Reserved for the rich or a failure of standards?

[purplecthulhu]

There's a lot of news around today about a government claim that the professions are increasingly 'reserved for (the children of) the rich

Comments

[kriste]

I agree with the self-selection highlighted by bohemiancoast. I haven't had a chance to read the data mentioned, but my bet would be when faced with a medical/law degree that lasts for 5-7 years, when you can, if you really want to go to university, get a degree in 3 years, you go for the cheaper option

[robert_jones]

I don't want to tell you your job, but isn't there a problem with that, i.e. the student may not have written their own personal statement? And I wonder whether a brilliant young chemist from a working class background and a school unused to sending students to university might not naively begin his or her personal statement as you suggest?

[surliminal]

I suppose I think of that as a different more acceptable kind of internship ? - in social work too they're not actually allowed on the MSc I think unless they can prove they've had relevant experience. But it is possible to do voluntary work while studying UG I think and social work intake are not known for being from the independently wealthy class? Relevance to being fit for the next stage rather than simple xploitation seems the key difference?

[brixtonbrood]

My idea is to have a well-informed and up-to-date Higher Education Apsirations officer (or whatever) at LEA level, who could scoop up the most promising kids from every secondary school at aged 12 and annually thereafter and talk to them about their options and plans, and where appropriate steer them in the direction of available grants. Not an unmanageable task I'd have thought, if you discarded the Smalls who have enough school or family support, and focussed on the ones who really need the support and information.

Wouldn't solve all the problems, not even close, but would help the kids whose schools have no history at all of Russell Group entry.

[lazy_alex]

Restoring A-Levels to a 'gold standard' examination would certainly be a good start.

However, wealthier families will be able to afford private tutors and independent schooling (whether this is necessarily better remains an open question); further, they seem, anecdotally (because I've not gone looking for actual stats), to be more likely to foster the sort of home environment in which reading is both encouraged and common, and where education and achievement are highly prioritised. This latter is also a cultural thing, particularly prevalent (again, anecdotally, but many anecdotes) among Asian families.

So, whilst we need institutional change, we also, IMHO, need cultural change to re-focus people on education. If this were at the cost of the worldview which seeks success in life by becoming a celebrity*, then nothing of value would be lost.

* Not a celebrity chef, or famous artist, or author; simply someone famous for being famous. Big Brother dross, &c.

[brixtonbrood]

On the cultural thing, a local very hard-core state primary has announced plans to expand to secondary level and buy a defunct boarding school in Surrey (or wherever) and ship the 13-18 year old boys out there Monday to Friday - in order to protect their lovely hardworking 11 year olds from local influences...it's one solution.

[robert_jones]

I think it's almost impossible to remove completely the advantage of having wealthy parents: this is the point of my long-standing policy of removing all children from their parents at birth. It's the essence of how money works that having a lot of it enables one to gain advantages (including advantages for one's offspring) unavailable to others.

That, on the other hand, is no reason to accept ever increasing inequality. We can strive to be as fair as possible, while admitting that we will never completely eliminate inequality.

Equality of Opportunity, or Equality of Outcome?

[a_cubed]

I think the problem starts much earlier. Just like the problem of gender equality on certain courses (and thus in the relevant professions), the A-level is way too late. Yes, it probably could be improved. Judging from my parent's generation the big difference was the move from Grammars/Secondary Modern/Technical to Comprehensive. No longer was there sufficient separation of high academic track from mediocre academic track from non-academic track. Sure, there are boundary problems, and sure there are issues with posh/rich parents providing coaching even at the primary level to get into the Grammar School to get into the best university (one only has to look at Japan where the competition to get into the Tokyo University's (e.g.) Junior High Schools, which close to guarantees entry to Tokyo University (Japan's equivalent of Oxbridge is the seven "Imperial Universities including Tokyo)). Still, the mobility introduced by selection into a top academic track at age eleven does seem to have disappeared

[ms_cataclysm]

I don't feel comfortable spelling out exactly how bad my family's finances were when I went to school and Cambridge but we were well below the poverty line.

I got to Cambridge and a profession by way of a full scholarship to an independent single sex school in the days followed by a full student grant plus holiday jobs washing dishes.

So do I count for and against your case?