• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
One percent

Osborn and the other posh boys get outed

Recommended Posts

As per title

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39444993

Low-ability youngsters from wealthy families go on to earn more money than their more gifted, poorer counterparts, says the Education Secretary Justine Greening.

Fairer outcomes remained an "entrenched" problem, she said, at an event promoting social mobility.

Too many pupils fail to reach their potential, said Ms Greening.

Making the most of all young people's talent was a "hard, cold, economic imperative," she said.

"Children from high-income backgrounds who show signs of low academic ability at age five, are 35% more likely to become high earners than their poorer peers who show early signs of high ability," Ms Greening told a Social Mobility Commission event.

 

justine greening is somehow surprised by this. She clearly does not bother to take note of her surroundings 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had breakfast with a friend of mine who was on an officer training exchange program with the English armed forces.  One of his students was so bad he wanted him out and gave him a fail grade.  The fuss this caused was unbelievable and had to go to brigadier level to get implemented.  My friend didn't give a shit about English aristocracy so stuck to his guns (pun intended).  The whole problem was that "Daddy" was very highly placed.  Surprise, surprise.  I figured all that out when I was 18 and got out of Blighty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both my grandads were in low-paid manual jobs. But they were able to send their children to uni/college.

Result? I live a middle-class life.

I'm certain that this could not happen nowadays. You have to fork out serious dosh to go to uni (kids were paid to go to uni in my parents' day). And a degree is just a piece of paper - it's become so commonplace that other selection criteria are used; for example, many media companies now have unpaid internships as a way of filtering/recruiting new staff. In other words: you've no chance of getting in, unless if your parents can subsidise you.

IMO university should be for the top 10-20% of the population, and should be subsidised (bring back grants!). At that point a degree would once again be worth something. But I don't see this been implemented any time soon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DeepLurker said:

Both my grandads were in low-paid manual jobs. But they were able to send their children to uni/college.

Result? I live a middle-class life.

I'm certain that this could not happen nowadays. You have to fork out serious dosh to go to uni (kids were paid to go to uni in my parents' day). And a degree is just a piece of paper - it's become so commonplace that other selection criteria are used; for example, many media companies now have unpaid internships as a way of filtering/recruiting new staff. In other words: you've no chance of getting in, unless if your parents can subsidise you.

IMO university should be for the top 10-20% of the population, and should be subsidised (bring back grants!). At that point a degree would once again be worth something. But I don't see this been implemented any time soon!

Two things.  First the notion of social mobility is dead.  Rowntree foundation did a report on this a few years ago and suggested that people have little chance of moving out of the social class into which they are born.

second, the worthlessness of degrees. There is massive pressure to pass students.  I teach on an applied professional course so the student need to be competent in the workplace. I don't pass them if I don't think they are up to the practical, applied side, even though I'm under pressure to do so.  The outcome is that I can guarantee that the student complains. This the ends up I'd days of work getting the evidence together to justify my professional judgement. 

Edit to add.  I now use references as a tool to warn potential employers. I want write a reference for any student who cannot deliver in the workplace 

Edited by One percent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, One percent said:

Just to add to my above post. I'm not illiterate, honest.  Fecking crapple again 

You had me worried for a minute. I thought you might be an engineering lecturer with that level of English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DeepLurker said:

IMO university should be for the top 10-20% of the population, and should be subsidised (bring back grants!). At that point a degree would once again be worth something. But I don't see this been implemented any time soon!

I think we should have a national scholarship system.  Set aside about £1bn (say) to be spent on the education of the very best candidates (which would work out as about 10%) in studies of strategic national importance.  Obviously STEM*, but across all** subjects, even have some historians, artists, etc (just not as many as industrial chemists).  And no means-testing or positive discrimination.  Just the best candidates so that they can get the best value for the investment.

Oh, and by my system the scholarship winners would have to show that they were working in the field of study for 20 years post graduation (say) -- I don't like all this education that we give to children being wasted by them going into finance**.  If they decide to waste the investment made in them then they'd have to pay it all back.

[* how come they keep going on about how STEM is so important to the country, but when you look at the figures it is the STEM students who pay the most for their education?  The finance/medicine/law/etc earn loads so pay back their loans early.  The artists etc don't earn enough so still have student debt at the end of the loan term (ie, is written off), but the STEM are the ones most likely to pay off the loan at about the time that the load would be written off anyway.  A perverse logic.]

[** to clarify, have each subject weighted by a 'national importance' factor, then split the pot by weighted-subject, then award per subject from the best student down, until the money for that subject runs out.]

[*** and the finance industry is a waste of talent.]

[this is kind-of how it happens now, but in an ad-hoc, reactive way.  Someone decides there aren't enough nurses (say, reacting to press about there not being enough nurses), so they invent a nurse fund.  Then then slowly gets depleted as interest in it wanes.  I'd say this should be formalised, with each subject area making a case for the fund, with proper public scrutiny in how each subject is funded, and how much value the UK gets from the investment.  This would be a more sensible/logical approach than the reactive one we've currently got.]

Edited by dgul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that is what I mean -- all very ad-hoc.  Where is the equivalent one for Statistics?  The country needs statisticians...  

[this is the big difference between the US and UK higher education cost/loan systems.  Sure, US costs appear higher, but a huge number of candidates get some kind of scholarship, from academic ones to those based on background to sports scholarships.  Only the really dim wealthy kids pay the full rate...  The UK doesn't have the same scholarship based systems (IMO because alumni don't value their education, because for them it was the state).]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dgul said:

But that is what I mean -- all very ad-hoc.  Where is the equivalent one for Statistics?  The country needs statisticians...  

[this is the big difference between the US and UK higher education cost/loan systems.  Sure, US costs appear higher, but a huge number of candidates get some kind of scholarship, from academic ones to those based on background to sports scholarships.  Only the really dim wealthy kids pay the full rate...  The UK doesn't have the same scholarship based systems (IMO because alumni don't value their education, because for them it was the state).]

 

I know - my other son is going to the US on (hopefully) a 50 % sport and 50% academic scholarship - so free ride.

And you are correct, there are a LOT of scholarships on offer in the US for the brightest. And I agree, only the really dim pay in full.

If I can get both of mine educated without lumbering themselves with debt I will feel that I have done OK by them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By One percent
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5835187/Prince-Edward-lands-private-jet-Birmingham-ahead-commemoration-service.html
      Prince Edward was last night slammed for a 'blatant abuse of public money' after taking a private jet costing taxpayers an estimated £37,000 for a 133-mile journey between engagements.
      The Queen's youngest son, 54, travelled between Poole in Dorset and Tamworth, Staffordshire, to attend an event yesterday marking the death 1,100 years ago of Anglo-Saxon ruler Aethelflaed.
      The normal hire cost of the plane to do the journey between airports in Dorset and Birmingham would be £37,150 for a one-way trip. A first-class train ticket would have cost around £250-per-person.
       
    • By One percent
      MPs are employing their own family members
       
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40709220
      One in five MPs continue to employ a member of their family using taxpayers' money despite the practice being banned for new members of Parliament.
      Of the 589 returning MPs, 122 have declared the employment of a relative in the latest Register of Members' Financial Interests.
      None of the 61 new MPs who secured their seats at the general election on 8 June are allowed to do so.
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.