You have two people attend your premises to be interviewed for a job, One has been educated privately, his/her credentials are superb having passed exams set by a board renowned for the toughness of the questions. It’s not his fault that he/she was educated privately, his/her parents struggled to pay for it, but felt it was worth it. The other candidate has been state educated, same qualifications, lower standard exam boards though as his/her school has opted for this to keep its pass rate ever higher. Just as keen, his/her parents supported them as best they could too, just not quite as well educated. Both give very good interviews and both would do well at the job, in the end it’s down to the fine details, so most employers would probably opt for the slightly better educated candidate. Yet a government advisor has started braying out about a new form of apartheid they want practised by employers whereby anyone state educated will get priority over a private education.
Young people who left state schools with good grades should be preferred by employers over their public school-educated rivals, a Government adviser has said.
Alan Milburn, the Government’s independent reviewer on social mobility, said young people who left state schools with good grades should be preferred by employers over their public school-educated rivals.
He also suggested companies should publish personal information about their staff, such as their schooling and their parents’ background annually, to shame professional firms into hiring more working class people.
This would force staff members to tell their managers what type of school they went to and if they claimed free school meals.
The former Labour Cabinet minister wanted to break through a “sea of inertia” which results in white collar jobs being “dominated” by people from well-off families.
Mr Milburn published an 88-page report, “Fair Access to Professional Careers”, which showed that four out of 10 lawyers, 49 per cent of journalists and 57 per cent of doctors came from “the highest socio-economic groups”.
Ah, there’s that word ‘fair’ again, it doesn’t mean the same to the powers that be as it does to the rest of us. ‘Fair’ to them means ‘our pets get preferential treatment’ rather than treated the same as anyone else. It’s the same fairness in the old Soviet system where the sons and daughters of party members got the best and everyone else got what was left.
The reason that white collar jobs are dominated by people from well-off families is that well off families tend to value the acquirement of a good education, they’re also not stupid either and realise that unless a state school has a good record of producing results at a high standard, then their kids will not get a good education. So they scrimp and save to make sure they do.
This is the same mentality that allowed the employment of non whites to various positions in government and law enforcement way above their ability or competence. The same policy that created well paid non-jobs in the race industry to root out racism (so long as it’s only white racism) an offshoot of the politics of envy, a form of tokenism to show that the politicians involved aren’t racist, prejudiced or in this case ‘classist’
In the end it wrecks societies, leads to the rise of envy and anger amongst those closed out of careers by idiot policies.
Rather than improve education standards, Milburn has opted for the if you can’t beat them ban them method of policy, it only remains to be seen if he gets his way.