h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

now, now, don;t tease us Blicky, come right out and say what's on your mind

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F135418?thread=472996 Some of my thoughts are contained in the thread above. However some will have changed, but if any of you want to have fun tearing them apart please do feel free. off home now

Are you sure that you're stating fact and not commonly held misconceptions, Hoovooloo?

"Most of the top jobs in the country go to graduates of Oxford and Cambridge, and most of the places at those universities go to people educated at private schools."

In the not too distant future 'the old school tie' was indeed a passport to pretty much wherever you wanted to go. Before that, just showing your double-barrell was considered a tick in the right box. While I don't dispute that there are still a huge number of Oxbridge graduates in senior positions of major companies, does this not reflect more on the education system as was twenty years ago than it does now? Or do you think that, for example, Reuters, should have a recent graduate from [univeristy of choice] running the company?

I just looked on the web and http://www.prospects.ac.uk, in a 2002 article pointed out that the number of CEO's who were Oxbridge graduates, dropped from 59% in 1984 to 23% when the article was published.

As for most of the places at Oxford and Cambridge going to people educated at Private Schools, I have a horrible feeling this could become an argument over semantics which I'm not going to get involved in.

Once again though, I know that in the past they were bastions of elitism; a label that's hard to shake, not least because it is commonly perceived to still be true. "I'm not going to apply because they're a bunch of stuck up barstools and will probably reject me anyway."

Personally, I think I've got a top job; the best job I could ever wish for but then I went to private school so maybe that goes without saying. Oh, and I did go to Cambridge ... on an architecture field trip, but I don't suppose that counts.

With regard to the original question, as to whether Britain is a class-less society? I strongly doubt that it is, with prejudices running equally high on either side of any class fence you wish to erect. I am me, though, and hope that you can take me for who I am not where I went to school, how I speak, or indeed what I'm wearing. Sure, have a preconception - we all do (books and covers and all that) - but at least withold judgement until we've met.

Old ways die hard but as with so many things, life and all that goes with it, marches on at the speed of the slowest. I'll stop now before I slip into a sea of clichés.

Of course, when I said 'future' I meant 'past' ... it's 3am and my brain has already hit the light ...

>> ..this could become an argument over semantics (in) which I'm not going to get involved...<<


Oh good. Me too.
I'm really anti-semantic.


~jwf~

"As for most of the places at Oxford and Cambridge going to people educated at Private Schools, I have a horrible feeling this could become an argument over semantics which I'm not going to get involved in."

I'm not sure how this can be considered an argument over semantics. I'm either factually correct, or I'm not.

By "private schools", I should perhaps have made clearer I meant "fee-paying schools", as opposed to state schools. Again, I don't think there's much semantic ambiguity here: there's a fairly straightforward well-defined dividing lines between schools that charge the parents fees and schools that are state funded.

I accept that there are a few schools (e.g. Eton, Harrow, etc.) which may be regarded as especially "private" in that admission depends on knowing or being related to the right people as well as the ability to pay. But they are a minority even within the independent sector.

Only couple of weeks ago, there was a story on the radio news about the possibility of changing the admission process to university to allow them to distinguish between the best students, since anyone with two braincells to rub together these days gets straight As. One of the statistics mentioned in that report was, I'll admit, something I remember just a little hazily, but went as follows, I think:

Approximately 7% of children are educated in the "independent sector", i.e. in fee-paying schools. Approximately 55% of the intake to Oxford and Cambridge come from the independent sector. There were rumblings about how to address this.

Now: the uncertainty I have over those figures is this: I can't remember whether it was 55% from the independent sector, or 45%.

If the latter, then fair enough "most" places don't go to private school pupils. But given that even if I've got it the wrong way round, and the figure is 45%, the toffs are still MASSIVELY over-represented.

I'll try to find a link to back this figure up one way or the other. Can't see how it's semantics though...

H.

http://www.unofficial-guides.com/guides/cambs-stats.html
http://www.unofficial-guides.com/guides/oxford-stats.html

Cambridge: 44% private school
Oxford: 39% private school

Going to a public school doesn't mean that you're a toff.

RF

the best way to describe the class system of long ago is to explain it in terms of a race.
The rich man who gets the motorcycle,
the middle class man who gets a bike,
and the lower class man who gets nothing but his own two legs..
Today its a bit more complicated, i think theres about 8 different classes.

The British Class System dates from 1066 when the Normans invaded and established themselves as the rulers over everybody already on the island (a melting pot of various prior invasions and shipwrecks dating from pre-Roman times). It was a "them and us" situation typical of most invasions.

William soon established himself and his people as rulers over everyone but being clever fellows they realised the need to befriend and support local leaders of the native population, even allowing them titles and lands under the new King upon a promise of Loyalty to the Royalty.

Robin Hood (the much later revised version) was a native born Englishman who served as a nobleman/land-Lord under these terms but later rebelled in support of the local peasants who suffered under the absentee rule of Richard the Lionheart who was off back in France most of his life.

The ancestral French roots of the ruling classes posed an onging problem and centuries-long wars eventually cemented the English Royalty by definition of not being 'French' and a distribution of wealth and power under the Magna Carta agreement that recognised the Land Lords as the true regional governors.

