There's no academic difference between working class and middle class children

Annasopra

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree with all of what you said but you would be surprised to hear some people will say "working class children don't want to go to third level education". That to them explains the imbalance completely.

In some cases that is true because the University can be a very monocultural place and deeply exclusionary for working class people.

I mean even the issue of accents is fascinating. Walk around UCD and TCD during term and you will hear almost no working class accents.

Annasopra

anncoates wrote: »

Think the point is that a lot of working class children are born into an environment where parents - not through any fault of their own - simply do not have the educational "capital" to overcome the disambiguates posed ny crap schools and a hostile external environment to education so despite the fact that inherent academic ability is probably equal. some kids need something special to pull off a university education: expectational ability; inner strength and drive; very encouraging parents and so on.

Its not just educational "capital" - Its social capital as well.

Get Real

steddyeddy wrote: »

The simple fact is many working class students should be there and there are many middle class students who shouldn't be there.

I couldn't agree more. There are many "working class" students who are intelligent and academic enough to go on to third level education. There are just as many "middle class" children who are less intelligent/ have a bad attitude/behavior who are afforded the privilege of attending university.

There is a very thin line between extra lessons, grinds and encouragement from teachers and not attending third level. There seems to be a perception that those who enter third level education are more intelligent. However, this is not the case.

If we were to put "working class" children through the exact same educational upbringing as "middle class" children, I believe roughly the same results would be achieved. Everything else is an external factor- lack of opportunities, lack of encouragement from teachers etc.

Then of course there are those middle class children who attend college and later drop out, only to be "saved" by private college/ re-applying and payment of fees by parents.

I know of a girl in my college who dropped out, only for her parents to fork out $$$$ for flight school (:rolleyes:) for her. She now has a well paying job. This does not mean shes intelligent, it just means that if a working class student dropped out due to personal circumstances, they'd be seen as not good enough/ unsuitable whereas the girl seems like she "achieved" her goal.

This hides the fact that there really is no academic difference in my opinion, just a difference in financial background/ attitudes and status (people who surprisingly will go to college/ pay for private tuition to be "seen" to be academic)

people may disagree, just my tuppence

steddyeddy

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

In some cases that is true because the University can be a very monocultural place and deeply exclusionary for working class people.

Well speaking as an academic the people I want in third level are people who have the intelligence to be there. Currently we have some children who think that their class entitles them to college. We need exclude those who shouldn't be there and try to encourage those who should. As regard the mono culture I think Trinity and UCD don't deserve the stick they get sometimes.

_Whimsical_

steddyeddy wrote: »

We're approaching 2015 we have to stop defining the academic ability of children by the social class they were born into. This thread isn't my way of saying that middle class parents should stop giving their kids the best start in life I'm simply saying that academic ability is down unrelated to the class you are born into . We also need to bring up the standards of all schools to match the standards of the better schools in the country.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested than children from working class backgrounds are less academically capable or intelligent than children from other classes. However a lot of factors outside of innate ability determine academic success. Sadly some of those factors are associated with class, it's not a question of opinion ,it's demonstrable,well researched fact. Poverty would be one of those factors. Not having parents who can pay for grinds or support you through college makes it much harder to go to college and stay there.

anncoates

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its not just educational "capital" - Its social capital as well.

Let's not split hairs. You know what I mean.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well done Pablo and best of luck with your daughter. That's exactly why I point out that ability to pay is more accurate than willingness. Many excellent parents simply haven't the money to send their kids to summer schools.

My dad wasn't around much but I was luckily very clever and always asked questions. My uncle was an electrical engineer and always encouraged me to think.

I sound like a tosser here. I meant I was very curious. I don't believe there is a huge disparity of intelligence between children.

Annasopra

anncoates wrote: »

Let's not split hairs. You know what I mean.

Yes I do. I think it needs broadening though. Educational disadvantage needs to be looked at on a broad level.

anncoates

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes I do. I think it needs broadening though. Educational disadvantage needs to be looked at on a broad level.

I intimated that educational disadvantage was also social: hostile local environment, violent schools etc.

