"school snobbery"

[dinkybinky]

I think it?s hysterical that some people think that if you child doesn?t attend a Grammar school or selective independent then they?re not academic. The level of ?school snobbery? that goes on is quite bewildering sometimes.

"Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, told a conference in May hosted by Brighton College that the disproportionate success of people who were privately educated was ?morally indefensible?."

Well, at least he's got something right!

I don't want to point out the obvious, but some people are not motivated by money

Xenia- that is nothing to do with the quality of education these schools and universities provide, and everything to do with the gentleman's club mentality.

Also if we looked at the top-earning British bands and singers, I wonder what % of them went to Oxbridge and Eton ?

@Owllady I don't want to point out the obvious but the people who aren't motivated by money are often the people earning the most.

@socharlotte I know a couple of VERY successful musicians who went to Cambridge. Also some actors. And some writers (some successful to the point of fame, some less famous but still successful enough to live comfortably)

owlady so what do you think the vast majority of working class people are motivated by then?

Not for them the grubby concerns of paying a morgage? Their minds on higher things?

Seriously, this is bull shit.

Huge swathes of the working classes do shit jobs for shit money, women in particular. They don't do them because they're interested in the good of society or for the sheer love of it. They do these jobs because they had no choices or low expectations or because they didn't have the right information etc etc

since when did 'some people' constitute the same as the whole of the working classes?

you are making assumptions based on your own opinions, xenia does it too, you don't think someone in a low paid job goes into work and can enjoy it. A support worker, a teaching assistant, a care home worker. I think you might find some of them are motivated by caring for people and improving peoples quality of life.

Oh please.

Sure there are some people who have choices and decide to enter into low paid jobs.

But the vast majority of those in low paid jobs have little choice in the matter. The UK is a class riven and sexisit society that keeps certain people in these jobs, and certain people in the highly paid jobs.

The notion of the happy poor is utterly patronising. Pat them on the head and tell them how valuable what they do is, whilst they worry about Christmas and the gas bill.

I've worked in care homes and the people there are not doing it by choice. It is brutal stuff. Badly paid. Treated like shit. Many of the people doing it could have done a zillion other things. They have the ability. But they never had the opportunity or the expectations.

It's a really sad situation though because not everybody is capable of being a good carer. And I suspect that many of the people working in care homes actually aren't very good carers. And many people who would be fabulous carers either never consider the job or leave quickly because, as you say, the conditions and pay are not attractive - and people need to live.

Whereas people in jobs like mine generally enjoy what they do.

It's hard to generalise. There have been a few threads on here where people say they love their jobs and are in teaching, or nursing or supporting people with mh issues etc

There are others who are sick of the daily corporate grind.

And vice versa of course.

I didn't say they were motivated "just by the money" or that they were bored shitless! What I said was that IF I was in the kind of job which paid over a hundred grand, then whatever else motivated me to do it, then it would probably not be my idea of FUN. I didn't actually say that there was anything wrong with being motivated by money. It buys security, and I would never underestimate that. I would also, I imagine, be challenged and possibly stimulated. But I would also in likelihood be very stressed and exhausted, because I know that I have a tendency to get stressed, and long term stress and exhaustion is linked to depression. I would never underestimate that either. I have seen its effects on too many people.

I have admiration for Xenia and her ilk, because she obviously has loads stamina, physical and mental strength and ability and not everyone has that. And I also agree that there are too many girls and women, and boys and men too, who do not have high enough expectations of themselves and of their children. However I do not admire the inability to admit or acknowledge that for many people it is not merely a question of "choosing" a highly paid career, and that there are women out there who are motivated by things other than being well paid.

And I repeat my assertion here that many of the problems in this country are caused by the culture of low pay. The cogs which keep the economy turning are the low paid and the undervalued. Why on earth should someone who is doing a necessary and vital job need to have their pay topped up by the government if they are working full time? No one is happy and fulfilled if they are constantly frantic with worry about money - I agree that the notion of the "happy poor" is bollocks. But why are carers for example, so abysmally paid?

I used the care angle because it is what I have experience of. My daughter receives support off a community support service and the carers that she is assigned obviously enjoy their job and are really good at it, I also imagine it is poorly paid and definitely underpaid for what they have to do but some of them have chosen to do it from other careers because it was what they wanted to do.

I do agree though the aspirations between sectors of society is unfair and lots of very capable people are pigeon holed or the expectations of them are lower because of their background.

