Education Underclass

[OddSins]

Having exhausted the "Superclass" thread, there seems to be support for this conversation.

By way of approaching it. Do we agree there is one, who are they, why does it exist and what can we do?

Ill leave my tuppence worth to later.

word We are then EXACTLY the same age. I don't know whether to or :(

Word I think that when I went to Cambridge it was definitely harder for a female from a comp, working class, immigrant council flat background to get into cambridge to read Maths than it would be today. Maths at Cambridge was overwhelmingly dominated by male posh people. But obviously I didn't make it easy for myself, I could have picked a demographically more likely subject, for example.

Maths is an interesting one, mind you, because state school pupils are - gender notwithstanding - at a disadvantage in maths now, compared to posh school pupils, at not just Cambridge but lesser universities too. So. But for other subjects? The proportion of state school pupils is higher today.

As far as the city goes - I know your husband is partner level but you must know that you just cannot say 'I would have made it too' if you walk away beforehand. And many people make it to partner or director and still get shed, these days (not like when we were trainees and you could have truly terrible partners who everyone knew were terrible but who, by virtue of having been good for 5 minutes many years ago, were set for life. It just isn't like that any more - and it isn't for people exactly our age). In very broad terms, there is a wider pool of acceptable universities now than there used to be. It;s still a small pool. But it's bigger than it was in 1989. Firms still pay for training. Training is better, and more accessible too. Trainees are treated much better than they were in our day (and they have much better T&Cs).

I just don't believe that it would be impossible for someone from my background to do what I did, today - I don't believe it would be impossible for someone from my background but without my issues to do much better than I did. I don't see many, coming through - but I do see them. I think some things are easier now, some things are more difficult and the net effect is broadly neutral, if you leave aside debt.

I'm not far off 46 myself - February, in fact.
What's happening in the UK in terms of access to education saddens me because I come from Holland, where the divide is not so great. There have always been tuition fees for university there, but they are set much, much lower than in the UK - about £1500 per year at present and rising annually in line with inflation. Very many courses are taught in English and I think it is this route that my DDs will have to take, because most people are being priced out in the UK. It's all very well to say that it's a loan and it won't be paid back until the person is earning more than £21k, but 1) I don't trust whichever government is in charge not to change those rules and 2) Going into that much debt is going to make it almost impossible for anyone to buy a house.

And competition for really good courses in the UK is immensely tough. I agree with word that someone coming from a tough estate would really struggle to break through those barriers now, much more so than they would even a decade ago.

I think that you are misunderstanding LEM, it is nothing to do with SN and struggling at school. My DS was slow to talk, had speech therapy is dyslexic and struggled. He is no way part of the underclass we are talking about.
If he had parents who didn't value education and who were not supportive, he could easily be, but we were very supportive and we certainly value education.

metI would never say I would have made it as a partner. I see what DH does and wonder if I'd have had the sheer reslience! I doubt it.

What I meant by 'penetrating the industry'; I had a good law degree from Oxbridge and easily secured a trisaning contract and then a job.

Though that's just the start of course .

I think it's now very tough to get a training contract at a top end firm becaus eof the sheer competition, especially from overseas. There was only one foreign trainee in my batch! That would be unheard of now.

But actually, law in the city is still doable (these things being relative) as you can get (some) help with the LPC and trainees are paid very well, certainly enough to live on in London. Also, work experience has been formalised, so no longer are partners DCs and client's DCs clogging up the opportunities. These days work placements tend ot be a pre cursor to a training contract and are well paid.

But let's not get started on the bar! Apart from a ahnadful of commercial sets, there is no help with the bar finals. And you are expected to have an excellent degree, find and fund mini pupilages etc. And then there's pupillage and those early very lean years! It is a game for the children of the rich and connected.

And as for politics....

The bar was always like that though. At least now, there are more pupillages available. For more applicants, yes.

Life as a trainee solicitor or accountant in the city is definitely nicer now than it was in our day though. Nicer and better paid. And as I said - there is a wider pool of acceptable universities. You are right that there are more overseas applicants but this wasn't as rare across the board as it obviously was in your particular firm even back in the late 80s early 90s. And as you rightly point out there is less nepotism.

I'm really not trying to say things are rosy now. I believe the net effect of the changes we have seen, for those people who want to have a city career, is broadly neutral. I don't know enough about political or diplomatic careers (well - I know about German diplomatic careers. But that's not the same thing) to have a view really. But I would challenge the assumption that those sort of careers are either the only or the best careers on which to focus aspiration. I don't think that choosing a different path is necessarily a sign that one isn't recognising exclusion for what it is and is dressing up enforced decision as choice. I work in the city (well, many cities) and I don't think that being a city mover and shaker has ever been all it was cracked up to be, and I don't think that it is any longer what it actually was, in terms of power or influence (note I have no power or influence, but I'm close to power influence and policy by virtue of my job role). I think that many posh schools and posh parents have failed to recognise what annoying people might call paradigm shift. And I think they may have drunk too much Kool Aid.

met I hope you're right.

For all I have raised two posh kids going to posh schools, we are not remotely posh .

