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.)

Back to the run by the elite bit.

I think this country is more close to revolution than I've ever known.

Once the masses realise that we didn't make this fuck up and realise why on earth we are paying for it?

And when the job losses and cuts kick in hopefully we'll be a bit more French and start kicking off.

Britain is being too tolerant. Where's the money gone?and why are we being screwed into the ground to pay it back.

Vive le revolution.

What money? You mean the tax money that flowed into the coffers during the economic boom from 1996-2007? We spent it, or rather the government did- they spent all they got in taxes and borrowed more and spent that, and then borrowed some more and spent that. Then they said to the tax payer "Hey tax payer, why don't you also borrow some money- look, your house has gone up x3 so remortgage it and you can get your clothes from Gucci." Free money everybody! yay!

Arguably what we should have done between 96-2007 was say "ok, we're in an unprecedented global economic boom supported by the industrialisation of the two most populous countries in the world. This is a one time offer and probably wont last, plus we need to start worrying about the competition from the two countries that are currently giving us a windfall. We should squirrel some cash for a rainy day"

However, not sure a revolution really solves anything. Once all the rich have been guillotined, we still have the massive problems of lack of global competitiveness and no natural resources.

While I think quality of state education is an important issue, it isn't actually the straightforward answer to why ex-public school boys run the country. The straightforward answer is that ex-public school boys dominate high level public sector positions of influence because the Government has chosen to employ them.

At every point in the state school system there are going to be children who are let down, but that does not change the fact that some children do get through the state school system.

The former Government was constantly on about quotas and getting more children from state school into university. Now, no doubt there aren't enough children from state school at the best universities, but it is still the case that every university in the country has more state school students than independent school students.

Even on the Oxford PPE course, most (but only just) students are from state schools. Cambridge has decided that these students are competent to do this course and accepted them. Even with the huge wastage of state school talent before university, we still have enough state school pupils entering top universities to fill every high level public sector job in the country ten times over.

They don't have those jobs though. The senior civil service is dominated by people from public school, as are many other public sector institutions. 85% of High court judges are from independent schools. Cambridge, Oxford and the rest are educating state schools students but they are not getting a fair share of the jobs.

So why do ex-public school boys dominate? Because our elected government keeps giving them the jobs with power and influence.

They don't have to. The people we elect could put quotas on government employees to ensure that state school pupils have 90% of the top jobs. It is utter hypocrisy for Governments keep blaming the education system and universities and yet keep on employing ex-public school boys when enough state educated people are already getting through the system and could take those influential jobs.

You need money to run as an MP, because if you can commit all your time to getting elected (rather than to a job), and you have money to hire others/send leaflets/generally schmooze people you have a better chance of getting elected.

Also, people like dave cam use their money to gain power and influence over others. I understand he was regarded as being one of the richest in his political circle. That certainly is something that impresses tories anyway.

We need Grammar schools back. They provided a springboard for people. Working within a group of similarly talented people, you all benefit - driving each other forward, competitiveness, higher expectations generally. And you continue to know those people as you develop into a career, which is where the benefits come in as you strive and expect to keep to the same standards as the rest of your group.

If you are sticking out as the brightest, there is a pressure to undersell and underestimate your skills, and try to become more average to fit in with the group you are surrounded with. This leads to lower expectations and lower achievement.

I agree the politicians are a different matter. But most people in state paid positions of power and influence are not elected. They are unelected employees. The Government, or more to the point the last Government who claimed to care about social mobility, could fill Whitehall and all the other top jobs in public institutions with state educated people if it really wanted to.

But to fill all the positions with competent, state educated people would be letting down your old school. Surely paying all those school fees should buy you something more than an education?

Rabbitstew. You are exactly right.

Why put into a power an ordinnary man lived 30 years in Stoke-on-Trent, knew the area, when you can have the a Lord's son? 'Tristram Hunt' has all the right contacts writes for the Guardian, knows the so called intellectuals, Hobsbawn, and the elevated Milliband Family.

You are exactly right about contacts. It's one of the reasons I will send my son to a public school, it's not just about the education , but the contacts.
Yes, I had contacts at my school, normally the headmistress/teachers, when you bunked off every week!
As Thatcher is reported to have said 'is he one of us?' when promoting people to the cabinet, (in fact, a book was written about her called 'one of us')No all parties 'employ' or elevate 'their own', it's not right, it's not a true representation of the people, but there it is.

Lifeinlimbo You're right about needing grammar schools back and that was one of Andrew Neil's points, I think, and also that he himself was the product of a grammar school in Scotland. But let's be realistic, we'll never get the grammar schools back, will we? There's no money and not much political will either because the ones at the top (all parties!) do not see it as a vote-winner, quite the reverse IMO. Many voters today have no recollection or experience of the grammar school system and would be very doubtful about voting for it to be reinstated.

