The Cuts. Is YOUR arse twitchin?

[5co77ie]

I thought it interesting that big industry (or at least some of it) was actually against what it called the 'narrowing of the gene pool'

and was trying to bypass not only the limited family selection process

(where many interns now get a leg up through family connections - eg: your son works for my lawyers firm and I'll let your daughter work for my finance house)

but also get around the Russell Group list of just 20 universities that are often the only ones London firms will select from.

In some cases now it's now as narrow as just 6 universities that businesses will recruit from.

[lost]

In the program, in the period where some working class people “made it” they all seemed to come via the Grammar school route, during that period writing off half the population with the 11+ doesn’t seem the perfect solution either.

The depressing bit was where they interviewed a group of kids from a council estate and the only route they could see to a successful life was winning an “x-factor” type program like cheryl cole.

[llcoolphil]

that if you go to a private school you go to the better Unis where you meet similar types who all end up in the best jobs who are then able to send their kids to private school ... and then it goes around again, and again, and again, etc.

(I didn't actually see the programme but saw trailers for it which said pretty much what I have above).

What's saddest about this is that for a while this cycle was broken, and Britain ended up having PMs for 34 years which hadn't gone to private schools (Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major), but things have reverted back to the old way with Bliar and now Dave Moron.

There's less social mobility now than there was 90 years ago - we're going backwards as a society and not forwards.

[eFestivals]

In the program, in the period where some working class people “made it” they all seemed to come via the Grammar school route, during that period writing off half the population with the 11+ doesn’t seem the perfect solution either.

The problem is that when there's any system of elitism, it becomes a bit of a no-brainer for any company to look to the output of that elitist system to find what's likely to be 'the best'.

But as you so rightly point out, it writes off a big chunk (about 70% in fact, not half) at age 11 as hopeless - which is wasting the potential of those people.

A return to the 11+ plus isn't the way to go. The whole basis for it was sham, with the guy who did the 'research' which brought it about (which supposedly said that the 'good' and the 'not good' could be fully identified at age 11) admitting on his deathbed that his 'research' was faked. So when you hear people saying it was a better system, this fact exposes the lie.

A far better way to go would be to abolish all fee paying schools and create a proper level playing field, where the cream is able to rise to the top on merit alone.

The tories like to say that they're all for competition, so why are they so scared of their own kids taking part in a fair contest?

[eFestivals]

Does someone want to remind again why making the best Higher Education free for those with the most privileged educational background so they can go on and perpetuate the status quo ad finitum is a good idea?

the problem is NOT free higher education.

The problem is having an elitist system before higher education, which brings about that scenario in higher education.

[llcoolphil]

the problem is NOT free higher education.

The problem is having an elitist system before higher education, which brings about that scenario in higher education.

[llcoolphil]

A far better way to go would be to abolish all fee paying schools and create a proper level playing field, where the cream is able to rise to the top on merit alone.

Edited February 9, 2011 by llcoolphil

[llcoolphil]

why is University so different to secondary education? Should there be a 2-tier system where people who can afford it pay for it? That's what we have now, and it perpetuates the inequalities...?

[eFestivals]

So what we need to do is spend more at the beginning of a child's education rather than at the end, because the reason that those from the least privileged backgrounds dont go to university isn't fees but that they aren't qualified?

While more can be done to help disadvantaged children at the start of their education, that does not and will not change the fact that 'top' Unis will still primarily pick people from private schools - so it changes very little about any of that.

The only solution to the problems created by the existence of an elitist system is to remove the elitist system.

Now address the question and explain how making the best HE free for those with the most privileged educational background is a good idea.

As long as it's not only those from a privileged background that are getting it free, then it's a level playing field. A level playing field is the only solution to the problem.

The problem is a consequence of the elitist system of education that some have before reaching higher education.

Because what you are finding now that it's been on telly is that your plans for a universally free HE do exactly what I accused you of - not only perpetuate the status quo, but make perpetuating the status quo even easier and free. I'll pull your posts up where you denied this if you like.

What you are suggesting is what will maintain the status quo, because it alters absolutely nothing about top unis selecting primarily from private schools.

I wish to give to give every child an equal chance to achieve on merit. I'm not looking to punish those who benefit via the status quo, outside of having those who earn the most paying a higher proportion in taxes.

[eFestivals]

Except that is never going to happen under any government.

and nor is charging higher earners more.

And your suggestion that the cream would rise to top simply by abolishing fee paying schols is nonsensical as it fails to take into account all the other advantages a privileged background affords rather than whether you just pay to go to school.

care to say where I said this would be ignored?

