The 'class' element of the Olympics

Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Micky 'who ate all the pies' Quinn has just been on Talksport promoting and and singing the praises of Dressage and Eventing. Oh that snooty elitist him! ;)





1. Of course they didn't, effort and determination is just as important as elsewhere. Furthermore i think such a statement takes away individual responsibility and seemingly excuses failure in the state system as a rule.

2. In part answered above. Are you saying that they shouldn't have done their best by their child? So it is right for someone to resent another over decisions either beyond their control or which they would have accepted just the same?

3. They sought the best education they could and made sacrifices to that end yet should feel guilty huh? Can everybody say likewise? Perhaps successive governments should be brought to book for creating the preent culture in the state system.
Click to expand...

1. I think it's the other way around. Individual, against the odds, successes being used to mask iniquity, vilify the majority who then fail and then attack the state system. It’s much easier to act selfishly if you can find reason to blame the system for that selfishness. If the most successful parents leave that clearly promotes failure for those left behind.



2. The problem is that as parents we are hypocrites. On the one hand we want our children to have an equal chance of success but if at any point we gain enough spare income to tilt the playing field and make life easier for our own children, then we do just that. While it is understandable it can't be right. Resenting the system and the ingrained injustice isn't resenting the individual who benefitted from that injustice, the day we stop doing so is the day we give up trying to make things better.


3. Making sacrifices for your children isn't the sole domain of the middle class. Private education is beyond the means of most people, whether willing to make sacrifices or not. Again the excuse to hide the inequity. "I am sending my child to private school because I am willing to make the sacrifices others aren't", feels a lot better than "I am sending my children to private school because I want to increase their chance of success by buying an advantage most can't afford".

There are consequences for our choices and some of them land on our children. If you go to private school, you will benefit in almost every way that matters but you will have been given an advantage above most. The moral consequence of that is you can't ever be sure you would have succeeded on the level playing field and those without your privilege will forever remind you of that fact.
 
What about the disparity within the state system? There's a huge difference in the quality of state schools between certain areas. Families that can afford to live/move to the area with the better school are arguably buying an advantage as well.

I can understand it though, because most parents want their child to go to the one where there aren't huge social problems. But the ideological issue of conscience remains, as with private vs. state.
 
The first and foremost consideration for us when buying a home is the quality of the schools in the area. I supsect it is a consideration for lots of other parents as well because house prices are usually higher where the schools are good.
 
I fall between 2 stools. I teach at private school (because I need the money and local jobs in the government system are almost impossible to get) but refuse to send my son there. He goes to the local High School.
 
Nobody is denying that people can break through the glass ceiling and be high achievers from poorer backgrounds. But you have a better chance if you get a head start. And the olympic medal winners from team GB are further proof of this. And this is how it's always been.
 
It is not the fault of the private education system that the one provided by the state requires improvement. Government should be looking to emulate its methods and results where possible. It's not all about money although of course that helps in achieving such aims as smaller class sizes, the difference in culture and tone can be stark.

I know of many who went to private schools whose parents were teachers, secretaries, engineers, policemen, are these jobs so far beyond the norm?
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
When your parents sent you to private school otherwise known as pulling an Abbott they did three things simultaneously.

1. They took away your chance to succeed purely on your own merits.

2. They set you up to be more successful than someone who works just as hard and is just as smart as you who's parents couldn't send their kid to private school. That person is right to resent that.

3. They helped to perpetuate a system which disadvantages the majority in favour of the wealthy minority.
Click to expand...


Again, a quite offensive and infinitely ludicrous post.


My private school had people who came from very wealthy families, yes. But I worked hard to get where I've got in terms of academic success. The vast majority of people at my school went to universities outside the top 10 because they didn't work hard enough to get there. I wonder what people genuinely think goes on at private schools. We still have to work for our results.

You can still fail at a private school. It might be less likely, but loads of people come out of them with very poor grades. The reality is that you might need to work harder at some state schools to achieve, but then that's just bad luck. It doesn't mean you should just give up.

Private schools are very useful for society, because you can use them as an indicator of where state education should be. Where I live, there are a lot of state schools that produce almost exactly the same number of successful Oxbridge applicants.

You just seem to think that if you don't go to a private school, you have no chance. There's a level of bitterness that runs through the post. I was lucky, you might not have been. That doesn't mean you have an excuse for not knowing the difference between who's and whose, but you probably put that down to your state education.

It's, in my view, one of the main reasons why Margaret Thatcher is hated by so many. It's bitterness that someone from a working class background got to the top and didn't represent 'the traditional working man'.
 