Annasopra

steddyeddy wrote: »

I sound like a tosser here. I meant I was very curious. I don't believe there is a huge disparity of intelligence between children.

Have you ever read any work in this area by Professor Kathleen Lynch? It would probably interest you a lot

Annasopra

anncoates wrote: »

I intimated that educational disadvantage was also social: hostile local environment, violent schools etc.

Of course - Im not disagreeing with you at all.

steddyeddy

Get Real wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. There are many "working class" students who are intelligent and academic enough to go on to third level education. There are just as many "middle class" children who are less intelligent/ have a bad attitude/behavior who are afforded the privilege of attending university.

There is a very thin line between extra lessons, grinds and encouragement from teachers and not attending third level. There seems to be a perception that those who enter third level education are more intelligent. However, this is not the case.

If we were to put "working class" children through the exact same educational upbringing as "middle class" children, I believe roughly the same results would be achieved. Everything else is an external factor- lack of opportunities, lack of encouragement from teachers etc.

Then of course there are those middle class children who attend college and later drop out, only to be "saved" by private college/ re-applying and payment of fees by parents.

I know of a girl in my college who dropped out, only for her parents to fork out $$$$ for flight school (:rolleyes:) for her. She now has a well paying job. This does not mean shes intelligent, it just means that if a working class student dropped out due to personal circumstances, they'd be seen as not good enough/ unsuitable whereas the girl seems like she "achieved" her goal.

This hides the fact that there really is no academic difference in my opinion, just a difference in financial background/ attitudes and status (people who surprisingly will go to college/ pay for private tuition to be "seen" to be academic)

people may disagree, just my tuppence

I'll enlarge on this post later but you are 100% on the money in my experience. I would be in the school of science. The drop out rate is amongst the highest of any course. There are far too many students who simply shouldn't be there and are only there because they feel entitled to be there or their parents pushed them in (the latter is quite cruel on kids imo).

There are many working class mature students who return to college and get firsts. In fact these students are over represented in students who get firsts.

Uni should be about one thing, your interest in your chosen subject. Unfortunately it's currently about what social group you belong to followed closely by your interest in your chosen subject.

steddyeddy

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Have you ever read any work in this area by Professor Kathleen Lynch? It would probably interest you a lot

Yes I have it's excellent. I also read "The Brain That Changes Itself". It deals with recent evidence that our brain can adapt and increase generate an increase in intelligence.

anncoates

steddyeddy wrote: »

As regard the mono culture I think Trinity and UCD don't deserve the stick they get sometimes.

As far as I could ascertain (personally/anecdotally) working class students were a rarity in my time in trinity but I very rarely encountered snobbery or discouragement it must be said.

steddyeddy

anncoates wrote: »

As far as I could ascertain (personally/anecdotally) working class students were a rarity in my time in trinity but I very rarely encountered snobbery or discouragement it must be said.

Trinity does far more for working class students than UCD yet Trinity seems to get more stick.

pablo128

steddyeddy wrote: »

I sound like a tosser here. I meant I was very curious. I don't believe there is a huge disparity of intelligence between children.

No, neither do I. The point I was trying to make is that the parents have a sizeable input into the childs educational development. I'll admit I was decent enough in school, and me and the missus both completed the leaving cert. No chance of going third level, as both of us are from large families where financially it wouldn't have been possible.(Truth be told I wanted to be a mechanic anyway).
A family friend has a daughter the same age as my daughter, and in fact is in the same school as her. Without trying to sound condescending, she wouldn't have put in as much effort with reading, etc as we did, and it showed in the end of term reports. That doesn't mean one child is more intelligent than the other though.

Annasopra

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes I have it's excellent. I also read "The Brain That Changes Itself". It deals with recent evidence that our brain can adapt and increase generate an increase in intelligence.

I took some classes on education and equality under her. Shes fascinating.

steddyeddy

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I took some classes on education and equality under her. Shes fascinating.

I never took her classes but she is a lovely woman.

Annasopra

steddyeddy wrote: »

I never took her classes but she is a lovely woman.

