What's your Edu and it's implication to you?

[redkingjoe]

Hey Bubs:
1 Are you studying? What subjects? Major/minor?
2 If Graduated: what did U study?

Did you recognise whether the Education that you have had or are having have any implications/influences on your goodself?

Start with me:
1 Before I went to U, I studied in high school the Arts stream including History, Chinese History, Eco, Biology, Bible etc
2 Than I got a B. S. Sc in Sociology, minor in Psychology
3 Than I got an MBA
4 Than I studied for the Cerfied Public Accountant(CPA) exam
5 Next month(Feb 23, 2005) I'll start a part-time program in M Edu(counselling).

a)Somewhat, I felt that the Chinese Traditional culture has deep influence on me that keep on studying.
b)Studying in high school seems to influenced me more than those in U or Grad School. History and Eco shaped my thinking a lot.
c) Psychology and Sociology : predict and control and always challenge assumptions.
d)MBA and CPA helps to build up business senses.

How about yourself?

[Phil McBride]

From what I know Asian parents seem to push their children majorly educationally.

Why do you think that is red?

Why did you do Sociology and Psychology and then divert into accountancy?

[NotBornYesterday]

From what I know Asian parents seem to push their children majorly educationally.

Why do you think that is red?

Why did you do Sociology and Psychology and then divert into accountancy?from what I know, asians (esp. the chinese community) are fully aware of the importance of education, and so thoroughly encourage the kids to excel in their studies.

-- of course, i ain't saying non-asians are not aware of that fact, but just that generally due to background and way of bringin up, we, asians just tend to emphasise oin edu a bit more.

[redkingjoe]

From what I know Asian parents seem to push their children majorly educationally.

Why do you think that is red?

1 this question is related to Chinese History and modern society. China has more than 4000 years of culture and many Asians were somewhat affected by this culture.

2 A very famous traditional chinese saying "There's gold in books. There's beautiful girls in the books".
a) ppl from the old china can become a gov't official if they can excel in public examination.
b) sometimes kings or rulers would invite famous scholars to become high rank govt officiers
c) most govt officiers have special privileges that they normally can get a lot of money with their power(in ancient society: the more money, the more girls that one can get)

3 Thus studying to get power, money, girls and moving upward in the social-economical ladder has been a well-accepted "hope" which passes on to nowadays. no matter how poor one's family is, once he gets a Harvard MBA...

4 When I took class in Educational Sociology, the professors from famous Schools conducted detailed educational research.
a)They found out that "Good Education is the best way to pass the wealth to the next generation in the modern society". eg. Investment Banking is one of the highest earning sectors. eg Morgan Stanley will do their hiring from famous U like Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford.
b) if rich guys pass money to the second generation, those money would be spent and gone very quickly as the second generation does not need to sweat to earn those money. this is not as good as spending a fortune to raise the kids through edu

5 the only reason for my going after public accounting was: I went to a "career talk" from the Big 4 accounting firms and got "talked into" it....

6 I really wish that all the Junior/kids can read this thread and start thinking about their own education. What education brings to them?

[NotBornYesterday]

1 this question is related to Chinese History and modern society. China has more than 4000 years of culture and many Asians were somewhat affected by this culture.

2 A very famous traditional chinese saying "There's gold in books. There's beautiful girls in the books".
a) ppl from the old china can become a gov't official if they can excel in public examination arranged by the gov't.
b) sometimes kings or rulers would invite famous scholars to become high rank govt officiers
c) most govt officiers have special privileges that they normally can get a lot of money with their power(in ancient society: the more money, the more girls that one can get)

3 Thus studying to get power, money, girls and moving upward in the social-economical ladder has been a well-accepted "hope" which passes on to nowadays.

4 When I took class in Educational Sociology, the professors from famous Schools conducted detailed educational research. They found out that "Good Education is the best way to pass the wealth to the next generation in the modern society". eg. Investment Banking is one of the highest earning sectors(eg Morgan Stanley, Solomon Brothers) they will only hire from famous U like Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford.

5 the only reason for going for public accounting was: I went to a "career talk" from the Big 4 accounting firms and got "talked into" it....i'm not sure i agree with your point no. 2. no, definitely not. as far as i know, the chinese (as with any other race or community) who has undergone extreme poverty and difficulty in life would naturally not want the same for their own kids. they understand how much education can help one's standing in society, and strife to get a proper education for their children.

i don't know how this can be any different anywhere else in the world, but maybe those who have experienced many hardships will feel much more about it. and it so happens asians (as phol mcbird says) are keeping it like some kinda tradition.