Meanwhile, you're ignoring the fact that no matter how much those disadvantaged can be educationally raised up, it still doesn't get them the same opportunities for Uni.

Do you think the child that spends summer in Tuscany gets more or less advantage than the kid who spends it on his council estate simply by being exposed to a different culture? What does the fact that he is no longer able to pay for school do to address this disadvantage? Shall we abolish foreign holidays too? And then families having large book collections at home? Shall we make the children of the privileged be adopted at birth because some of their advantage comes from motivation and having well educated role models around them?

Differences in upbringing cannot be evened. The differences that those differences in upbringing bring can be, as long as the more privileged cannot be easily identified as that simply by the school they go to.

[llcoolphil]

While more can be done to help disadvantaged children at the start of their education, that does not and will not change the fact that 'top' Unis will still primarily pick people from private schools - so it changes very little about any of that.

[llcoolphil]

and nor is charging higher earners more.

[llcoolphil]

and paying more for it would reduce the inequalities..?

it simply doesn't make sense

[eFestivals]

Either provide evidence for that or your point is null and void.

there's a HUGE wealth of evidence that exactly that happens now - with educational achievement being equal, a person has a hugely greater chance of getting a place at a 'top' uni if they've been to a fee-paying school than a state school.

How has that passed you by?

But as it's passed you by and it's a HUGE factor in how the privileged stay privileged, I suggest you now go off and do the necessary research that's needed to reach an informed conclusion of the problems that exist, and then from that re-consider what needs doing to cure those problems.

It's probably because you're short of the facts that the views you have now of how things can be addressed are off the mark.

By aboloishing fee paying schools, how do you abolish an elitist system? You abolish one part of it. And not even close to the most significant part.

The problems that exist within higher education of it heavily favouring the already privileged come directly from the privilege those people have at lower levels of education.

The privilege in higher education is not gaining a better standard of education from those private schools (it's hard to quantify, but the general conclusion is that the standard of education is not better but the standard of pupils are), but by the very fact of having attended such a school.

So the taxpayer continues to subsidise the wealthiest, and that's what you call a level playing field.

Unless we're to have equal pay for all, the taxpayer will always be paying money towards those who already have too much.

Problems of unequality to do with wealth are best addressed by the taxation system, rather than an ad-hoc system of penalising people for specific things they might take up.

Yes - which they manage to achieve for their offspring by having an elitist HE subsidised (100% in your world) by the taxpayer

except of course those wealthiest pay the most into the taxations system, and don't get back the amount they pay in. So while they are taking an unfair share for HE, they're not taking an unfair share overall but the exact opposite (worked on the basis of getting what you pay for).

If they're hit with higher taxes, then it costs the wealthy more than they're hit by having to pay fees for HE.

Let's not forget that the top Unis are selecting those with the best education. It's why people pay for it.

except that's completely factually wrong. Another case of you not having checked the irrefutable facts.

The top Unis select people from private schools with a lower academic achievement than those from state schools. They are 'selected' primarily on the basis of having been to a private school rather than their achievement at that school.

Im sure you do. Subsidising the wealthiest hardly achieves that

The actual numbers - rather than what you'd like to think - shows the opposite is actually true. The wealthiest pay the most in tax and get the least back - so are subsidising the poorest. And it's of course right that they should.

But it makes your comment there worthless, because it's contrary to the facts.

A level playing field isn't created by creating an unfairness in a different direction. And by having fees - even if only paid by the wealthiest - it makes HE a thing of privilege rather than a thing of right for any that want it.

[eFestivals]

The problem with smileys is they make you look a twat.

Still, they're open to interpretation (mostly wrongly around here too ). Unlike your words which make you look like an ignorant twat, short of the facts on this matter. Cos you are.

Now go and look at what Oxford and Cambridge have proposed in the past 48 hours. Funnily enough they are proposing to charge those that can afford it more and subsidising those less well off.

and the same thing couldn't be achieved more consistently via the tax system, could it? lol

Now imagine how many more you could subsidise if you uncapped fees instead of subsidising the wealthiest to the tune of about £8k a year.

again, that's factually wrong. The subsidy is less than £3k if they're charging £9k.

The principle of the richest paying most is about to be established. Then all we need discuss is whether we subsidise them at all

The richest paying the most is best achieved via the tax system.

