Thread: "Deeply elitist UK" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027742
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
'Deeply elitist UK locks out diversity at top'
This report is not surprising in the least. It simply confirms what anecdotal evidence has suggested for some time.
quote:
71% of senior judges
62% of senior armed forces officers
55% of permanent secretaries (the most senior civil servants)
53% of senior diplomats
(had attended fee-paying schools)
Also privately educated were 45% of chairmen and women of public bodies, 44% of the Sunday Times Rich List, 43% of newspaper columnists and 26% of BBC executives.
A couple of questions come to mind.
First of all, what (if anything) can be done to counter this? It's not something that can be changed overnight - we're talking about changes that would take a generation or more to take effect.
Secondly, what (if anything) is a "Christian response" to this?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
First of all, what (if anything) can be done to counter this?
Grammar schools.
The problem, it seems to me, is that those who think elitism is a bad thing think the solution is even worse.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
[x-post]
Jesus said the poor will always be with us; I think the same can be said of elites, every society has one.
Trying to remove the elite will probably just result in a new one taking its place (probably without changing the people immediately behind them in the shadows).
My personal response involves attempting not to value somebody more because they are part of an elite, or less because they are not, and bearing in mind that in the Kingdom of God, the last shall be first.
For this reason I don't like it when I detect churches and other christian institutions actively training or recruiting elites.
[ 28. August 2014, 06:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
First of all, what (if anything) can be done to counter this? It's not something that can be changed overnight - we're talking about changes that would take a generation or more to take effect.
Secondly, what (if anything) is a "Christian response" to this?
The answer to both questions is to promote Kingdom values - especially justice. See Christ in the lives of the poor, proclaim him to the rich.
We'd best make a start with ourselves (the churches). Refuse to have anything to do with patronage and elitism. Open all posts in all denominations to everyone - and have interviews etc conducted by independent panels. Redistribute cash held by denominations -- declare the year of Jubilee.
Remove Bishops sitting in the HoL and if you want to replace them with anything have a cross section of involvement from all faiths and denominations.
Streamline or eliminate hierarchy and move to a far simpler way of living as church. Commit to working in areas of poverty and return to areas the church has abandoned.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
I was privately educated at public expense (means-tested, selective entry). I didn't enjoy being the 'poor kid', and I don't _think_ I'll want to put my kids through it. The teaching was OK...ish...(I think I can maybe pass some kind of legitimate judgement - I spent most of the last 20 years teaching in HE.) I guess the main thing was, that the school was selective on entry and heavily streamed thereafter. Therefore the teacher could find a speed and go for it. If one could, one would learn a lot. This gives an advantage which persists into university and out the other side.
When I was teaching HE, the experience was much more 'comprehensive' - low-ranking institution, but a niche field, leading to a really wide-ability cohort. This necessitated creative teaching (so as not to have the bottom 25% burning out and/or the top 10% leaving in disgust) but, while we could still attract a balance, it could be made to work. The achievement of the best _could_ pull-up the performance of the 'saveable worst' - sometimes - but we inevitably covered less than we might have with the best.
So - to generalise - a less-mixed cohort = more depth and breadth = higher achievers = better jobs for those folks.
I have no problem with this - I wasn't the best of the best, which is why I taught at dogshit college, not Cambridge. I'd have made an utterly shit Cambridge academic, but for a while, I found something useful to do somewhere further down the pile.
My suspicion is that some of our outrage about this kind of inequality comes from a time 1-2 generations ago (and thence back eternally) where ones situation at birth really did force one into a strata of society, when given the chance one could have done much more. In some UK communities - perhaps most of all among recent immigrants - this is still prevalent. I have a Polish friend who drives lorries, but can speak 5 languages well and has hobbies in philosophy and theology. He probably ranks in the top 20% of the folks I used to teach to MSc - but he is middle-aged and has a family to support, so his chance at social mobility is probably gone.
But in light of this :
quote:
return to areas the church has abandoned.
- my experience of inner-city church for the last 25 years, paints a different picture. Our society is sufficiently mobile (egalitarian?!) that the children of those I worship with have all left the inner-city estates. Those who remain are of ultimate value to God in their humanity, but are fuck-all use at running a functioning institution (we are 'congregational' in polity) in the real world. If EM meant the church might pump resources into areas like mine...well, my denomination does from time to time, and my congregation can waste it like you wouldn't believe. The 'noble poor' myth is unhelpful in these parts, to this extent.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Jesus said the poor will always be with us; I think the same can be said of elites, every society has one.
I think there is a distinction between "having an elite" and "elitism". Yes, we will always have an elite, those who are most talented, however you want to define that.
Elitism is where the school or university you attended is the primary indicator for a senior role = as if by attending Jesus College means you are a better fit for a senior role than someone who attended Bogcaster college. Or attending Eton means you are more likely to get a cabinet post.
And yes, of course we have an elite in this country. We always have. But it has changed in the last 50 years. It used to be hereditary, now it is money-based. I actually think that is a bad thing.
The problem is that, if it is hereditary, there is sense that if you marry right, you can rise up in society - I have sort of done this, my granddad on one side was a skilled manual worker, I am now higher up the ladder - this means that my children could marry well and move higher up.
However, because it is money based, my family can only rise up the ladder by suddenly acquiring several million quid.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Well, I went to a fee-paying school in the UK. Towards A levels, I came under lots of pressure (along with my peers) to try for Oxbridge, mainly it seemed to me with a view to lengthening the honours lists in gold in the assembly hall.
I'd like to think my refusal was a righteous act in the spirit of the Kingdom of God, but it was probably down to innate thrawnness. Either way, I don't regret that choice at all.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
For this reason I don't like it when I detect churches and other christian institutions actively training or recruiting elites.
You wont like the C of E much then.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
No, that wasn't bitter at all. sigh.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
When I read Alistair McGrath's biography of J.I. Packer, I discovered that one of the explicit aims of IVF (as it then was) was to be a recruiting ground for future evangelical leaders in the C of E, via camps like Ieuan (? I'm not posh enough to know how to spell it). That was rather a surprise, but made a lot of sense of my experience in my university CU.
