# What life tips would you give your early 20's self if you could go back in time?



## 215339 (Nov 20, 2012)

Interested to see the responses


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

I alluded to this in the fashion thread as well, but near the top of the list would be to get in shape and stay in shape, immediately. Quite a bit of specific advice about certain ladies. Don't be in such a damn rush to get to the next step all the time.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Go to law school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

tocqueville said:


> Go to law school.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Funny, I did that, and would say it wasn't worth it if not for the fact that I met my fantastic wife.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Not sure about that. A saturated market.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Keep on doing whatever it is that you are doing.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Not sure about that. A saturated market.


Yes, but in the US anyone who graduates from a top 10 or 20 law school does fine. I was admitted but declined in favor a a more interesting public service job and have regretted it ever since. Perhaps if I were not trying to raise children in one of the nation's most expensive housing markets...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Looking back on a life, reasonably well lived (I hope), I am struck by the reality that in spite of the traditional indications/trappings of two successful career(s) and as I witness the extremely transient nature of any contributions I may had made in those careers, I continue to question whether or not I chose my vocations wisely and am left wondering if and if so, how I might have given more back. Were I to be able to do it all over again, I suspect I would have chosen the same careers, but would have invested more time and energy into developing personal relationships along the way and less time and energy trying to climb the next rung of the professional ladder. It's the people, not the things that make it all worth it!


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

eagle2250 said:


> Looking back on a life, reasonably well lived (I hope), I am struck by the reality that in spite of the traditional indications/trappings of two successful career(s) and as I witness the extremely transient nature of any contributions I may had made in those careers, I continue to question whether or not I chose my vocations wisely and am left wondering if and if so, how I might have given more back. Were I to be able to do it all over again, I suspect I would have chosen the same careers, but would have invested more time and energy into developing personal relationships along the way and less time and energy trying to climb the next rung of the professional ladder. It's the people, not the things that make it all worth it!


This is well stated, and I think is a big piece of what I had in mind when I said, "Don't be in such a damn rush to get to the next step all the time."


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

As someone currently in my late 20's, I would've told early 20's me to skip the MBA.

To be fair, I had some incredible experiences in grad school that couldn't have been duplicated at any other school. However, I went straight into grad school from my undergrad, and as I've watched the career trajectories of my friends who graduated undergrad with me (and are now 4-5 years in the workforce), I can't help but feel that I put my life on hold for two years with no real benefit (not to mention loads of additional debt). I learned a lot in grad school, but unfortunately that hasn't helped me avoid several layoffs over the past 3 years. Also, the trap of "over-educated/under-experienced" is very, very real. It's no fun leaving a degree that I worked my a** off for off of my resume to not appear overqualified on applications.

sorry for the vent, this was a conversation Mrs OF and I were having earlier today.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

orange fury said:


> As someone currently in my late 20's, I would've told early 20's me to skip the MBA.
> 
> To be fair, I had some incredible experiences in grad school that couldn't have been duplicated at any other school. However, I went straight into grad school from my undergrad, and as I've watched the career trajectories of my friends who graduated undergrad with me (and are now 4-5 years in the workforce), I can't help but feel that I put my life on hold for two years with no real benefit (not to mention loads of additional debt). I learned a lot in grad school, but unfortunately that hasn't helped me avoid several layoffs over the past 3 years. Also, the trap of "over-educated/under-experienced" is very, very real. It's no fun leaving a degree that I worked my a** off for off of my resume to not appear overqualified on applications.
> 
> sorry for the vent, this was a conversation Mrs OF and I were having earlier today.


That's one reason why most business schools require their MBA program applicants to have at least a couple years of work experience post-undergrad. Not only does it better qualify the students for post-MBA employment, but it also allows them to add more value to - and get more from - the program itself. It's hard to bring real-world experiences and perspective to all the case studies and group work when you have none.


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

FLCracka said:


> That's one reason why most business schools require their MBA program applicants to have at least a couple years of work experience post-undergrad. Not only does it better qualify the students for post-MBA employment, but it also allows them to add more value to - and get more from - the program itself. It's hard to bring real-world experiences and perspective to all the case studies and group work when you have none.


I wish more law schools would take the same approach. Whenever I'm asked for advice on law school from one of our college intern or family friend or etc., I strongly encourage them not to go straight to law school from college, for many of the same reasons mentioned by orange fury. Most importantly, 90% of those who go from college to law school directly are doing so just because it's a well-trodden path of achievement, but without any thought to whether they actually want to study law.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

In the UK law is offered as an undergraduate degree (but you can also take a conversion course if you read something else). On the liberal arts side I rather like the American system, as I think it results in a better general education. But all UK degrees (at least at my alma mater when I attended) were specialised, with the possible exception of Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Oxford. I think there is a little more flexibility now. Law prepared people well enough for all sorts of interesting paths in life, though, in the context of a specialised system.


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

Balfour said:


> Law prepared people well enough for all sorts of interesting paths in life, though, in the context of a specialised system.


As a law school graduate who does not practice law, I fully agree that studying law can be a good start on a wide range of possible paths. However, in the U.S., most law students graduate with so much debt from law school, often on top of debt from college, that many such paths are not feasible if they are not sufficiently and immediately high-paying. Far too many people regret going to law school, unfortunately.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

jd202 said:


> As a law school graduate who does not practice law, I fully agree that studying law can be a good start on a wide range of possible paths. However, in the U.S., most law students graduate with so much debt from law school, often on top of debt from college, that many such paths are not feasible if they are not sufficiently and immediately high-paying. Far too many people regret going to law school, unfortunately.


Oh, yes, sorry - a good point and one of which I was aware. I'm afraid to say that when I went to University no-one, yes, no-one paid tuition fees for undergraduate education. (I'm not defending that position, by the way; it was just a completely different world. Even now tuition fees for a normally three year law degree at Oxford and Cambridge are set at £9,000 (c. $14,000) per year with generous Government loans (for home students).)


----------



## Regent1879 (Jan 14, 2016)

As a 24 year old I deeply appreciate the posts. Thanks Gents!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Oh, yes, sorry - a good point and one of which I was aware. I'm afraid to say that when I went to University no-one, yes, no-one paid tuition fees for undergraduate education. (I'm not defending that position, by the way; it was just a completely different world. Even now tuition fees for a normally three year law degree at Oxford and Cambridge are set at £9,000 (c. $14,000) per year with generous Government loans (for home students).)


All UK universities now charge what was originally supposed to be the maximum of £9000. Just to put the "generous" government loan into context, my younger son's "generous" government loan didn't cover his student accommodation costs, and that was in a city where accommodation in the commercial sector is relatively inexpensive.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> All UK universities now charge what was originally supposed to be the maximum of £9000. Just to put the "generous" government loan into context, my younger son's "generous" government loan didn't cover his student accommodation costs, and that was in a city where accommodation in the commercial sector is relatively inexpensive.


