Of course the UK is elitist. It's a country which mainly serves and benefits the privileged few in my opinion. Social mobility figures show it is very difficult to climb up the ladder.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The UK is "deeply elitist" do you agree?
- Thread starter Doc Lynam
- Start date
jakarta
Well-known member
Well that's made my mind up, I'm off to Torch Christ's Hospital right away......
User removed 4
New member
No I don't think kids educated at public schools are more intelligent than those educated at state school , I think that in the main they will have received a better education, if you think that kids educated at public school are 'spoonfed' then you've got a lot to learn yourself, as for places at Oxbridge reserved for children educated at certain schools , could you show me some proof of that ? I'd be surprised if it were true.
User removed 4
New member
Have you actually read my post ? If you have you can't have understood the point I was making.
The Merry Prankster
Pactum serva
Yes and it shouldn't be.
Superphil
Dismember
Irony
Alan Milburn (who led the commission that came out with this report), is absolutely correct in my view in identifying some of the causes of inequality in British society, and it very was nice of him to take some time off from his directorships of the private sector health companies currently engaged in dismantling the NHS, to produce yet another report stating what has been apparent for decades, namely that you can buy your children a way into a powerful and well-remunerated position in society (or at least increase greatly their chances of getting such a position) by paying for their education at a private school. This is true, irrespective of their innate ability and there are lots of reasons for it, including the "better" education (which essentially means better resourced education, with hugely greater expenditure per pupil, smaller classes etc), social networks ("old boys club" etc) and the general air of self-confidence which such schools instil into their pupils.
It is outrageous and unfair, that 7% of the population for no reason other than their parents' money should weasel their way into positions of power like this; it is outrageous and unfair that any child's prospects in life should be so heavily influenced by how much dosh their parents have. It doesn't have to be like that, as other countries (especially those in Scandinavia) show us.
What's so pathetic about Milburn's report and those which precede it, is that he fails to draw the logical conclusion -- the only way that this will ever stop is if we just grasped the nettle and abolished the private schools. They are a massive blight on our society.
Make a good education an equal right for all, and make it illegal for well-off people to buy their kids a further advantage (the influx of the 7% of pushy parents into the state schools would, incidentally, be a huge pressure for improved standards in those schools). Don't just take away their charitable status, don't waste time trying to get them to share their sports grounds etc with comprehensive schools, just ban the toxic institutions. There was a real opportunity for the Labour party to do this in the 1960s, and some momentum behind it, but they chickened out, presumably because so many of them were themselves beneficiaries of the private schools.
I'm with Alan Bennett on this one, although even he doesn't go far enough in my view.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jun/17/alan-bennett-attack-private-education-lecture-wrong
It is outrageous and unfair, that 7% of the population for no reason other than their parents' money should weasel their way into positions of power like this; it is outrageous and unfair that any child's prospects in life should be so heavily influenced by how much dosh their parents have. It doesn't have to be like that, as other countries (especially those in Scandinavia) show us.
What's so pathetic about Milburn's report and those which precede it, is that he fails to draw the logical conclusion -- the only way that this will ever stop is if we just grasped the nettle and abolished the private schools. They are a massive blight on our society.
Make a good education an equal right for all, and make it illegal for well-off people to buy their kids a further advantage (the influx of the 7% of pushy parents into the state schools would, incidentally, be a huge pressure for improved standards in those schools). Don't just take away their charitable status, don't waste time trying to get them to share their sports grounds etc with comprehensive schools, just ban the toxic institutions. There was a real opportunity for the Labour party to do this in the 1960s, and some momentum behind it, but they chickened out, presumably because so many of them were themselves beneficiaries of the private schools.
I'm with Alan Bennett on this one, although even he doesn't go far enough in my view.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jun/17/alan-bennett-attack-private-education-lecture-wrong
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,019
the best educated go on to be the "elite", who'd have thought. its not "social engineering" its the natural order. do you want to deliberately elevate less educated people to judges, generals, senior civil servants?
Very interesting article - thanks Soistes.
On one hand I agree with him, but on the other hand surely if there is a demand for private schools, then the failing for this service lies solely at the goverments door being incapable of delivering sufficient and appropriate schooling for the population. Whilst I don't condone Private education, I am considering sending my son to a private school as the current crop of Secondary schools in my borough are woeful. And yes, I can afford to, but if the schools in my borough were good enough, I wouldn't even be considering it.
Surely rather than tackling elitism at the end of the spectrum, we ensure that the "level playing field" is actually provided.
On one hand I agree with him, but on the other hand surely if there is a demand for private schools, then the failing for this service lies solely at the goverments door being incapable of delivering sufficient and appropriate schooling for the population. Whilst I don't condone Private education, I am considering sending my son to a private school as the current crop of Secondary schools in my borough are woeful. And yes, I can afford to, but if the schools in my borough were good enough, I wouldn't even be considering it.