By doing that it makes Uni a right for all on merit and a privilege for none. If it's considered a privilege for any, that impacts back onto a sector of society who by default see it as something which isn't for them, and continues the problems of a less educated sub-class.

[worm]

There already is a two tier system in HE - Russell Group v Everything Else. And absolutely, totally 100% YES - if you can afford to pay for it, you pay for it. And none of this capped fees nonsense either. If you went to Eton, why should you get an Oxbridge education that would cost £17,000pa ish in cost terms at half that and subsidised by the tax payer? If you make the wealthiest pay what they should be paying, you free up funds to subsidise (and subsidise upto 100%) those from the least well off backgrounds.

Edited February 9, 2011 by worm

[llcoolphil]

Unlike your words which make you look like an ignorant twat, short of the facts on this matter. Cos you are.

[llcoolphil]

and the same thing couldn't be achieved more consistently via the tax system, could it? lol

[llcoolphil]

Oxford have said those families earning 25,000 will pay 6,000...

whoop de doo

is 25,000 well off these days

[eFestivals]

I'm totally down with you on this Phil and recognise that Neil et al are spouting misinformed and detracting garbage.

erm ... I ain't the one that's basing my views on the wrong idea that entrance into Uni is by academic achievement, while Phil (and you?) is.

The reality is that the school a person attends has a greater influence on their acceptance or not into a Uni than their academic achievements. There's a huge amount of research which shows this is definitely the case.

[llcoolphil]

The top Unis select people from private schools with a lower academic achievement than those from state schools.

[llcoolphil]

The reality is that the school a person attends has a greater influence on their acceptance or not into a Uni than their academic achievements. There's a huge amount of research which shows this is definitely the case.

[worm]

erm ... I ain't the one that's basing my views on the wrong idea that entrance into Uni is by academic achievement, while Phil (and you?) is.

The reality is that the school a person attends has a greater influence on their acceptance or not into a Uni than their academic achievements. There's a huge amount of research which shows this is definitely the case.

[diddly-dee]

Based on EVERY SINGLE PIECE of evidence about the impact taxing the rich has on the actual tax take, no it couldn't. Can you show me some evidence where raising income tax thresholds and rates on the top 10% of earners has ever had a significantly positive impact? No, you cant, because we are once again down to the level of discussion of 'because I said so' when the actual hard evidence says the exact opposite.

[eFestivals]

You haven't given me a single fact in anything you have suggested in the various HE debates we have had over the past twelve months. You even got to the stage at one point where you couldn't even be bothered to show me quotes of what you claimed I'd said because '[you]know what I said', only to be found to be totally wrong when I did it for you. I have evidenced every single one of claims. Your level of argument, as always, comes down to 'because I said so'.

I see you're still suffering from the same inability to read things and take them in as you had a week or two ago in that medical thread. You prefer to spout made-up out-of-nothing bollocks than address what I've actually said.

Yu claim that the richest are never going to be asked to pay more for their higher education

No, I *KNOW* that it's never going to be a policy that is re-introduced.

Firstly, it's a policy that has failed - as demonstrated by all the years that it operated previously.

Secondly, it does NOTHING to address the inequalities in HE.

from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12381656

where does that say what you said, that ...

Now imagine how many more you could subsidise if you uncapped fees instead of subsidising the wealthiest to the tune of about £8k a year.

again, that's factually wrong. The subsidy is less than £3k if they're charging £9k.

Now, it's possible that I misunderstood what you were getting at, but it's without doubt the case that you've also misunderstood my reply.

Now then do you want to evidence a SINGLE thing tpo back you up or are you sticking with the 'because I said so' approach?

Go and read the Browne Report. It has all the facts you need, and all the facts that you are currently missing or ignoring.

Within that you'll get to see that entrance into the 'top' Uni's is not primarily done by academic achievement, but selection via the school a person has attended. This will not change one jot even if the wealthy were charged £50k a year for Uni.

The privilege in HE comes about from attendance at a private school prior to HE, and not from anything else (such as and not academic achievement). The only way this can be removed is either by removing the right of selection from Unis, or by removing the private schools they give preference to.

Until you factor these things into your thinking, all of your thinking on this matter is misplaced. Unless of course your aim is to penalise the rich but also exclude the poor from HE.

And the fact remains that if HE is seen as a privilege because it is fee paying (even if it's only fee paying for some), then sectors of society will see it as not for them, and will self-exclude EXACTLY as happens now.

I would prefer to open up Uni to all on merit, rather than make it what your idea would achieve (just as it is now) - a privilege primarily for the rich.