Search results

well thats another issue, the quality of the state system. the trouble here is those with a particular outlook decided to remove the option of high quality education from those from poor background, under the well meant but tragically flawed notion we should educate everyone to the same standard.

missed this, its the heart of whats wrong with the argument. they dont "weasel their way into positions of power", they still have to pass levels of exams and scrutiny that is applied to all. (in business they might, but not in the areas discussed) your conclusion is flawed because not all...

it is what i meant, and it is implied. background doesn't matter if you have the education, diversity is a tarty concept of people who think that it addresses everything but it doesn't. lets be clear, there are places for it - police or magistrates spring to mind - but it doesn't solve any...

partially. but that isn't really the issue i was getting at which is that "diversity" shouldn't be an important metric for those that run the country, their education should be. and while its there are socia-economical obstacles to getting up into those echelons, we must also consider that...

no, i dont. i think the top jobs benefit most from best educated people. how does it help someone's understanding of law, or military strategy if they've lived on an estate in Swindon? diversity has its place, and background shouldn't be a block to getting into the top Uni's or jobs, but we...

the best educated go on to be the "elite", who'd have thought. its not "social engineering" its the natural order. do you want to deliberately elevate less educated people to judges, generals, senior civil servants?