True, but virtually everything that was in place before 1066 was destroyed by the Normans.
Many of the "small elite" running the country today can trace their ancestory directly back to Norman times and their family's part in the invasion.
I'm not saying that at all, what I am saying is that for those at the top now are going to show little appetite to chance as they are the ones at the top.
What is a worry, though, is that there is far less social mobility today than there was even 50 years ago, with little sign of it improving.
You know I'm bound to disagree with you on this but irrespective of that, I think what you've focused on (parental wealth) is a side issue to this particular story.
The real question is why do people going to private schools end up in the top jobs? The undisputed evidence is that it's happening - but why? It's not something that happens overnight. In between leaving school they'll have university and then at least 10 years (probably 20) of working their way through the system to get to those jobs.
What hold over the system do private schools have that 20 years after their students have left, they're being put into the top jobs? Unless one believes in masonic-type conspiracies, the only logical answer is none.
So why is it happening?
Because the power brokers send their children to (good) private schools - it is something that they have always done as it is recognised that with the wealth and facilities these establishments have their education is of a high standard.
They are being "educated to rule" and the "old school tie" regime is still going strong.
Remember, many of the parents of little Giles and Amanda book their places at crammers when they're still in swaddling clothes.
Parental wealth is relevant because it is how the Establishment renews itself from generation to generation. Without the wealth the fees cannot be paid. No fee no privileged education, and their kids have to "slum it" in the state sector.
It's absurd to think that you can't reach middle class without Grammar schools, even with the current system people are still able to get middle class jobs. It's all about how much people want and put into their own education. If you see most teenagers today, they are only interested in social media and other non educational activities. However those who study hard, have successful careers.
I also know a bunch of people who were put through private schools and are now working class, they are running a takeway business.
A person doesn't change class because of what sort of secondary education they had, any more than a job defines their class.
Labour abolishing assisted places so that bright children from poorer backgrounds couldn't go to Independent school any more , didn't help .
Anyway, it's a myth that only rich people send their children to private schools. Our eldest daughter went to an Independent school 6th form because she wanted to do a particular A Level subject. We weren't wealthy, & there were several pupils there who didn't come from privileged back grounds, their parents just chose to spend their money differently on educating their children.
Exactly. Grammar schools were the best ladder out of poverty the working classes ever had. Once they were shut down, the working classes were trapped.
Having come from a grammar school, I used to have the same view as well. But having read into this subject, I've realised that grammar schools are inherently unfair. We all know kids develop at different speeds and there are scientific studies to back that up. Take into account as well that at such a young age when the 11+ test is held, that the difference in when a kid a born during an academic year (i.e. summer kids at a disadtanage) has a bearing on their academic performance, and you'll find that there is a huge amount of luck in determining which kids get selected to go to these grammar schools. But I suppose in the short term, they still are the best way for kids from ordinary backgrounds to compete against those from private schools.
Because the power brokers send their children to (good) private schools - it is something that they have always done as it is recognised that with the wealth and facilities these establishments have their education is of a high standard.
They are being "educated to rule" and the "old school tie" regime is still going strong.
Remember, many of the parents of little Giles and Amanda book their places at crammers when they're still in swaddling clothes.
Parental wealth is relevant because it is how the Establishment renews itself from generation to generation. Without the wealth the fees cannot be paid. No fee no privileged education, and their kids have to "slum it" in the state sector.
I've never heard of a public school syllabus that comes anywhere close to being described as "educated to rule".
The most likely explanation is that the majority of those can afford to place their children in the public school system are themselves leaders. Bosses, directors, high-ranking managers etc. - those with sufficient wealth to do it. The schools deliver a high-quality and elite education but the real reason why the system (top jobs going to public school students) is being perpetuated is because sons and daughters are following in the footsteps of their parents.
I effectively said that above those in power will look to the people they grew up with or were educated at the same place - it is no accident that both Cameron and Osbourne were at Eton together.