I did some voluntary work in a professional capacity for the Alpha Leaders' conference in London earlier this year. My vague impression beforehand was that the conference was to give encouragement to leaders of Alpha courses, but the impression I had on departure was that it was only tangentially related to actual Alpha courses. Rather, in similar fashion, the aim was to train leaders, in all walks of life, who were evangelicals, to ensure they were represented among the elites.
I have to admit I didn't find the Alpha leaders' conference all bad, but you are right that I really didn't like that elitist aspect at all, and recongised the same spirit I'd read about in McGrath's book still at work.
[ 28. August 2014, 09:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
When I read Alistair McGrath's biography of J.I. Packer, I discovered that one of the explicit aims of IVF (as it then was) was to be a recruiting ground for future evangelical leaders in the C of E.
Forgive me, what's 'IVF' in this case? (I presume it isn't in vitro fertilisation.)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Interestingly, much of my Christian formation was via the Crusaders' Union. This was founded around 1904 to plug a gap in the Christian market, falling between the boys who went to public (i.e. private, boarding) schools, and those who went to Sunday School.
They were specifically aiming at the boys who went to fee-paying Day Schools (whose parents would never dream of sending them to mix among the hoi-polloi of Sunday School!) - this was displayed by their motto which was always written in NT Greek until the early 1970s! In the mid-60s when I was a member, you could pretty well map middle-class Britain by the distribution of Crusader groups - there would have been a strong correlation with Waitrose branches, if those had been around back then!
I think that this was a valid Evangelical response to the stratified society of the day, although one could also argue that it simply pandered to, and reinforced, social divisions. It's worth noting that today's "Urban Saints" (as Crusaders has become) works among all groups of young people, girls as well as boys.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
When I read Alistair McGrath's biography of J.I. Packer, I discovered that one of the explicit aims of IVF (as it then was) was to be a recruiting ground for future evangelical leaders in the C of E.
Forgive me, what's 'IVF' in this case? (I presume it isn't in vitro fertilisation.)
Inter-Varsity Fellowship - now UCCF (Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship). The name changed around 1975 I think. I think that their publishing arm is still IVP, though (Inter-Varsity Press).
By the way, when IVF (or its predecessors) was initiated in the 1920s, it was as an explicitly Evangelical response to the very popular SCM (Student Christian Movement). And, after WW2, it gave birth to "Tyndale House", which had the aim of doing serious Evangelical scholarship and has had a huge - if largely unacknowledged - influence within the CofE especially.
[ 28. August 2014, 10:29: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I went to a posh private school, which was a big shock, as I grew up in a tough area of Manchester, where men fought in the streets (just ask Deano; he'll tell you all about it).
So I was able to join the elite in a way. (Cue, guilt feelings).
In my yoof, I protested at this in various ways, but then it dawned on me that this is a self-perpetuating elite. Why would they give that up? I can't see any possible reason.
The current economic regime seems to punish the poor and reward the rich. Will the poor revolt, and storm the gates of heaven? I doubt it - in fact, the rich have the knack of getting the poor to vote for them. Je comprends fuck all.
Posted by Charles Had a Splurge on (# 14140) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
When I read Alistair McGrath's biography of J.I. Packer, I discovered that one of the explicit aims of IVF (as it then was) was to be a recruiting ground for future evangelical leaders in the C of E.
Forgive me, what's 'IVF' in this case? (I presume it isn't in vitro fertilisation.)
Inter Varsity Fellowship - now known as UCCF
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[x-post]
Jesus said the poor will always be with us; I think the same can be said of elites, every society has one.
My issue with this without context is that it can be used to argue against any kind of move to ameliorate the situation and open up opportunity to those from less privileged backgrounds. The same verse is often used by conservative republicans to argue against any form of welfare state for instance.
I think there are still good practical reasons to - while accepting there will always be elites in some form - attempting to open up social structures.
As your Alpha experience alludes to - and as the author of the Ugley Vicar blog put it:
"Yet, inevitably, Bash campers produced more Bash campers, and so English evangelicalism generally, and in latter years Conservative Evangelicalism particularly, has been dominated by a public school ethos. Unfortunately, public-school upper-middle-class people are generally poor at opening their ranks to outsiders. "
[ 28. August 2014, 10:45: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Oscar the Grouch quote:
First of all, what (if anything) can be done to counter this? It's not something that can be changed overnight - we're talking about changes that would take a generation or more to take effect.
Secondly, what (if anything) is a "Christian response" to this?
I'd echo Anglican't but go further: bring back the Assisted Places Scheme. Where the independent schools which took APS pupils scored over grammars was that the staff were, by and large, untainted by the culture of low expectation of pupils from poorer backgrounds that emerged from the teacher training establishments from the 1960s onwards. I will never forget being told by a head of department that none of the pupils in her school would be interested in, or could benefit from, free tickets - with paid transport - to concerts because classical music was 'elitist' and 'not their culture.
As for a Christian response: sometimes pastors have to tell hard truths, and that can be that some parents really don't put their children first, really aren't switched onto the value of education, and that school can be the only way out for their children. The idea that whatever makes mum or dad 'happy' is best for the children may be comfortable for the adult but it can be devastating for the child. Christians need to accept that some parents aren't hard-wired to put their children first and act in their best interest.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'd back the Assisted Places Scheme. Where the independent schools which took APS pupils scored over grammars was that the staff were, by and large, untainted by the culture of low expectation of pupils from poorer backgrounds that emerged from the teacher training establishments from the 1960s onwards.
I - a product of the Assisted Places Scheme myself - both agree and disagree!
Yes, it was a good idea (although it never paid all the ancillary costs of education, which could still be prohibitive for some parents). However one could argue that it did not so much encourage social mobility as assimilate more people into the "elite". Admittedly there are several ways of looking at this, and the Scheme certainly gave the lie to an elite based merely on "ability to pay".
However, I cannot agree that all teachers coming out of 1960s Training Establishments were tainted by misguided political ideals and discouraged their students from engaging in "high culture", . Some did that, I'm sure; but my brother-in-law and my wife, both from what one might call "working-class backgrounds", encouraged and fostered their charges to have broad interests.
