Those are the events at this Olympics. As we have seen, people have a different take on which ones are accessible or not. Nick reckons equestrianism is, whereas I dont. Wibble has shown that there's a bit more to playing water polo than jumping in a pool with your mates and chucking a ball about.
The 'class' element of the Olympics
- Thread starter Badunk
- Start date
Those are the events at this Olympics. As we have seen, people have a different take on which ones are accessible or not. Nick reckons equestrianism is, whereas I dont. Wibble has shown that there's a bit more to playing water polo than jumping in a pool with your mates and chucking a ball about.
There is. My son, who is 13, has done 5am starts as a swimmer for years and now that he has swapped to waterpolo he trains or plays 6 days a week which involves about 6-700kms driving per week. For the summer season this will include him going to the train after school by himself and traveling into Sydney twice per week to make the 5pm start to training as I wouldn't be able to get him there on time due to work and traffic. Occasionally we have a late game and last Tuesday he didn't get home until after 11pm on a school night.
Unless we were willing and able to put the time (typically 25 hrs per week of my time with only 2 weeks off at Christmas and 6 weeks a year at about half that between seasons), effort and money ($20,000k +) in to it it wouldn't happen.
Unless we were willing and able to put the time (typically 25 hrs per week of my time with only 2 weeks off at Christmas and 6 weeks a year at about half that between seasons), effort and money ($20,000k +) in to it it wouldn't happen.
And with little chance of a paid career at the end even if he does reach the top.
It's not the sports that are 'elitist', it's the fact that some athletes are rich and some aren't - we shouldn't have people competing who are already highly-paid professionals, like the tennis players, like Blake the sprinter who wore a $500,000 specially-commissioned watch on his wrist from a sponsor and is now in trouble for it with the Olympics officials.
I'd like to see an Olympics made up entirely of amateur athletes. The professional boxers don't take part, do they? And yet some of the basket ball stars are super-rich, I understand. The football teams are all made up of professionals, not amateurs. That's not a level playing field.
And the argument about private education - if you are clever enough, you can win scholarships and get everything paid for at many public schools. Like my younger nephew - my sister was on her own with two kids, but he was privately-educated all the way through because of his ability, he won scholarships to two excellent schools. I would suggest that often parents simply don't look into it, as they assume it's too expensive or not available to them. Yes, if you want to go to Eton or Harrow, no, if you want to go to somewhere more modest which still provides an excellent education. Some state schools are fantastic too!
At the end of the day it's like anything else - if you are wealthy, you have more choices about how you spend your money, whether that's on a posh car, a big house, lots of expensive holidays or private schooling for your kids. If you're not so wealthy, you might still be able to do some of those things, but you have to make harder decisions about what's most important to you and your family and you can't have everything you want. That's just the way of the world.
I'd like to see an Olympics made up entirely of amateur athletes. The professional boxers don't take part, do they? And yet some of the basket ball stars are super-rich, I understand. The football teams are all made up of professionals, not amateurs. That's not a level playing field.
And the argument about private education - if you are clever enough, you can win scholarships and get everything paid for at many public schools. Like my younger nephew - my sister was on her own with two kids, but he was privately-educated all the way through because of his ability, he won scholarships to two excellent schools. I would suggest that often parents simply don't look into it, as they assume it's too expensive or not available to them. Yes, if you want to go to Eton or Harrow, no, if you want to go to somewhere more modest which still provides an excellent education. Some state schools are fantastic too!
At the end of the day it's like anything else - if you are wealthy, you have more choices about how you spend your money, whether that's on a posh car, a big house, lots of expensive holidays or private schooling for your kids. If you're not so wealthy, you might still be able to do some of those things, but you have to make harder decisions about what's most important to you and your family and you can't have everything you want. That's just the way of the world.
It's not 'some' state schools that are excellent, it's a great many.
There are obvious problems with British state schooling but by and large it's a great deal better than the press would have you believe.
Umm, yes it is?
One of. Obviously there are billions of others.
The first thing I checked for was track and field so when I didn't see it I figured it was a select list, I see now that track and field is being called 'athletics'.
Makes more sense now, thanks for clarifying!
So for the sake of an argument, how many not so wealthy people do you think have a disposable income of 1000 pounds a month per child? I mean we are not talking about buying a smaller house near a good school or hiring a tutor to help little Johnny with his maths.
Scholarships are great if you can get one but what percentage of private school places are given on that basis, it always struck me as a cover. The if you really want it you can do it too argument adds insult to injury. Why don't we face facts and just be honest about the situation. If your parents are wealthy you lucked out.
According to Gove 7% of people go to private school. 83% of medals are won by those 7%. That is probably a reflection of the chances of success outside of sport if not even more so because in sport there are fewer intangibles. You do have a fair test in the event. What if we awarded medals based on interviews like we award jobs?
Take a look at the “why not give the poor an income” thread in the Current Events forum. Watch the video about the effect of wealth disparity on all societies.
Gove's plans as I understand them will take away funding from state schools and increase funding for independent schools with tax money. It will lead to more religious schools, on principle I can't agree that is the way to go.