[redkingjoe]

i'm not sure i agree with your point no. 2. no, definitely not. as far as i know, the chinese (as with any other race or community) who has undergone extreme poverty and difficulty in life would naturally not want the same for their own kids. they understand how much education can help one's standing in society, and strife to get a proper education for their children.

i don't know how this can be any different anywhere else in the world, but maybe those who have experienced many hardships will feel much more about it. and it so happens asians (as phol mcbird says) are keeping it like some kinda tradition.

1 From my high school study: in the ancient western world(i mean europe, USA has only a few hundred years), education is a special privilage that only church can get access to. the general public doesn't have a tradition for getting upward by "public exam". the "knighthood, kinghood, preisthood" class thingies mean that u couldn't move in social-economical status by studying. things changed during the coming of industrial revolution.

2 Power in the West in the past mainly passed from fathers to sons. king ot king, noble to noble; seems no use/way studying

3 It's widely known in each social-eco class(rich or poor) of chinese that "Gold and girls from books". i heard of this saying when i was 4-5(before primary school)!!!

[jug8man]

1 From my high school study: in the ancient western world(i mean europe, USA has only a few hundred years), education is a special privilage that only church can get access to. the general public doesn't have a tradition for getting upward by "public exam". the "knighthood, kinghood, preisthood" class thingies mean that u couldn't move in social-economical status by studying. things changed during the coming of industrial revolution.

2 Power in the West in the past mainly passed from fathers to sons. king ot king, noble to noble; seems no use/way studying

3 It's widely known in each social-eco class(rich or poor) of chinese that "Gold and girls from books". i heard of this saying when i was 4-5(before primary school)!!!

i would agree with red on this point. a society's littreture reflects the culture and norms of its people. with red having a degree in sociology pretty much explains his view on that aspect. :D

in history i remember reading that the chinese civilisation were the first to introduce a fully structured examination in their 'education / governing structure'. so i suppose this only further supports the notion of how deep education fundamentals lies in the chinese culture and tradition.



4 When I took class in Educational Sociology, the professors from famous Schools conducted detailed educational research.
a)They found out that "Good Education is the best way to pass the wealth to the next generation in the modern society". eg. Investment Banking is one of the highest earning sectors. eg Morgan Stanley will do their hiring from famous U like Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford.
b) if rich guys pass money to the second generation, those money would be spent and gone very quickly as the second generation does not need to sweat to earn those money. this is not as good as spending a fortune to raise the kids through edu

i would like to ellaborate further on this. reds statement agrees with becker's theory on human capital (ie more education = greater earnings)
however in this case of intergenerational wealth, earnings is not the only issue. greater education is generally assumed to increase the knowledge and ability of individuals to better manage their finances. this includes expenses, cashflow, as well as knowing how to invest best (what to with the moolah). having a good education not only creates job opportunities but it gives the human mind more options, ways and means to maintain their wealth if not improve on it.
in short: a good head on your shoulders is a very valuable asset :) :D

8man

[redkingjoe]

One of my clients, who has an MBA from Harvard Business School, said that the credentials in the mordern world is a "ticket" for entering an occupation. Without a good ticket, one has limited choice.

He told me he sold his apartment and had a capital gain of 100,000pound sterling just enough to cover all the school fees and living expenses for the Harvard years. Than he got into investment banking bringing him sizable annual income. just one single year's bonus(not even counting the high base salary) is sufficient to cover the entire educational expenses(including the income that he would have earn had he worked)!!!

[Loafer]

;)

I just wanted to congratulate jug on his spelling of the word

Literature

a masterclass in irony.

Genius

[Loafer]

I have to point out that education is ONLY the ticket, all it does is get you on the train.

by this I am referring to education up to and including Uni, not MBAs and industry specific qualifications.

all of my jobs (and payrises) are down to my experience.

[Phil McBride]

;)

I just wanted to congratulate jug on his spelling of the word

Literature

a masterclass in irony.

Genius

Well bearing in mind Jug is Malaysian and hence English is not his first language a little lightening up should be in order should it not?