Indeed my wife (who only retired last year from her school on a "deprived" estate, and who has strong left-wing beliefs) continued to encourage not only the reading of fiction (though not, to be true, the classics) but also an interest in dance, ballet and theatre. She has always regarded education as a "way out" for children!
[ 28. August 2014, 11:31: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[x-post]
Jesus said the poor will always be with us; I think the same can be said of elites, every society has one.
My issue with this without context is that it can be used to argue against any kind of move to ameliorate the situation and open up opportunity to those from less privileged backgrounds.
Full disclosure: I was on an assisted place scheme, as I recall, and got a free place, but not for means-related reasons.
In the light of our various school backgrounds, it would be interesting to see how many contributors to this thread are or were part of the elite in one way or another. I can't help thinking that agonising about the role of the elite is a special hobby of the product of elites. But my head starts hurting if I go down that line of thought too much.
I'm not really sure what can be done to 'open up' elites apart from live according to different values. Rather than overturning elites, I suppose I seek to change the value those around me subscribe to them.
In other words, combating elitism begins at home.
[ETA even fuller disclosure: I was in Crusaders too!]
[ 28. August 2014, 11:45: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
However one could argue that it did not so much encourage social mobility as assimilate more people into the "elite".
What's the difference?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Quite. Social mobility (always presumed to be upwards, by the way, although one might reasonably think that because you can't have a whole nation of professors, company chairmen and high court judges, if some are going up others will have to go down) can be construed as being about making elites accessible. That's, to put it in rather crude an un-nuanced way, the basic difference between social mobility and equality.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I'd suggest that the main problem is not actually education. Plenty of students do extremely well at comprehensive schools, but their chances are still reduced. There was a programme about this on Radio 4 last month based on a research programme someone had done. In brief, the main points were:
1. Getting into the "professions" - medicine, law, etc. is often a matter of connections. If you have a relative who's a doctor, for example, and can wangle some time shadowing them in a hospital, your chances of being accepted into medical school are far higher. Apparently (according to the report) it was virtually impossible for someone without a family or friend connection with the profession to organise this.
2. Unpaid or low-paid internships and work experience are also key. Two factors here - without the connections that normally lead to these internships, and without the money to live on whilst one is on one, this avenue is hard or impossible to pursue. One student reported contacting a law firm and asking whether she could work in an unpaid admin position for a few months to gain experience and was told that if she wasn't related to one of the barristers then it would not be possible.
3. Most interesting of all, the researcher discovered that working class students were less likely to call upon the connections they did have, because they felt it would be cheating. By contrast, middle class students had no such qualms having been led by their environment to expect this sort of assistance.
A straw poll amongst some people on another bulletin board elsewhere demonstrated that nearly all of those in very senior positions had started their journey there with an opportunity that arose because of someone they or more likely their parents knew. That's the really stacked deck here, IME and IMNAAHO.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
although one might reasonably think that because you can't have a whole nation of professors, company chairmen and high court judges, if some are going up others will have to go down
I used to know a chap who had been educated at the best private school in the city. He was a cabin crew member for one or other of the budget airlines.
I suppose you could class that as someone "moving down"...
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Good points there, karl. BTW at risk of a tangent, I'd add the ordained ministry, certainly in the CofE/ CinW, to those professions where family connections help. Certainly there seem to be a lot of clergy and successful ordinands of my acquaintance who have the cloth in the family. I'd attribute this more to them being better socialised to what selection conferences are looking for than to any conscious old boy/ old girl net, but if I'm right it shows another way that 'insider' status can reproduce itself.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I used to know a chap who had been educated at the best private school in the city. He was a cabin crew member for one or other of the budget airlines.
I suppose you could class that as someone "moving down"...
Only when they were landing ... not on take-off.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Another thing I'd add is that self-perception over social class is an issue.
A chap I knew was a successful architect with a practice that had designed stuff all over the world. He accumulated many of the material trappings of the successful businessman: two holiday homes, large yacht, children privately educated, several foreign holidays every year, large motorbike for fund, etc, etc, etc.
But he still always described himself as working class and had a definite chip on his shoulder.
What I should add, of course, it that he made it into architecture through the old-fashioned pupillage system. A pupil of a secondary modern - and dyslexic - he left school straight after his 15th birthday at the end of the first term of what we'd call Year 10. He got his pupillage through his father (!) being interviewed at an architectural firm and started his draughtsmanship training. After national service he went back into architecture and completed his training as a draughtsman.
He was of course lucky that he became an architect in the days before RIBA achieved its stranglehold on the profession. Even in his day, having started his architectural practice, he was suddenly prevented from calling himself an architect because he hadn't completed the only available RIBA accredited conversion course - only because RIBA closed it down 4 weeks before the last batch were due to qualify. But unlike most RIBA architects his comprehensive training, which included stints working with a construction company, meant he could (and did) actually build a house and one that worked, rather than designing something that looked good on the board but was functionally wanting.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
When I read Alistair McGrath's biography of J.I. Packer, I discovered that one of the explicit aims of IVF (as it then was) was to be a recruiting ground for future evangelical leaders in the C of E, via camps like Ieuan
It was Iwerne Minster - near where I grew up.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
So more than half of some of the positions in society where people can make a real difference are filled by people who went to fee-paying schools, and we are saying that 'something needs to be done about it'?
I for one am pleased to see that in some areas of society educated people are putting themselves forward for these positions and are able to carry them out. I assume that we're not saying that they are incompetent but have the jobs only because of who they are?
ISTM that there may be more of a remnant of the old class system remaining in the inverse prejudices of those who would have been placed into the lower class bracket in the past, than in the attitudes of the 'higher classes'. This in itself perpetuates the idea that we have not progressed.
What hasn't progressed is the attitudes of generations of people who avoid any association with politics or with any organisations who try to help build bridges between people.
