The working classes just aren't very bright so have no chance of bettering themselves

P.S. IQ testing is widely acknowledged to be a deeply flawed measure of 'intelligence'.

I'm sure that others will elaborate.

Private education much extolled by the Tories has very little to do with education and everything to do with networking.

In today’s Britain, talent and hard work easily trump social class background. We should be telling our children this........... Maybe then, even more of them will go on to fulfil their potential in the future.

I'd say the conclusion is exactly the opposite of what you claim it is. Working class children have a good chance of bettering themselves through hard work.

GrannyRose15

^In today’s Britain, talent and hard work easily trump social class background. We should be telling our children this........... Maybe then, even more of them will go on to fulfil their potential in the future.^

I'd say the conclusion is exactly the opposite of what you claim it is. Working class children have a good chance of bettering themselves through hard work.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion GrannyRose. I'd be interested in why you think that.

There is a resurgence in the kind of thinking Peter Saunders is writing about. While there is undoubtedly a genetic element in intelligence, the conclusions being drawn here are flawed. Heritablity is much more complicated and interacts with other factors.

Education gets the children of the poor out of poverty. But our culture tells working class children school is boring. And then underfunded schools compound that issue.

Almost as if the ruling classes want to keep the workers down.

Education can give the children of the poor opportunities, but it depends whether they are then able to capitalise on the opportunities. In any case, that's not what Saunders is suggesting. He's claiming that people are poor because they're not very intelligent and can only do menial jobs.

PS. Saunders is a sociologist who doesn't appear to understand genetics, hasn't been a professor for decades and makes his money as a libertarian writer.

Well, that is obviously crap, isn't it? Tory, eugenic, wishful thinking. Wanting the UC to be superior gentically, to excuse their corrupt accumulation of wealth.

I'd say the conclusion is exactly the opposite of what you claim it is. Working class children have a good chance of bettering themselves through hard work.

But I'm not claiming anything, GrannyRose. I've just posted what the Conservative Home article says. I thought people might be interested and discuss it.

It's a worry if that is how tories are thinking. A worry for the working class people who vote for them, anyway. Articles like this have some influence.

To Johnson and his ilk, the workers of the country are little more than factory fodder. That some of us aren't actually in factories is irrelevant. We are 'the workers'. We are here to make their profit. Not to be their equals. Very comforting to be able to explain it away as genetics. Excuses everything.

Actually, GrannyRose, I've misinterpreted you and didn't quite take in the conclusion he comes to.

It's actually nonsense and completely contradicts the rest of his article. He can't claim that working class children are not as bright as middle and upper class children and are not capable of achieving, and then turn round and say that talent and hard work will help people to better themselves.

My only explanation is that he's referring to UC and MC children only in his conclusion. Because he's spent several hundred words telling us that WC children just aren't bright enough to achieve anything..

growstuff

GrannyRose15

In today’s Britain, talent and hard work easily trump social class background. We should be telling our children this........... Maybe then, even more of them will go on to fulfil their potential in the future.

I'd say the conclusion is exactly the opposite of what you claim it is. Working class children have a good chance of bettering themselves through hard work.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion GrannyRose. I'd be interested in why you think that.

I'm quoting the actual conclusion of the article. He doesn't say there is no hope for working classs children. He says we should be letting them know that if they work hard they can overcome their background.

OMG! I've just read the article. It's superficial and flawed. Quite honestly, it's the kind of thing a professional writer (which is what Saunders is) would write for a fee. There is a lack of understanding and failure to explore various issues. People have been writing books about these issues for years and he's only just scratched the surface. The article will be read by people who want to believe it and have their views confirmed - which is what the majority of the population do. In the short time Saunders was a professor at Sussex, I hope he wouldn't have approved any of his students writing something like that.

MaizieD

^I'd say the conclusion is exactly the opposite of what you claim it is. Working class children have a good chance of bettering themselves through hard work.^

But I'm not claiming anything, GrannyRose. I've just posted what the Conservative Home article says. I thought people might be interested and discuss it.

It's a worry if that is how tories are thinking. A worry for the working class people who vote for them, anyway. Articles like this have some influence.

I have read the article and I don't agree with the title of this post.

GrannyRose15

growstuff

GrannyRose15

In today’s Britain, talent and hard work easily trump social class background. We should be telling our children this........... Maybe then, even more of them will go on to fulfil their potential in the future.

I'd say the conclusion is exactly the opposite of what you claim it is. Working class children have a good chance of bettering themselves through hard work.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion GrannyRose. I'd be interested in why you think that.

