Is the establishment failing its people or are the people failing to be successful in

experiMental

On one hand, the state secondary school education is not good enough to make some students who attend it employable. So that means they have to go to college to make up for what they have failed to learn. College grants have been cut, so it is difficult for disadvantaged people to complete third level education.

However, there is a world of free wifi hotspots and internet where it is possible to find out an increasing amount of things. Even those that are impossible to learn at school. So in theory, it's possible to get on a path to success with this method. Of course, there are other ways apart from this one. To make a long story short: it's all about accepting the fact that nothing may be handed to you on a plate.

I wonder if the government has created a "survival of the fittest" situation in this country.

So is the establishment failing some of its citizens or does it want the people to invest in some extra work in order to be successful?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

Unless these elite academies you're talking about are free you're never going to maximize academic excellence because a potentially gifted student who comes from a working class background won't have access to them.

For Reals

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Thankfully.

It's about resources and breaks. It's about opportunities.
So if the majority are let down, failed by the system, its best to let this continue and concentrate on the fortunate few?
Or are we to believe working class people are just not as bright as those who can afford private schools?
The governments job is to support its people, all its people. We should we all pay tax to ensure the careers of a handful? Right wing people tend to side-step the fact that its everybody's tax which pays the governmental bills. Why should the majority fund a system geared to a handful?
If everybody began with an equal footing we would possibly have a stronger generation of 'better students'.
It's quite simple; If there are better students due to resources available to them does it not stand to reason it would be better for our economy to have a broader base at a higher level?
If the current batches of brighter students are only due to the resources available, so they should receive more to ensure their academic prowess..then this could be true of any student from any walk of life...so then we should actively penalise one section of society over another for the short sighted gains of a minority?
Its sad that few have the advantage of private tuition or paying into private colleges because they lack the smarts while others more academically deserving never get the chance, but thankfully however flawed, the system attempts to level the field.
If anything we should support the disadvantaged kid who didn't have a private tutor or the breaks but made his or her way to third level regardless.

ressem

The establishment fails a lot of people when it makes it more difficult than it could be to progress and transfer skills and education.

IBEC released a press release today and there was a lot of focus on their optimistic aims for job growth.
One of the aims was an industry lead apprenticeship model for a much wider set of trades than Ireland currently allows.

A system that can take a new entrant to an industry (young or old) and over 10 years build their skills and experience within / without the workplace into most valued members of the workplace would be the most valuable change that a government could leave us with.

A high number of the desired IT skills would be more appropriately developed through apprenticeships than the hodgepodge of ITs, University and FAS.

Business Europe has also concluded a ‘Framework of Actions on Youth Unemployment’ agreement with European trade unions. The agreement concludes that work-based learning, including apprenticeships and traineeships, can contribute to smoother transition into the labour market for young people. It highlights the fact that countries with highly developed dual systems, such as Germany and Austria, have significantly lower levels of youth employment. However it also acknowledges that it is difficult to transfer such systems from one country to another . The concept of work -based learning needs to be tailored to the context of each individual country.

For example, the Irish apprenticeship system only covers 27 trades while the German or Austrian systems extend to over 300 trades and professions at a variety of skill levels.
However there are a number of other work-based training models in Ireland including FAS traineeship programmes, Skillnets, the Post-Leaving Certificate and placements associated with institute of technology courses

For Reals

How short sighted is it to tighten third level costs and curtail post secondary courses, which are essential stepping stones to higher education for the financially disadvantaged?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kerry4sam

experiMental wrote: »

On one hand, the state secondary school education is not good enough to make some students who attend it employable. So that means they have to go to college to make up for what they have failed to learn. College grants have been cut, so it is difficult for disadvantaged people to complete third level education.

However, there is a world of free wifi hotspots and internet where it is possible to find out an increasing amount of things. Even those that are impossible to learn at school. So in theory, it's possible to get on a path to success with this method. Of course, there are other ways apart from this one. To make a long story short: it's all about accepting the fact that nothing may be handed to you on a plate.

I wonder if the government has created a "survival of the fittest" situation in this country.

So is the establishment failing some of its citizens or does it want the people to invest in some extra work in order to be successful?

In answer to your question "Is the establishment failing its people or are the people failing to be successful in" - my answer is YES, the establishment is failing!

Having free wi-fi and hotspots are a great resource for people, but you also need qualifications. In order to reach interview stage you have a pass the CV test & listing your capabilities to research online etc etc with little no certifications to co-incide won't get you in many doors for interview to compete at that level.

I want to attend a course next year, but not sure how as I've medical bills and I am severly restricted right now with movement due to being thrown off my bicycle by a non-observant driver.
Survival of the Fittest - well I am out if that's the criteria! My work will be seriously quiet for next few months so less of an income so savings for said course are again restricted.

