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

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.

But you know this is just not how so many of the ‘elite’ are brought up. A sense of entitlement shines through as well as disdain - do you really think it’s widespread to respect everyone regardless of origins? I was shocked when I came to live in Surrey and saw widespread examples of how the ‘workers’ were treated - everyday rudeness such as not even saying thank you. Because of the work I was doing, I mixed with the the very well heeled and saw it at first hand. As for me snd my Yorkshire accent.,,,Even surface politeness was frequently quite patronising.

Might have been the north south divide stuff. My mum used to go on about it because she had a Yorkshire accent and we lived in London. She thought Londoners were cold, snobby and just generally nasty. My dad was a Londoner from way back, so was I. Ha.

Ellianne

^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.

Usually because of their behaviour. Over entitled, no work ethic, 'Do you know who I am?' attitude.

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

TBH I think the biggest flaw in Saunder's article is the assumption that society educates people to give them the best opportunity to succeed in life and seeing "success" as social mobility. That is not the role of education and it never has been. I'm not a Marxist but the "All education takes place under the long shadow of work" (Bowles and Gintis) is as true now as it was. As a post industrial society we need a different type of worker, one who is numerate and literate, tech savvy etc. Look at the focus on apprenticeships, even the development of the NVQ system in the late 80's was part of this up skilling as was the focus on 50% of people having a university education. I'm not sure what Saunders means by "working class" or the classification system he's using but as a sociologist I would have expected him to have moved away from the WC/MC/UC model so I suspect he's really talking about the "under class" except that tends to make non sociologists cringe!

The opportunities were certainly there from the 1960s - 1980s for the "Boomers" because there were still local authority student grants. My parents treated me as a cash machine and made no sacrifices to allow me to stay on school for A levels. It was up to me to get myself to university as a mature student. I made the most of my opportunities and qualified to ph.d. level which opened up an academic career to me.

Todays young people are not so lucky, burdened by student debt. Reading many of the posts on MN its clear that most are dependent upon an additional financial boost from their parents when it comes to renting and making ends meet. There are many young people with degrees now competing for low paid jobs in the gig economy.

suziewoozie But you know this is just not how so many of the ‘elite’ are brought up. A sense of entitlement shines through as well as disdain - do you really think it’s widespread to respect everyone regardless of origins?

This is totally at odds with my experience, I have found most people at every level of society are kind, open and treat you with courtesy, but then I do not have the chip on my shoulder that so many others seem to have.

Of course there are real b*st*rds at all levels of society and the offence such people give has nothing to do with where they come from.

M0nica

suziewoozie But you know this is just not how so many of the ‘elite’ are brought up. A sense of entitlement shines through as well as disdain - do you really think it’s widespread to respect everyone regardless of origins?

This is totally at odds with my experience, I have found most people at every level of society are kind, open and treat you with courtesy, but then I do not have the chip on my shoulder that so many others seem to have.

Of course there are real b*st*rds at all levels of society and the offence such people give has nothing to do with where they come from.

Well we’ll just have to agree to differ. I know many lovely privileged people and have also seen entitled bastards in operation - nothing to do with chips at all. Because of various contacts through the former I have experienced situations where I have clearly been re-evaluated as a person in terms of my ‘worth’ when they’ve realised quite who I’m there with and because of - I despise these people who are usually also rude to the waiters and never say thank you to them.

foxie48 Thanks for the memory.

Your quote from (Bowles and Gintis) took me right back, it was one of the core publications I used for a long time :-)

I suspect you're not far off when you suggest he's really talking about the "under class" and about it making most people cringe

I had to explain to DD1 that "All education takes place under the long shadow of work". DGD goes to local village school on a Dukes Estate so geared to agriculture and hospitality. DGD's parents are both in IT so didn't connect to schools focus and ethos, they are thinking of moving before DGD starts secondary school.

As for the article, IMO it's next to useless. The perimeters are out dated and it doesn't reflect todays educational, class or social issues.

Also pushing Toxic Messages such as WC aren't bright enough or hard working enough to better themselves is offensive. Everyone seems to offended these days so I thought I's join in :-)

It may not be "offensive" but I don't see how this article is helpful or informative, nor does it move the body of knowledge forward.

But someone has published something, therefore, something has been done so the powers that be have a defence against "Doing Nothing" about ...

Interesting post though so thanks for starting it OP

foxie48

TBH I think the biggest flaw in Saunder's article is the assumption that society educates people to give them the best opportunity to succeed in life and seeing "success" as social mobility. That is not the role of education and it never has been. I'm not a Marxist but the "All education takes place under the long shadow of work" (Bowles and Gintis) is as true now as it was. As a post industrial society we need a different type of worker, one who is numerate and literate, tech savvy etc. Look at the focus on apprenticeships, even the development of the NVQ system in the late 80's was part of this up skilling as was the focus on 50% of people having a university education. I'm not sure what Saunders means by "working class" or the classification system he's using but as a sociologist I would have expected him to have moved away from the WC/MC/UC model so I suspect he's really talking about the "under class" except that tends to make non sociologists cringe!

