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

Skydancer

I really don't think IQ is inherited. My sibling and I are intelligent whereas our mother has such a low IQ I would almost say she was subnormal. Our father was, I'd say, average.

Blimey

I really don't think IQ is inherited. My sibling and I are intelligent whereas our mother has such a low IQ I would almost say she was subnormal. Our father was, I'd say, average.

Culture is also a vehicle for social change and struggle and heaven above that the masses get access to it in the wider sense.

foxie48

Doodledog fortunately WEA still offer lots of classes for anyone who didn't go to Eton and there's a very active poetry scene in most towns and cities as well as free entrance to most art galleries, so all is not lost. Education has always been work focused, there's nothing new in this. It was the Industrial Revolution that drove the development of the free schools not philanthropy and the sons of rich families completed their education by doing the Grand Tour.

I think this typifies the role in the arts consigned to the lower classes. They can consume the product and take classes, visit galleries and even read poetry but heaven forbid they should ever actually want to be artists in any creative area. The best way to make them realise this is to ensure that they learn from the beginning that art is not a proper job and they shouldn't expect to earn a living from it. "What the Chairman told Tom" still applies poets.org/poem/what-chairman-told-tom

Foxie48 wrote:

" My younger daughter and husband are both scientists and neither lack empathy or are in any way uncivilised but I get your point. "

Your younger daughter and husband then, regarding their empathy skills, are products of our civilisation that freed people to read and think for themselves.

To reduce the budget for arts education is a step in the direction of less civilisation. Arts education teaches people how to subjectively understand psyches and motivations .

Yes that is a thought. I have tried to widen the argument though.

Whitewavemark2

Culture both high and low has always been accepted as a force for social and political change, and politicians have frequently sought to control this through various means.

This latest manifestation of seeking to control the populace, by denying funding to the arts etc in the U.K. has a long history and examples of cultural control can be seen throughout history, from the struggles during the Tudor period to prevent the lower classes from access to and the ability to read the bible, to educating the masses during the nineteenth century only to the standard deemed necessary to produce a working class that answered industrial needs at the time. I am sure many of us on here can produce physical examples of ancestors who could not read.

We see examples of social control through culture throughout the world, one known as the cultural revolution in China, remnants of which continue today in the control of various groups.

The elite in society whose access to culture both high and low is limitless through education, access, affordability etc have frequently sought to deny accessibility to socially control the masses, and what the government is seeking to do by denying fundings for the Arts in all its forms is no different.

Just a thought Whitewavemark2 What if Boris and his chums had decided to cut funding to the arts because they thought the electors living in target seats wouldn't mind or perhaps even notice. There's already an effective tax on the poor with the Arts Council distributing £751 million in 2021 from the lottery which supports lots of activities enjoyed by the middle classes. I always find it interesting that no-one ever seems to say much about how the lottery fund is distributed but that's for another thread perhaps?

Children whose access to a wide level of culture in its widest sense is limited as a result of various factors will not perform so well in IQ tests set to include all aspects of societal cultures.

It is a form of social control just as much as denying access to a wide range of reading material, good schools and good health outcomes.

The elite in society whose access to culture both high and low is limitless through education, access, affordability etc have frequently sought to deny accessibility to socially control the masses, and what the government is seeking to do by denying fundings for the Arts in all its forms is no different.
Absolutely. This sums up what I was trying to say very well.

We had two tests before going onto secondary education. One was was an IQ test and the other if I remember correctly involved maths and language.

And that was always the drawback of the 11-plus: its brutal partitioning of fate.

A point or two either side of the pass mark and your life could be radically different.

The selection of pupils in this way began in the wake of the 1944 Education Act. Every child took the exam in the final year of primary school; one of the perceived advantages was that bright pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds could be given the chance to succeed.

In Scotland, those who sat the 11-plus had two potential fates: the senior secondary, which offered a chance to sit Highers and go on to university, or the junior secondary, which led to life in a trade or an unskilled job. At just 11 years old, your future could be sealed with no hope of a retrial.

It was really unfair system. Some pupils do not perform wells under these conditions.
When I was in fifth year, we had some pupils transferring from the local junior high school, who had not performed well in the 11 plus exam, but were now being given the opportunity to move onto higher education.
The downside was that they had to repeat fourth year, so that they could sit the necessary exams. I knew twin sisters that this happened to.

Non-verbal reasoning test are usually regarded as a better test of "raw" intelligence.

PS. There is no such thing as a truly fair intelligence test. For a start, IQ is only one sort of intelligence. Secondly, IQ tests are designed to produce a standard distribution (bell curve) of results. There's nothing set in stone about IQ scores and levels of intelligence.

As regards the 11 plus (supposedly) IQ test, if it was the one that used only verbal reasoning questions, like the ones my dds took in the 80s, I was assured by someone who was supposed to know (head of a small private junior school) that it was a test of ‘raw’ intelligence and therefore training/practice would make no difference.

We returned to the UK when dd1 was 10 and had never even seen one of these tests. She had precisely one term at a U.K. school before the 11 plus in the January. At the beginning of that term her scores in these tests (there was daily practice) was around 45%.
By the end of that term they were around 90% , and she passed the 11 plus.
I’d like to know what IQ test, if any, is a truly level playing field for all children.

“Many 'openings' require unpaid internships, which are simply not possible for those without parental support or private incomes.”

Unpaid internship is being used increasingly by the professions and obviously discriminates against those of modest means.
The justification used, is that new graduates are completely unprepared for dealing with clients and have to work alongside a partner for several years. One graduate I know applied to a local surveyors for a land agent career, the deal was - 2 yrs unpaid internship, then buy a partnership, he chose another career!.