The thread is primarily about the backgrounds of the olympic team and how coming from private education enabled many of them to succeed in Sports that arent practiced by or accessible to the vast majority of people.

I wasnt aware of the number of athletes who came from privileged backgrounds and, when I looked into it further, it's clear that the roots of this situation are based on the class system. A system that is still going strong.

It's interesting.
 
Wibble said:
I fall between 2 stools. I teach at private school (because I need the money and local jobs in the government system are almost impossible to get) but refuse to send my son there. He goes to the local High School.
Click to expand...


Could you afford to send your son to the local private school though? Because if you can't, it's not a question of your morals. If you can, then it is.
 
People who get good grades at private schools work hard to get them. Point accepted.

What is the benefit of a private education, if we all follow the same curriculum and do the same exam papers? You think kids get sent to your Harrows and your Etons because the teachers are better? Because the buildings are old and beautiful? Please. It's networking. You mix with the rich and powerful, it's more likely some of it will rub off on you.
 
I've read about those private schools, Al, places where you all dress up as Sir Lancelot and host bizarre occult rituals featuring blindfolded hamsters. Oh hang on, that's RAWK...carry on.
 
Badunk said:
It's clear that the roots of this situation are based on the class system. A system that is still going strong.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. As has been pointed out countless times already in this thread, it's because private schools have better sports facilities and make more time in the curriculum for sporting activities (and extra-curricular activities). Those schools also attract better PE teachers, often ex-professionals or ex-athletes.
 
Badunk said:
People who get good grades at private schools work hard to get them. Point accepted.

What is the benefit of a private education, if we all follow the same curriculum and do the same exam papers? You think kids get sent to your Harrows and your Etons because the teachers are better? Because the buildings are old and beautiful? Please. It's networking. You mix with the rich and powerful, it's more likely some of it will rub off on you.
Click to expand...

That kind of stuff really only gets going at Oxbridge. I can assure you that no-one I know gained any real advantage in terms of networking at my school. I mean, you might get the odd piece of work experience and a corporate ticket to the Cup Final, but nothing meaningful.
 
alastair said:
I mean, you might get the odd piece of work experience and a corporate ticket to the Cup Final, but nothing meaningful.
Click to expand...

Good God! We were lucky to get clothes at my school!
Text that is white
 
Damn...I was going to ask if you could get me a ticket, mate. :D
 
alastair said:
Well I can assume, but I'd like clarification.
Click to expand...

You can't refuse something you don't have access to.

I can't refuse the young Patricia Arquette for example, for three reasons. She isn't that young anymore, I've not met her and the chance of that happening is very small, and she would not be interested in me. And I wouldn't, but that is besides the point.
 
Speaking of work experience, that is what Charlotte du Jardin began with. She wanted something badly enough, not everybody possesses a like determination regardless of their route through education.

We appear to have a lot of assumptions or projecting of perceived reality when it comes to private schooling on here.
 
cinc said:
You can't refuse something you don't have access to.

I can't refuse the young Patricia Arquette for example, for three reasons. She isn't that young anymore, I've not met her and the chance of that happening is very small, and she would not be interested in me.
Click to expand...

He could 'refuse' on principle. He could 'refuse' on principle and practicality. Let's not quibble, I like your posts and I'm boring myself.
 
That's easy for you to say, Nicholas - not everyone has had the heducational advanatages liek wot you and Alastair have had. I mean, this photo of Al and me was only taken yesterday. You can see Kimbra in the background somewhere:

Five%20Boys.jpg
 
By the way, I'm the one with the shorts - I couldn't afford the extra material for long trousers due to government cuts.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Speaking of work experience, that is what Charlotte du Jardin began with. She wanted something badly enough, not everybody possesses a like determination regardless of their route through education.

We appear to have a lot of assumptions or projecting of perceived reality when it comes to private schooling on here.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Saying private schools are fully of wealthy posh people who look down on others would be much like me saying that all state schools are full of poverty-stricken chavs from the social underclass. It can be true, but more often than not, it isn't.
 
mjs020294 said:
The first and foremost consideration for us when buying a home is the quality of the schools in the area. I supsect it is a consideration for lots of other parents as well because house prices are usually higher where the schools are good.
Click to expand...

Wibble said:
I fall between 2 stools. I teach at private school (because I need the money and local jobs in the government system are almost impossible to get) but refuse to send my son there. He goes to the local High School.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Speaking for the UK it makes a difference which region you live in as well. I'm in the north and if you make schooling a priority for house purchase it's mostly possible to buy in a good catchment area on an average wage. It's a much bigger problem in the South I believe.
 