Parental wealth is relevant because it is how the Establishment renews itself from generation to generation. Without the wealth the fees cannot be paid. No fee no privileged education, and their kids have to "slum it" in the state sector.
Less so than before - as has already been pointed out 25% of those who go to Eton get a scholarship and are not their by dint of the wealth of their parents. Further as I have pointed out to you numerous times now most of our wealthy did not inherit that wealth - they are not second generation wealthy - so their parents wealth or lack of it is less relevant than it was even in the 60's and 70's.
The real answer is that those in power will surround themselves with similar people as those are more likely to be educated in the same kind of establishment.
A minority of the working classes got to grammar school.
That is in the nature of something which by definition takes those most academically able to survive.
What about the majority in sec. modern schools?
What like me? That is where I went after not getting high enough marks in my 11+ Hows about dint of hard work.
A person doesn't change class because of what sort of secondary education they had, any more than a job defines their class.
I didn't say you will change class from your education, I was refering to how not having grammar schools hasn't weighed down people from getting more highly paid jobs. Usually highly paid jobs mean you are in middle class. I know of people who have a working class family background, who's parents are cooks and cleaner but their children were educated by state comprehensive schools and went onto do degrees. Now their children are doctors, computer programmers, architechts and an airline pilot even. They are no longer working class but middle class.
Also someone with a professional job are paid more from £50,000 and above, you can only call these people middle class. The social status of middle class can only be achieved by the salaries attached to such professions.
I've never heard of a public school syllabus that comes anywhere close to being described as "educated to rule".
The most likely explanation is that the majority of those can afford to place their children in the public school system are themselves leaders. Bosses, directors, high-ranking managers etc. - those with sufficient wealth to do it. The schools deliver a high-quality and elite education but the real reason why the system (top jobs going to public school students) is being perpetuated is because sons and daughters are following in the footsteps of their parents.
Quite. The Establishment is a self-perpetuating elite, as I intimated earlier. A good public school education is part of the training.
I effectively said that above those in power will look to the people they grew up with or were educated at the same place - it is no accident that both Cameron and Osbourne were at Eton together.
[1]Less so than before - as has already been pointed out 25% of those who go to Eton get a scholarship and are not their by dint of the wealth of their parents. [2]Further as I have pointed out to you numerous times now most of our wealthy did not inherit that wealth - they are not second generation wealthy - so their parents wealth or lack of it is less relevant than it was even in the 60's and 70's.
The real answer is that those in power will surround themselves with similar people as those are more likely to be educated in the same kind of establishment.
[3]That is in the nature of something which by definition takes those most academically able to survive.
[4]What like me? That is where I went after not getting high enough marks in my 11+ Hows about dint of hard work.
1. They are a minority. And we don't want a handful more kids to have a privileged education, but all education to be better and based on a level playing field, surely?
2, As this study shows, 44% of the Sunday Times rich list were privately educated.
3. Grammar schools only catered for 20% of the school places if I remember aright.
4. Hard work had little to do with if you passed the 11+ or not. Some kids were ready for it, some not. Whatever, it was a thoroughly socially divisive exam that condemned many who would no doubt have shone academically when they were a little older to the second class citizen - rated (by employers) of the sec. modern school.
I didn't say you will change class from your education, I was refering to how not having grammar schools hasn't weighed down people from getting more highly paid jobs. Usually highly paid jobs mean you are in middle class. I know of people who have a working class family background, who's parents are cooks and cleaner but their children were educated by state comprehensive schools and went onto do degrees. Now their children are doctors, computer programmers, architechts and an airline pilot even. They are no longer working class but middle class.
Also someone with a professional job are paid more from £50,000 and above, you can only call these people middle class. The social status of middle class can only be achieved by the salaries attached to such professions.
No, the size of your pay packet doesn't define your class either.
Your social background defines your class.
A person who was brought up in a working class environment will remain working class whatever their job.
The elites don't care what race you are any more they just care if you come from "good blood" they always trust their families and close friends with their secrets.
Quite. The Establishment is a self-perpetuating elite, as I intimated earlier. A good public school education is part of the training.
