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

volver

^Well if that is not the case, you have not explained yourself as eloquently as you think.^

You might like to read the posts where I have repeatedly said this is nothing to do with Oxbridge. But you probably won't.

I have read all of your posts.

I also get that getting a degree is more about the individual learning experience as opposed to an end career, apart from the obvious Career degrees.

volver

Although we seem to be getting closer together in our views DaisyAnne, if the doctors I know thought they were being put in the bracket of having "Degree Level Apprenticeships" they definitely kick off

Of course, they would. The level of academic snobbery holds us back in so many ways. I have voiced my opinion on this. However, I can see that you need to feel that way to feel good about yourself. I would not want to undermine that, so I am now, for the time being at least, leaving the argument.

volver

^You cannot have it both ways volver either social mobility is moving away from your roots and up the perceived class ladder by way of your career or it isn’t.^

Just read the definition. Just read it. Class now is it? How telling.

From the poster who doesn’t get a degree in Golf, Knitting or surfing.

I can see that you need to feel that way to feel good about yourself.

That's quite comical, really. Insults now is it? Toodle pip.

From the poster who doesn’t get a degree in Golf, Knitting or surfing.

I certainly couldn't get a degree in golf of surfing.

I'm sure I could get one in knitting.

golf of surfing?

Now there's an idea...

Social mobility is just the measurement between a persons education and employment and their parents education and employment.

I suspect that many contributors to GN reached a higher level of educational attainment than their parents.

With regard to employment, it is nothing to do with the level of income, but generally employment with relatively higher status than others. They tend to be better paid, but not always.

Income levels only affect a persons status in as much as it affects their buying power. Of course the vastly wealthy can also buy political power. But having wealth does not necessarily give higher status.

Pantglas2

“No. Just the sense of superiority some people who have bought a home with borrowed money feel over those who rent.” CaravanSerai.

You misinterpret my feelings of being blessed with good fortune as a smugness I don’t have. Do you also do that with those who judge lesser degrees/achievements?

I would love to have been clever enough to have gone to uni in the same way that I’d loved to have qualified for the Olympics, whatever. I simply wasn’t good enough!

The hard work involved in buying your own home when you didn’t have that example growing up is the same for those who get to university or the top of any other tree, IMO.

Social mobility has very little to do with whether or not you rent the property you live in. After all, our PM is living in a 'tied cottage'; something normally associated with impoverished farm or estate workers... . Living in rented accommodation is very common in other countries; for all sections of the social hierarchy; we just obsess about it somewhat.

Social mobility is about changing one's status in the social hierarchy (the social hierarchy is also something we Brits obsess about too much). Going from farm labourer to lawyer, or machine operator to factory owner...

A degree from Oxbridge doesn't inherently make someone socially mobile. It's the opportunities it offers that are important. If you come from a working class family and are shelf stacking in Aldi with an Oxbridge degree under your belt you haven't been socially mobile at all.

Definition of social mobility
Social mobility is the link between a person’s occupation or income and the occupation or income of their parents. Where there is a strong link, there is a lower level of social mobility. Where there is a weak link, there is a higher level of social mobility.

From CaravanSerai's link.

Its got nothing to do with education.

volver

^Definition of social mobility^
Social mobility is the link between a person’s occupation or income and the occupation or income of their parents. Where there is a strong link, there is a lower level of social mobility. Where there is a weak link, there is a higher level of social mobility.

From CaravanSerai's link.

Its got nothing to do with education.

I hate to say it, volver, but you're the one who opened this topic with a post about access to HE. Of course everyone is going to pick up on the Oxbridge 'thing' rather than actual social mobility...

Aren't all these people who are so interested in education capable of reading the first post and its links and following an argument?

I could say more but I won't.

volver

Aren't all these people who are so interested in education capable of reading the first post and its links and following an argument?

I could say more but I won't.

I have just skimmed the whole thread, volver your posts mostly relate to University.

I and others have posted that if your parents are unemployed and you get a job with promotions that is a definition of social mobility, which you have constantly dismissed as not understanding the OP

I totally understand social mobility, however I am beginning to think that you do not.

GrannyGravy13

Pantglas2

Woah GSM you’ve prematurely jumped on the wrong horse in this race!

Those friends are my oldest friends obviously and we’ve stayed in touch albeit sometimes at huge geographical distance. I’ve got other friends through work and travel, pretty much all cleverer than me, most with degrees although not Oxbridge!

