Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

My Generation

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

thewilliam
29 Dec 2012 - 12:10 AM

I was born at the start of the golden age and I'm certainly grateful for my blessings. I can just remember the tail end of rationing and our family was poor during my early childhood but this served to help us appreciate the plenty that followed. The Grammar School system gave us a fine secondary education and student grants allowed us to get our degrees at public expense. One of my sisters had a full scholarship to a public school.

A bright youngster of my generation could have been born on either side of the tracks and would still have the opportunity to advance. Unfortunately this has changed for the worse.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
29 Dec 2012 - 12:10 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

cambirder
cambirder  107202 forum posts England
29 Dec 2012 - 12:35 AM


Quote: The Grammar School system gave us a fine secondary education

Unless like the majority of us you ended up on the wrong side of the 11 plus filter. Most of the children from my country primary (including me) never even got to sit it as we were already earmarked for lesser things. Not that that was too much of a disadvantage as with near full employment and plenty of apprenticeships available there were plenty of other paths to success.

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 73802 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
29 Dec 2012 - 12:49 AM


Quote: The Grammar School system gave us a fine secondary education

I couldnt disagree more, if heavens forbid, you were not quite as advanced as your contemories at 11 you were S****** (certainly if born in the spring / summer months)- as someone who developed when they were 13/14 I was left disadvantagesd at School - labelled as, eeerm thick (OK they might be right Wink )- seriously whilst I got to a very good standard by 18, I still had the stigma I wasnt good enough to go to university.

Ironic, I'm in a quite academic industry, I'd like to thing highly regarded (never once been questioned about my knowledge / qualification - and been Chaiman of an industry body), I manage colleagues with much higher academic achievments, but I would like to think respect me (as I certainly do them).

Last Modified By Nick_w at 29 Dec 2012 - 12:51 AM
brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110152 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
29 Dec 2012 - 2:05 AM

Paul - I just missed National Service (thank goodness)

Nick, our local authority had the 11+, then reviewed at 13+ and sent late developers on to Grammar Schools, then kids who got good 'O' levels came to 6th form at Grammar School to take their A's (we had several join my school at both stages) They ran Grammar, Technical and Secondary Mod schools which attempted to provide targeted education for all

I came from a home for unwanted children where we were labelled trouble makers and failures

Got in to Grammar School (against my Father's wishes) passed my O's, failed my A's (no point as I was consistently told at "home" that I would never amount to anything and wasn't going to Uni )

Studied through day release and over many years of in-job training and education, like you, ending up running R&D project teams with grads and post-docs reporting to me

The difference was that then no one told you success was yours as a right, you had to work your arse off to get anywhere and yes, a privileged background made things easier, but then it always has and always will do all around the world. If its not the rich and titled in this country its the off-spring of the controlling families in socialist states etc

The system that has developed today is in my view a total mess that doesn't challenge the brightest kids and doesn't provide good vocational training for the more practially inclined. The old Grammar, Tech College, Secondary School system tried to provide suitable opportunites for all (and I find it interesting that such a system is at the root of the German and Dutch Education system which seems to turn out well balanced and successful adults)

Its time that youngsters were told that life isn't fair, there is no "instant fame or success" , grow up, get used to it, stop moaning and go out and make the best of any and all opportunities you can find

Last Modified By brian1208 at 29 Dec 2012 - 2:06 AM
StrayCat
StrayCat  1014407 forum posts Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
29 Dec 2012 - 7:35 AM

I wonder if kids in school today are given advice, in school, on preparing for their chosen career/s. Even when our kids were in school, career counsellors were a joke; the only useful thing they did was pick up their paycheck. Of course, they were unheard of when I went to school. Some kids are clued in and smart enough to find out on their own what subjects they will need for certain careers, but I think they may be in the minority.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314818 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
29 Dec 2012 - 3:05 PM


Quote: I came from a home for unwanted children where we were labelled trouble makers and failures

Its certainly no different now Smile

My eldest daughter got labled by a news paper, very damaging and this rubbed of on are youngest daughter.

It was probably a whole lot easier for the post war generation.


