The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Bruce Wayne]

If that same hypothetical kirkby kid was lucky and his family won the lottery and decided to send him to Eton instead, do you accept he would have a far better chance at succeeding?

I appreciate that you are arguing that a lot of kids from less well off backgrounds can make it through hard work. But what about the kids that aren't as successful? The way you word your posts suggests that you think a lot of poor kids have some inherent genetic disposition which prevents them from simply ''making the most of their lot'' and having success in their academic and work careers, etc.

As I said, success is a relative term. I feel almost certain that a kid that tries hard will be more successful (however that manifests itself) than a kid that doesn't. Wealth doesn't change that fact.

This is, again, wrong on many levels and skirts over the core issues of inequality. Children from deprived families will find it much more difficult to take this 'fantastic British opportunity' than those who aren't. They are not 'abusing' the system, they have been let down by the system. The odds are stacked up against the vast majority of these children. I work with them every day, and with the best will in the world and the best teaching we can possibly give them, a high amount won't end up in well paid jobs. Their poverty will create too big of a barrier.

You need to open your eyes, Bruce.

I never said that a child living in poverty doesn't have things harder than one living in a well off family. I don't think it helps to be constantly comparing people with one another. We're all different. Different circumstances. All we can do is do the best we can in our own circumstances.

 

[Tubey]

*sigh*

 

[bring the ghost on]

As I said, success is a relative term. I feel almost certain that a kid that tries hard will be more successful (however that manifests itself) than a kid that doesn't. Wealth doesn't change that fact.

Social mobility is very low in this country. I agree that poor kids who try hard and do climb the social ladder should be applauded. It's not an easy thing to do with limited resources and opportunities which aren't afforded to them. However, we shouldn't be using those kids as an example and saying ''well he tried hard, so why can't you?'' to those kids who have remained in poverty.

It's not that simple. As @Seanjd points out, poverty brings barriers which are very difficult to overcome. There are some kids where you think everything is rigged against them. To blame them for not trying is cruel and also misses the real problems which should be addressed.

 

[Clint Planet]

Taking wealth out of the picture, educated people tend to breed with one another, thus passing on both their genes and their approach to life to their offspring. That's probably as advantegeous as any money they can bring to the table. Should the well educated be banned from breeding with one another too so as not to disadvantage children from other backgrounds? Or maybe as you're so keen on removing disadvantages for children, the feckless should be prevented from breeding, just as the state check whether adopted parents are suitable?

Eugenics. Wow. Seriously, I'm speechless.

(I admit, I skim-read your post originally and missed all this)

I'm not sure that's what you'd want, and yet it's hard to dispute the enormous impact parenting has on success and happiness in life.

Of course it does. And it's hard to dispute the enormous impact poverty and inequality of opportunity has on success and happiness in life, no?

Just as being born British gives you many advantages over someone born Ethiopian (for instance). Life is sadly not always fair.

True. But some of life's unfairness (cancer, geography, a falling tree etc) is beyond our control and some of it (poverty in our own society, systems which oppress the children of the least advantaged etc) is absolutely not and, quite frankly, it's offensive that someone as intelligent as you try to claim otherwise.

Britain does provide every child with the opportunity to receive schooling, both at pre-school level and all the way up to 16/18 years of age. That's many thousands of hours of schooling given to them regardless of income, race, religion, gender or whatever else. It's an opportunity that a large percentage of children around the world would give their hind teeth for.

For which, read:

Stop complaining, you unfairly treated kids on the ferry! We gave you free budget armbands, you ungrateful scum. Don't you realise some even worse-off losers in Ethiopia have to walk six miles a day for water and have never even heard of armbands! Have some respect for your betters!

And don't forget to send a thank you letter to the posh kids' parents for making your life better!!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Social mobility is very low in this country. I agree that poor kids who try hard and do climb the social ladder should be applauded. It's not an easy thing to do with limited resources and opportunities which aren't afforded to them. However, we shouldn't be using those kids as an example and saying ''well he tried hard, so why can't you?'' to those kids who have remained in poverty.

It's not that simple. As @Seanjd points out, poverty brings barriers which are very difficult to overcome. There are some kids where you think everything is rigged against them. To blame them for not trying is cruel and also misses the real problems which should be addressed.