I trust you made up the shortfall, in that case? It is a well-known fact that having children is an expensive business, as I have found through my own experience with a daughter who spent four years at uni, a year abroad travelling and then two years in London training to become a lawyer.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Full-time students can borrow over £8,000 (c. $12,500) per annum for maintenance under the Government scheme when living away from home (more if in London): https://www.gov.uk/student-finance/new-fulltime-students

The repayment terms are income related and generous: https://www.gov.uk/repaying-your-student-loan/overview


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> I trust you made up the shortfall, in that case? It is a well-known fact that having children is an expensive business, as I have found through my own experience with a daughter who spent four years at uni, a year abroad travelling and then two years in London training to become a lawyer.


I did indeed, as well as invest in a "parent pay" card that I could top up which he could use at a leading supermarket, as well as the usual food parcels and lunches when visiting.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Full-time students can borrow over £8,000 (c. $12,500) per annum for maintenance under the Government scheme when living away from home (more if in London): https://www.gov.uk/student-finance/new-fulltime-students
> 
> The repayment terms are income related and generous: https://www.gov.uk/repaying-your-student-loan/overview


Yes, but as you'll have noticed, the amount that the student can borrow is dependent upon parental income. There is a calculator included in the website that tells the student how much the sum available as a loan could be anticipated. It is also for students starting this coming academic year, and has increased from three years ago.
Without disclosing my personal situation, my family income severely limited the amount available, and, being a state employed teacher, even if at the top of the possible payscale as a teacher, I am not wealthy.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Yes, but as you'll have noticed, the amount that the student can borrow is dependent upon parental income. ...


Indeed. And it shouldn't be because (appreciating that with any policy there will be hard cases, i.e. in cases of estrangement - I don't know if there are special provisions to deal with that)?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

As illustrations:

Example 1

Student from a household with income of £50,000 (c. $77,000) (two parents working full time, each earning roughly the average wage):

Eligible to borrow £9,000 in tuition fees loans and over £5,000 in maintenance loans under the Government scheme.

Example 2

Student from a household with income of £75,000 (c. $116,000) (two parents working full time, each earning roughly the 50% more than the average wage):

Eligible to borrow £9,000 in tuition fees loans and £3,800 in maintenance loans under the Government scheme.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I have heard of cases arising when children of wealthier parents, receiving a diminished portion of government loan, have received nothing at all from parents who are tight-fisted or who simply don't understand how the system works. To some extent, I am in favour of students being impoverished, it is a valuable life lesson.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> I have heard of cases arising when children of wealthier parents, receiving a diminished portion of government loan, have received nothing at all from parents who are tight-fisted or who simply don't understand how the system works. To some extent, I am in favour of students being impoverished, it is a valuable life lesson.


A friend of my wife, whilst at university in the days of grants, was in that position. Parental income meant that she had a minimal grant, but the wealthy father was very reluctant to pay her keep.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Oh, yes, sorry - a good point and one of which I was aware. I'm afraid to say that when I went to University no-one, yes, no-one paid tuition fees for undergraduate education. (I'm not defending that position, by the way; it was just a completely different world. Even now tuition fees for a normally three year law degree at Oxford and Cambridge are set at £9,000 (c. $14,000) per year with generous Government loans (for home students).)


Interesting that you use the word "generous" to describe a loan. A grant would be generous, as would a gift, a sum that one is obliged to pay back, at source, isn't really generous.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Talking of tuition fees, curiously, at a time when there is a national shortage of nurses, with recruitment below what is needed, our government has decided to remove the free tuition from nurses training, thus meaning that in future, from the next intake in fact, nurses will qualify owing £27000 in tuition fees. What do we think, will that make a career in a vocation that is already under-recruiting more or less popular? Will charging nurses £27000 to train make more people want to become a nurse? Or will it mean that we will have to employ more and more nurses from agencies, which cost the NHS half as much again as an ordinary nurse, and that we'll need to recruit more nurses from Portugal and the Philippines, at even more cost?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Interesting that you use the word "generous" to describe a loan. A grant would be generous, as would a gift, a sum that one is obliged to pay back, at source, isn't really generous.


This rather exposes your ignorance (wilful or otherwise): a loan on non-commercial terms is generous.

Also, you pigeonhole all those who criticise your posting style as simply 'disagreeing with your views'. That is a fallacy. Many disagree with the views of those for whom they nevertheless respect.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> This rather exposes your ignorance (wilful or otherwise): a loan on non-commercial terms is generous.
> 
> Also, you pigeonhole all those who criticise your posting style as simply 'disagreeing with your views'. That is a fallacy. Many disagree with the views of those for whom they nevertheless respect.


generous
ˈdʒɛn(ə)rəs/
_adjective_



*1*.
showing a readiness to give more of something, especially money, than is strictly necessary or expected.

Note the word "give".


Unfortunately the rest of your post is just another gratuitous ad hom, the kind of post I've come to expect from you. Rather sad really.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Chouan said:


> generous
> ˈdʒɛn(ə)rəs/
> _adjective_
> 
> ...


I'm pleased if you think your trip to dictionary corner controverts my post. I'll leave others to decide.

As for the rest of your post, it really just proves the point I was making (not to say being ad hom.).

There are many people I profoundly respect on this forum but disagree with, often strongly, on political issues.

I do not respect you. I will do my best to follow the wiser counsels of others on the forum and ignore your shtick from now on.

I am happy to debate those who I disagree with - with passion and vigour - but not those who use transparent and silly Sixth Form debating tactics. It's just too tiresome and life is too short!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> I'm pleased if you think your trip to dictionary corner controverts my post. I'll leave others to decide.
> 
> As for the rest of your post, it really just proves the point I was making (not to say being ad hom.).
> 
> ...


Oh dear, I don't have the respect of somebody who I've never met, and never will meet, and whose political, and social, views are so far in variance with mine, and whose posts to me comprise mostly of rather snide or outright hostile remarks. How will I ever get over it....
In any case, thank you for taking the time to tell me of your sentiments, I'm sure that you must have spent at least some time thinking of this cutting post. Perhaps I should be grateful of the attention.....


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Oh dear, I don't have the respect of somebody who I've never met, and never will meet, and whose political, and social, views are so far in variance with mine, and whose posts to me comprise mostly of rather snide or outright hostile remarks. How will I ever get over it....
> In any case, thank you for taking the time to tell me of your sentiments, I'm sure that you must have spent at least some time thinking of this cutting post. Perhaps I should be grateful of the attention.....


You're welcome.


----------



## EckFaeGlasgow (Apr 1, 2016)

Chouan said:


> All UK universities now charge what was originally supposed to be the maximum of £9000. Just to put the "generous" government loan into context, my younger son's "generous" government loan didn't cover his student accommodation costs, and that was in a city where accommodation in the commercial sector is relatively inexpensive.


If I may, it is not all "UK" universities that charge such fees; in Scotland, tuition remains free of charge.

I offer no opinion as to the rights or wrongs of this (mainly because I'm tired).


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

EckFaeGlasgow said:


> If I may, it is not all "UK" universities that charge such fees; in Scotland, tuition remains free of charge.
> 
> I offer no opinion as to the rights or wrongs of this (mainly because I'm tired).


My understanding is that Scottish universities charge fees in a way only Scotland could conceive:

If you come from Scotland or the European Union you pay a low-ish (but not non-existent) fee and if you come from the rest of the United Kingdom you pay a fee that is substantially higher. (I appreciate the EU rate is probably a result of the requirements of EU law, but nevertheless ...)

