As are you Katie, but my personal observation is a bit more up to date than yours all the same.
My grandfather was not so much open minded as stubbornly determined that none of this children would be forced to leave Ireland in order to live, which was the fate of all of his brothers and sisters except for one. The fact that he himself did not leave was entirely a matter of luck -- he got the chance to start working on an uncle's farm at the time he had to make up his mind about leaving or staying. Those siblings of his who went to Australia he never saw again. He also hoped, if his children chose to leave, that they would not end up digging canals or tunnels or bricklaying to eke out a living. His hopes were realised. For him, education was all about making a better life, a life that included choices where work was concerned, and not being at the mercy of circumstances as he had been.
The idea that my small farmer grandad was 'open-minded' perhaps comes from someone used to looking at things through the prism of the British class system where people tend to shun what they feel is above their station or not suitable for the likes of them in some way? The world was my cricket-playing, old-IRA member grandad's oyster. He had no time for artificial distinctions between people, and welcomed spouses of his children from all sorts of ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. He was enthralled by the Republican idea of Irish independence and the opportunities native government offered Irish children via the education system. He hoped EEC membership would be accompanied by vastly improved European language offerings in the local technical secondary school so that the children of the small rural town and those of his small farmer neighbours could avail of the opportunities the EEC and later the EU labour market offered. He rejoiced that whereas he had to send his children off to boarding school to have a shot at getting to university, his grandchildren could stay home, go to the local tech and on to university from there. His was far from an unusual Irish attitude to education.
There most definitely is a cultural chasm (that Cameron chose to ignore) separating the US and UK. Philanthropy is just one aspect of it. The facilitation of philanthropy by means of the tax system well expresses what might be called the practical American mind that understands the role of incentives when it comes to parting people from their money. What came first, the philanthropic urge or the tax system that encourages it is perhaps a chicken and egg question. How Britain became a welfare state is another. The Walsh School of Foreign Service in Georgetown University (with which I am familiar), founded by the very influential Georgetown Jesuit Fr Edmund Walsh, is unusual among American universities in that its name does not immortalise a millionaire.
There is no way to ever know except perhaps in hindsight whether you have 'properly' interpreted geopolitical trends as events keep on moving forward and throwing new light on the past, even the recent past. In the context of US foreign policy, 'proper' interpretation always assumes even subconsciously the fact that America has the capacity to actually drive events and create its own reality. That is not to say that thorough, well-researched and well-thought out interpretation does not take place, but it does so in the US in the context of a global superpower that can directly influence events. The British FP approach no longer operates within that mental framework.
(I do not know where the £1m income idea is coming from. You could possibly earn that over the course of a professional career, but probably not per year.)
Summerends -- 'However a perspective that restricts careers by the size of their salaries and security actually does a disservice to the appeal of STEM subjects to DCs as exciting areas to pursue.'
That is not the perspective I have sought to present to my DCs. I have emphasised the many choices available to them and the versatility and career options they will have if they are prepared to put in the work necessary to succeed in maths and science.
They have all worked since they were 12 or 13, at babysitting and then summer office jobs, etc., and they know that earning money means you have money to spend. I never gave them an allowance so this was something they were keen to do. Money and the fact that they would one day be making their own has simply not come up except when I discussed with them the financial implications of going to university -- costs, what they needed to do wrt loans, how they needed to plan for repayment of loans upon graduation. They have always known that they are heading gradually towards being completely responsible for themselves financially. So far I have not had to send a single penny to any of them while they were students.
Making money and supporting themselves and aspiring to make even more is a point of pride for them, as it is for many American students (most of whom support themselves at least in part while studying) a point that some British posters here seem not to really understand, judging from the questioning of money as a motivational factor. Part time jobs are a feature of the American teen landscape and also the experience of the average American university student.
Perhaps another cultural chasm is revealing itself here. Salaries and financial security are really important in a society that is not a welfare state. The British idea as expressed on this thread that personal fulfillment or finding your destiny (or 'interest' or 'ability') is one of the most important factors in choosing a career is one that could only fly in a society with a strong safety net. Neither Ireland nor the US have that. Perhaps the dead hand of the British caste system serves to make money something of an irrelevance too. No matter how many millions you make in Britain, you are probably not going to break into high society without the 'right' background. By contrast America tends to welcome the self made man. I have two examples within exH's family as cases in point.