Far better to nurture an intellectual, musical, sporting (insert thing here) elite, than to squander it based upon notions that everything must be distributed fairly. If ability for one thing or another is not fairly distributed among individuals, then why should we seek to capitalise upon ability as if it is?
We'll have to disagree,because of your belief that some are more deserving than others due to their wealth,I seek a more fair society,because a fairer society is better for all not just the few.
This is just silly. Either you don't understand "Far better to nurture an intellectual, musical, sporting (insert thing here) elite
" (what has that to do with money?) or you are deliberately misunderstanding my points. Do you properly read what I write?
Elite can be based on any particular metric "intellectual, sporting, musical".
Elite does not = wealthy bogeyman alone.
Cugel wrote:That is what I'll call the Freddy problem: the inclination to define reality as the current status quo, inclusive of all the barriers, limits, cliques, elites and other arrangements that the dominant group wish to ossify in order to maintain their advantage over others.
...and yet there was far more social mobility for the working classes in grammar schools than there is now. Hmmm, who is it that wants to ossify the advantages of the rich, exactly? I want to return to a superior system that allowed a capable proportion of working class students into spheres now largely debarred to them, you would prefer they stagnate under the status quo. The question is why?
Cugel wrote:No equality of opportunity, only segregation into fixed social roles in a fixed social hierarchy, enforced by the type of education the various classes are allowed (or not).
What is equality of opportunity? No two people are equal, irrespective of having the same schooling, yet they should have equality of opportunity? Children should have an education which befits their abilities and can make the best of them.
To think that you accuse me of oversimplification when you say such things as 'equality of opportunity'. If children were afforded an education that best suited them, there would be far more social mobility than now. There was a system that worked quite well for academically forward working class children. Must these children, perhaps for ideological reasons unbeknownst to me, stay working class forever? Is it too likely that if you give them a rigorous education that they may turn away from the politics of envy, as their own personal success will mean they have not much use for it.
Do you want children to succeed or do you want grist for the ideological mill? If you want success, then there is a system with a track record already. We need but return to it.
Cugel wrote:No doubt Freddy will call this "reality". In fact it was (and is) a particular arrangement made by a social elite to favour their own class and beliefs about which kinds of people are worthy (people like themselves) and which are not. There was an attempt throughout the 50s and 60s to reduce this elitism and many changes in the education system (and elsewhere) did allow some of us plebs to emerge from the mean streets.
If the rich wanted to keep the plebs out, then why bother having a state system that streamlined on ability at all? Why not just have fee charging public schools and...comprehensive schools? You contradict yourself.
Cugel wrote:One aspect is: should so-called public schools be allowed to operate as hot houses for elites who perpetuate their grasp on political and other large institutional powers in a society via the old boys arrangements first created at these schools? We're currently observing the ill-effects of allowing these sorts of vastly over-privileged educational modes free reign.
So you want to do away with the public schools, why not emulate the best aspects of them instead? Didn't that happen already with grammar schools. Oh, but everyone
couldn't go, so they must be destroyed?Everyone
can't pay for a public school education, so they must go too?
One wonders why you stayed in Britain, when Communism was alive and well in Russia and China for so many years. I suppose these things are always better admired from a distance, when viewed close up they don't have quite the same allure.