Education

"Grammar schools are stuffed full of middle-class kids. A tiny percentage are on free school meals: 3%. That is a nonsense.
"Anyone who thinks grammar schools are going to increase social mobility needs to look at those figures. I don't think they work." - Sir Michael Wilshaw

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the purpose of grammar schools is to increase social mobility. After reading an article (link at end), I wonder how anyone could reject the idea of schools that select based on academic ability. Surely the whole point of education is to educate and the ideal is to realise the potential of children?

Firstly, why is it a problem that grammar schools are "stuffed full of middle-class kids" a problem? Since the schools select on merit, could there not just be a correlation between children of a certain background and their education? Should a selective school necessarily reflect the demographics of society? Any idiot should have guessed that a selective school is selective. A school being selective only within certain parameters defeats its own purpose.

In any case, to increase social mobility, I think the problem lies with the comprehensive schools. If the underprivileged are becoming under educated, then surely the problem is with the institutions in which they are taught and that is where the cross hairs should be directed, rather than flattening out the education standards of the country. As a believer of a somewhat capitalist social system, I maintain that those who are able should be able to reap their rewards. Thus, those who are intelligent enough to gain admittance shall be rewarded with good quality education, and frankly, those who don't make the cut have to think of a way to better themselves. The alternative, it seems, is to manufacture an education system which creates a 'communist' distribution of education where everybody receives the same mediocre tuition.

Perhaps I am leaning on elitism, but I really think that those who don't try to better themselves can either wallow in their own self pity or fuck themselves. You can claim that it is a fault of your parents or your environment, but once you realise where the problem is, you can try to climb out of your situation, or at least make it better for the next generation rather than accepting failure.

My second point on education: Selective schools compared to Independent, fee-paying schools

After seeing the league tables of secondary schools in the UK which do the A-level, it makes me wonder whether independent schools are worth their money. This thought was provoked by the fact that the school topping the table was a selective school, and there did not appear to be any evidence suggesting that independent schools fared better than the grammar schools. So what justification is there for spending upwards of five figures per year on education that you can get for free?

For those schools that almost 'guarantee' your child to score highly on public exams, it may be justifiable in that if you can afford to pay the fees, why take the risk with your son or daughter's education?

Independent schools can be beneficial in that you create a good foundation for your child. Simple things such as etiquette, idiolect and social circle are things that money can buy through independent schooling and you are most likely assured that independent school students will be exposed to these things. Your school's reputation is a factor that will have an influence on university admissions.

On the other hand, a lot of these things can be seen in students of grammar schools. Perhaps the social class of the students will be different, but in general, the environment would not be too bad. Like independent schools, grammar schools benefit from better reputation and the possibility that better references will be written.

Really, I think what you should be getting from your school fees is a guarantee of good grades which is useful if your child is not able to get into a selective school. Otherwise, if your child is able to, I don't think you lose out on a lot sending them to a grammar school.

Careers

After completing a three year degree in Law, it is fair to say that it has been too long since I have written any meaningful text reflecting my opinions. So following multiple conversations with various people, I have decided to put the metaphorical pen to paper and voice my thoughts to the world.

The hot topic of the month: careers.

A lot of factors are considered when selecting a career path, but is there really that much that needs to be considered? Aside the obvious considerations such as location and eligibility, I think it really boils down to a face off between two desires; money and enjoyment. If you can find a job which pays well and you love, that's great, but the sad truth for the rest of us is that work and fun often don't mix. Of course, you can mix them together, like swirling a spoon in a glass of water and oil, but inevitably, they separate into two distinct liquids.

"But money can't buy happiness!" I hear you squeal. Whilst you may be correct, you impress me only as far as pointing out that you cannot touch the intangible would. No doubt, happiness cannot be bought, but those that choose money over enjoyment can buy things which satisfy them. Money often correlates to success, authority and envy among a number of other things that cannot be bought. Enjoyment correlates only to enjoyment.

How do you define enjoyment of a job? Surely if one were to truly enjoy a job, weekends would be met with distaste and holidays to be greeted with a groan. In my view, a job is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

More often than not, it is not merely money itself that is desired, but it is a device used to measure and compare one worker to another. Who honestly cares whether a man is immensely successful in his blue collar work or that he is the employee of the month for 12 months in a row? What matters is what he has to show for his work, and the universal units for success is monetary reward. I don't know if it is me that is crudely judgmental, but the mindsets of some boggle me. Having heard police constables tell me that they would never even want to consider the prospect of promotion as they enjoy the hands on work as opposed to that of a supervising officer astounds me. Are they so content in being the lowest, with no progression to show for their service or is it purely an act to justify their static career?

It annoys me when those who are obviously enjoying a privileged lifestyle claim that they would be content working in a low paid job as long as they can do the things they enjoy. Teenage boys who receive gifts of guitars attached to a four-figure price tag and casually talk of the new top of the range computer they are about to purchase strike me as immensely ignorant of what it is they actually enjoy.

Those who want a family, are they really content to earn a meager wage from a job they enjoy and provide the bare minimum for their children?

By no means am I expressing negativity to those who work in lowly paid jobs or underprivileged families, but it is those people who claim that they are "only in this position because we choose to be", that irritate me.