Social mobility in Britain

[Brighteye]

Social mobility has declined hugely in the last decade or two. Alan Milburn has released a report about the problems, as reported here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8159687.stm
and available here:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/work_areas/accessprofessions.aspx
(although when I tried to download it I was told that the file was damaged and I couldn't get it)

Some of the impressive findings are that doctors come from the wealthiest 1/6 of families, that people with no university degree of any sort can no longer rely on experience and ability to get promotions and that it costs about £10,000 per student to encourage poor people with low aspirations to come to university.

Should universities foot this bill? Should they also be used to correct social problems by considering social background along with academic success?

Do you have any stories about internships and the ability of the rich to get such 'soft' advantages?

I have my own opinions, but I have no doubt I'll need to prop this thread up, so I'll save them for another post.

 

[Flying Pig]

To be honest, I think it's the decline of free selective schools that causes the problem. My brother went to one as a farmer's son and is now a professor at a university. I don't think universities have an obligation to poor people - if you're good, you should be allowed in for free regardless of your position, and the taxpayer should foot the bill supported by charities run by the universities.

 

[Mise]

I think university education should be paid for after you've got your degree, and not before you finish it. Obviously if you fail you should still have to pay... but postponing payment (without having to call it a "loan", which is very off-putting, especially for poor people) until after you have finished will go a long way towards increasing university participation. You should pay it back through the tax system (as with current student loans, but again, without calling it a loan...).

 

[Earthling]

Well, for what its worth, I don't think this is unique to Britain alone - I wouldn't be surprised if similar trends have been gaining in the US and other Western nations. We're not at a particularly high point for social mobility.

 

[Lillefix]

Yeah, it would be nice to see some indication of the social mobility elsewhere.

 

[aneeshm]

Should universities foot this bill? Should they also be used to correct social problems by considering social background along with academic success?

Personally, I'm not much for state intervention in this thing. I believe in keeping the core university subjects focussed on building men who are magnificent and absolute masters of their fields, and that doesn't need too much money. Alas, today's day and age no longer has a traditional academic culture, so that option is out.

But if you absolutely must do it, for whatever reason, then please do it right. Don't force universities to foot the bill for anything. Instead, when there is a student who is poor but talented, the taxpayer foots the bill. As far as the university is concerned, he's just another regular student, paying the fees like everyone else. If necessary, make continued funding contingent on a decent performance.

 

[Tabster]

As the gap between rich and poor grew I would have thought social mobility would have to decrease as a sort of statistical consequence of the gap growing wider.

Could we have a situation where social mobility increased at the same time as the wealth gap grew? it just seems a strange notion to me.

 

[Masada]

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't increasing social mobility in Britain a major Labor goal?

 

[Bill3000]

You're surprised that a country traditionally based on aristocracy has low social mobility? Abolish the nobility already!

 

[Flying Pig]

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't increasing social mobility in Britain a major Labor goal?

They failed because they thought grammar schools were discriminating against people who couldn't get in, so closed them all.

 

[Brighteye]

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't increasing social mobility in Britain a major Labor goal?

It fell to even more important Labour goals: pandering to class warriors and rich businessmen.

I agree that social mobility needs grammar schools. I also think that there need to be free places at good universities.
That we no longer have free places and grants is because of the Labour aim to expand the university system so that people who, in effect, haven't reached a good standard at A-level can spend time reaching that level but call it a degree.
That costs money. I think that we cannot have good social mobility and a university education for all.

 

[Kal'thzar]

ok, I am way too tired to read that all, but is it an England and Wales thing only? does it compare Scotlands systemts vs those in England?

 

[Archbob]

For a decently capitalistic country where the state doesn't control everything and mandate that people be fairly equal, its near inevitable that the gap between the wealthy and the poor will grow to some certain degree.

Even if everyone started equal to each other. Some people are just smarter and better at getting ahead than others. If you allow people the freedom to reach their potentials, the differences will increase over time both as a genetic consequence and a social consequence.

 

[useless]

You're surprised that a country traditionally based on aristocracy has low social mobility? Abolish the nobility already!

And replace it with the more richer sections of society?

 

[Brighteye]

And replace it with the more richer sections of society?

It is customary to ignore trolls.

