To ask another 'class' question?

[PonyLo]

I know.
But i was reading another thread and it brought this to mind. People keep blithering on about it on MN, but the topic is often about signifiers such as clothes, house, job, schools, consumer choices and such.

So I had this thought - if a huge amount of people were just placed together in a big group wearing only a simple cotton dressing gown and no make up, could you tell what *social group they belonged to?

Like the bare bones?
My guess is that probably not! You might try to pick 'hair style' but I have found that varies wildly (I am middle class with a good amount of natural frizz). Which kind of confirms my suspicion that it's all about perception, rather than fact.

*'Social Group' is a much preferable description since it disqualifies attempts to use hierarchical judgements.

But you’re assuming working-class women don’t work in middle-class professions. Of course they do. I do (though my hair is its natural brown, or as close as I can get with dye.) I’m an academic in the humanities and my head of school is a highly reputable scholar and a WC woman with her original strong regional accent and hair dyed an ‘unnatural’ red.

This. Its the way people talk and hold themselves.

If i'm being honest, my 'assumption' when i notice a woman with red hair dye, is that they're bad ass (in a good way!). I don't personally know any, but the ones i 'know' from the internet (Repeal campaign) - are just cool.

This thread just makes me want to get some tattoos and hair dye and random piercings just so I can enjoy people leaping to all kinds assumptions about me!

I thinking how people age is quite a good signifier of health and wealth.

I was interested that a few posters suggested the state of your health was an indicator of class. What if you're loaded, but terrified of dentists??!?

Did you not notice that, while holding your head of school up as a sample (of one) whose hair & accent match her class, you supported the PP's hair dye theory?

A working-class woman doing a traditionally upper-middle job is a triumph of universal education, not a disproof of the class system. Furthermore, she must have a strong character to have overcome systemic classism & sexism (at least).

😂 There are exceptions to every rule, you know, especially nebulous ones like "indicators of social class".

@GarlicGrace my comment was slightly tongue in cheek .....

I am not in favour of rigid class markers, so I like this, however:

Any woman willing to invest the time and money can have great understated hair, should she choose. This is a function of her taste and the money she has available to fulfil it.

So why are PPs focussing on hair as a class indicator? As a mere foreigner my understanding is that money and class are independent concepts. TIA to anyone who can clear up my confusion on this matter

@poetryandwine, the term statisticians use is socio-economic class. Someone can be a broke aristocrat or a working-class billionaire. They are exceptions, though: the majority of people fit broadly into a class with matching income, property holdings, education, background, and cultural markers such as interests & habits.

Like most other European countries, we attach more social importance to class than money. The aphorism "Money can't buy class" may not be 100% true, but it captures a significant aspect of our society.

If you find this complicated, try looking at India!

I live in a grammar area and am involved with several primary schools. I can tell after the first few days in reception which children are likely to pass the 11+. And it's absolutely nothing to do with academic ability. That is why I am such a passionate opponent of the system.(caveat. There are, of course, exceptions.)

Like i said, i wouldn't notice. I'd be inside my own head tbh. But that's my own perspective tbh. Neither is wrong. Both are a wee bit sad though tbh.

This is totally off topic, but will somone PLEASE explain grammar schools to me? I know they're posh but nothing other than that. In Ireland, a school is just a school. There are fancy ones, and normal ones. But they're all just schools!

It's not about class, for once! Child has to pass the 11+ to be considered for a grammar school. Some restrict entry to the highest scorers and/or set an additional entrance exam.

The purpose is/was to select children with better academic ability. In areas where schools are not selective, pretty much the same thing is achieved through streaming.

By just looking at them? No, you mostly wouldn't be able to tell. By mixing and talking to them, yes. I'm surprised how many people think that the way someone looks is the main marker of class tbh.

Grammar school areas are those ‘Waitrose’ towns near me - leafy with high house prices. It’s the anxious middle classes who don’t want to pay private school fees so they tutor their kids to ensure they pass the 11+. This is so that their kids don’t have to endure the horror of being with the chavs in normal secondary schools. So yes. It very much is a class thing.

I must sound v thick, but that's awful! Really awful. Tsk. I'm not down with that all tbh.

And thanks for explaining!

@GarlicGrace "It's not about class, for once! Child has to pass the 11+ to be considered for a grammar school"

It absolutely about class. Just covertly. The demographic of a grammar school NEVER matches its catchment. As I said, it's easy to tell the likely 11+passers on their first day in reception.

Of course grammar schools are about class. They are how the middle class get a superior education for their darlings as a free benefit from the government under the guise that it is merit based and not charity.

• Grammar schools are located in middle class areas, not in deprived areas
• Middle class parents can afford to hire private tutors to give their darlings an advantage on the 11+
• Transportation to the grammar school has to be provided by the parents, limiting it to families that either have a stay at home driving parent, parents in professional enough jobs to give them flexible working, or parents that can afford transport costs.

The same thing is not achieved in state comprehensives by “streaming” or sets. You only need to look at achievement scores and % of students leaving with qualifications and % students going on to further education to see that.

I think my crap teeth would mark me out as working class.

Since I am old, I went to a grammar school when ALL education authorities had them. Every child sat the 11+ and could attend a grammar if they passed.

Those of you pointing out that only 'posh' areas still have grammar schools: you're looking at economics created by a combination of pushy parents with money and savvy local authorities.

I should perhaps add that I saw the comprehensive principle as better for all children in theory, but schools never had the resources to make it work well in practice. Tiered schooling was more helpful.

JFC crap teeth are just crap teeth! Life sucks but it's not all a social class marker. There's so much rubbish on here. Ffs.

I’m not sure your observation stacks up
”Our research examined whether or not the 1944 Act made a difference to children who would have been disadvantaged in the earlier era because their parents would be unlikely to be able to pay the required secondary school fees. We compared the chances of gaining a grammar school place among boys and girls with managerial or professional fathers compared to those with skilled manual or skilled non-manual fathers or with semi-skilled or unskilled fathers.
We found no evidence of change among these socio-economic groups in the 20 years following the Act compared with the 20 years prior to it. In other words, there was no improvement in social mobility. This was also the case when we looked at family qualifications. Children from families with at least one parent who had qualifications retained a big comparative advantage in gaining a grammar school place after the Act came into force.
We also examined the relative chance of children achieving formal school qualifications. Both in the early part of the 20th century and after the 1944 Act, grammar schools offered nationally recognised exam qualifications at the ages of 16 and 17-18. For the great majority of children who attended non-selective education, there was virtually no chance of obtaining these qualifications because they typically left school before then. The minimum leaving age was 14 before the Act and it rose to 15 in 1947. Again, we found that the chances of children from poorer home backgrounds gaining schools qualifications was unaltered post-1944 compared to pre-1944.”
https://theconversation.com/grammar-schools-have-a-long-history-of-being-dominated-by-middle-class-children-64198