I'm not sure why the UK's two premier universities (ie. Oxbridge) are being lumped in with top private schools like Eton to demonstrate a point about not understanding the interests of Joe Public. There are thousands of extremely bright kids from working class backgrounds currently studying at the former, but virtually none being educated at the latter.
This is not to suggest the distribution of Oxbridge students exactly reflects the UK's demographics (the amount of private school-educated students is of course disproportionate) but entrance no longer represents the obstacles it did a couple of generations ago, and the trends continue to move in that direction.
Moreover Oxbridge students are by definition smart (even if in some cases only in very narrow fields), and I'm not sure why it should be seen as a bad thing for MPs to be smart given the complexity of most policy decisions, particularly at ministry level.
I understand your point and it might seem unfair to be picking on Oxbridge but the reality is that the vast majority of students going to Oxbridge come from elite private schools - but that's not the main point here.
People say things and other people believe it's true.
The last time I checked, 30-40% doesn't not constitute "the vast majority". And that's from all private schools not just the elite ones! So, Ormiston, you must have a different reality from me.
Bizarrely, it seems that hotbed of leftism, the LSE has around a third of students who were privately educated.
Seems that private school kids make up just 7% of UK school kids yet take more than 50% of places at Oxbridge.
Is that enough reality for you?
Besides, this is not the point in question anyway, we are not talking about educational equality here, we are talking about how Labour can possibly connect with working class voters when it is now run by and for the middle classes.
I'm not sure why the UK's two premier universities (ie. Oxbridge) are being lumped in with top private schools like Eton to demonstrate a point about not understanding the interests of Joe Public. There are thousands of extremely bright kids from working class backgrounds currently studying at the former, but virtually none being educated at the latter.
This is not to suggest the distribution of Oxbridge students exactly reflects the UK's demographics (the amount of private school-educated students is of course disproportionate) but entrance no longer represents the obstacles it did a couple of generations ago, and the trends continue to move in that direction.
Moreover Oxbridge students are by definition smart (even if in some cases only in very narrow fields), and I'm not sure why it should be seen as a bad thing for MPs to be smart given the complexity of most policy decisions, particularly at ministry level.
I understand your point and it might seem unfair to be picking on Oxbridge but the reality is that the vast majority of students going to Oxbridge come from elite private schools - but that's not the main point here.
People say things and other people believe it's true.
The last time I checked, 30-40% doesn't not constitute "the vast majority". And that's from all private schools not just the elite ones! So, Ormiston, you must have a different reality from me.
Bizarrely, it seems that hotbed of leftism, the LSE has around a third of students who were privately educated.
Seems that private school kids make up just 7% of UK school kids yet take more than 50% of places at Oxbridge.
Is that enough reality for you?
Besides, this is not the point in question anyway, we are not talking about educational equality here, we are talking about how Labour can possibly connect with working class voters when it is now run by and for the middle classes.
You didn't scroll down and read the response to that article did you? Here it is:
"This is a gross mis-representation of the situation.
Let’s start at the beginning with the 7% statistic. While it’s true that only 7% of children go to a private school, they account for 15% of all A-level entries, 30% of all A grades, and 33% of all those getting AAA.
Maintained Sector Applicants made up 63% of the UK-domiciled applicants for Oxford in 2012, with the independent sector making up the remaining 37%.
So the swing at application level is just 4%.
You say the Oxford figure peaked at 56%, but in 2012 acceptances were 58% state sector. A further swing of 5% in favour of the independent sector.
The swing at application level is likely down to the image of Oxford as a rich boy’s playground. An image which articles such as yours perpetuates.
The swing after application, is likely down to the quality of applicants: private schools are more often selective, statistically provide better teaching, and often pride themselves on “Oxbridge numbers”. As such students are stretched early on with the purpose of getting them to think in a way which will make them attractive to Oxbridge. Private school pupils are also more likely to come from well-off backgrounds, and thus more likely to have parents who went to university themselves.
In light of all these explanatory factors, a 5% statistical advantage does not seem to be evidence that poorer students are at a particular disadvantage as a result of the rising applications."
As I said the figure is around a third for Cambridge and around 40% for Oxford.
On a cruise this September we were fortunate enough to be seated at dinner with two other nice couples and a couple from Stoke (rude to staff, bit obnoxious, not our cup if tea). However we became friends with the other two couples and have kept in touch. On the last night we discovered that one was the MP for Anglesey. I've always had a very low opinion on MP's but I can only say that if all MPs were like Albert Owen we'd live in a much better country. As in all walks of life their are good and bad and we only hear about the ones who do a bad job or fiddle expenses etc etc. I think that there are a good number of decent people out there as MP's trying to do their best for their consituants and the country and its the minority who give them a bad name.
Could be I'm wrong though and I just happened to meet one of the good guys ...
