Does coming from a deprived background really seal your fate?

[Pinkjenny]

Just wondering, really, listening to Nick Clegg on R5 live. I come from Anfield in Liverpool, not deprived really, but certainly not affluent. My mum worked in a shop, and my dad was (and still is) an engineer.

I credit all of my success (relatively speaking, of course) to the way in which I was brought up, and the attitude of my parents, who told me I could be whatever I wanted to be, as long as I put my mind to it.

Does giving children money for their first shoes and first suit really help break that poverty cycle?

Or does it depend on the attitude of their parents and their general upbringing?

duchesse, I didn't know that state schools had regressed so much.

I'm from Wales, so people from all backgrounds would send their children to the local welsh school if they wanted them to learn welsh. In that school, ethnicity trumped class, which was interesting, looking back.
If you were proper welsh (two welsh parents, welsh names etc) you got more opportunities/prizes/scholarships than if you were rich. So it was elitist but in a different kind of way!

But yes, many people simply have no understanding of the system. They are kept ignorant.

< wonders if Daniel Dorling is good in bed; concludes he's probably a brilliant shag>

There is also evidence that children with clear boundaries but parents that are not too strict will also produce sucessful children (whatever that may mean.) This is not just about educated parents. Neither of my parents were educated beyond age 16, although they did work hard (both - DM worked at least part-time) but we all did well academically but had clear bedtimes, mealtimes, rules on manners etc and they left the rest up to us

OTOH, those bohemians were rather intelligent, weren't they. Virginia and Vaness Woolf et al. They mixed with people who lived like gypsies, no bed-times for their kdis or anything, and they produced all kinds of art and literature as they were rebelling against the strict comportement of the time.
So maybe that lifestyle is more likely to bring out a different kind of intelligence

As I mentioned there are different definitions of success.

Yes, but currently society values 'ability to do well in tests' above almost anything else

1. Yes parental effect./school could add 10 point to IQ. The rest is probably how we are born. A lot of our children are born not made. However as we know IQ is only one issue. If your parents say few words by age 3 you know hardly any words. If your parents use "big" words and a wide range the 3 year old knows more. etc etc

1. The assisted places scheme only really worked for middle class pushy parents who pretended their incomes were lower than they were. The traditional 11+ with no practising and same test applied to everyone which evened down girls' scores (rather unfair) so equal numbers of boys and girls were picked seemed to work better as a route out of poverty for ome but even there if you aren't fed at home and your parents are often not there like many who are helped by Kids Company in London, it is much harder to do well in an 11+ exam.

1. Whenever we've been in state schools I've been very struck by the contrast with the private sector and I don't see why it has to be so. May not matter if tehre isn't carpet and a nice place but the way children are spoken to as someone else referred to above is very different indeed and that cannot just because the teachers themselves may be from a lower class surely.

"Yes, but currently society values 'ability to do well in tests' above almost anything else"

I don't think that is true at all.

The people who get on are those with the right attitude. Despite the discussion, IQ brings nothing to the table as far as 'success' goes. At the most it accounts for 30% - statistically.

Attitude is the one thing that comes out from all the discussions - whichever side of the fence you may sit on with regards to IQ

Agreed. Most of our company execs are uneducated but have good business sense (not IQ-related) and they all vary in ages and predominantly from state school.

I saw some of the worst racism I have ever seen in a London girls' comprehensive school, where some members of staff spoke in a shocking way about black girls. They also taught them extremely poorly. The girls shared textbooks 1 between 4, staff photocopying was rationed so that couldn't be used to help, their homework was not always marked, the teaching materials used were very dated, the computers hardly worked, SMT hid upstairs and refused to engage with disciplinary matters, etc. Only about 5-10% of the classes I taught were non-black. It had turned into an educational ghetto.

A few more inspired teachers worked there and tried to bring in a more challenging curriculum, such as three languages by the age of 14, Latin for all, a specialist music programme, better science and so on, but it was all undermined by a few bad or lazy teachers as far as I could see. Girls who would have gone on to be dentists and teachers had they gone to my secondary school were being fed into dull jobs in local shops, for example, in spite of the attempts being made to reform the curriculum. Good teachers started leaving. Standards were invariably lacklustre. Management overall was poor - controlling and bullying. I only lasted just over two years and it really was a trauma, looking back.