Most people follow their parents primarily because they are exposed to that environment from an early age, they and their parents have many contacts and children tend to have similar intelligence and skills as their parents. That is why many actors and actresses raise generations of actors and actresses, many mechanics raise generations of mechanics, farmers raise farmers etc etc. A banker will tend to raise a banker and a lawyer will tend to raise a lawyer. The vocation of a parent will have a very strong influence on that of his offspring. That is true in most walks of life. Parents secure places for their offspring wherever they can just as family connections helped in the pits.
[1]Most people follow their parents primarily because they are exposed to that environment from an early age, they and their parents have many contacts and [2]children tend to have similar intelligence and skills as their parents. That is why [3]many actors and actresses raise generations of actors and actresses, many mechanics raise generations of mechanics, farmers raise farmers etc etc. A banker will tend to raise a banker and a lawyer will tend to raise a lawyer. [4]The vocation of a parent will have a very strong influence on that of his offspring. That is true in most walks of life. Parents secure places for their offspring wherever they can just as family connections helped in the pits.
1.It's the parents who decide to perpetuate the cycle by reserving places at prep schools and public schools when the child is still a baby in many cases. It takes a lot of money to do that.
2. A dangerous assertion. The elite are destined to rule by virtue of birth?
3. A pretty wild statement here.
4. Indeed. As a believer in Jungian individuation I believe it is natural for kids to rebel against their parents lifestyle to become fully rounded individuals.
It is usually the self-appointed job of the parent from allowing this to happen.
Quite. The Establishment is a self-perpetuating elite, as I intimated earlier. A good public school education is part of the training.
What you see as "The Establishment" (a pejorative term), I see as children learning from their parents. An ethic that cuts across class and is, arguably, more established than anything else.
No, the size of your pay packet doesn't define your class either.
Your social background defines your class.
A person who was brought up in a working class environment will remain working class whatever their job.
(Computer programmers?)
That is a strange way to put things, for example would you still call a doctor or surgeon even, working class when they now earn maybe 5 times that of someone in working class and they live in a 5 bedroom house. Their social status and standing are completely different to when they were younger or children.
Also why do you frown upon Computer Programmers, who are now one of the most sort after jobs. The irony is you're post from a computer and using a computer. There's also the fact that the most wealthy people were computer programmers like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. I also want to point out that the majority of modern day mathematicians, are now programmers.
1.It's the parents who decide to perpetuate the cycle by reserving places at prep schools and public schools when the child is still a baby in many cases. It takes a lot of money to do that.
2. A dangerous assertion. The elite are destined to rule by virtue of birth?
3. A pretty wild statement here.
4. Indeed. As a believer in Jungian individuation I believe it is natural for kids to rebel against their parents lifestyle to become fully rounded individuals.
It is usually the self-appointed job of the parent from allowing this to happen.
1 As do parents in all walks of life, farmers take their sons out in the tractor, actors take their children to shoots.
2 Not an assertion at all genetics dictate that children have a tendency to be like their parents in many respects. Environment dictates where your interests generally lie
3 Wild? Redgrave, Voight, Sheen, Douglas, Bridges, Sutherland, Barrymore, Fox, Troughton, Knightly, Irons, Ritter, Stiller, Howard, Wayans, Curtis, Garland, Smith, Carradine and all the offshoot names that go with them. That is by no means an exhaustive list.
4 It may be 'natural' to rebel but it is also natural to follow as many children have a great interest in what their parents do. Many parents take an interest in what their children do because that is good for the child. That is how the world works, not always fair but hey a lion taking over a pride kills all the cubs, that is not fair either.
That is a strange way to put things, for example would you still call a doctor or surgeon even, working class when they now earn maybe 5 times that of someone in working class and they live in a 5 bedroom house. Their social status and standing are completely different to when they were younger or children.
Also why do you frown upon Computer Programmers, who are now one of the most sort after jobs. The irony is you're post from a computer and using a computer. There's also the fact that the most wealthy people were computer programmers like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. I also want to point out that the majority of modern day mathematicians, are now programmers.
