Martin Amis
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 26 Oct 15 4.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 1.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 1.07pm
Quote We are goin up! at 26 Oct 2015 12.45pm
Quote serial thriller at 26 Oct 2015 12.33pm
Not dead, just being a prick: [Link] The positions of power in this country are overwhelmingly held by people from Oxbridge. Nearly 3 out of 4 judges went there, 1 in 2 diplomats, 60% of the cabinet. The very idea that the most senior political position in the country may go to someone who isn't one of their own is clearly pretty scary for people like Amis, who of course defied his own public school/intellectual family/Oxbridge education and became a complete f*cking idiot churning out dull novels.
Edited by We are goin up! (26 Oct 2015 12.46pm) Only if you assume a meritocracy exists. It doesn't, essentially they aren't 'the best minds' they're the people generally who's parents bought them the best education and had the best access to 'cultural capital'. Excepting maybe a very small percentage of people, what matters more than 'your mind' is the socio-economic background, access to common culture, being able to read well and educational access children have. There is a reason why people pay very big fees to get their kids a 'private education', and the best schools in the country, generally aren't comprehensives. We tend to assume that everyone is well educated, but its not really true, children with parents of a high educational standard tend to achieve much higher levels of education themselves, as they are exposed to 'cultural influences' and of course their own parents capacity to provide educational input to their child. Its not a genetic thing, its the fact that bright, educated parents tend to expose their children to far more intellectual stimulation and culture than those who's own education was limited. In a democracy it should not matter what your educational standard is, anyone should 'be considerable' for a role as an MP or even PM. Their job is to represent the people, not to rule them. A prime minister who was a plumber with only his city and guilds should be as valid as one who went to Eton and Oxford.
Unfortunately, if you were to replace the ruling class with plumbers all that would happen is that their kids would get a private education and so on and we would soon be back to square one. Survival of the fittest extends to offspring even when they aren't really up to it. My problem with private schools has never been that they exist, but that the a lot of very talented kids miss out on the benefits because of the expense, where as plenty of 'Nice but Dim' Tims will massively benefit because of the people they meet there, just because their father could pay. These people often do well at university, because they'll benefit from a lot of one on one tuition, in return for the 'new library wing'. In theory I think the idea of grammar schools is fine provided the entry remains unbiased, and entirely based on pupils achievements. In reality, grammar schools tended towards being selective by their locations, costs of uniforms and so on.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 26 Oct 15 4.26pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Martin Anus must have a new book coming out, . . .yawn
"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Hrolf The Ganger 26 Oct 15 4.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 4.04pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 1.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 1.07pm
Quote We are goin up! at 26 Oct 2015 12.45pm
Quote serial thriller at 26 Oct 2015 12.33pm
Not dead, just being a prick: [Link] The positions of power in this country are overwhelmingly held by people from Oxbridge. Nearly 3 out of 4 judges went there, 1 in 2 diplomats, 60% of the cabinet. The very idea that the most senior political position in the country may go to someone who isn't one of their own is clearly pretty scary for people like Amis, who of course defied his own public school/intellectual family/Oxbridge education and became a complete f*cking idiot churning out dull novels.
Edited by We are goin up! (26 Oct 2015 12.46pm) Only if you assume a meritocracy exists. It doesn't, essentially they aren't 'the best minds' they're the people generally who's parents bought them the best education and had the best access to 'cultural capital'. Excepting maybe a very small percentage of people, what matters more than 'your mind' is the socio-economic background, access to common culture, being able to read well and educational access children have. There is a reason why people pay very big fees to get their kids a 'private education', and the best schools in the country, generally aren't comprehensives. We tend to assume that everyone is well educated, but its not really true, children with parents of a high educational standard tend to achieve much higher levels of education themselves, as they are exposed to 'cultural influences' and of course their own parents capacity to provide educational input to their child. Its not a genetic thing, its the fact that bright, educated parents tend to expose their children to far more intellectual stimulation and culture than those who's own education was limited. In a democracy it should not matter what your educational standard is, anyone should 'be considerable' for a role as an MP or even PM. Their job is to represent the people, not to rule them. A prime minister who was a plumber with only his city and guilds should be as valid as one who went to Eton and Oxford.
