This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Martin Amis
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
jamiemartin721  Reading 27 Oct 15 1.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 27 Oct 2015 11.41am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Oct 2015 8.21am
Quote on me shed son at 26 Oct 2015 5.38pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 4.30pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 4.04pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 1.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 1.07pm
Quote We are goin up! at 26 Oct 2015 12.45pm
Quote serial thriller at 26 Oct 2015 12.33pm
Not dead, just being a prick: [Link] The positions of power in this country are overwhelmingly held by people from Oxbridge. Nearly 3 out of 4 judges went there, 1 in 2 diplomats, 60% of the cabinet. The very idea that the most senior political position in the country may go to someone who isn't one of their own is clearly pretty scary for people like Amis, who of course defied his own public school/intellectual family/Oxbridge education and became a complete f*cking idiot churning out dull novels.
Edited by We are goin up! (26 Oct 2015 12.46pm) Only if you assume a meritocracy exists. It doesn't, essentially they aren't 'the best minds' they're the people generally who's parents bought them the best education and had the best access to 'cultural capital'. Excepting maybe a very small percentage of people, what matters more than 'your mind' is the socio-economic background, access to common culture, being able to read well and educational access children have. There is a reason why people pay very big fees to get their kids a 'private education', and the best schools in the country, generally aren't comprehensives. We tend to assume that everyone is well educated, but its not really true, children with parents of a high educational standard tend to achieve much higher levels of education themselves, as they are exposed to 'cultural influences' and of course their own parents capacity to provide educational input to their child. Its not a genetic thing, its the fact that bright, educated parents tend to expose their children to far more intellectual stimulation and culture than those who's own education was limited. In a democracy it should not matter what your educational standard is, anyone should 'be considerable' for a role as an MP or even PM. Their job is to represent the people, not to rule them. A prime minister who was a plumber with only his city and guilds should be as valid as one who went to Eton and Oxford.
Unfortunately, if you were to replace the ruling class with plumbers all that would happen is that their kids would get a private education and so on and we would soon be back to square one. Survival of the fittest extends to offspring even when they aren't really up to it. My problem with private schools has never been that they exist, but that the a lot of very talented kids miss out on the benefits because of the expense, where as plenty of 'Nice but Dim' Tims will massively benefit because of the people they meet there, just because their father could pay. These people often do well at university, because they'll benefit from a lot of one on one tuition, in return for the 'new library wing'. In theory I think the idea of grammar schools is fine provided the entry remains unbiased, and entirely based on pupils achievements. In reality, grammar schools tended towards being selective by their locations, costs of uniforms and so on. Yes it seems unfair but how can we stop people at the top of society seeking to gain advantage for their children ? We would all do it if we could. Bring back Grammar schools, I would say. To mitigate the postcode lottery element make it so that all local councils have to provide a certain amount of coverage. I think it's the only way to restore something resembling a meritocracy. Every PM from 1964-1997 went to grammar school. I agree with this, but with a caveat, that the grammar schools have to have a fairer selection that compensates for those children who display progress above the average of their schools, not just those that can pass the 11+. The problem with that criteria is that such pupils often benefited from the educational basis of their parents, and the tutoring those parents could afford. Also grammar schools would have to be totally funded by the state, so that travel, uniform, school trips and additional schooling were available to any applicant. Too many grammar schools and entry were 'biased towards the upper working classes and middle classes'.