I was musing to myself whether you could reverse the quote and substitute ‘upper classes’ and I think it is quite feasible. Usually they tend to drop status long term rather than go up in their success through the ages.

Culture both high and low has always been accepted as a force for social and political change, and politicians have frequently sought to control this through various means.

This latest manifestation of seeking to control the populace, by denying funding to the arts etc in the U.K. has a long history and examples of cultural control can be seen throughout history, from the struggles during the Tudor period to prevent the lower classes from access to and the ability to read the bible, to educating the masses during the nineteenth century only to the standard deemed necessary to produce a working class that answered industrial needs at the time. I am sure many of us on here can produce physical examples of ancestors who could not read.

We see examples of social control through culture throughout the world, one known as the cultural revolution in China, remnants of which continue today in the control of various groups.

The elite in society whose access to culture both high and low is limitless through education, access, affordability etc have frequently sought to deny accessibility to socially control the masses, and what the government is seeking to do by denying fundings for the Arts in all its forms is no different.

Actually Doodledog classics degrees are incredibly useful. They qualify one to lead countries and, maybe, become King of the World!

Alexa

Doodledog wrote:

"Education should not be about fitting people to jobs. It should also be about teaching them how to enjoy life outside of work. Why should the ability to read or write poetry, or to appreciate music, or to understand art in galleries be the preserve of the elite? What are the rest of us expected to do with our leisure time? Football and bingo, thus proving our inherent philistinism?*"

But that response is an own goal against arts education! Arts education is not education for leisure. Arts education is for people getting on with each other . Empathy is what arts education is for.

Arts degrees also produce people with media and creative skills, which (until Covid and Brexit) were big UK exports - worth far more than fish!

Fair comment.

But what I meant was what I said in my subsequent post, which is that an education in Arts and Humanities teaches critical thinking and ensures that there is a new generation of people able to create and continue culture.

I think that this is critical. Again, to repeat my last post, I do not see A&H as a frivolous waste of time, or 'hobby degrees' as they were once described on here.

I don't necessarily think that either encourages people to get on with one another, though, unless I am misunderstanding what you mean. The Arts are extremely competitive, and competition (for very scarce resources in this case) does not really encourage a collegiate approach?.

I don't think that studying STEM subjects makes people difficult to get along with either. These things come down to personality and upbringing, rather than education.

Doodledog wrote:

"Education should not be about fitting people to jobs. It should also be about teaching them how to enjoy life outside of work. Why should the ability to read or write poetry, or to appreciate music, or to understand art in galleries be the preserve of the elite? What are the rest of us expected to do with our leisure time? Football and bingo, thus proving our inherent philistinism?*"

But that response is an own goal against arts education! Arts education is not education for leisure. Arts education is for people getting on with each other . Empathy is what arts education is for.

PS. I think the same is true of Humanities. If courses are cut, again it will be those who can afford it who get to be historians, and pass on their version of events to posterity.

I know they do, and am a great supporter of the WEA (and for that matter of Open Mic nights and so on), but it's not the same as being able to study the subject at degree level if that is what you want to do.

The study of Arts and Humanities is not a frivolous waste of time, IMO. It encourages critical thinking and educates the next generation of artists (in all fields) so that the culture of the country continues. In a democratic society voices from all sections of society should be heard, but that is not the case at all.

This article sums up the issues well, I think.

Doodledog fortunately WEA still offer lots of classes for anyone who didn't go to Eton and there's a very active poetry scene in most towns and cities as well as free entrance to most art galleries, so all is not lost. Education has always been work focused, there's nothing new in this. It was the Industrial Revolution that drove the development of the free schools not philanthropy and the sons of rich families completed their education by doing the Grand Tour.

Alexa

Foxie48, we need literate, numerate , tech savvy etc..

True. Let us expand on that "etc." . Boris and Co are going to reduce arts education. It is education in the humanities that increases empathy and civilised behaviour.

The decision to reduce Arts education is likely to divide the country further. Those who can afford it will be educated, and the rest will be trained. There has been a creep towards this for some time, but it seems that those at the top would prefer the populace to remain in ignorance, and less able to be critical of things like politics and media.

Education should not be about fitting people to jobs. It should also be about teaching them how to enjoy life outside of work. Why should the ability to read or write poetry, or to appreciate music, or to understand art in galleries be the preserve of the elite? What are the rest of us expected to do with our leisure time? Football and bingo, thus proving our inherent philistinism?*

I'm guessing that these subjects will be taught at Eton, so that Etonians have the ability to appreciate Arts, and to dominate them in future - it is already extremely difficult for working class people to forge careers in the Arts. Many 'openings' require unpaid internships, which are simply not possible for those without parental support or private incomes, and so much depends on being in the right place at the right time, which is obviously a lot easier for those who have the right contacts to invite them along.

Also, when someone is accused of having a chip on their shoulder it is very often because they have pointed out something that the accuser can't answer in a better way.

* No disrespect to either football or bingo, incidentally - I picked the most stereotypical 'not-cultured' pastimes I could think of ?

Ellianne

OK GagaJo, that's a different matter, though I've never encountered that.

One boy told me that he was a hereditary baronet. Indeed he was. He was also a selfish, lazy and consequently very uneducated lad. Another, much more likeable tho, was a prince. Also lazy. The difference was, they didn't NEED their education. They were going to be OK regardless. Working class children do.

maizie There is nothing like a bit of hyperbole now and again. refreshes and cleanses, like the froth on beer.