Hoops to jump through for a possible grant if I step up in my education, but I'll need over 10,000euros of my own savings also just to get started.

Nothing is being handed to me on any plate I can assure you! The establishment is certainly failing if they want people to progress and expand the minds to assist with research in important areas.

Contacts are everything in most aspects of life. Even if someone didn't have the monies to attend courses, once they have contacts they have a head-start.

Their is NO even-footing for people in this country from what I know. Some people have to work harder than others; have to invest more monies into their areas than others; and even then, their is no guarantee of any positive outcome.

Such is Life I suppose. What are people willing to do, and to/for whom to gain every possible advantage over another. Some people are willing to sell their souls to succeed, but more of us have a better/stronger conscience and morals.

That answers your question, I believe,
kerry4sam

johnnyskeleton

For Reals wrote: »

How short sighted is it to tighten third level costs and curtail post secondary courses, which are essential stepping stones to higher education for the financially disadvantaged?

Arguably it's good for the economy. If science and engineering were free and well funded while business and arts had to be paid for privately, we would have a lot more science/engineering grads (which the government says we need) and less business/arts grads (which are of lesser importance economically).

A more controversial argument is whether we should be paying for all these regional technical colleges to give virtually everyone a 3rd level qualification so we can call ourselves a highly educated workforce, while a lot of those courses aren't great.

Annasopra

experiMental wrote: »

However, there is a world of free wifi hotspots and internet where it is possible to find out an increasing amount of things. Even those that are impossible to learn at school. So in theory, it's possible to get on a path to success with this method.

Is it? Are you seriously suggesting that internet searching for things is an alternative to formal education?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

mango salsa wrote: »

Is it? Are you seriously suggesting that internet searching for things is an alternative to formal education?

How is your fourteen years of Gaeilge, nationalism, and religion helping you out in life? There are fantastic (and free!) web-based alternatives to formal education.

20Cent

Like a little kid is going to go educate themselves with Khan academy or the like.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Your video convinced me close all schools now.

For Reals

c

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It can only be class based. Maybe not your point but the ultimate outcome.
You've a bunch of kids herded into a classroom. How many bright sparks will be given enough attention so any academic potential can shine through?
You've an after school program, a private tutor, smaller classes....might be easier.
You've a school were maybe 1 or 2 percent ever go on to third level. It's not common place and not something they are geared to aspiring to.
You've another where 80% at least attempt to attend third level.
So do we concentrate on those who get the financial academic breaks due to some form of birthright? Or do we try level the field?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Arguably it's good for the economy. If science and engineering were free and well funded while business and arts had to be paid for privately, we would have a lot more science/engineering grads (which the government says we need) and less business/arts grads (which are of lesser importance economically).

A more controversial argument is whether we should be paying for all these regional technical colleges to give virtually everyone a 3rd level qualification so we can call ourselves a highly educated workforce, while a lot of those courses aren't great.

We must balance the economy against the social good. Why should the majority of families remain blue collar generation after generation to bolster the few families who got their feet under the table many moons ago?

A good economy does not mean a good society. It never has. They are separate entities.
When putting the economy over the welfare of society, it just means more of the same. More money for the money makers, more options as regards factory jobs. That's pretty much it.
Even during the boom, ('we can't go mad again' go **** yourself Noonan) most either noticed no change to daily life other than maybe more minimum wage job options or easier access to loans.
So what is in it for people to sacrifice any chance of leaving the mundane blue collar world behind for the chance of something better? To fund the next wave of self centered industrialists? Some of which will bring their factories abroad or take a **** on the taxpayer should they enter the world of finance?
One such avenue is the post leaving cert course. You can't tar everyone with the same brush. What if through these schemes somebody makes it to third level and improves their lot and the lot of those around them? Why slate that to ensure Ronan O'Ronan gets the same degree his father has? Isn't giving everyone the same starting block a real survival of the deserving?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

For Reals

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Agreed.

You grab a percentage of kids from the more well to do districts and stick them in over crowded classes, take away private tuition and grinds and give them a faculty who would laugh at them if they mentioned they'd be interested in studying Law and I'm quite sure aside from the odd exception, after a year or two they'd not stand out academically.
I don't believe any kid is automatically more inclined to excel than another purely based on class. I know that's not your point, but it goes a ways to explaining why we have generation after generation of blue collar from the same families and same neighbourhoods.

The only logical thing to do is try raise the bar. Those more well off will always have an advantage but its the governments job, (although you'd wonder) to improve our lot. Not concentrate on a few so a few can make money so a few can do better and the vast majority remain the same.
Although I would love to see them begin to make bare faced distinctions as it just might finally begin to stir folk.