There is some validity to the view put forward in the OP. That's one reason why it's right that the centerpiece of the olympic games is track and field, particularly the running events. It is a universal sport and the whole world takes part, unlike swimming, track cycling, gymnastics, etc where you need facilities and have a hothoused program with college scholarships, state run training systems, or lottery finding.

Rudisha is the perfect example of what I mean. He lives humbly where he grew up, doesn't have a professional coach, and trains on a dirt track because there is nothing else nearby. And then he leads from start to finish in an olympic final against the fastest field ever assembled and in a world record time. His third 200 destroyed the field. No one else has done anything like that since Juantorena. For me it was the standout performance of these olympics, in any sport, well except for Bolt. It's a breath of fresh air when someone like this can be the best.
And he didn't need to go to Eton to do it. :)
 
alastair said:
Again, a quite offensive and infinitely ludicrous post.


My private school had people who came from very wealthy families, yes. But I worked hard to get where I've got in terms of academic success. The vast majority of people at my school went to universities outside the top 10 because they didn't work hard enough to get there. I wonder what people genuinely think goes on at private schools. We still have to work for our results.

You can still fail at a private school. It might be less likely, but loads of people come out of them with very poor grades. The reality is that you might need to work harder at some state schools to achieve, but then that's just bad luck. It doesn't mean you should just give up.

Private schools are very useful for society, because you can use them as an indicator of where state education should be. Where I live, there are a lot of state schools that produce almost exactly the same number of successful Oxbridge applicants.

You just seem to think that if you don't go to a private school, you have no chance. There's a level of bitterness that runs through the post. I was lucky, you might not have been. That doesn't mean you have an excuse for not knowing the difference between who's and whose, but you probably put that down to your state education.

It's, in my view, one of the main reasons why Margaret Thatcher is hated by so many. It's bitterness that someone from a working class background got to the top and didn't represent 'the traditional working man'.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you find my argument offensive but the three points I make are true. I can't base my judgments on private schools on first hand personal experience because I didn't go to one. My brother in law teaches in one though and I have a fair idea about the place. He is relatively well paid for a teacher but he couldn't afford to send his children there. It charges 3500 to 5500 pounds per term (approx) depending on day or full boarding.

It is out of the range of most families if you talk about disposable income and the average number of kids.

My view is that private schooled children will have smaller class sizes with better teachers and more money spent on them per year, that the school will generally be excellent or outstanding in Ofsted inspection and have a large range of sports and activities. The parents of the children will fall in the top two or three percentile of incomes. The school will charge for extracurricular activities and the parents will have no problem paying for those extras as well as being supportive towards the school and their children will be better disciplined than the average state school.

Like I say advantaged compared to those who don't go. That is what the parents pay for. That is why any stat you like to look at in terms of future achievement bares out my view. Denying your luck and trying to pretend it makes no difference is dishonest. Are there good state schools? Yes. Are there children who fail in private schools? Yes. Does this negate any of the points I make? I don’t think so because if it didn’t work why would people pay for private education?

It is so much easier to pretend there are justifications for the advantages given to some and not others and you huff and puff all you want in order to try but we all know deep down it is wrong and society will never be a true meritocracy if it starts out with such disadvantage. Then when the advantage is gained you can vote Tory and kick away the remaining ladders. Doing a Gove.
 
SteveJ said:
That's easy for you to say, Nicholas - not everyone has had the heducational advanatages liek wot you and Alastair have had. I mean, this photo of Al and me was only taken yesterday. You can see Kimbra in the background somewhere:

Five%20Boys.jpg
Click to expand...

I am from a mixed private/state educational bckground as it happens.


surf said:
Rudisha is the perfect example of what I mean. He lives humbly where he grew up, doesn't have a professional coach, and trains on a dirt track because there is nothing else nearby. And then he leads from start to finish in an olympic final against the fastest field ever assembled and in a world record time. His third 200 destroyed the field. No one else has done anything like that since Juantorena. For me it was the standout performance of these olympics, in any sport, well except for Bolt. It's a breath of fresh air when someone like this can be the best.
And he didn't need to go to Eton to do it. :)
Click to expand...

I thought he was headhunted by a renowned high school in Kenya with a track record of producing 4 Olympic champions and 30+ world champions?
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I'm sorry if you find my argument offensive but the three points I make are true. I can't base my judgments on private schools on first hand personal experience because I didn't go to one. My brother in law teaches in one though and I have a fair idea about the place. He is relatively well paid for a teacher but he couldn't afford to send his children there. It charges 3500 to 5500 pounds per term (approx) depending on day or full boarding.

