Shock-"Professions" more likely for kids from upper classes

[Lefty Guns]

I looked but couldn't find a thread running on this already.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8160052.stm

Is anyone really susprised? Hasn't it always been this way?

Kids tend to follow in the footsteps of their parents. So doctors kids tend to become doctors, vets, lawyers etc.

Tradesmens kids tend to become tradesmen (not neccessarily the same trade).

Scumbags kids tend to become scumbags themselves.

It's not rocket science and there's naff-all to be done that will change it.

I thoroughly agree that kids at disadvantaged schools should be given the opportunity to fulfill their potential but they have to put some effort in and the parents have to be fully supportive. It's not the states fault (or anyone elses) if kids from rough areas don't do well at school, go to university and get a "good" job.

I get really fked-off with people dodging responsibility for their own failures in life, blaming everyone but themselves.

My parents are not well-off by any stretch of the imagination but they are now retired, own a house worth about £175k with no mortgage and get by OK on their fairly small pension. My dad was a teacher and my Mum was a school secretary. My old man was born in a croft with 2 rooms and, when he wasn't at school, helped his mum around the croft, milking cows, looking after the horse (which they still to plough used because they couldn't afford a tractor). He shot rabbits for his mum to cook for the family dinner. His Dad died when he was 4 and his brother was 1.

He decided that wasn't what he wanted for his life so he worked hard at school and went to university.

Childhoods don't get much more disadvantaged than that.





I know it should maybe be in News, Politics etc section but it might get more discussion here, can the mods leave it here please?

[IforB]

What a load of rubbish. It's almost as if they think there is a policy of "keeping out the proles" in certain professions.

There isn't. Some people are poor or "less advantaged" (labour speak) because they aren't smart enough to become a professional.

There's nothing wrong with it. Not everyone can be a Doctor or Lawyer. If they could, then who would do all the other menial jobs that a society needs?

Life is a competition and there is nothing you can do to change that. Some people will always have an advantage, be it money, brains or influence. Even in Russia under Stalin, that was true.

[Plotloss]

IforB said:

What a load of rubbish. It's almost as if they think there is a policy of "keeping out the proles" in certain professions.

There isn't.

There should be.

We live in a country with Lords (appalling life peers obviously) that can't or won't pronounce the letter H.

There is nothing wrong with tilling fields...

[rsv gone!]

Erm, wasn't it Labour that introduced tuition fees, thereby making it harder for people to advance themselves???

Edited by rsv gone! on Tuesday 21st July 08:55

[Lefty Guns]

Didn't last long in Scotland. And weren't they means-tested?

[sleep envy]

not too sure about this

father was a cabbie and mother a caterer

I ended up being a QS

should have done the knowledge

[Lefty Guns]

You're right though. The point is that although your parents didn't go to uni or come from an upper class family, you made the effort and have done well for yourself.

I didn't want the same sort of life as my parents did (bit tight for cash) and I became a QS too.

Apart from the ace holidays I'm bloody glad I didn't become a teacher. I did consider it for a while at school.

It's funny actually, my Dad always asks me (he's 71 now) if I'm OK for money. I earn probably 5 or 6 times what he ever did.

Edited by Lefty Guns on Tuesday 21st July 09:03

[Justayellowbadge]

To an extent, it is self selecting.

Everyone gets asked "Which field would you like to work in?"

Some say "Well, after Oxford I was thinking the Guards before joining the city"

Others say "The big one by the river, there be a tree to sit under when I has me pasty"

[ewenm]

The end of free higher education - university is expensive so doesn't encourage people to go.
The benefits lifestyle - how are people going to be ambitious if there's no reason to better themselves?

Changing those two things alone could act as carrot and stick to improve social mobility.

As other have said, we need people doing all types of jobs. Not everyone can be a doctor/lawyer etc. There shouldn't be anything to stop anyone capable having the opportunity to become a "professional" but it can't be an ambition for everyone. Again repeating others, the major drive must come from the parents, encouraging their kids to work hard at school, get qualifications and work towards their goals. If the parents don't care, what chance have the kids got?

[Plotloss]

ewenm said:

Changing those two things alone could act as carrot and stick to improve social mobility.