I haven't verified this beyond looking at the undergraduate fees at Edinburgh, that do appear to bear this out:

https://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/fees/undergraduate_2016-2017.cfm?sorter=Programme_Name


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I'm curious; do citizen of the UK take out government subsidized loans to go to university? Are government subsidized loans even an option?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I'm curious; do citizen of the UK take out government subsidized loans to go to university? Are government subsidized loans even an option?


That is the arrangement now. Student loans are paid back after graduation when the graduate's income reaches a certain threshold. Interest is charged.


----------



## EckFaeGlasgow (Apr 1, 2016)

Balfour said:


> I haven't verified this beyond looking at the undergraduate fees at Edinburgh, that do appear to bear this out:
> 
> https://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/fees/undergraduate_2016-2017.cfm?sorter=Programme_Name


i understand there's a standard tuition fee of £1,820 for an undergrad course, but SAAS will usually pay this depending on a means test.

The oddity of not charging students from EU*countries is indeed down to EU rules.

There's much debate over whether the policy helps the working class or the middle class - personally I think the true middle class is so small in Scotland that the point is moot. That said, the evidence would indicate that those from lower incomes end up with higher student debt than those already better off.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Langham said:


> That is the arrangement now. Student loans are paid back after graduation when the graduate's income reaches a certain threshold. Interest is charged.


I asked because one of the arguments given for the rise in tuition here in the states is the abundance and ease with which students can obtain subsidized federal student loans.

The schools know this and so they keep raising tuition as students are able to borrow more and more. The loan program keeps up with the rise in tuition.

Some economists have suggested that eliminating student loans would necessarily cause a drop in tuition. Of course, the elimination or the reduction would never occur because as soon as someone suggests it, they will be branded a Neanderthal by the media.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I asked because one of the arguments given for the rise in tuition here in the states is the abundance and ease with which students can obtain subsidized federal student loans.
> 
> The schools know this and so they keep raising tuition as students are able to borrow more and more. The loan program keeps up with the rise in tuition.
> 
> Some economists have suggested that eliminating student loans would necessarily cause a drop in tuition. Of course, the elimination or the reduction would never occur because as soon as someone suggests it, they will be branded a Neanderthal by the media.


University tuition fees here are I think £9,000 a year, so with maintenance a lot of graduates have around £50k or so of debt to repay. The universities charge as much as they can, as a matter of principle.

Tuition is still free at various universities on the Continent, and I have heard of British students going to the Netherlands or Sweden to study, as some courses are taught in English.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

EckFaeGlasgow said:


> If I may, it is not all "UK" universities that charge such fees; in Scotland, tuition remains free of charge.
> 
> I offer no opinion as to the rights or wrongs of this (mainly because I'm tired).


You're right, of course. Sorry.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I asked because one of the arguments given for the rise in tuition here in the states is the abundance and ease with which students can obtain subsidized federal student loans.
> 
> The schools know this and so they keep raising tuition as students are able to borrow more and more. The loan program keeps up with the rise in tuition.
> 
> Some economists have suggested that eliminating student loans would necessarily cause a drop in tuition. Of course, the elimination or the reduction would never occur because as soon as someone suggests it, they will be branded a Neanderthal by the media.


Perhaps student loans should be eliminated in order to ensure that the kids of the rich can continue to be helped to maintain their families' preeminent positions by making it difficult for the kids of the poor to gain higher education? By making it difficult for poor kids with ability to get into higher education rich kids will safely be able to get all of the jobs that need education and thus prevent the social and financial upward mobility that the rich fear so much. Its obviously the right and proper thing to do.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I'm not suggesting student loans should be eliminated at all. Please don't put words in my mouth. 

I'm suggesting that one reason why costs keep going up is because education is highly subsidized.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Perhaps student loans should be eliminated in order to ensure that the kids of the rich can continue to be helped to maintain their families' preeminent positions by making it difficult for the kids of the poor to gain higher education? By making it difficult for poor kids with ability to get into higher education rich kids will safely be able to get all of the jobs that need education and thus prevent the social and financial upward mobility that the rich fear so much. Its obviously the right and proper thing to do.


Labour's Anthony Crosland and Shirley Williams did that when they destroyed the Grammar Schools 40 years ago.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Odradek said:


> Labour's Anthony Crosland and Shirley Williams did that when they destroyed the Grammar Schools 40 years ago.


Which suggests that Grammar Schools were necessarily good and comprehensive schools are necessarily bad.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Which suggests that Grammar Schools were necessarily good and comprehensive schools are necessarily bad.


There is something in that.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> There is something in that.


The Ofsted reports over the past couple of decades haven't found that a selective system of education is any better than a comprehensive system. Given our current government is determined to make all schools academies, Ofsted seems to have found that academies are no better than LEA schools, so their view would appear to be independent.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> The Ofsted reports over the past couple of decades haven't found that a selective system of education is any better than a comprehensive system. Given our current government is determined to make all schools academies, Ofsted seems to have found that academies are no better than LEA schools, so their view would appear to be independent.


With grade inflation a factor, I wonder how objective a body like Ofsted can be when comparing today's schools with a system that, with only a few exceptions here and there in the country, died out 40 or so years ago?

My own children left school some years ago and were not part of the state system in any case, so I cannot claim much in the way of direct experience, although I was a governor of a nearby academy for a few years. Anecdotally, however, I have heard of much that seems to be very wrong.

I dislike the ethos of comprehensive education. I don't believe an academic education is right for all children - some would be far better receiving vocational and trade education from 11 or 13, which I believe is the system in Germany and was fundamentally part of the old state selective system whereby some children were selected for grammar schools and others went to secondary modern schools. The grammar schools provided great social mobility for bright children from poor families.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> With grade inflation a factor, I wonder how objective a body like Ofsted can be when comparing today's schools with a system that, with only a few exceptions here and there in the country, died out 40 or so years ago?
> 
> My own children left school some years ago and were not part of the state system in any case, so I cannot claim much in the way of direct experience, although I was a governor of a nearby academy for a few years. Anecdotally, however, I have heard of much that seems to be very wrong.
> 
> I dislike the ethos of comprehensive education. I don't believe an academic education is right for all children - some would be far better receiving vocational and trade education from 11 or 13, which I believe is the system in Germany and was fundamentally part of the old state selective system whereby some children were selected for grammar schools and others went to secondary modern schools. _*The grammar schools provided great social mobility for bright children from poor families.*_


As do comprehensives. The point of comprehensives which is sometimes missed by their critics is that they provide education for all abilities. Where I work, for example, there are those who are destined for Cambridge, or some other place of Higher Learning, and those who are likely to leave without worthwhile qualifications. Both are given an education, or training, that suits their level of ability. For the weakest we run a course called "Employability" which teaches them the basics of how to run a home and what work entails, so that they leave as well prepared for the real world as possible. The most able are coached for Cambridge entry (I know that other universities are available, but we have a close link with Cambridge). Consequently, we do everything that a Grammar, Technical or Secondary Modern could do. There is also flexibility, in that a child who develops intellectually late can still achieve, rather than being written off as a dullard at 11.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> As do comprehensives. The point of comprehensives which is sometimes missed by their critics is that they provide education for all abilities. Where I work, for example, there are those who are destined for Cambridge, or some other place of Higher Learning, and those who are likely to leave without worthwhile qualifications. Both are given an education, or training, that suits their level of ability. For the weakest we run a course called "Employability" which teaches them the basics of how to run a home and what work entails, so that they leave as well prepared for the real world as possible. The most able are coached for Cambridge entry (I know that other universities are available, but we have a close link with Cambridge). Consequently, we do everything that a Grammar, Technical or Secondary Modern could do. There is also flexibility, in that a child who develops intellectually late can still achieve, rather than being written off as a dullard at 11.