The Christian response is to love one another, as ever, whatever our take on each other's 'class' , to do our best to ensure that every child is educated to his or her highest abilities, and to aim to build an economy in which people have opportunities to contribute their skills and energies for the good of the whole.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
When I read Alistair McGrath's biography of J.I. Packer, I discovered that one of the explicit aims of IVF (as it then was) was to be a recruiting ground for future evangelical leaders in the C of E, via camps like Ieuan
It was Iwerne Minster - near where I grew up.
There was no direct relation between 'Bash camps' and IVF, although there has been a lot of common ground and people. Perhaps some of the confusion arises in that for quite a while the camps were known as 'VPS Camps' - Varsity and Public School Camps.
The origin is not unrelated to the thread. Rev. Eric Nash (i.e. "Bash" Nash) in the 1930's saw his mission field to be the Public Schools of England. This stemmed from recognising the elitism of the day. His thinking was that if you wanted to reach England for Christ, then you needed to reach those who would lead England. Then, as now, these were largely drawn from the Public Schools. Initially held at a school in Iwerene Minster (pronounced approximately you-earn), after WWII they expanded to other locations.
Whether Bash's vision has been realized is a moot question. However, the 'products' of the camps have had a significant effect on the Church of England, and not just the conservative evangelical wing - for instance David Watson and Nicky Gumble went through the system. John Mumford (Vinyard UK) was the 'Iwerne Rep.' in Cambridge in my time there.
If the camps have not had the desired effect on the elite, this is partly because they have perhaps been successful in diverting PSBs (Public School Boys) into non-elite directions. I would cite the friend who is ordained and has spent his entire ministry in inner-city Liverpool. The Gospel does tend to have this subversive effect on people.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Many people in prominent positions in Scotland are state comprehensive educated, including First Minister Alex Salmond, deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish Labour Party Joanne Lamont, leader of the Scottish Conservatives Ruth Davidson, Convenor of the Scottish Green Party, Patrick Harvie, and leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats Willie Rennie.
There is no privately educated political elite in this part of the UK, but the report in the OP seems to overlook this.
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
So more than half of some of the positions in society where people can make a real difference are filled by people who went to fee-paying schools, and we are saying that 'something needs to be done about it'?
Make a real difference? As in privileged people ensuring that already privileged people retain their privileged lives?
Just what kind of difference are the majority of these people in power who went to fee-paying schools actually making to those who didn't go to fee-paying schools? Oh, let me see, they are 'cracking down on benefits fraud'; they are 'ensuring that people are not parked on disability benefits for years', they have 'introduced the spare-room subsidy'. Oh yes, what joy and Christian charity they have spread to the poorest in our nation. They have made a difference indeed!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But Amika, surely you realize that these are the undeserving poor, and they must be distinguished from the deserving poor. The first lot lie in bed in the morning, and watch Sky TV all day; the second lot are very grateful to the elite for giving them a small pittance, and they promise to vote for them.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Many people in prominent positions in Scotland are state comprehensive educated, including First Minister Alex Salmond, deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish Labour Party Joanne Lamont, leader of the Scottish Conservatives Ruth Davidson, Convenor of the Scottish Green Party, Patrick Harvie, and leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats Willie Rennie.
There is no privately educated political elite in this part of the UK, but the report in the OP seems to overlook this.
Largely true, I think, here in Wales too. Not many independent schools here, though there are some recognised- often Welsh medium- posh state schools. Of course, it could be that Welsh and Scottish members of the elites that the report is talking about set their course for London pretty quickly, as offering a wider stage for their ambitions.
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But Amika, surely you realize that these are the undeserving poor, and they must be distinguished from the deserving poor. The first lot lie in bed in the morning, and watch Sky TV all day; the second lot are very grateful to the elite for giving them a small pittance, and they promise to vote for them.
Indeed. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Apparently the second category are those 'hard-working families' that all the parties are so keen to bang on about in hope of obtaining their votes. As averse to the 'layabout families' whose vote no one apparently desires.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
The origin is not unrelated to the thread. Rev. Eric Nash (i.e. "Bash" Nash) in the 1930's saw his mission field to be the Public Schools of England. This stemmed from recognising the elitism of the day. His thinking was that if you wanted to reach England for Christ, then you needed to reach those who would lead England. Then, as now, these were largely drawn from the Public Schools.
He was also reacting to the collapse in church attendance during the 20s/30s - I don't think many who lived in the aftermath of WWI realised how deep the change in attitudes wrt the elite actually were.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Of course, it could be that Welsh and Scottish members of the elites that the report is talking about set their course for London pretty quickly, as offering a wider stage for their ambitions.
Indeed.
A bit more googling has revealed that the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Right Reverend John Chalmers was state educated, as was the Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, Archbishop Leo Cushley. The Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church grew up in Ireland and I can't find a biography of the Moderator of the Free Church. But I'm pretty sure there's no privately educated elite amongst the churches in Scotland.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
There was no direct relation between 'Bash camps' and IVF, although there has been a lot of common ground and people. Perhaps some of the confusion arises in that for quite a while the camps were known as 'VPS Camps' - Varsity and Public School Camps.
I have rooted out the book and you are right, I was mistaken (about a lot of things; it's Alister McGrath, and - thank you leo - Iwerne).
McGrath's take (p20-21) is nonetheless interesting.
quote:
Eric Nash... had established his 'Varsity and Public School' Camp at Iwerne Minister, with the specific purpose of evangelizing public school boys - 'the best boys from the best schools', as Nash used to put it
He then goes on to relate Packer's arrival at Oxford, emphasis mine: quote:
the OICCU was 'under something of a Bash influence'. Packer was an outsider here. He... had no links with the 'Bash camps'. Evangelical Christianity at Oxford around this time was somewhat élitist... Packer's humble origins may have counted against him at this point;.. some infulential members of the Executive Committee of the OICCU were 'VPS Campers'
quote:
[Nash's] thinking was that if you wanted to reach England for Christ, then you needed to reach those who would lead England.
That's precisely the kind of thinking which I found alive and well at the Alpha Leaders' conference and which I intuitively feel to run counter to Kingdom of God values. And then go on to guiltily make the most of whatever connections I have on occasion.