[Phil McBride]

I have to point out that education is ONLY the ticket, all it does is get you on the train.

by this I am referring to education up to and including Uni, not MBAs and industry specific qualifications.

all of my jobs (and payrises) are down to my experience.

Lucky you, I am a mad scientist by trade and am still doing the insane retail thing, well sort of :confused:

[Loafer]

I was not knocking him at all, whether intentional or not it is, as i said, a master class in irony. Particularly when you read the rest of the post which is in better english than most of mine.

I say again, I was NOT having a pop at him.

[Phil McBride]

Don't believe you :p :p :p

[redkingjoe]

I have to point out that education is ONLY the ticket, all it does is get you on the train.

by this I am referring to education up to and including Uni, not MBAs and industry specific qualifications.

all of my jobs (and payrises) are down to my experience.

Totally agree. Ticket ONLY. whether one can stay or move up in career is pretty much depending on his abilities.

[redkingjoe]

;)

I just wanted to congratulate jug on his spelling of the word

Literature

a masterclass in irony.

Genius

this post reminds me of our good friend, Lyphane, who loves to give "lectures" on spelling...it seems that we really missed him so much that we started to pick up his "job" in this forum....his spriit is so long lasting...

[jug8man]

yes i agree with all of you. having a tertiary education of what ever level is just a TICKET.
everything else depends on the true ability of the individual which does not neccesarily have to come from education. having a good level head on our shoulders is of the greatest importance regardless of how it got that good. :)

so i hope nobody takes any offence to my previous post. i am no advocate of higher education supremacy. im just an advocate of expanding one's horizons and view of the world. thru what ever means, mediums and channels. ;)

i have bolded other points that support my actual intentions of the previous post.

8man




i would like to ellaborate further on this. reds statement agrees with becker's theory on human capital (ie more education = greater earnings)
however in this case of intergenerational wealth, earnings is not the only issue. greater education is generally assumed to increase the knowledge and ability of individuals to better manage their finances. this includes expenses, cashflow, as well as knowing how to invest best (what to with the moolah). having a good education not only creates job opportunities but it gives the human mind more options, ways and means to maintain their wealth if not improve on it.
in short: a good head on your shoulders is a very valuable asset :) :D

8man

[Phil McBride]

I have to point out that education is ONLY the ticket, all it does is get you on the train.

by this I am referring to education up to and including Uni, not MBAs and industry specific qualifications.

all of my jobs (and payrises) are down to my experience.


Actually this is the best point of all made so far, I could not agree more!

[Loafer]

*basks in the glory of having McB agree with him*

[Phil McBride]

*basks in the glory of having McB agree with him*

It's common sense more than anything else and that seems scarce in here at times.

People think a degree should make employers line up and take them in with open arms, offer them jobs, cars and big salaries and that as we all know is not reality.

[Loafer]

yeah i know what you mean.

but the flip side is my colleague. I have worked with him for the past 6 years so he has done all that i have, plus he has pushing 20 years ADDITIONAL experience to bring to the table but my current employer would not even INTERVIEW him as he does not have a degree. plain ridiculous

[NotBornYesterday]

It's common sense more than anything else and that seems scarce in here at times.

People think a degree should make employers line up and take them in with open arms, offer them jobs, cars and big salaries and that as we all know is not reality.

phol mcbiride,

i believe you have the wrong impression of the real world. employers like loaf points out, do indeed have preference for degree-holders than non-certificate holders. experience only comes second. that's reality.

of course, these days, degree-holders are in such abundance that if you drop a stone from a building window, you're bound to hit a "'ticket' achiever".so finding a job for every highly-educated chap isn't so easy anymore.

[Loafer]

ok site support, a poll to see how many people think NBY little typo should actually stand and Phil Mcbride, from this point forth shall be referred to as Phol


;):D

[NotBornYesterday]

ok site support, a poll to see how many people think NBY little typo should actually stand and Phil Mcbride, from this point forth shall be referred to as Phol


;):D

this really swept me away! i can't believe either that site support actually took you seriously, loafer! i apologize for the misspelling, phol-- i mean, phil. :rolleyes:

[Phil McBride]

this really swept me away! i can't believe either that site support actually took you seriously, loafer! i apologize for the misspelling, phol-- i mean, phil. :rolleyes:

Bloody brilliant!

I voted for King Kenny, but who came up with the names list?