Yes, I am sure there are good comprehensives that do everything your own school does, but I'm not certain that it is the same picture across the country.

It is a fact that not all children are academic. I'm not sure 'dullard' is the best term - their abilities may lie elsewhere, perhaps some craft or skill. I saw how crafts such as woodwork and metalwork were taught at the school where I was a governor, and frankly it was a travesty because they were simply skimmed over in a very lightweight way as adjuncts of 'craft and design' or technology.

The decline in social mobility over recent decades has been widely reported - it is a fact. No doubt there are various causes, but I feel the comprehensives are one of them.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Yes, I am sure there are good comprehensives that do everything your own school does, but I'm not certain that it is the same picture across the country.
> 
> It is a fact that not all children are academic. I'm not sure 'dullard' is the best term - their abilities may lie elsewhere, perhaps some craft or skill.


I used the expression dullard, because when I went through the 11+ process back in 1967 it was very much the view that those who failed were failures and dullards.



Langham said:


> I saw how crafts such as woodwork and metalwork were taught at the school where I was a governor, and frankly it was a travesty because they were simply skimmed over in a very lightweight way as adjuncts of 'craft and design' or technology.


They are indeed, but they are taught following the National Curriculum that various governments have imposed over the last 20 years, which have prescribed how "Technology" which includes woodwork and metalwork, called "Resistant Materials" in the jargon, and "Textiles" and "Food Technology" should be taught. The curriculum stresses commercial production, such as "design a menu for a restaurant" rather than teaching the kids how to cook, for example. This means that the basics of woodwork and metalwork that I learnt (we all did as they were compulsory up to the Third Form) at the Grammar School that I went to aren't taught. That isn't the fault of the school or the comprehensive system, more the fault of the intentions of our various governments over the last 20+ years.



Langham said:


> The decline in social mobility over recent decades has been widely reported - it is a fact. No doubt there are various causes, but I feel the comprehensives are one of them.


I would argue that the decline in social mobility is set higher than school level. Even though there are more graduates than ever before, the opportunities for these graduates, even in what you and I would call serious, "proper" subjects, are nothing like as good as they would have been. The top jobs still go to those who have the appropriate network in place, created by having gone to the right schools, having the right parents who can open doors, and having parents wealthy enough to support them in their unpaid internships in London, that the others can't aspire to.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> I used the expression dullard, because when I went through the 11+ process back in 1967 it was very much the view that those who failed were failures and dullards.


I know that was often the attitude then, but it was one borne of the social exclusivity and snobbery that were imbued in English society 50 years ago. I am vaguely alarmed at use of the term by educators in the present day, but apparently that is the case.



> They are indeed, but they are taught following the National Curriculum that various governments have imposed over the last 20 years, which have prescribed how "Technology" which includes woodwork and metalwork, called "Resistant Materials" in the jargon, and "Textiles" and "Food Technology" should be taught. The curriculum stresses commercial production, such as "design a menu for a restaurant" rather than teaching the kids how to cook, for example. This means that the basics of woodwork and metalwork that I learnt (we all did as they were compulsory up to the Third Form) at the Grammar School that I went to aren't taught. That isn't the fault of the school or the comprehensive system, more the fault of the intentions of our various governments over the last 20+ years.


In other words, the teaching of craft subjects is completely up the spout. That is why half-competent craftsmen these days are sometimes as well paid as doctors, if not better.


> I would argue that the decline in social mobility is set higher than school level. Even though there are more graduates than ever before, the opportunities for these graduates, even in what you and I would call serious, "proper" subjects, are nothing like as good as they would have been. The top jobs still go to those who have the appropriate network in place, created by having gone to the right schools, having the right parents who can open doors, and having parents wealthy enough to support them in their unpaid internships in London, that the others can't aspire to.


There has been a decline in academic standards. Some undergraduates now are apparently incapable of reading an entire book: that is too challenging for them. There are of course too many graduates, chasing roughly the same number of graduate-type jobs as there were before the great expansion in university places.

There is now quite a lot of nepotism in certain professions but this is only to be expected when there is such an over-supply of graduates - academic qualification alone is no longer sufficient, so various means of social qualification then come into play.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> I know that was often the attitude then, but it was one borne of the social exclusivity and snobbery that were imbued in English society 50 years ago. I am vaguely alarmed at use of the term by educators in the present day, but apparently that is the case.


I was using sarcasm, as I would have thought that you'd realised.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Indeed many of the actions and words of our forefathers might be found wanting when viewed through the prism of today's prevailing societal sense of "holier-than-thou" righteousness, fired by increasingly mean spirit of political correctness!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> I was using sarcasm, as I would have thought that you'd realised.


Yeah right.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed many of the actions and words of our forefathers might be found wanting when viewed through the prism of today's prevailing societal sense of "holier-than-thou" righteousness, fired by increasingly mean spirit of political correctness!


Quite! One makes a tongue in cheek remark about "dullards" and the "PC Brigade" comes out and condemns one. If only they knew of how I really thought about the low ability scrotes!


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Chouan said:


> This means that the basics of woodwork and metalwork that I learnt (we all did as they were compulsory up to the Third Form) at the Grammar School that I went to aren't taught. That isn't the fault of the school or the comprehensive system, more the fault of the intentions of our various governments over the last 20+ years.


I never had to do woodwork, or metal work, or technical drawing at my school. In fact my father would have complained if I had. Instead I got Greek lessons. Iphigenia in Tauris was more important than a homemade bookcase.

Some local authorities managed to save their grammar schools but Crosland was a complete bar steward - a doctrinaire social engineer.

That said, schools used to be monocultural in my day. Everyone had English as a first language. Nowadays any school on the BBC news looks like Donald Trump's worst nightmare - jihadism meets school bussing.

However, the jobs just are not there. So people with networks prosper at the expense of the rest.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed many of the actions and words of our forefathers might be found wanting when viewed through the prism of today's prevailing societal sense of "holier-than-thou" righteousness, fired by increasingly mean spirit of political correctness!


Eagle, I really have no idea whether Chouan (who I gather is a teacher by profession) was (as he subsequently insisted) using the term "dullard" as "sarcasm" (however that is to be interpreted), but it reminded me of a number of staff members I came across during my time as a governor who struck me as rather complacent in blaming their own quite mediocre performance as teachers on their pupils' supposedly restricted capacity to learn. Workmen blaming their tools. But since the term was being used as "sarcasm", it must be all right - just as making an unkind reference to someone's physical handicap or ethnic background is quite all right, so long as it is done with appropriate "sarcasm".


