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

Glorianny i did not make my comments to argue that social mobility was good. I was discussing this in the context of why the introduction of meritocracy has slowed down social mobility.

Many respondents to this thread seem to think that the meritocracy consists only of rich people who send their children to private schools, Oxbridge and then subsidise them as unpaid interns. In fact they are only the froth on the top of the coffee. The main members of the meritocracy are people like me, probably you and many others on this thread, because most of those now described as 'middle class' have working class parents, grandparents or great grandparents, who, as I said made progress in the world through their own endeavours, or for more recently through the Butler education reforms of the 1940s. I went to university in the early 1960s. I went to a northern mainly science and engineering based inversity, where the majority of students, studying engineering, were male and working class. I married one of them.

When we married and had children we swelled the number of people in 'middle class' jobs with a middle class jobs and, without even thinking about it, we gave our children enriched upbringings, lots of books, took them to museums and talked to them a lot, giving them good communication skills. We bought houses near good schools. In fact a large estate of mainly owner-occupied houses almost guaranteed that the local school would be good. When our children applied to university, they were generally bright, well qualified and many of them studied science and engineering.

This is today's meritocracy, not deliberate, difficult to deal with, but, with the beginning of charging to go to university and the ending of maintenance fees, entrenching those who were social mobile one and two generations ago securely in the meritocracy and drastically reducing social mobility today.

M0nica the degree of social mobility in the 1880s was very slight. Yes of course there were people who managed to achieve success, but the majority of working people's lives hung on fragile threads. Illness, injury or death could disrupt any progress and plunge a family into poverty.Some were lucky some were not. It's a great mistake to imagine personal effort could overcome all the barriers or that all communities were able to provide for their members. That's why there were workhouses.
As for school leaving age my mother left school at 13 (her 14th birthday was in the August) and my father at 14. They were certainly not middle-class.
The way to "get round" the lack of social mobility is to provide similar provision as that supplied in 1945. Children from poor backgrounds need to be properly nourished, their health care should be pro and not reactive, they should be provided with proper support (like Sure Start), they should have somewhere decent to live and their education should be properly funded. No one is saying all children should be equal, just that they should have equal opportunity and when they are from backgrounds which might restrict access to that opportunity they should receive proper support.

Gloryanny I used those phrases to describe my grandparents. All born in the 1880s, pre the welfare state and free orange juice. The school leaving age was around 12. There was no NHS, no pensions and my great aunt described how families in the same street or going to the same church would group together to support each other when one family had problems. Her mother took into her family, the vulnerable, probably learning challenged, son of a neighbour when his mother died. He lived with her untl he died.

The majority of people now described as middle class come from similar backgrounds.

The problem is that those families who have benfitted from all the things you mention pass on to their children, all the cultural capital they acquired on the way up and those children have a head start on children frommore culturally and economically deprive. it is not that these parents buy their way to the top, their children will be at state schools, are unlikely to have tutors. This is the danger of a meritocracy.

The only way to get round it as far as I can see is to take all children away from their parents at birth and bring them up together in identical children's homes with none benig allowed any opportunity to do anything that isn't available to every other child. but even then those children who are less able will be disadvantaged because they will not be able to keep up with the bright ones, bright ones, and less bright will form friendships with children like themselves and so on ad infinitum.

The fact of the matter is I can see no way to total equality for all children, in this country or any other.

I can remember when you had to pass entrance exams to get into Oxford or Cambridge. At my grammar school, one of the best in the area that even rich parents wanted their children to go to, you had to stay on an extra year in 3rd year Sixth form to have any chance of doing the exam. There were only a few considered bright enough and possibly others who didn’t want to spend a year extra at school or being working class weren’t encouraged by their parents to do so.

The courses were different too. To study history at Cambridge you had to have Latin and their so called modern history finished by the Middle Ages!

Nowadays the degrees are more accessible although you need to still be academically bright. If they offer the course and you’re good enough why shouldn’t you aspire to it? You will soon find out if you need to lower your objectives whatever your class background is.

It's interesting that some attribute their success and social mobility to their own initiative and "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps". I have no doubt that it was the society I grew up in that enabled me to reach where I am now. That. without the support from birth, from the free orange juice, through the excellent schooling with uniform assistance and the further education grant I was given I would have at some point have dropped off the ladder. The lack of support for poorer families now is extraordinary and it has been cut. Any idea that people have the same degree of support once available is completely wrong.

Not forgetting in our generation many poorer children suffered adversity from birth because they were born smaller or prematurely and they were less likely to have been immunised against serious diseases thereby missing lots of school because of illness. Their maths was poorer and they were 3 and a half times behind in their reading. Disadvantaged circumstances have a lot to answer for and aren't we still grappling with similar problems today?

MOnica Your understanding of "meritocracy" isn't the same as mine. People aren't meritocracy - it's the description of a system. In my opinion, it's a flawed concept anyway. People who make it up the ladder make damn sure that their children stay there, so the idea of meritocracy is undermined. In the post-war years it was relatively easy to make it up the social ladder because there was a rapid growth in managerial and professional jobs. The economy is now stagnant, so there's a limit to opportunities. You have shown perfectly what the so-called middle class in your family have done to maintain their position.

JaneJudge

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

Don't be silly, Jj. All the poor need is 'drive and initiative'

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.

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

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.

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

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.

‘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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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

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.

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.