Don't worry, Andre! It was just a harmless dig. I think I speak for both Benjamin and I that we enormously enjoy this spot of debate even if I had resorted to thickly veiled sarcasm to make my point. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Both you and I hail from radically different universes as far as our slant on social issues is concerned. What I dislike about the state is its distressing fondness to meddle with the free will of parents to decide what is best for their children.
An example would have been Labour's abolition of grammar schools in the 1960s and their hostility to academic grades as a means of evaluating if a pupil should be admitted into a particular school or not. These politicians who subscribe to inherently dangerous Fabian ideologies live in an utopian world that is far removed from the everyday realities of life. These politicians are adept at shoehorning reality into pre-conceived theory.
I would like to point out that most Chinese immigrants in the UK arrived poor. Many of their children would presumably grow up hovering near or below the 'poverty line'. Can you then explain why so many second generation British-Chinese go on to pursue a tertiary education?
It is not about the grip of poverty that is holding back children from disadvantaged background. It is mentality. It is culture. It is a question of whether one is willing to work hard or not.
I think we should give some credit to the British educational system here as a great social equaliser. In my understanding, even the great public schools like Eton and Harrow award scholarships annually to children from less financially advantageous background in order to give members from the working class a leg up the economic as well as social ladder.
Nobody disputes the notion that the poor needs to be helped. But they can only be helped if they first help themselves.
This reminds me of what Tom Cruise's Jerry Maguire said to Cuba Gooding Jr in the eponymous film: Help Me Help You! _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Both you and I hail from radically different universes as far as our slant on social issues is concerned.
I actually fully accept that the main basis for my political views is religion, rather than a more 'pragmatic' observation of the world. Call it radical Unitarian fundamentalism if you like. Upbringing is also a major factor -- although he wasn't a fan of either superpower, during the Cold War my father was essentially more sympathetic towards the Soviet Union than to the United States.
loic wrote:
An example would have been Labour's abolition of grammar schools in the 1960s
There are still some grammar schools left -- I go to one, and have done for the past two years. On the one hand, I really love my school, but on the other hand, I feel very hypocritical since I very much disapprove of grammar schools. Why do I disapprove of them? Because the grammar schools cream off most of the brighter children, and the regular schools in the area suffer as a result.
loic wrote:
and their hostility to academic grades as a means of evaluating if a pupil should be admitted into a particular school or not.
It's not by academic grades that one gets into a grammar school here; it's by an IQ test. I did it when I was 10 and failed, so I went to a regular secondary school for five years (and for the most part hated it). However, I was able to a grammar school in the sixth form because of my GCSE results when I was 16, and references sent from my previous school.
loic wrote:
I would like to point out that most Chinese immigrants in the UK arrived poor. Many of their children would presumably grow up hovering near or below the 'poverty line'. Can you then explain why so many second generation British-Chinese go on to pursue a tertiary education?
It is not about the grip of poverty that is holding back children from disadvantaged background. It is mentality. It is culture. It is a question of whether one is willing to work hard or not.
That's probably true. However, I still feel guilty and like a fraud, because I am in a very advantaged position even though I have never 'worked hard'.
It's not just about the willingness to work hard though. For example, there is a mentality in Scotland known as A kent yer faither, where people attract criticism for attaining or trying to attain a social or economic position perceived to be above that of their original background. It's sort of similar to tall poppy syndrome in Australia and New Zealand, and to janteloven in Scandinavia.
loic wrote:
I think we should give some credit to the British educational system here as a great social equaliser. In my understanding, even the great public schools like Eton and Harrow award scholarships annually to children from less financially advantageous background in order to give members from the working class a leg up the economic as well as social ladder.
Only very few on the grand scheme of things though, and I might see it as a bit of a publicity stunt on the part of those schools. And to be honest, I don't really see schools like Eton as being part of the 'British education system' anyway, because they are not state-run.
There are still some grammar schools left -- I go to one, and have done for the past two years. On the one hand, I really love my school, but on the other hand, I feel very hypocritical since I very much disapprove of grammar schools. Why do I disapprove of them? Because the grammar schools cream off most of the brighter children, and the regular schools in the area suffer as a result.