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Indeed, teaching is but one of many professions in which sub-optimal performers attribute a lack of success to others involved in the process and process to hide behind the misguided, protective of their respective union(s). The pursuit of excellence has fallen and been replaced by the maintenance of mediocrity in so many professions! A few star performers continue to exist in most every profession, but they do seem to be few in number and the count seems to be dropping further as time goes on. Don't get mad...though, that is my opinion and I suppose I am still entitled to it!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ One need only look at the current state of schools in Chicago and the behavior of the Chicago Teachers' Union to see just how terrible the state of public education has become.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ One need only look at the current state of schools in Chicago and the behavior of the Chicago Teachers' Union to see just how terrible the state of public education has become.


Generalising on public education in Britain on the basis of what obtains in Chicago is stretching things just a bit.....


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ My comment was not in any way a commentary on the state of public education in the UK. It was meant simply as an observation of the state of public education here....stateside. 

I have no idea how the public education system work for you. That's a matter for tax paying citizens of the UK to sort out.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed, teaching is but one of many professions in which sub-optimal performers attribute a lack of success to others involved in the process and process to hide behind the misguided, protective of their respective union(s). The pursuit of excellence has fallen and been replaced by the maintenance of mediocrity in so many professions! A few star performers continue to exist in most every profession, but they do seem to be few in number and the count seems to be dropping further as time goes on. Don't get mad...though, that is my opinion and I suppose I am still entitled to it!


On the other hand there is far more involved in a child's education than their school and their teachers. There are many factors in a child's learning that a teacher has no control or influence over, so blaming teachers for a child's lack of success is only addressing one small part of the education process.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> but it reminded me of a number of staff members I came across during my time as a governor who struck me as rather complacent in blaming their own quite mediocre performance as teachers on their pupils' supposedly restricted capacity to learn. Workmen blaming their tools.


To what extent are you qualified, in any sense, to assess the ability or performance of a teacher? I don't mean simply exercising and expressing your opinion, but in your role as a governor, how could you as an individual assess the ability of a teacher in any meaningful sense? Given the many influences on a child's learning, and ability or otherwise to learn, suggesting that teachers pointing out those limitations is "workmen blaming their tools" is rather missing the point.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Chouan said:


> On the other hand there is far more involved in a child's education than their school and their teachers. There are many factors in a child's learning that a teacher has no control or influence over, so blaming teachers for a child's lack of success is only addressing one small part* of the education process.


Undoubtedly there are factors outside the control of teachers (as can be observed by the loutish thugs that run around like feral beasts at increasingly young ages and as can be attributed in some degree to the abdication of parental responsibility).

But for a teacher to state as here that teachers to constitute one small part* of the education process speaks volumes about the attitude to which Langham and Eagle were adverting.

*I have added the emphasis in the quoted post.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> To what extent are you qualified, in any sense, to assess the ability or performance of a teacher? I don't mean simply exercising and expressing your opinion, but in your role as a governor, how could you as an individual assess the ability of a teacher in any meaningful sense? Given the many influences on a child's learning, and ability or otherwise to learn, suggesting that teachers pointing out those limitations is "workmen blaming their tools" is rather missing the point.


I was not reaching these conclusions in isolation but as part of a collegiate structure, assisted by the school's senior management. As a governor one takes note of OFSTED reports. Examination performance was unsatisfactory, as were other aspects. Some staff were good, others were mediocre - one did not need to be a specialist to make this distinction, it emerged from the reports and in records such as absenteeism. There was a complacent toleration of poor performance over a long period, ascribed by some to pupils' backgrounds, even the weather - anything but their own professional ability. Some refused to cooperate with new policies, constantly challenging the right of the school's senior management to make changes they disliked. A hardcore refused to attend work, getting themselves signed off work on long-term sick leave for spurious reasons.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> I was not reaching these conclusions in isolation but as part of a collegiate structure, assisted by the school's senior management. As a governor one takes note of OFSTED reports. Examination performance was unsatisfactory, as were other aspects. Some staff were good, others were mediocre - one did not need to be a specialist to make this distinction, it emerged from the reports and in records such as absenteeism. There was a complacent toleration of poor performance over a long period, ascribed by some to pupils' backgrounds, even the weather - anything but their own professional ability. Some refused to cooperate with new policies, constantly challenging the right of the school's senior management to make changes they disliked. A hardcore refused to attend work, getting themselves signed off work on long-term sick leave for spurious reasons.


Thanks for the explanation. That makes more sense.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Undoubtedly there are factors outside the control of teachers (as can be observed by the loutish thugs that run around like feral beasts at increasingly young ages and as can be attributed in some degree to the abdication of parental responsibility).
> 
> But for a teacher to state as here that teachers to constitute one small part* of the education process speaks volumes about the attitude to which Langham and Eagle were adverting.
> 
> *I have added the emphasis in the quoted post.


But it is "one small part". How many hours of a child's waking day are spent in school? Seven? Of which how many hours are they actually being taught? How many days in a week are they in school? How many weeks in a year are they in school? So how much time in their year are they actually being taught and therefore under the direct control of their teachers? Who has the most influence on a child's life? Their teachers? (I, for example teach Year 7 children for one lesson a week, so am teaching them for one hour a week.) Their parents? Or their friends? As you suggest above, if the children's parents have abdicated responsibility, if they don't encourage their child to do their work, or don't show interest in their child's education, how far can their teachers influence them? If their parents don't value education, and actively undermine what is being done in school, which is often the case, how can the child's teacher help them to learn? If parents despise teachers, children soon emulate them, to their cost. 
On the other hand, parents who are positive about education, who value education, who actively encourage their child to learn, who encourage them to read, who help them with their homework, who even do such a simple thing as ask them what they studied in school that day can have a massive impact on their child's development, learning and success, far more than the most enthusiastic and able teacher. 
Education is a combination of influences; parents, friends, experiences and teachers, of which teachers are one small part.
I can (and have done so several times) get a student into Cambridge who wouldn't have done so without me. But, the ability, aptitude, attitude, parental support and encouragement provided the rest. Far more than I provided.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> On the other hand there is far more involved in a child's education than their school and their teachers. There are many factors in a child's learning that a teacher has no control or influence over, so blaming teachers for a child's lack of success is only addressing one small part of the education process.


My friend, you totally ignore my comment that "here are star performers to be found in every profession(including teaching)." The real problem is that that is no longer the norm. Indeed society has largely conditioned our young to 'expect that everything will be given to/provided for them in return for very little effort' and by gawd the rising generations are living up to, oe perhaps I should say down, to our lowered expectations!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> My friend, you totally ignore my comment that "here are star performers to be found in every profession(including teaching)." The real problem is that that is no longer the norm. Indeed society has largely conditioned our young to 'expect that everything will be given to/provided for them in return for very little effort' and by gawd the rising generations are living up to, oe perhaps I should say down, to our lowered expectations!