Read about an interesting study (kind of) related to this just now. It was looking at energy conservation, which is a behavioural change, just as learning is. They tested how much people changed when their energy consumption was compared with the national average versus a comparison with their peers in the local community.

Under this latter condition, they reduced their energy consumption by around 4 times what is usually achieved in these kind of things. It suggests that peer competition/influence is huge. That's why I mentioned the positive deviance approach several times earlier in the thread. Jump on those kids from poor backgrounds that do well and encourage them to influence the others.

 

[Seanjd]

Social mobility is very low in this country. I agree that poor kids who try hard and do climb the social ladder should be applauded. It's not an easy thing to do with limited resources and opportunities which aren't afforded to them. However, we shouldn't be using those kids as an example and saying ''well he tried hard, so why can't you?'' to those kids who have remained in poverty.

It's not that simple. As @Seanjd points out, poverty brings barriers which are very difficult to overcome. There are some kids where you think everything is rigged against them. To blame them for not trying is cruel and also misses the real problems which should be addressed.

Very well said.

 

[Clint Planet]

All we can do is do the best we can in our own circumstances.

And therein lies your fundamental misunderstanding of just about everything.

That simply isn't true. We can come together and change our own circumstances for the better. We don't have to accept our own circumstances (and then be grateful to people like you for pointing out a Nifty Little Project which Looks Kinda Cool. ).

We can stand up and say that this is wrong and we need to change it. Poverty is not inevitable, it is a political decision. Capitalism, when completely unfettered, is a voaracious, malignant beast which, in its chasing of profit for its own sake, can do much more harm than good. Fighting against it is neither pointless nor wrong.

 

[Clint Planet]

As I said, success is a relative term. I feel almost certain that a kid that tries hard will be more successful (however that manifests itself) than a kid that doesn't. Wealth doesn't change that fact.

• Do you think it's possible there are some kids out there who try less because they somehow feel there's no point (i.e. The system is failing them)? And that the same kids might have tried a whole lot more if the dice weren't so loaded against them?

• Maybe you think they should (cue Rocky music) try even harder to overcome the odds and prove the right-wing libertarians right all along!?

• Do you think there might be some kids who almost coasted into positions of wealth and/or power because of their social circumstances whilst there are others who, in spite of enormous talent and effort, amount to relatively little?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

lol

And therein lies your fundamental misunderstanding of just about everything.

That simply isn't true. We can come together and change our own circumstances for the better. We don't have to accept our own circumstances (and then be grateful to people like you for pointing out a Nifty Little Project which Looks Kinda Cool. ).

We can stand up and say that this is wrong and we need to change it. Poverty is not inevitable, it is a political decision. Capitalism, when completely unfettered, is a voaracious, malignant beast which, in its chasing of profit for its own sake, can do much more harm than good. Fighting against it is neither pointless nor wrong.

I'm happy to carry on doing the best I can whilst you try and ban private schools if you want mate Shall we compare notes in a year?

As I've said (I think about a million times now), the bulk of the evidence I've seen on successful change has involved the kind of grassroots initiatives that you poo poo rather than the top down directives you propose.

Heck, the head of quality improvement in the NHS gave a speech to a bunch of acolytes in Canada only yesterday saying the exact same thing.

I should warn you though, if you don't like what I say then she might make your head explode

 

[Clint Planet]

I'm happy to carry on doing the best I can whilst you try and ban private schools if you want mate Shall we compare notes in a year?

You seem to be implying that I, a teacher who works with children every work day, am somehow making less of a difference than you are. With the greatest of respect, I'll let others judge who looks the more foolish here.

 

[Mrk]

This thread has seen better days.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You seem to be implying that I, a teacher who works with children every work day, am somehow making less of a difference than you are. With the greatest of respect, I'll let others judge who looks the more foolish here.

Ha, no, quite the contrary actually. I reckon you'll achieve infinitely more in your role as a teacher than you will in your campaign to ban private schools.

Getting past my bedtime anyhoo.

 

[Woolly Blue]

Getting past my bedtime anyhoo.

You sweet talker you

*undresses

 

[Clint Planet]

Ha, no, quite the contrary actually. I reckon you'll achieve infinitely more in your role as a teacher than you will in your campaign to ban private schools.

I have no such campaign.

 

[Clint Planet]

This thread has seen better days.

So has this country. What's your point?