To think people underestimate impact of advantages

[brasty]

I think lots of people underestimate the impact of advantages in their life.
So having parents who value education and encourage you.
Having parents who find the best school for you.
Having loving parents who create a loving environment to grow up in.
Getting help with house deposits.
Having a parent who will help you out when things go wrong.

All or some of these things makes it so much easier to have a good life. Yet so many people underestimate the impact.

This thread has been fascinating to read.

OP you are 100% correct. Well said.

This thread has really made me think. I had a very challenging childhood and adolescence for various reasons but I was never alone. My mum was there every step of the way, holding my hand and supporting me emotionally and practically. I recognise my privilege in having someone who never let me suffer alone. However, it doesn't take away from the pain that I suffered, so it's hard. I think it's perfectly possible to feel grateful and privileged and recognise advantage, at the same time as knowing you had some hard knocks in life that others didn't. Hope that makes sense.

Completely agree. I have had first hand experience of this and my dp's sister just cannot understand how people can't just get somewhere with effort. In my case I was gifted but dropped out as I had no family support for uni or knowledge of the process, no emotional support, mental health issues etc. So envious of people who had people
championing them

I think this cartoon has a place on this thread as well.

I agree that people feel that those who strive hard deserve reward - but when people have their situation working against them, then should they be punished as a result? No!

This sums it up for me.

Yes to knowing your self worth and having the self confidence.
That's a parenting thing not a financial privilege

I think the main thing through this thread is that it's the emotional side that needs to be right. Financial, always helpful! But ultimately it seems it's the emotional side that seems to makes the difference

This is a huge problem when almost all politicians and decision makers come from a very similar privileged background and have no real understanding of ordinary people's lives never mind those who lack having their basic needs met.

This is so true. The number of MPs from genuine working class backgrounds has always been low, but has fallen a lot since the 1960s.

I read the news on the red button in the mornings on BBC channel and today there was an article that poorer men, from poorer families, in their 40s are less likely to marry , or if they do they tend to marry women from a similar poorer background - a government spokesperson said that they were trying to bring about more equality. Its clearly not working then!

Equally there are many of us who look like we've had lots of advantages that have come at a huge price. You never know what goes on behind closed doors to make people the way they are. On paper I have had it good, went to decent schools and to uni, got a good job, married and in our second (mortgaged) home by 25. But my childhood was awful. Filled with emotional and sexual abuse. I have no doubt people on the outside think I'm one of those who's had a lovely sheltered life but it isn't the case. My experiences have shaped me in ways no one outside of my very close circle of friends would know.

Social mobility seems worse now than at any time in my 60+ years. So many young people can't afford to go to uni, can't buy a house etc. I have friends who, in their 50s, are having to increase their working hours because they will have to help their kids financially through uni (kids doing nursing & midwifery, so unable to work much while studying).

There used to be a couple of routes up for my generation: getting decent exam results and getting a job that enabled you to get a professional qualification while working, and passing the 11+, going to grammar school and then on to uni and coming out with a decent degree that opened doors. This has enabled many of my peers to become teachers, doctors, civil engineers, lawyers etc.

All those professional jobs are now graduate only and for a lot of families, going to uni just isn't an option. I also think schools often neglect bright kids, because they know they'll achieve the 5 A-C grades without any help, and consequently they don't achieve their full potential.

I wouldn't want to go back to the days of selective secondary education, which made a lot of kids feel like rejects like rejects at 11, but for bright kids from poor backgrounds, it was a huge help.

As of course were maintenance grants, no tuition fees etc.

It doesn't help when people who were not born into privilege reinforce this stuff.

I worked really hard against my background to get out of poverty and being a statistic. I had friends who worked just as hard (if not harder) than me who are totally fucked and lead shitty lives. Some have given up and just "settled in" to similar lives their parents lead. I can't blame them.

When people find out about my background I am always congratulated on my hard work. I always point out I was also lucky. No amount of hard work will pull you out of a shitty deprived life unless you also have luck. There are people that will argue with me as if I am being self-depreciating rather than just honest.

I can definitely see how, reflecting on my life, I may want to buy into "if you work hard you can achieve anything". It's very tempting, to mark yourself out as special and odds defying. It is utter bullshit though and feeds into the very thing that meant you had to work that much harder anyway.

One difference in schooling was the strap - up to the sixties you got belted in Scotland. So everyone learnt their tables and could write, often beautifully. Now we have more emotional support instead and against bad parenting it seems to fail more than the strapping in the past. Not saying go back to it but if interest and discipline is missing at home HAVing to do school work was a good thing. More support in schools for failing pupils would be the answer by not sure where the money would come from.

No easy answers are there.
My dh is an engineer and has been for 38 years. He admits that if he had to go through what they do now to get the job he started with at 16, he may not have his current job. I cant see his parents being supportive of him going to University ( they mostly need a degree to do his job these days ) or being able to afford it. He did a degree with work and they funded it all when he was 30 ( they were more or less told they had to) if he had to pay for this, i am not sure we could have afforded it either at that time.
This has all stopped over the years and the company he works for just take on graduates now, that have already have the degrees they need. saves them money, but the graduates are the ones in debt.

Great thread, OP.

I totally agree (and I think there's a hashtag #checkyourprivilege that ran on Twitter about this?).

