Indigo Children: Bollocks or Buddhas?

Couldn't agree more. Alot of the personality questionnaires (to determine whether you are indigo or not) are so lengthy and all-encompassing that to fail to be classed as an indigo would be a mircale in itself. I watched a prog a while back about indigos and most of the mums were either mystics themselves or parents with children suffering from add, etc. You're right, they'd rather their children be 'special' (indigo) than suffering from some mental/physical problem which requires time, effort and alot of emotional expenditure to remedy. When I visit mysticism forums I argue about indigo all the time. One woman (who claims to be in regular contact with God and the astral realms) claims that 99% of children born are now indigo (or since the 1980's.) Where she gets this statistic from is beyond me - and I mean literally - because she 'received' the percentage from the otherworld. The mystic's greatest get-out clause - if you can't prove it empirically then create a realm inaccessible to 'us mere mortals'. People in the states are paying hundreds of dollars to be invited to sit in conference rooms with their children whereby they are privileged enough to be told 'officially' that their kids are special, lol. The 99% of kids born since the 80's who are destined to change our world are demonstrating their advanced spirituality in some very ironic ways, don't you think! Give the rogues their due - they know how to make a quick buck through talking complete shite.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Wow.

If a kid is a bit precocious, a bit rowdy or seems a bit confident, it must be due to spiritual intervention or powers beyond this realm. Right?

Can't people just be the way they are because they are? Amazing things can happen without ever needing to explain them by introducing new and amazing powers, gifts, realms and entities into the equation.

Conversely, you don't need to think your child is extraordinarily gifted to let them be creative, or to help them to be so.

You can just do that you know, without recourse to unearthly spirits to prop up your decision.

Cheers,

Mark

People want to believe things so they make things up or read about it or see it on TV or something and eventually convince themselves it is true and that it applies to them.

It is bullshit.

Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Well, apparently my middle child is an Indigo Child. How else can I explain her out of control behaviour? Her ADHD? Her abhorrence to authority? Wow. I am a lucky mum.

There was me thinking I have a future anarchist within my walls. Instead, I have a esp specialist in the making.

Ack!

I forgot to say - what a load of bullshit.

here we go. Below is a traits list which would determine whether you are indigo or not. Now a very simply process is at work here and I'm stunned that the people attracted to this don't see straight through it immediately. It's simple: this list is a pyscological model of the 'type' who would be attracted to the indigo 'idea' - that's all. So transparent, but one of the dominant traits of these people is an eagerness to believe. If you ever happen to discredit a mystic with hard facts then be prepared for the gnashing of teeth. Sensitive, insecure and escapist to the hilt. This list is for the 'first wave' of indigo adults, btw.

~ Were born en masse between 1969 and 1987 (With stragglers before and after).