Unfortunately, if you were to replace the ruling class with plumbers all that would happen is that their kids would get a private education and so on and we would soon be back to square one. Survival of the fittest extends to offspring even when they aren't really up to it. My problem with private schools has never been that they exist, but that the a lot of very talented kids miss out on the benefits because of the expense, where as plenty of 'Nice but Dim' Tims will massively benefit because of the people they meet there, just because their father could pay. These people often do well at university, because they'll benefit from a lot of one on one tuition, in return for the 'new library wing'. In theory I think the idea of grammar schools is fine provided the entry remains unbiased, and entirely based on pupils achievements. In reality, grammar schools tended towards being selective by their locations, costs of uniforms and so on. Yes it seems unfair but how can we stop people at the top of society seeking to gain advantage for their children ? We would all do it if we could.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 26 Oct 15 4.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote JL85 at 26 Oct 2015 2.49pm
The difference being Branson is from a wealthy background and had the capital to cover any losses in his start up businesses, a luxury that doesn't extend to your average person. Alan Sugar is much better example. Not the point though, the point is the percentage. The working class, make up a vast majority of the population yet account for such a tiny percentage of MP's, Barristers, City Traders etc. The point is, the opportunities are there, just not for everyone. Additionally, I'm not so sure that Branson is necessarily particularly clever or intelligent - These aren't characteristics common in self made people, they tend to be risk takers, and risk mitigators, who as they succeed tend to employ the kind of people who do rather well educationally. Usually when you look at people who have made a lot of money, they usually have failed once or twice before, but they keep going. Ultimately, they either hit the success or give up (and you never hear of them). Then when successful, they tend to continue on a similar pattern and technique. The great businessmen don't generally succeed because they're clever, or intelligent, but because they take risks others don't, and are driven. For many its not even about the money (they could retire and live a life of luxuary) but they don't, they keep going (when everyone else would choose to retire at 30, people like Branson keep making more and more money, that they could never really spend).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
on me shed son  Krakow 26 Oct 15 5.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 4.30pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 4.04pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 1.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 1.07pm
Quote We are goin up! at 26 Oct 2015 12.45pm
Quote serial thriller at 26 Oct 2015 12.33pm
Not dead, just being a prick: [Link] The positions of power in this country are overwhelmingly held by people from Oxbridge. Nearly 3 out of 4 judges went there, 1 in 2 diplomats, 60% of the cabinet. The very idea that the most senior political position in the country may go to someone who isn't one of their own is clearly pretty scary for people like Amis, who of course defied his own public school/intellectual family/Oxbridge education and became a complete f*cking idiot churning out dull novels.
Edited by We are goin up! (26 Oct 2015 12.46pm) Only if you assume a meritocracy exists. It doesn't, essentially they aren't 'the best minds' they're the people generally who's parents bought them the best education and had the best access to 'cultural capital'. Excepting maybe a very small percentage of people, what matters more than 'your mind' is the socio-economic background, access to common culture, being able to read well and educational access children have. There is a reason why people pay very big fees to get their kids a 'private education', and the best schools in the country, generally aren't comprehensives. We tend to assume that everyone is well educated, but its not really true, children with parents of a high educational standard tend to achieve much higher levels of education themselves, as they are exposed to 'cultural influences' and of course their own parents capacity to provide educational input to their child. Its not a genetic thing, its the fact that bright, educated parents tend to expose their children to far more intellectual stimulation and culture than those who's own education was limited. In a democracy it should not matter what your educational standard is, anyone should 'be considerable' for a role as an MP or even PM. Their job is to represent the people, not to rule them. A prime minister who was a plumber with only his city and guilds should be as valid as one who went to Eton and Oxford.