Getting back on track to the original posting, the last two goverments have failed to introduce a workable solution to the pension age qualification. For years, labour and conservative politicians have failed to grasp the nettle of this issue, and currently woman who would have retired at 60 , have twice had the bar raised from 60-65, and then an aggregated scale to 66/67 in a very short period in time. This essentially gave those people little time to make provision in the middle of an economic recession to plan, and put in place measures that would allow them to join a scheme , even though most people would struggle to obtain a decent sustainable 'private pension' in time to have a decent lifestyle in my opinion. Although private pension plans were in place in the 70s and 80s I tend to think like the majority of people they relied on there state pension to provide a decent standard of living. People are living longer, and I accept that the country/economy will struggle to provide a decent pension for those of us that are nearing retirement age. Let us not forget that some public sector workers will until a few years ago expected, and could not work beyond the age of 60. If I am correct, fireman, policeman and a whole raft of public sector workers could retire at 50/55.
What the current state of affairs does is bring in changes to quickly as a 'panic', to try and solve the current state of economic mismanagement that successive goverments have been to afraid to implement, knowing fully well that the population was growing, and that that people were living longer. The new additions were proposed I think by the previous labour goverment, and although the 'double whammy' has been adjusted slightly people born in the mid 50s were given little notice, to join the private sector pension scheme unless they put aside hundreds a month, because of the time scale and the inflation. The current proposals, make no allowance for the type of work, and it is unreasonable that some folk are expected to work in a job that they may well be unable to physically do, or have the desire to work any longer, having already clocked up over 40 years plus. No easy answers, I agree, but what about the other countries like Greece and Spain, and Italy where retirement ages were lower than the UK...... and the idea of working till 60 was seen as unreasonable, only a couple of years ago?. I do not have the answers, but I am sure the current goverment have no real solutions than to pass the buck on to the electorate? That means me and you!
Comments
See the link below...
http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/08/12/poorer-students-at-disadvantage-as-oxford-applications-soar/
Seems that private school kids make up just 7% of UK school kids yet take more than 50% of places at Oxbridge.
Is that enough reality for you?
Besides, this is not the point in question anyway, we are not talking about educational equality here, we are talking about how Labour can possibly connect with working class voters when it is now run by and for the middle classes.
"This is a gross mis-representation of the situation.
Let’s start at the beginning with the 7% statistic. While it’s true that only 7% of children go to a private school, they account for 15% of all A-level entries, 30% of all A grades, and 33% of all those getting AAA.
Maintained Sector Applicants made up 63% of the UK-domiciled applicants for Oxford in 2012, with the independent sector making up the remaining 37%.
So the swing at application level is just 4%.
You say the Oxford figure peaked at 56%, but in 2012 acceptances were 58% state sector. A further swing of 5% in favour of the independent sector.
The swing at application level is likely down to the image of Oxford as a rich boy’s playground. An image which articles such as yours perpetuates.
The swing after application, is likely down to the quality of applicants: private schools are more often selective, statistically provide better teaching, and often pride themselves on “Oxbridge numbers”. As such students are stretched early on with the purpose of getting them to think in a way which will make them attractive to Oxbridge. Private school pupils are also more likely to come from well-off backgrounds, and thus more likely to have parents who went to university themselves.
In light of all these explanatory factors, a 5% statistical advantage does not seem to be evidence that poorer students are at a particular disadvantage as a result of the rising applications."
As I said the figure is around a third for Cambridge and around 40% for Oxford.
Could be I'm wrong though and I just happened to meet one of the good guys ...
For years, labour and conservative politicians have failed to grasp the nettle of this issue, and currently woman who would have retired at 60 , have twice had the bar raised from 60-65, and then an aggregated scale to 66/67 in a very short period in time. This essentially gave those people little time to make provision in the middle of an economic recession to plan, and put in place measures that would allow them to join a scheme , even though most people would struggle to obtain a decent sustainable 'private pension' in time to have a decent lifestyle in my opinion.
Although private pension plans were in place in the 70s and 80s I tend to think like the majority of people they relied on there state pension to provide a decent standard of living. People are living longer, and I accept that the country/economy will struggle to provide a decent pension for those of us that are nearing retirement age. Let us not forget that some public sector workers will until a few years ago expected, and could not work beyond the age of 60.
If I am correct, fireman, policeman and a whole raft of public sector workers could retire at 50/55.
What the current state of affairs does is bring in changes to quickly as a 'panic', to try and solve the current state of economic mismanagement that successive goverments have been to afraid to implement, knowing fully well that the population was growing, and that that people were living longer.
The new additions were proposed I think by the previous labour goverment, and although the 'double whammy' has been adjusted slightly people born in the mid 50s were given little notice, to join the private sector pension scheme unless they put aside hundreds a month, because of the time scale and the inflation. The current proposals, make no allowance for the type of work, and it is unreasonable that some folk are expected to work in a job that they may well be unable to physically do, or have the desire to work any longer, having already clocked up over 40 years plus.
No easy answers, I agree, but what about the other countries like Greece and Spain, and Italy where retirement ages were lower than the UK......
and the idea of working till 60 was seen as unreasonable, only a couple of years ago?.
I do not have the answers, but I am sure the current goverment have no real solutions than to pass the buck on to the electorate?
That means me and you!