MPs in well reasonably educated shock.

[English assassin]

More nonsense: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,1665360,00.html


And 43% of MPs have attended one of the "top" 13 universities - those that score the highest average ranking in newspaper league tables (Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh, Imperial, LSE, Nottingham, Oxford, St Andrew's, UCL, Warwick, York).
The chairman of the trust, Sir Peter Lampl, said: "The educational profile of our representatives in parliament does not reflect society at large.

Obviously in the interests of equality the country should be run by a load of [uneducated people]? (I mean, more than it already is)

Still, at least Sir Peter Lampl is flying the flag for people who can't understand the bleeding obvious having a role in public life...

[Slyspy]

To be fair I wonder whether those MPs haven't wasted their education! They certainly rarely seem to use it, they just have to follow the party line - no thinking required.

[doc_bean]

13 isn't really a small number.

How many US politicians don't come from Yale ?
In Flanders we only have 3 decent uni's, so most politicians come from only 3 different universities, it's a conspiracy I tells ya ! :san_laugh:

[Marcellus]

I'm surprised it's only 43%.

[Crazed Rabbit]

WARNING, WARNING! IDIOACY ALERT!

"This is symptomatic of a wider issue - the educational apartheid which blights our system and which offers the best life chances to those who can afford to pay for their schooling." The report concludes: "It is important to ensure the opportunity to attend these universities is open equally to all young people on the basis of merit. Previous work undertaken by the trust has suggested that this is not the case at present and that - relative to their A-level achievements - those from state schools, poorer neighbourhoods and lower social classes are underrepresented."

The guardian is confusing causation and correlation.

Crazed Rabbit

[Adrian II]

WARNING, WARNING! IDIOACY ALERT!


The guardian is confusing causation and correlation.

Crazed RabbitThe rabbit is confusing The Guardian and the Sutton Trust.

Idiocy alert, huh? :san_rolleyes:

[King Henry V]

Yes, another Leftie windbag crying about how paying for anything better demonstrates a blow against equality and we shall all go to the same rubbish schools so that we will all be forced to suck on the government's teat for the rest of our lives and vote Labour...

[Geoffrey S]

I'm surprised it's only 43%.
Same here.

[Goofball]

Yes, another Leftie windbag crying about how paying for anything better demonstrates a blow against equality and we shall all go to the same rubbish schools so that we will all be forced to suck on the government's teat for the rest of our lives and vote Labour...

That's not what he is saying at all. You missed the important bit:


The report concludes: "It is important to ensure the opportunity to attend these universities is open equally to all young people on the basis of merit. Previous work undertaken by the trust has suggested that this is not the case at present and that - relative to their A-level achievements - those from state schools, poorer neighbourhoods and lower social classes are underrepresented."

I've boldfaced the important part.

The implication is that even given equal academic qualifications, kids who are products of independent schools stand a better chance of attending Oxford/Cambridge than kids who are products of government schools.

Now, this still leaves room for speculation an misinterpretation but it certainly is not what you were trying make it out to be.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The rabbit is confusing The Guardian and the Sutton Trust.

Idiocy alert, huh?

The Adrian is confusing editorials and articles.

Crazed Rabbit

[Adrian II]

The Adrian is confusing editorials and articles.

Crazed RabbitThe rabbit should know that The Guardian correspondent is quoting other people when she writes things like 'The chairman of the trust, Sir Peter Lampl, said' and 'The report concludes', followed by actual quotes. Put within quotation marks. As it were.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

goofball:

maybe they're less likely to even apply (that actually does seem to be the case).

[Goofball]

goofball:

maybe they're less likely to even apply (that actually does seem to be the case).

As I said, there could be many reasons/interpretations for their underrepresentation. But my point was that is was not just a bunch of whining.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

fair enough.

I just don't buy that it's institutionalised discrimination because:
1. the less affluent are far less likely to go to university in the UK, even if it is heavily subsidised.
2. the govt. have stuck their nose into this alot under Labour and I couldn't imagine any college wanting to be surrounded by the resulting sort of BS controversy.

the article doesn't provide proof and I'm quite willing to admit that I'm speculating.

[English assassin]

For my sins I do actually know quite a lot about the issue of access to higher education. One sentence summary: the problem starts WAY earlier in the school system. But the Labour govn would prefer not to admit that because schools are in the public sector whereas universities are independent (yes, they suck up a large amount of public cash, but they are in fact independent). So its much better to pretend the unis are discriminating rather than the schools are failing.

And of course the possibility NO ONE dares mention is perhaps some people are "socially excluded" because they are thick or lazy. But we all have to pretend that's impossible so please forget I said it.

But the point of the post was simply that its dumb beyond belief to claim that the fact that MPs have had a better education than most people is a bad thing. Newsflash: Top Surgeons have better than average education shocker. What do we want? Equal access to brain surgeons jobs for plumbers! When do we want it? Now!

[BDC]

"The educational profile of our representatives in parliament does not reflect society at large.

Good. Britain is full of poorly-educated idiots, last thing the country needs is them getting an actual say in things. It's badly enough run as it is.

[King Henry V]

That's not what he is saying at all. You missed the important bit:



I've boldfaced the important part.

The implication is that even given equal academic qualifications, kids who are products of independent schools stand a better chance of attending Oxford/Cambridge than kids who are products of government schools.

Now, this still leaves room for speculation an misinterpretation but it certainly is not what you were trying make it out to be.
The article's main point is that paying for a better education (i.e being able to afford to go to good University such as Oxford or Cambridge) is a bad thing. The "positive" discrimination which Lefties love so much and what the government is doing is raising the entrance level for universities for those coming from independent schools and setting aside a large number of places only for those coming from state schools, and fining certain universities if they do not respect this.