Is there a glass ceiling for the “middle/lower classes”?
The class system in the UK interests me. It’s the whole football vs. rugby, union vs. league, blue or white collar, north/south divide that makes this country so rich in culture - or perhaps I’m a bit naive to think it, not coming from a country that has such distinct social stratification?
This week the government published the report on fair access to the professions. I haven’t read the report in full, but amongst its most publicised findings are the “forgotten middle classes”, lack of aspiration amongst the younger generation, nepotism, and the widening gap.
I’d like to ask the question: what do the “middle classes” and those less better off really aspire to, and are there resources out there to help young people achieve their goals?
I have to admit the issue of “who you know” does play a significant part in getting internships or work experience, especially in certain industries such as the media. But nothing has changed there - why is there such an outcry now? Is it because the gap has widened despite 12 years of a Labour Government continually promising to do something about it?
Call me idealistic, but I happen to believe that the UK is a meritocracy - if you are ambitious, has genuine talent and is resourceful, you will achieve what you want. As mentioned in Question Time last night, look at the last few prime ministers (with the exception of Tony Blair), and that demonstrates class should play no part in achieving one’s highest ambition.
So the next question is, how do we cultivate ambition?
Tags: fair access to the professions, hr, question time
Digg It | Reddit | De.lic.ious
Comments (5)
July 27th, 2009 at 2:54 pm Posted by pauliea
this is really interesting and I could write, speak (and probably bore!) for hours on the class divide in the UK.
You say that class ’should’ play no part in achievement and that is absolutely correct. But it is also correct to say that it does. As far as I am aware, class divisions are unique to the UK and must seem strange to anyone that didn’t experience it growing up, but one cannot deny that they are there.
Many politicians have talked about a classless society - one in particular was always banging on about it - but the reality is that we are riven by class as much as we ever were.
July 27th, 2009 at 7:04 pm Posted by jillglei
Isn’t this also a conversation about identity formation?
The messages a child receives about who they are and their place in the world — can be overcome, if those messages are not nurturing, expansive or positive. The family unit’s identity is confirmed by — loose and gripping affiliations.
Cultural cues contribute to stasis.
There are huge obstacles.
There is defiance & hope. Hopefully.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:27 pm Posted by William Heald
People make too much of class. In reality I think actually since the 1970s and 1980s there has been a decline in class structures as the top and bottom of the social structure reduce and the propert owning middle classes grow. In reality it would be very hard to define different classes - especially as jobs, university and access schemes have widened
July 28th, 2009 at 1:44 pm Posted by Nick Osborne
I would have to disagree with that point Will, I think there is still a strataspheric difference between the classes. There is still an enourmous gap between the ‘Haves and the Have nots’.
I would say it is maybe easier to transcend the divide, but as an Australian, coming from a country that really only has two classes - white collar middle class and blue collar middle class - there is still a quite obvious divide over here from the point of view as an outsider.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:43 pm Posted by Daniel Griffiths
I don’t know - I’m looking at the last few Prime Ministers (although it’s a bit difficult to justify this as a picture of modern Britain because Tony Blair was Prime Minister for such an absurdly long time). The two longest-serving, Blair and Thatcher, were from middle-class backgrounds and have Oxford degrees. That accounts for six of the last seven general elections. The only electorally mandated Prime Minister since 1979 apart from that was John Major, who was indeed a scrappy autodidact. Gordon Brown has no electoral mandate, of course, but is probably somewhere in the middle - hothouse preparatory education, respectable redbrick university, able to graduate and get a doctorate before having to enter the workforce.
However, Major and Brown, the comparatively lower-class elements without Oxford degrees, were both thrown in at a time when the party was in crisis and they were broadly expected to be massacred at the next election. Major managed to steer a weakened Conservative party past a surprise election victory through a lame-duck term at the mercy of his own rebels and into the ground - it remains to be seen whether Gordon Brown can repeat even this limited success. And the next Prime Minister, if he does not, is a hereditary millionaire married to the daughter of a Baronet, with an education at Eton and Oxford and a circle of Bullingdon Club chums. That’s getting on for 90% sucess rate for Oxford graduates between 1979 and 2015 or so, if all goes according to estimates - better than 100%, but given the ratio of Oxford graduates to not-Oxford graduates in the UK still fairly remarkable. Not counting Tony Blair, which seems a pretty odd thing to do, that goes down to about 80%
I’m not sure what point was being made on Question Time based on these statistics, but I’d be interested to hear more.
Post Your Comment