To ask whether we could ever go back to what it was like in the 50s-70s?

[myblueheav3n]

I mean in a financial sense more than anything, although I know it wasn’t perfect. I only have a very superficial understanding of it all, but as far as I can tell:

• Affordable housing, and a lot of social housing for those who couldn’t buy.

• Liveable wages for unskilled jobs and good opportunity to work your way up in whatever your profession was. Plenty of work available for young people.

• Education was worth a lot more, e.g. now a university degree is minimum for a ‘decent’ job, and not even that is really guaranteed either.

I had more but after thinking about it for a while they’ve slipped my mind In general it seems like it was better, and people who grew up during these periods generally did well for themselves.

@hansgrueber

Uni? Less than 10% went to uni it was denied and unattainable for vast majority and certainly working class

No it wasn't denied to the working classes, the grammar schools ensured that those whose skills were towards the more academic life were able to go to University and a degree had value, the range of subjects available was narrower and more useful. How many students now go to university to read something vague then wonder why the world isn't falling over itself to employ them on £100k?

Exactly. Better to have a route for all children who are academic into university, regardless of background, and provide it for free and it actually be worth something. Compared to now where people who are not really academic feel they "should" go when they have no interest in studying anything in particular, because a degree is expected for most jobs when it is not needed at all in terms of doing the work, and then so many people going means that students must pay extortionate fees rather than it be state funded. It's madness.

Yes the grammar school system should have had more fluidity rather than a child who didn't pass the 11+ being cut out permanently, but it provided social mobility to many from poor backgrounds that is almost impossible now. The system needed adjusting, not abolishing. It helped to move us towards a meritocrisy and without it we've moved back to a system where the richest kids get access to an academic education, not the brightest. Because apparently poor, clever children accessing academic education was elitit.

Meanwhile Germany has the model of how to ensure you have strong medium sized businesses and good technical training and apprenticeships for those who don't want to pursue/ aren't suited to the academic route. A way for people with more practical skills to become equally successful instead of trying to shoehorn everyone into one box and ruining it for everyone.

Well he had quite a few friends at medical school who were also from working class backgrounds, i never said it was the norm but just hearing the stories of my parents' friends and relatives and my friends' parents that kind of social mobility was really not as unusual as you think, through education or employment (or emigration, there was a lot of that too).

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

If you must quote me,and then you paraphrase do get it right The key words are vast majority And vast majority didn’t get to go to grammar school or progress to uni. They were discouraged, told it wasn’t for like of them, and the system then as now favoured the middle classes

Nonsense. I know many people from very poor working class backgrounds who went to grammar schools in the '50s and '60s, and several who then went on to Oxford and Cambridge. Those schools were one of the main drivers of social mobility.

Your anecdotes do not render the data invalid nor does it make it nonsense
It simply means you knew some poor folk who went to uni. That’s your subjective POV

As a child of the 1950s I agree with much of what Gaspode wrote.

I would add though - apprenticeships were mostly for men. The only ones women were offered were in hairdressing.
Final salary pension schemes - again, very often only open to male workers.
One of the reasons I went into the civil service in the early 70s was because they didn't discriminate between men and women, but strangely enough, the women were mostly in the lower grades and the people who came in via the 'Fast Stream' entry schemes were mostly privately educated, and more likely to be male than female.

It saddens me now that so many things we fought for, like equal pay for women, good working conditions, decent housing standards are being thrown away.

The only thing I can think of that was probably better then was that I don't remember seeing any rough sleepers - but was that because I lived in small market towns, and it wouldn't have been the same in a city?

but it provided social mobility to many from poor backgrounds that is almost impossible now. One of the things that made social mobility possible was an expansion of middle class" jobs. There weren't an equivalent number of people moving down the hierarchy. The reverse is happening nowadays.

Grammar schools are how the middle classes game the system to get advantage and privilege from a state school whilst excluding the school pupils.

Grammar schools are how the middle classes game the system to get advantage and privilege from a state school whilst excluding the poorer school pupils.

Some things then were better, like grammar schools and free university education. Most people advocating grammar schools would find their children at a secondary modern. Strangely, I haven't heard many people advocating the return of secondary moderns.

I remember some tough times too, three day weeks, IRA bombings, inflation, oil prices but I don't think people felt as precarious as they do now. There wasn't the everyday financial precariousness if you were in "secure" job. But I can remember the Cold War and the worry about nuclear war.

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

Your anecdotes do not render the data invalid nor does it make it nonsense It simply means you knew some poor folk who went to uni. That’s your subjective POV

Right. Please share this data with us.

@MereDintofPandiculation

Some things then were better, like grammar schools and free university education. Most people advocating grammar schools would find their children at a secondary modern. Strangely, I haven't heard many people advocating the return of secondary moderns.