Why on earth would you want to improve social mobility?

Years ago the lower orders knew themselves as lower orders and kept their simple and sometimes charming ideas to themselves.

Its losing that simple socio-economic tenet thats caused a lot of this countries problems.

[ewenm]

Plotloss said:

ewenm said:

Changing those two things alone could act as carrot and stick to improve social mobility.

Why on earth would you want to improve social mobility?

Years ago the lower orders knew themselves as lower orders and kept their simple and sometimes charming ideas to themselves.

Its losing that simple socio-economic tenet thats caused a lot of this countries problems.

Hmmm. That way lies revolution. The peasants are revolting!

One wants the *appearance* of social mobility to keep the proles quiet, while re-instating the old-boys networks and their glass ceilings (well, floors)

[Brown and Boris]

I agree with all of the sentiments expressed above, and would add another view. I am one of three kids: dad worked in a foundry and Mum was a cleaner and dinner lady. I went on to work in the professions, bro is a tradesman and sis has lived most of her life on benefits. I would endorse the view that you make of yourself what you become, although I have worked no harder than bro just probably worked a bit smarter in terms of getting educated more than skilled as he is.

The point where I would disagree is that I think there is still advantage afforded by having parents who have money or power or influence. I have a not very bright, slightly lazy nephew who is doing very well because of the connections Mum and Dad gave him. He scrapped into a poor university after some mediocre Alevels and left with a poor degree in a non-sense subject but now lives rent free in a central London flat (belongs to one of his parents rich friends) in a job also with one of his parent's friends. He gets the invites for weekends away with the rich and influential, gets introduced to the right people, job interviews for jobs that are as yet non-existent or not advertised, and is allowed to bugger off travelling and his job is kept open so as not to offend Mum and Dad. The old boys and girls network still works well in this country and no amount of effort or intellect will overcome that. Put the same kid with a family on benefits and one in the professions and it is likley they will go the same way as the parents. But that isn't based on their own talent, it is based on good fortune. I suspect that you could take a kid from any council estate, send them to the right schools, give them the right support and opportunity and they too would be doing the Cambridge, Guards and City thing.

Who was it who said give me the child until they are 7 and I will give you the man?

I guess all I am saying is that no, we shouldn't be surprised but we should be a bit miffed that, all other things being equal, it is which pair of legs you emerge from between which often dictates your place and success in life. Yes you can struggle out, but some do it in a strait jacket and some are pulled and pushed along by the fortune of our birth.

Edited by Brown and Boris on Tuesday 21st July 09:29

[oyster]

Plotloss said:

ewenm said:

Changing those two things alone could act as carrot and stick to improve social mobility.

Why on earth would you want to improve social mobility?

Years ago the lower orders knew themselves as lower orders and kept their simple and sometimes charming ideas to themselves.

Its losing that simple socio-economic tenet thats caused a lot of this countries problems.

So you think hard work and talent should count for less than the wealth of your parents?

[Carfiend]

rsv gone! said:

Erm, wasn't it Labour that introduced tuition fees, thereby making it harder for people to advance themselves???

It was a previous Tory Government move which New Labia said they would reverse... but didn't.

University Tuition fees are one of the most disgusting things that have happened in the last 15 years. It is all well and good comparing it to the American system but they know that they have to pay for it and thus have 18 years to save up. Fees here were dumped on people and so we have a whole generation of graduates paying through the arse for their education and starting 10-30 thousand pounds in debt.

Instead of funding Universities and having them as places of further learning for those who want to learn they are credit funded doss houses for those who are too bone idle to work so go and do home economics or media studies for 3 years.

Then once they are bored of that they go on the dole and never have to pay back any of that money they borrowed to cover the fees and near lethal doses of booze.

All this dictated by a group of fat old men who went to university when it was free and have now scammed enough money back through the expenses system or having their student children doing non existent research jobs for them that they don't have to worry about the fees and what not.

