The working classes just aren't very bright so have no chance of bettering themselves

M0nica

The report by Saunders has no merit.

? I’m very glad to hear you say so.

I am interested to read your assertion about class. The current classification used by authorities in planning etc is the classification known as social economic classification (SEC) which has been in use since since the beginning of the century.

So as many of us as well as yourself consider the use of the economic position in society in classifying a persons position the most useful classification.

In fact the argument that social mobility is linked to inequality would make nonsense without this classification.

You didn't really think my answer would be very different, did you?

My previous reply was a critique of his trying to define a working class where one no longer exists and then pointing out that any analysis even of the poorest in society shows a group so diverse, he cannot even use them as an alternative.

Having read the article and his view that talent and hard work are the things which lead to success I wonder how he explains Boris Johnson.
It is a lot of tosh.
One of the things that concerns me is the lack of proper nutrition for children living in poverty. Poor nutrition affects their ability to do anything.

What is this dreadful obsession with 'hard work' all about? Isn't it enough to just put some 'work' into education and employment? Why does it have to be 'hard'? Like it's some sort of superior virtue? It's oppressive...

Sadly, the upper classes are no good at bettering themselves although that is self-inflicted because – laughably – most of them consider themselves perfect.

MaizieD

What is this dreadful obsession with 'hard work' all about? Isn't it enough to just put some 'work' into education and employment? Why does it have to be 'hard'? Like it's some sort of superior virtue? It's oppressive...

Because those who have justify what they have by claiming they worked hard for it. Many have worked hard, but there are many who haven't. There are also many who have worked hard and still have nothing or very little. It's an argument to correlate possession with being deserving.

Today's Britain favours holders of assets over those who earn their money by work (whether hard or not).

M0nica

The report by Saunders has no merit.

Which is ironic, since his claim is based on the idea of a functioning meritocracy.

BTW Saunders' claim relies heavily on the 1958 National Child Development Study, which has tracked the progress of a cohort of children born in two weeks in March 1958. There is a wealth of data from the study. I'm not going to summarise it all here, but it can be Googled by anybody who is interested.

My sister was one of the children involved an I know that she did various tests of cognitive ability and there were records of family background, health status, educational achievement and much more. It's a respected study.

growstuff

BTW Saunders' claim relies heavily on the 1958 National Child Development Study, which has tracked the progress of a cohort of children born in two weeks in March 1958. There is a wealth of data from the study. I'm not going to summarise it all here, but it can be Googled by anybody who is interested.

My sister was one of the children involved an I know that she did various tests of cognitive ability and there were records of family background, health status, educational achievement and much more. It's a respected study.

Me too. Every possible bit of information on family background and status from way back has been collected and they are now onto our children's achievements. Occasionally they do off shoot studies, like I was called for a "gifted" child interview!
They send us their findings yearly and have recently made an interesting book in addition to the reports.

absent

Sadly, the upper classes are no good at bettering themselves although that is self-inflicted because – laughably – most of them consider themselves perfect.

Some are, some aren’t, there is a very old saying “one generation makes it, the next spends it”. Despite private education there plenty wealthy people that are not intelligent and don’t do anything gainful their entire life. You see it all the time, selling off the family silver, or the family pile, once the money is frittered away they can’t afford private schools, the formerly rich are equal to everyone else.
Sometime it’s sad to see, one of my friends had wealthy parents, she was smart enough, her parents and brothers weren’t, poor business decisions meant property had to be sold, taxation hammered the value of that, when that was gone one brother drove trucks, the other taxis, unable to work now both are in social housing.
Social Mobility is very much a 2 way street but being intelligent is not a passport to an easy life, you have to commit to your goal, call it hard work if you want, most successful entrepreneurs, do work very long hours to get established.

I have read and seen programmes about the 1958 survey and have every respect for them, but what is in question here, is the interpretation of the results.

The problem is, like so many surveys, sweeping conclusions are drawn from average figures and the tails of distributions remain unexamined.

I recently read a couple of popular articles about family life in the 1950s. The author kept saying things like '60% of the population only had a bath on Saturday night' and there on in the book took this to be what everyone did, he completely ignored thereafter the 40%, nearly half the population, that didn't. By the time those sort of generalisations have been made on every topic from family relationships, to the food they ate, to the sports they watched, the proportion of the population who would actually have lived this generalised 'typical' life was acually very small.

