UK Politics IV: Disraeli Gears

[Vassenor]

So why bring it up?

Unless you were trying to go genetic.

Why put it in your signature if you don't want it brought up? No one wants to know or call you by your name. I have never seen anyone call you by your name. I do not know any other poster (maybe some other transsexual for whom The World Must Know) who has their real name in their signature.

The whole subject is horrifyingly boring of course, but don't act all outraged that someone mentioned it.

But when it comes up randomly in the middle of someone trying to critique every single thing I say for being "too left wing" then of course it's going to raise an eyebrow.

[HMS Vanguard]

Why put it in your signature if you don't want it brought up? No one wants to know or call you by your name. I have never seen anyone call you by your name. I do not know any other poster (maybe some other transsexual for whom The World Must Know) who has their real name in their signature.

The whole subject is horrifyingly boring of course, but don't act all outraged that someone mentioned it.

But when it comes up randomly in the middle of someone trying to critique every single thing I say for being "too left wing" then of course it's going to raise an eyebrow.

It comes up "randomly" in every single post you make.

[Vassenor]

But when it comes up randomly in the middle of someone trying to critique every single thing I say for being "too left wing" then of course it's going to raise an eyebrow.

It comes up "randomly" in every single post you make.

Do I draw attention to it constantly? If it bothers you so much, there's an option in your UCP to turn off user signatures.

[Lamadia III]

Why put it in your signature if you don't want it brought up? No one wants to know or call you by your name. I have never seen anyone call you by your name. I do not know any other poster (maybe some other transsexual for whom The World Must Know) who has their real name in their signature.

The whole subject is horrifyingly boring of course, but don't act all outraged that someone mentioned it.

But when it comes up randomly in the middle of someone trying to critique every single thing I say for being "too left wing" then of course it's going to raise an eyebrow.

I just noticed it- and it was at the top of my post, not the middle.
Anyway, please address the argument.

[Vassenor]

But when it comes up randomly in the middle of someone trying to critique every single thing I say for being "too left wing" then of course it's going to raise an eyebrow.

I just noticed it- and it was at the top of my post, not the middle.
Anyway, please address the argument.

When you provide actual peer-reviewed evidence that grammar schools have an objectively positive effect on social mobility. Because at the moment all we have are anecdotes, and despite what the internet might have taught you, the plural of anecdote is not data.

[Rufford]

It comes up "randomly" in every single post you make.

Do I draw attention to it constantly? If it bothers you so much, there's an option in your UCP to turn off user signatures.

Ladys, please take it somewhere else.

[HMS Vanguard]

It comes up "randomly" in every single post you make.

Do I draw attention to it constantly?

Yes, by placing it in your signature completely unnecessarily.

Yes indeed, to not be told that you are a transsexual, I should turn off a system-wide board feature. That is not at all rubbing it in peoples' faces deliberately.

As I said, it's horrifyingly boring.

[Lamadia III]

Do I draw attention to it constantly? If it bothers you so much, there's an option in your UCP to turn off user signatures.

Ladys, please take it somewhere else.

*Ladies
(Hence why grammar schools are a good idea)

I just noticed it- and it was at the top of my post, not the middle.
Anyway, please address the argument.

When you provide actual peer-reviewed evidence that grammar schools have an objectively positive effect on social mobility. Because at the moment all we have are anecdotes, and despite what the internet might have taught you, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Read the bloody post. Typical lefty response- ignore the point, ignore the evidence. Puts fingers in ears, ignores the world around him:
Grammar schools are returning, by increasing their accessibility to those from a poorer background, social mobility will increase. A generation of Prime Ministers came from the grammar school system.

[Philjia]

Would we like to stop the petty sniping before or after it escalates to moderator involvement?

[Vassenor]

Ladys, please take it somewhere else.

*Ladies
(Hence why grammar schools are a good idea)

When you provide actual peer-reviewed evidence that grammar schools have an objectively positive effect on social mobility. Because at the moment all we have are anecdotes, and despite what the internet might have taught you, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Read the bloody post. Typical lefty response- ignore the point, ignore the evidence. Puts fingers in ears, ignores the world around him:
Grammar schools are returning, by increasing their accessibility to those from a poorer background, social mobility will increase. A generation of Prime Ministers came from the grammar school system.

That's still just an anecdote there. With a slight pinch of ad hominem.

The real problem is that the children who attend grammar schools overwhelmingly come from wealthy middle-class families, which flies in the face of the social mobility argument. Department for Education statistics show that existing grammar schools have far fewer children from disadvantaged backgrounds than neighbouring non-selective schools, and some have almost none.

Research by the Sutton Trust educational charity has found that less than 3% of entrants to grammar schools are entitled to free school meals – a key indicator of social deprivation – whereas on average 18% of pupils in those selective areas are entitled to free school meals. The Sutton Trust also found that almost 13% of those who enter the grammar school system come from outside the state sector, often from fee-paying preparatory schools.

