Birth Lottery and social justice

Do you believe you are entitled to the benefits that the birth lottery may have given you, for example if you are born in to a middle class family and because of that are given the befits of middle class parenting and a very good education( not necessarily a fee paying school) are you entitled to those benefits because of the birth lottery or do you believe for the good of society the effect of the birth lottery have to ameliorated in some way.

One example would be reserving a certain percentage of place on Medical degrees for applicants from less advantaged back grounds and with lower entry requirements, in other words take away some of the advantages of your middle class background and pass it on to someone who dose not have those advantages.

Spurtacus

It's like gender quotas or positive discrimination, nice idea in principle but rarely works.
Those promoted through these means never feel the equal of their peers, come up the hard way on your own & you're shown far greater respect.

oldyouth

Every generation of parents should seek to improve the lot of their children. It doesn't matter how low a base you start from, once you look to better your circumstances. Hard wok and commitment should bring it's rewards. Nobody should get a free ride in life. Why should one person have to achieve to a lower standard than another to get the same result?

topper75

Don't get the issue in that anybody (even if both parent's are on social welfare) can go at the books and study for exams that will see them through to qualify as a doctor, no? If there is a money block in this path, then it would be time to visit a TD's clinic to highlight it. I'm not aware of any.

The Backwards Man

Birth lottery? You make it seem like people have won something by being born into a privileged background. None of us had a say where we were born.

I don't judge people by their background, it's what they do in the foreground that counts, lottery winners or not.

They already give points allowances to people from lower socio economic backgrounds. I know someone who did architecture in UCD with this programme.

It's not all about birth lottery though, I was born in an area that was lower working class. I grew up in a tiny council house with an outside toilet. I had to go my grandmother's house to have a shower (she lived on the same street). My mother had to wait until my Dad came home with his wage packet on a Thursday to be able to go to the shops to get thursday night's dinner. We were poor. Piss poor. But we were brought up well, and we were brought up to believe we could achieve what we wanted to achieve.

I have worked hard, I have a good job. I live in a nice area, and drive a nice car, I would now be considered middle class, so any children of mine would win the "birth lottery", but that's not really what it is at all. I didn't win the birth lottery - I worked to get where I am.

On the flip side of that though, there are kids who won't ever have a chance - I see drug addicts wheeling children in their buggies and those children have little hope of a good life - but the sad thing is that their parents were those kids once so it's not all their fault either.

Shenshen

I would disagree with positive discrimination taking the form of quota, or even worse lower requirements for certain groups. Especially when it comes to things like studying medicine.

I would however strongly favour focused programs with the aim of enabling children from weaker monetary and/or educational background to reach the same academic levels as people who can rely on their parents.
This shouldn't only be a better education, but also programs around social interaction, cultural awareness, etc.

I think we cannot tackle the problem of certain groups underachieving by lowering the bar for them. We need to enable them to achieve on par with everyone else.

Sulla Felix

mariaalice wrote: »

One example would be reserving a certain percentage of place on Medical degrees for applicants from less advantaged back grounds and with lower entry requirements, in other words take away some of the advantages of your middle class background and pass it on to someone who dose not have those advantages.

We have a lot of bursaries and grants that fulfil this intention, at least in part. Fella I went to college with was from a dirt poor family. Without a scholarship from a local business man he wouldn't have gotten in the door.
I think more of that kind of thing should be encouraged rather than introducing more red tape. Make it tax deductible like they do in the States.

Shenshen

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Birth lottery? You make it seem like people have won something by being born into a privileged background. None of us had a say where we were born.

I don't judge people by their background, it's what they do in the foreground that counts, lottery winners or not.

I do think that people born into a privileged background have in fact won a lottery of sorts.

Some people work hard every day of their lives to get rich, others win the lottery.
And by the same token, some people need to work harder than others to achieve the same in terms of education and job prospects.

gramar

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Not so! It's all about how you lived in a previous life. Do good deeds and and you'll get a better start in the next one. If you're born into destitution or handicapped you're paying for your sins in a previous life.

humbert

How is being born into a privileged background any different to being born intelligent or handsome?

Suck it up and play the hand you are dealt.

Shenshen

humbert wrote: »

How is being born into a privileged background any different to being born intelligent or handsome?

Suck it up and play the hand you are dealt.

You can be as intelligent as you like, you'll still have a harder time financing your second and third level education than someone with rich parents - if your family situation allows you to progress that far at all.