~ Highly intelligent in their "Own Way."
~ Are literally "wired differently" than other people.
~ Many have strong or unusual Psychic and Telekinetic abilities.
~ Have extraordinary levels of compassion.
~ Have purple/UV as their favorite color or see it in their dreams.
~ Have an affinity to Knights, Castles, and Dragons.
~ Shut down psychic abilities because it scares people.
~Feel like they could be one of the characters on the 1980's television series "The Misfits of Science" or one of the young people in Xavier's school for the gifted in the recent movies from the comic books "The X-Men."
~ Many times get along better with animals and nature than people.
~ Have a bond/connection to the trees, and nature in general.
~ Can relate well to children and or the elderly.
~ Creative, inventive, and very intuitive.
~ Involve themselves in human/animal rights efforts.
~ Have an innate sense of "oneness" and connectedness to all of creation. Get confused and disturbed when others don't share their reality of "at-one-ment."
~ High capacity for love, and therefore others may feel uncomfortable by their intensity.
~ Very sensitive, sometimes "Hyper Sensitive" and may not be able to distinguish between the emotional fields of those around them and their own personal emotions.
~ May go through periods of apathy and cynicism as coping mechanisms.
~ Intense longing for "their own kind"….Soul Mates…but don't know where to look.
~ Have what I endearingly term H.D.D. or "Hug Deficit Disorder" and need immense amounts of physical touching, hugs, and love to "cuddle."
~ Because of being misunderstood and then betrayed, may develop strong trust issues, and therefore keep many of their thoughts, feelings and opinions to themselves.
~ About 30% have difficulties expressing them selves, especially in writing. NOTE: If you read some of the poorly written correspondence from some of these First Wave Indigos, you would assume they were uneducated and nearly illiterate, but the truth is, that these same people can also be speed readers and can absorb information in seconds that would take others minutes to understand and retain.
~ Very disciplined when properly motivated.
~ Get bored and or frustrated in school.
~ Male Indigos (and many Females) for the most part don't "do authority" very well because most of the time they are smarter than those in authority.
~ Many find themselves in "Alternative Schools."
~ Female Indigos seem to be able to cope better with the school systems than their male counterparts.
~Have a strong sense of truth, ethics, justice and freedom. (That is why "authority figures" many times irritate and frustrate them). When these are in jeopardy, will give their "all" for their cause, and many times feel they would rather die than give-in to tyranny and deception.
~ Many are labeled "Dyslexic" and find themselves in "Special Classes" at school that usually never work for them.
~Indigos have a strong desire to know "why" …and if they don't see "the point" in something, (or if is it isn't explained properly), will feel it is simply not worth their time/energy and will either react with resistance or just simply "blow off" the people/things that seem not worth their time and energy.
~ Innately have their own ways of calculation and many have been accused of cheating in school because they do the answers in their head and cannot show their work.
~ Indigos have an evolved awareness of how things work, therefore, many of the rigid rules and methods of learning Math, English, and Physics (NOT metaphysics or quantum physics) make no sense to them.
~All First wave Indigos have what might be termed as "A Gift of Healing" ....whether it is making people feel better with their humor and wit, hands on healing, animal and plant healing, healing with music and tone, or healing with new "unproven" methods.. …some of which are natural and need no external training for.
~Many Indigos have "Telepathic Healing" abilities and long distances make no difference to the efficiency of their work.
~ Because of their expanded perception, unusual creativity, wanting to try new things, and running way ahead of what is being taught in class, many were diagnosed as having Attention Deficit Disorder, and put on Ritalin as children.
~Most Indigo's (especially males) have a high innate aptitude for computers/electronics and or auto mechanics. It is common for them to "Just Know" how to operate and trouble shoot with very little help from a book or an instructor.
~First Wave Indigo's are extremely creative, and express this innate skill in many (and often times OUTRAGEOUS forms.) These skills manifest in: Drawing, Painting, Sculpting, Decorating, Photography, Writing (in sometimes very extreme and unique ways), Making Blueprints and Prototypes, Composing and Playing Music….(even if they have never had lessons), inventing games, and creating new & more efficient ways of doing things.
~Very few Indigos are interested in aggressive sports such as Football and Hockey. They would rather spend their physical exercise time and energy in personal achievement and outdoor sports such as track & field, skateboarding, mountain climbing, cycling, kayaking, etc. They are also attracted to discipline and self-defense sports such as Fencing and Martial Arts
~Because of their feeling so foreign to this planet, a very high percentage of Indigos have been put on "Antidepressants" to make them appear "Normal" and fit in our society….this is just a temporary fix though, and only adds to their challenges.
~Many Indigos are drawn to Theatrics, Drama, and Stand-up Comedy. In these venues they can "pretend to be someone else" when actually they are using this as an outlet to vent and express their own views and pent up emotions. It is also a place for "misfits" to find a place of refuge and "fit in".
~ Because of their feeling so "alien" here, many go through periods of severe grief, loneliness, and displacement…..and may turn to drugs, alcohol, or attempt suicide for a way out.
~One trademark that a high % of First Wave Indigos have, is living through extreme hardships as children, teenagers, and young adults. Many were born into family situations that were physically, emotionally, spiritually and psychically abusive. These Indigos had to figure out how to balance and keep their inherent integrity levels, while being subjected to painful and life shattering experiences. A large % were inplanted in such horrendous situations as: organized crime, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and even ritual/cult abuse & mind control. It is also common for First Wave Indigos to have some kind of Alien encounters.
NOTE: There seems to be a Dark Agenda on this planet to keep Indigos from waking up and taking on the mantle of power they have inside. That is why so many Indigos have been sucked into such harsh and debilitating environments. The dichotomy is, that Indigos innately know that in order to transform the corruption, pollution, and dysfunction on this planet, you have to go inside to the core or mind of the system to know how it operates and thus how to change, alter and bust that system. Indigos came here to bring order and balance back to a planet in chaos…..and headed for distraction. I believe that Indigos are the 5th element that has come as part of "The Cosmic Clean-up Crew" to rid the planet of corrupted consciousness and physical/energetic diseases that are imprisoning, destroying and mutating all life forms here!
~Many have been the recipient of a "Shove-In" (see Laura Lee's book "Living in an Indigo House" for more information on Walk-Ins and Shove-Ins) because of their deep empathic abilities. This can add to the pain and insanity in their lives.
NOTE: Shove-Ins can be removed and taken to their proper place through a session with Laura Lee and her Ghostbusting partner Ronnie.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

I have loads of the characteristics, such as feeling like royalty but I go to meetings that help me deal with this now

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

Ha, ha! You n' me both, Jude. I especially feel at one with:

"May go through periods of apathy and cynicism as coping mechanisms.", "Very few Indigos are interested in aggressive sports such as Football and Hockey." and

"It is also common for First Wave Indigos to have some kind of Alien encounters."