I think an outdated attitude to degrees is becoming prevalent on here.

I think so too.

When the former polytechnics acquired university status, the nature of degrees changed. The intention was to give vocational (and arguably more practical qualifications) an equal status with "academic" qualifications. The idea was to eliminate academic snobbery, although it still persists. Those in the know realise that some universities are more "prestigious" than others. Unfortunately, some people seem to think that the institution or the degree defines the person, so people think that somebody with an Oxford degree must be intelligent, etc.

I well remember fretting for days when given an essay title about Schopenhauer (Google him) and not having a clue what the title was about. Somehow or other, I managed to write something and achieved a high mark, but I can't say it was of any benefit to me or anybody else for that matter. My friend from school went to a polytechnic to study languages and office skills (with the aim of becoming a bilingual secretary). She learnt more about communicating in foreign languages, which was why I had gone to university, but my degree was more prestigious than her qualification. IMO that's nonsense. I wanted to be able to communicate fluently in other languages, not write essays about an obscure German philosopher.

Didn't have to Google him. Physicists know philosophers too.

How sad (that's a joke. Not a good one though)

GrannyGravy13

volver

Aren't all these people who are so interested in education capable of reading the first post and its links and following an argument?

I could say more but I won't.

I have just skimmed the whole thread, volver your posts mostly relate to University.

I and others have posted that if your parents are unemployed and you get a job with promotions that is a definition of social mobility, which you have constantly dismissed as not understanding the OP

I totally understand social mobility, however I am beginning to think that you do not.

Aye well. We'll have to disagree on nearly all of that.

Its a free country.

If a person is educated to a higher level than her parents then she is deemed to be socially mobile.

That is an objective measurement.

It isn’t just about future employment or wealth it is also about value systems.

If a person gets a job of higher status than their parents regardless of income then that is social mobility.

It is an objective measurement.

Is that you Katherine?

volver

Is that you Katherine?

?

GrannyGravy13

volver

Aren't all these people who are so interested in education capable of reading the first post and its links and following an argument?

I could say more but I won't.

I have just skimmed the whole thread, volver your posts mostly relate to University.

I and others have posted that if your parents are unemployed and you get a job with promotions that is a definition of social mobility, which you have constantly dismissed as not understanding the OP

I totally understand social mobility, however I am beginning to think that you do not.

Again I agree with you and I think that was the point Birbalsingh was trying to make, although it's not what she said. I found the original speech and she makes the mistake of linking social status with ability.

My point all along is that there are some very able young people who should not have their aspirations capped. The sharp-elbowed middle classes know very well that certain universities, especially Oxford and Cambridge, will open doors for them and they steer their offspring towards them. They wouldn't dream of allowing their children to accept a "vocational" course at a less prestigious institution and it should be the same for children from every background.

Related to this is the issue of apprenticeships, most of which are of low quality. Funding for them has been slashed over the last ten years. If Birbalsingh wants to be a standard bearer for them, I'd be all for it, but given her previous comments about girls and science and maths, I doubt that she does. She's being paid to be the country's Social Mobility Commissioner and I think she's woefully out of her depth.

Whitewavemark2

If a person is educated to a higher level than her parents then she is deemed to be socially mobile.

That is an objective measurement.

It isn’t just about future employment or wealth it is also about value systems.

I linked to a report by the Sutton Trust many pages back on this thread. I wonder if anybody has read it. In the first few pages, it defines social mobility and the issues involved with measuring it.

Whitewavemark2

If a person is educated to a higher level than her parents then she is deemed to be socially mobile.

That is an objective measurement.

It isn’t just about future employment or wealth it is also about value systems.

How, Wwmk2?

Getting a degree does nothing at all for your social status, which is what social mobility is all about.

I got a degree 30 years ago as a mature student. It's quite a good one from a not quite Oxbridge university. It's done nothing whatsoever to change my social status.

It's not the degree, it's what you do with it that affects your social mobility... surely?

Whitewavemark2

volver

Is that you Katherine?

?

Katherine Birbalsingh. The person the thread is about. The person who thinks any change in circumstances should be considered social mobility.

Spot on Maizie.

Most researchers consider that education levels are one measure of social mobility. Education in itself is considered to contribute 40% (after family background) to achieving higher social status.