini coefficient is the single biggest factor re-mobility. Given that Scandi GDP per head's pretty high I'm not sure there's a detraction to well paid jobs - they're relatively all well paid...certainly more productive per head than the UK.

If you had gone to a better school, perhaps your grammar would be better.











I blame the parents.

daviesee

EKE_38BPM wrote:

..............Ruthless annual streaming seems to be the fairest way.
Seeing as no-one will want to be in the 'thicko' stream it will need better names, so lets follow the football system.
Stream 1 for the brightest could be the called the Champions Stream. Then...
Stream 2: Europa Stream
Stream 3: Premiership Stream
Stream 4: Spurs Stream for the woeful underachievers...........

I raised that system around 4 pages ago.......

EKE_38BPM

daviesee wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

..............Ruthless annual streaming seems to be the fairest way.
Seeing as no-one will want to be in the 'thicko' stream it will need better names, so lets follow the football system.
Stream 1 for the brightest could be the called the Champions Stream. Then...
Stream 2: Europa Stream
Stream 3: Premiership Stream
Stream 4: Spurs Stream for the woeful underachievers...........

I raised that system around 4 pages ago.......

I suppose you did, but my streams (or leagues) have names!

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

With my mod hat on:

You're entirely entitled to a) disagree with me and b) be thoroughly irritated by my opinions. < That's what a forum is about.

I've been quite civil bar a little family guy clip or two .

I suggest you don't start calling people names.

Rick. I'm not sure that it's right you do this. You've started a thread which will inevitably lead to you going 10 rounds with DDD and Greg 66. Now you're sticking the Mod hat on.

If you want to get into these threads you going to need to develope thick skin or else accept that you're a mod now and you don't get to play anymore.

I'm happy for disagreement. That's what forums are about. Calling people names isn't, whether they're mod or not. Being mod doesn't mean my opinions change, it just means it's my job moderate if people mis-behave.

If there's a problem, feel free to flag it up with one of the other mods. After all, I don't think I've moderated anything in this thread at all.

Meh! Not a big deal and reporting to mods ain't my style.

I agree name calling isn't on, but my point still remains regarding starting a thread which is only going to end up in one place, then sticking the mod hat back on when it does.

rick_chasey

Was chatting about this to an old friend. He suggested I pick up some Pierre Bourdeiu..

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

Was chatting about this to an old friend. He suggested I pick up some Pierre Bourdeiu..

Strikes me as the type of person who wears black polo necks and talks a lot of theory while achieving little.
But hey, I talk less and achieve the same

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Was chatting about this to an old friend. He suggested I pick up some Pierre Bourdeiu..

Strikes me as the type of person who wears black polo necks and talks a lot of theory while achieving little.
But hey, I talk less and achieve the same

Maybe, but you haven't made a career out of it .

Origamist

Rick Chasey wrote:

Was chatting about this to an old friend. He suggested I pick up some Pierre Bourdeiu..

"Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste" was a core text for me many moons ago - hard going as I recall and I can't remember a thing. I might still have a copy, if you're interested...

You could also interpret Greg66's Nelsonian comparison positively - after all, when he said "I see no signal" the wilful blindness was borne of fearlessness and valour. A Napoleon complex, on the other hand...

greg66_tri_v2.0

Origamist wrote:

Napoleon

Bzzzt! Name calling. You're in the Sin Bin.

I'm intrigued to see how this name calling stuff is going to play out next time MBC comes round to play...

jds_1981

Rick Chasey wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Perhaps the low gini coefficient of income equality in Sweden & Norway discourages the academically able people from aiming for well paid jobs or pushing hard for promotion in their jobs?

I'd imagine that a low gini coefficient is the single biggest factor re-mobility. Given that Scandi GDP per head's pretty high I'm not sure there's a detraction to well paid jobs - they're relatively all well paid...certainly more productive per head than the UK.

Low gini coefficient would of course affect 'mobility', communism would presumably get 0 on it. There's no 'mobility' at all then though (edit: or 100% mobility every generation).

Haven't checked for Scandinavia in general, but I pointed out to you in another thread that once you strip out natural resources from Norways productivity their productivity is lower than the UKs.

TBH I find it concerning that their more academically able people aren't the ones then earning more (although this inference may be too far and as I said before, the timescales are too short.)

edit:edit, clarification.

Origamist

Greg66 wrote:

Origamist wrote:

Napoleon

Bzzzt! Name calling. You're in the Sin Bin.

I'm intrigued to see how this name calling stuff is going to play out next time MBC comes round to play...

Damn, I didn't think anyone would pick up on a bit of asteism on a cycling forum...

MBC is very good at name calling and I would give him special dispensation to be occasionally rude. I'm not sure Rick would agree however.

cyclingprop

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Was chatting about this to an old friend. He suggested I pick up some Pierre Bourdeiu..

Strikes me as the type of person who wears black polo necks and talks a lot of theory while achieving little.
But hey, I talk less and achieve the same

Steve Jobs?

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

Maybe, but you haven't made a career out of it .

Maybe I have. Maybe I haven't. How would you know?
Right now I am being paid a relative fortune saying little and achieving less. :twisted:

cyclingprop wrote:

Steve Jobs?

Look at the Apple share price. He created quite a few jobs. See what I did there