The shameful state of social mobility in Britain

Simon Cawkwell

You state that "it cannot be right that in 21st century Britain who your parents are is still the largest determinant of your social status". However, since social status is determined by one's abilities and they are largely determined by one's genetic inheritance it is hard to see much change occurring in the 21st century or the 22nd or the 23rd.... Dream on or anguish on if you wish. But you will dream/anguish ineffectually. Tough but true.

Peter

Surely this results from the lack of grammar schools. They were a great engine for helping bright children from poor households to move up in the world.

Nom de Plume

The best response to this is to stop encouraging poor people with low levels of intelligence to have children - e.g. cut means-tested benefits and council housing waiting lists that give them special treatment. The fewer children there are growing up in poor households, the better - and the more there are growing up with intelligent, affluent parents, the better.

education tory

grammar schools the answer? how could that be the case when this research says that thick rich kids have overtaken bright poor kids by the time they are seven, four years before the 11+? this report shows exactly why these days it's close to impossible for bright poor kids to get to a grammar school. that's why david willetts was absolutely right to say the 11+ entrenches advantage, it doesn't equalise opportunity. whether you think the 11+/gammar schools are a good or bad thing, it simply isn't possible to look at the evidence and say they spread opportunity to the poor.

dearieme

"Social mobility has, shockingly, remained static for 30 years." For all I know, that may be a considerable achievement in the face of pressure for it to decline. Why is it axiomatically "shocking"?

Anthony Bainbridge

It is inevitable that who your parents are is the largest single determinant of social status; and thank God for it. Otherwise none of the many whose parents (and I include my own) have fought to improve the lot of their offspring, and to give them a better start in life than they had had, will have their tough work rewarded. It is a parental duty, and a right, not that of the state. Today's news about free over-the counter birth control pills is from the same stable - the Nanny State stable.

Minute

...even the least able children from rich households have drawn level with the very smartest children from the poorest fifth of households.

Herbert Thornton

I think this topic would be illuminated more clearly if we dropped mealy-mouthed expressions like 'social mobility' and 'class' and substituted 'caste'.

The English (though not the Scots who hardly have one) cling to their caste system as stubbornly as Hindus in India divide themselves by caste. The two situations have a great deal in common.

G.B. Shaw was only half right when he wrote that the difference between a Flower-girl and a Duchess is the way she's treated. It's also the way each of them expects to be treated.

CHYR

I must disagree with simon cawkwell,

my parents were by no means intelligent and held odd, manual jobs. Yet, I have successfully coasted through prestigious prep schools and a big ten. inherited genes are hardly an indication of how successful and productive a person will become. think before you make such a dim-witted remark.

and I really have nothing to say to Nom de Plume's remark about limiting the offspring of people with low intelligence. how amazingly uncompassionate and elitist you must be. oh well.