And I have no desire to see the same jobs being taken by the same people. For one thing, I think the banking crisis has shown us how unsafe it is to have a type running the banks, the regulators and the governement. Diversity brings diverse voices.

I think it is harder for everyone because of globalisation. Tim nice but dim is no longer guaranteed a place wherever, Sam faces huge challenges as well. ( Sam being a broadly socially neutral name). The stats in the UK do show the disparities, the top performing at gcses tend to be Chinese girls.

But in Ds's yes private, yes selective, school, out of 25 of them only about 4 ( of whatever ethnic origin) had all grandparents born in the UK. The top performers tend, not exclusively, to come from E Europe, the sub continent and the far east.

And a friend who runs stuff in the city is v clear that neither he nor I would have got in now. He only recruits people who have a first in maths and a hard first language as well as being bilingual in English.

I think it is harder for everyone because of globalisation. Tim nice but dim is no longer guaranteed a place wherever, Sam faces huge challenges as well. ( Sam being a broadly socially neutral name). The stats in the UK do show the disparities, the top performing at gcses tend to be Chinese girls.

But in Ds's yes private, yes selective, school, out of 25 of them only about 4 ( of whatever ethnic origin) had all grandparents born in the UK. The top performers tend, not exclusively, to come from E Europe, the sub continent and the far east.

And a friend who runs stuff in the city is v clear that neither he nor I would have got in now. He only recruits people who have a first in maths and a hard first language as well as being bilingual in English.

wordfactor I liked your first post - it said a lot.

Perhaps the problem is that for the educational underclass, of all stratas, we are teaching them to pass exams, rather than educating them or teaching them how to learn.

But many of you have SUCH a narrow view of education.
Oxbridge and its ilk are (rightly) an utter irrelevance for most of the population.
As is the global economy.

You do not choose a hairdresser or car mechanic or carpenter with amazing academic skills who can compete with the best of the Chinese.
You choose a polite, competent local one.
And THAT is what 80% of the people going through education in this country are geared towards.
There are far more office cleaners than there are City lawyers.
We can keep importing cooks and cleaners and carers, or we can ensure that education stops being elitist and recognises that many of the skills that keep the country going are NOT academic.

The underclass :
Yup, they are the ones with dysfunctional families.

If they are rich (like the Rausings) then the children are shipped out to Nannies and Boarding Schools

If they are poor, the State either helps them now or pays for prison / hospital later.

oh fgs there are no more/less bad parents then there ever were, I think Satin's post over simplifies the problem and is a bit assumptive tbh.

There are many reasons a child might do badly at school, some are great at home but hate school some vice versa.

Rather than the issue being how many people can access the 'elite' - whether that be elite universities or elite jobs - the idea of an 'underclass' is surely more about those who cannot access ANY meaningful employment following their compulsory years in education?

As Talkin says, the majority of employment opportunities (in numerical terms, though not in terms of profile) do not require an elite education. They primarily require, as well as a certain level of education, a range of soft skills and a mindset that values employment and work.

The 'underclass', if one wants to use that word, lack one of those things OR have barriers - a criminal record, a substance addiction, a specific culture [Gypsy / Roma / Travellers are actually the minority group with one of the poorest educational outcomes] or a chaotic home - that put a wall up between them and 'the employed world'.

"I think a relatively small number of children in the UK are receiving an education (and I'm using the word in its broadest sense) that will facilitate a life with the most meaningful of choices."

Tbh, I see this as a somewhat de haut en bas judgement. Thinking back on one of my classes, there was a young boy who, when he leaves school, will have what he (and his parents, who I know as well) see as a wealth of choices. He could be a plumber, a carpenter like his dad, a carpet fitter, a bricklayer or an electrician (or a non-building trade, but tbh that wasn't really on the cards in this case!). He could work with his dad, in a local company, contracted to an organisation like a hospital or school, or set up a business elsewhere on his own. Those choices were absolutely meaningful to him, and to his family.

Just because, due to his ability and his schooling, he was unlikely to become Prime Minister or a barrister, does not make his choice 'not meaningful'.

Thank you T.P. I was going to say i thought this post was about the educational underclass. The kids who leave school unable to read and are unprepared for the future in terms of employment or further academic study.
It seems this thread is describing kids even those who have benefitted from private education as some sort of educational underclass. I have said in other posts that even kids from private /grammar schools are unlikely to compete against the Etons of the world. The reality is though that these kids are a million miles from the real underclass in education. You can see this with kids who come from backgrounds not unlike the Philpots , this website talks about University as common place and essential, however there are many kids leaving school unable to read or write to an acceptable standard ( I am not talking 5Cs here). Many families are not interested and their DCs will not benefit from higher or further education, they would just like to their Dcs to earn enough money for a decent life .

Frank Field made some excellent comments about ,this saying, most people he meets in his Birkenhead Constituency , are not interested in their kids becoming Doctors or other professionals . They just want their families and offspring to earn enough
to be able to pay the rent , the electric,gas, food and be able to go on holiday every year. Talkinpeace is right once again that the 75% of kids who are not high flyers, need the jobs she described, they also need to have career enhancement, and the opportunity for further study later in their life if appropriate.

