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

GrannyGravy13

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).

How do you think it would go down if you went into Eton and said that it's absolutely OK if some of them end up as cleaners or carers?

Social class or parental background should have no place in deciding who's suitable for Oxford or Cambridge.

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

Oh dear!!
Not everyone has the same level of intelligence or ability, have they?
I thought that you, at least as a teacher, would be perfectly aware of that.
Not every student is going to get top grades however motivated, however hard they work.
Or am I not allowed to say that as it is discriminatory?

So if university is not for everyone, Oxbridge is certainly not for everyone and we need people who are professional, skilled and indeed lower-skilled. That is how society works.

This country certainly needs tradespeople as much as it needs Oxbridge graduates.

Someone who has the ability to become a skilled tradesperson should be given every encouragement to achieve their goals.

Social class or parental background should have no place in deciding who's suitable for Oxford or Cambridge
I agree and, as far as I am aware, it has less of a place now than it did years ago.

Some of you don't get it because anything less than an Oxbridge education is valueless to you.
It's intellectual snobbery of the worst kind.

Of course I know Oxford and Cambridge (or any university course) isn't for everybody, including the children of some middle-class families, who wouldn't consider any other option, and pay out thousands of pounds to ensure their offspring get the best chance.

The point I was making is that Birbalsingh had no need to mention "poorer" children. She seems to be acknowledging that they have poorer education and their aspirations are low. As a former teacher, I tried to ensure that family background never held any child back from looking at all opportunities. Of course, Oxford and Cambridge are only for a tiny minority, but I've come across parents who think it's their children's right. It should be everybody's right.

Nobody would ever speak to a group of pupils in an independent school and tell them that it's perfectly OK if they don't do PPE at Oxford because being a plumber is a great job.

PS. I know that not everybody has a high level of intelligence, which is why I wrote "if they are highly intelligent and motivated".

it has less of a place now than it did years ago

Certainly less of a place, but it's still there.

By perpetuating the social mores that achieving a place at Oxford or Cambridge is the pinnacle of achievement, as some are doing on this thread, is devaluing the achievements of the majority of society.

Callistemon21

By perpetuating the social mores that achieving a place at Oxford or Cambridge is the pinnacle of achievement, as some are doing on this thread, is devaluing the achievements of the majority of society.

Exactly but those who are applauding are to blind to see or acknowledge it.

*to should be too

Callistemon I ma in complete agreement with you.

I would also comment regardless of what schools may say. I always said that I would rather DS was a really good plumber than a really bad Chartered Accountant. Thankfully, becasuse like me he is dyspraxic and has poor hand control, he never showed any interest in plumbing because he would have been a very bad plumber, but to give some credit to private schools. His private school considered him to be good Oxbridge material, but never did anything to suggest or pressure him to apply because he was from such a young age so focussed on what he wanted to do and knew exactly which course he wanted to do at what university and why, that they felt he knew so much more about it than they did. they were happy for him to go his own way.

My late brother was a fish out of water at Trinity College Oxford in the 1950s He studied French and Spanish there. He never felt he belonged, being a young lad from Cardiff with no titles in his family. He suffered the whole time he was there.
Then he did his national service in the Navy and learned Russian. From there he sailed to New York and worked as an interpreter at the UN for the rest of his working life. He never forgot the class war at Oxford though.

M0nica DS's friend tried to persuade him to go into plumbing.
He didn't and did go to university after a couple of years working and has a very good, well-paid job.
However his friend the plumber has his own company employing several people.

I think the question is:
By what do we measure success?

Callistemon21

By perpetuating the social mores that achieving a place at Oxford or Cambridge is the pinnacle of achievement, as some are doing on this thread, is devaluing the achievements of the majority of society.

I'm not doing that at all!

However, there is no denying that Oxford and Cambridge open doors. They give the students who go there an advantage they will never lose. It's not just about earning money for a comfortable lifestyle, but power. Those who make the important decisions about how the country is run disproportionately have been to Oxford or Cambridge. The country has a very narrow base of decision makers.

You are right that I've had many years of experience as a secondary school teacher and, of course, I have applauded successes. However, I have come across young people who have been discouraged from higher education (never mind Oxford or Cambridge) by parental (or grandparental) pressure. They were as bright as anybody, but they just weren't allowed choices. It's that kind of attitude which Birbalsingh is encouraging.

Birbalsingh is the daughter of university academics and went to Oxford. Why shouldn't she encourage her able pupils to go to Oxford too? I'm afraid I find her attitude (and not just on this issue) deeply patronising. Not only that, but she's paid out of the public purse to work for six days a month as the country's social mobility tsar. If she doesn't believe in social mobility, maybe she should consider what she's actually paid to do.