It is out of the range of most families if you talk about disposable income and the average number of kids.

My view is that private schooled children will have smaller class sizes with better teachers and more money spent on them per year, that the school will generally be excellent or outstanding in Ofsted inspection and have a large range of sports and activities. The parents of the children will fall in the top two or three percentile of incomes. The school will charge for extracurricular activities and the parents will have no problem paying for those extras as well as being supportive towards the school and their children will be better disciplined than the average state school.

Like I say advantaged compared to those who don't go. That is what the parents pay for. That is why any stat you like to look at in terms of future achievement bares out my view. Denying your luck and trying to pretend it makes no difference is dishonest. Are there good state schools? Yes. Are there children who fail in private schools? Yes. Does this negate any of the points I make? I don’t think so because if it didn’t work why would people pay for private education?

It is so much easier to pretend there are justifications for the advantages given to some and not others and you huff and puff all you want in order to try but we all know deep down it is wrong and society will never be a true meritocracy if it starts out with such disadvantage. Then when the advantage is gained you can vote Tory and kick away the remaining ladders. Doing a Gove.
Click to expand...


Boarding schools are very different to your average private school in the London suburbs. They are far 'posher' in general. A lot of private schools are very down to earth, but the parents just have a bit more wealth than most.

You make some good points in your post, but the one I can't agree with is how society will never become a meritocracy while they exist. It isn't anyway. My parents read to me as a child, a lot don't. I had a head start, even at a private school. Some kids get taken to museums(free, I might add), they go on bike rides with their fathers, their mothers play word games with them and stuff. Next time you get on a bus, check out how many young kids are accompanied by mothers who are on a mobile phone, completely ignoring them.

It's all very well stating that private schools don't encourage a meritocracy, but the problems run far deeper than that, and they're unsolvable ones. Look at that tragic case today of that girl who was allegedly killed by her 37 year old step-grandfather. She never stood a chance, regardless of what school she might have attended.


Blaming the Tories is quite cheap as well. Education, despite being a labour buzzword under Blair, worsened immensely while he was in power. You can invest as much money as you want, but there was no vision. Gove's plans would actually aid social mobility immensely if implemented, but since he's a Tory, it's automatically assumed he's trying to help the wealthy, even though half the labour party come from the exact same background.
 
alastair said:
Could you afford to send your son to the local private school though? Because if you can't, it's not a question of your morals. If you can, then it is.
Click to expand...

Easily. It is a Catholic School so the fees are pretty low and I'd get a large discount for teaching there. It would be about 1200 quid per year.

He would hate it where I work, The uniform, the religion and the lack of water polo as a school sport would make him hate it. Plus the cohort of kids in his year is much nicer in his school than at mine. It happens, you get good and bad years. And all of his mates go to his school.
 
alastair said:
It's, in my view, one of the main reasons why Margaret Thatcher is hated by so many. It's bitterness that someone from a working class background got to the top and didn't represent 'the traditional working man'.
Click to expand...

You seriously think that is why she is disliked?

Really?
 
Private schools should be just that. Private which means privately funded. Not one dollar of public funds should be provided and all tax money should be poured into government schools to reduce class sizes and provide some of that facilities that private schools spend their fees on since the government picks up most of the tab for the actual teaching.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
I am from a mixed private/state educational bckground as it happens.




I thought he was headhunted by a renowned high school in Kenya with a track record of producing 4 Olympic champions and 30+ world champions?
Click to expand...

There are no headhunters in Kenya any more, if there ever were. Maybe you are thinking of Papua-New Guinea. ;)

It is a catholic school near Eldoret. It is not affluent and neither are the students. The coach is the geography teacher. The track looks fairly primitive - basically dirt. It is a fairly standard set up for East Africa. No frills. And yes, their record in producing top class runners is impressive in spite of the lack of facilities/funding/etc. That was the point of my previous post. Running is an inclusive sport, and the better for it.
 
alastair said:
It's, in my view, one of the main reasons why Margaret Thatcher is hated by so many. It's bitterness that someone from a working class background got to the top and didn't represent 'the traditional working man'.
Click to expand...

If by 'didn't represent' you actually mean 'was responsible for their abject misery and, in a lot of cases (in Ireland), death' then you'd be right.

Can't believe anyone would defend the wicked witch, it defies belief.
 
It was reported that 75% of the Aussie swimmers at the games live on less thatn the minimum wage. I know from experience that poor kids simply can't afford to particpate in many types of sport because it has to be funded largely by their parents even when they are young adults.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.