I was working in factories during holidays every year from age 16 onwards to finance university, and I lived in Germany where there are no course fees.
A friend of mine from a rich family spent that time on internships, taking extra courses and lessons, or simply just recovering from a stressful semester.

I still managed to get the better grade, but I know I was working disproportionately hard for it. And I know some people would not have been able to do it, even thought that had more brains than my rich friend.
Some had to start working as quick as possible to help support their families, some couldn't afford the cost of living in the city with the only university offering the course they were really interested in and would have excelled at, there are tons of reasons.

asdfg!

Like whoopsadaisy, I grew up with a less than privileged background, although we did have inside toilets and the area we grew up was very respectable. My parents grew up in worse conditions. But they brought us up as best they could. None of us went to college, it wasn't affordable. But all six of us did the best we could and now have or had good jobs and all our kids can afford to go to college.

But you're now suggesting that people who failed to improve their lives should have an advantage over us who worked hard for what we got?

Much better is the idea of scholarships and bursarys for talented kids from less affluent background. In fact if there was more of that most of my family would have been able to go to college. But at the time I left school I was not even entitled to a grant for college even though by any standards my background was borderline poor. It was a very unfair system.

Improvements in the education system for less talented kids is a better idea. But ultimately there are people you cannot help move beyond a certain capability. It's sounds like a brutal right wing attitude but there is a reason why generations of the same family remain poor, unemployed and a drain on society. They are simply incapable of being otherwise. On the other hand I've met people from some of the toughest areas in Dublin who worked their way out of it to the point where their kids could be called privileged.

You cannot lower standards of entry for professions without damaging those professions. That's the bottom line.

The Backwards Man

Shenshen wrote: »

I do think that people born into a privileged background have in fact won a lottery of sorts.

Some people work hard every day of their lives to get rich, others win the lottery.
And by the same token, some people need to work harder than others to achieve the same in terms of education and job prospects.

I don't really see it like that. A baby born in a slum today is 'luckier', in my opinion, than one born in a palace 500 years ago.

Shenshen

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I don't really see it like that. A baby born in a slum today is 'luckier', in my opinion, than one born in a palace 500 years ago.

Heh, that certainly is one way of looking at it.
I would assume that a girl born into a poor family here is still better off than one born into a middle-class family in Afghanistan.

But if we were to look at just our own time, and just our own country, there are still significant differences in the chances children here will get based solely on which family they happen to be born into.

funk-you

gramar wrote: »

Not so! It's all about how you lived in a previous life. Do good deeds and and you'll get a better start in the next one. If you're born into destitution or handicapped you're paying for your sins in a previous life.

Are you fucking mental?

-Funk

Lyaiera

As far as I know all the universities have programmes for getting disadvantaged children into the third level system. I know someone who got in via that method. First person from his family to go to third level. He really took advantage of the supports and did really well. I got into university through the disability support mechanism.


I disagree from a theoretical point that being born to parents with a good income, who are well educated and have the resources to look after their children is in any way a "win." That should be the starting point for anyone. It's why I have a problem with the phrase "privilege" purely from an awareness and marketing perspective. No-one is getting anything undeserved purely because they have a good home, that's what everyone should have.

Jester252

TBF kids born in poor areas do have a better chance to "move up" than kids born in to working class or middle class with the terms of grants for education and programs get them into 3rd level. After a while education is down your hard work not where you were born.

I don't agree with quotas because the people getting them usual would have got there anyway because to availed of the reduced point and other lower points entry systems you are already in a very supportive school who know the way around the system and you probably have a supportive home ( that has nothing to do with money ) plus you have ability. A teacher said to me one time never underestimate a determined mother when it come to getting a child in to college. The various lower entry ideas that are operate in our society are an illusion of redistributive Justice. They appearer to be about challenging privilege but they are not.

Toby Take a Bow

Jester252 wrote: »

TBF kids born in poor areas do have a better chance to "move up" than kids born in to working class or middle class with the terms of grants for education and programs get them into 3rd level. After a while education is down your hard work not where you were born.

The lack of social mobility in the vast, vast majority of societies would suggest otherwise. Yes there are government initiatives in place to attempt to help this mobility, but the figures would suggest that if you are born in a socially disadvantaged area that is where you will stay. There will always be people like asdfg! and Whoopsadaisy (and my parents) who managed to work their way out from a socially disadvantaged situation, but they will always be examples of a minority as society is structured in such a way that would prevent a whole class from improving its situation in such a short period of time.

wendell borton

It ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one.

humbert

Shenshen wrote: »

You can be as intelligent as you like, you'll still have a harder time financing your second and third level education than someone with rich parents - if your family situation allows you to progress that far at all.