I'm not doing that at all!
No, I don't think you are, growstuff.

But it does seem to be the point of the thread.

Birbalsingh is the daughter of university academics and went to Oxford. Why shouldn't she encourage her able pupils to go to Oxford too?

I understood that she does.
However, what I understand from what she says is that those who would never be able to achieve a place at Oxbridge should also be praised and encouraged for their achievements.

albertina

My late brother was a fish out of water at Trinity College Oxford in the 1950s He studied French and Spanish there. He never felt he belonged, being a young lad from Cardiff with no titles in his family. He suffered the whole time he was there.
Then he did his national service in the Navy and learned Russian. From there he sailed to New York and worked as an interpreter at the UN for the rest of his working life. He never forgot the class war at Oxford though.

My partner went to Oxford (and Cambridge) in the 1970s. He was also acutely aware that some other students made fun of his accent and had contacts with the high and mighty, etc. However, he gave them as good as he got and ended up with a first.

He's never forgotten his first term, but there is no doubt at all that Oxford gave him advantages which have been of benefit to him throughout life, which he would never have had if hadn't gone there. There is nobody in his immediate family who went to university. It changed the course of his life and he doesn't regret going there. As a university lecturer himself, he's always keen to encourage those who don't come from a "traditional" university background.

Why should any of that be denied other young people, many of whom don't even know what the advantages are until they go?

Callistemon21

^Birbalsingh is the daughter of university academics and went to Oxford. Why shouldn't she encourage her able pupils to go to Oxford too?^

I understood that she does.
However, what I understand from what she says is that those who would never be able to achieve a place at Oxbridge should also be praised and encouraged for their achievements.

That's not quite what she said.

Callistemon21

^I'm not doing that at all!^
No, I don't think you are, growstuff.

But it does seem to be the point of the thread.

Thank you. My point is that she's giving out the wrong message. I've sat through many talks by Cambridge Uni outreach ambassadors and, quite honestly, I'd be spitting at what she said. Their message is always that Cambridge is the right place if you're passionate about your subject, prepared to work hard and are capable of achieving high exam marks.

I think success is a mental thing, Having a career you enjoy and a feeling that you are living up to your capacity and earning enough to not to need to have to constantly worry about money. For some people money is the be all and end all of life, those sort of people will always be with us, and generally speaking, however much you earn there will always be someone earning more.

It is easy to quote the plumber who make it big and runs a big company and makes lots of money, but they usually do it by employing many more plumbers, who do not end up running their own plumbing company and making it big. but remain ordinary jobbing plumbers all their lives.

DS chose a career which he always knew was not one where he would be making a fortune. He said, that he would never earn as much as his father, which he hasn't, but the satisfaction he has got from his work is immense. It is a career that he was focussed on from a very young age. He lives in a standard prewar semi in a pleasant street in a northern city and if asked how he feels about his life would say he was very happy with it. He has achieved his goals in life - a successful career in a profession he loves and a good family life and enough money to live on, with only occasional money worries. Isn't that what most people want?

I think success is a mental thing

I was just thinking about how to phrase that.

Having confidence and belief in yourself is as important as academic achievement, although, of course, that is essential to gain a university place in the first place.

Some people want more than a satisfying career, a good income.
Some want power and however much social mobility is enabled, in our society there will always be those who think that is their right.

We should not overlook the value of having a good education whether it leads to “success” in a career or not. The aim of education should be to enrich lives rather than lead to “good” jobs. It can do both, of course, if you’re lucky..

But should education merely enrich the life of the recipient if he or she doesn’t repay the cost to the taxpayer?

Germanshepherdsmum

But should education merely enrich the life of the recipient if he or she doesn’t repay the cost to the taxpayer?

The recipient is a taxpayer, I don’t understand what you mean?

Grandma70s

We should not overlook the value of having a good education whether it leads to “success” in a career or not. The aim of education should be to enrich lives rather than lead to “good” jobs. It can do both, of course, if you’re lucky..

Only people who have a cushion of wealth think that way imo.

Not necessarily Casdon. The recipient of this enrichment (the student) may never work, or only take very low paid jobs.

Callistemon You and I seem to be thinking alike on this subject

Casdon If someone goes to university purely to enrich their lives, why should the government pay for it, even as a loan?

Governments invest in education for the economic benefits the country gets from it, not for the personal enrichment of the individual. That is why education to the age of 18 is not just free but a requirement by the government who pays for it. Beyond 18 they are more selective and only fund education for those reaching a certain minimum level of attainment and invest most money on those subjects that are deemed most useful to the economy.