3 ms·

To anyone who doesn't know what his referring to when talking about selective education(UK). In the uk there used to be 11+ (you did it at 11) test, you passed

by UK-AL 15y ago

To anyone who doesn't know what his referring to when talking about selective education(UK). In the uk there used to be 11+ (you did it at 11) test, you passed the test you want to grammar school. You failed the test, you went to secondary modern, you learned metal work, plumbing, or typing for girls. Roughly 20% were selected for grammar education. Secondary moderns were badly funded to compared to grammar schools. This caused various problems, sometimes secondary moderns kids ended up doing better(Academically) than grammar school kids. So no one knew if it was actually any good for choosing schools or just socially divisive. It was a good indicator of future social class, pass and your middle class, don't and your working class. Turned out the whole thing was based on the slightly dodgy research of cyrill burt(http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/burtaffair.shtml http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/burtaffair.shtml and http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tripartite_education.htm http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tripartite_education.ht...) on his work on the inhertbillity of iq. Basically he thought it was unlikely for working class kids to become middle class. So why bother? As someone who goes still lives in a council who keeps grammar schools, but not secondary moderns. It is true that grammar kids are highly tutored for the 11+, that's what my parents did for me. That's how I got in. A lot of friends did too. As result it almost entirely composed of middle class kids who can afford to be tutored for the 11+. Naturally there is a lot of lobbying by the middle class to bring back grammar schools across the country, because it is effectively free private school as long as you tutor your kids for the 11+. When I refer to the middle class, I refer the UK definition of it, not the American. In the UK "middle class" roughly refers to upper middle class. In my opinion it is basically a way for the middle class to divert funds to their own kids, from working class kids in a zero sum game for the education budget. And trade work isn't financially rewarding, that's a myth. The average wage of a plumber or electrician is 27k, bang on average wage. The only places they get 50K+ is in areas of shortage. I.e Rural Areas. For more information see http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tripartite_education.htm http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tripartite_education.ht... and google it.