I remember some tough times too, three day weeks, IRA bombings, inflation, oil prices but I don't think people felt as precarious as they do now. There wasn't the everyday financial precariousness if you were in "secure" job. But I can remember the Cold War and the worry about nuclear war.

Except that if you read my post you'd see that I specifically said that technical education needed reforming alongside so that those who were not academic got proper training and routes into skilled careers. I didn't advocate for "secondary moderns". The fact that education for those that didn't go to grammar schools was inadequate is not a reason for grammar schools to be abolished, rather for us to have improved technical education and how that maps to career paths, and to make the system more flexible so there wasn't this hard cut-off point at 11, as I said previously.

Nice try but no. I’m not going to do your donkey work,it’s all out there. A perfunctory google will do it
Social class participation at university that sort of thing
IoE
Sutton Trust
Times Education

In 1950, just 3.4 per cent of young people went to university, so today's participation rate vividly illustrates how higher education has moved from the margins to centre stage in British public life. Times Higher Education

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

Grammar schools are how the middle classes game the system to get advantage and privilege from a state school whilst excluding the poorer school pupils.

Nope. It was a system that selected based on intelligence which is what we need. Imperfect of course but much better tham what we have now that helps nobody.

Grammar schools now exist in few places so yes, now it's mainly middle class children that go as it is more competitive to get in and housing in catchment areas is far more expensive. This was not the case when they existed in all areas, including the poorest boroughs/ counties.

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

Nice try but no. I’m not going to do your donkey work,it’s all out there. A perfunctory google will do it Social class participation at university that sort of thing IoE Sutton Trust Times Education

In 1950, just 3.4 per cent of young people went to university, so today's participation rate vividly illustrates how higher education has moved from the margins to centre stage in British public life. Times Higher Education

This has zero relevance to the discussion?!

Zero, you say ...Data please?

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

Zero, you say ...Data please?

Oh you’re jumping around two topics
Participation at uni by social class
Grammar schools

Again,no I’ll not do your donkey work to demonstrate why grammar school are unfair
Same sources always fruitful
IoE
Sutton Trust
Times Higher Education

70% of pupils admitted to grammar school, had tutors. The affluent families are much more likely to invest in private tutoring services than lower-income families because they can afford to

The earlier discussion mentioned multiple times that ~50% of people now go to university. Often with no real wish to study, just because a degree is expected now in many jobs. But that is the case because 50% of people go, not because they all need those degrees for their work. And because so many people feel obliged to go, it can't be state funded so people have huge debts. That helps nobody. It's crazy. But all of this was discussed earlier in the thread. Of course with half of the population going participation from all parts of society has increased. The point is whether this is a good way to structure education. I think lots of graduates with enormous loans that they'll never pay back would rather it was structured more like the way I suggested.

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

Oh you’re jumping around two topics Participation at uni by social class Grammar schools

Again,no I’ll not do your donkey work to demonstrate why grammar school are unfair
Same sources always fruitful
IoE
Sutton Trust
Times Higher Education

70% of pupils admitted to grammar school, had tutors. The affluent families are much more likely to invest in private tutoring services than lower-income families because they can afford to

Yes, that is the situation NOW because those schools are so scarce because most of them were closed down. It was absolutely not the case when there was one in every town. What proportion of students who went to grammar schools on the '50s or '60s had private tutors to help them get a place???

Of course with half of the population going participation from all parts of society has increased
University is still a middle class activity, certainly student numbers have increased but social mobility has not

What proportion of students who went to grammar schools on the '50s or '60s had private tutors to help them get a place???
⬆️If you wish to elaborate or substantiate your own point Go google come back and tell us

There were fewer people then. Less pressure on almost everything. Racism sexism and godawful pollution. Not a golden age.

So now you are contradicting your assertions earlier in the thread.

There doesn't seem to be any logic to your posts, it all feels a bit chip on shoulder if I'm honest. All this "class" stuff and no engagement with the actual structural issues. Education should be about people getting the chance to develop their particular abilities, whether academic or practical, regardless of background. In fact, if you believe in "class", a good education system is the means to make it irrelevant so something you should support not vilify.

Anyway, I am up early so off to bed now.

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

What proportion of students who went to grammar schools on the '50s or '60s had private tutors to help them get a place??? ⬆️If you wish to elaborate or substantiate your own point Go google come back and tell us

Hahaaa so having told me the data is all there you make unsubstantiated and ridiculous claims then expect me to research them to try to find some (non-existent) data to support them for you? Hmmmm... no.

No, I’m simply not going to provide you data sets to contradict my points
If you have your own point to substantiate the onus is on you to do so
You’re all over the shop