Finished too soon there. The caring profession should only attract people who are motivated by caring, and so therefore the pay needs to be better to attract the best ones. At the moment it doesn't.

I know, I agree with you, it's bloody depressing and it's really wrong

I agree that to get and keep the best people the pay would need to be much higher.

Ditto education etc etc.

However, I am a steely pragmatist so I look at the situation and economy as it is and think x, y and z pay well so why should all those jobs go to the posh boys (and I say that as someone with a posh boy of my own).

And I think part of the problem is that other sections of society buy into the nonsense that these jobs are too hard, or boring or the people that do them are wihtout feeling.

@Ariel I didn't say they were motivated "just by the money" or that they were bored shitless! What I said was that IF I was in the kind of job which paid over a hundred grand, then whatever else motivated me to do it, then it would probably not be my idea of FUN.

But how can you possibly generalise. I know several people who earn significantly more than the figure being bandied around who have ridiculously glamorous and exciting lives. They most certainly are having fun. Unless you are restricting fun to mean only cycling in the countryside, I don't think you can possibly say that high earning careers can't be fun.

I said I wouldn't find it fun and probably nor would many people. Because of the very long hours it would probably entail. I didn't say it couldn't be fun. And by my use of the phrases "for me" and "things like" in conjunction with cycling in the countryside, then I naturally assumed that people would realise that I don't class cycling in the countryside as the only possible fun in the world.

Please don't try and put words in my mouth.

In fact it's more likely that the higher paid have the more fun lives actually but it comforts the poor on low pay to like to think those on high pay lead miserable existences so let them seek that comfort. The idea women earning over £100k a year have easier better nicer lives than those on £6 an hour is probably not what most women want to hear.

I have never however said happiness flows from external things or even relationships. It is about the levels of seratonin in your brain and the like. That itself is determined by factors like sunlight, exercise and real food and not having depression etc.

I certainly like to encourage girls of all backgrounds to pick interesting and ideally well paid careers.

Those who think their carers or cleaners or whatever should be paid a lot more are perfectly free to set up a business, earn a lot of money and pay the carer £200 an hour. Some celebrities pay their children's tutor £60k a year as they think that will get them the right person.

It is the minimum wage and housing benefit for the housed which keeps pay down - it is that interference in the free market which means the low paid are not paid much. If a Government were simply brave enough to employ free market economics then that state subsidy could go. Even this new rationing coming in of benefits to £500 a week seems pretty large a sum for a temporary basic support level whilst people sort themselves out.

Because there is absolutely no one on pay between £6 an hour and a hundred grand a year. Obviously

And yes, let's do away with the minimum wage. It would solve everything.

Just for your information, I am on nowhere near 100 grand a year. Everyone who sees me doing my job remarks on how much they would love to be be doing it and what a great lifestyle it gives me. You won't be interested in that piece of information though, because you don't seem to be interested in other people.

And I'm not sure anyone is seriously suggesting a cleaner should be earning £200 an hour. That comment made you look very silly.

Well the first sad fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people will never get the oportunity to decide if a highly paid job will interest them or not.

And the second sad fact is that the economy and job matket in the UK are shrinking. There will soon IMVHO be very few positions occupying the middle ground. This is already happening of course.

A country of people in low paid or no employment in sharp contrast to those making lots of money.

So when we talk to our DC about their futures we would be utterly stupid to be giving them the impression that the middle sector will be anyhting other than small pickings.

@Ariel I'm not putting words in your mouth I'm pointing out that you are talking rubbish.

Many highly paid careers do not in fact entail long hours. And the people doing them are not necessarily motivated by money any more than someone working long hours for low pay working as eg a bailiff is. Almost certainly, less so.

One of the problems we have whenever this topic raises its head (so, about once a week) is that many people have no idea what sort of jobs might command a high salary or what sort of careers might generate high fees/income (many high earners are not 'on salary' but are either freelance professionals or creatives, or own their own business either solely or in partnership). The default assumption always seems to be that you have to be 'something in the city' (possibly a nasty banker) to get that sort of money. And because people don't understand what 'something in the city' might possibly be they assume it must be corporate grind or boring/stressful in some other but associated way.

Corporate grind is very real, but not generally experienced by the higher earners, it is experienced on the way up (or at the level at which people become glass or talent ceilinged).

That's true. I know many people as you describe. Great, well-paid careers. Not hugely long hours or a corporate grind.

Although if you go into law or finance the odds are probably better. Even if you do moderately well and mid level the pay is good compared with other sectors. So there is an element of risk.