In Belgium we've different types of school for different people. If you've high IQ you go to athénée if you've lesser academic ability you go to another type of school where there's more facilities for vocational skills. also there're catholic schools. It's better don't see it to cream off the brighter children, but that people get the eductaion what will be the best for him/her, because some people can't study academic things and prefer to learn carpentry etc.. I suppose it's like status and the fashion to be highly gifted, high IQ so the other people will feel excluded.
It's easy to say this things, but to accept them it's another thing, this is absolutly for sure!!! I go to athénée but some months ago they told me they decided it's better for me to change school to go to a special school because it would be lesser stress there, small classes, undertsnad problems, don't laugh at me etc... I've fought against it, and anyway they told me before that I'd make this year two times in my school (next year I will repeat this year). The difficulty is that although I would prefer the other school for somethings, I would like to learn inetresting things and to go to the university and I''ev fear that from the other school it would be *much* more difficult and then they'd ask why I didn't remain in my present school. Also, I expect that a special school would go slowly and I don't want this at all.
So, basically, some months ago they decided I must change the school in the next months, but now they've told if I agree somethings (*very* ridiculous things for example I wouldn't argue but accept it when they tell me this or that about me !!! They think that they know better and more about me that I know, and this show their arrogance; I don't tell them about themself!!!!!!!!) it will be possible to stay. I've agreed them (the silly conditions of to stay in this school) but I think that there's a teacher who is absolutly against me and makes some plans to get rid of me, so I won't get a surprise if there will be some more stupid discussions.Truly, I think that she must shut up with her lies and delusions about me and resolve her own problems because probably it's why she puts them to me. She's *horrible* teacher and some other people think as well. Some teachers are nice and an history teacher's my friend now after he's sorted out a problem there was because of a woman who wnated I would sing in a choir in a place to wher I will *not* go (and he was very kind about other things as well). I can't imagine that he can talk with the other nasty one. Are your teachers nice?
So, for sure here as well they're schools more respecedt and where people chose to go, and other schools not respected etc.. Also, from some schools you will more easier get the opportunity to progress (university, better work , social acceptance etc) that some other ones.
Quote:
I still feel guilty and like a fraud, because I am in a very advantaged position even though I have never 'worked hard'.
you can help some peopl if you would like. As we live in luxury it's nice to share it so of my pocketmoney I give some money to a charity to help disabled children in very poor countrys. I give it 4 times each year and then you get a newsletter about the people who they've helpd.
Quote:
there is a mentality in Scotland known as A kent yer faither
Does mean it : I know your father ? If it's correct then kent must be from dutch/german kennen /ken /kent!!! If it signify another thing, then it's not LOL!!!
Benjamin wrote:
loic wrote:
I think we should give some credit to the British educational system here as a great social equaliser. In my understanding, even the great public schools like Eton and Harrow award scholarships annually to children from less financially advantageous background in order to give members from the working class a leg up the economic as well as social ladder.
Only very few on the grand scheme of things though, and I might see it as a bit of a publicity stunt on the part of those schools. And to be honest, I don't really see schools like Eton as being part of the 'British education system' anyway, because they are not state-run.
I think that to have expensive schools would divide it wouldn't equalise. To equalise, all the people would go to the same schools systme (except a division based on the personality / IQ etc.. of each person - not based on your parents' income).
there is a mentality in Scotland known as A kent yer faither
Does mean it : I know your father ? If it's correct then kent must be from dutch/german kennen /ken /kent!!! If it signify another thing, then it's not LOL!!!
You're right, it means 'I knew your father' in Scots. Actually, in parts of Scotland, they say 'to ken' and 'to wit' instead of 'to know' (like 'kennen' and 'wissen' in German).
I actually fully accept that the main basis for my political views is religion, rather than a more 'pragmatic' observation of the world. Call it radical Unitarian fundamentalism if you like. Upbringing is also a major factor -- although he wasn't a fan of either superpower, during the Cold War my father was essentially more sympathetic towards the Soviet Union than to the United States.
