Breaking news: the poor are thick
- Thread starter Johnny Girth
- Start date
Private school doesn't have to have anything to do with it, it could just be people who have money know that to get ahead in life you need to work hard and so are more driven, which would rub off on their children.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 7,613
- Location
- London
Too true. I was told Leeds and Newcastle had the best night-life in the country and I wouldn't disagree. Other cities I've been to recently (Manchester, London, Sunderland) just don't compare. It just seems like a student city the entire time.
I go to a grammar school and most people come from working class families, most people in the 6th form are getting ema, and all of my friends are from working class areas. If they weren't working class they wouldn't be going to a grammar school, they'd be going to a private school.
Is it a state grammar school or a private grammar school?
If it's a state grammar then you're lucky, there aren't many left in the country. Most selective schools are fee-paying.
State Grammar schools are the way forward.
Unfortunately the government seem to think that you should be able to select kids for schools based on anything EXCEPT for academic ability.
They'd rather open more faith based schools and academies. Crazy.
Unfortunately the government seem to think that you should be able to select kids for schools based on anything EXCEPT for academic ability.
They'd rather open more faith based schools and academies. Crazy.
Not true, I come from a middle class background. The private schools near us all get significantly worse marks than the school we ended up going to which is a grammar school. This added to the fact that sending 4 children to private school would erode into skiing holidays etc meant the choice was easy for them. Of course we all had to get in which was not guaranteed (about 1 in 10 applicants gets a place). Most people in my school were from middle class backgrounds and there were very few working class people.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 18,423
Working class students... middle class students... upper class students.
Who cares? they're all immature, inconsiderate, selfish ****ers.
Who cares? they're all immature, inconsiderate, selfish ****ers.
Last edited:
There seems to be a bit of confusion with the terminology being used here. As I see it there are 2 types of schools:
Selective, of which there are a few types
Non-selective
ie: comprehensive schools
People saying "I went to a grammar school", it'd be useful to know whether your parents paid for it or not.
Selective, of which there are a few types
- privately funded grammar schools
- state-funded grammar schools
- "public schools", which I always thought were a subset of the privately-funded schools
Non-selective
ie: comprehensive schools
People saying "I went to a grammar school", it'd be useful to know whether your parents paid for it or not.
State.
2 primary issues:
1) BBC reporting is poor most of the time. The reporter will undoubtedly have got a lot of things wrong in the article.
2) While it's not clear, there are probably issues with the researcher's statistical analysis. On quick inspection, there are too many sources of endogeneity to make any valid inferences from his study.
1) BBC reporting is poor most of the time. The reporter will undoubtedly have got a lot of things wrong in the article.
2) While it's not clear, there are probably issues with the researcher's statistical analysis. On quick inspection, there are too many sources of endogeneity to make any valid inferences from his study.
He's baaaaaaaaaaaaaack
In short: poor people= more frequency of less educated persons. (due to situation and circumstance)
rich people= more educated[sometimes] and just as stupid (due to situation: don't need to work ever, and circumstance; going back to daddy's country mansion for the weekend)
People in every tract, class etc of society are stupid. There are stupid people everywhere: some have money and others don't.
Just don't let them take it out on those who are genuinely able in order to make things 'fairer'. Just makes it more unfair on everyone at the end of the day.
I disagree. Wealthy = more opportunities for intellectual fulfilment, stimulation and rounding at an early age - the correlation is purely social, and undeniable.
But being 'intellectually fulfilled' doesn't equate to being intelligent. I would equate intelligence more with the ability to learn than with the amount of knowledge or wisdom one has actually gained. Wealthy parents are more likely to be able to stimulate and make the most of this ability, e.g. by sending their kids to private school and ensuring they mix in the 'right' circles. It's not intelligence which sets the wealthy kids apart so much as the application of it.
As an aside, I know quite a few privately-educated people at Uni, and what sets them apart from the state-school cohort is not so much their intelligence or wisdom but their social ability. It's something that the best schools really bring out, and it contributes at least as much to the success of those from wealthy families as does any academic achievement.
Last edited:
It's a lot more correct than the guy I quoted. I'm sure all parents, generally, care for their kids the same amount as anyone else. No matter what their class but he amount of education they can offer is dependant on how much money they have. E.g. to move closer to the better public schools or sending them to private school.
What would you say define a class then? Its pretty obvious that someone who is poor is from a working class and people who are rich are from a high class. The whole thread is based on generalisation and my statement is another generalisation but there's nothing wrong with that.
Instead of replying with caps lock glued to the keyboard why not tell me why you think I'm wrong? Isn't the whole definition of a class based on money you have and the job you do?!
Last edited:
And I disagree. Intelligence is merely a measure of your capacity to learn, this itself is not affected by your surroundings.
People from a poorer background may not reach their potential as frequently as those from a more wealthy background but they aren't less intelligent.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 5,166
- Location
- The land of Cows n Grass!
I agree with that lol
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
Much more correct than the person you quoted. It's kind of annoying when it's probably the only subject out there that doesn't even have a structured syllabus to it. We were expected to know a bit about everything
.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
You've kind of agreed and extended my original point. The article clearly hints that class leads to intelligence and therefore career paths. But I'm saying that using tests to judge people this way and make predicitions on where they'll end up is pointless as (you've stated via Einstein) it depends on who the person is as to whether they become effective and better at their job (doctors....).