Sorry. I get so used to the denigration of the profession that the populist press in the UK is so keen to promote. You are right about the sense of entitlement, but that comes from the parents as much as from the kids. I have lost count of the number of parents who, when told about their little darling's underachievement, or failure to do homework, or poor behaviour, demand to know what *I* am going to do about it, rather than wonder what* they*, or even the child, could do about it.
It is a commonplace that, at a parents' evening, the parents that one would most like to see are the ones who don't bother to attend. It is also a commonplace that the parents of the kids who are worst behaved are the first to complain if their little darling has sanctions applied to them.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

The atrophy of the traditional two-parent family in the US (50% divorce rate and 40% illegitimacy rate) has created a very difficult environment for teachers, who cannot reasonably be expected to compensate for the inevitable increase in various social pathologies. This makes the fact that education is consistently among the least competitive majors scholastically (i.e., lowest average SAT scores, etc.) all the more disturbing. In my experience (I serve on two Catholic high school boards, chairing one), teachers are by far the most important "education" variable -- far more important than quality of physical plant, access to technology, student/teacher ratios, etc. Excellent pedagogy is key, yet we cannot realistically expect it to consistently overcome the problems that inadequate home environments present.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> The atrophy of the traditional two-parent family in the US (50% divorce rate and 40% illegitimacy rate) has created a very difficult environment for teachers, who cannot reasonably be expected to compensate for the inevitable increase in various social pathologies. This makes the fact* that education is consistently among the least competitive majors scholastically (i.e., lowest average SAT scores, etc.) all the more disturbing.*


Pardon my ignorance and lack of understanding, but could you explain the highlighted area a bit more please as I am unsure of your meaning. It is probably to do with differing educational jargon.



Mike Petrik said:


> In my experience (I serve on two Catholic high school boards, chairing one), teachers are by far the most important "education" variable -- far more important than quality of physical plant, access to technology,


There is a tendency for those responsible politically for education to be drawn towards technology as a panacea. Where I work, for example, mobile phones are, quite reasonably, banned from lessons, so that the kids aren't distracted by them. However, the Academy Chain that runs the school invested in an initiative by Apple, by which all the students in Year 10 (14 or so +, those studying for actual qualifications, GCSEs in the UK) were given iPads for use in lessons. They ban phones, yet *give* them iPads! The immediate problem, obvious to us mere teachers, but clearly not obvious to the suits who run the organisation, was that the kids come into a lesson, open their iPad and start playing, messaging etc. I forbid their use in my lessons, unless there is a task for which an iPad is essential. There are very few in History!



Mike Petrik said:


> student/teacher ratios, etc.


Student teacher ratio is, however, a very important issue. Most private schools in the UK have very low ratios. A friend of mine who teaches Physics at Ipswich School (https://www.ipswich.suffolk.sch.uk/) told me that he has no more than 8 kids in any lesson, whereas in most of my lower school classes I have 30. Having 8 children in a class means that they can't hide and they can't pretend. It means that he knows exactly how well each one is doing, and has the ability to spend time with each child in a lesson and ensure that their learning is progressing, something that one simply cannot do in a class of 30. Add a couple of kids with behavioural or learning difficulties to the mix, and the ability to spend time with each kid, ensuring that each individual is making progress, becomes nearly impossible.



Mike Petrik said:


> Excellent pedagogy is key, yet we cannot realistically expect it to consistently overcome the problems that inadequate home environments present.


Indeed. When there is no parental support for education, then that child is severely disadvantaged, no matter how good an individual teacher might be. The blaming of teachers for poor results when they can't control the learning is grossly unfair, as well as pointless.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Pardon my ignorance and lack of understanding, but could you explain the highlighted area a bit more please as I am unsure of your meaning. It is probably to do with differing educational jargon


I won't speak for Mike, and I certainly won't assume anything about how rigorous the training for teachers is in the UK, but here stateside, the academic selection process is quite generous.

Meaning, one does not necessarily have to be a top student to enroll in a teaching program. That's probably the most genteel way of putting it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I won't speak for Mike, and I certainly won't assume anything about how rigorous the training for teachers is in the UK, but here stateside, the academic selection process is quite generous.
> 
> Meaning, one does not necessarily have to be a top student to enroll in a teaching program. That's probably the most genteel way of putting it.


Here it depends upon subject, to an extent. Maths and sciences are always desperate to recruit teachers, after all, if you're a good graduate in maths there are loads of well paying jobs in commerce to go for. Other subjects differ; History seems to attract the best qualified, in my experience. Where I teach now two of us have MAs, the other is a BA, but with a First. I've worked with another MA, an MPhil and a DPhil. Wastage of teachers is very high, with less than half of those who qualify lasting 5 years, with most of those lasting two years or less. 
Until recently, when Gove was Education Secretary, a teacher had to be a graduate, either with a BEd (Bachelor of education) or in a relevant subject with a PGCE (Post Graduate Certificate of Education) which was a very taxing year long course. Gove, however, didn't like the fact that Universities and Educationalists ran the training courses, so developed a strategy to bypass that and dilute teachers' qualifications, by making it possible for Academies to employ people who are neither graduates nor trained teachers, on a lower pay scale, of course!
https://newteachers.tes.co.uk/news/dons-pour-scorn-goves-proposed-pgce-shake/23487


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Here teachers are eager to get post graduate degrees in order to move out of teaching and into administration.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> I won't speak for Mike, and I certainly won't assume anything about how rigorous the training for teachers is in the UK, but here stateside, the academic selection process is quite generous.
> 
> Meaning, one does not necessarily have to be a top student to enroll in a teaching program. That's probably the most genteel way of putting it.


Yes:

https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-average-sat-score-for-every-college-major-2014-10


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Student teacher ratio is, however, a very important issue. Most private schools in the UK have very low ratios. A friend of mine who teaches Physics at Ipswich School (https://www.ipswich.suffolk.sch.uk/) told me that he has no more than 8 kids in any lesson, whereas in most of my lower school classes I have 30. Having 8 children in a class means that they can't hide and they can't pretend. It means that he knows exactly how well each one is doing, and has the ability to spend time with each child in a lesson and ensure that their learning is progressing, something that one simply cannot do in a class of 30. Add a couple of kids with behavioural or learning difficulties to the mix, and the ability to spend time with each kid, ensuring that each individual is making progress, becomes nearly impossible.


Surprisingly, studies demonstrate little correlation between student performance and class size. Yet, common sense suggests there must be some correlation, at least at the extremes. When I was in grade school we had 50+ kids per class, and the kids ranged from quite gifted to "reading will always be a challenge." Yet, the teachers (usually nuns) performed magnificently. Don't get me wrong, the aforementioned studies notwithstanding, I believe that those nuns would have worked even greater miracles if they had 20 or 30 per class. My penultimate point is not to diminish the relevance of class size -- I'll stipulate to such relevance -- but only to emphasize the importance of the teacher.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The class size refrain is one often used by the unions to spur the hiring of more teachers so that those senior on the list can move into cushy admin. job where they shuffle paperwork from one desk to another.


----------



## 215339 (Nov 20, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> The class size refrain is one often used by the unions to spur the hiring of more teachers so that those senior on the list can move into cushy admin. job where they shuffle paperwork from one desk to another.


I was wondering why a political party was pushing this platform for our provincial election, now this makes sense. IMO, there was no issue of class size when I was in highschool and proper teaching, or even one on one time. This wasn't long ago for me either.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

I would agree with both Chouan and Mike Petrik on a couple of points.