Macbeth :confused: I prefered Hamlet or the Merchant of Venice myself, they had better endings! :D


At this time:

1 for Phil, someone just didn't get it
2 for Phol, Loafer and NBY
2 for Braveheart, has to be Red and Jug
1 for Kenny Dal, me

Am I right Site support?

[redkingjoe]

Bloody brilliant!

I voted for King Kenny, but who came up with the names list?


dear ???????(name to be determined):
1 you should be very proud of yourself.

2 i witnessed the exact moment of the poll creation. it took almost an hour to finalize editing the poll setup, quite a lot of work involved indeed

3 specifically, i saw someone used site-support's account to create the poll(really don't know whether it was Lyphane/Hisslor or his Associates had hacked into the Forum or not)

4 anyway, the poll is here. let's vote. it's a treat to our dear members only....

hehehe :D :D :D

[NotBornYesterday]

Bloody brilliant!

I voted for King Kenny, but who came up with the names list?

Macbeth :confused: I prefered Hamlet or the Merchant of Venice myself, they had better endings! :D


At this time:

1 for Phil, someone just didn't get it
2 for Phol, Loafer and NBY
2 for Braveheart, has to be Red and Jug
1 for Kenny Dal, me

Am I right Site support?

i was wondering that as well. phil/ phol / kind kenny (as you prefer to be called :rolleyes: ) , are you some sort of fan of shakespeare? what ever it is, we can't possibly call you Merchant of Venice because that's the title of the play. maybe shylock :D -- yeah, yeah, shylock kinda matches you (ponders thoughtfully)

anyway, you don't have to bother site support (if it is indeed site support's poll). i can tellee you that you're close, but not there. red says he voted for phol. i have a feeling loafer mightne't have voted yet, or maybe he chose braveheart for you - y on earth? you saved dorothy from the wicked witch of the west?

[Phil McBride]

kind kenny

You seem to be having difficulty hitting the correct keys at the moment :p

[jug8man]

Bloody brilliant!

I voted for King Kenny, but who came up with the names list?

Macbeth :confused: I prefered Hamlet or the Merchant of Venice myself, they had better endings! :D


At this time:

1 for Phil, someone just didn't get it
2 for Phol, Loafer and NBY
2 for Braveheart, has to be Red and Jug
1 for Kenny Dal, me

Am I right Site support?

actually Phil, i voted for for Phil :D
personally i thought you were very fond of your name but..................... who would have known eh Kenny Dal :D:D

cheers 8man

[NotBornYesterday]

You seem to be having difficulty hitting the correct keys at the moment :p


right. so what's the stroy behind braveheart, kjenny? (my fingers are half frozen at the moment, so sue me. :D)

[Site Support]

i saw someone used site-support's account to create the poll(really don't know whether it was Lyphane/Hisslor or his Associates had hacked into the Forum or not)


...perhaps it was Site Support :rolleyes:

...or maybe it was Elvis behind the grassy knoll with a wireless laptop connection.

[Phil McBride]

I think it was site support since they missed out that facility at the start and I was indeed the daddy, yes NBY "DADDY" no spelling error there :p I wonder if they remember that one :rolleyes:

Why don't you put this in a seperate thread in the banter forum so more vote and my name changes accordingly ??

There are afterall only about 5 actives in this thread.

And don't knock the king, he is afterall my answerphone message.

[Loafer]

HAHAHAHA,


I am SO glad Site Support took up my suggestion! I have now voted.

[Phil McBride]

I can't believe it took you all this time :rolleyes:

[discostu]

i'd vote for rab c nesbitt or phool mcbride!! :p

[Loafer]

I can't believe it took you all this time :rolleyes:
I know!, Bloody outrageous, I got busy at work!

[Phil McBride]

There's another vote for Phil, someone is just not getting it :rolleyes:

[Loafer]

to me that is ALMOST as funny as site support taking my suggestion seriously funny although i cant help feeling it was done WITHOUT irony

[Phil McBride]

to me that is ALMOST as funny as site support taking my suggestion seriously funny although i cant help feeling it was done WITHOUT irony

Not even a hint of slapstick either :rolleyes:

[redkingjoe]

It's common sense more than anything else and that seems scarce in here at times.