I was working in factories during holidays every year from age 16 onwards to finance university, and I lived in Germany where there are no course fees.
A friend of mine from a rich family spent that time on internships, taking extra courses and lessons, or simply just recovering from a stressful semester.

I still managed to get the better grade, but I know I was working disproportionately hard for it. And I know some people would not have been able to do it, even thought that had more brains than my rich friend.
Some had to start working as quick as possible to help support their families, some couldn't afford the cost of living in the city with the only university offering the course they were really interested in and would have excelled at, there are tons of reasons.

Similar, took a year out working to afford it then working during university. I'd take that any day rather than find than academic side of things harder.

I'm saying that if you're going to start discriminating you have to weigh up all the advantages and disadvantages people are born with.

Another friend of mine from a wealthy family and with a good brain has massive difficulty with motivation to the extent that it has almost driven him to suicide. You can't just say that someone being born poor has a larger mountain to climb than everyone else.

gugleguy

your pal is not on his own in the motivational department and well off. Once, I had an acquaintance like that. I parted company with him when he complained that as his friend I was far too motivated. Before I passed my final exams first time, and he did not. Many moons ago now.

The Backwards Man

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Birth lottery? You make it seem like people have won something by being born into a privileged background. None of us had a say where we were born.

I don't judge people by their background, it's what they do in the foreground that counts, lottery winners or not.

They have. Being born into a privileged family with parents who have the means to help you do whatever you want in life is lucky. I know it's not that simple, but I'm struggling to think of how having wealthy parents and unlimited resources would make your life harder than it would be if you were poor.

Balmed Out

Jackson Jolly Gorilla wrote: »

They have. Being born into a privileged family with parents who have the means to help you do whatever you want in life is lucky. I know it's not that simple, but I'm struggling to think of how having wealthy parents and unlimited resources would make your life harder than it would be if you were poor.

Have no personal experience of this but I would imagine that the chances are increased of both parents working longer hours and the child getting less parental attention. You see kids that are pretty much raised by aupairs etc. The consequences of that could I suppose be fairly harmful.


You cant really walk in any one elses shoes and Im sure we all have our own cross to bear so beyond not being born into terrible circumstances I wouldn judge what its like for anyone else.

This is not just about education it is about the sort of society we want to live in, generally in society we more or less believe in providing basic education and health care plus basic social welfare for everyone.

We do this because this is "good" for society and a sort of social contract.
We do this because if we didn't society would dissolve in to anarchy and it would not be a very pleasant place to live in, so we do not engage in social justic becsue of the goodness of human naute but becaue the alternatives are worse.

allibastor

mariaalice wrote: »

Do you believe you are entitled to the benefits that the birth lottery may have given you, for example if you are born in to a middle class family and because of that are given the befits of middle class parenting and a very good education( not necessarily a fee paying school) are you entitled to those benefits because of the birth lottery or do you believe for the good of society the effect of the birth lottery have to ameliorated in some way.

One example would be reserving a certain percentage of place on Medical degrees for applicants from less advantaged back grounds and with lower entry requirements, in other words take away some of the advantages of your middle class background and pass it on to someone who dose not have those advantages.

I was watching my big fat gypsey fortunes last night, one guy went from Tarmacing the drives of people to being worth well over 100 million pounds.

If he can do it I am sure many others can.

The Backwards Man

Jackson Jolly Gorilla wrote: »

They have. Being born into a privileged family with parents who have the means to help you do whatever you want in life is lucky. I know it's not that simple, but I'm struggling to think of how having wealthy parents and unlimited resources would make your life harder than it would be if you were poor.

How do you define privileged? How do you define wealth?. I've wasted more oppurtunities in my life that someone significantly wealthier than me will probably never have. Which one of us is more privileged?

I'm not a very smart man, but I'm fairly confident in saying that wealth and life quality are two very different things.

Sergeant

Social Justice is such a wishy-washy and catch-all phrase. I understand its meaning from a Christian theological viewpoint, but today it seems to be bandied about by various vested interest groups and 'communatee wurkers' with little or no definition of what it is, and what it represents.

The Backwards Man

The Backwards Man wrote: »

How do you define privileged? How do you define wealth?. I've wasted more oppurtunities in my life that someone significantly wealthier than me will probably never have. Which one of us is more privileged?

