To not understand people who talk about being the first in their family to go to uni like it’s a badge of honour?

[Kyrgyzstan]

Sorry if this sounds dismissive of their achievements but isn’t it less of a rags to riches tale of personal achievement and more of a generational difference? I mean barely any of our parents generation went to university and now it’s pretty much expected if you want a half way decent job.

Obviously if you were raised by heroin addicts and managed to still get good grades and go off to uni that’s different but the children of ordinary parents who just didn’t go to university talking about it like a huge achievement sounds a little strange to me?

Well I do look right tit now 😆

It made me laugh!!

Of course it's still an achievement. There is an enormous amount of pressure on kids to not go to uni if it isn't the norm in their family. I've seen it with my kids' friends. Fear of debt, poverty, leaving home, not fitting in etc is a massive disincentive for "first in family" kids. That you can't see that just shows your ignorance.
If you go to uni yourself I'm sure you'll appreciate how much of an achievement it actually is.

I 100% get it’s harder for people who were in care btw I’m only talking about if you were raised in an otherwise normal family but your parents didn’t go to uni

It made me smile.

Your view of ‘normal family ’ is based on the people you see around you as that’s all you know . Could it be they are lower social economic more working classes not university educated themselves . You compare your life with those less fortunate than you from abuse or no beds to sleep on, but it’s a very big scale and you aren’t near the top.

protecting the ego within families is normal . I was told my childhood was great and we were fortunate etc i realised my parents were not very well educated or engaged in my learning when I broadened those I spent time with and moved to a posher area . Turned out I was disadvantaged but compared to those who had it really bad we were alright and told ourselves so … doesn’t mean it was normal . Just normal for the place I grew up.

Hats off to you for working in disadvantaged schools for so many years. I'm sure you made a difference to a lot of kids.

I know a few teachers who have worked in very different types of school. All of them have said that the differences in the level of parental engagement and support are stark.

I absolutely don't think it's because parents from disadvantaged backgrounds care any less about their kids, I just don't think they have the awareness of how other parents might be supporting their dc's learning. The OP illustrates this perfectly.

We need to do more as a society to level the playing field. It is shocking that so many children's life chances are limited by their circumstances before they even start school.

Btw can I just say I appreciate how civil you’ve kept it on here (I am not being sarcastic) especially after that poster yesterday who seems to have thankfully found something better to do.

I do understand what you mean if someone lives in a really nasty area, but trust me my town and area is very average.

I can see how people with parents who help them with their GCSEs and a levels are at an advantage but I just don’t think people like that are common enough to put the average Joe at a disadvantage.

@MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack I agree completely.

Poverty absolutely is a barrier. I come from a very working class family and was the first to go to uni (early 2000s). I got the maximum loan and had minimal tuition fees but still had to work 30-40 hours a week to afford to live as my (very lovely, supportive) parents couldn't afford to give me any money. That's not easy when also studying full time. If I hadn't had such a clear idea of the job I wanted and known that I needed that degree, the money would absolutely have led to me dropping out.

Neither of my siblings went to university as they didn't want to repeat my financial struggles.

Abuse is not the only barrier.

Read what I said. I said it was common for some groups of people. Which it is.
And it means that those groups of people are at an advantage.

TT rockstars is an added extra at our school. It's not part of the formal homework expectations.
My DS is really strong at maths but needs support with spellings so we tend to spend more time on those. We use workbooks at home so no league tables for comparison.

Thanks - it has been an interesting discussion.

Where we differ is in our assessment of what's "normal" or "average". I suspect that a lot more families are engaged and invested in their children's education than you seem to believe.

The reality may be that it is actually somewhere in between, but the research undoubtedly shows that children with educated and engaged parents tend to have better outcomes throughout life.

I don't think that means for a moment that your children are doomed because you don't have a degree, but I do think it means that you might have to work a bit harder than most to try and level the playing field for them. And that isn't fair but it is the reality and I'm sure that you do actually want the best for your dc, so it is worth putting in the effort.

They're still at primary school, and you are obviously doing some stuff to support their learning already. If you hang around on MN and frequent some of the education boards, it might give you some ideas about what else you might be able to do to give them that little leg up.

I can see how people with parents who help them with their GCSEs and a levels are at an advantage but I just don’t think people like that are common enough to put the average Joe at a disadvantage.

You have absolutely no evidence to support what you are saying here.

And it’s harder for young parents. Ie you

You're sort of helping to prove everyone else's point here, OP. Just because it's normal in your social circle for parents not to take an interest in/help their children with their homework, doesn't mean it's usual everywhere. As you just pointed out, the people who have help, are already a step ahead of those without any parental involvement/help.

It is great you are helping your children with their homework. Hopefully that support will continue, putting one less barrier in your children's way.

Sorry C152, you're getting carried away with your reply, which has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.
Please take the time to read the following and think about it ...

I'm saying that in MY past, born c 1960, most people did not go to university , unless they planned to be lawyer, vet, vicar, etcetera. It was not considered necessary, especially for females. Hence, many privileged people did not attend university.

Hence , their children, who may have been born in the 1990s may truthfully claim "I am the first in my family to go to university", thus pushing the trendy 'adversity' button. However, the truth is that they have had every conceivable benefit: private schools, foreign travel, internships supported by parents etcetera.
I have seen friends making use of this claim and also seen in on the blurb of authors I'm interested in.
I completely agree it's harder to get to university from a background of adversity. That's why this ploy (of saying , I'm the first etcetera) to gain popularity/success particularly irritates me.
I think you can understand this if you slow down and think about what I am actually saying. It fits in perfectly well with your pov.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about people genuinely from a disadvantaged background, just about those who want to convince people they have overcome hardship, when they haven't.
I hope you understand my point.

