Russell Brand

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

No, but I believe it would result in a better distribution of opportunity and a more cohesive society as those who "did well" would be there on merit, as opposed to the current situation where life chances are primarily determined by pre-existing economic factors. I also think that it would be beneficial to society as a whole to reduce the disparity in outcomes somewhat.

I don't believe that 'opportunity' depends on wealth; there are many examples of people who have been extremely successful in life because they have recognised an opportunity without coming from a wealthy background. What do you mean by 'pre-existing economic factors'?

[doodab]

I don't believe that 'opportunity' depends on wealth; there are many examples of people who have been extremely successful in life because they have recognised an opportunity without coming from a wealthy background. What do you mean by 'pre-existing economic factors'?

Where you are born and the socio economic status of your parents.

Parental socioeconomic status is a reliable indicator of all sorts from health and educational outcomes to earning power in later life. Very few poor people in the UK go to top public schools, and even good state schools are dominated by fairly well off people due to the effect on house prices that a good school can have. Relatively fewer people from state schools get into top universities than you would expect given a level playing field. Globally, poor countries have, worse educational and health outcomes than rich ones. The simple fact is that those who are born rich are far far more likely to be rich when they are older that those who are born poor. For every poor boy made good there are tens of thousands starving in slums.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Where you are born and the socio economic status of your parents.

Parental socioeconomic status is a reliable indicator of all sorts from health and educational outcomes to earning power in later life. Very few poor people in the UK go to top public schools, and even good state schools are dominated by fairly well off people due to the effect on house prices that a good school can have. Relatively fewer people from state schools get into top universities than you would expect given a level playing field. Globally, poor countries have, worse educational and health outcomes than rich ones. The simple fact is that those who are born rich are far far more likely to be rich when they are older that those who are born poor. For every poor boy made good there are tens of thousands starving in slums.

I agree that everyone should have access to the same level of education but I can't help thinking that standards in State schools would be much higher without so much Government intervention - private schools still have the freedom to promote discipline and the philosophy of actions resulting in consequences both of which are sadly lacking in State schools. However, much of a child's 'education' will come from its parents - if they have no aspirations, no will to succeed and the view that money is a right and not something which should be earned, that will be passed on to the child and no amount of social engineering will change it. Prime example on a programme the other night - child secures job after couple of years of trying and was understandably proud - mother calls her stupid and said she would be much better off living on benefits.

[DodgyAgent]

If the average IQ was 150, all those people with IQs of 150 wouldn't be potential movers and shakers, they would just be average. Society would be much the same as it is.

The people with the highest IQs are not the ones that make the money. SASguru being a prime example

[OwlHoot]

If the average IQ was 150, all those people with IQs of 150 wouldn't be potential movers and shakers, they would just be average. Society would be much the same as it is.

I was assuming the "IQ redistribution" Lisa mentioned, possibly tongue in cheek, would mean everyone having the same IQ.

Not saying every non-mover-and-shaker would feel discontented by any means. No doubt many would find fulfilment in niches or hobbies, as many smart people do today.

But terrorists have often had a better than average IQ and education, and those types use a cause as an excuse to further their conceited sense of entitlement to recognition. It's the same principle.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I was assuming the "IQ redistribution" Lisa mentioned, possibly tongue in cheek, would mean everyone having the same IQ.

Not saying every non-mover-and-shaker would feel discontented by any means. No doubt many would find fulfilment in niches or hobbies, as many smart people do today.

But terrorists have often had a better than average IQ and education, and those types use a cause as an excuse to further their conceited sense of entitlement to recognition. It's the same principle.

Definitely tongue in cheek - don't think even a Labour Government would go so far as to try intelligence redistribution and even if they did it would probably result in everyone, other than MP's, having a frontal lobotomy. They do have a tendency to try and bring everything down to the same level.

[doodab]

I agree that everyone should have access to the same level of education but I can't help thinking that standards in State schools would be much higher without so much Government intervention - private schools still have the freedom to promote discipline and the philosophy of actions resulting in consequences both of which are sadly lacking in State schools. However, much of a child's 'education' will come from its parents - if they have no aspirations, no will to succeed and the view that money is a right and not something which should be earned, that will be passed on to the child and no amount of social engineering will change it. Prime example on a programme the other night - child secures job after couple of years of trying and was understandably proud - mother calls her stupid and said she would be much better off living on benefits.

Perhaps and perhaps. Anecdotal evidence from a sensationalist documentary doesn't really cut it IMO, although the debate is frequently informed that way in the UK, you can take the debate out of the UK to somewhere that none of the above applies and the facts still stand up. Poor parents may well be less good at parenting, but to a large extent that is a vicious circle caused by their own parents inadequacies and their own lack of education caused by their own lack of opportunity.

Another factor to consider is that for a lot of kids that have aspirations, a will to succeed, and an entrepreneurial streak, the best opportunities available to them are in criminal enterprises, not mainstream society. It's easy to blame the "benefits culture" but if people are really growing up in an environment where a life of crime and/or benefit dependence are seen as the best options then you have to wonder if perhaps the other opportunities those kids are offered aren't terribly tempting.

Going to college, on to uni and/or into the world of work isn't seen as an attractive option by a lot of people, for the simple reason that it isn't unless your parents have some financial muscle to help you along. I certainly wouldn't have gone to university without a grant, never mind if I'd had to pay tuition fees.

[vetran]

Always amuses me, when you get some Red education expert screaming about Grammar schools and private schools they are all for closing them but when you point out all they need to do is make the state schools better than either then they will die out naturally.

Academies seem to be achieving this partially.

The equal life chances are a challenge but the vast majority of those in Grammar schools around here are second generation immigrants because their parents push them harder. Not sure what that proves except those who came here with nothing 20 years ago are doing well.

There was a theory a few years ago that if you took 100 people from various wealth brackets, you moved them to an island and gave them an equal amount of money then came back in a few years the money would tend to gravitate towards the previously richest. (they are just more skilled at making money).

There are a number of billionaires that have been bankrupt a number of times before making it big.

I thin inherited nouse is more valuable than a medium amount of money.

[MyUserName]

There was a theory a few years ago that if you took 100 people from various wealth brackets, you moved them to an island and gave them an equal amount of money then came back in a few years the money would tend to gravitate towards the previously richest. (they are just more skilled at making money).

There are a number of billionaires that have been bankrupt a number of times before making it big.

I thin inherited nouse is more valuable than a medium amount of money.

Unless this is based on some evidence couldn't someone theorise the opposite (or anything else) with just as much authority?

[doodab]

There are 7 billion people in the world, and the problem is how do we create an economic system that can extract benefit from and bring benefit to the vast majority of those people.

There are less than 1500 dollar billionaires in the world, and about 12 million dollar millionaires, quite a few of whom got there simply by virtue of buying a house in London 15 years ago. Billionaires are outnumbered literally a million to one by people living in poverty. It seems ridiculous to look at the tiny percentage of people who whether through talent or blind luck have managed to succeed wildly in a flawed system and conclude from the fact they exist at all that it's not the system but the other 99.8% of people which are deficient.