If you look at the recent figures on University applications then Gove is doing a wonderful job in blighting the aspirations of working class children. Unless you think the tuition fees are scaring off the rich?
As an aside did you watch the wonderland program on the BBC?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01l9zfm/Wonderland_Series_5_Young_Bright_and_on_the_Right/
The university situation is an interesting one - I personally feel the 9k fees obstruct people who want to do arts subjects at university more than the working class in general.
And I'm watching that programme now, thanks for the link. It has started a little ludicrously though, these people are absolutely insane. And I voted Tory.
I wouldn't disagree with you. I went to a first-class state grammar school for girls, but that's a long time ago and it's been a comprehensive school for many years - I don't know whether the girls there now have the wonderful teaching, facilities and encouragement that I had.
I also agree with some points made by alastair. Reading to your kids is free, helping them with their homework is free, playing football with them in the park or taking them swimming is open to everyone. I had all of that as a child, I was taken to the library a couple of times a week after school by my mum (free) and to every museum and art gallery around (free). My father worked long hours but he got straight up from his chair as soon as he had had his evening meal and took us out, to the park, to the beach, anywhere, where we ran around and kicked a football or played a bit of tennis with ancient rackets! It didn't cost a penny.
is this for real? I mean, it's an actual documentary, not a comedy mockumentary? Because I watched the first few minutes and find it hard to believe those are real people.
I know what you mean but they are real young conservatives and if watch a little further you will see the part where the Hitler song comes into play.
I might be your male alter-ego!
I think what I'm trying to say is that if you ask people what British state education is like a lot will say rubbish. Ask the same people what their kid's school is like and a lot will say very good.
I'd imagine a documentary about a comparable organisation with Labour leanings. Both have these self serving societies that are whose aim is to foster their own position and come across as distant to millions on either side.
With declining party membership in the UK it does beg the question why many still vote tribally and alternative political forces remain a far off imagining.
We ahve in recent years been seeing the damage caused by Labour's approach to further and higher education. The emphasis put upon gaining a degree almost for the sake of it, specialism and its worth afterward be damned. .
I can certainly say that i thought discipline in classes and the behaviour of pupils worsened as i progressed through secondary school, no illusion there.
In theory that is correct and perhaps it is because water polo is such a big sport in Hungary. Here in Australia it is more elite. By far the strongest school teams are the most expensive private schools (A$24,000-35,000 plus uniform and compulsory excursions and overseas trips) although they are weak compared to the better club sides. That said if you look at the players selected for state and national representation then well over half are from the elite private schools.
In terms of cost it cost us about A$20,000 last year for my 13 year old son and this year will probably be about the same or a bit more I'd guess. Some of that is because we live so far out of Sydney and have so much travel but however you look at it it isn't a sport that you can do without considerable financial resources. You can do football here as a kid for under $500 p.a. including new boots and kit although it does costs more at the higher levels where travel (as always in Australia) becomes a big factor. Give how big swimming is in Australia it seems stupid that we aren't even stronger in water polo than we are.
My son can get a scholarship to one or more of the posh private schools but the costs are still huge as they only give 100% scholarships to the very poorest families who qualify for a bursary. Scholarships are to a maximum of 50% here and then there are the huge costs of uniform, cmputers, music and the compulsory school trips overseas (or six months away at a residential camp in one case). I would need to move job and the real estate is 2 or 3 times more expensive. So it isn't that easy and addresses equality in no real way.
It shouldn't be the way of the world when it comes to things like health and education. Buy private health and education by all means but the taxpayer shouldn't fund it at all. Not dollar 1. If you choose not to use the provided public education then you are free to pay to do otherwise. Of course it would take a while to wean fee paying schools off the public teat but it should be done and the money saved would hugely increase the quality of public education.
@cinc Australia have a new head coach Elvis Fatovic and we beat Croatia (the Olympic champions for those who don't know) a few days ago. We also drew with them last night after leading most of the way despite resting a few senior players. My 15 year old son is delighted as he now trains twice a week with 3 of the Australian team who play National League for our club.
Good times
Last edited:
Australian have now draw with Croatia while resting a couple of the starting lineup and beaten Russia while resting most of their starting lineup
Good times
Good times
The US were prevented from selecting professional basketball players for their olympic team until 1992. The decision to allow them to be selected was not one that the US was tirelessly lobbying for. It was something that was desired by the other countries first and foremost. Lets not forget, that other countries were able to select professional basketball players before 1992, while the US could only send college players.
I do not want to see an amateur only olympics as I feel that athletes should be allowed to earn whatever money they are able to. Back in the 1970s, track athletes were amateurs and often turned down lucrative professional contracts in order to preserve their olympic eligibility.
I do not think athletes should be expected to live on handouts while training to be the best in the world - being paid to race, for example, is just rewards for the weeks, months, years of training they have to put in.
Aye. Athletics was amateur up until the early 1980s. Everyone received under-the-table payments and had trust funds set up for them. It was all a load of shite born out of elitist 19th century ideals.