This was what I had expected of people who might not be devout Christians but whose thinking and philosophy in life are rooted in classic Christian socialism in which it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
In a functional democracy, there is room for the expression of diverse political opinions. I'd even consider it the litmus test of a healthy democracy.
With due respect to your father's political leanings during the Cold War, he had probably romanticised the USSR as a worker's utopia. Many people were victims of Stalinist propoganda. George Orwell was enarmoured of the newly formed proletarian state until he discovered, to his great dismay, that it was all bluff and fluff. Animal Farm was hence written to denounce the communist experiment that went awry in the USSR.
Quote:
There are still some grammar schools left -- I go to one, and have done for the past two years. On the one hand, I really love my school, but on the other hand, I feel very hypocritical since I very much disapprove of grammar schools. Why do I disapprove of them? Because the grammar schools cream off most of the brighter children, and the regular schools in the area suffer as a result.
Whenever I adopt such elitist posture, I risk sounding like an elitist prick. However, the bright and the gifted need extra resources in order to spur them to greater heights. It is wrong to assume that all children are born with a blank slate as proponents of the tablula rasa theory are fond of asserting. There are children who would never excel academically. This does not mean that the government washes its hands off them. Society then has to gently guide schoolchildren who are not as academically inclined into vocational studies that would best prepare them for life in the outside world.
Lumping children from diverse backgrounds into the same academic stream is theoretically efficient: more resources can be devoted into teaching less gifted children while brighter ones can learn on their own devices.
But when you throw a rotten apple into a basket, even the healthy ones get infected.
On the other hand, there are also many children who are late bloomers. There must be a system set in place to give learners an opportunity at every stage in life to learn. I believe that such a system is already firmly entrenched in at least most countries of the OECD.
Quote:
Only very few on the grand scheme of things though, and I might see it as a bit of a publicity stunt on the part of those schools. And to be honest, I don't really see schools like Eton as being part of the 'British education system' anyway, because they are not state-run.
Wellington once said that the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. How can you exclude such fee-paying public schools with a long and illustrious tradition from the overall educational system? In fact, they probably supply a disproportionate number of old boys to Westminister and Whitehall.
ENA (Ecole Nationale d'Administration) in France holds a near vice-like monopoly over the upper echelons of the civil service. Are you then going to say that ENA cannot be considered as part of the French educational system? Granted, ENA caters strictly to post-graduate students but this venerable and esteemed institution plays a preponderant role in educating future leaders.
Quote:
It's not just about the willingness to work hard though. For example, there is a mentality in Scotland known as A kent yer faither, where people attract criticism for attaining or trying to attain a social or economic position perceived to be above that of their original background. It's sort of similar to tall poppy syndrome in Australia and New Zealand, and to janteloven in Scandinavia.
I am not an Aussie and most certainly not a Kiwi. However, I have travelled frequently to Oz and made a solitary month long foray to Enzed and at the risk of being presumptuous, I think I more or less understand the idea of the tall poppy syndrome that purportedly survives and thrives in these Antipodean countries.
Firstly, the Australians are certainly not resentful of success. In fact, I'd consider their overall political sentiment to be more conservative than the English, if David Cameron's new Tory manifesto is anything to go by. John Howard is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative whose unwavering belief in free market economics puts him en par with similar ideas shared by many East Asian politicians. There is a strong and vibrant Christian minority in Australia which have borrowed a leaf from their American counterparts in flexing their political muscle. One of the biggest megachurches in the Southern Hemisphere, the Hillsong Church, is in fact located in a suburb of Sydney.
My alma mater used to hold annual cultural and sporting exchanges with a public (read: private) school in Perth called Guildford Grammer. This point would not be significant if not for the fact that such schools are highly popular in Australia and many parents wish to wean their offspring of the state system. There is no acute jealousy or resentment towards schoolchildren from such schools.
On the other hand, the tall poppy syndrome only manifests itself when an individual becomes successful and arrogant. But Australians are definitely addicted to success. Just look at their Triple at the recent cricket World Cup. Their skipper Ricky Ponting has arrogantly declared that winning the world cup thrice on a trot is not enough and that Australia are hungry for more. Oh, how the Australian public lap up his words.