[ 28. August 2014, 17:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Don't know whether this is relevant, but interesting to see that according to the usual fount of all knowledge Nash himself seems not to have been out of the top drawer socially, by a long chalk (minor public school and no money for university at first).
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
[Nash's] thinking was that if you wanted to reach England for Christ, then you needed to reach those who would lead England.
That's precisely the kind of thinking which I found alive and well at the Alpha Leaders' conference and which I intuitively feel to run counter to Kingdom of God values. And then go on to guiltily make the most of whatever connections I have on occasion.
I know what you mean. I guess there are different aspects of it. Part of it is trying to think strategically - where is the best place to put our effort. That does not seem necessarily bad, although one should expect "not many, not many noble, not many wise". But part is that it seems easier to reach out to those like oneself. Alpha grew up in an environment at least on the edge of the elite, and its style of meal, talk and discussion suits well those kind of people. But one should remember that Alpha is going to a lot of places other than that, prisons for example.
I cannot recall if it was a shipmate or someone else who pointed me to this talk by C.S. Lewis. It seems pertinent to this discussion. If we consider the term 'elite' it can be used in different ways. There is a more objective sense where the elite is a set of people evidently more skilled in some way than the ordinary practitioners in the field. But another sense is that which Lewis refers to as the 'Inner Ring' - a group which outsiders might want to join but cannot.
Is the core problem that the 'elite' in this second sense prevents the truly able from being part of the 'elite' in the first sense? Putting it a different way, because PSBs can validate themselves to the inner ring, they can become part of it , even though the real skills they have no better than those of others.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
So more than half of some of the positions in society where people can make a real difference are filled by people who went to fee-paying schools, and we are saying that 'something needs to be done about it'?
Make a real difference? As in privileged people ensuring that already privileged people retain their privileged lives?
Just what kind of difference are the majority of these people in power who went to fee-paying schools actually making to those who didn't go to fee-paying schools? Oh, let me see, they are 'cracking down on benefits fraud'; they are 'ensuring that people are not parked on disability benefits for years', they have 'introduced the spare-room subsidy'. Oh yes, what joy and Christian charity they have spread to the poorest in our nation. They have made a difference indeed!
You are correlating some of the policies of the current coalition administration with those members who went to fee-paying schools then.
Is that a fair assessment?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
You don't have assessments of knowledge, skills and abilities that specifically leave out the connections? I'm very surprised. Such connection based hiring would be considered wrong, and may even be illegal in Canada. Perhaps titles and monarchy are also involved in the problem?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
You don't have assessments of knowledge, skills and abilities that specifically leave out the connections? I'm very surprised. Such connection based hiring would be considered wrong, and may even be illegal in Canada.
[Tangent Alert]
Whilst this works for graduates, it doesn't work so well for experienced hires (because you are essentially comparing different bags of skills for a not completely defined position anyway). Whilst outright nepotism is frowned upon everywhere - getting a job partly based on connections is not uncommon, and yes I've seen it happen even in Canadian companies (in the two sectors that I'm most familiar with).
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
Part of it is trying to think strategically - where is the best place to put our effort.
Again, I think there's a subtle difference between just doing what you are doing wherever you find yourself, and striving to break into a particular 'strategic' group on purpose. In the course of my day job I've occasionally worked for some very rich and influential people, pretty much by accident. I like the romance of Joseph's transition from jailbird to prime minister in perhaps a matter of hours. You can't strategise that ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Alpha grew up in an environment at least on the edge of the elite (...) Alpha is going to a lot of places other than that, prisons for example.
It hasn't crossed the Channel well, especially in prisons. I think it has the role it does in the UK partly for reasons of culture and partly because in the UK, unlike here, chaplains are on the official prison staff - so they are another elite in a way. But what really got me at the conference I worked at was that it wasn't about Alpha courses at all. The most bearable way of experiencing it was as a management conference that happened to have a lot of (white) evos at it. But that's a tangent. quote:
I cannot recall if it was a shipmate or someone else who pointed me to this talk by C.S. Lewis. It seems pertinent to this discussion.
Yes, he returned to the idea in That Hideous Strength, one of my favourites of his and on my desk now. I think it sums up well the idea of wanting to be in the elite for its own sake as opposed to falling into it naturally or indeed by divine accident. quote:
There is a more objective sense where the elite is a set of people evidently more skilled in some way than the ordinary practitioners in the field.
Certainly in my experience some of the very top of the elite - the crème de la crème de la crème are truly exceptional people, not least by their exceptional humility and unpretentiousness.
quote:
Is the core problem that the 'elite' in this second sense prevents the truly able from being part of the 'elite' in the first sense?
I recall an upstart couple who visited us many years ago and complained, during our attempts to reshape the world, that the Spring Harvest leadership was "a cartel". The last time I looked, they had become part of that team. Can't work out what that signifies in the course of this debate.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
getting a job partly based on connections is not uncommon, and yes I've seen it happen even in Canadian companies (in the two sectors that I'm most familiar with).
And some of this looks pretty harmless. Given two reasonable-looking candidates, one with a good reference from someone you know and trust, and one with a good reference from someone you've never heard of, which one do you hire?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Don't know whether this is relevant, but interesting to see that according to the usual fount of all knowledge Nash himself seems not to have been out of the top drawer socially, by a long chalk (minor public school and no money for university at first).
That's a very interesting article in the context of UK evangelical elitism. Of course Gumbel must be a product of Iwerne (how could he not be). One of the sources quoted says Alpha is quote:
basically the Iwerne camp talk scheme with charismatic stuff added on
And it turns out that one of the articles quoted in the references was written by the guy I recruited to succeed me as CU rep in my college
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
So near and yet so far from the Inner Ring ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
When speaking of a Scottish 'elite' its interesting that you all think in terms of school and politics.
But if you look at Scottish public life for the past 50 years you'll see that the 'elite' in Scotland are those people with connections to the Labour Party, particularly those from Edinburgh or Glasgow.
An 'elite' isn't just found among the OBs and OGs of independent schools.