I'm quoting the actual conclusion of the article. He doesn't say there is no hope for working classs children. He says we should be letting them know that if they work hard they can overcome their background.

No, he's not. He's claiming that they're inherently thick.

Just read Peter Saunders comments following the article and they're much more interesting and informative than the article itself.

I have followed your lead and read the comments too. I agree that they are interesting. It is a fascinating debate that has been going on for decades. Unfortunately, it is one that can be easily scuppered by comments such as the title of this post. Political bias stops people really thinking about the issue objectively and tends to vilify those that do the research, especially if their conclusions are not in line what is currently "acceptable".

If only we could get away from some of the more extreme reactions to the ideas expressed in this article we might be better able to build an education system that allowed ALL children to reach their potential.

Good post GrannyRose. (Bet that comment surprised you )

Which bit is good, growstuff?

I would have been incensed by it if it had come from a Labour source, too.

His argument and his conclusion are completely contradictory.

He's Malthusian. Malthus proposed that the population had reached its optimum level and should not be enabled to grow further. Saunders claims that mobility has peaked and cannot continue because, he seems to say, the WC has no member bright enough to achieve. The stock has been exhausted.

This is such a useful conclusion for the government and other tories. Why waste money on improving the education children who are not bright enough to benefit?

I was referring to GrannyRose's post.

MaizieD

Which bit is good, growstuff?

I would have been incensed by it if it had come from a Labour source, too.

His argument and his conclusion are completely contradictory.

He's Malthusian. Malthus proposed that the population had reached its optimum level and should not be enabled to grow further. Saunders claims that mobility has peaked and cannot continue because, he seems to say, the WC has no member bright enough to achieve. The stock has been exhausted.

This is such a useful conclusion for the government and other tories. Why waste money on improving the education children who are not bright enough to benefit?

Errr ... no ... that's not what Saunders is claiming. That's your interpretation.

Research has shown that the greater the wealth inequality in any given society the less social mobility in the lower income groups, takes place.

So mobility and achievement appears to be linked to wealth inequality rather than a social groups joint IQ.

Countries with the lowest level of inequality like Denmark, Finland, Norway etc all score well on social mobility. Those countries with a high level of inequality score much less well.

Research also shows that this link between wealth inequality and social mobility affects an individual for the whole of her life.

So education then is often seen as a driver to aid greater mobility in the lower income groups, but again research shows that those in societies with greater wealth inequality score less well in all subjects across the educational board.

Tbh this is a vast subject and has been studied by sociologists for decades.

Factors in the U.K. such as health outcomes, social values, ability to buy education, ability to network, geographical location are amongst the many factors that impinge on social mobility, but it seems one of the biggest drivers of low levels of mobility in any given society is undoubtedly wealth inequality.

The U.K. has a very much higher level of inequality compared to other developed countries.
The majority of households have a disposable level of income below the mean average.
The median average has actually been rising but this is almost entirely accounted for by the wealthy household rise in income. So the higher earners has seen a rise in income by almost 5% in the past 5 years, whilst the poorest households income has been cut by almost 2% in the past 5 years. These figures are before Covid, and it is considered that these disparities will have widened as a result of the pandemic.

It is telling that the government has recently produced a report on social mobility in the U.K. in 2021.

This shows amongst other things that the vast majority over 75% of the public see the lack of social mobility as a major issue, with over half -52% considering that this showed be directly addressed by the central government.

However it seems that the report alluded to in the OP has batted the ball straight back into the poorer income court telling them that they poor souls can do nothing about their wretched lives as they were born to be poor and do not have the ability to achieve anything better.

Brave New World indeed.

*Tbh this is a vast subject and has been studied by sociologists for decades.

However it seems that the report alluded to in the OP has batted the ball straight back into the poorer income court telling them that they poor souls can do nothing about their wretched lives as they were born to be poor and do not have the ability to achieve anything better.*

That's the point I was trying to make in my posts. This is a huge and complicated area, so to cherry pick one small aspect and to dumb the whole argument down, as the article did, is meaningless, except that people will read it and accept the simplified argument as truth. It's a gift for people who believe in eugenics and blaming the poor for their own poverty.

Keepingquiet The advantages of any old oys network is limited to a handful of the top schools, Eton, Harrow, Marlborough. For the majority of privately educated children attending local private day schools, there are no networking advantages whatsoever.

Both my children went to local private secondary schools, it was the early 1980s, state schools were struggling, I do not think either of their schools had or has any kind of network that could benefit them or any of their fellow pupils. Certainly none that operates at the high level people normally associate with the Old Boys/Girls network.