Firstly, teaching is hugely undervalued and (I believe) deliberately denigrated in the UK,
for political purposes.

Secondly, the collapse of the traditional family is not recognised as a real problem in education. 

When I went to school, everyone had two married parents - unless one had died. 

The schools were completely monocultural - more so for a Catholic school, where not only nationality counted (usually Irish) but it went down to county/regional level. So mostly West of Ireland, plus an Italian or two, a few Poles, Spaniards and French.

Nowadays Catholic schools in the UK have to make special provisions for Muslims! 

In my day, lots of Catholics could not get into Catholic schools.

Also in the UK we have the legacy of Tony Blair:-

'We don't do God' 

In other words, it is regarded as impertinent, or embarrassing for faith schools to insist on educating the kids in that faith. 

Unless they are Muslims or Jews of course......


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Kingstonian,
The diminishing Catholicity in Catholic schools was a problem in the US starting in the 1970s. My sense is that things have been significantly improving since the early 1990s, though the situation is hardly perfect. I chair the board of a Catholic high school whose student body is over 90% Catholic. The remainder is Protestant of various denominations, and we occasionally have Jewish attendees. Of course we are appropriately accommodating and respectful of the beliefs of these non-Catholics, and they reciprocate. Each class starts with a prayer and Mass and Confession are offered daily. The most loved teacher at the school is a very orthodox priest. He is a brilliant teacher (theology) whose natural holiness is infectious. The students love him so much that our Archbishop forbade him from presiding over any more weddings. Every graduate wanted him to officiate his or her wedding, and since he never said no he ended up hospitalized for exhaustion.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The class size refrain is one often used by the unions to spur the hiring of more teachers so that those senior on the list can move into cushy admin. job where they shuffle paperwork from one desk to another.


A popular view, I suppose, but only based on what obtains in the US, I should imagine. In British schools the only "cushy admin job" is that of the Head Teacher, or which there is only one. So, no matter what the pupil/teacher ratio is, there are no more cushy admin jobs created. The rest of what are referred to a the "Senior Team" all teach, although to a reduced timetable.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Here teachers are eager to get post graduate degrees in order to move out of teaching and into administration.


Here in Education Authority administration, apart from the Head Teacher in a school there have, until recently, not been any teachers in a purely administrative role in any real sense. Now, however, the advent of "Academy Chains" have led to some Head Teachers becoming CEOs of, effectively, large businesses. 
Becoming a Head Teacher was always a different career path; there are always those who come into teaching in order to become a Head Teacher and get out of teaching, but their career path has been more about what they call "leadership" rather than further qualifications in Education. Those who get higher degrees in Education are generally those who are seeking to have a career in Higher Education to train teachers. Those teachers that I know with higher degrees have their degrees in their specialist subjects rather than in Education.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> I would agree with both Chouan and Mike Petrik on a couple of points.
> 
> Firstly, teaching is hugely undervalued and (I believe) deliberately denigrated in the UK,
> for political purposes.
> ...


Fecking Tony fecking Blair, what a ba$tard that man is.....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> I would agree with both Chouan and Mike Petrik on a couple of points.
> 
> Firstly, teaching is hugely undervalued and (I believe) deliberately denigrated in the UK,
> for political purposes.
> ...


I went to a Catholic School myself, where the lower school were taught by Marist Fathers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Mary's_College,_Middlesbrough, but I have also taught at a joint Catholic and Church of England school, where regular attendance at church was a pre-requisite for acceptance as a pupil. It was very heavily over-subscribed, and very successful. This was from 2000 to 2003, I only left because I wanted to be Head of Department and there was no chance there. You can see from their current admissions policy that it would be very difficult for a non-Christian to be able to gain admission. Where I worked next, in Stevenage, in Hertfordshire, there was also a very successful and over-subscribed Catholic School. You can see from their current admissions policy that being Catholic is, clearly, very important. Certainly when I taught in that town there were no non-Catholics at that school. https://fluencycontent-schoolwebsit...16/Admissions/Determined-Policy-2017-2018.pdf
So, I would suggest that your final comments are more an impression than fact.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Chouan said:


> Where I worked next, in Stevenage, in Hertfordshire, there was also a very successful and over-subscribed Catholic School. You can see from their current admissions policy that being Catholic is, clearly, very important. Certainly when I taught in that town there were no non-Catholics at that school. https://fluencycontent-schoolwebsit...16/Admissions/Determined-Policy-2017-2018.pdf
> So, I would suggest that your final comments are more an impression than fact.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepa...chool-in-Birmingham-has-90-muslim-pupils.html

Terrible. School like that should close instead of catering for Muslims.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> https://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepa...chool-in-Birmingham-has-90-muslim-pupils.html
> 
> Terrible. School like that should close instead of catering for Muslims.


I would disagree with that. The Catholic Church - and of course other Christian denominations - used to (in fact still do) send missionaries to various parts of the world to convert the heathen. Nowadays they can do so at much greater convenience, and without the expense of travel, in Birmingham.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

They are not converting them though. So your point does not apply. They are merely providing a service for them. Same as convent schools teaching Jews in the old days.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> https://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepa...chool-in-Birmingham-has-90-muslim-pupils.html
> 
> Terrible. School like that should close instead of catering for Muslims.


I think that it is a very good thing. It is still a Christian school, teaching Christian values and Christian teachings that happens to have 90% of the pupils Muslim. No offence being taken, no demands that it be a Muslim school, no demands that the Catholic iconography be removed. What is the problem?

Where there are plenty of Catholics, Catholic schools thrive. It seems that where there aren't enough Catholics, Catholic schools still thrive.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> They are not converting them though. ...


You don't know that - and would you prefer them to be taught elsewhere by some die-hard imam?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Langham said:


> You don't know that - and would you prefer them to be taught elsewhere by some die-hard imam?


There is no evidence of conversion and attempts at conversion are nowadays met with howls of protest from the target groups.

I would prefer muslims to be taught on their own coin. Not sponge off schools set up for Catholics and with Catholic teaching staff.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Chouan said:


> I think that it is a very good thing. It is still a Christian school, teaching Christian values and Christian teachings that happens to have 90% of the pupils Muslim. No offence being taken, no demands that it be a Muslim school, no demands that the Catholic iconography be removed. What is the problem?
> 
> Where there are plenty of Catholics, Catholic schools thrive. It seems that where there aren't enough Catholics, Catholic schools still thrive.


There are numerous examples of Muslims demanding prayer rooms etc.....

and Catholics are now too soft to say 'No!' to this sort of crap.

They need to recapture the spirit of the Reconquista.

Pat Buchanan 'death of the west' applies.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> There is no evidence of conversion and attempts at conversion are nowadays met with howls of protest from the target groups.
> 
> I would prefer muslims to be taught on their own coin. Not sponge off schools set up for Catholics and with Catholic teaching staff.


The running costs of Catholic schools are all funded by the state, in the same way as for other schools. They are not intended to be exclusively for Catholics, just as CofE schools are not exclusively for Anglicans.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Langham said:


> The running costs of Catholic schools are all funded by the state, in the same way as for other schools. They are not intended to be exclusively for Catholics, just as CofE schools are not exclusively for Anglicans.