Arg why do the vast majority on here see grammar schools as a positive thing? They are incredibly divisive, all they do is divide children into successes or failures aged 11, and educate the 20% who pass separately! In what world can that be fair?

If you'd be happy fir your child to attend a secondary modern (what the other 80% of kids, the failures) attend, then by all means demand a return to grammars across the country.

It is a fact that counties which use grammars do less well overall than counties which educate comprehensively. Look at Buckinghamshire and Bexley. They have the most failing schools, and their results are overall lower.

Grammar schools are the result of selfishness. If your child gets in, if they're one of the lucky (or heavily coached) 20%, you're delighted, of course you are, little johnny only has to mix with other bright children.

In the majority of cases, if you can afford fees you either have family money or a well paid job (I know some people don't - i mean generally). Your friends and contacts will be in the same social strata, so the expectation is that little x will get a leg up in the world of law/politics/etc because mummy or dady know someone there. Then, public schools tend to increase levels of confidence and expectation, and also (hate to say it) a feeling of being a bit better than everyone else. Hence Cameron's lot coming up with fantastic 'we know best' ideas - rejig the NHS/ rejig schools/ rejig benefits etc because they fully believe they know how to run the country, and life would be so much better if we did what they said. So (famous example) Osborne decides it's ridiculous to pay HR taxpayers CHBEN and that must cease without the small detail of the maths involved.
I went to uni and honestly, the public school boys i knew were just such overly confident eejits. But, at the time, i was slightly in awe of them.

Phooey - the link?

And aren't we talking about what's best for the country as a whole. How do we educate our brightest pupils and ensure they reach their potential? Given we want a wider diversity of people in the top jobs.

It is quite amusing that the Tories didn't actually win the election despite all the extra millions poured into target seats by their billionaire friend 'Lord' Ashcroft. The one who lied about paying full UK taxes on all his income in order to sit in the House of Lords and make the laws the rest of us UK taxpayers have to obey.

All that privilege, all that power, all those posh ex-public school boy connections and they still couldn't buy the election.

Shame the Lib Dems propped them up, though. Without actually modifying any of the extreme Tory policies, like privatising the NHS.

small white cat....you have NOT put you political cards on the table. Stop fencing and let it all hang out. Dave would be proud of you. Cheers "Gabby" with bated breath

But of course, phooey - it's the poor man's private school (well, let's be honest, the middle class, moderately wealthy man these days) - you have to divide its children off to make it special. It saves the middle classes money not having to struggle to pay extra for the real thing. That way, their children can learn to look a little bit and sound a little bit like the real thing and hopefully mix with the real thing at Oxbridge without sticking out too much. And the State can say it's doing a good job educating those worth educating and excuse seriously underfunding education for the majority, because you don't really need much of an education to become a hairdresser, childcare assistant or builder, anyway, do you??? And we do need more hairdressers, childcare assistants and builders than politicians, journalists, accountants, bankers and lawyers, so everything's peachy. And if a few people are left by the wayside because of the dramatic division between those who pass and those who fail, despite the tiny differences in genuine ability and potential amongst those who only just passed and who only just failed, and the very early age at which all these decisions are made - well, that's life, isn't it? It's always been unfair for the majority - why on earth would a civilised country want to aspire to something better than that for the people living in it? Equality is not what made our leaders great, after all (oops - I mean our country, don't I???...).

Rabbit.

"Its alway been unfair for the majority"...so it has...But we must love in hope that things can change; if only marginally. cheers "Gabby"

Rabbit wonders whether loving in hope was a mistype or deliberate...

Can't find a link jack - on my phone so not v efficient. It is a fact though.

Found this about Kent though: here

feel the love, there's a lot of new age, hippy thinking. It's all very progressive.

Rabbit fair points. Not ideal but the best solution for the advancement of the country. I currently teach in a sec modern though and refuse to accept that we should be so mercenary as to write off 80% of wonderful kids aged 11. And they're not all hairdressers or brickies - they have career ambition.

It's not hippyish to think we should be giving all our children equal educational opportunities until at least 16, is it?

how are we going to do that? Is Eton the same as some of the failing schools that Ed Balls told to change their ways in Bexley?

some of the failing non-selective schools that Ed Balls told to change their ways, otherwise he would turn them into academies, which are slowly improving standards.

Why didn't Tony Blair send his children to the schools where children have "equal educational opportunities". One rule for them, one rule for us? That is the motto of the progressives, and they laugh at us for believing otherwise.

Without outing myself, I know all about Bexley, failing schools and academies.

Failing schools often have low ability students. My school is in the top 5% of 'value added', but if you look at results, it looks appalling. Teaching in a grammar school is a walk in the park.

Don't blame the schools or the teachers at 'failing schools', blame the system that makes it impossible to persuade children there that they aren't, in fact, failures, and that they should behave like angels, work hard and aim high, because life will reward them for it