Primary Research Source: Sutton Trust (2013) Poor Grammar: Entry Into Grammar Schools Disadvantaged Pupils In England

Sutton Trust (2013) Access to Grammar Schools for Disadvantaged Pupils

[HMS Vanguard]

What they don't point out is that those people who don't get into grammars fail in the comprehensives too.

Outcomes are largely independent of school quality, but day-to-day happiness isn't.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Ladys, please take it somewhere else.

*Ladies
(Hence why grammar schools are a good idea)

When you provide actual peer-reviewed evidence that grammar schools have an objectively positive effect on social mobility. Because at the moment all we have are anecdotes, and despite what the internet might have taught you, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Read the bloody post. Typical lefty response- ignore the point, ignore the evidence. Puts fingers in ears, ignores the world around him:
Grammar schools are returning, by increasing their accessibility to those from a poorer background, social mobility will increase. A generation of Prime Ministers came from the grammar school system.

Seriously? You call attention to Vassenor's trans status (for no reason whatsoever) and then immediately go and misgender her?

[Rufford]

Ladys, please take it somewhere else.

*Ladies
(Hence why grammar schools are a good idea)

When you provide actual peer-reviewed evidence that grammar schools have an objectively positive effect on social mobility. Because at the moment all we have are anecdotes, and despite what the internet might have taught you, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Read the bloody post. Typical lefty response- ignore the point, ignore the evidence. Puts fingers in ears, ignores the world around him:
Grammar schools are returning, by increasing their accessibility to those from a poorer background, social mobility will increase. A generation of Prime Ministers came from the grammar school system.

I have sufficient grades and levels of intelligence and maturity to get into a grammar school. I typed it like that because i had to go and it was the shortest way i could type it and be understood.

[Lesser Tofu]

Regardless whether parents act irrationally when they try to prevent their children being bullied, they are still going to do it, so it is still a consideration in formulating social policy.

And you don't see why any of us might have objections to you proposing, instead of any initiatives that might actually attack the causes of bullying, you just want to insulate some particular subset from its effects. Using measures, no less, that you haven't provided any evidence to show would reduce bullying -- I'm pretty sure the people at schools other than comps are still capable of being right bastards.

Missing the point so badly I'd like to think you are not at Oxford. Studying something soft at least?

Computer Science, as it happens. If you want proof, TG me your email address.

More to the point (as it were), you haven't actually shown anything. You've just stated that your outcomes are purely decided by genetics, and to quote someone or other "that which is asserted with out evidence can be dismissed without evidence". The people I know in Oxford are, in their homogeneous white middle-class way*, pretty varied. A fair few can barely believe they've gotten in in the first place, whereas others who seem extremely confident at interviews that they'll get in because they are the "right sort of person" are nowhere to be found come October.

*That's a joke.

[HMS Vanguard]

Regardless whether parents act irrationally when they try to prevent their children being bullied, they are still going to do it, so it is still a consideration in formulating social policy.

And you don't see why any of us might have objections to you proposing, instead of any initiatives that might actually attack the causes of bullying, you just want to insulate some particular subset from its effects. Using measures, no less, that you haven't provided any evidence to show would reduce bullying -- I'm pretty sure the people at schools other than comps are still capable of being right bastards.

High IQ parents don't want to send their children to mixed schools. Why, and whether they're right or wrong, doesn't matter. If the alternative costs 10k/year, we get fewer high IQ children. If it costs 0k/year, we get more. I am not dealing in rights and wrongs here, but in goods and bads. We want more high IQ children. Let's make it happen.

Missing the point so badly I'd like to think you are not at Oxford. Studying something soft at least?

Computer Science, as it happens. If you want proof, TG me your email address.

No, I believe you, and in any case don't care. I'm just mildly disappointed.

More to the point (as it were), you haven't actually shown anything. You've just stated that your outcomes are purely decided by genetics, and to quote someone or other "that which is asserted with out evidence can be dismissed without evidence". The people I know in Oxford are, in their homogeneous white middle-class way*, pretty varied. A fair few can barely believe they've gotten in in the first place, whereas others who seem extremely confident at interviews that they'll get in because they are the "right sort of person" are nowhere to be found come October.

*That's a joke.

You didn't object that I hadn't rigorously proved my point, which is true but also reasonable for a low quality board like this one, you made a completely stupid objection to a misinterpretation of my argument, that implied you simply could not parse what I had written. And it seems you still haven't done so. Social polish is not genetic, at least not mostly, and I wasn't referring to social polish. IQ is mostly genetic. If you're born with a low IQ, you're not going to Oxford. People at top universities differ in various ways but very very few of them are stupid, those being admission mistakes (or Prince Charles).

[Rufford]

And you don't see why any of us might have objections to you proposing, instead of any initiatives that might actually attack the causes of bullying, you just want to insulate some particular subset from its effects. Using measures, no less, that you haven't provided any evidence to show would reduce bullying -- I'm pretty sure the people at schools other than comps are still capable of being right bastards.