She is. But fierce too. I did 3 modules under her which was amazing.

Cookie_Monster

What about the Welfare class?

K-9

steddyeddy wrote: »

You can't describe a child's academic ability accurately by a socio economic class IMHO. You also can't judge a child by his/her parents attendance or non attendance at college. Yet this is something I see on Boards again and again.

Attitude of parents plays a big parts from the bit I've read on the issue. Parents having a third level background or a willingness for children to go onto it, is a big helping factor. Totally agree this has no correlation on the academic ability or intelligence of the actual children, and it's a stupid thing to judge children on, reflects more on the eye of the beholders intelligence than anything else! Having a third level qualification isn't the end all and be all.

Some threads focusing on education display the mantra "working class children do not want to go onto further education". I sometimes have to demonstrate to students and have some teaching responsibility at third level. Many of these students include working class mature students and as you will be aware many sub mature students come from middle class families. The mature students went to crap schools and were told that they shouldn't aspire to college (code for the teachers didn't want to teach them) and some of the less bright middle class students encountered the opposite upbringing and got to college (and later dropped out/failed).

The simple fact is many working class students should be there and there are many middle class students who shouldn't be there. If working class students aren't getting to college it's because of environment and not academic ability and because they hear some idiots (including their teachers sometimes) "working class students don't want to go to college.

Free Third level education has mostly failed the social objective it was supposed to achieve, it worked for politicians as a boon to middle classes struggling with the cost, but that's about it.

Numbers from lower classes are up but then so are all classes. The actual proportion and percentage of people from more disadvantaged groups/areas hasn't improved at all.

For me the anecdotal but widely seen proof of this is the amount of students who own cars, 20 years ago the exception to the rule if you had one, now it seems pretty common. For me the money saved by middle and upper classes with free fees ended up in students pockets. Nothing particularly bad in that, but that isn't what the bloody free fee thing was supposed to do!

We're approaching 2015 we have to stop defining the academic ability of children by the social class they were born into. This thread isn't my way of saying that middle class parents should stop giving their kids the best start in life I'm simply saying that academic ability is down unrelated to the class you are born into . We also need to bring up the standards of all schools to match the standards of the better schools in the country.

I'd go further, people tend to read far too much into academic ability, it's only part of what makes up intelligence, but that's a whole other topic!

I have never come across anyone who was told by a teacher not to go to third level because they were working class, I have come across the oposit in fact, however some people perceive themselves to have taken up that message, that's not the same as teachers telling a student that third level is not for them, I also doubt if teachers teach different in working class schools. I would say they teach to the ability of the class. If a teacher is teaching in a school where the norm is low level disruption, inconsistent homework etc, then the teacher is going to perceive a lack of interest from the students in academic work.

Why do some people want only to look only the school environment and refuse to look at culture and parenting?

Soft Falling Rain

steddyeddy wrote: »

Y

The simple fact is many working class students should be there and there are many middle class students who shouldn't be there. If working class students aren't getting to college it's because of environment and not academic ability and because they hear some idiots (including their teachers sometimes) "working class students don't want to go to college.

That gap is only going to widen unfortunately the more fees are increased. The middle class will still be able to send their kids to Uni regardless of fees, and there will still be students dropping out due to a lack of research into courses/finding a course not for them/too difficult.

The only difference is that they'll be dropping out on the dime of their parents, but sure that's all that matters to your average tax paying joe, doesn't matter that countless kids will not even get the opportunity in the first place.

And before one says "graduate tax!1!", there's absolutely no indication that this will be introduced as it'd be too much effort for government, they'd rather keep it simple and stiff you now in the present than wait for your money.

K-9

mariaalice wrote: »

Why do some people want only to look only the school environment and refuse to look at culture and parenting?

Tbh I think everybody has, on this thread anyway.

steddyeddy

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What about the Welfare class?

Well I don't think you can define a child by the class of their parents. I don't think many people aspire to be on welfare their whole lives.

Annasopra

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh I think everybody has, on this thread anyway.

