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

25Avalon

Whitewavemark2

No social mobility is not in sociological terms based entirely on your employment, unless if course you are a Marxist?.

A sociologists uses a number of indicators - depending on his underlying philosophical belief system.

The one being discussed is just one of many.

A proper sociologist should use all indicators and variants and be as scientific as possible which means any underlying philosophical beliefs he is she has should not enter in to it.

A sociologist will of course use the agreed indicators to come to a conclusion - in this case education and employment, but her underlying beliefs regarding the persons position in society will remain the same.

I have a particular belief in many things but it did not stop me from carrying out my job.

I guess if you left school at 16 with no qualifications and married a hedge fund manager you would have achieved social mobility.

Whitewavemark2

No social mobility is not in sociological terms based entirely on your employment, unless if course you are a Marxist?.

A sociologists uses a number of indicators - depending on his underlying philosophical belief system.

The one being discussed is just one of many.

A proper sociologist should use all indicators and variants and be as scientific as possible which means any underlying philosophical beliefs he is she has should not enter in to it.

growstuff

volver

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.

But she's right!

What I object to is her claim that young people at the bottom of the social ladder shouldn't aspire to the top, if that's what they have the ability to do.

I agree growstuff one person is able to reach the stars, another the top of a tree, both are relevant and upwardly mobile if their parents are at the bottom of the tree trunk.

(Sorry for the crass analogy but I am trying to get other things done)

That was to maizieand volver

No social mobility is not in sociological terms based entirely on your employment, unless if course you are a Marxist?.

A sociologists uses a number of indicators - depending on his underlying philosophical belief system.

The one being discussed is just one of many.

volver

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.

But she's right!

What I object to is her claim that young people at the bottom of the social ladder shouldn't aspire to the top, if that's what they have the ability to do.

I disagree with you Maizie and so do most researchers.

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.

Spot on Maizie.

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.

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

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.

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.

volver

Is that you Katherine?

?

Is that you Katherine?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

^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...

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.