social mobility

OK, it took me long enough, but I finally signed up for Friends Reunited today.
I am astonished at how many people from my primary school are members!
I grew up in a poor area of South London. I was the only kid in the class who lived in a house owned by a member of the family (grandmother, in my case). Nearly all the others lived in council houses (projects, for our American friends).
Looking at the profiles, OK there's going to be a degree of exaggeration, but everyone seems to have a decent life: good employment history, fair amount of moving around the country - and other countries, in more than one case.
Now, we were at primary school in the 60s, when the government was actually interested in ending inequality of opportunity. We seem to have benefited from that, and made major contributions as a result.
Could the same happen today? I don't think so.

Discuss

I have no data to back this up, but I'm of the firm opinion that success in life comes from committed parenting more than anything else. What school a child lives in, or whether they are in a project or single family home matters much less than who their parents are. Maybe you had a class full of kids with parents who really wanted to get their kids out of the hood.

There might be something in that - at least half the kids had parents who were immigrants, and it's entirely likely that they'd be cash poor but ambitious...
Worth a bit more investigation...

Oh, on a side note, I also found that my first serious boyfriend now works in a Las Vegas casino!

Equality of opportunity cannot be measured by equality of outcome.

I was really surprised when I went on Friends Reunited. I went to a pretty crappy comprehensive school, where the boys had football as a way out and the girls had motherhood (usually at around the age of 16). Many of my classmates had really made a go of things. People I wouldn't have expected to. In fact those who showed real promise at school seemed to be the ones who had ended up doing very little.

I often see this at work as well. The kids come into court, sometimes from the age of 10, sometimes older. They have so much intervention it's untrue. It doesn't appear to have any effect you see them time and time again. Then all of a sudden it's like something clicks, they get their life together and you never see them again.

Ah, you didn't mention the immigrant factor. Yeah, that totally disrupts the curve just for the reason you suggest.

Absolutely! I think, though, you may find some divergence of opinion on what constitutes equality of opportunity.

Yeah, some people think the advantages you enjoy from birth should not be tied to the acheivements of your parents or the economic environment into which you are born.

Those people are incorrect.

But that's unequal opportunity right there! Some refuse to acknowledge that, and then base all their opinions about life success on a flawed premise. I did not have to work as hard to get where I am as some others.

Still a weird result, Lurker - if you look at immigrants today, my guess would be that they're overrepresented among the unemployed and unsuccessful (excluding careers in crime for a sec). What made immigrants in the 60s different? Was there more selection of who got in? How about the problems we nowadays associate with 2nd generation immigrants? What would your former classmates ahve to say about that?

Distinguish between opportunity and means. I have the opportunity to jog across the street to the GM dealership and purchase myself a shiny new Hummer H1 Alpha. However, I lack the means to take advantage of that opportunity. Am I suffering under an unfair inequality compared to my wealthier neighbors?

Honestly, I'd say it's down to the degree of support their parents got - guaranteed decent, if basic, housing, guaranteed decent, if basic, education for their kids.

What I'd really be interested in seeing is the degree of integration among daughter's generation of those with whom I was at primary school. Among Muslim families, it seems to be them that are the most disaffected, and I'd be interested in knowing why.

Trouble is, although a lot of the kids I was at school with were the children of immigrants they came, IIRC, from 14 different countries, only a couple of which were Muslim - most were African or Caribbean - so I'm not sure there'd be a big enough study group...

You might just as well be speaking in tongues for all the sense that made. You have no opportunity if you lack means.

Means influence opportunity to a certain extent. If it wasn't a hummer but decent education, then yes: there'd be unfair inequality, which a society should compensate for.

I disagree. That's like saying I have no rights if I'm unable to take full advantage of them, even if it's due to no external interferance. Equality is not entitlement.

Forgot to answer the question part. No, it doesn't matter that some can afford a hummer and you can't. I don't believe in the concept that all have a right to the same toys. I do believe that some have a far better chance of getting the toys, simply by virtue of birth.

I don't think we are using the terms in the same way. Look at the other part of my answer.

Now substitute anything you regard as a measure of "equal opportunity" which costs money, for "hummer".....

Nope, won't play that game. Not everything is a consumer good.

Call it what you want. If it costs someone physical/mental labor and/or material value to produce/provide, they have every right to demand compensation in exchange, and it is not inequality/oppression/infringement of rights to withhold that service from those who cannot pay, no matter what that service might be. Everyone has the same opportunity to pay his asking price.

You really don't have a clue what I'm talking about, do you?

Sure I do. You want to bind opportunity to material means, because the alternative requires surrendering your dogged refusal to acknowledge that you need not be born into the same advantages to satisfy the standard of equal opportunity.

It is I who will not play your game, because down that road lies entitlement and enslavement in the name of equality, whether you choose to see it or not.

Nope, you got it wrong. It's not about material means.

Opportunity for X = you're free to pursue X, subject to the same constraints as everyone else (regardless of your ability to overcome them)

Opportunity for X != guarantee you will get X (or that it's even possible to get it)

Damn right it's not. It's about the freedom to take advantage of whatever means you've got. That is equal opportunity.

A rich kid and a poor kid have the same opportunity to study at an expensive private school and go on to a prestigious university. They just don't have the same means to afford it. Equal opportunity just means they receive the same admissions consideration and the same chance to pay tuition.

See, Albert, this is what I'm talking about!

That's right.

And if the poor kid lacks the means, then equality in that situation can be achieved only by:

(1) denying the rich kid the opportunity to go to private school (thus dragging everyone down to the same level)

or

(2) forcing others to pay for the poor kid to go to the private school (thus depriving others of their means to pursue their goals)

I don't think he meant what you think he meant, gul.

I thought I was agreeing with Albert. Maybe you two aren't as far apart as it seems.

^That's what happens when you bring primes into it.

Those used to be called "scholarships."