Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Working class children need to try to be more middle class to get on!

370 replies

rollonthesummer · 03/03/2014 09:53

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10671048/Working-class-children-must-learn-to-be-middle-class-to-get-on-in-life-government-advisor-says.html

OP posts:
PeterBrant · 08/03/2014 15:59

@donttrythisathome

I meant the direct discrimination that was being talked about by another poster: basically bullying young people from less advantaged backgrounds. It happens but in my experience is rare: most people are essentially nice and polite and would not do this.

The barriers are generally more subtle than this direct discrimination: issues around "not fitting in", lack of self-belief, lack of advice from people who know how to operate in the "middle-class world" (e.g. informal career advice). And so on. Your point around unfair assumptions stereotyping people from working-class backgrounds amongst recruiters is a good one (see the Louise Ashley research another poster linked to above) and the Commission are doing some work to try and help employers see that this is an issue and help them to combat it.

Hopefully my answer to @ifnotnowthenwhen responds to your point around being "comfortable".

On your last point "Is your role to advise on positive change, or in fact to advise on the shoring up the status quo while making some token and superficial changes?": I'm a civil servant whose role it is to gather evidence and advise the Commission to help them decide how to advice the Government about the best ways to reduce child poverty and improve social mobility. See gov.uk/smcpc for more about what the Commission does, who sits on the Commission and what it has done in the year or so it has been set up. But I think my Commissioners would agree that if all the Commission achieved was "shoring up the status quo while making some token and superficial changes" then that would represent failure!

donttrythisathome · 08/03/2014 16:49

Peter Brant

I lifted that quote from you from a response to me.

You say cultural change is difficult to achieve. Yep. But it could be given a major shot in the arm with some strong anti discrimination laws. Simples really. These laws would "help" employers to combat their offensive and/or ignorant attitudes hugely, I think we'd find.

I do appreciate your commission means well. But can't help the feeling that it is so entrenched within the system that it has gone completely native.

Your reply to ifnotnowthenwhen didn't really answer my question though, but did give me more of an idea of your views.

Good luck, I do hope some progress is made anyway.

PeterBrant · 08/03/2014 18:56

@donttrythisathome

Sorry - I got confused about who I was saying what to!

More anti-discrimination legislation is a nice idea but, unfortunately, I fear it won't be that simple - anti-racism anti-sexism legislation was made in the 1970s and still there are many institutional and cultural barriers to equality on those dimensions. Worth exploring whether it could make a contribution though.

Hopefully the Commission can make more of a difference to these issues than you fear!

donttrythisathome · 08/03/2014 20:28

Yes, but it has made a cultural difference. You wouldn't get a tv programme called "Black people street" in the vein of Benefit Street would you? Anti-discrimination legislation gives people power and protection.
Anti-discrimination legislation was more than a "nice idea"! Seems quite a dismissive view!

I hope your commission does result in some change.

donttrythisathome · 08/03/2014 20:30

And there was a socio-economic discrimination clause in the Equality Act which the Tories took out? Do you know that? Seems quite a key point- sure plenty of exploration was done already that you could consult!

LauraBridges · 08/03/2014 21:24

In many of the better paid professions you need to fit in to get on. Top of everyone's list is being absolutely bright as a button with the best exam results there are. The City does have a lot of law firms and other bodies with very very bright people who worked their way up from comprehensives - a true meritocracy from the Essex boys dealing shares to others. The issue is whether it is getting harder to move up from poorer backgrounds.

One question is whether it is simply the recession therefore it is hard to get on. My three privately educated graduate children have not found it easy. People ight think I can ask friends to give them jobs but it doesn't work like that. You start in front of a computer screen spending half a day doing online entries determined by UCAS points and only once through all that might you get an interview and usually employers don't even reply and this is to reasonably posh clever graduates. It's a blood bath out there for jobs as it was in my day - applied for over 100 jobs when I graduated just about top in my year when we were in another recession.

If things are harder now if you have the academics but you don't dress right, say you was and haitch, wear the gold chains, don't wear tights (law student my daughter noticed who came in for work experience - why the girl couldn't see that only secretaries have bare legs and copy the other legal staff I have no idea, she obviously wasn't blind)... then that needs to be addressed.

Of course there will come a time when social mobility has been so very good that only those who have a very low IQ and we do not therefore want doing brain surgery etc will be left in poverty. In other words very successful social mobility might in due course naturally leave a sub-IQ underclass and that would be a testament to social mobility having worked. We have not reached that position yet.

I think we need the teaching of grit, failure, stoicism and the like in some of the worst state schools. We need ability for those from poorer backgrounds to be able to operate without sleep, to keep going whatever and all those skills. We need to drum out of them any sense of being entitled and hard done to. We need them to be able not to complain and make a fuss about things and work very very hard. we need them to be bright enough to watch youtube videos of the professionals they want to be - to copy their clothes, accents and interests to get on. On the High Earning Mothers thread people will say those of us who have got on are typically able to do this kind of thing - feign interest in football or handbags or whatever gets you the client.

In 1940s Newcastle in a very rough area my mother taught classes of 40 children. She drummed into them the right way to speak, what was right in terms of how to speak in interviews - Never you was, or haitch. No political correctness saying - your local accent is wonderful, keep it up. We could certainly do more of that today. Ensure the applicants whose CVs are rejected if there is one single typo realise how important that is when 1000 apply for every job.