On the other hand, the supposition that a gap in wealth will necessarily increase with social mobility seems odd.
The gap in wealth ought not to increase steadily with social mobility unless wealth and talent are intrinsically linked. I would like to see some evidence of such a strange connection.

 

[Bill3000]

And replace it with the more richer sections of society?

It's called progress.

 

[Flying Pig]

The gap in wealth ought not to increase steadily with social mobility unless wealth and talent are intrinsically linked. I would like to see some evidence of such a strange connection.

Most people who are rich nowadays earned their money, so there is a case for that

 

[Mise]

Yeah but not everyone who is talented earns money commensurate to that talent. Talent -- that is, natural, innate ability -- is equally distributed amongst men and women, yet men consistently achieve higher salaries and higher positions than women. Similarly, talent is evenly distributed amongst all races, yet whites consistently out-achieve minorities. And, again, talent is evenly distributed amongst all classes, yet children from rich families consistently out-achieve children from poor families. It's this final problem that "social mobility" is concerned with, and one that the Labour government in particular has sought to address.

Frankly, a Conservative government would do absolutely nothing to address it, and would almost certainly make it worse, so whilst perhaps Labour hasn't done enough, at least they have attempted to address it. The Lib Dems are probably the most likely to do the most, but practically speaking, it's a choice between Labour and the Conservatives, and I'd pick Labour.

 

[DYNAMICS]

I believe the reason why the UK has the lowest social mobility in the industrialized world is simply due to it's history. The British have a well established caste system, were by where you are born determines what kind of life you will lead. If you're born into a rich family, your education, health and future jobs positions shall be much better than those whom are born into poverty.

If the UK were to switch from a caste system to one were all it's citizens where free (.i.e emancipation) then the UK would experience a 100% growth in small towns/hamlets plus an addition +1 of productively. The down side to this is you will experience negative attitudes from other countries that do not have emancipation. Since it's this late in the game it should not make much difference, just a thought.

 

[Masada]

It's this final problem that "social mobility" is concerned with, and one that the Labour government in particular has sought to address.

Yet, for all their petty manipulations they haven't achieved anything. Now, defeated and disillusioned by their failure, they're mustering the necessary intellectual contortions to blame the problem not on their ineptitude or failures but on:

the "hoarding of opportunities" by wealthier families, giving their children advantages in education and connections, such as giving them a head-start in finding internships and work placements.

And on:

a problem of low aspiration, which he describes as the "not for the likes of me syndrome".

I'm probably being a touch unfair, I'm sure their are entirely valid conclusions which are commonsensical, but the simple fact that the those two items were picked out of the morass by the BBC (with the committee members providing the necessary quotes of course) tells me that those are the two the government will tackle.

But lets get to the heart of the matter, the recommendations contained in the News Release:

* All young children need dedicated careers support from primary school. ‘Connexions’ is not the right service for this and should be replaced.

Useless.

* Every state school should provide soft skills training and Ofsted should inspect schools on their extra curricular training.

Useless.

* Cadet schemes should be available for all state schools to increase confidence in children and open up jobs at higher levels in the armed forces. Currently the majority of schemes run in independent schools.

If pulled of correctly this could genuinely be useful.

* Parents should have the right of redress for schools consistently failing their children and have the right to move children to better schools.

Don't they already? And if they don't...

* At the same time the professions should review their recruitment and internship practices and report to Government by 2010 on improvements.

More reviews?!

* Statistics should be published on university admissions annually with more detail on pupil backgrounds. The senior civil service should take the lead by publishing the socio-economic backgrounds of all entrants to the senior civil service, drawing on what they currently do for diversity.

More reviews?!

* Universities should offer modular degrees and flexible learning. Student finance should be available for part-time students, as they are for full-time students.

I'm sure some of them already provide modular degrees and flexible learning, so that should be a non-issue. The second part however is something to consider and I'm sure some CFCers could sympathize with the difficulties inherent in part-time studies.

* People needing training should have their own Government funded budget which individuals control through a new ‘Lifelong Skill Account’ worth up to £5,000.

In English please?

I believe the reason why the UK has the lowest social mobility in the industrialized world is simply due to it's history. The British have a well established caste system, were by where you are born determines what kind of life you will lead. If you're born into a rich family, your education, health and future jobs positions shall be much better than those whom are born into poverty.

Does, King George I & King George II ring a bell?