Admittedly, I do not know much about English state schools. What I do know is that cricket is generally not offered as a sport in state schools. That can well explain my prejudice. Cricket develops character and if the boys do not get to play it much back in school, I am not sure if they would grow up to be right-thinking members of society. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
I think schools, like corporations, should be free to charge at a price that is consistent with their objectives. What is needed in the educational sector is more competition, not less. At the end of the day, we would benefit as we would find ourselves at the receiving end of this competition.
We need schools to work for us, not vice versa. I do not mind paying top buck as long as it is for sterling education. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
I think schools, like corporations, should be free to charge at a price that is consistent with their objectives. What is needed in the educational sector is more competition, not less. At the end of the day, we would benefit as we would find ourselves at the receiving end of this competition.
We need schools to work for us, not vice versa. I do not mind paying top buck as long as it is for sterling education.
I disagree completely because I think that eductaion must be free- at least until the end of the secondary school. for you, (it seems) everything is competition? I don't like such a philosphy about general eductaion. After, at university and other educations then competition is acceptable I suppose, and also to pay for it. Basically I don't like competition, it's so stressful and I don't see the point.
It seems as well that you equate price (cost, fees) = quality? You're very focussed on money I find, but probably it's true that mostly if you pay more the quality is better. So, also it's why for get a just eductaion system for all people it must be free. I think that only private schools (you pay for them) in Belgium are the international ones in Brussels, but it's possible that there're some, but very few. In my school the people have different backgournds for example their parents are surgeons, directors of companys, work in the shoe shop, carpenters, builders, architects, cleaners, waitors, etc... i like this and find it *much* better that to separate the children to different schools based on the income of the parents. There is some pressure to wear clothes in the fashion, so this would be an advantage for the children whose parents have more money, but I don't know if it's a problem because i don't care about it and I think that my clothes are okay.
loic wrote:
Lumping children from diverse backgrounds into the same academic stream is theoretically efficient: more resources can be devoted into teaching less gifted children while brighter ones can learn on their own devices.
But when you throw a rotten apple into a basket, even the healthy ones get infected.
Background doesn't necessarily equates with academic ability (potential) - for sure it would if the good schools are so expensive that only the peopl with wealthy parenst can go to them. This would be like 200 years ago with rich children (boys) at school and poor ones in the factories. I suppose the girls must study sewing, cooking, and manicure etc...? How completely stupid to return at such division of society!!!!
Why more resources can be devoted into teaching less gifted children? I mean more that what other situation -is it yoru opinion that only brighter children deserve resources? This is absolutly *not* my opinion. I agree with you that it's very silly and impossible to put all people into the same academic stream, but those streams for different type of people (depend of IQ etc..) offer different subjects / focus of the education suitable for the people in the particluar stream *without élitism*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
rotten apple!!! For you, a person can be a "rotten apple"??????????? who infect the other ones???? It's the case that a person can influence the atmsophere of a group, so I can imagine to what you refer, but I don't like such unpleasant metaphore (if it's metaphore, I'm not sure!!! maybe it's another thing I can't remember those sort of things!! )
I think FDI-IDE inflow also contributes to national wealth to some extent just as British investment in, say, Tunisia translates into more wealth for Tunisian wage-earners working for UK companies based in Tunisia. This is the reason why I believe GDP-PIB is a better indication than GNP-PNB when you want to assess the value of what's produced somewhere. However, what really counts in terms of poverty is how much of that value produced or added goes in workers' pockets whatever the origin of the money (national or foreign).
I agree. However, profits earned by foreign companies are usually repatriated back home. GNP or maybe NNP would then be a fairer reflection of national wealth.
No, because profits *after wages and taxes* may be either reinvested where the foreign company's based or ultimately allocated to stockholders in the form of dividends. Since employees and the State do benefit from foreign companies, it does make sense to use PIB-GDP rather than PNB-GNP. A better indicator would perhaps be RIB — revenu intérieur brut.
— if you're born in poverty, you usually stay in poverty.
