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

growstuff

I would go further than you Casdon and look at the dynamics of power. In any society, some people will have more control than others. Pathways to power/control are blocked for some people, which means that an unrepresentative group makes decisions for everybody, which undermines the concept of democracy. Hence the criticisms of the "metropolitan elite" and people feeling they have no control over their own lives. That's another topic really, but it's a feeling that's been effectively exploited by a group of people who want to seize power for themselves.

It's certainly an interesting topic and worthy of a separate thread.

It's worthy of a few books! Oh hang on! People have written books about the issues, including the links to the idea of meritocracy. I wonder how many of them Birbalsingh has read.

growstuff

If you read the Sutton Trust report, it's acknowledged that there is no simple definition of social mobility.

Yes - I’ve read the Sutton Report. The most relevant thing to this thread is that It concluded (no surprise)

• More selective institutions offer the best chance of becoming a higher earner, even taking into account prior characteristics of their students, as well as having a lower ‘class pay gap’ among their graduates. Access to these institutions has improved in the last two decades, but some selective universities with high rates of mobility demonstrate that more can be done.

We could certainly discuss the dynamics of power at length on another thread!

growstuff

If you read the Sutton Trust report, it's acknowledged that there is no simple definition of social mobility.

I was going to ask (again) what s the definition of social mobility.
What is it?
Why is it important?

What is the main factor in someone becoming socially mobile?
Education? Talent? Entrepreneurship? Even marriage? Sheer hard work? Ambition? Realistic, achievable expectations?
What about people who move down whatever scale it is considered to be?
Is it a matter of choice or chance?

Callistemon21

growstuff

If you read the Sutton Trust report, it's acknowledged that there is no simple definition of social mobility.

I was going to ask (again) what s the definition of social mobility.
What is it?
Why is it important?

What is the main factor in someone becoming socially mobile?
Education? Talent? Entrepreneurship? Even marriage? Sheer hard work? Ambition? Realistic, achievable expectations?
What about people who move down whatever scale it is considered to be?
Is it a matter of choice or chance?

You could start with the Wiki entry and follow the links:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility

You've asked two questions:

1 How is it defined?
2 How is it achieved?

Rather than write reams myself, I'll leave it up to Wiki.

Yes, I know and found a definition earlier before I went out.

I was asking other posters because everyone's definition seems to be different.

Probably because there is no single definition.

I'll have a go at answering why it's important.

It's been shown that there is less social mobility at both ends of the scale.

That means that politicians, leading judges, CEOs of big businesses, the mega-wealthy and other powerful people tend to come from a limited pool. Not only do they control a disproportionate share of wealth, but they control everybody's lives. They are not necessarily more talented or able than other people. The Johnson family is a classic case of that phenomenon. Any society needs the most able to organise it and it doesn't have it, if some people have to fight to be given an equal chance.

Secondly, people at the bottom end find it extremely difficult to move away from the background into which they were born. They perceive the difficulty and give up, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not only is their talent wasted, but they become society's "untouchables". They're in a minority and when the economy is under pressure, they are neglected. They don't have the resources to buy favours and their votes don't matter much. They become fodder for ridicule in the gutter press and are blamed for their own situation.

Such a situation is bad for society, apart from the ethics of abandoning people. Some of the people at the bottom end of the social pile are as intelligent as some at the top, but they're not given the same opportunities, hopes and aspirations.

I don't like Birbalsingh's analysis because, as ever, she tries to claim that others don't give those pupils opportunities, whereas she does. I heard her speak before she became famous and was a French teacher. That message came across then and she hasn't changed.

Probably because there is no single definition
Which is evident on this thread.

It's been shown that there is less social mobility at both ends of the scale.

Has this become worse or better in recent years?
Out of the past ten Prime Ministers, only two went to Eton, one to another public school.
However, seven went to Oxford.

CaravanSerai:

Euan Blair was awarded an MBE in the Queen's Birthday Honours for services to education, for setting up a company which encourages employers to offer apprenticeships for training and development. His company Multiverse matches school leavers with more than 300 employers to provide on-the-job training tailored to the needs of employees as well as personal coaching and extracurricular activities and societies akin to those at university. [Mon 13-Jun-22 10:59:47]

Training is funded by a 0.5% levy placed on all companies with an annual payroll bill of more than £3m. This can be spent on their own training costs or transferred to other organisations.

Interesting. I have a family member who works for a company that does the same where the employers have the same access to the Aprenticeship levy. They are very successful. I don't think the person owning it got an MBE though.

