To say that life isn’t a fair playing field

[Thetruth02]

I know al going to get flamed for this so have name changed. But... I see more and more threads that say “why can other kids go to private school and I can’t afford it” it’s not fair or “someone gets paid a shit load of money but doesn’t seem to work that hard” it’s not fair.

Yes - it may not seem fair - but that’s how life Is. To be clear I’m not talking about things like equal pay, or discrimination here, but the fact is life isn’t fair - karma isn’t a thing - and sometimes you do need to accept that you cannot have what someone else does.

@herewegoagain84 I think I agree. I also think the theory of abolishing private schools would just lead to something else- exclusive private tutoring clubs which price out the rest? Summer camps that only the wealthiest could afford?

I don't think the UK are very good at organising public schools.
They should be discussing improving those supplying equipment, increasing budgets in deprived areas before putting their thoughts into closing private schools.
They are a crazy bunch of numtys at times.

@Cam77 I think the opposite actually. It’s really easy to pick up an accent and all you have to do to get ‘in’ with the private school people is earn enough to send your children there/apply for a scholarship yourself if you are still a child yourself. The thing about capitalist societies is that anyone can raise themselves into the elite if they put in the effort and offer enough of something value to earn the money they need. In more socialist or communist set ups where offering value to your company/the consumer isn’t going to get you anywhere you have to rely on connections and likability (which comes down largely to intellectual ability and good looks) to prosper. I appreciate that the class system in Britain is quite psychologically oppressive to the people that were raised in it but as an outsider I have found it very easy to manipulate and navigate the little silly things like dress and speech which one might consider obstacle. It doesn’t take much at all. Class is only a barrier to the meek and there is no situation in which they would flourish.

Let me give you a practical example. My great grandfather was born in an impoverished family. He was bright and hard working. He built himself an empire and became well respected in the merchant class. He married a woman from an equally well respected merchant family and who was also naturally bright and very attractive. Then the communists came. He was well educated and well connected but not blue blooded so he was one of the ones who ended up on top when the nobility were butchered. He was able to manoeuvre his children into the best schools and then the best universities. His children were all well educated and had the benefit of his connections (not to mention unusually good looks). They and their offspring then spent the communist era using their assets to get the best jobs, the best houses, dibs on the best consumables, the best holidays, protections from KGB, and ultimately forged documents so they could get visas and escape to wealthy capitalist nations. Here they floundered, their looks weren’t worth anything to anyone, their education, while it made them likeable as people had little commercial value. They ended up in working class insecure jobs (factories, unskilled office work etc). They simply didn’t have it in them to make a real contribution to society after a lifetime of being just given the best. I was born to parents of that generation. I applied for scholarships to elite schools and ended up in the best available to my sex in my area. I was consequently also well educated and attractive. No one has fallen over themselves to give my a good job or wealth in any other respect on that account. However, both my husband and I have produced enough of value to get the kind of money we need to privately educate our children/whatever marker you want to use. As you can see, when my family have been in capitalist situations we have flourished or floundered on our ability to provide something that people need. In a situation where egalitarianism has been imposed affluence has been achieved through manipulation.

Those who are gifted certain attributes will always come out on top of they really want to but they can either achieve this through doing good and being rewarded or through shamelessly taking the best for themselves. If someone chooses to pull themselves into the elite, a few cultural hoops are not going to stop them. It’s human nature to have elites, you can tear down as many institutions as you like but the most genetically lucky and adaptable will always end up on top.

Like a PP my son has AN that would quite simply leave him lost in a class of 30. I am fighting tooth and nail to keep him in his private school (even though we will likely need to pay for additional support on top of fees) which has the time to encourage and support him. Yet in the “interests of fairness” I am supposed to accept that abolition of that opportunity is better for society and let him fail academically? Fuck that.

The state should be providing your child with the education they need. If they have additional needs the state should be providing additional support or specialist placement as required.

There are plenty of children with SEN who get lost in classes of 30 and whose parents can’t afford to pay for private school - what about those children? A good education shouldn’t be a privilege for the wealthy, it should be accessible to all, and you shouldn’t be having to pay for something your child needs rather than something you want.

Fascinating post @Velveteenfruitbowl.

My feeling is that trying to make things fair, whilst an admirable goal in some ways, can lead to some extremely questionable situations.