I'd agree that there are probably fewer barriers to some first generation students now than in the past. The amount of information and advice that can be accessed online must make a difference for instance. But it goes far deeper than that.
It's not having parents who understand the mechanics of making a University application that really makes the difference, though obviously that does no harm. But as a population, children from families where the parents have been educated to a higher level are better resourced in many ways, and long before they even think about UCAS forms. Obviously it isn't universal, some highly educated parents don't give a shit and some who left school at 16 are very well resourced and supportive of their children's academic ambitions. But as populations there are significant differences. Highest level of educational attainment is information that is collected for plenty of socioeconomic and health metrics. It does matter.

A lot of the advantages DH and I have been able to give our DC are related to our jobs, which in turn are due to the fact that we both went to University. Sure, I could coach my children on how to write a good personal statement and how to present themselves well at interview which is something my parents couldn't really do with me, but far more importantly, my DC had so much more to actually say about themselves than I ever did. I didn't have a deprived childhood, never hungry, abused or anything, and my parents really encouraged me to aim high. But there wasn't much spare cash or many opportunities for me and they couldn't offer anything more than moral support. My DC have been to better schools, had multiple extracurricular interests, volunteered at international events, been to summer schools, done work experience in interesting places and so on. They gained so from those things, including self confidence. They work hard and are still entitled to feel proud of their achievements but there is no doubt that my DC have had a headstart compared to many. That is a direct result of the fact that DH and I were able to access tertiary education. Children from the most deprived backgrounds are of course most disadvantaged, but that doesn't mean that there are no challenges for those who are not in poverty but still lack some opportunities - there's a spectrum.

I'm afraid it puts them at distinct advantage which affords them opportunities that are going to be extra hard for the "average Joe" to access as they competing with this privilege. Besides, average Joe's opportunities have shrunk in the last 14 years as a result of the Tories austerity measures.

I'm sorry, I do believe it was relevant to your post, as I understood it:

You agreed with the OP. You then gave an example of authors using the 'first in family to go to uni' concept to make their achievement seem more than it is. You take issue with this, as you are aware of some in your circle that had other privileges to smooth their path in life, which you believe negate the fact no one in their family is University educated.

In response, I said that, in general, that phrase was used to refer to people who faced additional barriers (whatever those may be - poverty, lack of parental encouragement, lack of awareness etc), I agreed that not everyone who was first in their family to attend Uni would face barriers and, those that do, won't necessarily face the same barriers. However, these two facts don't change the third fact, that most people who are first in their family to attend University do face hurdles that others do not.

You disagree with what you feel is the misuse/abuse of the term; but the OP just doesn't believe it should be used at all, as she doesn't appear to believe in barriers other than abject poverty/drug addiction. So, whilst I don't see that you do actually agree with the OP, I can understand the distate in what you refer to as the ploy of some people you know.

Off on a tangent, I find your point about privilege in the UK interesting, as there has been a long held expectation in some other countries that a certain social class would go to university. But even where university was neither an expectation nor a possibility (eg. due to cost), a high value on a minimum level of education was held generally throughout society. In 2 countries I'm thinking of specifically, everyone had to be able to read and write before they could attend primary school. Parents unable to prepare their children for school were not viewed in a favourable light and it was anticipated - and highly likely - that these children would suffer in life (unable to get a good job, acquire land or marry; and would probably end up in servitude). I might be making an inaccurate link, but it seems to me that this historical approach and attitude played a large part in the current position of highly educated populations and education systems and results that are envied globally. I do wonder how the UK can create the sort of value in education needed to propel the population forward in the way needed for the country as a whole to succeed.

In my experience, it was absolutely completely normal for parents to help with GCSEs. It was definitely not just the teacher’s job”. But that’s because my parents and grandparents valued education above all else, and so consistently supported me with it my entire life. My parents called them O Levels too, but the subject matter hadn’t changed so they were able to help me regardless of what they’d called them. The vast majority of my peers parents also helped their children. That was my “normal”. I now know that I was absolutely privileged to have that support & I clearly didn’t overcome the same hurdles that people who didn’t have that support did. It’s unfortunate that your parents didn’t support you and it’s great that you are supporting your own kids education. Your version of normal is totally foreign to me, but I understand that both exist. It’s not as black and white as you’re making it out to be.

Looks like wilful ignorance now tbh. Shame really - there are some very interesting points being raised.

Yes. My dad was from a rough estate and left school at 14 with no qualifications. My mum was from a broken home in the '50s and went into work straight after A levels. I was a free school meals kid. And I went to a top 20 uni, with top grades in the early 2000s. It was a huge achievement. Not just mine, but my parents that they had helped foster an interest in learning that was not encouraged for their generation.

Not all families have the same means to access education. It really is a big achievement for many.

This is part of the difference between kids of parents who are very keen on education and those who aren't. Almost everyone I know spends an unholy amount of effort supporting homework etc. There is a whole parents WhatsApp group dedicated to it.

.... most people who are first in their family to attend University do face hurdles that others do not.
I suggest you check this out. It's easy to do on the Gov information site. My suspicion is that perhaps most undergraduates starting university this autumn may be the first in their family to attend university. I'm happy to be proved wrong. 🙂
On your tangental point, as you don't mention the country you are thinking of , it's hard to understand your point . If you mean that Britain has a different attitude to education from some other countries, I'm sure you're right. In the UK, it's not kool to be a swot and I know other countries, whether European or in other continents, think it's very cool to be brainy and reward it, whilst it's traditionally been frowned upon in Britain to stand out from the crowd.
Could you kindly reveal what country you are thinking of? I don't think it would be outing!