I'm not a very smart man, but I'm fairly confident in saying that wealth and life quality are two very different things.

I'm defining it as having both loving parents and material comforts, not solely wealth, but I'd still argue that being financially comfortable makes your life easier in many, many ways.

SEPT 23 1989

oldyouth wrote: »

Every generation of parents should seek to improve the lot of their children. It doesn't matter how low a base you start from, once you look to better your circumstances.

I agree and this should be the case but this is the first generation where they will be worse off than their parents due to the recession

Crushed Dry Ice

Being born with a silver spoon in your mouth can be highly detrimental. When you don't have much in life you are more likely to have the motivation to develop the work ethic to master your craft or to gain valuable skills. You can't gain valuable skills with money alone and mastering a craft or skill is one of the most satisfying experiences in life. Take advantage of the cards you are dealt.

St.Spodo

I've always thought that the private school system has acted as a tool to perpetuate inequality. It's no coincidence that most private school graduates go on to the main universities, while most in working class areas with no great tradition of sending people to university don't. I think it's important that that is rectified in some way, as I've always instinctively felt that everyone should be given the same chance in education. One way we could improve this is quotas; when you think about it a student achieving the highest Leaving Cert points in his/her year in a working class area with little expectation of going to university is more of an achievement than an upper-middle class kid churning out 500-odd points in a fee-paying school.

Cody Pomeray

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Birth lottery? You make it seem like people have won something by being born into a privileged background. None of us had a say where we were born.

That's why it's a lottery. Take two newborn babies being driven home by their parents, pulling out the gates of St Vincent's Hospital.

One car contains a family of multi-millionaires living off inherited wealth, the other car contains a family from a very poor family, with no assets, living on welfare. The two cars collide, and, tragically, all of the parents die. Our story is left with two orphans.

Although these babies both find themselves orphaned, legally, their fortunes have become radically different. The baby from the wealthy family will be legally entitled to a substantial share of his dead parents' wealth to raise and educate him in privilege. The baby of the poor family is entitled to nothing of the sort.

What I am trying to illustrate is that this State establishes privilege as a birthright.

Birth is a lottery. The benefits can be overwhelming, but the misfortunes can be devastating.

St.Spodo

St.Spodo wrote: »

I've always thought that the private school system has acted as a tool to perpetuate inequality. It's no coincidence that most private school graduates go on to the main universities, while most in working class areas with no great tradition of sending people to university don't. I think it's important that that is rectified in some way, as I've always instinctively felt that everyone should be given the same chance in education. One way we could improve this is quotas; when you think about it a student achieving the highest Leaving Cert points in his/her year in a working class area with little expectation of going to university is more of an achievement than an upper-middle class kid churning out 500-odd points in a fee-paying school.

You are mistaken money with privilege.

While that sounds good there are too many problems with it, in fact any interference with the system has faults, not least that people always find ways around any system.

humbert

It's a bit less relevant but I don't agree with the view that you could have been born into any family. You are the product of your parents and their parents, you are continuing their genetic line and starting where their fortune lies at the point of your birth. It's not a lottery, if you were born into a different family you would be a product of their family line, you would share their characteristics and their fortune.

humbert

humbert wrote: »

It's a bit less relevant but I don't agree with the view that you could have been born into any family. You are the product of your parents and their parents, you are continuing their genetic line and starting where their fortune lies at the point of your birth. It's not a lottery, if you were born into a different family you would be a product of their family line, you would share their characteristics and their fortune.

You're being pedantic and have missed the point. It's a lottery in that nobody chooses the circumstances they're born into.

Crushed Dry Ice

St.Spodo wrote: »

I've always thought that the private school system has acted as a tool to perpetuate inequality. It's no coincidence that most private school graduates go on to the main universities, while most in working class areas with no great tradition of sending people to university don't. I think it's important that that is rectified in some way, as I've always instinctively felt that everyone should be given the same chance in education. One way we could improve this is quotas; when you think about it a student achieving the highest Leaving Cert points in his/her year in a working class area with little expectation of going to university is more of an achievement than an upper-middle class kid churning out 500-odd points in a fee-paying school.

I disagree, I feel the government should provide an adequate level of education which gives students the opportunity to succeed in their chosen career.

If parents want to pay for additional educational support that's their own business. They can spend their own hard earned money how they wish.

Gott

Shenshen wrote: »

I do think that people born into a privileged background have in fact won a lottery of sorts.