Of course it could also be means tested to eliminate those who could afford to send their children to private schools, which is what we do seem to do with most benefits. Its not about being fair, but targeting say the most promising young pupils and giving them the capacity and tools to fulfill their potential. Rather than subsidizing the private education system and the middle classes.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
  Hrolf The Ganger 27 Oct 15 3.03pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Oct 2015 1.31pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 27 Oct 2015 11.41am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Oct 2015 8.21am
Quote on me shed son at 26 Oct 2015 5.38pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 4.30pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 4.04pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 1.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 1.07pm
Quote We are goin up! at 26 Oct 2015 12.45pm
Quote serial thriller at 26 Oct 2015 12.33pm
Not dead, just being a prick: [Link] The positions of power in this country are overwhelmingly held by people from Oxbridge. Nearly 3 out of 4 judges went there, 1 in 2 diplomats, 60% of the cabinet. The very idea that the most senior political position in the country may go to someone who isn't one of their own is clearly pretty scary for people like Amis, who of course defied his own public school/intellectual family/Oxbridge education and became a complete f*cking idiot churning out dull novels.
Edited by We are goin up! (26 Oct 2015 12.46pm) Only if you assume a meritocracy exists. It doesn't, essentially they aren't 'the best minds' they're the people generally who's parents bought them the best education and had the best access to 'cultural capital'. Excepting maybe a very small percentage of people, what matters more than 'your mind' is the socio-economic background, access to common culture, being able to read well and educational access children have. There is a reason why people pay very big fees to get their kids a 'private education', and the best schools in the country, generally aren't comprehensives. We tend to assume that everyone is well educated, but its not really true, children with parents of a high educational standard tend to achieve much higher levels of education themselves, as they are exposed to 'cultural influences' and of course their own parents capacity to provide educational input to their child. Its not a genetic thing, its the fact that bright, educated parents tend to expose their children to far more intellectual stimulation and culture than those who's own education was limited. In a democracy it should not matter what your educational standard is, anyone should 'be considerable' for a role as an MP or even PM. Their job is to represent the people, not to rule them. A prime minister who was a plumber with only his city and guilds should be as valid as one who went to Eton and Oxford.
Unfortunately, if you were to replace the ruling class with plumbers all that would happen is that their kids would get a private education and so on and we would soon be back to square one. Survival of the fittest extends to offspring even when they aren't really up to it. My problem with private schools has never been that they exist, but that the a lot of very talented kids miss out on the benefits because of the expense, where as plenty of 'Nice but Dim' Tims will massively benefit because of the people they meet there, just because their father could pay. These people often do well at university, because they'll benefit from a lot of one on one tuition, in return for the 'new library wing'. In theory I think the idea of grammar schools is fine provided the entry remains unbiased, and entirely based on pupils achievements. In reality, grammar schools tended towards being selective by their locations, costs of uniforms and so on. Yes it seems unfair but how can we stop people at the top of society seeking to gain advantage for their children ? We would all do it if we could. Bring back Grammar schools, I would say. To mitigate the postcode lottery element make it so that all local councils have to provide a certain amount of coverage. I think it's the only way to restore something resembling a meritocracy. Every PM from 1964-1997 went to grammar school. I agree with this, but with a caveat, that the grammar schools have to have a fairer selection that compensates for those children who display progress above the average of their schools, not just those that can pass the 11+. The problem with that criteria is that such pupils often benefited from the educational basis of their parents, and the tutoring those parents could afford. Also grammar schools would have to be totally funded by the state, so that travel, uniform, school trips and additional schooling were available to any applicant. Too many grammar schools and entry were 'biased towards the upper working classes and middle classes'.
