http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/14/britain-meritocracy-graduate-earnings-social-mobilityIs it getting better or worse? Do you care if we do?
Discuss.
For what it is worth I think we try to be a meritocracy but fail.
I can just about reconcile that people who have been through the Public School system have an inbuilt confidence that I (for one) just don't have.
What I struggle with is when I see incompetent people constantly being employed at senior levels that they have previously failed at (or even sacked from). This is not exclusively aimed at those who have benefited from a Public School, partly because I don't know many, but my experience suggests that their is a class bias.
And yes I do have a chip on my shoulder about it.
Comments
On the one hand, the fact that The Guardian employed someone called Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett, does on the surface, rather prove the point. They could have got someone competent to do it instead (but might not have got the same answer).
On the other hand, this article on the degrees that end up paying best, seems to indicate we do have a meritocracy.
telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/03/14/graduate-jobs-top-10-degree-subjects-by-lifetime-salary/medicine-and-dentistry/
I say that because it's difficult imagining the Tarquins and Rhiannons of the world actually doing much of that stuff.
I would agree that the 'successful' (by successful I mean those who were outstanding academically, on the sportsfield or musically etc) products of public schools, from those I have met anyway, can sometimes have the inbuilt confidence you describe.
However not all public schoolchildren are 'successful' at school and the weight of expectation emphasises and exaggerates their 'failures' so that, contrary to what you say, they actually lack confidence to their detriment because of the perception that they are 'failures' relative to their peers that they carry with them.
In a long working life I have encountered both types.
It's just a fact of life. "It's not what you know..."
Secondly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents gave them a slightly abnormal name. Thirdly, why should someone be discriminated against because their parents sent them to a public school?
And finally, sometimes someone can work hard but not have that natural warmness that is needed in client-based jobs. Unfortunately, sometimes being able to talk trumps hard work.
What is the evidence that the left hate Grammar schools? And if they do why? I thought meritocracy was desirable across political leanings.
Who has been discriminated against because they have been sent to public school? What is the evidence and if there has been discrimination how does it stack up against the evidence of discrimination against those who did not go to public school.
Ultimately this is a real shame, as the ability to attend a different school via sitting an entrance exam is incredibly more inclusive than having to pay to attend another one.
nationality and race are becoming irrelevant for the mega rich, their network clubs just exploit the 99.9% who must work or otherwise struggle for a living ...
anyway, robots will be doing 90% of ALL work in some twenty years time, so the 'workers' will become irrelevant ..
the latter day Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Elon Musks (et al) of the world will be more powerful and relevant than governments, or rather they will assert more and more control over governments whichever 'nation' those governments purport to 'rule' ..
SOOOO one could argue that a type of 'meritocracy' is in place .. clever people making mega money .. BUT .. meritocracy soon transforms into Nouveau Aristocracy .. see above
Britain like the US is increasingly becoming a 'winner takes all' society where short termism and self-interest dominate. We have an appalling attitude towards industry which leaves Britain overly dependent on foreign investment - the rate we're going at we'll soon have no assets left.
As for the Tories, you only have to look at the election thread on this forum to see how many of the working-classes voted in a public school toff and his chums for another term...
We talk about wanting a meritocracy - I suggest schools for those who work hard and I get criticised!!
Asking for evidence is not criticising!
The Tory supporting Independent thinks the same though.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/academies-increase-divisions-between-the-rich-and-poor-study-finds-segregation-made-worse-by-a-wider-8797105.html
At the Grammar school I attended two of my close friends relied upon free school meals and subsidised/free coach travel too, this wasn't too rare either. The children largely reflected the area that they lived in - as you've noted regarding the catchment areas, this isn't surprising at all.
If the parents don't understand the selection process then that's simply worrying, as you would assume that their child's education would be important enough to do warrant research - not to mention, I'm under the impression that most primary schools give parents information on these issues. I suspect that should a parent not take the time to read that literature then the child needs more help than a good school, as that parents attitude is worrying and implies more about the level of support the child will get from their own family.
With that in mind, I really can't agree with you about how inclusive they are.
The second, slightly more questionable, argument is that property prices are increasing around a number of grammar schools because there are more of the middle classes paying for their children to be privately trained in order to pass the 11+ and so the grammar schools themselves are having to discriminate on distance.
As for parents being "given information" and "taking time to read...literature" - well you and me would of course do this, but sadly I have to say there are some out there who would not.
if we are talking about the gap between the super rich and the rest it's not a problem that is think is solved by targeting social mobility. The gap is down to the having access to already created wealth, not through being able to create it because of the school you went to. Access to the sort of wealth that is material is not through a well paid job, but being admitted to a closed shop family fortune. That fortune will likely be tied up in ownership of businesses. Like it or not, you can't re-distribute that wealth as cash payouts without breaking up the business that provides jobs and economic activity
It's existing wealth accumulated over generations and tied up n businesses that sends most children to Eton and Oxford which then gives them access to the top jobs in professions and so a higher income. You can no more blamed for being income rich as you can for being income poor. But the income gap between working individuals is not the issue, the issue is the wealth gap which is all about asset ownership, not salary differential. Going to Eton and Oxford might make you well off, but it does not guarantee you will be super rich. You are already likely to be in the super rich closed shop of your family. Is there any evidence that working class graduates from Oxford doing the same job as those from wealthy families are lower paid - I doubt it.
Only a minority of the super rich get that rich from a salary, most are business owners or children just spending the family fortune.
If you are pulled out of the gutter and sent to Eton and Oxford you might get a well paid job but you do not suddenly get admitted to share in a family business or property empire. Surely the point is whether such an individual should be unhappy seeing the CEO of a corporate giant earning £100m and him only earning £200k a year. Should he be unhappy because a Guardian journalist says it's not fair?
I think the focus should be on the level of low wages employers are able to justify compared to the high wages of senior managers and directors within companies. That is where a realistic re-distribution of wealth is achievable.
Wealth is easily perceived as cash when in fact it is paper value which if tied up in economic activity it can't be just siphoned off and handed out. In some ways it's irrelevant whether wealth is shared between 1m individuals or 100m individuals, it's about ensuring that the assets representing that wealth are used to benefit as many people as possible with economic activity providing well paid jobs.
Unfortunately I believe that the decline of meritocracy in the UK began with MTs policies and not enough enough was done to reverse the decline under Major, Blair and Brown. Things have declined sharply under Cameron and Clegg but (like a lot of things) it plays out over decades so we might not 'notice' how bad it has got for a while.