While Bill Gates did some programming early on, I don't remember reading of Steve Jobs doing any. He was the business guy and Woz was the engineer. Gates was far more of a techie than Jobs ever was. Neither are rich because of their engineering ability though, but because of their business ability.
And you're right about GGP's lack of respect for software developers. Seen it on plenty of occasions. I'm not really sure where that comes from.
Today's main political story. A boy from Charterhouse has decided to join the 'alternative' party led by the boy from Dulwich College, much to the disconsolation of the boy from Eton and his Chancellor chum from St Pauls, who are in coalition with the boy from Westminster.
Britain run by a tiny public school social elite you say? Ridiculous notion.
Comments
You are of course correct.
Perhaps I should've worded it "You cant get away with simply winging it...for too long without getting caught out/making a balls up of it"
There are few of them, but there are many of us.
Because the power brokers send their children to (good) private schools - it is something that they have always done as it is recognised that with the wealth and facilities these establishments have their education is of a high standard.
They are being "educated to rule" and the "old school tie" regime is still going strong.
Remember, many of the parents of little Giles and Amanda book their places at crammers when they're still in swaddling clothes.
Parental wealth is relevant because it is how the Establishment renews itself from generation to generation. Without the wealth the fees cannot be paid. No fee no privileged education, and their kids have to "slum it" in the state sector.
A minority of the working classes got to grammar school.
What about the majority in sec. modern schools?
A person doesn't change class because of what sort of secondary education they had, any more than a job defines their class.
Anyway, it's a myth that only rich people send their children to private schools. Our eldest daughter went to an Independent school 6th form because she wanted to do a particular A Level subject. We weren't wealthy, & there were several pupils there who didn't come from privileged back grounds, their parents just chose to spend their money differently on educating their children.
Having come from a grammar school, I used to have the same view as well. But having read into this subject, I've realised that grammar schools are inherently unfair. We all know kids develop at different speeds and there are scientific studies to back that up. Take into account as well that at such a young age when the 11+ test is held, that the difference in when a kid a born during an academic year (i.e. summer kids at a disadtanage) has a bearing on their academic performance, and you'll find that there is a huge amount of luck in determining which kids get selected to go to these grammar schools. But I suppose in the short term, they still are the best way for kids from ordinary backgrounds to compete against those from private schools.
I've never heard of a public school syllabus that comes anywhere close to being described as "educated to rule".
The most likely explanation is that the majority of those can afford to place their children in the public school system are themselves leaders. Bosses, directors, high-ranking managers etc. - those with sufficient wealth to do it. The schools deliver a high-quality and elite education but the real reason why the system (top jobs going to public school students) is being perpetuated is because sons and daughters are following in the footsteps of their parents.
I effectively said that above those in power will look to the people they grew up with or were educated at the same place - it is no accident that both Cameron and Osbourne were at Eton together.
Less so than before - as has already been pointed out 25% of those who go to Eton get a scholarship and are not their by dint of the wealth of their parents. Further as I have pointed out to you numerous times now most of our wealthy did not inherit that wealth - they are not second generation wealthy - so their parents wealth or lack of it is less relevant than it was even in the 60's and 70's.
The real answer is that those in power will surround themselves with similar people as those are more likely to be educated in the same kind of establishment.
That is in the nature of something which by definition takes those most academically able to survive.
What like me? That is where I went after not getting high enough marks in my 11+ Hows about dint of hard work.
Going to a fee paying school can also attract more successful people.
There's nothing surprising about that either.
What I'd like to see is this - forced IQ tests among the top by ethnicity.
The same at the bottom - monitoring any gap differences.
Do they need to?
Exactly.
Even they agree that this country has huge social mobility issues.
Do they not need to? Because that's very clearly permanently the case for no real fair or just reason.
In fact, there's very little to explain it apart from underhand practice.