Some people work hard every day of their lives to get rich, others win the lottery.
And by the same token, some people need to work harder than others to achieve the same in terms of education and job prospects.

That is true, certainly looking at underprivileged African Americans in cities like Detroit or wherver, they have almost no choices at all with what they do with their lives.

But positive discrimination wouldn't change anything. There should be more opportunities made available and perhaps some kind of programme for identifying bright students in bad areas, but doing so at the expense of middle class students who are equally talented is unfair to them.

Same with the whole put more women in the Dáil quota.
How's that going to help the country? Should be people with the best ideas who get in. If anything, a quota would make me vote solely for the male candidtaes, just to protest it.

humbert

Jackson Jolly Gorilla wrote: »

You're being pedantic and have missed the point. It's a lottery in that nobody chooses the circumstances they're born into.

I have replied to the original point (which I understand just fine) and wished to make an additional point which seems to have been lost on you.

St.Spodo

Crushed Dry Ice wrote: »

I disagree, I feel the government should provide an adequate level of education which gives students the opportunity to succeed in their chosen career.

If parents want to pay for additional educational support that's their own business. They can spend their own hard earned money how they wish.

My problem with that is that additional education support translates as a means of giving children lucky enough to be born into wealthy homes a better chance of achieving academic and later career success. For me, the essence of the private school system is so that rich people will remain rich. Education should be equally strong across the board.

The Backwards Man

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's why it's a lottery. Take two newborn babies being driven home by their parents, pulling out the gates of St Vincent's Hospital.

One car contains a family of multi-millionaires living off inherited wealth, the other car contains a family from a very poor family, with no assets, living on welfare. The two cars collide, and, tragically, all of the parents die. Our story is left with two orphans.

Although these babies both find themselves orphaned, legally, their fortunes have become radically different. The baby from the wealthy family will be legally entitled to a substantial share of his dead parents' wealth to raise and educate him in privilege. The baby of the poor family is entitled to nothing of the sort.

What I am trying to illustrate is that this State establishes privilege as a birthright.

Birth is a lottery. The benefits can be overwhelming, but the misfortunes can be devastating.

And which one of this kids becomes a greater contributor to society when they grow up? You don't know. I don't know. No one knows.

What do you suggest we do? Deny one child their oppurtunities because you perceive they don't deserve them, or euthanise one because they are doomed from the start anyway?

MadYaker

No way, the less people I have to climb over to get to the top the better!

St.Spodo

mariaalice wrote: »

You are mistaken money with privilege.

While that sounds good there are too many problems with it, in fact any interference with the system has faults, not least that people always find ways around any system.

The system of middle-class people dominating universities such as TCD and UCD has its flaws.

Cody Pomeray

The Backwards Man wrote: »

And which one of this kids becomes a greater contributor to society when they grow up? You don't know. I don't know. No one knows.

There was no consequentialist end to my post, although I don't believe the benefits of privileged education and a similarly enriched environment need much elaboration.

I am merely observing that material privilege is a legally enshrined birthright in this... Republic.

What do you suggest we do? Deny one child their oppurtunities because you perceive they don't deserve them, or euthanise one because they are doomed from the start anyway?

I believe in a greater level of wealth redistribution, yes.

Nemeses

Question please, Where did the term "Birth Lottery" comes from? It sounds very misleading..

IM0

gramar wrote: »

Not so! It's all about how you lived in a previous life. Do good deeds and and you'll get a better start in the next one. If you're born into destitution or handicapped you're paying for your sins in a previous life.

glen? that you?

Gott

Nemeses wrote: »

Question please, Where did the term "Birth Lottery" comes from? It sounds very misleading..

I'm guessing Tumblr, the wellspring for social justice movements on the internet.

Nemeses

Nemeses wrote: »

Question please, Where did the term "Birth Lottery" comes from? It sounds very misleading..

Look up John Rawls A theory of justice.. wiki has a good over view of the topic.

Shenshen

The Backwards Man wrote: »

And which one of this kids becomes a greater contributor to society when they grow up? You don't know. I don't know. No one knows.

What do you suggest we do? Deny one child their oppurtunities because you perceive they don't deserve them, or euthanise one because they are doomed from the start anyway?

How about just try and give both of them every chance and option we can, regardless of how much money they have at their disposition?

Or is that notion too outlandish?

laoch na mona

no society should be equal birth should not be a source of privilege there should be true equality of opportunity we could start by ensuring everyone gets the same educational chances not just simply putting a quota on things