Valmont

For Reals wrote: »

but its the governments job, (although you'd wonder) to improve our lot

For an institution incapable of even balancing the books or preventing recurrent economic disasters you might want to look elsewhere for reliable lot improvement!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

For Reals

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I was staying on topic as regards the establishment, which would not be immediate family. I don't disagree with many of your points, but I completely disagree that the powers that be should cherry pick those most likely to succeed and look after them over others. For what shell of an excuse we have for a democratic system, it should not be playing favourites. Everybody should be given a fair chance, at least to the point where its naturally apparent what they are capable of. Who would decide and what of late bloomers or those undecided?

Bluntly, if working-class people remain working class generation after generation, they have to take some responsibility for perpetuating that lifestyle. Blaming the government and blaming the middle class is too simplistic.

I would argue if given a choice, yes, but what about those who need leave school at the first opportunity to get the first job they can to support their family? What blame for 'choosing' not to attend third level? I know people with keen minds who wait tables and drive delivery vans because they had to leave school at sixteen and bring in a wage.
'The River' is a lament about being trapped in blue collar, not a celebration by the way.

What you say about following in the footsteps is true in all walks; Politicians, Doctors etc.. I know people love working with their hands and we can get into choice, but the establishment should do everything in its power to ensure there is a choice as based on ability and preference over pot luck from birth. It's not a case of blaming the middle class or government solely, but rather criticising the system, (establishment if you will) and my posts were kicked off by your view on not wasting money on those not deemed as bright as others. The thread is about the establishment, the system in place, which is why I've tried to focus on that rather than a kid who wants to work on a factory conveyor belt because his father did(?).

clairefontaine

Why would Ireland invest in its best and brightest when they are going to emigrate anyway?

Honestly, Ireland is so class riddled, I'd even say feudal, I can't blame the blue collars for this dynamic, or even the brightest from its upper classes for it when they dropout of school.

Being gifted and being successful economically are two different arguments. The gifted have long fallen through the cracks and for complex reasons, one being things come too easy too fast and they never learn to struggle through a challenge young.

clairefontaine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think sometimes it has to do with the individual feeling like an imposter in a new social corridor they are not familiar with.

And sometimes those already present in it do their best to make them feel unwelcome.

It takes courage to break free, and no one tells them that or teaches them how to be brave. In Ireland where so much depends on social inclusion, the cost of exclusion or being ostracised is high, the demands for courage are higher.

And I agree much will have to do with ethics at home, but if you look at the education ethics of blue collar and poor immigrant Jews and Irish, it has more to do with culture IMO, than money.

Saying that, girls and women then thought the best way to climb out of income impoverishment was through education. Well, they are doing better in school than the boys, and getting more degrees, but the men and the boys are still making the money (they are also dying the deaths too) Why is that? I suspect again, it has to do with risk, courage, and feelings of belonging.

My poetry teacher in college said art was predatory. It's a case of "I can do that!" We'll.... Isn't everything?

AlekSmart

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

I agree with Permabears general thrust here,however I feel the focus on "Blue Collar-Working Class" as a target group is just plain wrong.

The great unstated and largely ignored grouping in all of this rarely get their collars involved in any activity which could be deemed as work,yet can avail of FULL State Assistance should their offspring be of a mind to remain engaged with the Educational process beyond the age of 16.

A Blue Collar family earning over €50 per anum can go whistle dixie if they expect any State Interest in facilitating their children who may well WANT to partake in further education....:rolleyes:

clairefontaine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why is there this pressure on the blue collar man to shift gears?

Why not on some of the spoiled brats I went to school with who got AT&T stock or Shearson Lehman shares for Christmas, or the 16 year old who got a Corvette for his birthday when the driving laws in NYC are 18 years and above, or how about the mafia princess who got dropped off ever day in a limo, to rise rise rise and become millionaires on their own steam.

Why is it always pressure on the blue collar kids who have to work to cover the costs of their books, and can't do extra college entrance preps on a Saturday, because they are working so they can cover their lunch money?

Totally different margins for errors there.

Saying that, I also went to school with a Jersey boy, speaking of Bruce Springsteen, who I always thought was as thick as two planks, but competitive and a hard worker, and boy who is laughing now, hugely wealthy investment banker, still can't speak a word of French to save his life. Now, I learned a lot from onowing him because I was better at everything than he was, English, math, French everything, did better on SATs too and didn't study half has hard. He buckled down. And you know what I think the difference was? He was a competitive swimmer, so he learned how to try harder, work harder, he didn't let failure get get to him. And he is in one of the top spots now in one of the countries largest banks making an absolute fortune. One day I emailed him because a family member had 100k they wanted to invest, lol, I hadn't mentioned the amount, and it turned out he only handles 300 million and over accounts. I had to email him back an "ok never mind but thanks."

So, I guess what I'm saying, is brightness and natural gifts are a small part of success, as is your class background. I'd say a huge source of success is how you respond to failure.