Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Run Britain

Ivanhoe - but the last 12 years have seen a massive rise in spending on schools.

Hmmm...now who would that be?

To All.

Tonight 9pm Who gets the best jobs. Documentary BB2. Reference. Public Schools.

I saw this programme, but it didnt surprise me.

We do have a class system in this country, as this programme highlighted, and what makes matters worse is that Grammer schools were abolished.

But the real issue here is that since the 80's and Thatcher, Britain's education systems have been run down by a serious lack of investment.

And this is because "the right wing" do not believe in the role of the state regarding invesment and subsidy.

You're right it was and sill is the leadership.

Honestly, it makes me fume.

Not the Party, the Leadership. The Party just let it happen against its better judgment, the Leadership thought it was a good idea, because it was more jobs for their boys. And as we're all agreed that politics these days is all about networking and toeing the party line, and the media is in the majority violently opposed to allowing the Unions to have any genuine political influence, so providing a constant negative drip-feed, where are all the good networkers and like-minded individuals going to come from? The only place left for breeding good networkers with pre-existing contacts - our public schools, of course. Why would a political party want some spiky local coming along and ignoring the Party Whip?

To be honest, in the safe seats, the package is by the by.

The party took a very cynical decision to parachute in its great and good to those seats.

Labour discovered that a good looking package is more appealing to many people than the actual content.

No doubt they are all guilty, but of the three I would expect Labour to actively support local working class candidates.

The sheer hypocracy is breath taking.

And they wonder why so many are leaving the party.

Rabbitstew, I agree that the situation as you describe it is very divisive and is determining people's life chances in a detrimental way. If we replaced comprehensives with a selective system nationally, it would have to give pupils in all schools a decent range of subjects and option choices at GCSE.

I suppose we are slowly replacing comprehensives with academies and specialist schools, but that is a whole other thread.

It's ALWAYS Thatchers fault, in your opinion! if she didn't appear in your post, I would have been shocked!

Hi, MillyR. There is a difference between comprehensives and secondary modern schools. Where I went to school, they still had secondary modern schools and they most definitely did not have high academic expectations for their pupils, nor did they offer the same subjects as the grammar schools. In the days of O-levels and CSEs, where I lived they only offered CSEs and on conversion to GCSEs they seldom offered the higher GCSE papers. The whole point of them when they were originally set up was to provide a different type of education for those who did not pass the 11 plus.

""TapselteerieO Thu 27-Jan-11 14:22:45
Did anyone see this?

I have just watched it and thought there might be a thread here about it. Sadly I am not surprised that it happens but I am still surprised by the statistics.

(Going to get dc from school so might not be on here until later.)""

Yes I saw it, and it didnt surprise me.

However what is never stressed by the likes of Andrew Neil is that State schools have been underfunded since Thatcher cut income tax for all British workers in the 80's and it remains so today.

Mrswobble, I agree. The previous government was meant to be looking at ways of making work experience and unpaid employment that led to professional careers more fair.

Rabbitstew, I don't know if she was in a very small minority. Lots of people who went to my school (comprehensive in a grammar area) went on to enter a range of professions. I think there would have to be more research into the outcomes from selective education. Most of this thread (including my posts) has been based on anecdote and assumptions.

But we all seem to be holding strong opinions based on assumptions. I don't think that is a good thing.

Mrs Wobble has a point.

The current set of MPs, particularly those involved at cabinet or shadow cabinet level, all entered politics in a similar way.

PPE at Oxbridge.
A research or assistant post at Westminster.

The first is tricky enough to get, particulalry if your school advised you that dropping French and taking textiles was a good idea.

But the second is nigh impossible unless you have enough connections to get you that post, and have enough cash to keep you topped up should you get it, because the salary is low for London.

"Instead, they shift off local committed activists, and parachute in their PPE pals from Oxbridge. Yes, I'm looking at you Yvette and Ed."

TBF - they have worked hard on their northern accents.

Mrs Wobble Don't stress - from your post it appears you dd has many advantages (professional parents, mother with interviewing experience, wide access to successful role models). The work experience is small beer in comparison.

Until we remove babies at birth (or make them in test tubes) true equality is an impossible dream.

I'd settle for greater social mobility and an education system which encourages bright pupils, whatever their background.

Also, if we want more people from working class backgrounds to be inolved in politics, then the Labour party should allow some of these people to stand in their safe seats.

Instead, they shift off local committed activists, and parachute in their PPE pals from Oxbridge. Yes, I'm looking at you Yvette and Ed.

I know this debate has focused on education but I think a potentially more effective source of divide can be found in work experience. My dd is 16 and at her school they are required to do one week's work experience following GCSEs. She can either arrange it herself or the school will sort something out. Dh and I have a number of friends, including dd's godparents, who have senior city jobs (finance and law) so dd has lined up 4 different opportunities. This means that when she applies for gap year jobs or internships her CV will stand out - based on my experience as an interviewer for these things. This will give her an advantage over children whose parents are not as well connected - and is completely independent of our education choices for her.

I think this is extremely unfair but am not sure what can be done about it. I'm not going to stop my dd benefitting - she has had to send in applications and make all the arrangements herself - we didn't do it for her but there is no denying that her godfather is unlikely to have considered her application on a fair basis against any others he received.

if you want to crusade for greater equality I do think that improving access to work experience is a potentially more effective campaign.

She's in a bit of a minority, isn't she? It's like saying my shit smells like roses, so it's a bit difficult to believe no-one else's does. And it seems odd to me that the atmosphere at my primary school at the time of the 11 plus was so dire, with those expected to pass being told they were "posh" and "you think you are better than us," if those expecting to go to the Secondary Moderns didn't think they were getting a raw deal.

Jocelyn Bell failed the eleven plus and went to a secondary modern. So I find it very difficult to believe that secondary moderns have ever prevented their students from getting a truly academic education, or else how do you explain her becoming one of the world's leading scientists?

Where are these schools that only let children do practical or academic subjects?

rabbit - I'm not trying to defend selection at 11. Just pointing out the the alternative is not that great either.

You are judging the 11+ system by looking at those who 'fall through net'.

I'm pointing out that in many comprehensive schools (although not all) the top 25% or so, bright pupils get a worse academic education, and yet most of the other 75% pupils don't particulary benefit from this 'sacrifice'.

Unless setting is well managed - pupils can end up stuck in the wrong set for years anyway.

Maybe if there weren't quite such a colossal divide between rich and poor, career choices could be made slightly more on the basis of need within Society, rather than salary/profit. The divide between the haves and have nots is getting so great, it's hardly surprising career choices amongst those with any choice are increasingly being made in terms of income as a priority over other considerations. Whilst that remains the case, surely there will be a very poor connection between qualifications obtained and qualifications required by the country?