'State schools are creating amoral children'

Actually one thing that has been a constant surprise in my life is he discovery that the middle classes are not as knowledgeable or as capable as they believe themselves to be. And that includes knowledge about education and how to get into university.

I have not used the word "working class". I have used the word "disadvantaged"

And frankly, if you think that the average child A at St Custard's doesn't have more support, more awareness of the options available and and a significantly easier ride to university if that's what they want to do than Child B at Bash Street Comprehensive then you are living in Cloud cuckoo land.

I'm not working class but I find it very annoying and patronising. Also the implication they lack table manners, obviously made by someone who's never eaten with the upper classes, the correct prounouciation, and have never set foot in a building of architectural significance and stood in awe.

I think children from all classes can have their choices limited by the expectations of their families. Only the strong break the mould of expectation.

I find the constant insistence that the working classes have no idea about how to make a decision about the choices in front of them really annoying.

"Some people are better cut out to make it than others but I do not dismiss alternative choices made by some of my friends from home"

Good. Neither does anyone else. I note your use of the word "choice". It is crucial in this context.

I am suggesting someone might make that decision and it might be a rational one given their circumstances. I and my siblings are the first and only family members of our generation to attend higher ed.

I sat in my top set maths groups aged 16 while my teacher told us we were wasting our time with A Levels. We should do as his daughter was doing - go into the bank at 16 and earn a decent salary and a promotion by the age of 22 when peers would just be entering the job market. This wasn't an area or an era which would have dreamed of city salaries. This was especially suitable for girls who would then have families. My parents disagreed but many did not.

My closest friend did just that. She had a subsidised mortgage on a three bedroomed house while I was trying to fund a mortgage on a one bedroomed flat with a husbandShe has had a successful life and has a child with his own trade/business and one at medical school but I never get any sense that she feels she took the wrong path.

My educational and material situation is far, far removed from this now - unimaginably so, but such a leap is not without challenges. Some people are better cut out to make it than others but I do not dismiss alternative choices made by some of my friends from home.

My ire is not against AAT or any other sort of exam or qualification. My ire is against people who think that one sort is more suitable for people from disadvantaged backgrounds because it's not good for them to aim too high.

Word, I know. I absolutely see why some people wouldn't want to try. I am talking about the people who do want to try. And the people who don't even know that trying's an option. It's about choices. Having them and knowing you have them. The more privileged you are the more choices you have.

Well I am in that exact situation martorana and it's not easy. Moving classes leaves you untethered. I wouldn't blame some people for not wanting to make that leap.

Blimey, why all this ire against AAT?? If you want to be an accountant, why is an Oxford history degree better preparation? Even if you want, ultimately, to run your own business, or become a chief executive, why is an Oxford history degree better preparation than an AAT course, paid work while doing the course, further qualifications while working, and impressing people in the businesses in which you work? I can see a university degree is genuinely a good thing if you want to be an academic or researcher, but honestly, isn't the rest of it about snobbery, mixing with the movers and shakers and all the other things you're all complaining about that need changing???!!

"I am always amazed when people suggest that young people capable of doing a good degree should do AAT exams."

Because that's what they are more comfortable with, Herc. It's not a good idea to give that sort of people aspirations- it'll just mean they won't fit in anywhere. The toffs won't accept them because they won't have the appropriate cultural capital, and they will have grown away from their own kind. I think that's the argument, anyway. It's like being in an episode of Downton Abbey..........

What about Oxbridge. Because surely, that should be turned down even more, seeing how much that place is so bad for society as a whole.

I am sort of referring to Martorana's doing things for society comments. Perhpas she didnt mean exactly what I thought that she meant.

Kins at our local "high achieving academy" although non selectve potential Oxbridge/medical school/vet school/dentist etc are identified at the beginning of yr 12 they are in a separate class and coached for interviews etc and exposed to all sorts of things, think History a boys every yr 8-9% go to Oxbridge and anther 6-7% to medicine etc.

I don't really understand your question, kinsorange? Are you asking if Mart (or anyone else) would apply for a private school place and then turn it down 'for the sake of society', then I can't imagine why anyone would do that, no. But if you're asking if anyone whose children would be likely to be offered a private school place, and who could afford to send them there, would choose not to, then, erm, yes, thousands of people.

I am always amazed when people suggest that young people capable of doing a good degree should do AAT exams.

"Whatever your good intentions you are entrenched in a view that access to Oxbridge is what everybody wants if they sufficiently educated. That is just not true."

I don't think that for a second. And have never said anything of the sort!

Mart trying to subvert my comments into that extreme view does n't make some of your posts more valid. I just think that people should be in a position from sufficient education and money to make their own choices, not have some do-gooder insist that Oxbridge or higher education is the only way.
Whatever your good intentions you are entrenched in a view that access to Oxbridge is what everybody wants if they sufficiently educated. That is just not true.

Research has not shown that.

A system of education which implies that some children are born smarter than others (research has shown genes have no influence) is what children are learning every day. No wonder children in the 'bottom' state schools don't give a about morals, or their parents for that matter, most of whom see from a very early age that their children will never be able to compete with the advantaged in the workplace and are largely destined to get the lower paid jobs.

He's no less likely to get into Oxbridge if I sent him to our local state school.

Not so sure about that at all. For a start, private school kids get tutored in it dont they? And they are feeder schools? Oxbridge like them because they know what they are getting?[prob all that lot has been discussed before, so no worries].

So you chose not to send your child to private school Martorana, even though they got a place?

But if I did sacrifice my DS's place it wouldn't make any difference to society that's why no one is lining up to offer to do it! He's no less likely to get into Oxbridge if I sent him to our local state school.
I just do to understand why you don't get this.

Gandhi did. But his kids never got over it.

Actually, what do you mean by "sacrificing a child's place at private school"? Because if you mean "choosing not to send their child to private school" then, yes.

No. Good thing nobody's being asked to, isn't it?