Unfortunately, if you were to replace the ruling class with plumbers all that would happen is that their kids would get a private education and so on and we would soon be back to square one. Survival of the fittest extends to offspring even when they aren't really up to it. My problem with private schools has never been that they exist, but that the a lot of very talented kids miss out on the benefits because of the expense, where as plenty of 'Nice but Dim' Tims will massively benefit because of the people they meet there, just because their father could pay. These people often do well at university, because they'll benefit from a lot of one on one tuition, in return for the 'new library wing'. In theory I think the idea of grammar schools is fine provided the entry remains unbiased, and entirely based on pupils achievements. In reality, grammar schools tended towards being selective by their locations, costs of uniforms and so on. Yes it seems unfair but how can we stop people at the top of society seeking to gain advantage for their children ? We would all do it if we could. Bring back Grammar schools, I would say. To mitigate the postcode lottery element make it so that all local councils have to provide a certain amount of coverage. I think it's the only way to restore something resembling a meritocracy. Every PM from 1964-1997 went to grammar school.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 26 Oct 15 5.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote on me shed son at 26 Oct 2015 5.38pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 4.30pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 4.04pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 1.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 1.07pm
Quote We are goin up! at 26 Oct 2015 12.45pm
Quote serial thriller at 26 Oct 2015 12.33pm
Not dead, just being a prick: [Link] The positions of power in this country are overwhelmingly held by people from Oxbridge. Nearly 3 out of 4 judges went there, 1 in 2 diplomats, 60% of the cabinet. The very idea that the most senior political position in the country may go to someone who isn't one of their own is clearly pretty scary for people like Amis, who of course defied his own public school/intellectual family/Oxbridge education and became a complete f*cking idiot churning out dull novels.
Edited by We are goin up! (26 Oct 2015 12.46pm) Only if you assume a meritocracy exists. It doesn't, essentially they aren't 'the best minds' they're the people generally who's parents bought them the best education and had the best access to 'cultural capital'. Excepting maybe a very small percentage of people, what matters more than 'your mind' is the socio-economic background, access to common culture, being able to read well and educational access children have. There is a reason why people pay very big fees to get their kids a 'private education', and the best schools in the country, generally aren't comprehensives. We tend to assume that everyone is well educated, but its not really true, children with parents of a high educational standard tend to achieve much higher levels of education themselves, as they are exposed to 'cultural influences' and of course their own parents capacity to provide educational input to their child. Its not a genetic thing, its the fact that bright, educated parents tend to expose their children to far more intellectual stimulation and culture than those who's own education was limited. In a democracy it should not matter what your educational standard is, anyone should 'be considerable' for a role as an MP or even PM. Their job is to represent the people, not to rule them. A prime minister who was a plumber with only his city and guilds should be as valid as one who went to Eton and Oxford.
Unfortunately, if you were to replace the ruling class with plumbers all that would happen is that their kids would get a private education and so on and we would soon be back to square one. Survival of the fittest extends to offspring even when they aren't really up to it. My problem with private schools has never been that they exist, but that the a lot of very talented kids miss out on the benefits because of the expense, where as plenty of 'Nice but Dim' Tims will massively benefit because of the people they meet there, just because their father could pay. These people often do well at university, because they'll benefit from a lot of one on one tuition, in return for the 'new library wing'. In theory I think the idea of grammar schools is fine provided the entry remains unbiased, and entirely based on pupils achievements. In reality, grammar schools tended towards being selective by their locations, costs of uniforms and so on. Yes it seems unfair but how can we stop people at the top of society seeking to gain advantage for their children ? We would all do it if we could. Bring back Grammar schools, I would say. To mitigate the postcode lottery element make it so that all local councils have to provide a certain amount of coverage. I think it's the only way to restore something resembling a meritocracy. Every PM from 1964-1997 went to grammar school.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 26 Oct 15 9.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote elgrande at 26 Oct 2015 5.40pm
Quote on me shed son at 26 Oct 2015 5.38pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 4.30pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 4.04pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 1.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 1.07pm
Quote We are goin up! at 26 Oct 2015 12.45pm
Quote serial thriller at 26 Oct 2015 12.33pm
Not dead, just being a prick: [Link] The positions of power in this country are overwhelmingly held by people from Oxbridge. Nearly 3 out of 4 judges went there, 1 in 2 diplomats, 60% of the cabinet. The very idea that the most senior political position in the country may go to someone who isn't one of their own is clearly pretty scary for people like Amis, who of course defied his own public school/intellectual family/Oxbridge education and became a complete f*cking idiot churning out dull novels.
