ChatterBank0 min ago
Did Labour Pull Up The Ladder On The Poor When They.....
78 Answers
abolished grammar schools? I thought NF made very valid point last night when he discribed how Labour took away the chances for poor kids out of some silly idiology.
Answers
“More people from poor families went to University and got a Degree since State Granmar Schools were
12:38 Fri 03rd Apr 2015
Svejk
You miss understood my post.
I was not saying Comprehensives are better than Grammar schools, or using University Degrees to prove that.
The question is about Social Mobility. The ability of poor people to better themselves through education. My point was that poor pupils are better able to achieve Social Mobility now because it is easier for them to study for a Degree.
You miss understood my post.
I was not saying Comprehensives are better than Grammar schools, or using University Degrees to prove that.
The question is about Social Mobility. The ability of poor people to better themselves through education. My point was that poor pupils are better able to achieve Social Mobility now because it is easier for them to study for a Degree.
Gromit has it right here.
Comprehensive Schools gave opportunities to everybody, not just the ones that passed the 11 plus, and whose parents could afford the uniform. The Tories had 18 years, and a further 5 years to abolish Comps. but failed to see any reason for so doing. Comps are here to stay and people should stop harking back to some mythical Golden Age of the 1950's and 1960's.
Farage is really just an unreconstructed Tory and he proved that last night, by digging up this tired and dog-eared argument about Grammar Schools. Few people will be taken in by him.
Comprehensive Schools gave opportunities to everybody, not just the ones that passed the 11 plus, and whose parents could afford the uniform. The Tories had 18 years, and a further 5 years to abolish Comps. but failed to see any reason for so doing. Comps are here to stay and people should stop harking back to some mythical Golden Age of the 1950's and 1960's.
Farage is really just an unreconstructed Tory and he proved that last night, by digging up this tired and dog-eared argument about Grammar Schools. Few people will be taken in by him.
This goes back to the early 70s when a northern university introduced a degree in 'Peace Studies'. It was roundly mocked at the time, but since polytechnics were granted university status such subjects have mushroomed.
Where is the intellectual rigour in 'Travel and Tourism' compared with that required for History, Latin, Mathematics and other traditional subjects? In the 60s people were proud to put the letters B.A. or B.Sc. after their names but no longer. I am a B.A. and LL.B. but feel my qualifications have been massively downgraded in this present day and age.
Where is the intellectual rigour in 'Travel and Tourism' compared with that required for History, Latin, Mathematics and other traditional subjects? In the 60s people were proud to put the letters B.A. or B.Sc. after their names but no longer. I am a B.A. and LL.B. but feel my qualifications have been massively downgraded in this present day and age.
“My point was that poor pupils are better able to achieve Social Mobility now because it is easier for them to study for a Degree.”
There is no social mobility in accruing a £30k debt and ending up doing a minimum wage job, Gromit. The fact is that gaining a degree does not (as it once might have) guarantee a route to a lucrative career. Many young people leave university with no more hope of entering the recognised professions than if they had received a decent secondary education and went into the workplace. It may well be easier for them to study for a degree (and that in itself is not necessarily good because I believe many people are entering university without being equipped to cope with a rigorous academic course). But it is no easier for them to be socially mobile. Quite the reverse in fact because there is no doubt that the UK is being slowly but surely “deskilled” with the majority of new jobs created requiring little if any skill.
This Guardian article (an organ not renowned for its right wing views) demonstrates some of the problems:
http://
Among the “highlights”:
“The proportion of recent graduates working in jobs for which a higher educational background is not usually required was 47% this year, up sharply from 39% before the financial crisis struck.”
“Labour market experts said the high number of recent graduates – defined as those who left full-time education in the last five years – who were not in graduate jobs was a worrying sign for the economy.”
“The fact that the unemployment rate for recent graduates (9%) is much lower than that for non-graduates is due simply to the fact that almost half of those who have recently gained higher education qualifications are entering jobs for which they are over qualified, which makes it even harder for the less qualified to find work."
I know that the article is a year or so old, but I don’t think the situation has changed significantly. There is little doubt in my mind that misleading youngsters into believing that the world will be their oyster when they gain a degree is not only unfair to them but is also not the best use of the nation’s resources. There needs to be a third way which involves a decent secondary education tailored to accommodate the more academically gifted. It’s an unfortunate fact that not all children can absorb a demanding education between eleven and eighteen (in the same way as they cannot all run as fast as each other).