I am sure you are right foxie48. As I was given to understand even the much hallowed 11+ worked like that. Year sizes were, to some extent, subject to the perceived needs of the counties and, certainly in the beginning, more boys than girls were passed. Shades of the Conservative algorithm which didn't allow children in areas where they hadn't done so well in the past to do well in 2020 - which if carried on would mean they never could in those areas.

I grew up, the youngest of two children in the NW of England, and my parents ensured that I had a good education and I was the first in my family to go to university.

My mother was the eldest of 2 girls, in a lower middle class family who went to the local Girls Grammar school and left school at 16 having taken the school certificate, going on to college to train as one of the first NNEB's, so actually not starting work until she was 18 around 1948/9.

My father was one of 6 and from a poor working class family, his father in and out of work, his mother working all the hours to keep food on the table. My Dad was entered for and passed the school scholarship exam and won a place at the Boys grammar school but didn't take it up. When I asked my paternal grandma why not she simply said there was no point as they couldn't afford for him to go; they couldn't afford to buy all the extras he would need.

He went instead to the technical school, left without any qualifications at 14, to go and work at the local pit on the coal shunting wagons bringing in a wage, which obviously helped greatly regarding the family finances.

Fast forward to my education in the 70's and when my paternal grandma was told that I wasn't leaving school at 16 but going on to do A levels with a view to university later, she sniffed disapprovingly saying 'there was no point in educating girls as they only went on to get married and have babies just like the rest of us'. I'm sure this view was quite a common one at that time amongst her peers.

I always felt a sense of injustice regarding my dad and his situation. Due to the social norms of the time, in the late 40's and early 50's a Grammar school education was for those who were intelligent enough to qualify to attend AND could afford it. Unlucky for him, his IQ wasnt enough.
My Dad always worked hard, becoming a manager eventually but often despairing of the short sighted decisions made by those above him, when he could see the 'bigger picture' but they either couldn't or wouldn't.

He strove to ensure that we, unlike him through no fault of his own, had all the educational opportunities available to us so that we had choices and for that I am forever grateful, but I often wonder what he might have become had he been given the same chances.

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.

asuziewoozie I know many lovely privileged people and have also seen entitled bastards in operation

Surely that is the point, you have known many lovely privileged people and some bastards. But isn't every group like that? I have met many people who people would consider at the other end of the social spectrum, some have been lovely and some have been horrible.

What I object to so strongly is the way some people on GN constantly say unpleasant things and attribute nothing but vices too one group in society, when if any one says even half a word of criticism about those at the other end of the social spectrum, they would turn on them like a herd of ravening lions and tear them apart limb from limb.

What I object to so strongly is the way some people on GN constantly say unpleasant things and attribute nothing but vices too one group in society, when if any one says even half a word of criticism about those at the other end of the social spectrum, they would turn on them like a herd of ravening lions and tear them apart limb from limb.

I think you're given to unwarranted hyperbole, MOnica

There are some who see themselves as entitled, just as there are others that see themselves as done down and discriminated against, that’s life some blame others for everything. I will say that many individuals believe they are entitled to special treatment in various ways especially when they are getting a service. No more so than the health service
Years ago I did some moonlighting, catering at functions waitressing, one such event was a local Tory dinner, early on the evening the Chairman started talking down to the servers, quickly other diners joined in, it was awful. They tried to rebook the next year but the waitresses refused to work that night.

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.

Well I think the first sentence rather proves my point, although I think many might disagree with your second sentence. My younger daughter and husband are both scientists and neither lack empathy or are in any way uncivilised but I get your point.

Pippa The number of grammar school places in an area was largely based on history. Most of the original grammar schools were foundations and had originally been funded by a variety of organisations. Boys' education was valued more highly, so there were more boys' grammar schools. People often forget that they had in fact existed before the 1944 Education Act, if your parents' had the money to pay for them or the pupils won a scholarship. During the early twentieth century, many cities and towns with rapid population expansion had few grammar schools, although some local authorities did set some up. By 1944, there was a patchwork of provision and this continued after the Act. Some of those original grammar schools remained as private schools, but the majority were now under local authority control and were free. A handful became direct grant grammar schools with 25% free places and the rest fee-paying. Very few new grammar schools were built, which meant that there was still an imbalance in the number of places available and pupils' chance of a place was a postcode lottery.

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

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.

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 ?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.