Edited by We are goin up! (26 Oct 2015 12.46pm) Only if you assume a meritocracy exists. It doesn't, essentially they aren't 'the best minds' they're the people generally who's parents bought them the best education and had the best access to 'cultural capital'. Excepting maybe a very small percentage of people, what matters more than 'your mind' is the socio-economic background, access to common culture, being able to read well and educational access children have. There is a reason why people pay very big fees to get their kids a 'private education', and the best schools in the country, generally aren't comprehensives. We tend to assume that everyone is well educated, but its not really true, children with parents of a high educational standard tend to achieve much higher levels of education themselves, as they are exposed to 'cultural influences' and of course their own parents capacity to provide educational input to their child. Its not a genetic thing, its the fact that bright, educated parents tend to expose their children to far more intellectual stimulation and culture than those who's own education was limited. In a democracy it should not matter what your educational standard is, anyone should 'be considerable' for a role as an MP or even PM. Their job is to represent the people, not to rule them. A prime minister who was a plumber with only his city and guilds should be as valid as one who went to Eton and Oxford.
Unfortunately, if you were to replace the ruling class with plumbers all that would happen is that their kids would get a private education and so on and we would soon be back to square one. Survival of the fittest extends to offspring even when they aren't really up to it. My problem with private schools has never been that they exist, but that the a lot of very talented kids miss out on the benefits because of the expense, where as plenty of 'Nice but Dim' Tims will massively benefit because of the people they meet there, just because their father could pay. These people often do well at university, because they'll benefit from a lot of one on one tuition, in return for the 'new library wing'. In theory I think the idea of grammar schools is fine provided the entry remains unbiased, and entirely based on pupils achievements. In reality, grammar schools tended towards being selective by their locations, costs of uniforms and so on. Yes it seems unfair but how can we stop people at the top of society seeking to gain advantage for their children ? We would all do it if we could. Bring back Grammar schools, I would say. To mitigate the postcode lottery element make it so that all local councils have to provide a certain amount of coverage. I think it's the only way to restore something resembling a meritocracy. Every PM from 1964-1997 went to grammar school.
My two got in without any paid for help I should add. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (26 Oct 2015 9.08pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Sportyteacher London 27 Oct 15 7.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote We are goin up! at 26 Oct 2015 2.47pm
Quote Sportyteacher at 26 Oct 2015 1.03pm
Quote We are goin up! at 26 Oct 2015 12.45pm
Quote serial thriller at 26 Oct 2015 12.33pm
Not dead, just being a prick: [Link] The positions of power in this country are overwhelmingly held by people from Oxbridge. Nearly 3 out of 4 judges went there, 1 in 2 diplomats, 60% of the cabinet. The very idea that the most senior political position in the country may go to someone who isn't one of their own is clearly pretty scary for people like Amis, who of course defied his own public school/intellectual family/Oxbridge education and became a complete f*cking idiot churning out dull novels.
Edited by We are goin up! (26 Oct 2015 12.46pm) Martin Amis has too high opinion of himself. His views of Corbyn are only his own in that he doesn't speak or think on my behalf. Jog on, Martin!