Of course it could also be means tested to eliminate those who could afford to send their children to private schools, which is what we do seem to do with most benefits. Its not about being fair, but targeting say the most promising young pupils and giving them the capacity and tools to fulfill their potential. Rather than subsidizing the private education system and the middle classes.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Oct 15 10.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 27 Oct 2015 3.03pm
So then people are effectively penalised for doing better in life. Isn't that though the core of welfare spending approaches and government approaches. Its ok to means test things like Student loans, grants, welfare benefits, child support, tuition fees for university. So why should grammar school be any different? People in this country are always penalized for 'doing well for themselves or trying to improve themselves'. I'd like to see an education system where going 'private' wasn't a significant advantage, because the state education system was one of the finest in the world, even if it cost us in taxes. Personally, I don't really hold with means testing but its pretty much a standard situation in this country.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 28 Oct 15 11.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Oct 2015 10.54am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 27 Oct 2015 3.03pm
So then people are effectively penalised for doing better in life. Isn't that though the core of welfare spending approaches and government approaches. Its ok to means test things like Student loans, grants, welfare benefits, child support, tuition fees for university. So why should grammar school be any different? People in this country are always penalized for 'doing well for themselves or trying to improve themselves'. I'd like to see an education system where going 'private' wasn't a significant advantage, because the state education system was one of the finest in the world, even if it cost us in taxes. Personally, I don't really hold with means testing but its pretty much a standard situation in this country.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Oct 15 2.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 28 Oct 2015 11.38am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Oct 2015 10.54am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 27 Oct 2015 3.03pm
So then people are effectively penalised for doing better in life. Isn't that though the core of welfare spending approaches and government approaches. Its ok to means test things like Student loans, grants, welfare benefits, child support, tuition fees for university. So why should grammar school be any different? People in this country are always penalized for 'doing well for themselves or trying to improve themselves'. I'd like to see an education system where going 'private' wasn't a significant advantage, because the state education system was one of the finest in the world, even if it cost us in taxes. Personally, I don't really hold with means testing but its pretty much a standard situation in this country.
I disagree, education is costing the tax payer. The cost of teachers, schools, goverenence, administration etc all have a cost, which is born by the tax payer. If you have grammar schools, that comes with an additional costs to the taxpayer, on top of the education bill (as you'd need to attract the best teachers, more teachers (smaller class size) build additional schools and so on. Private education, idealy I'd like every comprehensive to be on a par with private schools, but I don't actually have a problem with people in 'our world at present' paying for their kids to have the best education, because that's the way of the world. What I want is for everyone who would benefit to receive that education. I'm not sure if its harder to be a road sweeper if you're smart. I've done plenty of jobs that don't require 'intellect' and found that I quite enjoyed them as they gave me a lot of time to think. I don't really see it as a strata as such, everyone is a functional part of society. Financial Accountants are all well and good, and require a lot of skill training and educational understanding, but if no one collects the rubbish or works the sewage systems, then Financial Accounts aren't that important anymore. Ironically, the jobs that tend to sit at the bottom of the projected strata, are the most important in terms of social functionality.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 28 Oct 15 4.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Oct 2015 2.25pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 28 Oct 2015 11.38am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Oct 2015 10.54am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 27 Oct 2015 3.03pm
So then people are effectively penalised for doing better in life. Isn't that though the core of welfare spending approaches and government approaches. Its ok to means test things like Student loans, grants, welfare benefits, child support, tuition fees for university. So why should grammar school be any different? People in this country are always penalized for 'doing well for themselves or trying to improve themselves'. I'd like to see an education system where going 'private' wasn't a significant advantage, because the state education system was one of the finest in the world, even if it cost us in taxes. Personally, I don't really hold with means testing but its pretty much a standard situation in this country.