Quote: The difference was that then no one told you success was yours as a right

What makes you think its any different now.

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 73802 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
29 Dec 2012 - 4:07 PM


Quote: Looking at the present generation it seems to me that they are taught about their rights and that everyone else is responsible for what happens to them (and if they don't like it - dial a lawyer will get them money)

And where did you get that view of the young? The Daily Mail, or The Sun?

The majority of young kids I come across are bright, with a sence of right and wrong, incredible work effort, exceptionally well informed, who's educational progress is light years better than when I was at school in 70's/80's.

As I said earlier it doesn't help stereotype anyone - I would be equally vocal against someone who said the old were intolerant, small minded, and bigoted.

The young generation are no different to any other generation when they went thro their teens, but we forget the Punks, rockers, mods etc were all very well behaved young chaps, that respected their elders.

Last Modified By Nick_w at 29 Dec 2012 - 4:08 PM
brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110152 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
29 Dec 2012 - 5:00 PM


Quote: Looking at the present generation it seems to me that they are taught about their rights and that everyone else is responsible for what happens to them

I'm sorry Nick - I cheated here and used my experiences of dealing with 4th, 5th and 6th formers in my last role at work + talking to serving teachers both in our family and friends (maybe it would suit you better if I started quoting the "Rags"? Wink )


Quote: (and if they don't like it - dial a lawyer will get them money)


is a slightly tongue in cheek comment on our "Dial a Lawyer" society will always find someone to blame for whatever happens

Last Modified By brian1208 at 29 Dec 2012 - 5:00 PM
brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110152 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
29 Dec 2012 - 7:44 PM


Quote: when I was at school in 70's/80's.


I've just spotted this Nick and it explains our differing views of the educational system as my experience is from the '40's and '50's, very different systems Smile

keith selmes
29 Dec 2012 - 11:30 PM

Many of us did benefit from the 11 plus and grammar school system. Earlier generations could get scholarships, but that route seems to have been quite limited. The new system opened oppportunities for a lot of people from a lower class background. A lot of people I've worked with came through that way from very humble backgrounds.

However the system was deeply flawed and essentially unfair. It was based on the theory that intelligence is hereditary, and that an IQ test can sort out the minority who are able to absorb an academic education. They would get a grammar school education and become the administrators and professionals. The rest, who were supposed not to able to be educated, would be manual workers.

In fact the theory was rubbish, and people who passed would tend to be those who had a good primary school educaction or home schooling. In my case the village school gave no real preparation for the exam, but I was given correspondence lessons and practice papers at home.
At grammar school, it surprised me how many children had come from one particular primary school, and also the fact that they had serious schooling, were set homework, and had exam practice.
Consequently, I assumed for many years the 11 plus was just an entrance exam, to see who had a good enough basic education to proceed to grammar school. It never occurred to me that it could have been a test of anyone's innate intelligence. It was so obvious that for most people it would depend on their schooling more than anything.

This is one reason why, despite having a science degree, I don't trust scientists. Decisions are made which affect millions of people, but are based on flawed, if not actually faked, research.

It seems also the system has become distorted over time. My father was able to get a modest priced course and put me through it. But now it seems to have turned into a big and expensive business, where money confers a huge advantage, and it can be serious money.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7778608.stm
"The working class families seem to be disadvantaged with their smarter kids who can't get that extra step ahead."

And
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/oct/11/grammar-schools-tuition-private-...

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 73802 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
30 Dec 2012 - 12:44 AM


Quote: This is one reason why, despite having a science degree, I don't trust scientists. Decisions are made which affect millions of people, but are based on flawed, if not actually faked, research.

I agree with 95% of your post above Keith, I cannot tho agree with the above.

From someone who has spent my working life in a science based discipline (even if I sold my soul, to go into the commerce side), most of the scientists/ technicians i meet are exceptionally conscientious and honest, almost to a fault. Science is very black and white, it's either right or wrong, if its wrong you have to find out why to make it work, to be dishonest would make any research worthless.

What you probably refer to is when sales / marketing (guilty as charged) get involved and put a spin on the findings - highlighting the good bits, and de-emphasising other bits.