I'm saying that he is not worthy enough to warrant front page of The Observer. He is being dressed up as some divine, intellectual, modern day 'listen to my profundity' philosopher. Machiavelli and Hobbes have every right to roll in their graves at such a prospect.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 27 Oct 15 8.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Sportyteacher at 27 Oct 2015 7.05am
Quote We are goin up! at 26 Oct 2015 2.47pm
Quote Sportyteacher at 26 Oct 2015 1.03pm
Quote We are goin up! at 26 Oct 2015 12.45pm
Quote serial thriller at 26 Oct 2015 12.33pm
Not dead, just being a prick: [Link] The positions of power in this country are overwhelmingly held by people from Oxbridge. Nearly 3 out of 4 judges went there, 1 in 2 diplomats, 60% of the cabinet. The very idea that the most senior political position in the country may go to someone who isn't one of their own is clearly pretty scary for people like Amis, who of course defied his own public school/intellectual family/Oxbridge education and became a complete f*cking idiot churning out dull novels.
Edited by We are goin up! (26 Oct 2015 12.46pm) Martin Amis has too high opinion of himself. His views of Corbyn are only his own in that he doesn't speak or think on my behalf. Jog on, Martin!
I'm saying that he is not worthy enough to warrant front page of The Observer. He is being dressed up as some divine, intellectual, modern day 'listen to my profundity' philosopher. Machiavelli and Hobbes have every right to roll in their graves at such a prospect.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Oct 15 8.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote on me shed son at 26 Oct 2015 5.38pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 4.30pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 4.04pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 1.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 1.07pm
Quote We are goin up! at 26 Oct 2015 12.45pm
Quote serial thriller at 26 Oct 2015 12.33pm
Not dead, just being a prick: [Link] The positions of power in this country are overwhelmingly held by people from Oxbridge. Nearly 3 out of 4 judges went there, 1 in 2 diplomats, 60% of the cabinet. The very idea that the most senior political position in the country may go to someone who isn't one of their own is clearly pretty scary for people like Amis, who of course defied his own public school/intellectual family/Oxbridge education and became a complete f*cking idiot churning out dull novels.
Edited by We are goin up! (26 Oct 2015 12.46pm) Only if you assume a meritocracy exists. It doesn't, essentially they aren't 'the best minds' they're the people generally who's parents bought them the best education and had the best access to 'cultural capital'. Excepting maybe a very small percentage of people, what matters more than 'your mind' is the socio-economic background, access to common culture, being able to read well and educational access children have. There is a reason why people pay very big fees to get their kids a 'private education', and the best schools in the country, generally aren't comprehensives. We tend to assume that everyone is well educated, but its not really true, children with parents of a high educational standard tend to achieve much higher levels of education themselves, as they are exposed to 'cultural influences' and of course their own parents capacity to provide educational input to their child. Its not a genetic thing, its the fact that bright, educated parents tend to expose their children to far more intellectual stimulation and culture than those who's own education was limited. In a democracy it should not matter what your educational standard is, anyone should 'be considerable' for a role as an MP or even PM. Their job is to represent the people, not to rule them. A prime minister who was a plumber with only his city and guilds should be as valid as one who went to Eton and Oxford.
Unfortunately, if you were to replace the ruling class with plumbers all that would happen is that their kids would get a private education and so on and we would soon be back to square one. Survival of the fittest extends to offspring even when they aren't really up to it. My problem with private schools has never been that they exist, but that the a lot of very talented kids miss out on the benefits because of the expense, where as plenty of 'Nice but Dim' Tims will massively benefit because of the people they meet there, just because their father could pay. These people often do well at university, because they'll benefit from a lot of one on one tuition, in return for the 'new library wing'. In theory I think the idea of grammar schools is fine provided the entry remains unbiased, and entirely based on pupils achievements. In reality, grammar schools tended towards being selective by their locations, costs of uniforms and so on. Yes it seems unfair but how can we stop people at the top of society seeking to gain advantage for their children ? We would all do it if we could. Bring back Grammar schools, I would say. To mitigate the postcode lottery element make it so that all local councils have to provide a certain amount of coverage. I think it's the only way to restore something resembling a meritocracy. Every PM from 1964-1997 went to grammar school. I agree with this, but with a caveat, that the grammar schools have to have a fairer selection that compensates for those children who display progress above the average of their schools, not just those that can pass the 11+. The problem with that criteria is that such pupils often benefited from the educational basis of their parents, and the tutoring those parents could afford. Also grammar schools would have to be totally funded by the state, so that travel, uniform, school trips and additional schooling were available to any applicant. Too many grammar schools and entry were 'biased towards the upper working classes and middle classes'.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 27 Oct 15 11.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Oct 2015 8.21am
Quote on me shed son at 26 Oct 2015 5.38pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 4.30pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 4.04pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 1.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 1.07pm
Quote We are goin up! at 26 Oct 2015 12.45pm
Quote serial thriller at 26 Oct 2015 12.33pm
Not dead, just being a prick: [Link] The positions of power in this country are overwhelmingly held by people from Oxbridge. Nearly 3 out of 4 judges went there, 1 in 2 diplomats, 60% of the cabinet. The very idea that the most senior political position in the country may go to someone who isn't one of their own is clearly pretty scary for people like Amis, who of course defied his own public school/intellectual family/Oxbridge education and became a complete f*cking idiot churning out dull novels.