This is a sweeping statement that insults the intelligence of millions of people from humble backgrounds. Let's not forget that as long as a century ago, we had David Lloyd George rising from an obscure rural background in Wales to become Prime Minister.
One or two rare exceptions do not invalidate the general rule (at least in the Old World) that the social background into which a person is born very significantly affects their prospects in life. I don't know anyone in Europe who would dispute this (although I have often heard Americans make claims to the contrary).
Speak to older people in a deprived area of Glasgow, for example, and you will find that most of them grew up there or somewhere similar. Speak to older people in a rich area of Glasgow, and you will find that most of them grew up there or somewhere similar. Go to the University of Glasgow and you will find that most of the students there are from richer backgrounds, not poorer backgrounds — even though there are many more people aged 18-23 in Scotland from poorer backgrounds than from richer backgrounds.
I am in a very advantaged position in life because of my upbringing and nothing else. I feel very guilty about this. The best I can do is try to be unselfish as is realistically possible.
loic wrote:
Besides, I don't see people living below the poverty line in Britain starving or being deprived of three square meals.
That's a very naďve view. Trying to diminish the seriousness of problems does not make them go away.
Being born into poverty does not mean you will stay in poverty for the rest of your life. Some people have managed to escape that. Look at thousands of Filipinos (including my Mum) who have escaped extreme poverty in the Philippines (where an average citizen lives on far less than US$1 a day.)
Also, in the UK, many people in poverty do miss a lot of meals. Even if some do have three square meals a day the food they eat are usually bad quality because they are cheap - just enough to afford.
I know what it's like to live in British poverty. I lived for some time in Glasgow, in poverty, where I often had to get through a whole day without eating anything at all because I did not have enough money.
In Scotland, one in three children live below the poverty line. Many disabled people nationally also live below the poverty line, as do many people of ethnic backgrounds. _________________ Zoriona tximelata bat bezalakoa da: bilatzen baduzu, hegaldatuko besterik ez da, baina gelditzen bazara, dator eta zure sorbaldan jartzen da.
I lived for some time in Glasgow, in poverty, where I often had to get through a whole day without eating anything at all because I did not have enough money.
...
In Scotland, one in three children live below the poverty line.
Which is a national scandal, in my view. But I'm not even remotely surprised by it either — it certainly is a myth that genuine poverty is non-existent in 'rich' countries.
I lived for some time in Glasgow, in poverty, where I often had to get through a whole day without eating anything at all because I did not have enough money.
...
In Scotland, one in three children live below the poverty line.
Which is a national scandal, in my view. But I'm not even remotely surprised by it either — it certainly is a myth that genuine poverty is non-existent in 'rich' countries.
I lived for some time in Glasgow, in poverty, where I often had to get through a whole day without eating anything at all because I did not have enough money.
...
In Scotland, one in three children live below the poverty line.
Which is a national scandal, in my view. But I'm not even remotely surprised by it either — it certainly is a myth that genuine poverty is non-existent in 'rich' countries.
True. I used to live in Washington DC and would see people sleeping on steam grates in the dead of winter with snow on the ground in front of the US Treasury building no less.
Lumping children from diverse backgrounds into the same academic stream is theoretically efficient: more resources can be devoted into teaching less gifted children while brighter ones can learn on their own devices.
Do you mean educational or social background? _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Schoolchildren of diverse academic abilities, I mean. Coming from a financially advantageous background is irrevelant in such a classification although it would usually be the case that children of the wealthy would be given a leg up the ladder by their parents as far as pulling strings behind the scenes is concerned e.g. 'buying' a spot in an academically established school as the student would not have been able to get in on his own merit. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Schoolchildren of diverse academic abilities, I mean. Coming from a financially advantageous background is irrevelant in such a classification although it would usually be the case that children of the wealthy would be given a leg up the ladder by their parents as far as pulling strings behind the scenes is concerned e.g. 'buying' a spot in an academically established school as the student would not have been able to get in on his own merit.
***Sigh of relief*** _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Actually, in parts of Scotland, they say 'to ken' and 'to wit' instead of 'to know' (like 'kennen' and 'wissen' in German).