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
So more than half of some of the positions in society where people can make a real difference are filled by people who went to fee-paying schools, and we are saying that 'something needs to be done about it'?
Make a real difference? As in privileged people ensuring that already privileged people retain their privileged lives?
Just what kind of difference are the majority of these people in power who went to fee-paying schools actually making to those who didn't go to fee-paying schools? Oh, let me see, they are 'cracking down on benefits fraud'; they are 'ensuring that people are not parked on disability benefits for years', they have 'introduced the spare-room subsidy'. Oh yes, what joy and Christian charity they have spread to the poorest in our nation. They have made a difference indeed!
You are correlating some of the policies of the current coalition administration with those members who went to fee-paying schools then.
Is that a fair assessment?
I think so, since the majority of those who attend fee-paying schools are surely bound to see everything from their privileged perspective. This gives them every motive to retain the status quo of their privilege. Certainly the track record of MPs who went to fee-paying schools tends towards the far-from-benevolent.
When I was growing up, Eton was perceived as some sort of strange 'posh' school with peculiar traditions and costumes which had no basis in reality. Now the prime minister, the mayor of London, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury all went there. How can they have any idea of what 'ordinary people' (assuming there is such a thing) feel or experience?
I'm tired of hearing these people pontificating from the top of Mount Olympus when they have no idea what it's like to live on the plains below.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
What are these public school people missing out on, apart from struggling to make ends meet (possibly).
We discuss these people as if they don't get out and talk to 'ordinary' people. As if they don't hold surgeries or hold focus groups.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
Smell the prejudice! Smell the hatred!
Eton is, by all accounts, a very good school. However, I'd never want to send any of my (hypothetical) kids there if I had all the money in the world, as for the rest of their lives they'd have to put up with uninformed people pontificating about how they must all be bigots and toffs with no idea about 'real life'.
[ETA: In response to Amika]
[ 28. August 2014, 20:46: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We discuss these people as if they don't get out and talk to 'ordinary' people.
A lot of them don't, some can be incredibly insular while not realising it.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We discuss these people as if they don't get out and talk to 'ordinary' people.
A lot of them don't, some can be incredibly insular while not realising it.
True, I think we've all heard one of Ed Miliband's TV interviews...
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Smell the prejudice! Smell the hatred!
From politicians to the "benefit scroungers"?
Or, more insidiously, from my divisional manager who assumes that anyone who claims to be sick must be swinging the lead while he can go home whenever he feels like it?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
True, I think we've all heard one of Ed Miliband's TV interviews...
You aren't even close - and for the record, Miliband attended a comprehensive.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Amika quote:
When I was growing up, Eton was perceived as some sort of strange 'posh' school with peculiar traditions and costumes which had no basis in reality. Now the prime minister, the mayor of London, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury all went there. How can they have any idea of what 'ordinary people' (assuming there is such a thing) feel or experience?
I'm tired of hearing these people pontificating from the top of Mount Olympus when they have no idea what it's like to live on the plains below.
Your perception may well have been, perhaps still is, that Eton is a place with 'no basis in reality' but that is your perception only: I suspect you've never visited the school in question, or known many OEs. If you had, you might have learned about the very long history of outreach and involvement in the community, not just near Eton but further afield. Briefly, if you participate in sport near the Olympic Park in Leyton, or live in housing specifically for teachers in Islington, or belong to the Lee Rowing Club, then you're involved in something founded by, supported by, and funded by Eton.
I won't give you chapter and verse about bursaries and scholarships, just point out that these can start for children still at primary school and the continue to offer scholarships to pupils up to sixth form level.
As for Etonians having no idea what its like to live 'on the plains below', all boys have to get involved with one of the local initiatives the school has: going into local schools to help with reading schemes, running drama clubs, running an OAP lunch club, doing regular soup runs with a homeless charity in Slough, etc, etc, etc. All apart from local schools being able to use sports and drama facilities.
Old Etonians are people whose parents chose to send them to a particular (good) school for which they had to pass a stiff entrance exam. It is as unfair to beat them up in later life over a choice their parents made as it would be if they slated parents like Tony Blair or Tony Benn for choosing a school in accordance with politcal correctness, rather than following family tradition.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
The grammar school thing - I don't know how much of a difference it really makes these days. My local town has 1 girls + 1 boys' grammar. I went to the girls one leaving 20ish years ago. Of the 30 girls in my class, 17 had been to private primary school. It was very common for parents to send kids to private primaries to get them into the grammars & get a private school quality education for free.
I think things have got worse rather than better now in terms of access. Child A did the entrance exam for my old school & didn't get in. It's possible I was much brighter than she is, but I doubt it. It is virtually impossible to get into a grammar these days without tutoring in large quantities, privately paid, from a young age. In my bitterer moments I think about doing a FOI request to find out what percentage of the girls who got in this year went to private primaries.
So to summarise if the aim of the grammars is to educate the more able children from less well off backgrounds, they're not achieving that aim. Were I in charge and if grammars were not to be abolished, I'd only make them available to people who'd been to state primaries.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
True, I think we've all heard one of Ed Miliband's TV interviews...
You aren't even close - and for the record, Miliband attended a comprehensive.
Technically, yes. But I don't think the 'Socialist Eton' that Miliband attended really ranks as a typical comprehensive experience, much as he likes to make out it was.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Smell the prejudice! Smell the hatred!
Eton is, by all accounts, a very good school. However, I'd never want to send any of my (hypothetical) kids there if I had all the money in the world, as for the rest of their lives they'd have to put up with uninformed people pontificating about how they must all be bigots and toffs with no idea about 'real life'.
I came across a few old Etonians and other public school types at university - they were all pretty hopeless academically but excellent at what we'd call networking today. They all knew each other from all sorts of camps and things that I'd never heard of.
Incidentally, a good number of them were on scholarships that were awarded to the old boys of particular schools and/or the sons of clergy or doctors. Out of 100+ there were, I think, only 3 or 4 of us from working class homes/comprehensive schools.