People think a degree should make employers line up and take them in with open arms, offer them jobs, cars and big salaries and that as we all know is not reality.

hi bubs,
If you look at the following research result, you will understand more on my points in education and why the Asian loves to get into big name Us:


(http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/06/nearn06.xml)

to summarize: those who went to leading Us were four times more likely to be earning more than 90,000pounds than those who went to new institutions.

besides the UK's research result on the correlation between edu and income, there are lots of research from the US.

[redkingjoe]

Someone PM me that the following can't be accessed from the computer:
(http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/06/nearn06.xml)

Go to a private school and a top college – and add £60,000 to your salary
By Julie Henry, Education Correspondent
(Filed: 06/03/2005)

An independent school education followed by a degree at an elite university can add more than £60,000 a year to your earnings.


A 20-year study, tracking hundreds of children who started secondary school in the 1980s, has found that people who went to leading universities were four times more likely to earn more than £90,000 a year in their thirties than those who attended "new" universities, most of whom earned less than £30,000. Of those in the top income bracket, 85 per cent had gone to private schools, while 61 per cent of those earning less than £30,000 had attended state schools.

The research, commissioned by the Government-funded Economic and Social Research Council, and called Success Sustained?, interviewed 600 "academically able" pupils from a variety of backgrounds, who started secondary school in the early 1980s. The paper, to be published later this year by London University's institute of education, found that most of the individuals, now in their thirties, were doing well. Those doing best, however, had attended independent schools and leading universities.

The study shows that 41 per cent of those who went to elite universities were in the highest social and occupational class. This compared with 28 per cent who went to other "old" universities and eight per cent who went to "new" universities, generally former polytechnics.

There was also a strong relationship between earning levels and the status of the university, attended, researchers found.

Those who went to leading universities were four times more likely to be earning more than £90,000 than those who went to new institutions. An even closer connection between school type and salary levels emerged. About 85 per cent of those on £90,000-plus a year were privately educated, while 61 per cent of those earning less than £30,000 were state educated.

The study said: "Meritocratic arguments could be used to explain the connection between schooling and earnings, as privately schooled respondents obtained higher A-levels and more went to Oxbridge.

"However, the legacy of private education is also evident in the relative success of a small group who did not go to university, which suggests that an elite private education confers advantages other than high levels of academic attainment."

Research by the London School of Economics found that between the early 1980s and late 1990s, the proportion of children from the richest families who had completed a degree by the age of 23 rose from 20 per cent to almost half. In the same period, the number of graduates among the poorest quarter of families crept up from six per cent to just nine.

Aaron Simpson, 33, who attended £18,000-a-year Brentwood School, in Essex, and St Edmund Hall, Oxford, said his "privileged" education had contributed to his success. As co-founder and chief executive of Quintessentially, a concierge service for the "super rich", some of his alma mater have become customers.

Mr Simpson, from Islington in north London, said: "I was told at 14 that I would be put in for Oxbridge. It can work two ways. It can be difficult if you are told you will achieve something and then don't achieve it, or it can be a good focus for your efforts. I concentrated on the subjects I knew I could do well in, as I was never a sportsman.

"St Edmunds was not a rich college but it had people from all backgrounds," he said. "It was only after graduating that I realised fully the implications of having gone to Oxford. The big gap in earnings between old and new institutions seems surprising but not when you consider that these places are feeders into the professions. Banks and law firms were picking undergraduates off before they even left."

Mr Simpson, who founded a film company and produced the British movie Mad Cows at 25, said his education had helped to prepare him for life. "At an early age I was negotiating £3 million contracts and trying to extract money from people in their forties and fifties," he said. "It could be quite daunting at 24, but I think my education gave me the confidence to carry it off."

Martin Stephen, the head of £19,000-a-year St Paul's School, in south-west London, said: "If you've been fortunate enough to go to a good school and then go on to a good university, there are no excuses. You ought to do well.

"The best schools give you a mixture of drive and self-understanding."

[redkingjoe]

Without prejudice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long live grammars

The unacceptable face of British elitism lies in a school system where money matters more than talent

Nick Cohen
Sunday July 31, 2005
The Observer

Radical slogans don't often stir the blood when delivered in a voice trained at a private school and polished at an elite university. But Sarah Montague (Blanchelande Girls' College and the University of Bristol) did her best when she confronted a teacher who was arguing for the restoration of the grammar schools. 'But,' spluttered the Today programme presenter, 'we don't want elitism.'
Heaven's forefend! Elitism? In England? All but a few of the grammar schools have gone. John Major (Rutlish Grammar School) declared Britain a 'classless society'. Tony Blair (Fettes and St John's College, Oxford) fought the 2005 election on behalf of 'hard-working families', while Michael Howard (Llanelli Grammar School and Peterhouse, Cambridge) spoke for the 'forgotten majority' - who responded by forgetting to vote for him. It's not only the BBC which has raised the scarlet banner high. All public cultural institutions from the Royal Opera House to the National Parks announce their distaste for the white middle class and their commitment to egalitarianism. A foreigner might be forgiven for thinking that Britain was in the grip of red revolution.

