Clegg attacked over social mobility

[AbsDuCroissant]

here

Interesting. My experience in the UK is that, obviously not for all jobs, but for a lot of the professions, it is definitely who you know rather than what you know. When Obama was elected, someone asked whether or not someone like him (from single-parent family, poor background) could become PM in the UK, and the rather depressing answer was "no".

We may have an OE PM now, and an ex Westminster Deputy PM, but look back to the 70s, and the daughter of a grocer became PM....I think social mobility is great and to be encouraged...but I don't think you can ever erradicate people using their connections.

Having lived for a little while in the US and obviously mainly in the UK, I have to say that I disagree.

In fact I reckon there's more chance of a layperson making it in the UK than the US.

We've already had a female PM who was a grocer's daughter. John Major's dad owned a garden ornaments business, Tony Blair's dad was a tax inspector then later a lecturer.

The whole 'gap year' phenomenon must favour the wealthier over the poor, even when you don't take nepotistic internships into account. It surely is a socially regressive thing to build into our children's development a whole year of free-floating self-improvement premised on freedom from the need to earn a living.

Internships on the scale of today are a newish thing too. And am I right in thinking that Clegg's announcement re internships is nothing more than a voluntary commitment by employers to act fairly?

'Who you know' isn't exclusive to the professions. Closed shops are popular at all levels. When I was involved with a port operation, certain jobs at the quayside were passed down from father to son and, if you didn't have anyone to recommend you, you didn't get past the front gate.

Well, my experience has been law and I have to say, it's pretty much barred to the unconnected.

For law - you have to do the Legal Practice Certificate or Bar Vocational Course in order to work as a solicitor or barrister, respectively. The cost of doing either course starts at £10k per year. For solicitors, you can, obviously, get a training contract with a firm before hand and they will pay for your tuition fees and give you some money towards expenses (normally large City firms, like Freshfields, Linklaters, Clifford Chance, Herbert Smith). But, here's the kicker - all these firms require work experience of some sort, preferably good work experience with a big name (e.g. themselves, investment bank). And how does one go about getting work experience? Cold calling rarely, rarely works, if ever, so basically you have to know someone who can get you in.

You can of course go ahead and pay for the course yourself, so you'll need either wealthy and generous parents or to be willing to get into tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt.

I don't think it's that conducive to social mobility to be honest.

Basically we are still been told, don't help your kids, don't work hard for them to have a fun and educational childhood and god forbid - don't be comfortable as we will punish them for you not agreeing to live in poverty. Utter rubbish. Better spend any moneys improving state education everywhere, not punishing those who live in certain areas/pay for good education for their kids.

It isn't even just that or about money. If you read to your kids every night the apparently devalues their GCSEs, anyone else make maths fun playing shop - STOP IT!!! It devalues their maths GCSE result - too much home support. ARRGGHHHHHH.

I hate this devaluation of parental support. Stop loving your kids, then the poor *&^% - up sods can get more support later in life.

Sorry but I hate NC!!! Spoilt little rich boy who is embarrassed by his background but uses it to the hilt.

In my experience (accountancy, but admittedly yonks ago), these internships would not have existed without the connections, as they provided no practical use whatsoever to the firm other than quasi-marketing (ie, keeping an existing client or business relationship sweet).

The partners would wince and put up with some snotty know-it-all kid for a few weeks for the sake of keeping the askee happy, and because they'd probably ask for a reciprocal placement for their own snotty kid at some time. It's not as if the 'connected' kids were elbowing out the 'unconnected' kids from a set programme of work experience.

Obviously, help your children but don't bar able and talented individuals just because they weren't lucky enough to be born to connected parents.

For e.g. my old boss brought her son in to do work experience in a top tier investment bank, which would obviously look fabulous on his CV when applying for university and jobs in future. She herself referred to him as "quite stupid" (she wasn't in the running for any parenting awards ...) and he wasn't at all interested. Surely that sort of opportunity should have gone to someone more deserving, more talented and more interested?

DP also works in an investment bank and he said all the interns they've had were a favour to a client, taking their daughter or son off their hands for a couple of weeks.

My complaint is that so many good jobs require work experience. Work experience requires connections, ergo getting a good job does not seem to require talent or interest, but connections.

It does nobody any favours

I had zero connections from my parents - I went to a bog standard comp - my parents were supportive though. I have done OK in life, good position, good career. The only thing I had was my parents - nothing else.

Have reported your post, Marylouise - I thought it was unwise to name names. Sorry.

So Cleggsy had a leg up, a silver-spoon, yet is man enough to admit that it's unfair and something needs to be done about it. Better that than him going on pretending all is ok with the system.

Abs the work experience you talk about in City law firms now takes the form of formal vacation schemes. Students have to apply (with CV etc) for those schemes. They're not filled by way of contacts.

I suspect most employers can tell the difference between genuine experience and "daddy let me sit in his office and stare out the window for a week" work experience.

I also agree with Snobear that just because someone benefited from something themselves, doesn't mean they can't say it's unfair and try to change it.