Interesting! You mean parochial schools receive funding the same way as public schools?

Here, private schools are just that; private. Also, one gets no break on property taxes or a deduction for sending a child to a private school.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Langham said:


> The running costs of Catholic schools are all funded by the state, in the same way as for other schools. They are not intended to be exclusively for Catholics, just as CofE schools are not exclusively for Anglicans.


Although my understanding is that the buildings and a proportion of the maintenance costs are provided by the Church (as would be borne out by this: https://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/about-us/faqs).

The article cited by Kingstonian is actually remarkably lacking in vitriol for _The Sun_. They quote the following:

"Head John Gubbins said: "We follow the Catholic Diocese programme for religious education which pupils are taught ten to 15 per cent of the week. All children take part. 

"They also take part in our religious plays to celebrate Christmas and Easter and principals help at Mass. 
"Most of the children who come here do not have English as their first language. But from Year One onwards they are fluent. We have a teacher dedicated to teaching them."
Chairman of governors Father Bernard Kelly said: "The pupils participate, with the consent of their parents, in the religious ethos and various celebrations. For the church, this is a new reality.""

Now, it might be better for Church buildings and Catholic teaching staff to be redeployed to serve Catholic needs. But so long as the school is permitted to maintain its Catholic religious traditions and select on the basis of faith, I am not as troubled by this story as others seem to be. It is the important qualifications in the last sentence that I am less sanguine about, given that Christianity is under relentless attack (usually from frothing at the mouth militant atheists) in this country.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Interesting! You mean parochial schools receive funding the same way as public schools?
> 
> ...


There are Catholic schools that are private, fee-paying schools and Catholic schools the running costs of which are met by the State.

(And just to add to the confusion, in the UK 'public schools' is used to refer to private, fee-paying schools! What Americans would call 'public schools' are generally called state schools.)


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Interesting! You mean parochial schools receive funding the same way as public schools?
> 
> Here, private schools are just that; private. Also, one gets no break on property taxes or a deduction for sending a child to a private school.


It is the same here for private schools, but most Catholic schools are not private (as Balfour points out, there are a few exceptions to this). Nor do parents here receive any tax rebate for educating their children privately. However, most private schools, of which there are many, are registered as charitable institutions, which confers various taxation privileges and exemptions.

Church schools - both Catholic and Church of England - were set up by the churches, and are still their responsibility, but the teachers are paid by the state and I believe their day-to-day maintenance is also funded by the state.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> There is no evidence of conversion and attempts at conversion are nowadays met with howls of protest from the target groups.
> 
> I would prefer muslims to be taught on their own coin. Not sponge off schools set up for Catholics and with Catholic teaching staff.


The state school system means that tax payers pay for the school system, therefore tax payers are entitled to send their children to a state school. A tax paying Muslim going to a state funded Catholic school is hardly sponging!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> There are numerous examples of Muslims demanding prayer rooms etc.....


Are there? Care to offer some evidence for these demands?



Kingstonian said:


> and Catholics are now too soft to say 'No!' to this sort of crap.


Indeed? Again, care to offer some evidence for this assertion?



Kingstonian said:


> They need to recapture the spirit of the Reconquista.


What, introduce forcible conversion and the Holy Inquisition?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> The running costs of Catholic schools are all funded by the state, in the same way as for other schools. They are not intended to be exclusively for Catholics, just as CofE schools are not exclusively for Anglicans.


Indeed, if one looks at the admittance regulations that I attached, non Catholics are able to attend, as long as they fulfill the religious observance criteria.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Although my understanding is that the buildings and a proportion of the maintenance costs are provided by the Church (as would be borne out by this: https://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/about-us/faqs).
> 
> The article cited by Kingstonian is actually remarkably lacking in vitriol for _The Sun_. They quote the following:
> 
> ...


Indeed, well put.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Chouan said:


> Are there? Care to offer some evidence for these demands?
> 
> Indeed? Again, care to offer some evidence for this assertion?
> 
> What, introduce forcible conversion and the Holy Inquisition?


Evidence is everywhere. Do your own research.

Softness of Catholicism is evidenced by the current Pope taking asylum seekers back to Italy. He has no religious authority for this. This is not an ex-cathedra statement, but the media still seizes on it as ammunition to support the invasion of Europe.

Reconquista meant expulsion of Muslims. That might be a tall order but the Trump moratorium and a policy of ensuring existing Muslim residents are not fifth columnists would be a good start


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Catholic schools ARE intended for Catholics. It is not some sort of ecumenical mix and match option. Teachers are often from religious orders. Muslims can look after their own.

The example of jewish girls attending convent schools can be qualified because those schools were fee-paying. Quid pro quo. Furthermore, there were no religious demands on the schools other than Jewish girls were excused religious education lessons.

Catholic schools that are 90% Muslims should be closed and the assets realised. Funds could then be put to better use.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> Catholic schools ARE intended for Catholics. It is not some sort of ecumenical mix and match option. Teachers are often from religious orders. Muslims can look after their own.
> 
> The example of jewish girls attending convent schools can be qualified because those schools were fee-paying. Quid pro quo. Furthermore, there were no religious demands on the schools other than Jewish girls were excused religious education lessons.
> 
> Catholic schools that are 90% Muslims should be closed and the assets realised. Funds could then be put to better use.


Read the admittance requirements from real schools that I posted. Real evidence from real schools.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> Evidence is everywhere. Do your own research.


That's a very lazy response. You made the assertion, back it up with evidence (as I did) or it is no more than an assertion.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Kingstonian said:


> Evidence is everywhere. Do your own research.
> 
> Softness of Catholicism is evidenced by the current Pope taking asylum seekers back to Italy. He has no religious authority for this. This is not an ex-cathedra statement, but the media still seizes on it as ammunition to support the invasion of Europe.
> 
> Reconquista meant expulsion of Muslims. That might be a tall order but the Trump moratorium and a policy of ensuring existing Muslim residents are not fifth columnists would be a good start


A good start, but more is needed.

The Pope has no religious or civil authority to do what he did.
And they won't end up in the Vatican but will be dumped on the city of Rome.
Stunts like washing the feet of the invaders just makes Europe seem weak.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Odradek said:


> A good start, but more is needed.
> 
> The Pope has no religious or civil authority to do what he did.
> And they won't end up in the Vatican but will be dumped on the city of Rome.
> Stunts like washing the feet of the invaders just makes Europe seem weak.


Only they are being accommodated, and settled, in the Vatican.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Odradek said:


> The Pope has no religious or civil authority to do what he did.
> And they won't end up in the Vatican but will be dumped on the city of Rome.
> Stunts like washing the feet of the invaders just makes Europe seem weak.


Reminds of Peter Sellars as the Brummie vicar in 'Heavens Above'.
Vicarage turned over to a large family of pikeys with Eric Sykes and Irene Handl playing the vicar for all he is worth. At least they were European pikeys with a Christian heritage :-


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

*Do Not Get Romantically Involved with "that woman"*. *Make it a one night stand and be done with her.
*
Sigh of course I never listened.


----------