Money is a massive issue, but the one we can all address (and which I see as a consistent theme in the volunteering that I do) is the damage done by disengaged, unsupportive parenting. People who don't have this are set on a negative trajectory which is hugely damaging to all their life chances.

I disagree with the early poster who said internships should be banned. Increasingly, big corporates are trying to pull through children from disadvantaged schools in their local area (think Tower Hamlets for the the financial district in London) to help them access the advantages. Some are actively banning nepotism in internships as it deprives those who really need the experience from having a place. I see the beginnings of a sea change in social conscious among corporates.

the80s
Yes I read that article and thought of this thread.
I imagine that with increased numbers of women going to uni, they were able to find similar men to marry. It's not shocking to find that poorer men are more likely to be single - women have always chosen the best deal. Even birds build nests and the female bird selects the best one.
It's not a far reaching conclusion to suggest then the children of the marriage are more likely to be able too - as there is a genetic component.
Everyone looked at Laura trot cycling and we expect her child to be good at cycling don't we? Just the same for those good at maths etc.
I've come to the conclusion it's much less to do with school and more to do with the home set up, the genetics and luck.

Unfortunately it's difficult to measure ones circumstances in order to try to show fairness.

It would be wrong to assume that privately educated pupils have supportive parents for example. In fact I have been shocked by some children's lives who from outside appear to have privilege.

Yet another coached her child herself (teacher) moved her to a less well regarded school (for the name) - think contextulised offers - actually had quite a bit if privilege which appearing to have none.

headofthehive,- it will only get worse then? Seems to be that the ones at the most disadvantage will be men that are not clever enough to have fantastic jobs or be able to go to University. Women will only want to marry money!
Its a bleak picture all round - you need to be clever, have a great home life, be reasonably good looking and a few bob to get on then? same , maybe for women, but not as bad maybe? its very complex!

It makes a difference whether the jobs are there or not.

Over my lifetime, the UK economy has been reshaping into an hourglass: jobs at the top, jobs (often unreliable hours/income) at the bottom, and much less in the middle because it's been offshored or replaced by technology.

So there used to be a destination for the middling folks. And housing was disproportionately cheaper, so more affordable for middling folks.

This era of good education some hark back to: only 17% of people my age left school with any A levels at all, IIRC. But there were jobs for the 83% which would enable them to lead tolerable lives.

Now if you're not one of the minority who make it into highly paid industries or rentseeking property ownership, then the shape of the economy means you're likely to be poorly and insecurely paid. Accommodation has rocketed in price, so you're also likely to be insecurely housed.

It's all very well competing to be in the top segment, but the numbers dictate that most of the population won't be. No amount of leathering kids at school will change that.

perking indeed.

And given that knowledge what is a parent to do? Surely it's our job to try to help our DC get into the top segment by giving them any advantages we can?

PerkingFaintly Yes I am in my mid 50s and hardly anyone went to university. Those that did were largely from middle class and upper class families. Yes university education was free, but many poorer people did not access it. Oxford University still had separate exams outside of UCAS that many poorer people simply did not know about - remember this was pre internet.

The divide and underestimation of financial advantage is apparent in the 'gifted and talented 'groups and awards evenings in my dc local academy. They might as well called it the 'already had a great advantage group'. I know that about 90 per cent had parents with professional jobs. Those kids had all the private tutors, expensive hobbies and usually university educated parents. They were the only ones who could go on the £1000 ski trips, pay for extra examinations.

The school need these kids to boost overall results . Of course the odd working class kid would be in that groups d maybe all the way through but it's clear they're usually not in the rg uni by the end.

bratsy
University years ago did have means tested bursaries, you didn't get a grant necessarily.
The cut off was sharp - my dad had to pay all my living costs - and he was an unqualified worker.
Lots of girls were put off higher education - they were "not allowed to stay on to sixth form"

Even if we get equality of opportunity, it is not going to guarantee equality of outcome, and I think that is the issue. I agree with others that coming from a supposedly advantaged background isn't what it seems. I've seen engaged and supportive parents at poorly performing comps who recognise education as the way forward; and parents at an International school where the selection criteria was the ability to meet the fees, who couldn't have cared less about their kids or their education.

Re the gifted and talented group.

It's not that surprising.

My DD was at private school and there was such a hierarchy you wouldn't believe!
Even though money was not a divide - the education of the parents seemingly predicted the type of uni the children went to (or didn't)

So increasing the quality of education did not alter the life path really.
I know that studies have shown the biggest predictor of educational success is your mothers education.

As a parent it's understandable people want to elbow their DCs' way into the top segment.

As a recipient of parental elbowing... perhaps people should acknowledge this was done for them, rather than studiously ignoring it and crediting their own moral fibre.

And as a citizen... perhaps people should look at what is good for the economy and citizenry as a whole. I don't want my doctor to have primarily got their job because they came from a very, very tiny pool of people whose parents earned the right amount or knew the right people. Biased hiring among equals is problematic enough: hiring people who are very far from the best because the pool has been restricted is not good for the country.

Nepotism, or even just recruiting "People Like Us", has a tendency to put people in jobs they are either not competent or not willing to do. When it's severe enough (and I have seen this) it bankrupts the family business or grinds the public service almost to a halt.