The upside of being a good teacher in this school was that I lived nearby, and whenever I went into Asda loads of my former pupils seemed to be working in there and couldn't do enough for me [happy] . I would hear the screech "Miss!" and someone would come bounding across the shop to fuss over the baby and help me find the cling film or whatever.

What a waste, though.

I attended a school where the kids from the estate were identified- only by one or two teahcers but we were.

I was amde to parade up and down the stage with my carrier bag of books, no mention that it was only for a day as my bag broke, or that I had an A in said book; indeed, a better off pretty clasmate was regularly told to read her 'winning' C grade essay over my A grade one.

WHen a friend found out I was late starting my periods, she asked a teacher why when I was absent and the teacher led a lesson on why X is a cretin (her words). I was refused permission to study [hysics when I was second in the year for it, as they felt child development (AKA coping when you get knocked up at 15- as most of them did) was better suited to my type. Ditto geography, where i'd already been put into textiles as an alternative before the grades (top girl IIRC) came out.

I always remember my bright friend who was constantly told she was a troublemaker not worth bothering over, when in facyt she's watched her Dad die a slow death and was reacting to that (and she died just after so never got to make it up). What a way to live your last year- being told you are no good.

BUT I was lucky; as I was brighter I had access to a few really wonderful teachers who saw the real me and made a big diffreence, even argues with nasty teachers about their attitudes. They possibly changed everything for me.

Xenia- wrt to assisted places- spot on. ExP: Schooling paid for by assisted palces; younger sibling part grant; youngest scheme ended so got rid of 'specilaist accountant' and coughed up. As if the well to do granddaughter of the ex headmaster of was going to send her chidlren to state!

Scary, that was pretty dreadful.
Stoopid teachers. Really.

Yes, BM. And in truth I only picked up on half of it when a schoolfriend approached me a few months ago to say she always felt guilty for not standing up for me.

But some of those teachers are still there; I am so glad we moved, no way would my kids ever, ever go there.

If measured, I'm quite sure that my DH's IQ would be pretty high, and certainly far higher than mine. I doubt I would fare well in an IQ test. Yet my husband thinks I'm a flipping genius, because I have a way of problem solving and thinking creatively that doesn't occur to him, and I spend alot of time thinking deeply and philosophically about 'things' I also have high levels of emotional intelligence, and good instinct.

Wheareas, DH doesn't think deeply about much really - but he does a complicated and stressful 'niche' job in Banking which I couldn't even begin to understand, or focus on, and nor could most people. If I worked in that environment I would probably never get beyond a modest clerical level. The biggest factor in his having the job he has, is tenacity and commitment, discipline, and ability to deal with pressure. Intelligence has been just a part of it.

Our children are all of different levels of intelligence I think, and they each have their own strengths and weaknesses. What they do all have in common, though, are strong inter-personal skills, good communication skills, good manners, and high levels of conscientiousness - because it's been drummed into them since birth. they all have a very good understanding of how they need to behave going forward if they want to stand a chance of getting on in life.

We have high hopes for them, but don't have unrealistically high expectations. But they know that they are responsible for their own financial destiny, even if that means being fairly poor, they are expected to be self-sufficiently poor. (where they end up remains to be seen, but statistically as white MC males, they already have the advantage.)

We are affluent, but not affluent enough to support/subsidise three adult children for years. And even if we could, there is no way I'd let them know that might be an option -that would be very disadvantageous, as far as I'm concerned. There is nothing like really needing some money to make you want to get out of bed in the morning, and go looking for a job.

And yet young men from a background of long-established wealth statistically seem to do best of all in the top careers, though they clearly have little need to make great fortunes. Yes, they have educational and social advantage, but they also have much greater expectation put upon them to not let the side down, to maintain their elite position, and a much higher benchmark to aspire to, when all their peers go on to be successful. Settling for humble obscurity is a train driver or whatever, is not something many of them would ever contemplate.

I really do think that even for the many WC or disadvantaged children who have drive and intelligence and ambition, many of them will not achieve their full potential in the workplace because they are just too 'rough' around the edges. They haven't been taught how to win friends and influence people.

We joke disparagingly about the social elite and 'charm school' but there is a great deal to be said for charm when it comes to getting on in the workplace. People may have a certain amount of innate charm, but if they behave and speak in ways which are considered uncouth, if they have a very poor and limited vocabularly so clarity of self-expression is limited, and they have no idea about basic social or business etiquette, they will not be a terribly attractive employment prospect, even if their IQ is high - who ever gets far enough to bother to find out? And those things are all undeniably factors of their upbringing.