I dont think thats true at all.

steddyeddy

mariaalice wrote: »

I have never come across anyone who was told by a teacher not to go to third level because they were working class, I have come across the oposit in fact, however some people perceive themselves to have taken up that message, that's not the same as teachers telling a student that third level is not for them, I also doubt if teachers teach different in working class schools.

You use the word doubt a lot so I take it you didn't come from a school in a working class area. I did and no teacher told us directly "you're working class you cant go to college". The problem is that they believed that the reason we didn't go to college is because of a lack of desire. Many people on Boards spouted this about people from working class backgrounds. I.E many blame a lack of desire on behalf of the child to go to university on the lack of working class people in university. This negates factors like school and environment.

You say some people perceive this message rather than experience it? My class didn't offer higher level in some subjects, the pupil teacher ratio was appalling, we had a teacher absent for half a year (substitute teacher stepped in every now and then) and our school didn't offer some classes at all. Contrast that with schools in middle class areas.

I would say they teach to the ability of the class. If a teacher is teaching in a school where the norm is low level disruption, inconsistent homework etc, then the teacher is going to perceive a lack of interest from the students in academic work.

I hope you don't mind if I look at this logically. You say they (teachers) teach to the ability of the class. Working class students are under-represent in third level so the implications of your hypothesis (whether you realise it or not) is that teachers in working class schools teach to the ability of the students which must be low because they are under-represented in third level.


You talk about low level disruption. How about bringing the teacher-pupil ratio up to the level of middle class schools. I'm actually going to ignore the fact you characterise children from working class families as low level disruptive. It's idiotic.

On your last point. Many of these kids come from families who frankly don't give a toss. I came from a family where parental absence was an issue. I went to school and worked my best. Because I had no parent to help with homework I was often labelled uninterested. When I left the working class school (by fecking luck) and entered a university my interest was immediately recognised and I excelled. The only variable there was the school.

I went to college with (and now demonstrate labs to) pupils who had zero interest in science with parents and schools that pushed them into science at uni. Thankfully these drop out but the fact remains myself and many other students from working class backgrounds had a very strong interest in science (law, medicine or engineering) and were not encouraged. Contrast that with students who were middle class who had no interest and were taught how to pass a level cert.

Why do some people want only to look only the school environment and refuse to look at culture and parenting?

We didn't but I think you are severely underestimating the effect school has on pupils. In Finland they standardised the schools. I.e the pupil teacher ratios across the board were the same. The result was a massive reduction in the gap in science and literacy rates between children from middle and lower income families. That fact alone demonstrates that school is one of the most important factors.

steddyeddy

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

That gap is only going to widen unfortunately the more fees are increased. The middle class will still be able to send their kids to Uni regardless of fees, and there will still be students dropping out due to a lack of research into courses/finding a course not for them/too difficult.

The only difference is that they'll be dropping out on the dime of their parents, but sure that's all that matters to your average tax paying joe, doesn't matter that countless kids will not even get the opportunity in the first place.

And before one says "graduate tax!1!", there's absolutely no indication that this will be introduced as it'd be too much effort for government, they'd rather keep it simple and stiff you now in the present than wait for your money.

It's already happening. Two people in physics last year and one in biochemistry dropped out because they were unable to sustain themselves in college. Two of those three were among the best in the class.

steddyeddy

I think the take home point for me is that environment and school are the major factors in college entry and not intelligence and academic ability.

Czarcasm

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think the take home point for me is that environment and school are the major factors in college entry and not intelligence and academic ability.

Eddie you're proof against your own theory. If someone wants to get into third level education badly enough, they'll find a way, and if they're equally determined to stay there, they'll find a way to do that too.

Personally, I think you're far too concerned with people that YOU think shouldn't be in third level education, but without them paying their fees, where does the money come from to support the people who can't?

Life isn't always fair, and the quicker children are taught that most basic lesson, the better for them, because that's when you'll see the intelligent children prepare for their future and not be dependent on other people to carry them.

I don't think your idea is going to become a reality any time soon. I'm already prepared if my child chooses to enter third level education, he's talking about scholarships already. He's 9.