I didn't say you will change class from your education, I was refering to how not having grammar schools hasn't weighed down people from getting more highly paid jobs. Usually highly paid jobs mean you are in middle class. I know of people who have a working class family background, who's parents are cooks and cleaner but their children were educated by state comprehensive schools and went onto do degrees. Now their children are doctors, computer programmers, architechts and an airline pilot even. They are no longer working class but middle class.
Also someone with a professional job are paid more from £50,000 and above, you can only call these people middle class. The social status of middle class can only be achieved by the salaries attached to such professions.
Quite. The Establishment is a self-perpetuating elite, as I intimated earlier. A good public school education is part of the training.
1. They are a minority. And we don't want a handful more kids to have a privileged education, but all education to be better and based on a level playing field, surely?
2, As this study shows, 44% of the Sunday Times rich list were privately educated.
3. Grammar schools only catered for 20% of the school places if I remember aright.
4. Hard work had little to do with if you passed the 11+ or not. Some kids were ready for it, some not. Whatever, it was a thoroughly socially divisive exam that condemned many who would no doubt have shone academically when they were a little older to the second class citizen - rated (by employers) of the sec. modern school.
No, the size of your pay packet doesn't define your class either.
Your social background defines your class.
A person who was brought up in a working class environment will remain working class whatever their job.
(Computer programmers?
Most people follow their parents primarily because they are exposed to that environment from an early age, they and their parents have many contacts and children tend to have similar intelligence and skills as their parents. That is why many actors and actresses raise generations of actors and actresses, many mechanics raise generations of mechanics, farmers raise farmers etc etc. A banker will tend to raise a banker and a lawyer will tend to raise a lawyer. The vocation of a parent will have a very strong influence on that of his offspring. That is true in most walks of life. Parents secure places for their offspring wherever they can just as family connections helped in the pits.
1.It's the parents who decide to perpetuate the cycle by reserving places at prep schools and public schools when the child is still a baby in many cases. It takes a lot of money to do that.
2. A dangerous assertion. The elite are destined to rule by virtue of birth?
3. A pretty wild statement here.
4. Indeed. As a believer in Jungian individuation I believe it is natural for kids to rebel against their parents lifestyle to become fully rounded individuals.
It is usually the self-appointed job of the parent from allowing this to happen.
What you see as "The Establishment" (a pejorative term), I see as children learning from their parents. An ethic that cuts across class and is, arguably, more established than anything else.
That is a strange way to put things, for example would you still call a doctor or surgeon even, working class when they now earn maybe 5 times that of someone in working class and they live in a 5 bedroom house. Their social status and standing are completely different to when they were younger or children.
Also why do you frown upon Computer Programmers, who are now one of the most sort after jobs. The irony is you're post from a computer and using a computer. There's also the fact that the most wealthy people were computer programmers like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. I also want to point out that the majority of modern day mathematicians, are now programmers.
1 As do parents in all walks of life, farmers take their sons out in the tractor, actors take their children to shoots.
2 Not an assertion at all genetics dictate that children have a tendency to be like their parents in many respects. Environment dictates where your interests generally lie
3 Wild? Redgrave, Voight, Sheen, Douglas, Bridges, Sutherland, Barrymore, Fox, Troughton, Knightly, Irons, Ritter, Stiller, Howard, Wayans, Curtis, Garland, Smith, Carradine and all the offshoot names that go with them. That is by no means an exhaustive list.
4 It may be 'natural' to rebel but it is also natural to follow as many children have a great interest in what their parents do. Many parents take an interest in what their children do because that is good for the child. That is how the world works, not always fair but hey a lion taking over a pride kills all the cubs, that is not fair either.
While Bill Gates did some programming early on, I don't remember reading of Steve Jobs doing any. He was the business guy and Woz was the engineer. Gates was far more of a techie than Jobs ever was. Neither are rich because of their engineering ability though, but because of their business ability.
And you're right about GGP's lack of respect for software developers. Seen it on plenty of occasions. I'm not really sure where that comes from.
Britain run by a tiny public school social elite you say? Ridiculous notion.