Harvard University in the US is apparently trying to make things “fair” by rejecting scores of incredibly qualified Asian applicants - brilliant grades, hard-working, talented at everything, impeccable extra-curricula credentials etc - by down-grading them based on entirely subjective “personal characteristics”. They are doing this in order to have suitably diverse student body. The problem (for them) is that Asian Americans effectively kick everyone else’s ass. They are now far more academically qualified, accomplished and well-rounded than any other racial group and their success is starting to skew the acceptable campus demographic. So Harvard needed to come up with a way of rejecting them in favour of students of other racial backgrounds - in order to make things more “fair”. In affect they seem to be a ethic minority group who are doing too well and must be stopped - in the name of fairness.

It’s bonkers. They are now being sued by Students for Fair Admissions for discriminating against Asian-Americans, and the case looks to be on the way to the Supreme Court.

I was a have not sexually molested and emotionally abused I ran away at 16. Became a single mother, had a child at 17 with the wrong man, ended up with my son and I being homeless. finally got a council house infested with mice. Typical lower class life and life choices destined for a life of poverty on benefits.

Instead of accepting that, I went to university with my 3 year old son in childcare, got a degree in computer science, got my first job and learned how to drive. My brother killed himself within 2 weeks of my first job, breaking my heart. Got made redundant and got my next job within one week. 8 years, my own home and two beautiful sons later I rejected being a stay at home mum because I refuse to risk going back to where I started. I now do a 2 hour commute daily with my 3 gorgeous children thriving in nursery/GCSE's and earn more than an average family earns.

Am I lucky? Am I fuck... I just worked and continue to work my ass the bone to ensure that I would break the cycle and ensure my sons never have a mum who has to choose between a warm house and a warm meal.

@Jillyhilly - I listened to something about that (think it was on This American life). It was interesting though as there seemed to be a fair bit of “hot housing” going on there too.

Also if you have to pay for the extra support the private school should have to do it properly

In the state system even if the dc is funded with 1-1 support often the TA is still having to support other SNs students nowadays.

@Jillyhilly I think that the issue with attempting to create fairness is impossible. You can either reward people for doing things that are good and useful and accept that it won’t result in equal achievements and that certain classes of people will find it easier to achieve that kind of success. Or you can create a system whereby you choose your elite on more arbitrary characteristics. You can either accept that not everyone is equal or end up in a shit hole where everyone is equal but some are more equal. You can’t opt out of privilege. It’s a given. The best you can achieve is making privilege reflect contribution.

I voted YANBU but, as others pointed out, there's a balance to be struck between the serenity to accept the things you cannot change and the courage to change the things you can. Also it's probably reasonable to rail against the shitness of unfairness sometimes even if you can't change it. Although yes it'll probably eat you if you do it too much.

Reading the original school thread, 30 years after passing my 11+, I felt I bit smug that I was not tutored even though some of my classmates were. I did know in some dim way that going to prep school was likely an advantage. Only when I was older did I realise the class size difference and the fact that there were no pupils in my prep school that were particularly disruptive so that's a massive advantage. I read the thread and got to the bit where it said that state schools are not allowed to practise 11+ questions. WTAF? In prep school we had "Structured Reasoning" classes all the way through P6 and the start of P7 - we each got all those big black and yellow books- I think there were four of them, all full of typical past paper type questions. We must have done at least an hour per week of these in class. I just assumed the state school primaries did these too. I read the thread and thought then .
That is massively unfair.

I'll go back to that thread for specifics rather than derail this one any further but my point is- I knew I was privileged but I had no idea how privileged. I think most of us who were lucky enough to be born into a fortunate situation sail through overestimating how much of our advancement is due to our own merits.

Another anecdote: a few years ago I was visiting the area where my first job was and met my old boss. We happened to reminisce about my job interview. I remembered being nervous but that everyone seemed nice, the work looked manageable and I was so pleased to get the job. Old boss got a faraway look in his eyes and said " yes I remember the interview; you had a nice white blouse on". It occurred to me that I started with a strong, confident-seeming male graduate. When he left, he was replaced by a man. When I left, I was replaced by a very pretty female graduate. Based on this and some comments during my time there, he hired a man to work and a pretty girl to look at, I suspect. I made the most of that job but I realise now I didn't get it on merit. If I hadn't been young, slim and quite pretty I wouldn't have got it. I genuinely thought at the time that he hired me for my brains.