A report on adult education and apprenticeships was published today:

ifs.org.uk/publications/16081

It's concerning that the number of apprenticeships for those who don't achieve well at school has decreased. There is a greater choice (between apprenticeships and degrees) for those who achieve A levels and generally do well at school, but there's still very little available for those who don't achieve good GCSEs, which is about 40-50% of school leavers. Something really needs to be done about this long "tail" of low achievers.

Apprenticeships more focused at advanced and higher levels.

After 2010, the number of adult (19+) apprenticeship starts initially increased to about 350,000–400,000 per year. However, apprenticeship starts have dropped off to about 250,000 per year since the introduction of the Apprenticeship Levy in April 2017. At the same time, there has been a shift in the type of apprenticeships taken by adults. In 2020, fewer than 50,000 adults began the lowest level of apprenticeships (intermediate apprenticeships) compared to 200,000 a decade earlier. The number of higher apprenticeships has rocketed from a few hundred starts in 2010 to almost 100,000 starts in 2020.

That’s the key really, it’s simple. The Establishment, those with close connection to it get honours and privileges. Ordinary folk dont

Callistemon21

^Probably because there is no single definition^
Which is evident on this thread.

It's been shown that there is less social mobility at both ends of the scale.

Has this become worse or better in recent years?
Out of the past ten Prime Ministers, only two went to Eton, one to another public school.
However, seven went to Oxford.

Sorry, am about to do something, so I haven't got time to find a reference, but my understanding is that it's static after greater mobility in the post war years. Most of that was caused by the increase in the number of managerial and professional jobs in the economy, but the economy is now stagnant (and even shrinking). Not surprisingly, those at the top are fighting hard to preserve their position, which is why they send their children to private schools, employ tutors and vote for politicians who reduce their taxes.

growstuff Birbalsingh mentioned this is her 9 June speech:

Despite the popular narrative, it’s not true that social mobility is getting worse on all counts. In reality the picture is complex. On some measures it is doing better than others, and on some – such as occupational mobility – it has been fairly stable for decades.

There have been big changes in the economy, as the service industry has grown. In the latter part of the twentieth century, the occupational structure shifted considerably – creating more white-collar than blue-collar jobs. So more people were able to move “up” the occupational hierarchy compared to their parents.

But more recently, while we are still generating professional and managerial jobs, the rate has slowed. There are fewer people born into families who have routine and manual occupations, and more born into families with professional and managerial jobs. There is competition from those wishing to “move up” at the same time as more people being “at risk” of moving down. This is often referred to as the problem of “less room at the top”, which makes it look like social mobility is worsening when it might not be.

DaisyAnne I suppose Euan Blair's award and achievements are remarkable for a number of reasons not least because he's effectively disagreeing with his father's education policy. You maybe saw the article in the newpaper but worth repeating some of it here as it goes to the discussion about education and opportunity:

Blair’s father was elected prime minister in 1997 after promising that his three priorities would be “education, education, education”, and later set a target of getting 50% of school leavers into university. The target was not hit until 2019.

But Blair Jr argues that the nation’s “obsession with the academic as a marker of potential and talent” is holding back people from minority groups and failing to serve the needs of employers in a digital age.

“When you look at the 50% target, the belief was, the more people go to university, the more people can access great opportunities, the more we would transition people fairly from full-time education to full-time employment,” he told the Telegraph. “It has not worked out that way. Lots of students end up in jobs deemed to be low-skilled that would not need a degree in the first place. Getting a degree does not guarantee you a job.”

Blair, who studied ancient history at the University of Bristol before going on to Yale, has said he “didn’t love studying”, but when he was growing up, going to university was seen as the only route to a top job. He says he hit upon the idea of setting up his training provider, Multiverse, after his first job at the investment bank Morgan Stanley.

“I often say to people: ‘I started my career in investment banking structuring corporate debt and derivatives, armed with a degree in ancient history and a master’s in international relations that did not teach me how to do the job,” he told London Rising, a conference discussing ideas about how to help the capital bounce back from the pandemic, last year. “I effectively did an apprenticeship as I learned everything I knew about that job on the job.”

But if we truly had meritocracy, those places "at the top" would be available for all. The truth is they're not. Those at the top are hanging on to their position by ensuring their offspring get the best education (private schools and tutoring) and by backdoor recruitment policies such as unpaid internships. That's why those who are capable of going to the most prestigious universities shouldn't settle for second best, especially as the reason they do is often lack of confidence and not knowing the right people.

Thank you CaravanSerai [Mon 13-Jun-22 20:19:59]. I did read the article. However, it's always worth keeping the picture clear and re-reading.

I don't feel Euan Blair would have got his MBE because he disagreed with his father's views. I would like it to be because they worked out who was doing most for Apprenticeships.