The other thing is - what is it we are actually trying to achieve here? There seems to be an obsession with getting people from disavantaged backgrounds into 'top' jobs. What is meant by 'top' jobs, exactly? I don't give a stuff what percentage of very poor people are transformed into doctors or lawyers or CEOs. I'm more concerned with getting the majority of them to a place in life where they can read and write adequately, and can get (and hold down) any job.

If they start by doing moderately well, then their children stand a chance of doing better than moderately well. And their children will do even better than that.

Plucking the brightest 2% of very poor kids from obscurity, showering them with 'help' to achieve, and then and putting them on a pedestal as a shining example of social mobility is not much use to the other 98%, some of whom will be illiterate and completely dysfunctional, is it?

I'm so sorry about how long that was.

Just skim it - it was crap anyway.

'The other thing is - what is it we are actually trying to achieve here? There seems to be an obsession with getting people from disavantaged backgrounds into 'top' jobs. What is meant by 'top' jobs, exactly? I don't give a stuff what percentage of very poor people are transformed into doctors or lawyers or CEOs. I'm more concerned with getting the majority of them to a place in life where they can read and write adequately, and can get (and hold down) any job. '

Absolutely.

Some people are driven by money- ds1, well he's my little Xenia , reminds me of her: already selling his own designer necklaces (Adn they are good, really good); his aim is working out how to use that talent to beocme a billionaire.

DS2 OTOH is Mr Sociable and may well make an excellent conservationist- he just has a wonderful ability with nature- the kids with a permanent seaslub / spider / worm- we all know the one. It doesn't pay much, but that's not his aim.

I value both equally.

Sakura - re: Virginia Woolf and the bohemians - yes, but the point is none of them needed to earn a living. They could be as free-spirited and creatively forward-thinking as they liked! It's no coincidence that many people noted for being highly creative in the arts are also very rich - no starving in garretts for them!

I was from a council estate, a sink estate you'd call it now. Mom and dad had 6 kids, I was the last...a mistake (as I was often told) in more ways than one.

I was also ridiculously bright at 5 and 6...a trait that was undermined by a dreadful lack of confidence and a complete erosion of self confidence.

However...40 years later I am married to the loveliest man. I live in a lovely, average, 3 bed semi in a lovely, above average, area. I have had career success and am now taking it steady, working as a TA in my dd's school because I love it, rather than because I feel driven to do it.

My education was certainly above average for my sink comp. I actually got more than a handful of o'levels first time around. I was not recommended for 6th form, however, as the careers adviser judged me on my somewhat scruffy appearance rather than my file (she had to eat her words when she saw I had an o'level a year early!).

I do think kids from the estates can get the raw end of the deal. Disinterested parents will inhibit the amount of success achieved. I know I feel that my potential could have been greater than my achievements but that's just life.

I also feel that it gave me some great values and beliefs to pass onto my own child and that may be why she's such a sweetheart :)

I think if a kids got something about them...street-smarts, intelligence or even just plain good humour, it can often take them far enough in life to get them out of the gutter.

Well I have told my kids that I need them to be a dentist, doctor, builder and pianist to fulfil my later life needs and desires, and that they can work out amongst themselves who does what. I am not fussy.

Oddly enough, they do not seem to be listening, I appear to have a waitress, computer games designer and teacher thus far, with a train driver coming up the rear.

Fancy that! Fancy them having their own ideas and choosing unauthorised careers?????

GHH is right about the various factors. My mother used to teach classes of about 40 in the 1940s in a poor area of the NE. She would try to ensure they learned to speak properly, knew not to drop an haitch not to say you was etc. I'm not sure all state schools ensure children speak properly.

Can you teach charm though? Some people are just more into understanding the feelings of others and some not at all

Oh charm and empathy are different things; some of the most charming people I know (many privately educated, one in priosjn where he bloody belongs) have absolutely no cncept of people's feelings, only how to manipulate people (the bad ones) and get people onside (the otehrs).

The successful Psychopath?

Psychopathy can be quite useful in the higher ranks of capitalism.

I agree with that Scary. some people do networking charm (or smarm) but that is very different to genuine charm. Perhaps charm is the wrong word, but I mean the ability to appeal to people, and make them want to believe in you. And also just good old fashioned manners, attractive presentation, from speech to clothes. I don't mean everyone should appear posh, or dress expensively, but they should still aim to have good standards.