High IQ parents don't want to send their children to mixed schools. Why, and whether they're right or wrong, doesn't matter. If the alternative costs 10k/year, we get fewer high IQ children. If it costs 0k/year, we get more. I am not dealing in rights and wrongs here, but in goods and bads. We want more high IQ children. Let's make it happen.

Computer Science, as it happens. If you want proof, TG me your email address.

No, I believe you, and in any case don't care. I'm just mildly disappointed.

More to the point (as it were), you haven't actually shown anything. You've just stated that your outcomes are purely decided by genetics, and to quote someone or other "that which is asserted with out evidence can be dismissed without evidence". The people I know in Oxford are, in their homogeneous white middle-class way*, pretty varied. A fair few can barely believe they've gotten in in the first place, whereas others who seem extremely confident at interviews that they'll get in because they are the "right sort of person" are nowhere to be found come October.

*That's a joke.

You didn't object that I hadn't rigorously proved my point, which is true but also reasonable for a low quality board like this one, you made a completely stupid objection to a misinterpretation of my argument, that implied you simply could not parse what I had written. And it seems you still haven't done so. Social polish is not genetic, at least not mostly, and I wasn't referring to social polish. IQ is mostly genetic. If you're born with a low IQ, you're not going to Oxford. People at top universities differ in various ways but very very few of them are stupid, those being admission mistakes (or Prince Charles).

High IQ parents generally can afford 10k a year, and many don't care about the rest of the nations children.

[Lamadia III]

High IQ parents generally can afford 10k a year, and many don't care about the rest of the nations children.

Please get me some proof of that statement, which is absolutely rubbish.
And 10k is very cheap for a private school.
I think the desire of the middle class, of which I like to think myself as a member, to keep their children exclusive from the dim kids with no intention to learn, is an honourable one. With the correct attention, and ambition, a child from any background can attain anything, and that includes entering a grammar school; the fact that children should continue to be tested into secondary school would amplify the social mobility offered by grammar schools.

[CoraSpia]

High IQ parents don't want to send their children to mixed schools. Why, and whether they're right or wrong, doesn't matter. If the alternative costs 10k/year, we get fewer high IQ children. If it costs 0k/year, we get more. I am not dealing in rights and wrongs here, but in goods and bads. We want more high IQ children. Let's make it happen.


No, I believe you, and in any case don't care. I'm just mildly disappointed.


You didn't object that I hadn't rigorously proved my point, which is true but also reasonable for a low quality board like this one, you made a completely stupid objection to a misinterpretation of my argument, that implied you simply could not parse what I had written. And it seems you still haven't done so. Social polish is not genetic, at least not mostly, and I wasn't referring to social polish. IQ is mostly genetic. If you're born with a low IQ, you're not going to Oxford. People at top universities differ in various ways but very very few of them are stupid, those being admission mistakes (or Prince Charles).

High IQ parents generally can afford 10k a year, and many don't care about the rest of the nations children.

And children with high IQs who can't afford it do what?

[Vassenor]

I think the desire of the middle class, of which I like to think myself as a member, to keep their children exclusive from the dim kids with no intention to learn, is an honourable one. With the correct attention, and ambition, a child from any background can attain anything, and that includes entering a grammar school; the fact that children should continue to be tested into secondary school would amplify the social mobility offered by grammar schools.

And what evidence do you have in support of this claim?

[Lamadia III]

I think the desire of the middle class, of which I like to think myself as a member, to keep their children exclusive from the dim kids with no intention to learn, is an honourable one. With the correct attention, and ambition, a child from any background can attain anything, and that includes entering a grammar school; the fact that children should continue to be tested into secondary school would amplify the social mobility offered by grammar schools.

And what evidence do you have in support of this claim?

Oh, wow. The Left summed up- the poor have to stay where they are, they can't improve themselves.

[Vassenor]

And what evidence do you have in support of this claim?

Oh, wow. The Left summed up- the poor have to stay where they are, they can't improve themselves.

How do you get that from what I said? If it's happening, there must be evidence of it happening. I mean I was able to provide primary research suggesting the intake from disadvantaged backgrounds is low, suggesting it is not aiding social mobility at all.

[Lamadia III]

Oh, wow. The Left summed up- the poor have to stay where they are, they can't improve themselves.

How do you get that from what I said? If it's happening, there must be evidence of it happening.

You have just asked for evidence that those from poorer backgrounds can improve themselves. They can. To suggest otherwise is elitist, and offensive.

[Souseiseki]

if only there was some way to allow smart kids to improve themselves without creating an entire separate tier of exclusive schools

[Vassenor]

How do you get that from what I said? If it's happening, there must be evidence of it happening.

You have just asked for evidence that those from poorer backgrounds can improve themselves. They can. To suggest otherwise is elitist, and offensive.

I asked for evidence that grammar schools aid social mobility like you claim they do. I am not suggesting that social mobility is impossible.

[Lamadia III]

Well, if I had children, I wouldn't want them to be stuck in a classroom with 35 other students, where over 1 hour per day is lost to disruption, and where the majority do not want to learn.
People need an alternative, and the best way to do this is to base it on skill.