Where Blair's education policy is concerned, I don't believe he was doing the wrong thing at the time. It would be interesting to know what he thinks should have been done over the years he has been out of office.

I cannot think of a more cumbersome way of structuring Apprenticeships than our system. It may be that Euan Blair champions the dual path of further education we see in Germany or another differently better-structured system. We do not seem to have been told much other than the PR we can read about his company.

www.business-live.co.uk/partners/renishaw-hiring-record-number-apprentices-23990626

Renishaw has excellent apprenticeship schemes.
Perhaps other firms and the Government need to follow their lead.

growstuff the majority of the middle class are people who have made the transfer from working to middle in the last two or three generations.

My grandparents both pulled themselves up by their own boot straps from poor irish immigrants to confortable middle class. Like the many families where this has happened, their their children and most of their grandchildren have been state educated, gone to non-oxbridge universities got good jobs etc. Not for the reasons you give, no inside jobs, no unpaid internships, no coaching or private schools.

The simple tructh is that these generations live in areas of more expensive housing, go to better state schools and come from homes that can offer them opportunities that poorer families cannot offer: holidays, trips to the zoo or other educational entertainment. Their parents are more likely to be well read, to take part in community organisations.

The proportion of children in any age group that are at private schools that have all these benefits that you stated, are actually not many.

Most of the meritocracy attained their position through their effective use of state schools, red brick universities and the social and cultural opportunities their parents made use of. They in turn do it with their children.

My grandchildren have parents who are both academics. They live in 3 bedroomed semi and the children go to local state schools, but they live in the catchment area of the best state secondary school in their city. The children do not go on expensive holidays, but most weekends they will be out somewhere in the countryside walking, looking at historic buildings, bird watching, visiting nature reserves. They take part in school extramural activites and both parents have hobbies that widen the children's horizons.

These are the families that make up the meritocracy. They do not plan to advance their children, but the children grow up with a family and educational background that enhances their life chances

We are the meritcracy.

‘We are the meritocracy’ rings true for my extended family and friendship group. Most of us had grandparents working in mills, mines, manufacturing. Despite leaving school at 12 or 13, copper plate hand writing and good spelling. Their children mostly left school at 14 but went to night school to improve their education. They read newspapers, the classic novels and encouraged their children to do the same. They saw education as means of improving the quality of life, as well as employment opportunities. No one was university educated till the 1960’s and 70’s but since then, it’s either been university or good in employment training.

I meant to add how the divide between those of us who shared similar family influences and those deprived of stability, security and encouragement to achieve has grown during my life time. This is a tragedy.

To the haves it will be given, from the have-nots it will be taken away.

and come from homes that can offer them opportunities that poorer families cannot offer

So a significant contribution to improving social mobility could be made by lifting families out of poverty?

The 'pulling themselves up by their bootstraps' narrative is all very well, but we know there are many people who work very hard for minimal monetary reward, so are not in a position to offer the opportunities MOnica describes. Do we, as a society, write them off as lacking sufficient drive and initiative or do we try to ensure that they are paid at above mere subsistence level?

To be pedantic, 'pulling themselves up by their bootstraps' is what the generation that move from poverty to relative affluence do. They do not have the same opportunities as others but manage find 'sufficient drive and initative' to get themselves on the move upwards despite that lack.

My main poibtseveral post up is that we need to remember that if you can afford the equipment to be on GN and are on this thread, then you are part of the meritocracy. Too many people, like always to think that the meritocracy is someone else when actually it is us.

It isn't just about working hard. Low paid work and poverty can create other problems, health problems for parents, disruptive working patterns, stress and family break ups. Everything is so much harder if you don't have much in the first place. Then there are groups of people who take on low paid flexible work because their home life is difficult, for whatever reason. Then add in insecure, expensive housing. This is saccharine 2 point 4 children in a happy stable home with a vegetable patch and hard working but poor parents is a pipe dream for today's young working poor. I realise this is somewhat off the original topic but being poor is complex and it is nothing to do with not working hard enough

M0nica

To be pedantic, 'pulling themselves up by their bootstraps' is what the generation that move from poverty to relative affluence do. They do not have the same opportunities as others but manage find 'sufficient drive and initative' to get themselves on the move upwards despite that lack.

My main poibtseveral post up is that we need to remember that if you can afford the equipment to be on GN and are on this thread, then you are part of the meritocracy. Too many people, like always to think that the meritocracy is someone else when actually it is us.

In other words, you're saying that those who remain in poverty and unable to afford to give their children 'opportunities' deserve to be where they are?

(I actually predicted that that would be your reaction)

Nothing like pulling up the ladder to make sure no-one else gets on it.