The middle class rose slowly and much later, though it had already begun when Chaucer was writing the Canterbury Tales. Natives began to re-establish themselves with power and wealth thru bureacratic functions and thru the trade guilds of London and thru subsequent developments in importation, manufacturing and other commercial endeavours. This middle class wealth eventually created a landed gentry of squires and gents who had no Norman bloodlines whatsoever.

By the time of Emily Bronte it had all become very confusing about 'Who's Who' and for a time 'education' was joining money as a key to class distinction. Most of our contemporary notions of the British Class system come from Novels and War Memoirs written during the Victorian era. These are not a real reflection of the true history of the class (racial) struggle or even a proper representation of reality at that time.

Nonetheless we all still have Great Expectations even in Hard Times and just love to escape the Madding Crowd. And there's many a man who would be king, for all that.

~jwf~

You kindly proved my point, Hoovooloo.

What exactly is a private school is open to interpretation. If you say "fee-paying" then the percentage of 'private schools' isn't 7% but nearer 20%. According to BouncyPimpInTheMiddle's posting 'most' Oxbridge undergraduates aren't from "fee-paying" schools.

I will grant you that the proportion of those from private schools is much greater than even the 20% number would suggest it should be, hence my point about semantics ... 'most', 'top jobs', 'private schools' are suitably wishy washy as to be open to interpretation.

As for Britain being classless, you again proved the point that it isn't classless with your comment re toffs ...

I am of the opinion that going to a fee-paying school does make someone a toff. But its all relative isn't it? I also happen to know some very nice toffs.

Anyway, since no-one else seems keen to name their sources ce moment, I've had to do a little digging:

http://www.uknow.or.jp/uknow_e/about/100faqs/qa07.htm
"The independent school sector is separate from the state educational system,and caters for some seven per cent of all schoolchildren in England and four per cent in Scotland. There are 2,400 independent schools in the UK".

http://www.emetis.com/primer/uk_independent_education.htm
"Roughly 6-7% of children in the UK attend independent schools, of which there are over 2500. All are required to meet regulations, and most are funded by fees paid by parents. Many of these are run as Charitable Trusts under the control of a Board of Governors".

And this from 2001/2002:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3561-1113488,00.html

I can't find any stats describing specifically fee-paying schools, they're all talking about independent. But since state schools don't charge fees, the percentage of children attending fee-paying schools must be 7% or below, assuming my sources are good.

Thank you Bouncy.

I can now point with some degree of smugness back at post 27.

I said it was 7%. I said I was sure of that figure.
Ekki said it was 20%, but didn't say whether he was sure.

I was right.

It's OK, I'm used to it.

H.

I stand corrected.

I would like to point out, in my defence, that 20% wasn't a number plucked from the ether but a number which I read somewhere and which, for the life of me, I can't find again. That'll teach me to trust what I read.

Slight sidetrack, but just as a matter of interest with regard to toffs - what with me being one and all - would I be within my rights to say that I happen to know some very nice plebs?

Would it be fair to say that the class system was largely governed by occupation, situation and motivation.
If a person was born in a mining area in the latter 1900's, the occupation would bre mining, the situation would be the same as the previous generations as no-one could afford to move. Transportation was slow, and modern transport was beyond the realms of the average worker. The motivation was to leave school as soon as possible, get an apprenticeship, and start aearning a wedge, so that a person could settle down, with a roof over one's head, married and then hopefully earn enough to leave the area, get a better job, and then bring the family over.
Since the advent of modern affordable transport, the nuclear family has ceased to exist and the worker can move to pastures new, choosing the jobs, schools, working environment etc. which has completely change d the work ethos. At the same time, there are no apprenticeships now, and all children are expected to gain degrees no matter their level of competence creating, in the eyes of the politicians, a level society.
As was mentioned earlier, are we born into a class, which is our class, or are we born into a class, and can then change it? That one is harder but I think, if there is a class (and I think there is but not clearly defined) then that is where you are and stay.....

>> I am of the opinion that going to a fee-paying school does make someone a toff. <<

And I'm of the opinion that people who say things like that are tw@ts.

RF

Well nahnah to you .

Isn't class one of those quirky, definitive traits of Britishness. And I use British purposfully as the trait is recognisable in Scotland, Wales and Irelend as well as England. It is almost genetic but probably has nuture, nature elements. It is over simplifying to define just three classes. There are many sub classes.

What I find interesting is that while we all subscribe to 'Class isn't relevant in our modern society' subliminally we all class ourselves and those we come into contact with. Maybe it's a hangover from our past when we had less sophisticated coping mechanisms. Something along the lines of dogs being able to smell fear. People talk of having good antennae or he makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

When we weigh up new contacts for the first time are we not classing them into some personal hierarchy and as the relationship develops the sorting adjusts and refines...

Between the age of 9 and 12 I went to a fee paying school and there is no way I am a toff The reason that there may be a large proportion of pupils from private schools at the 'big' universities is that they may just know more, and so could be seen as 'smarter'. I learnt stuff at 11 and 12 that wasn't brought up in the comprehensive system until I was 16. Until later....
BCNU - Crescent