Silhouette 15y ago
You're quite right that the 11+ was a system that could be gamed, and people with lots of money would pay tutors to do it. One could make a similar argument about university admissions. However, it's also possible to pass the 11+ or get into Oxbridge or whatever academic "elite" measure you wish to use based on merit. And it's not just about whether the school has more money. There have been plenty of government programmes over the years where schools could change their status in financially beneficial ways, and most if not all of them had nothing to do with being selective. My concern is that academic ability tends to fit a bell curve. Most children will be somewhere near the middle, and will be able to progress at a similar pace. Towards either end of the bell curve, that stops working, and you need a more individually tailored approach to help each child maximise their potential. That's important to help children who have learning difficulties that can be at least partially overcome with one-on-one tuition, and it's just as important for children who are academically gifted but won't be able to take advantage of it or will even get bored and drop out if they aren't challenged at school. In recent years, there has been a lot of emphasis on special assistance for children with disadvantages, but it seems there's some sort of backlash against also trying to help children with advantages to make the most of them. If you want a good way to stifle innovation within a society, holding back the smartest kids seems like a safe bet to me. (In the interests of disclosure: I did go to grammar school and then study at Cambridge, and I did it without paying funny money to anyone. But I'm not really talking about me here, I'm thinking of a couple of friends who were far smarter than I ever was and who joined my school at 16. They had never really been challenged at their previous schools, perhaps because they were likely to get straight As anyway and there was no league table advantage in spending further resources on them. They caught up once they were working with teachers who were used to working with smart kids, but I've always wondered how many other kids didn't get in at either 11 or 16, never grew as much as they could have, never made it into the university they could have, and ultimately never received the education they deserved.) Edit: Sorry, I forgot to address your other point: And trade work isn't financially rewarding, that's a myth. The average wage of a plumber or electrician is 27k, bang on average wage. The only places they get 50K+ is in areas of shortage. I.e Rural Areas. I think you're making my point for me there: in a generation when nearly half the population are coming out of education with a degree, a decent tradesman can still earn a comparable wage. Also, since the trades are valuable practical skills, there is the chance to earn much more. There's a builder who's been buying up old places near where I live, knocking them down, rebuilding them with his mates, and then selling the new places for a very healthy price. The guy our landlord sends to do maintenance work from time to time runs a couple of businesses doing different things, and from what he's said if he bundled everything in together they might have to register for VAT. The threshold for compulsory registration is something like £77k at the moment, and while that's based on revenue before taxes etc. are paid on it, it still translates to a very respectable salary. When we had an electrician out a few months ago, the cost for him and his apprentice to so some basic work came out at a higher hourly rate than I've ever earned but was consistent with what others had quoted for the job. Not everyone in the trades is going to get rich, to be sure. But there are plenty of people in the trades who are earning a relatively good wage based on their practical skills. As long as they're doing a good job, I have no problem with that at all, by the way. But why mess around pushing them to study academic subjects they might have little interest in, when they could instead work as an apprentice learning a trade they enjoyed and were good at? How is a degree in some dubious subject from a new university going to help someone like that more than a couple of years working jobs with a more experienced partner and then maybe getting some industrial qualifications so they can take on more demanding (and better paid) jobs in their field?
- UK-AL 15y ago
  Considering the average wage is also includes part time work, and lots of non-skilled jobs, AKA student jobs which drag the average down. I should hope a skilled full time worker, would earn significantly more than the average wage considering they have to support a family. There are tons of dodgy plumbing and electrician scam schools(http://www.plumbing-school.co.uk/ http://www.plumbing-school.co.uk/), which perpetuate the myth of 50K+ wages. It's in their interest, and it's entirely false. You end with a crappy nvq and no work but they get government grants to train you. I wish people would actually do the research. You also have to separate wages, and profits when talking about this. Wages are what you can sell your labour for, to other companies relatively risk free. However profits require risk. Most of these high achieving plumbers money comes from the profit his company makes and not via his wages. That's why they always mention their self employed. What this means, you have to run business and take a lot of risk in order to get that sort of money as a plumber. You could end up bankrupt, and that would not happen via wages. While educated people can obtain a lot of money with relatively little risk via wages. For example the barclay brothers took on enormous risk in order to get where they were. While someone who went to oxbridge and then into a Investment banking graduate scheme doing underwriting took on relatively little risk. They will probably never be at risk of having their home taken away, and being declared bankrupt. However the barclay brothers had to use massive amounts of leverage(Mortgages, Business loans etc) and risk to come from home decorators to owning a business empire. I also have to mention intelligence is fluid - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15369851 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15369851. Trying to work out who's smart and who's not is difficult. Achievers may end being terrible, dumb kids may end up being pretty smart over the course of a lifetime. I know lots of people who went to new universities, who have very good jobs(At my work place). Some of them went onto old universities to complete MSc and MBA degrees and ended up with distinctions. Don't be so small minded, it's like you've been reading right wing tabloid press.
  - Silhouette 15y ago
    Please remember that you brought the distinction between wages and other forms of financial benefit into the discussion, not me. All I'm saying is that someone skilled in a useful trade can make a decent living without being pushed down the academic route. Of course those who go into business for themselves will have to risk more but can achieve higher returns; that's true in almost any industry. And of course there are snake oil salesmen offering worthless "training" or "credentials"; that's true in almost any industry as well. But high incomes for freelance tradesmen aren't the myth you claim them to be; multiple people who've done work on my home within the past couple of years are an existence proof of well-compensated tradesmen, and others were quoting similar rates. As for fluid intelligence, perhaps things do change at different times for different people, but I don't think I'm going to set aside the general expectation that smart kids will do better if they are challenged at school based on one study of about 30 kids where a few of them moved significantly in one direction or the other between the ages of 14 and 18. I don't see why the two hypotheses are incompatible anyway.
teyc 15y ago
Come to Australia. My plumber charges $90 per hour.