They didn't need the cash and it all seemed rather unbalanced and unfair to this son of a farm labourer from a council estate. I did manage a couple of awards in my 3 years which effectively paid for 25% of my fees but as I was labouring outside of term time, I wasn't badly off anyway. That was in the days of full grants anyway where it wasn't too hard to save enough to get married 9as I did as a student cos I was older than most).
I did find it rather funny when one individual asked me whether we "kept" a country cottage - our house was certainly in the country but it was no cottage, only a council house condemned by the council itself as unfit for habitation. Great joke, that.
Later experience at senior level in business and now in the church, suggests that this elitism hasn't vanished: if anything it is more entrenched than ever and is the subject of envy from those who wished to join but aren't allowed in.
In the church it is still a question of contacts and insider knowledge. Key posts are filled, never appearing on any vacancy list. Trustee Boards are filled with those who are invited by word of mouth -- and I'm one of them owing to my experience in particular areas. Taken with my education at one of the world's premier universities, it tends to make people think that I'm from a certain kind of background. Experience quickly proves them wrong not least because my politics lean heavily beyond the far left in my desire to see the Kingdom of God realised.
It helps of course if daddy was a minister or some high ranking lay person -- of course, they're the right "material" for the job. I've been asked a few times (recently at an interview for a senior post) whether I was elated to xxx who shared the same surname.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by chris stiles quote:
Miliband attended a comprehensive
He did indeed, having been at a state primary school.
But neither Primrose Hill Primary nor Haverstock can be fairly described as 'bog standard'.
Primrose Hill has links with the RCM, profesional arts companies and sporting organisations other schools can only dream of. And to describe the parents as being well-heeled is entirely accurate: I'm told Jamie and Jools Oliver are very useful with catering for PTA events...
As for Haverstock comprehensive - this is the school for Hampstead. And how many other youngsters would get the chance to intern for Tony Benn after their O levels - oh, and then little Ed went on to Oxford.
So definitely not part of the elite.
Posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus (# 2515) on
:
It's hardly surprising that very bright people keep turning up in institutions that only let in very bright people - such as Oxbridge, the Judiciary, the top echelons of the civil service, etc). Correlation does not imply causality.
Of course, it doesn't exclude it either.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
When speaking of a Scottish 'elite' its interesting that you all think in terms of school and politics.
But if you look at Scottish public life for the past 50 years you'll see that the 'elite' in Scotland are those people with connections to the Labour Party, particularly those from Edinburgh or Glasgow.
An 'elite' isn't just found among the OBs and OGs of independent schools.
I was thinking in terms of school and politics because that's the issue raised in the OP. Yes, there's a Labour Party elite. Scotland is a wee place, and the six degrees of separation mean that there is a lot of interconnectedness. This can be both a good and a bad thing, and it can encourage who-you-know elites (not restricted to the Labour party!)
The report linked to in the OP refers to "the UK" but I don't think it's applicable to the UK as a whole.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
First of all, what (if anything) can be done to counter this?
Grammar schools.
As one who benefited from going to a grammar school (from a working class family) I have mixed feelings about this. In broadest principle, it might be part of an answer (but certainly not the whole answer). But there are substantial problems with the reality. First of all, you still have the rich families paying tutors to coach their kids so that they pass the qualifying exam. Secondly, an education system which places so much importance on an exam at one point in a child's life is NOT a good system on any level. Children develop at different stages - some who "fail" the exam may turn out to be far better than those who "pass". Grammar schools only work if there are easy ways of moving children between them and the other schools.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd suggest that the main problem is not actually education. Plenty of students do extremely well at comprehensive schools, but their chances are still reduced. There was a programme about this on Radio 4 last month based on a research programme someone had done. In brief, the main points were:
1. Getting into the "professions" - medicine, law, etc. is often a matter of connections. If you have a relative who's a doctor, for example, and can wangle some time shadowing them in a hospital, your chances of being accepted into medical school are far higher. Apparently (according to the report) it was virtually impossible for someone without a family or friend connection with the profession to organise this.
2. Unpaid or low-paid internships and work experience are also key. Two factors here - without the connections that normally lead to these internships, and without the money to live on whilst one is on one, this avenue is hard or impossible to pursue. One student reported contacting a law firm and asking whether she could work in an unpaid admin position for a few months to gain experience and was told that if she wasn't related to one of the barristers then it would not be possible.
3. Most interesting of all, the researcher discovered that working class students were less likely to call upon the connections they did have, because they felt it would be cheating. By contrast, middle class students had no such qualms having been led by their environment to expect this sort of assistance.
A straw poll amongst some people on another bulletin board elsewhere demonstrated that nearly all of those in very senior positions had started their journey there with an opportunity that arose because of someone they or more likely their parents knew. That's the really stacked deck here, IME and IMNAAHO.
I think this hits the button. And I don't know how we counter this. I have to admit to an interest here. My (extremely able) daughter has got a really good job. It's the kind of job that could set her up for a great career. She got the job first of all because her (much older) cousin is MD of the company and was happy to help her arrange an initial three month "work experience" thing. On the one hand I know she has more than proved her worth. On the other, I also know that had she not been related to the MD, she would never have got a look in and would probably still be working in a dead-end job in a pub.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
One aspect of this elitism that wasn't mentioned in the original report (as far I can remember) is the elitism based not on class but on being a child of a celebrity. Time after time, you come across people who are starting to make their way in radio or TV or in films and discover that they are the children of this or that celeb. I guess it's part of the whole "it ain't what you know but who you know" thing, but it still rankles a bit.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
Why do people assume that the status quo is just fine because these people are very bright and well educated? I have no doubt that they are however this does not change the fact that other very bright and well educated people cannot enter these fields soley due to their background, which surely cannot be right?
To put it into perspective independent schools educate about 7% of the UK's children. So when you compare those figures to the representation of privately educated individuals in the influential fields listed by the OP you can well see that they are massively over represented, for the most part this is due to factors already explored very well in this thread.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus:
It's hardly surprising that very bright people keep turning up in institutions that only let in very bright people - the Judiciary, the top echelons of the civil service, etc).
