Education superclass?

[Amber2]

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100245274/it-is-much-worse-than-sir-john-major-says-a-new-superclass-is-being-created-in-london/

This is interesting coming from John Major ...sounds like more lobbying along the lines of the Sutton Trust but do people really think it's much worse than it ever has been..? and this is do with with the inexorable rise of London...and the global money flowing in there...and so to creating an elite superclass of private schools also ...not just any old private school but a small handful of elite ones, applications to which have reached record numbers, presumably more and more from London and from overseas with over inflation rises in fees pricing out the traditional middle classes that used to be able to afford these schools.

(sorry, fewer not less...) ;)

Taz am curious why not?

I don't expect my DS to do anything "useful" with his education or expect any returns. Although I do hope it inspires him, and opens his eyes to what around him so that he just gets more enjoyment and pleasure from life. But I'm always amazed at the number of people! who assume that I am seeking some sort of return I frequently get comments like "hopefully he'll look after you in old age" "when he's in a good job he'll be able to pay you back" I don't expect him to do any of this. Or even expect him to get that "good job" what ever the hell that is.

From what I have observed, USA undergraduate education suits people who wish to continue a more general approach to their education, especially if one has a leaning to liberal arts. However in those early years they are behind their UK peers for at least the sciences and in maths. For the latter subjects I also would advocate waiting until postgraduate studies or even for postdoctoral studies to get the most of the USA system.

I think it's the broad education that appeals, our children seem to be asking to specialise so early, we sent to DS to his school to get a truly broad education and now he doesn't want to give up subjects he loves to concentrate on just the subject he excels at. In the US you seem to be able to keep your options open for longer.

Happygardening, much along the lines of what summerends has said but will be back to elaborate after dinner/DD's shower etc!

UCL are a year or so into a combined arts and science degree (plus modern language component), interesting option for a general education.

I think some DC want to specialise earlier than others, which is a good reason to explore different HE options. My DSS1 couldn't stand the idea of French prépa where he would have had to continue after his bac with another two years of (very intensive) generalist schooling. He is very happy at university in England where he has been able to drop the dreaded philo, Spanish etc.

Also more opportunity for expanding extracurricular interests in British universities compared to constrained heads down intensive workload approach of prépa.

happygardening - I know you don't expect your ds to do anything useful. That's my point. Why limit the experiences your ds gets at Winchester to clever people, if people of lower intelligence would like the same experiences? Is it just some random way of picking people when more want a place than there are spaces available? Or does it come down to the strong hope that these intelligent people WILL do something useful with all their privilege? Are intelligent people more worthy of privilege and mind broadening experiences, even though they probably need less help to broaden their minds than the less intelligent, not more? Why offer bursaries only to clever boys?

Is it all just gross self indulgence?

Was Oxford self indulgence Rabbit?

rabbit, lots of children or adults don't want to spend a lot of their time in mind broadening study or even cultural activities whatever their level of intelligence or economic background. Winchester or other such schools would be their idea of purgatory.

Absolutely it was, Slipshodsibyl.

If I'd have thought going there would force me in a particular direction, I would have left the space open for someone else.

That is very true, Slipshodsibyl. Lots of people find school purgatory from beginning to end.

Rabbit I think you are going up a blind alley with this. I can't think do anything worse than an assumption so called elite schools would provide the summit of educational opportunity for everyone. Turn this on it's head and say what institutions would provide the best educational opportunities for the full diversity of a generation of children. The so called elite schools are providing something that meets the needs of a minority who a. have the money and b. are clever enough. One of our local outstanding comps is currently doing amazing things with it's lower sets by focusing on providing a high staff to pupil ratio and not just supporting them in getting them to whatever the minimum achievement in public exams is judged appropriate this month, but also to broadening their educational experience and offering vocational qualifications. My friend who has a first in languages from Oxford is in a country town comprehensive accepting that for some of her pupils a C would be a distant dream and if the way to inspire their interest is to build cardboard models with them in German, with little point attempting a magazine, let alone touch German literature or music, then that is what she should do. My mother as deputy head with charge of pastoral care spent her career primarily acting as a social worker, dealing with levels of abuse beyond most imagining. There are pockets of really good practise in providing a good education to children of all abilities and backgrounds within the framework of the increasingly idiotic strategy around national qualifications. The point isn't that Winchesters model should be on offer to all. It is that best practise in the state sector is not implemented everywhere.

And being in possession of a northern Protestant ethic, yes you are being self indulgent, shame on you. You and your offspring should be out proving yourselves worthy of this shot of time on earth, and I am only half joking....

Sorry, meant summerends.

Shootingatpigeons - actually, I agree everything you said, there.

In all honesty, rather than joking, I do use and value my education, though, and the advantages I was offered and the experiences I had did make me feel that I was lucky and owed something back, somehow. Going into politics, or law, or global business was not a way I felt I could contribute, however, and I would not have appreciated society expecting that particular result from my education. At the end of the day, my intelligence is affected by my personality and I think personality counts for more in many of these fields than intelligence.

'It is totally wrong to blame children for the advantages their parents helped them acquire.'

Likewise it is totally wrong to single out such children and hold them up as shining examples of what the rest of us should be doing, turning it all in to a huge unfair competition.

Watch out, the global elite are coming… Global elite my

rabbit I don't believe intelligent people are more worthy of a mind broadening education. All are. But the problem is that most schools (and parents) be they state or independent are so obsessed about exam results that this has become the number 1 priority. I suspect it's also easier to devote time to a mind broadening education if you select the brightest, have them 24/7 and also ensure that when they arrive at 13 they're already virtually able to sit GSCE/IGCSE or whatever and get A's. DS1 who was at what the head reliably and repeatedly told us was an "outstanding school" and the "top performing school in the county" did 12 GCSE's why so many? Why not do a few less and devote time to providing a mind broadening education, the sort of education my above mentioned grand father sought. Whereas DS2 only does 9 no boy does history or Eng Lit at IGCSE but both are studied in the broadest possible way no curriculum, no preparation for state exams just studied for sheer enjoyment. DS2 who being dyslexic and a slow reader to say the least was not overly interested in literature before was absolutely bowled over by the teaching of it last year, the books studied were often complicated and wide ranging from mediaeval lit to poetry to comedy, no prescribed curriculum just whatever books his teacher fancied. Such a contrast to DS1 who was an avid and enthusiastic and quick reader, plodding through the Eng Lit GCSE curriculum, his teacher commented on his ability in the subject! sadly he's been put off Eng Lit for life. This yr DS2 is studying history again a subject of little interest in the past, they're doing the Georgians, any aspect his teacher chooses, he's absolutely loving it, they're listening to opera, DS2, unlike my DH, I thought no opera fan but now wants to go to listen and see more, watching films, reading books, looking at art from the period, I firmly believe that freed from the need to pass exams or follow a set curriculum a truly mind broadening education can be provided. My grand father who although not approving of the type of school would be pleased that so much is being learnt.
You don't have to be super clever to benefit from this you just need the right teachers freedom/time and an open mind.

Your ds2 is very lucky, happygardening. But you and he already appreciate that.

I was lucky - my father had a love of learning which he shared with his family. That had more impact on me than school.

And his love of learning was not limited to things academic. He had great practical skills, too, and valued practical skills as highly as academic - maybe his working class background.