But the point is Sink they’re not. They won’t even diagnose him - in the time it took my NHS GP to write a fucking letter to a SALT (not even a consultant), I had taken him to a specialist clinic, paid £3k and got him seen by a MDT who diagnosed him with what we knew he had all along. While we all wait (and wait...) for the ludicrous communist utopia, should I just let him fail because others are still on the waiting list? If you had 1 life ring and saw 3 children drowning, would you hold on to it so it was “fair”. Me neither.

Letting my son be abandoned by the state system just adds more to the sum total of human misery and doesn’t make anything “fairer”, least of all for him

I’m not saying you shouldn’t go private. I’m saying that we all have a responsibility to make sure that we don’t dismiss efforts to improve things as a bloody “communist utopia” just because we can afford private treatment.

My twins are both disabled. I can now afford some private SALT and am about to because they’re non verbal but have only had four salt sessions in a year. You got your child’s quickly diagnosis because you could afford to proceed privately.

I know many people who can’t afford any of it. We can’t afford private specialist school so if the council don’t fund it one they won’t be able to go to school at all. Just think for a second about what you would do for your child of you didn’t have the money.

We need to put pressure on the government to fund education and the NHS properly. They’re not a priority when many Tory voters think “I can afford to go private so fuck it”.

I’m more concerned about the obscene number of kids not being educated at all. And I trust Labour far more to invest in education so that the majority of disabled children, those from non-wealthy families, can access the kind of support that others are paying for.

My son is sen and attend mainstream. We have to fight tooth and nail for every little bit of support. He does well under the circumstances but I do worry about his future. Life s not fair. Only 1 in 5 adults with asd are in full time employment because others cannot see past the disability

@sinkgirl I’m desperately sorry for your situation - but, without derailing my own bloody thread - the NHS is absolutely bursting at the seams and those fortunate enough to go private (I’m not one of them btw) quite frankly should.

Very often I will go to a private doctor- one of those clinics where you pay around £40 for an appointment.

Now obviously I do it for the convinience- however you could look at this in two ways - 1. Why is it fair that I can afford £40 to get seen quicker or

1. I’m freeing up a space at my Gp

@powershowerforanhour (great user name btw). Your story is depressing but very true. I am very very sure that I got some of my early jobs thanks to how I looked.

I remember getting a job in a bar at 18 while studying. There was an ad in the paper, I turned up with no experience and the landlord hired me there an then. The pub manager (female) was seriously pissed off on my first shift when I couldn’t pull a pint and had no clue... and I don’t blame her!

I’m not saying she shouldn’t go private. I’m saying that she shouldn’t need to in order to meet her child’s basic needs because there will be plenty of people with the same difficulties who can’t.

The NHS is bursting at the seams because the government don’t want to fund it. So I find it hypocritical to criticise Labour for something they may hypothetically do which may affect some children with disabilities, when we have a government who is absolutely screwing over the majority of children with disabilities who can’t afford private support.

Life is never going to be fair but there are structural issues that make life harder for some than it needs to be. I would want to see investment in early years and young people raised significantly. I don’t know how true it is but I was reading that you can have a good go at guessing gcse outcomes at age 3. Obviously there will be individuals that buck those trends but really that is not something that should just be accepted.

Same [email protected] currently studying population &talking through the issues like adequate sanitation/water-war&famine..healthcare&education just depending on where you're born..i bought m DCs up knowing lifes giving them opportunities many can only dream of just by being born in UK.Plenty to be grateful for&if some have more than others i dont begrudge..its our world&the nature of western capitalism.

@Userzzzzz I doubt that can be true in the majority of cases - possibly at extreme ends of the scale but surely you cannot predict across the board.

I've heard/read that as well Thetruth02 I'll see if I can find a link.

Sorry, I can't manage to link as I've only got a pdf, but I think its based on the EPPE longditudinal study (open access on the institute of education website)
Not quite 3 year olds - looked at reception DC characteristics and then their GCSE results.

Interesting but based on what? Their intelligence, background or something else? If the latter how on earth would you account for children in the same family who perform differently?

Sorry cross posted there