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

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!

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

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.

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.

“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!.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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 .

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

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

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.

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

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?

This is exactly what I was getting at with my comments on football and bingo earlier. If people don't get the education to learn to appreciate the Arts, they will seek out other sources of fulfilment, and it will then be assumed that this is what they want. It's a viscous circle. It may well be true that opening an opera house in an inner city estate will be a waste of time and money, but that is not because the residents are incapable of appreciating opera - it is because they haven't been given the chance to find out if they like it or not.

And yes, if they can fit it around work, people can go to mixed ability classes run by the WEA (and I am in no way decrying these), but that is absolutely not the same thing as being stretched by a certificated course that could lead to a role in which they have a say in what is taught or exhibited or offered in local venues.

While this may be true as a generalisation of class differences, it overlooks what happens when individuals 'better themselves.' Say a 'working class' person is bright and works hard, ends up going to university and training as a doctor... they're now considered 'middle class.' And of course a pretty middle class girl who marries 'up' will soon be assimilated into her husband's higher class.

I think what holds many working class people back from attempting to do middle class jobs is that they don't want to. Although they are not stupid, they are not brought up to be aspirational, except as regards trying to earn more money or not have to work. They don't see anything 'better' or 'higher' in the middle class lifestyle, so they don't try to achieve it.

There are still those pupils who live in atrocious household environments and whose aim is to get out of such situations. I knew a lad years back, parents never sober but he kept his head down at school and was determined to do well to escape the way of life he was born into.

Anyway, he did well and got a place at uni., studied hard got all his exams and outshone the other pupils. Got a job and took himself off to America where he trained in Real Estate and never looked back, nor returned to the hell-hole he called home.

Last I heard he'd done so well and set up his own estate business.
I couldn't believe that someone could lift themselves from such depths of despair, on his own, to the life of fulfilment that he had except for the hard work and determination he put in.
I remember buying him a pair of pumps for school because he didn't have any.

It's only by showing willing and working hard will anyone get on in life and having that drive and determination to want to better yourself or get out of a bad situation such as his was.

Doodledog

*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?*

This is exactly what I was getting at with my comments on football and bingo earlier. If people don't get the education to learn to appreciate the Arts, they will seek out other sources of fulfilment, and it will then be assumed that this is what they want. It's a viscous circle. It may well be true that opening an opera house in an inner city estate will be a waste of time and money, but that is not because the residents are incapable of appreciating opera - it is because they haven't been given the chance to find out if they like it or not.

And yes, if they can fit it around work, people can go to mixed ability classes run by the WEA (and I am in no way decrying these), but that is absolutely not the same thing as being stretched by a certificated course that could lead to a role in which they have a say in what is taught or exhibited or offered in local venues.

My parents had no arts education whatsoever they still enjoyed the theatre and visited galaries etc. They also enjoyed bingo nights at the local working men's club and my dad loved football. The division of pastimes into good culture and bad culture is a middle clsss projection which has dominated society and set up barriers. For example rowing in the 19 century was a working class sport more popular than football. It's time we dumped these preconceived ideas about what is good culture and what is bad.

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.

I think that just tells us that a reasonable IQ is not all we need in life. Wow.

A young very attractive starlet was dating a university professor.
“Darling let’s get married with my beauty and your brains we would have wonderful children “
Professor replied “Maybe, but what if they had my beauty and your brains”.

Intelligence is not highly heritable, but are learning difficulties inherited I know a couple of families were parents and children are dyslexic

I hope that you aren’t equating dyslexia with intelligence?

My parents had no arts education whatsoever they still enjoyed the theatre and visited galaries etc. They also enjoyed bingo nights at the local working men's club and my dad loved football. The division of pastimes into good culture and bad culture is a middle clsss projection which has dominated society and set up barriers.
I knew someone was going to say this, which is why I pointed out that football and bingo were simply signifiers for 'not Cultural' pursuits (and that is not to say that they are not small-c cultural, before that is pointed out, too).

The point is not that any group is unable to enjoy any type of entertainment - of course that is simplistic and idiotic. However, it is equally idiotic not to acknowledge that a lot of people believe that certain forms of Art are 'not for them'.

Many years ago I taught O level English to disadvantaged students in an FE college. The biggest problem was persuading them that Shakespeare was not for 'swots' and 'posh people'. Once we'd got over that hurdle they were mostly very receptive, and the results were better than expected.

If Arts are not taught at university, and are seen as inferior subjects at school, the attitude that they are 'for others' will continue, and the vicious circle of 'there is no point in putting an Arts Centre here - build a pub with a vast TV screen instead' will be perpetuated.

I don't know how old your parents would be, but it is also the case that in the past, people didn't have the choice of TV and YouTube entertainment that is available nowadays, so were maybe more likely to go to theatres, which had a wide range of plays on offer - designed to appeal to all tastes. They were also cheaper than now.