The Golden Age (of education) was no myth, Mikey. Nobody who I was at primary school with left unable to read and write. Some of my friends went to “Secondary Modern” schools where they received an excellent education, tailored to their needs and abilities. Far from failing, many of them went on to carve out lucrative careers for themselves. Those of us that went to grammar schools (about 30% from my year) were similarly well educated. None of us felt superior to the others; none of us felt we had failed; all of us managed to make our way in the world. The reason many youngsters now feel they have to go to further education is that their eleven (soon to be thirteen) years in State education leave them so ill-equipped to compete in the modern world that they simply have to secure more education to make them employable in anything but menial jobs. And it’s doing them no favours.
There is no social mobility in accruing a £30k debt and ending up doing a minimum wage job, Gromit. The fact is that gaining a degree does not (as it once might have) guarantee a route to a lucrative career. Many young people leave university with no more hope of entering the recognised professions than if they had received a decent secondary education and went into the workplace. It may well be easier for them to study for a degree (and that in itself is not necessarily good because I believe many people are entering university without being equipped to cope with a rigorous academic course). But it is no easier for them to be socially mobile. Quite the reverse in fact because there is no doubt that the UK is being slowly but surely “deskilled” with the majority of new jobs created requiring little if any skill.
This Guardian article (an organ not renowned for its right wing views) demonstrates some of the problems:
http://
Among the “highlights”:
“The proportion of recent graduates working in jobs for which a higher educational background is not usually required was 47% this year, up sharply from 39% before the financial crisis struck.”
“Labour market experts said the high number of recent graduates – defined as those who left full-time education in the last five years – who were not in graduate jobs was a worrying sign for the economy.”
“The fact that the unemployment rate for recent graduates (9%) is much lower than that for non-graduates is due simply to the fact that almost half of those who have recently gained higher education qualifications are entering jobs for which they are over qualified, which makes it even harder for the less qualified to find work."
I know that the article is a year or so old, but I don’t think the situation has changed significantly. There is little doubt in my mind that misleading youngsters into believing that the world will be their oyster when they gain a degree is not only unfair to them but is also not the best use of the nation’s resources. There needs to be a third way which involves a decent secondary education tailored to accommodate the more academically gifted. It’s an unfortunate fact that not all children can absorb a demanding education between eleven and eighteen (in the same way as they cannot all run as fast as each other).
The Golden Age (of education) was no myth, Mikey. Nobody who I was at primary school with left unable to read and write. Some of my friends went to “Secondary Modern” schools where they received an excellent education, tailored to their needs and abilities. Far from failing, many of them went on to carve out lucrative careers for themselves. Those of us that went to grammar schools (about 30% from my year) were similarly well educated. None of us felt superior to the others; none of us felt we had failed; all of us managed to make our way in the world. The reason many youngsters now feel they have to go to further education is that their eleven (soon to be thirteen) years in State education leave them so ill-equipped to compete in the modern world that they simply have to secure more education to make them employable in anything but menial jobs. And it’s doing them no favours.
A favourite of mine from one quiz show, Svejk -
Q1. Did Julius Caesar die: (a) in battle, (b) by assassination, or (c) from drowning?
A (from 2nd year history "student"): "Not the period I was studying. Drowning?"
Q2 got a similar "not my period" wrong answer.
But she got lucky with...
Q3. Which royal house was named after a flower: (a) Plantagenet, (b) Tudor, or (c) Hanover?
A. "I'm not sure. Planter gent?".
Q1. Did Julius Caesar die: (a) in battle, (b) by assassination, or (c) from drowning?
A (from 2nd year history "student"): "Not the period I was studying. Drowning?"
Q2 got a similar "not my period" wrong answer.
But she got lucky with...
Q3. Which royal house was named after a flower: (a) Plantagenet, (b) Tudor, or (c) Hanover?
A. "I'm not sure. Planter gent?".
Was never keen on comprehensives, but the reason for opposition to the old system is surely self-evident. No one wanted to write late developers off as academic no-hopers at 12. Destined to be minimum wage unskilled whilst early shiners got all the opportunities. Trouble is the replacement system was flawed, generally dragging standards down to the lowest common denominator.
OG, //Most accept authority's judgement and it becomes self-fulfilling.//
indeed … which surely makes Ed’s promise of apprenticeships for all who can achieve the grades rather damning on those who can’t. Losers because Ed’s told them they’re losers – and a thorough waste of potential non-academic skills! He should be ashamed of himself! How short-sighted!
indeed … which surely makes Ed’s promise of apprenticeships for all who can achieve the grades rather damning on those who can’t. Losers because Ed’s told them they’re losers – and a thorough waste of potential non-academic skills! He should be ashamed of himself! How short-sighted!
Latest Posts
Motoring1 min ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Home & Garden6 mins ago
Jobs & Education9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.