Birth Lottery and social justice

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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