Edited by We are goin up! (26 Oct 2015 12.46pm) Only if you assume a meritocracy exists. It doesn't, essentially they aren't 'the best minds' they're the people generally who's parents bought them the best education and had the best access to 'cultural capital'. Excepting maybe a very small percentage of people, what matters more than 'your mind' is the socio-economic background, access to common culture, being able to read well and educational access children have. There is a reason why people pay very big fees to get their kids a 'private education', and the best schools in the country, generally aren't comprehensives. We tend to assume that everyone is well educated, but its not really true, children with parents of a high educational standard tend to achieve much higher levels of education themselves, as they are exposed to 'cultural influences' and of course their own parents capacity to provide educational input to their child. Its not a genetic thing, its the fact that bright, educated parents tend to expose their children to far more intellectual stimulation and culture than those who's own education was limited. In a democracy it should not matter what your educational standard is, anyone should 'be considerable' for a role as an MP or even PM. Their job is to represent the people, not to rule them. A prime minister who was a plumber with only his city and guilds should be as valid as one who went to Eton and Oxford.
Unfortunately, if you were to replace the ruling class with plumbers all that would happen is that their kids would get a private education and so on and we would soon be back to square one. Survival of the fittest extends to offspring even when they aren't really up to it. My problem with private schools has never been that they exist, but that the a lot of very talented kids miss out on the benefits because of the expense, where as plenty of 'Nice but Dim' Tims will massively benefit because of the people they meet there, just because their father could pay. These people often do well at university, because they'll benefit from a lot of one on one tuition, in return for the 'new library wing'. In theory I think the idea of grammar schools is fine provided the entry remains unbiased, and entirely based on pupils achievements. In reality, grammar schools tended towards being selective by their locations, costs of uniforms and so on. Yes it seems unfair but how can we stop people at the top of society seeking to gain advantage for their children ? We would all do it if we could. Bring back Grammar schools, I would say. To mitigate the postcode lottery element make it so that all local councils have to provide a certain amount of coverage. I think it's the only way to restore something resembling a meritocracy. Every PM from 1964-1997 went to grammar school. I agree with this, but with a caveat, that the grammar schools have to have a fairer selection that compensates for those children who display progress above the average of their schools, not just those that can pass the 11+. The problem with that criteria is that such pupils often benefited from the educational basis of their parents, and the tutoring those parents could afford. Also grammar schools would have to be totally funded by the state, so that travel, uniform, school trips and additional schooling were available to any applicant. Too many grammar schools and entry were 'biased towards the upper working classes and middle classes'.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Oct 15 1.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Well yes you can, you can determine the candidates based on their achievements against a baseline of their classmates and school, rather than a culturally biased exam that favour's people from certain backgrounds (white, middle and upper working class, with educated parents). Each school should present candidates, based on their metric performance, against class mates and their year, for selection to grammar schools. We don't generally fail the brighter and better students in schools in high attainment areas, but we really do fail those who achieve against a background of failure and poor standard.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.