The disadvantages of an elite education

[camaleon]

A bit old but still interesting (my view).
here

Our plumber is very interested in philosophy and cooking. Quite often we will switch from discussing washers to a discussion about the nature of freedom, or the best way to peel an avocado.

I love that!

boffinmum: "I have had some of my best Aha research moments in Tescos.
There, I've admitted it now."

Oh dear, you got it all wrong!
This shouldn't be a thing that you are embarrassed to admit. You should have given the concept a fancy name and got a book deal out of it like John Kay did.

Obliquity: If you want to go in one direction, the best route may involve going in another.
"John Kay builds on a great philosophical tradition - stretching back through Charles Darwin and Adam Smith - that understands how remarkable things can be achieved without anybody understanding how or even intending them. He has taken this idea and applied it with style to modern conundrums from the physics behind Beckham's goals to the mathematics behind Buffett's riches. A great book."

Similar to 'Hare brain and tortoise mind' (Guy Claxton) - how intelligence increases when you think less.

I have the light bulb moments (rarely) but when I do usually I am out running for some reason!

My dad didn't have a particularly elite education - originally upper middle class, scandalously divorced parents, moved around a lot, went to something like 10 different private schools before he was 14, became an officer in the navy and then finally went to uni as a mature student.

However, he couldn't talk to plumbers, workmen etc or rather, he could and did, but if we heard him we used to squirm with embarrassment - he'd make an attempt at a working class accent (in reality he sounded like Prince Charles on a posh day ), try to sound all hearty and matey and call them "squire"

I don't neccessarily think it's got anything to do with education .. but definitely has a lot to do with class, especially for my dad's generation

PMSL
"Squire!"
ROFL and PMSL

What a stupid article. Goes to show there are tossers in all walks of life - education is irrelevant in this regard.

I have had an elite education, although my parents were not wealthy at all, but was surrounded by lots of people who were upper class and tbh they tended to be the most laid back, able to relate to people. They were generally the ones most likely to come to school with ripped jeans (yes we were allowed to wear what we wanted lol) and a t-shirt and to chat to anyone. Your jaw just dropped when you were invited round to their houses! I find it hard to believe they couldn't relate to people. But maybe that's cultural. I also found that a lot of the wealthier kids in my school went to pursue whatever they wanted - I have just recently been onto the alumni site and was astounded to see how many people have gone into arts careers. To be honest I think that the wealthier kids had the backup of the parents and a lot of money behind them, so certainly didn't feel the pressure to go into a lucrative profession, but were encouraged to do whatever they wanted. A lot of them didn't even go to uni. I'd say it was more the poorer kids (like me) who felt less inclined or encouraged to pursue low paid careers as mummy and daddy couldn't fund it/had to fend for ourselves. Just my experience.

You may be interested to know that Bill Deresiewicz has expanded his original essay into a book. It’s called ‘Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life’

Yep, there's a website.

"A searing and important critique of our morally bankrupt (American) educational system."

Hmmmmmmmm

I wonder if he read our comments.

I imagine that any discourse he had with a Briton on the subject would have altered his thinking!

Rich people, upper class people, IME want their children to mix with similar. They don't want them mixing with poor kids, or even middle class kids. They send them to school where they will only mix with the rich. At University these people tend to continue to stick together and do rich things.

Very over long as American articles a tend to be. Conversely you could argue British journalism tends to be too dumbed down and brief.

However, I think it has a strong grain of truth, for all the talk of the American dream and hard work equalling success they have just as much of a class system as we do.

I've read something else about incredibly expensive society charity balls possibly in Boston and they were pretty much like our debutant balls.

Their political and social elite is just as tight knit and protects it's own as ours and I strongly suspect more conservative. In the states I'd be a democrat, here I'm a left wing Tory. In many respects socially and religiously the USA is still in the 1950's at best.

If you have an elite defined by money and education, a elite founded on business success not simply birth (although clearly being the child of parents already in the elite helps). It's going to value the things business, banking and corporate law value. It's not going to produce many eccentrics.

Sadly I see the same happening here, the treadmill of A* at GCSE, AS and A level followed by studying at universities with too many pupils for any individual attention, is not a recipe for turning out rounded individuals.

Nor is the pressure to do extra curricular activities and works experience from 5-21 that's all worthy and valuable on your CV not things you enjoy and make you a rounded individual. Doing an internship in a solicitors may look good on your CV, but working in MacD's might make you a better person.

