Working class? Don't think that Oxbridge is for you.

If everyone aimed for social mobility we would have no street cleaners, rubbish collections, care workers, supermarket shelf stackers etc.

In my opinion if you come from a family where several generations have not worked if you then go on to get a job you like and then go on to get promotions surely that could be a definition of social mobility

University is not for all, Oxbridge is not for all University applicants, let’s just work towards giving our young people a choice whether that be apprenticeships, further education or the chance of landing their dream job (whatever that may be).

So stop aiming for "social mobility" then?

Know your place, peasants.

volver

So stop aiming for "social mobility" then?

Know your place, peasants.

Jeez volver if that was in reply to me, you have totally misunderstood my post.

It’s all about an individual’s choice , and that should be educationalists priority not box ticking because someone in a back room office has decided that X amount of people from Y backgrounds should do this that and the other.

When a person's role is to improve social mobility, the answer is not to come back and say that social mobility isn't for everyone and that the people at the bottom should be happy with what little improvement they can get.

KB is speaking as the Social Mobility Tsar, not an educationalist.

If everyone aimed for social mobility we would have no street cleaners, rubbish collections, care workers, supermarket shelf stackers etc.
It could leave a vacuum as it has done with Brexit.

Social mobility could work both ways.
Should people who've been made redundant eg ex-MPS, senior managers in industry etc be encouraged to take the jobs formerly done by those whose social mobility has been upwards if they can find no other work?

volver

When a person's role is to improve social mobility, the answer is not to come back and say that social mobility isn't for everyone and that the people at the bottom should be happy with what little improvement they can get.

KB is speaking as the Social Mobility Tsar, not an educationalist.

I think she was being realistic.

Callistemon21

^If everyone aimed for social mobility we would have no street cleaners, rubbish collections, care workers, supermarket shelf stackers etc^.
It could leave a vacuum as it has done with Brexit.

Social mobility could work both ways.
Should people who've been made redundant eg ex-MPS, senior managers in industry etc be encouraged to take the jobs formerly done by those whose social mobility has been upwards if they can find no other work?

I think it does work both ways, I know several people who have lost their high paid high flying jobs and now work in supermarkets and are careers.

Some women who have lost everything through divorce or otherwise have to take menial jobs to get by.

Sorry, GG13, she's not there to be "realistic".

She's there to change things so that as many people as possible benefit from "social mobility". She's not there to say "its going to be hard for some of you, don't expect too much".

volver

Sorry, GG13, she's not there to be "realistic".

She's there to change things so that as many people as possible benefit from "social mobility". She's not there to say "its going to be hard for some of you, don't expect too much".

So you would rather her lie and give some folks false unrealistic hopes.

I'd rather that the person responsible for improving Social Mobility didn't think it was her job to keep people's expectations low.

I don't expect her to make actual promises to people about what is going to happen to them. I'd expect her to set up a framework where as many people as possible could realise their full potential, without somebody telling them that those at the bottom should be happy with something less.

KB is speaking as the Social Mobility Tsar, not an educationalist

So what she says about someone who has moved upwards by small steps and not necessarily taking a trajectory from an impoverished background to Oxbridge is valid.
Are they not to be applauded because they couldn't get the necessary entrance qualifications for Oxbridge but still gained more qualifications than their parents have, then got a skilled job with more pay and better prospects for their own children?
Having the opportunities so that they can achieve to the best of their abilities is something to aim for.

Even ensuring that children are well nourished is essential if they are to achieve.
All the billions wasted by government could have been spent by ensuring every schoolchild had a free, well-balanced, nourishing lunch.

I agree Callistemon21 what to us seem to be small steps, for one person can be a big deal for them and their future, and their families.

Yes, like I said.

Know your place, peasants.

I agree GG. I don’t think volver will though.

No. I won't

There is only one poster on here talking about peasants knowing their place and it’s certainly not me.

You don’t seem to be having a good day today volver. ?

Ah, the stench of being patronised is overwhelming, for me and for those at the bottom.

I don’t have a very good sense of smell.

Clearly.

volver

Yes, like I said.

Know your place, peasants.

Is that an order?

?

I haven't read the article or what ever that started this thread only the commnetary, but what I have read suggests that what Ms Birbalsingh suggested was that by obsessing constantly about Oxbridge, children were not being given enough encouragement to look at all the other universities they could go to.

Oxford and Cambridge are not the best universities for everybody, nor are they necessarily the highest rated place for every subject. DS's Faculty at a non-Oxbridge University is rated the best in the country and Oxbridge is not even in the second position, and that applies to a number of subjects.

Students should choose which university they want to go to on the basis of the syllabus it teaches, not its place in the University hierarchy. DS's school would really have liked him to have appied to Oxbridge but because Oxford did not offer the subject he wanted to study as an undergraduate course and the Cambridge one was not to his liking, he refused to apply to either and applied to those universities that offered the syllabus that most met his study ambitions.

Most employers know which universities offer the best degrees in the subject they most need and I suspect, for example that most engineering companies rate a degree in engineering from Imperial College well above a similar degree from Oxbridge.

IF that is what Ms Birbalsingh is saying, then I am in agreement with her.

Fair enough.

That's not what she's saying.

Callistemon21

^KB is speaking as the Social Mobility Tsar, not an educationalist^

So what she says about someone who has moved upwards by small steps and not necessarily taking a trajectory from an impoverished background to Oxbridge is valid.
Are they not to be applauded because they couldn't get the necessary entrance qualifications for Oxbridge but still gained more qualifications than their parents have, then got a skilled job with more pay and better prospects for their own children?
Having the opportunities so that they can achieve to the best of their abilities is something to aim for.

Even ensuring that children are well nourished is essential if they are to achieve.
All the billions wasted by government could have been spent by ensuring every schoolchild had a free, well-balanced, nourishing lunch.

Applaud them by all means, but question just why they didn't get the educational qualifications, if they are highly intelligent and motivated.

Oxford and Cambridge aren't for everybody, including most people from higher class backgrounds. Why single out those from impoverished backgrounds?

volver

Fair enough.

That's not what she's saying.

No, it isn't what she's saying.