It's a matter of opinion whether the kinds of people you list are bright or not: given some recent pronouncements in the case of the judiciary and major cock ups by civil servants, I'd say not. Then again, it might be that they are bright but lack common sense.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
There are, of course, those who are "Nice but Dim".
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
There's always a slightly different angle to consider in some cases. I've got no idea about the rest of the public sector, but I went to an independent school and was basically indoctrinated in the paternalistic duty of service to the nation, etc. Then I joined the forces.
I was quite involved in roadshows, etc, later on aimed at recruiting high fliers from comprehensives schools into the officer corps (and I'd note that the navy, my service, is very different to the other two in that it promotes over 30% of the officer corps from the ranks anyway).
The wall we hit again and again from people who ticked all the boxes was:
"how much do you earn? and you get shot at? s*d that for a game of soldiers I'm going into investment banking/management consultancy/accountancy, etc"
Consequently the military continues to draw its officers from the candidates that present themselves; grammar school boys with CCF background, minor public schools, major public schools; who get to the end of 3 years at university and are prepared to immediately earn about a third of what their mates are getting *and* live in a decaying 1950s barrack block that would have been condemned were it used by anyone other than the forces.
In some ways I assume that CofE ordinands are quite similar!
So the army gets many of its officers from *elite* backgrounds because they're often the only people daft enough/confident enough in their own intrinsic worth to forego the salary and conditions to sit in a puddle and get shot at. It's not for want of trying to change the profile of the applicants.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
Another thing to point out is not just that so many people in top positions were privately educated, but at all-male schools. which are generally accepted as the best schools in the country. The "public school" description, whether compliment or epithet, never seems to include women.
From friends and family I am aware that the current cohort at these schools is very ethnically diverse, so it will be telling if in 20-30 years the people who get to the top are still mostly white. If so we will know that it's not just an issue of having had the best education.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
To put it into perspective independent schools educate about 7% of the UK's children. So when you compare those figures to the representation of privately educated individuals in the influential fields listed by the OP you can well see that they are massively over represented, for the most part this is due to factors already explored very well in this thread.
I think the main factor that affects it is the parents of the individuals. Generally speaking, parents who are prepared to spend tens of thousands of pounds on their childrens' education are going to be parents who actually care about getting their children the best education possible, and that attitude will naturally rub off onto the children themselves - and, importantly, would do so even if those children were not at private schools.
There are, of course, lots of parents who would be prepared to spend that kind of money on education but who are unable to do so. My theory would mean that those children would also end up with a good attitude, and that is indeed what we see happening. These are the half of permanent secretaries, diplomats etc who did not go to private school.
But seriously, we're talking here about jobs that by their very nature require some of the best minds in the country. It follows that they're going to be filled by people who had the best possible education - the best schools and the best universities. Closing down the best schools and universities in an atempt to remove elitism may mean anyone can do those jobs - but it will do so by lowering the standard of the best students, and that cannot be good overall for the country. If the choice is between elitism and idiocracy, I choose elitism - even though I'm not in the elite.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
From friends and family I am aware that the current cohort at these schools is very ethnically diverse, so it will be telling if in 20-30 years the people who get to the top are still mostly white.
It's worth noting that for many years now these schools have been the schools of choice for many rich and/or high-ranking foreign parents as they provide a better standard of education than is available in their own countries. Those children will, I presume, return home upon completion of their studies and join the elite in their own countries.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Certainly in my experience some of the very top of the elite - the crème de la crème de la crème are truly exceptional people, not least by their exceptional humility and unpretentiousness.
Yes. In a different field, I have noticed that the small number of truly exceptional musicians I know (the soloists playing the concerto) are frequently much more humble than people of lesser musical talent (the people accompanying them in the orchestra).
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's worth noting that for many years now these schools have been the schools of choice for many rich and/or high-ranking foreign parents as they provide a better standard of education than is available in their own countries. Those children will, I presume, return home upon completion of their studies and join the elite in their own countries.
Even that aside they are more ethnically diverse among British students now. You have second/third generation black and Asian children whose parents are doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, going to these schools. They are born British and are not going home to any other country.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
True enough, but British elites haave never been totally closed- there has always been just enough social mobility to (i) infuse new blood and energy into the elite (ii) make the existence of a powerful elite bearable to those outside it. So having some posh Nigerians, Chinese and Indians in there doesn't really make a lot of difference to anyone else. In Britain, class has pretty much always outweighed ethnicity.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by chris stiles quote:
Miliband attended a comprehensive
He did indeed, having been at a state primary school.
But neither Primrose Hill Primary nor Haverstock can be fairly described as 'bog standard'.
Primrose Hill has links with the RCM, profesional arts companies and sporting organisations other schools can only dream of. And to describe the parents as being well-heeled is entirely accurate: I'm told Jamie and Jools Oliver are very useful with catering for PTA events...
Absolutely - though it's worth noting that both schools and areas have experienced a fair amount of gentrification in recent years - decades ago it was the home for aspiring writers and intellectuals.
And yes, he was able to make use of his fathers connections. But that he is the first example of 'elitism' that springs to mind in the current Parliament reflects less on him and more on author of the original comment.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
From friends and family I am aware that the current cohort at these schools is very ethnically diverse, so it will be telling if in 20-30 years the people who get to the top are still mostly white.
It's worth noting that for many years now these schools have been the schools of choice for many rich and/or high-ranking foreign parents as they provide a better standard of education than is available in their own countries. Those children will, I presume, return home upon completion of their studies and join the elite in their own countries.
Presumptions can be presumptuous. It's perhaps more complicated than that, and my observations are from the limited world of anglophone Canadian private schools, which are largely copies of English public (i.e., private) schooling.
As others have noticed, many of the students are the children or grandchildren of immigrants and are not going anywhere, but will be (and are) taking their place among what passes for an élite here (doctors, lawyers, corporate types, but not clergy any more).
One interesting factor is that many intended-to-be-transient young women, on completion of their Canadian education, have no intention of going back to home countries. They now have expectations of professional achievement which will be difficult to fulfill as well as very different notions of personal freedom. I have encountered, as well, English-educated people under this category who then went to Canada or the US.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0