by UK-AL 15y ago

Silhouette 15y ago

You're quite right that the 11+ was a system that could be gamed, and people with lots of money would pay tutors to do it. One could make a similar argument about university admissions. However, it's also possible to pass the 11+ or get into Oxbridge or whatever academic "elite" measure you wish to use based on merit. And it's not just about whether the school has more money. There have been plenty of government programmes over the years where schools could change their status in financially beneficial ways, and most if not all of them had nothing to do with being selective. My concern is that academic ability tends to fit a bell curve. Most children will be somewhere near the middle, and will be able to progress at a similar pace. Towards either end of the bell curve, that stops working, and you need a more individually tailored approach to help each child maximise their potential. That's important to help children who have learning difficulties that can be at least partially overcome with one-on-one tuition, and it's just as important for children who are academically gifted but won't be able to take advantage of it or will even get bored and drop out if they aren't challenged at school. In recent years, there has been a lot of emphasis on special assistance for children with disadvantages, but it seems there's some sort of backlash against also trying to help children with advantages to make the most of them. If you want a good way to stifle innovation within a society, holding back the smartest kids seems like a safe bet to me. (In the interests of disclosure: I did go to grammar school and then study at Cambridge, and I did it without paying funny money to anyone. But I'm not really talking about me here, I'm thinking of a couple of friends who were far smarter than I ever was and who joined my school at 16. They had never really been challenged at their previous schools, perhaps because they were likely to get straight As anyway and there was no league table advantage in spending further resources on them. They caught up once they were working with teachers who were used to working with smart kids, but I've always wondered how many other kids didn't get in at either 11 or 16, never grew as much as they could have, never made it into the university they could have, and ultimately never received the education they deserved.) Edit: Sorry, I forgot to address your other point: And trade work isn't financially rewarding, that's a myth. The average wage of a plumber or electrician is 27k, bang on average wage. The only places they get 50K+ is in areas of shortage. I.e Rural Areas. I think you're making my point for me there: in a generation when nearly half the population are coming out of education with a degree, a decent tradesman can still earn a comparable wage. Also, since the trades are valuable practical skills, there is the chance to earn much more. There's a builder who's been buying up old places near where I live, knocking them down, rebuilding them with his mates, and then selling the new places for a very healthy price. The guy our landlord sends to do maintenance work from time to time runs a couple of businesses doing different things, and from what he's said if he bundled everything in together they might have to register for VAT. The threshold for compulsory registration is something like £77k at the moment, and while that's based on revenue before taxes etc. are paid on it, it still translates to a very respectable salary. When we had an electrician out a few months ago, the cost for him and his apprentice to so some basic work came out at a higher hourly rate than I've ever earned but was consistent with what others had quoted for the job. Not everyone in the trades is going to get rich, to be sure. But there are plenty of people in the trades who are earning a relatively good wage based on their practical skills. As long as they're doing a good job, I have no problem with that at all, by the way. But why mess around pushing them to study academic subjects they might have little interest in, when they could instead work as an apprentice learning a trade they enjoyed and were good at? How is a degree in some dubious subject from a new university going to help someone like that more than a couple of years working jobs with a more experienced partner and then maybe getting some industrial qualifications so they can take on more demanding (and better paid) jobs in their field?

UK-AL 15y ago
Considering the average wage is also includes part time work, and lots of non-skilled jobs, AKA student jobs which drag the average down. I should hope a skilled full time worker, would earn significantly more than the average wage considering they have to support a family. There are tons of dodgy plumbing and electrician scam schools(http://www.plumbing-school.co.uk/ http://www.plumbing-school.co.uk/), which perpetuate the myth of 50K+ wages. It's in their interest, and it's entirely false. You end with a crappy nvq and no work but they get government grants to train you. I wish people would actually do the research. You also have to separate wages, and profits when talking about this. Wages are what you can sell your labour for, to other companies relatively risk free. However profits require risk. Most of these high achieving plumbers money comes from the profit his company makes and not via his wages. That's why they always mention their self employed. What this means, you have to run business and take a lot of risk in order to get that sort of money as a plumber. You could end up bankrupt, and that would not happen via wages. While educated people can obtain a lot of money with relatively little risk via wages. For example the barclay brothers took on enormous risk in order to get where they were. While someone who went to oxbridge and then into a Investment banking graduate scheme doing underwriting took on relatively little risk. They will probably never be at risk of having their home taken away, and being declared bankrupt. However the barclay brothers had to use massive amounts of leverage(Mortgages, Business loans etc) and risk to come from home decorators to owning a business empire. I also have to mention intelligence is fluid - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15369851 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15369851. Trying to work out who's smart and who's not is difficult. Achievers may end being terrible, dumb kids may end up being pretty smart over the course of a lifetime. I know lots of people who went to new universities, who have very good jobs(At my work place). Some of them went onto old universities to complete MSc and MBA degrees and ended up with distinctions. Don't be so small minded, it's like you've been reading right wing tabloid press.
- Silhouette 15y ago
  Please remember that you brought the distinction between wages and other forms of financial benefit into the discussion, not me. All I'm saying is that someone skilled in a useful trade can make a decent living without being pushed down the academic route. Of course those who go into business for themselves will have to risk more but can achieve higher returns; that's true in almost any industry. And of course there are snake oil salesmen offering worthless "training" or "credentials"; that's true in almost any industry as well. But high incomes for freelance tradesmen aren't the myth you claim them to be; multiple people who've done work on my home within the past couple of years are an existence proof of well-compensated tradesmen, and others were quoting similar rates. As for fluid intelligence, perhaps things do change at different times for different people, but I don't think I'm going to set aside the general expectation that smart kids will do better if they are challenged at school based on one study of about 30 kids where a few of them moved significantly in one direction or the other between the ages of 14 and 18. I don't see why the two hypotheses are incompatible anyway.

teyc 15y ago

Come to Australia. My plumber charges $90 per hour.