I think the entire cast of that Essex programme support the idea of an education underclass.

Talkin excellent point - what about all those people who do perfectly well and settle down in ordinary jobs which give them a decent income and hopefully some job satisfaction too? And what about all those who do the essential work? Not everyone can be a high flyer, not everyone wants to be a high flyer. The price in terms of having a life is too high, certainly for me.

I think the point that it is now harder for people from deprived backgrounds to become high flyers holds true, though, but the real educational underclass are the ones who slip through the net.

There’s a simple reason why loads of people are only interested in being able to get some sort of job that pays enough to get by, plus a bit, make kids and repeat the cycle, and it’s because it’s hammered in from day one that that’s the best deal that can be expected, and aiming higher is setting yourselves up as believing you’re better than others.

Trying to fight that when it comes at you from all sides and gets reinforced by school is an uphill battle.

teacher you see my judgement as superior, yet I see yours as utterly utterly patronising.

Ah, look at all them little folk, just so happy with the choices life gives them.

I get a little bit angry over the criticisms that the cast of shows like "The only way is Essex" continue to get. These kids have found a legal way ( Contributing to society via tax) to acquire for themselves a great lifestyle, great clothes, nice homes ,nice cars. The lifestyles these kids have, 95 % of people under 35 would dream to have. They have been able to do this by making themselves employable, despite in many circumstances many of them not benefitting from the greatest education. I get sick of the intellectual snobbery that sometimes intrudes on to this site , putting people down because they have not read or understood Latin phrases.

People like Joey essex,although we would like our family members to be more educated ,have found a way to create a life for themselves. They contribute to society via taxation and pleasure they give, they are no burden to society. It is quite feasible that in time like footballers Dcs , their Dcs will benefit from good educations and will benefit society in the traditional way through the professions their decent educations will enable for them.

Agree JustGettingOn.

It's not about wanting an elite education, it's about the education in many areas not allowing children access to their own dreams if it's beyond a certain level of qualifications. It's this mantra that not everyone can be elite, but that's a message already being sold to the educational underclass and beaten in. It feels less like trying to make jobs appear equally aspirational and valuable and more about keeping groups in their status quo.

There is nothing wrong in wanting to be a hairdresser or a home care worker. There is something wrong with the situation of my daughter saying she wants be a doctor and having every professional she comes across try to damper her desire and bring home care up as an alternative because 'it's easier to get those kind of qualifications around here'. There is something very wrong when people whose job it is to help children achieve more ignore the problems of bullying in our schools, of qualifications, of just connecting and interacting socially and instead think that giving more stuff will make it better. This is what happens to us in an educational black spot.

I don't think it's an elite education to want my kids to be able to get basic qualifications - but in my area less than half will get that. It isn't just dysfunctional families - my city isn't mostly filled with dysfunctional families, but many families trying their best and having no access but the system that is making it harder to actually make choices the lower down on the ladder you are. Telling someone who dreams of doing X that doing Y is just as good doesn't alleviate the problem that the barriers to get X are getting harder to climb.

TheSpork Yes to 'if you want to be a Dr, how about being an HCA?'

Two of the things I've had a lot of school arguments over:

"They need to aim for the low hanging fruit so they don't risk missing"

"They need to stick to and concentrate on the things they're not good at"

pointy The price in terms of having a life is too high It's comments like this - which are completely misinformed and wrong - that enable people to assume that those who genuinely prefer other options in life are actually engaging in a bit of post hoc justification.

There is nothing wrong, I feel, in saying 'I want to do something different, I don't want to do any of the jobs that someone else thinks are the top job, I want to do what I think is the top job and its(insert whatever you want)'. I disagree with word's view that this in tantamount to saying let the little people have the little jobs. I think there are huge numbers of interesting, valuable and lucrative jobs (not necessarily having all 3 characteristics mind you) out there and they aren't 'little' even if they don't necessarily pay much. I don't think being a superbrain should condemn you to doing the sort of work I found myself forced into after university. (Not that I was a superbrain but I did what the working class cambridge graduate is supposed to do - got a brainy job that paid well). But please don't parade your ignorance by claiming that people doing my sort of job 'don't have a life'. We do. It's our lives which enable us to carry on doing our jobs. And our jobs which enable us to have great lives.

Metebelis I'm not sure why you're taking offence at my comment, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that people who don't want to work 80 hour weeks and earn megabucks are actually not happy where they are . I just meant to say that those of my friends who have high flying high earning jobs do pay a price in terms of having less time with their family. They are happy with that, I would not be so I follow a different path.

I have a job I love providing IT support for mental health research. Because several members of my family have been affected by mental illness, it's something I care very deeply about. The job pays well enough, especially since my DH also works, and I am happy doing what I do. I don't consider it a 'little' job at all. Nor do I consider your job 'little' - I really think you have completely misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Spork I completely agree with you that education should give children the opportunity to do the job they* want to do and not fail them by giving them fewer choices and opportunities than they should have.