This is the problem with this report. I have more respect for IQ tests than many here, but once you say of a group that their average IQ is lower than other groups, you are immediately ignoring and writing off the tail of the dstribution who are well above average. With this also goes your expectation of what members of that group are capable of, which means that their attainment falls.

This is why I think the report has no merit. There is nothing wrong with the sample, it is the assumptions that the analyst brings to the report.

A summary of the latest findings.

Couldn't agree more Katie59. I have worked with some exceptionally privileged children. Hereditary titles some of them. Mostly very mediocre (the schools I worked in with them were not the top notch private schools, hence, dumping grounds for the posh uneducable). I have also worked in quite a few tough UK schools. A lot of very sharp, bright, working class or even underclass children, who were destined to not achieve anything due to the culture of not valuing education AND the cronic underfunding of their schools. Also some dim kids there, of course. But to be honest, the truly dim in those schools were in the minority.

But these findings do not negate the need for all children to be given an opportunity to do their best and not to be written off as not capable of reaching higher levels because of their social background.

dumping grounds for the posh uneducable

That's a bit mean. No child is ever uneducable regardless of their class.
It isn't a competition, we're talking about bettering oneself as an individual, not worrying about those around us.

MaizieD

P.S. IQ testing is widely acknowledged to be a deeply flawed measure of 'intelligence'.

I'm sure that others will elaborate.

“IQ tests are flawed because they do not take into account the complex nature of the human intellect and it’s different components. Instead several different circuits contribute to intelligence, each with its own unique capacity,”from Independant, easily Googled. As a village educated child, not well off family compared to my some of my-classmates, missing some schooling because hospitalisation, I was told I wasn’t clever enough to do my Student Nurse training, but could train as an SEN,one of the last to be able todo so, which I did. Few years later took a University Diploma to become State Registered Nurse, then other Diploma courses for specialised training. So no one can tell me people from poorer families lack intelligence or motivation.

So no one can tell me people from poorer families lack intelligence or motivation.

The tories might. Because that's one thing they might take from Saunder's article.

Very interested to hear details of the 1958 study. I hope I didn't give any impression at any time that I thought the study was flawed. It sounds like an incredible piece of research.

M0nica

But these findings do not negate the need for all children to be given an opportunity to do their best and not to be written off as not capable of reaching higher levels because of their social background.

Precisely, MOnica.

The amount of prejudice shown on this and many other threads to people who happen to have had better off (not necessarily much), backgrounds, is quite shocking and unpleasant.

I was brought up to treat everybody equally and not honour them or despise them for where they came from or what they did.

Last three words of the above refers to what they did for a living, nothing else

MaizieD

^So no one can tell me people from poorer families lack intelligence or motivation.^

The tories might. Because that's one thing they might take from Saunder's article.

Very interested to hear details of the 1958 study. I hope I didn't give any impression at any time that I thought the study was flawed. It sounds like an incredible piece of research.

Hi Maizie
Try cls.ucl.ac.uk for the full bibliography and findings.

We are even in an ongoing covid study asking about our current health, habits, emotions etc.

Education gives one 'choice'.

M0nica

The amount of prejudice shown on this and many other threads to people who happen to have had better off (not necessarily much), backgrounds, is quite shocking and unpleasant.

I was brought up to treat everybody equally and not honour them or despise them for where they came from or what they did.

Exactly Monica.

I presume this was. Posted tongue in check and i won't be reading the article. . I know their is the old boys network in the top schools and also I know that many people myself from very working class roots who have top positions in companies, started their own, very intelligent despite not speaking several languages and learning Latin, it's all about attitude and intelligence. Two children from the same family with completely different aspirations. Many content to be in low paid jobs and are happy, not want the hassle of moving out if their confirm zone the other sibling has that need in themselves to achieve what they can. We need both types one needs the otter. Look at a couple of our Prine Ministers who came from the working classes, you can achieve anything if it's in you and focused.

Maizie I suspect you might be very interested in the NCDS because it spans over six decades of different political parties being in and out of power.

I can assure you they nosily delved into all areas of our lives - education, careers, earnings, assets, ....... even our partners' provenance and performance.

Oh yes and our sex lives too!