I disagree, education is costing the tax payer. The cost of teachers, schools, goverenence, administration etc all have a cost, which is born by the tax payer. If you have grammar schools, that comes with an additional costs to the taxpayer, on top of the education bill (as you'd need to attract the best teachers, more teachers (smaller class size) build additional schools and so on. Private education, idealy I'd like every comprehensive to be on a par with private schools, but I don't actually have a problem with people in 'our world at present' paying for their kids to have the best education, because that's the way of the world. What I want is for everyone who would benefit to receive that education. I'm not sure if its harder to be a road sweeper if you're smart. I've done plenty of jobs that don't require 'intellect' and found that I quite enjoyed them as they gave me a lot of time to think. I don't really see it as a strata as such, everyone is a functional part of society. Financial Accountants are all well and good, and require a lot of skill training and educational understanding, but if no one collects the rubbish or works the sewage systems, then Financial Accounts aren't that important anymore. Ironically, the jobs that tend to sit at the bottom of the projected strata, are the most important in terms of social functionality. Yes, but welfare costs the tax payer where as private education doesn't in any direct sense, and that was the comparison I were originally making in reply to you suggesting that people who can afford private education should be excluded for grammar school consideration. A better educated person might be content to sweep up for a living but people who are capable of more usually become disillusioned after a while.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
on me shed son  Krakow 28 Oct 15 4.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Oct 2015 8.21am
Quote on me shed son at 26 Oct 2015 5.38pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 4.30pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 4.04pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 26 Oct 2015 1.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Oct 2015 1.07pm
Quote We are goin up! at 26 Oct 2015 12.45pm
Quote serial thriller at 26 Oct 2015 12.33pm
Not dead, just being a prick: [Link] The positions of power in this country are overwhelmingly held by people from Oxbridge. Nearly 3 out of 4 judges went there, 1 in 2 diplomats, 60% of the cabinet. The very idea that the most senior political position in the country may go to someone who isn't one of their own is clearly pretty scary for people like Amis, who of course defied his own public school/intellectual family/Oxbridge education and became a complete f*cking idiot churning out dull novels.
Edited by We are goin up! (26 Oct 2015 12.46pm) Only if you assume a meritocracy exists. It doesn't, essentially they aren't 'the best minds' they're the people generally who's parents bought them the best education and had the best access to 'cultural capital'. Excepting maybe a very small percentage of people, what matters more than 'your mind' is the socio-economic background, access to common culture, being able to read well and educational access children have. There is a reason why people pay very big fees to get their kids a 'private education', and the best schools in the country, generally aren't comprehensives. We tend to assume that everyone is well educated, but its not really true, children with parents of a high educational standard tend to achieve much higher levels of education themselves, as they are exposed to 'cultural influences' and of course their own parents capacity to provide educational input to their child. Its not a genetic thing, its the fact that bright, educated parents tend to expose their children to far more intellectual stimulation and culture than those who's own education was limited. In a democracy it should not matter what your educational standard is, anyone should 'be considerable' for a role as an MP or even PM. Their job is to represent the people, not to rule them. A prime minister who was a plumber with only his city and guilds should be as valid as one who went to Eton and Oxford.
Unfortunately, if you were to replace the ruling class with plumbers all that would happen is that their kids would get a private education and so on and we would soon be back to square one. Survival of the fittest extends to offspring even when they aren't really up to it. My problem with private schools has never been that they exist, but that the a lot of very talented kids miss out on the benefits because of the expense, where as plenty of 'Nice but Dim' Tims will massively benefit because of the people they meet there, just because their father could pay. These people often do well at university, because they'll benefit from a lot of one on one tuition, in return for the 'new library wing'. In theory I think the idea of grammar schools is fine provided the entry remains unbiased, and entirely based on pupils achievements. In reality, grammar schools tended towards being selective by their locations, costs of uniforms and so on. Yes it seems unfair but how can we stop people at the top of society seeking to gain advantage for their children ? We would all do it if we could. Bring back Grammar schools, I would say. To mitigate the postcode lottery element make it so that all local councils have to provide a certain amount of coverage. I think it's the only way to restore something resembling a meritocracy. Every PM from 1964-1997 went to grammar school. I agree with this, but with a caveat, that the grammar schools have to have a fairer selection that compensates for those children who display progress above the average of their schools, not just those that can pass the 11+. The problem with that criteria is that such pupils often benefited from the educational basis of their parents, and the tutoring those parents could afford. Also grammar schools would have to be totally funded by the state, so that travel, uniform, school trips and additional schooling were available to any applicant. Too many grammar schools and entry were 'biased towards the upper working classes and middle classes'. Not sure about the uniform thing, just set a maximum that state schools can expect parents to pay for uniform. (or get rid of uniforms altogether).
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.