The fact that elite education is so strongly linked to wealth is if anything understressed in the article. Unless you're a genius on a scholarship, you're not going to get into an Ivy League school unless your parents are very wealthy. Shocking to hear how much privileged treatment goes on within those universities, especially that mediocre students are given artificially good degrees.
From what I've read on MN, Oxbridge is going more in the direction of students just wanting the very high paid jobs now, rather than more modest but vocational jobs. And if the Tories allow universities to charge what they want, there will soon be even more wealthy students at Oxbridge than currently.

Good to see a decent quality question re-emerge from "zombie thread".

The education system in UK, US and elsewhere is given far too much credit/discredit for it's effects on social-mobility.

Parents and parents alone are responsible showing their children how to interact with the rest of the world, leading implicitly by example and occasionally having to spell it out for their kids.

I want to a minor public school but my parents made sure I had no difficulty "talking to a plumber" (!!) or anyone else.

It works both and all ways. I see parents at my kids local state school that won't talk to me because I'm "posh". What will their kids think of that?

Home is where social-mobility and integration is learned, instilled and re-inforced - not at schools.

My hypothesis is that you could ban all faith, grammar and private schools and the same things will happen - likeminded kids, parents, sub-communities will stick together because people feel more comfortable with "their own" and it's the easy choice.

It has nothing to do with schools and I'm always surprised by threads like these that dwell on that .... as if you "outsource" your moral, ethical and social programming to the school for your child.

I agree with you to a certain extent, MarriedDad, that people tend to seek out other people they perceive as similar to them. But my view is that the more diverse the group(s) you participate in are, the more you're likely to find similarities beyond the obvious.

In a school with a good mix of classes, races, ethnicities, beliefs, levels of intelligence, etc, children may largely gravitate towards other children 'like them', but chances are their circle of friends will include some children who are different in some way. The more homogenous schools are, the less opportunity there is for children to realise that people who aren't 'like you' are still fundamentally the same, and worthy of the same respect and consideration.

And yes, I agree with you that parents are hugely important in encouraging children's morals, and it is, of course, possible to hold liberal views about people who are different in some way without personally knowing anyone who falls into that category. But I think it's much easier for children to really internalise those values if they have a chance to practise them themselves.

The thing is tho' that school is not everything - very narrow to assume so. I teach in the state system. Our DC are in one of the 'elite' schools in the UK. They mix with every kind of person inside and outside school and seem to get along with people without problems. Why is 'school' considered to be the determining factor - school is where you go to learn academic stuff - but the moment you leave and get on the bus, you are with the regular folks that the state school kids also meet on the bus...

My DH went an "elite" school he's perfectly capable of not only talking to plumbers but is also happy going out for a drink with them as well! One of the poshest people (including education) I know was adored by all from gardeners to Dukes because she could talk to anyone.
All these things are gross generalisations. We can all find some reason for our own particular hang up/inability but IMO lots of these things come down to personality and parental up bringing not which elite or not school/Uni you went too.

I find almost any article in The Times to be ridiculously over-long. Soporific, even.

There has been a quiet bit anxious debate in recent yrs in the USA about the impacts of class on getting a university education.

Glad to see some like minded people here.

So much of today's world is about "my rights" whilst "my responsibilities" are pushed on to someone else because of "my entitlements". When people talk of schools and education it's almost like they've forgotten that they are 75-95% responsible for everything their child grows up to be.

Drives me nuts.

For example, we wouldn't need PSHE in schools if parents actually did their job, instead of neglecting and expecting the school to do it (state or paid).

The US may be like that but in the UK the best schools teach character and grit and ability to get on with anyone. In fact what private school pupils in the UK have which many comprehensive school pupils do not is the ability to talk to anyone everywhere with confidence. I think in a sense I pay to ensure my children treat all others equally and have the skills to get on with everyone - the exact opposite of the article's premise.

"I pay to ensure my children treat all others equally"

So you can't teach them that yourself? You need to pay a teacher to do that?

Sorry but your post was textbook on my point.

Of course but the school confirms it. Most people know that the most self confident people who can speak to anyone come from the private schools. That confidence and the moral values taught are even more important than the exam results. However plenty of parents are happy with state schools so that's fine too - they can be happy with their choice and I with mine. I am extremely happy with the results of paying school fees.

Behaviour is taught by parents, not by a disparate group of teachers or peer group.

People you think get their confidence from school did not. They got it from their parents.

I pay to ensure my children treat all others equally.

That's a new one!

" think in a sense I pay to ensure my children treat all others equally and have the skills to get on with everyone"