Yet as Ruth Kelly (Westminster School and Queen's College, Oxford) has noticed, 40 years of comprehensives have left Britain a sclerotic society where parents' money matters more than a child's talent. Perhaps she'll twig that the anti-elitist harangues from the upper middle class are the perfect cover for a system which suits it to a tee.

That Britain is becoming an aristocracy of wealth is undeniable. The simplest measure was devised by Jo Blandon and her colleagues at the London School of Economics. You might assume that a child born in 1958, when Harold Macmillan ran the country and stuffed his cabinet with dukes, would have been far more hamstrung by his class origins than a child born at the end of the swinging Sixties in 1970. Not a bit of it. The LSE found that on average a boy born to a well-to-do family in 1958 earned 17.5 per cent more than a boy born to a family on half the income. The son of an equivalent Mr and Mrs Moneybags born 1970 will be earning today 25 per cent more than his contemporary from the wrong side of the tracks. Far from decreasing, class advantage has grown.

All the efforts by New Labour to redistribute wealth, all the Sure Start schemes and working families' tax credits, have merely slowed the process, while the great expansion of the universities has left the gap between working- and middle-class participation in higher education wider than ever.

Economists produce thousands of papers on the reasons why. The education system has to be high among them, unless you believe education doesn't matter. The liberal-left never has believed that since the Enlightenment, although I do hear rather a lot of liberals dismissing education today.

Their denial is an excuse for a failure of idealism which has left education as the largest cause of hypocrisy and mystification for my class and my generation. In public we deplore elitism. In practice everyone knows that the grammar schools, which at least selected by ability, have been replaced with private and comprehensive schools which select by parental wealth. If you are rich and have a bright child, he will go private and although he will have to pass exams, he won't face competition from children whose parents can't afford the fees. If you are rich and have a dunce, you select by house price and move into the catchment area of a good school or get your nanny to drive your child to a good school in another borough or lie to vicars and send your child to a good church school. Again, you know your child won't face competition from brighter children whose parents can't afford to buy houses in the right area or don't have the knowledge to play the system. The result is that in the inner cities we don't have comprehensives but a universal system of secondary moderns.

The refusal to be honest about money makes serious debate impossible. The children of the rich stay rich. The children of graduates graduate. The children of the working and lower-middle classes sink into financial and cultural impoverishment. Yet most of the time when education is discussed the speakers refuse to admit that, uniquely in Europe, Britain has private schools with higher intellectual standards than their state rivals.

If they did, conventional political certainties would evaporate. Before he left the education department, Charles Clarke (Highgate School and Kings College, Cambridge) wanted to force successful schools to take disruptive pupils, even though the teaching would inevitably suffer. It sounded like a tough socialist measure which promised equality of misery. Yet Clarke couldn't force the private schools to take excluded pupils, so you could look at him another way and say here was a public school boy stopping the best state schools competing with his alma mater. Clarke didn't mean that, anymore than another public school Labour minister, Tony Crosland (Highgate School, and Trinity College, Oxford) meant to give the private schools their greatest boost ever when he began the civil war in state education with the promise to 'destroy every ****ing grammar school in England, Wales and Northern Ireland'. None the less, both Crosland and Clarke were the objective friends of the children of the wealthy because they handicapped the competition.

The LSE economists report to Gordon Brown. Tony Blair's Downing Street Policy Unit has thought about increasing inheritance tax and freeing-up education by ending selection by house price. Although they don't want the grammar schools back, both know that this is a more class-ridden country than when the grammar schools were in place and I guess both know that unless the brightest in the working class get an elite education the Today listeners will always win.

Blair and Brown can't do much because Labour MPs still cling to the Sixties' settlement. It's only when they notice that the rich are getting all the gravy, that they will help the poor with brains.

Source: (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1539682,00.html)