Surely rather than tackling elitism at the end of the spectrum, we ensure that the "level playing field" is actually provided.
Daffy Duck
Stop bloody moaning!
If public schools and Oxbridge didn't exist to perpetuate elitism, then most of the royal family would be working on the checkouts in Tesco and Asda.
I don't think they get a "better" education but it is different and it is aimed at getting into Oxbridge and other universities as well as the military. The really interesting thing you haven't commented on is the research finding that state educated children do worse at A level but better at university. I cant give you up to date evidence of places linked to schools but I think you would be very surprised at what you would find if you went looking for it.
I really don't understand why the mass of people are willing to accept that a small minority of children get a much better opportunity than their own children. That seems to me to be a betrayal of their own kids. Not only that but they then subsidise that opportunity! Unbelievable!
Not Andy Naylor
Well-known member
There are two sides to this.
First, the large percentage of people in top jobs (if you agree that they are top jobs) who went to public schools. You can argue that that represents unacceptable social engineering because it perpetuates an elite based on wealth (usually inherited) rather than merit. And the number of Old Etonians in, for example, the Cabinet, suggests that there's too much of the old school tie in government. I naively hoped that had all gone out when the Tories lost in 1964. The only good thing I can say about Thatcher is that, as a grammar school girl, she had little time for all that.
But Oxbridge is surely different. If you accept that these are elite academic institutions (and that they select the best students and give them the best tuition) then surely you would hope that many of the people making key decisions in this country would be Oxbridge graduates? Surely there's nothing wrong with a country being governed by an elite - as long as it's an intellectual elite rather than a financial or privileged elite.
i expect that many will suggest that too many Oxbridge places go to pupils from public schools, and I agree. But I know that most Oxford and Cambridge colleges would like more students from state schools to apply, and send people to visit state schools and encourage applications. They want the best students, not the most privileged.
First, the large percentage of people in top jobs (if you agree that they are top jobs) who went to public schools. You can argue that that represents unacceptable social engineering because it perpetuates an elite based on wealth (usually inherited) rather than merit. And the number of Old Etonians in, for example, the Cabinet, suggests that there's too much of the old school tie in government. I naively hoped that had all gone out when the Tories lost in 1964. The only good thing I can say about Thatcher is that, as a grammar school girl, she had little time for all that.
But Oxbridge is surely different. If you accept that these are elite academic institutions (and that they select the best students and give them the best tuition) then surely you would hope that many of the people making key decisions in this country would be Oxbridge graduates? Surely there's nothing wrong with a country being governed by an elite - as long as it's an intellectual elite rather than a financial or privileged elite.
i expect that many will suggest that too many Oxbridge places go to pupils from public schools, and I agree. But I know that most Oxford and Cambridge colleges would like more students from state schools to apply, and send people to visit state schools and encourage applications. They want the best students, not the most privileged.
mikeyjh
Well-known member
Don't you think that the judiciary, army, civil service etc would all benefit from having a diverse make up?
It's a constant in corporate life as well, far more focus on pieces of paper with lists of qualifications than what an individual can can actually offer.....
life on mars 73
New member
- Oct 19, 2010
- 264
It's a shocking waste of human talent if over 90% of the population is effectively overlooked when it comes to the top jobs. No way are the privately-educated 7% the most able and gifted in this country. We need a genuine meritocracy.
Best post on the subject. The problem with that report is that it lumps "educated at independent schools" with "Oxbridge". There are two issues here. Firstly, do we want Oxbridge educated people to be heavily influencing society? Yes, of course we do. These are the most intelligent of the educated sector of society.
But "independent schools" is another thing entirely, and it's very complex. There are all sorts of issues involved in that one.
It is inevitable that some kind of "elite" will exist. However if this is to be acceptable then the elite has to be equally accessible to everyone. That is not the case with Oxbridge where just about 50% of the places go to the 7% privately educated children. That is why Oxbridge and the independent school arguments are linked. We should also not fall into the trap that Oxbridge graduates are necessarily superior to others. Plenty of people have skills not assessed by Oxbridge entry or are late developers etc etc. For example what makes a good judge - high intellect or softer skills like empathy, understanding, broad life experience etc. Probably a combination of all these
Superphil
Dismember
The majority of students attending Oxford University are from State Schools (63%). So, of the 12000 UK domiciled students, 7560 of them are from state schools, the rest (the minority) are from private schools. If you look at the statistics from all domiciles the split is 41% state, 28% Private and 31% other.
Whilst the statistics quoted don't make for good reading, surely to have a reasoned debate you need to compare the current stats with those, say, 30 years ago and then 60 years ago and maybe even 90 years ago. The situation is far from ideal and representative but is it moving in the right direction albeit not very quickly.
Superphil
Dismember
Oh, and the university with the highest percentage intake of privately educated students is Newcastle, apparently.