Discrimination legislation based on class or even weight or ugliness or being short is not the way to go. It is lawful to reject a candidate who speaks so badly clients will reject them and I see nothing wrong with that. There is nothing to stop a working class candidate adopting the accent, grammar and spelling and clothing of those who succeed in that particular profession.

Philoslothy · 08/03/2014 21:35

We need ability for those from poorer backgrounds to be able to operate without sleep

I suspect that most MNers would say that I am from the underclass rather than the working class; the one thing that my upbringing in prepared me for was a lack of sleep. I suspect that I felt far less than those children from more comfortable homes. To this day I rarely need more than 5 hours a sleep a night: something that has helped me succeed in two professions.

to keep going whatever
I kept going, all the way to one of the top universities in the world, despite hunger, abuse, neglect and grinding poverty.

entitled and hard done to
Is this just a wc trait? Are mc children never entitled? Do they never complain about being hard fine by? This needs teaching in all state schools, not just in poor state schools, where I assume you think you will find the working class children.

I could go on and on with your post.

A thread that said that black people need to stop acting " entitled" or that Asian people needed to just work harder would be pulled. Why is it OK to assume that working class children are self entitled, excessive moaners or lazy?

PeterBrant · 08/03/2014 21:42

@donttrythisathome

Sorry if it came across as dismissive - of course legislation made a big difference to race/gender discrimination, just nowhere near sufficient. Unclear how anti-working class discrimination legislation could be constructed either - as comments on this blog have made clear, class is a very slippery concept to pin down compared to race/gender (I'm interested in your view of this though).

Fully aware of the socio-economic disadvantage clause of the Equalities Act. It would have only applied to public bodies and the Government took the view that it would have only been a cosmetic box-ticking exercise (was scrapped a couple of years before the Commission was set up). But agree it's worth keeping the idea of bringing it back on the table as a possible way in which these issues could be tackled.

Ubik1 · 08/03/2014 22:00

What changes things for working class people is access to jobs with decent rates of pay which can enable people to live dignified lives.

donttrythisathome · 08/03/2014 22:03

Laurabridges

Substitute " black" or "girls" for state school kids. Offensive, perchance ignorant? Non?

Peter Brant.
Agree it's the Tories about equality legislation then I see. Nice to get some more information about your views.
"Only applies" to public bodies , eh. You mean those who decide what resources will be put into and what decisions will be made about housing, education, welfare, taxation, oh basically...everything. Yeah, totally insignificant really.

donttrythisathome · 08/03/2014 22:03

Agree with the Tories I meant to say. Darn iPad. Ah, such a MC problem.

Ubik1 · 08/03/2014 22:06

And by that I mean jobs with permanent contracts, maternity/employment rights, unions. Jobs which allow people to actually make plans for the future - instead of hand to mouth on 0 hours contracts - save for their children's future/education which then helps the children that want to, to challenge themselves in higher level careers.

Ubik1 · 08/03/2014 22:10

The other thing is that I don't really agree that good presentation/communication is a 'middle class' trait, plenty of articulate wc children about...

PeterBrant · 08/03/2014 22:21

@donttrythisathome

Didn't say I agree - noting the reason why the Government said it didn't enact the socio-economic duty. I'm a civil servant and would not be appropriate for me to express a view (hope you understand that)

By only "public sector only" I meant that it would not affect businesses in the private sector (or only indirectly so).

donttrythisathome · 08/03/2014 22:32

Yes Peter Brant, I do see. But as the Commission monitors the government, you don't really have to explain their views to us. Their job, surely?
What are you doing on really? Whose views are you expressing? Because you are expressing views you know.

donttrythisathome · 08/03/2014 22:36

And what is the relevance of the public sector equality duty not affecting private business in the context of this thread which is not just about the private sector but society as a whole?! In fact what is the relevance of that in the context of your role and the commission?
The commission is monitoring government and others.

PeterBrant · 08/03/2014 22:39

I hope I haven't expressed any views - I'll get in trouble for that!

Perhaps it's my style of exploring other people's opinions: put the other side of an argument or the downsides of a particular course of action to learn more. Maybe an annoying style!

PeterBrant · 08/03/2014 22:42

On the public sector duty, "only" wasn't meant in a derogatory sense, just that, even if successful, it would not have directly affected the recruitment practices of the employers of 80% of workers.

I better stop engaging in this argument as you - probably rightly - do not think it is appropriate that I do. Thanks for the discussion though - has been interesting

PeterBrant · 08/03/2014 22:43

On the public sector duty, "only" wasn't meant in a derogatory sense, just that, even if successful, it would not have directly affected the recruitment practices of the employers of 80% of workers.

I better stop engaging in this debate here as you - probably rightly - do not think it is appropriate that I do. Thanks for the discussion though - has been interesting

donttrythisathome · 08/03/2014 23:28

We're not talking solely about the recruitment practices of private sector employers though. What the government and other public bodies (e.g. Universities) do is hugely significant in the context of a thread ( and Commission! )about social mobility.

I didn't say it was inappropriate for you to be here, just questioned whose views you were expressing if not your own. Because you do seem to have a certain line to take. Surely not though, as a monitoring body. Perhaps just a civil service habit. You are just gathering information and views of course.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page