Lets not go on about means testing of the whole farce as well. Government (tm) are ok handing out huge amounts of money to spongers so they can hit their child poverty targets but if someone from a non privileged background wants to advance themselves well can't have the plebs being educated now can we. Apparently Lorry Driver Father and Nurse Mother earned enough between them to afford fees and living costs with me to go to university while I only worked a max of 10 hours a week part time. Pull the other one lads.

tl;dr Government frauds and liars try to stop people getting an education so they can buy votes with handouts while they drive hardworking and educated members of the public away due to excessive taxing to pay said handouts and constant harrassment of anyone who wants to do anything other than slave in a factory/office 20 hours a day.

Piss has now entered a gaseous state.

[Plotloss]

oyster said:

Plotloss said:

ewenm said:

Changing those two things alone could act as carrot and stick to improve social mobility.

Why on earth would you want to improve social mobility?

Years ago the lower orders knew themselves as lower orders and kept their simple and sometimes charming ideas to themselves.

Its losing that simple socio-economic tenet thats caused a lot of this countries problems.

So you think hard work and talent should count for less than the wealth of your parents?

Of course hard work and talent should be rewarded.

It should be rewarded with a few more acres if you're the right sort and with a pint of ale and a pie and a provision of a roof over your head if you're not.

[plasticpig]

Listening on Radio 4 this morning I think the OP has partialy missed the point. Part of the problem is nothing to do with education but social networking. If a students parents are professionals and mix with solicitors and barristers the student is far more likley to be able to find a training contract the ones who parents mix with blue collar workers. It's not about academic abillity it's about having the right contacts.

It used to be the case that you did not require a degree to become a solicitor or a qualified accountant. This is still theorecticaly true for accountancy but not for a solicitor. I doubt there are many accountants left in practice who haven't got a degree but it used to be fairly common.

[Justayellowbadge]

Brown and Boris said:

I guess all I am saying is that no, we shouldn't be surprised but we should be a bit miffed that, all other things being equal, it is which pair of legs you emerge from between which often dictates your place and success in life. Yes you can struggle out, but some do it in a strait jacket and some are pulled and pushed along my the fortune of our birth.

It is also a lottery as to wether you can run as fast as Bolt, 'bend it like Beckham', drive like that Kraut cobbler etc.

Life is unfair.

[limpsfield]

Brown and Boris said:

The point where I would disagree is that I think there is still advantage afforded by having parents who have money or power or influence.

I agree - we all have a wealth of opportunities to climb up the greasy pole but some people start further up the ladder than others. Apologies for the mixed climbing metaphors.

If you are born into a comfortable middle class family and decide to just coast through life, the outcome will be, in my opion at least, still better for you than if you were born into a working class family and adopt the same attitude.

[Lefty Guns]

plasticpig said:

Listening on Radio 4 this morning I think the OP has partialy missed the point. Part of the problem is nothing to do with education but social networking. If a students parents are professionals and mix with solicitors and barristers the student is far more likley to be able to find a training contract the ones who parents mix with blue collar workers. It's not about academic abillity it's about having the right contacts.

It used to be the case that you did not require a degree to become a solicitor or a qualified accountant. This is still theorecticaly true for accountancy but not for a solicitor. I doubt there are many accountants left in practice who haven't got a degree but it used to be fairly common.

I certainly agree that this is wrong:

BBC article said:

It also criticises informal recruitment systems, such as internships and work placement, as becoming a back-door for better-off, better-connected youngsters.

[Don]

Here's a thing.

Kids do well academically if their parents take an interest in their education, drive and monitor the kids through their education until they can do it for themselves, and assist with their education through sitting with them through difficult homework or re-explaining topics they didn't "get" at school.

This requires some qualities in the parents:

(1) An overriding belief in the importance of kids education
(2) A belief that they can and will affect the quality of this education by being part of it
(3) The imposition of discipline over the kids with respect to their education generally and also their homework
(4) Enough personal academic ability to help the kids through the first years of their schooling

You can have all that and be from any "class" at all. "working" or "middle" or whatever.

Funnily enough, though, parents of kids who go to "independent" schools just so happen to exhibit all the above - even to the extent of stumping up extra money.

Whilst education does not dictate the rest of your life - not having it closes doors.

It's no wonder the professions are filled with people whose parents cared about their kids education. It's a by product that they have money.