Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Run Britain

[TapselteerieO]

Did anyone see this?

I have just watched it and thought there might be a thread here about it. Sadly I am not surprised that it happens but I am still surprised by the statistics.

(Going to get dc from school so might not be on here until later.)

This seems to have turned into a state versus private debate .

Has anyone got an opinion on how the politicians that represent us have very little experience of life outside their Westminster/Old Etonian/Oxbridge lives - they represent such a tiny, privileged section of society.

I would like to see candidates from constituencies having life experience outside of that tiny bubble, real, ordinary people who live, work and are concerned about the needs of the people they are representing in the constituency. So not career politicians that have been groomed through their private education and Oxbridge graduates who give jobs to their friends.

Giving EVERYONE the best schools not Grammar school and Public school elites.

The government spouted on about it not being fair that taxpayers were paying student fees when they would probably earn more than most of the taxpayers but it's ok to subsidise rich "Rupert's and Charlotte's" going to Public schools by giving them charitable status, that is just a joke.

But the Labour candidate from Stoke explained why that won't happen. He said that he didn't stand a chance with his Open University degree against the Oxbridge Labour set, some of whom were friendly with Mandelson. Alan Johnson said that the only route for ordinary people who didn't go to Oxbridge was via the unions, but Mandelson blamed the unions for not giving their members the same opportunities they got in the past. The man in Glasgow said that he didn't vote Labour this year, as there was no working class MP to vote for.

Social mobility and meritocracy have died. They were killed deliberately. Who did it? It wasn't Thatcher. She was a product of meritocracy.

"This seems to have turned into a state versus private debate"

That is because the Tory government is mostly a bastion of privilege who want to preserve their rich friends and donors privileges including subsidised private education for the rich

Thatcher. She was a product of meritocracy. bullshit, her Father was middle class aand a business owner and a town Alderman. Hardly the local mikman

Prescott said "we're all middle class now". Even Tony Parsons realises that it is not a class war, the working class and middle class are in it together. Class war is used by socialists to divide us and stop us progressing. It has succeeded in destroying meritocracy and stopping social mobility.

I bet Thatcher's father wasn't as rich as socialists like Cherie Blair and Tessa Jowell. John Major wasn't rich. He left school at 16, he didn't go to Oxbridge. David Davis was working class and said that nowadays people like him would not have the same opportunities that he and Andrew Neil had, thanks to their grammar school education.

There was a time when bright, middle class children went to grammar schools, and it was mainly the less able middle classes children who went to private schools. The upper classes went to (often pretty lack lustre) boarding schools.

But luckily for the ailing independent sector - the state pretty much gave up it's role in educating the academic elite. Now even the boarding schools can be academically selective. As for the London day schools - only the academic 'creme de la creme' with wealthy parents need apply (and probably still won't get a place).

Claig, going back to your earlier point, children from overseas don't in general go to Finnish schools because Finnish is not the most useful language out there

I have a sneaking suspicion that if Eton taught in Welsh or Flemish, even with exactly the same quality of education and resources, there wouldn't be queues of baby oligarchs waiting to get in . . .

craig.

So let me get this right:

Elite private schools for the rich regardless of their academic status

Grammar schools can have extra resources and smaller class sizes for the pushy middle class and a few of the clever working class.

And the rest can got to hell or the local underfunded comp whichever is nearer.

Doh "academic status"

Academic abilities, money alone will be the entrance criteria

I agree, the English language is important. But there are British and American schools in every country. Why don't the oligarchs send their children to American schools in America. I think it is because we have the best, most famous schools in the entire world. Everybody worldwide knows of Eton and Harrow and Cheltenham and Roedean. Try naming any schools from any other country.

We are top in education, and our grammar schools were able to compete with our private schools. But someone took the ladder away and stopped ordinary children accessing them. Now the top public schools have less competition, and our country is not maximising the potential of our children.

My guess is that if Eton conducted all lessons in Latin and Ancient Greek, it would become an even bigger magnet for the elite. It is all about distinction and elitism.

Leave the top private schools as they are. Reintroduce selection and grammar schools, and improve comprehensives by increasing standards, removing modularisation and bringing back a competitive spirit.

Why would it cost any more? Why would anybody be underfunded?

Ok i am on board, so it's grammar schools complete with smaller class sizes and better facilities for EVERY state pupil, an end to comps.

What a good idea.

You don't enter the top public schools by money alone. They are very competitive and the entrance exams are tough. Let's stop the politically correct socialists preventing state school children from being prepped for the entrance exams. Let's give all children a fair chance, not just those who can afford tutors and prep schools. There are tens of thousands of bright state school children who are capable of passing these exams if they are allowed to be prepped by their schools.

Let's give all children the same chance as Tony Blair's and Diane Abbott's children. They're Labour, aren't they? Surely, what's good enough for them, is good enough for us?

Claig is right. But no point in sending anyone who isn't bright to a grammar. That is not their function. Good grammars and independents thrive on everyone being very bright, being constantly tested and challenged, no room for anyone who can't keep up under pressure.

If you aren't academic you would hate the constant testing. My children have three tests at least a week. Long lists of vocabulary feature heavily. If you can't learn quickly you can't keep up. If you can learn quickly you enjoy the fast pace of lessons and find it fun to acquire learning at this rate.

That's why these guys get to the top. They've been trained to thrive on pressure.

"You don't enter the top public schools by money alone. They are very competitive and the entrance exams are tough"

Again your right, lets have everyone taking the entrance exam for Eton etc and if you pass your in and no matter how much or little money you have if you fail then take your money and piss off.

Eton for all not just the rich

Eton is a fantastic school. It is unique in all the world. Anybody who passes the entrance exam should have their fees paid for by the state. Instead of blowing money on the Dome and the Olympics and MPs' expenses, let's invest for the future by giving children the best education possible. They'll pay us back tenfold.

oneglass, Give the same money and facilities to all not just another elite.

Claigs idea of Grammars for all is great.

Claig, why do you keep metioning Labour politicians, I have almost as much contempt for most of them as i have for Dave and Gideon and the rest of the Tory party.

I couldnt stand it if my dc's turned out like those awful two Eton pupils that were interviewed! They can keep their Eton education - what a couple of pricks

I agree that there is no enough competition in the state sector. There is some - in Maths for example but I would be more than happy with more.

I deliberately put my DC's in a position where they have to compete, but it is out of school unfortunately.

It is vital people learn how to lose. If they don't it stops them trying new things for a fear of failing. And then the rest is history, as they say.

I mention Labour politicians in case some people are under the delusion that they are on the side of the people. They speak with forked tongue. I know that you know that, but some people have been tricked by them.

I think people from other countries don't choose to send their children to Finnish schools because fluent Finnish isn't a lingua franca for many top-earning professions.

Bumps, I don't think any Oxbridge 'MA' should use that title in a professional context and I always feel slightly contemptuous when I see one on a CV. It's an honorary title - I had great fun being awarded mine, it was a fun day out and a nice college reunion, but it's not a professional qualification. An Oxbridge undergraduate degree may be harder work (debateable - many people in all universities massively overshoot the basic requirements for their degree) but it's not equivalent to a taught or research Masters IMO.

Actually there is a sizeable number of bursaries for Eton. And St Paul's aims to be needs blind - but not for a good many years as it needs to build funds. The older and richer a school is the more likely it is to be able to support some students from less well off backgrounds. Not enough, granted, but if you are interested it is worth requesting information from these schools.

NewWave - A Grammar School for all.