Tho science by its very nature is cutting edge, so some ideas/products etc may with time be proved to be either wrong (or more likely to be an incomplete picture).

keith selmes
30 Dec 2012 - 9:22 AM


Quote: to be dishonest would make any research worthless

Cyril Burt. I believe he did a lot of good work, but his research on inherited intelligence was at best flawed, and at worst faudulent.
Controversy continues but "Leslie Hearnshaw, a close friend of Burt and his official biographer, concluded after examining the criticisms that most of Burt's data from after World War II were unreliable or fraudulent"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Burt

To be fair, it was other scientists whose work discredited the theory, and I learned about it on a science course.
There is a lot to be said for scientific method, and that is partly because it doesn't always assume that received wisdom or current theory must be correct.

DonnaM118
DonnaM118  1
1 Jan 2013 - 11:34 PM

Wow I was only having this conversation with a friend earlier this week.

I think that from when I was younger Im only 30 now but what a difference - We as children played out alot more - I was not allowed a Television in my room until I was 14 so I grew up with my nose in a book or building forts in the back garden with my brothers or of on our bikes. I had alot of freedom as a child and as a teenager I was trusted to do as I said I would and was made to take responsibility of my own actions if I didnt! However I had friends that sneaked out and got drunk or got into trouble with the police beause they werent allowed to do things and they rebelled my parents simply explained what consequences I could expect from drinking - taking drugs and told me that I was sensible enough to make the decision but they would not tolerate stealing and lying and if i was caught doing either id loose that trust and freedom - I never did it was much easier to behave tell the truth and be responsible and go where I liked not having to look over my shoulder in case I was spotted like my friends were!

I think it depends on the generations surrounding family - I have two brothers both with there own familys one family spend alot more time on their computers and the other family are never at home they are always very active and outside so I think it depends on outside influences!!!!

I think that kids dont have alot to interest them nowadays and not nearly enough affordable after school activies!!!

lemmy
lemmy  71762 forum posts United Kingdom
2 Jan 2013 - 11:42 AM


Quote: . They would get a grammar school education and become the administrators and professionals. The rest, who were supposed not to able to be educated, would be manual workers.

That reduces a serious and wide ranging subject to slogans. Things were never so cut and dried and pat. The great majority of the time for the great majority of people life is graduations of grey, not black and white.

There were good things about grammar schools as well as bad ones. Some scientists have faked evidence. That does not mean all scientific evidence is faked.

There is something in the English psyche that likes to polarise all arguments and discussions. It makes the arguments and discussion pointless. We see it illustrated perfectly at prime ministers question time. When important affairs could be discussed, politicians prefer to shout, jeer, gesture and jibe like overgrown schoolboys and girls.

My theory is that it is really a way of avoiding rational discussion of difficult subjects, of appearing to discuss something while retaining a closed mind unwilling to see that a different point of view can be just as sincerely held as your own and is probably, like your own, partly true and partly false.

George Orwell wrote about this aspect of England many times, the 'four legs good, two legs bad' style of argument and politics.

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 73802 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
2 Jan 2013 - 11:54 AM


Quote: There is something in the English psyche that likes to polarise all arguments and discussions. It makes the arguments and discussion pointless. We see it illustrated perfectly at prime ministers question time. When important affairs could be discussed, politicians prefer to shout, jeer, gesture and jibe like overgrown schoolboys and girls.

My theory is that it is really a way of avoiding rational discussion of difficult subjects, of appearing to discuss something while retaining a closed mind unwilling to see that a different point of view can be just as sincerely held as your own and is probably, like your own, partly true and partly false.

George Orwell wrote about this aspect of England many times, the 'four legs good, two legs bad' style of argument and politics.

I don't think its just restricted to the English, but most of the Western World - certainly those of Anglo-Saxon herritage.

You make a great point tho - I have cousins in Australia, as part of their curriculum they have a debating society. Where they are encouraged to take the opposite viewpoint to what they themselves believe. They then had to "debate" the issues, where they have to present the case. It does certainly help I think in developing a more rounded tolerant person.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.