Anyone who knows me, will know that this article completely makes me so angry – it is unbelievable. http://news.scotsman.com/education/Working-classes-are-less-.4108730.jp
Clearily, Bruce Charlton, an evolutionary psychiatrist at Newcastle University, IS A COMPLETE TWAT.
I bet he has a lower than average IQ of the nation.
This type of essay / report is exactly the reason why people like myself are discriminated in the university enviroment. My IQ, according to online tests, is just a lil over the national average between 119 – 124 (diff tests) (i suck sooo bad at the math bits) I was ‘Gifted and Talented’ at school – and I got alright grades ( 6 A*-A grades, 4B’s 2C’s and 1 E at GCSE and 2A’s at A level 1B (one mark off another A though) C at AS Level Physics. Etc. So my UCAS Tarrif score is over 320 points – which is what you need for the higher university institutions, no?
I don’t want to put my 100000’s of hardships of being a working class and how hard it is for us in the education system, and actually getting to uni and still attending. And despite all odds- being rather ‘successful’. A few of them is that I just filled out my forms for my student loan next year, on my mom’s P60 she has earnt £4780.34p all year. That is WAY under the poverty line. Infact, I’m going to call myself Relative Poverty Smizz. This is nothing new. Try having an alcoholic parent, not exactly the best childhood (but i wouldn’t change it cuz it makes ME) , no cash, no books, no one to help you do your homework, being homeless anddddd everything else that everyone else in working class communities have to endure. Shit schools, shit cirriculum. etc. do i need to continue.
This just proves Marxism and all those educational theories correct.
Working Class DO NOT have a lower IQ than M/C.
It’s called cultural deprivaton, dickhead!
There are many theories on how culture can influence educational achievement. One of these theories is the “sub cultural theories”.
Douglas argues that PARENTAL INTEREST is the most important factor and Pre school socialisation. He sees it has the Middle Class families are more involved than working class families, as the middle class parents attend parent nights and such. With pre school socialisation he believes that the child’s personality has been shaped and is more stimulated. He believes the middle class families are more demanding and encourage improvement by rewarding success. So, middle class students are encouraged to stay on in comparison with working class, since you know, we have poverty to deal with.
Sugarman says that the working class are fatalistic – “what ever will be, will be”. So they don’t try as hard (bullshit). They want immediate gratification so less likely to stay on at school after compulsory education as they want the money from less paid jobs now. Where as the middle class work on deferred gratification (because they have the luxury of it) , carry on the ladder of opportunity with increasing income the further up they go. He argues that’s why there are mostly middle class people with the high salary paid jobs and is most skilled. The working classes present time orientation is a disadvantage for a student in the education system.
There are also other factors of culture, such as language. Bernstein believes that the middle class use the elaborated speech code which is universalistic and includes more details; and the working class use the restricted speech code, which is context bound and operates in particularistic meanings with simplistic grammar.
Within a classroom, the teacher is most likely to be middleclass and therefore use the elaborated code which the working class pupils may not understand. Also exams, textbooks and other school resources are written in the elaborated code, making it very difficult for the working class to understand. This then makes it even harder for them to succeed.
Middle Class pupils also have cultural capital. Pierre Bourdieu starts from the idea that there is a ‘dominate culture’ in society. The higher people’s position in the class system, the greater the amount of dominate culture they are more likely to have. Children born into middle class/upper classes have a built in advantage. Their culture is closer to the culture of the school so they will be more likely to succeed. For example, their language is closer to that of teachers so they are more likely to understand what’s being taught and what examination papers are saying and achieve it to its full potential. This dominate culture can be seen as “cultural capital” since it can be converted into material rewards. Higher qualifications, high status jobs – more pay. In doing so, Bourdieu concludes that the education system reproduces the class system.
Then in the school system there’s alot of teacher bias’s that affect the IQ and attainment of students. Hargreaves, an interactionist sociologist , said that by labelling a pupil badly you could in fact be giving them a self-fulfilling prophecy. A self-fulfilling prophecy is simply a prediction that comes true by the virtue of it having been made. Interactionists argue that labelling can affect pupil’s achievement as a result of the self fulfilling prophecy. And working class students don’t tend to fit the perfect profile for teachers, as a result, alot of them are given negative self fulfilling prophecy’s or are putinto lower sets/bands which then still duplicates the above effect.
And, by creating educational success and failure, it legitimates the positions of those at the top and those at the bottom. The fact that the school uses text books, and other suited to middle class culture sends the message across that the working class culture is worthless, thus so are they, again part of the self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bowles and Gintis, argue that there are close parallel links between schooling and work in capitalist society. Both schools and workplaces are hierarchies, with head teachers or bosses at the top making decisions and giving orders, and workers or pupils are the bottoms obeying. Bowles and Gintis say that the correspondence theory operates through the ‘hidden curriculum’. That is, all the ‘lessons’ that are learnt in school without being directly taught. For example, pupils become accustomed to accepting hierarchy and competition, working for extrinsic rewards and so on. In this way, school prepares working class pupils for their roles as the exploited workers of the future, reproducing the work force capitalism needs and perpetuating class inequality from generation to generation.
Not forgetting materials, diet and housing are all HUGE factors in a childs developement. Luxuries in which the middle class can have lots of and not worry about, usually.
Dare I suggest that this twat from Newcastle University is merely a middle class sucker, who probably has a lower IQ than the national average and has to make up for it by dragging the underclass down. We shouldn’t be having these types of conversation in 2008. As far as I am concerned, classism should be seen just as bad as racism and sexism, since they are all relative.
Its interesting to note that we all know the sociological theories and faults of the education system, yet no one really tries to alter them. I suggest that is just proves that we might feel that the bougouise debate is no longer appropriate in today’s society….
this report shows us just how rital it is and just how relavent it is indeed.
Any working class students at university . Pat yourself on your back and big yourself up. We have come far, and we need to stick together.
Try being working class in a university studying art! The Artworld is completely one of the most class discriminative places that I have ever been!