How did they know about that!?

Hmm. Rereading 'Cat's Cradle' at the moment. Kurt Vonnegut says:

"Anyone who cannot understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book."

He's also made other comments at various times to the effect that truth can go to heck - we become better people by believing in ludicrous lies.

So I guess that applies here, to an extent, if people can love their children better by believing in this Indigo Child stuff, fair enough. It's no more bollocks than many of the ideas that cynics exchange as cod-wisdom, or indeed, most of what Oscar Wilde came out with. Different people find comfort in different untruths - usually ones that provide the illusion of truth in very simplistic terms.

What *is* offensive, however, is how painfully dull the whole myth is. It's psuedo-mythical, flower-powered, sub-sub-X-Men tedium of the worst kind. It's like some kind of Neo-religion for Pre-schoolers.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Although I *did* note with interest that there was some tentative correlation between 'indigo' children and synesthesia. I think I have a form of synesthesia (for me, music has colours, and so do certain flavours). Maybe I am one of the First Wave of Indigo Children. *snort* Maybe it was the aliens.

Does anyone else have this?

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

yes. especially the colour of sound. I can also taste smells. weird, but i think most musicians can sense colour in sound because mixing and mastering is often referred to "colouring" a track. Many brand processors have their own unique colour and are used for the purpose of applying certain colours to instruments (such as tube amps and certain reverbs.) Beach Boys pet sounds does it for me colourwise. It's overflowing with a firework spectacular of colour.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Yes, Newcastle Brown Ale *tastes* brown.

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

Yeah, all this sounds like experience association rather than synesthesia.

"I can also taste smells."

Oh, come on. Taste *is* smell, except for sweet, salt, bitter, sour.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Oh - I didn't mean to imply that I had synesthesia - far from it. Sometimes when I say something tastes like petrol I'll get a response like, "how do you know that when you haven't tasted petrol?" But what I mean to say is that somethng tastes like petrol smells.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

'Yeah, all this sounds like experience association rather than synesthesia.'

It might be, Jack, except that certain music *does* have its own colours; for example, for me, the difference in colours between, say, Vivaldi, Mozart, and Bach are striking.

Vivaldi's music is overwhelmingly burgundy and cream-coloured.
Mozart's is mostly bright blue and yellow.
Bach's is usually a lovely, velvety green, especially the Brandenburg concertos. I seem to see the most colours with classical music; perhaps due to its complexity or something. I'm not even sure I can call it 'see'. They just have colours.

Jude is right; brown ale *does* taste brown, brown with blue in it. So does soy sauce, except soy sauce also has red. Dark chocolate, oddly enough, is bluey purple, shot through with red. It's kinda cool. I never knew what it was called until a couple of years ago; I just knew that when cooking certain things, I had to balance out the red and yellow flavours with the deeper flavours of brown.
A friend of mine says that when she eats dark chocolate, she sees conical spikes.

'Yeah, all this sounds like experience association rather than synesthesia.'

Jack, excuse my ignorance here, but when you say this do you mean that AG may be associating the colour green with Bach or Bach with the colour green because she may have been chewing on a lettuce leaf or something when she first heard his music? I find that wanting because, given my personal example above, the first time I heard 'Pet Sounds' I was sitting in the dark wearing headphones. I can understand the fact that when we mutter a word such as "teapot" a group of neurons will fire and present an image of a teapot in the mind's eye, but how to explain the brain associating a colour with a piece of music or vice verse, I dunno...

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

File this one under bullshit interpreted as glossolalia.

Chains and ricochets of experiences, yan - make some effort! I've been listening to John Power recently, which is a warm mahogany colour, because the drum beats sound very woody and he mentions autumn a couple of times, and all sorts of other reasons. Sometimes you have to think about it, but most sensory experiences can be described in terms of others.

Why is it whenever people describe synesthesia they always make it sound like a a dead duck of a superpower?

I'm Man-Man - I was bitten by a radioactive man. Now I have the powers of a man.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

This is silly. You're basically saying, "If *I* don't experience it, it can't exist," which even a philosopher such as yourself might have difficulty defending. I don't think anyone on here has equated seeing colour when hearing music to some kind of latent superpower, it's just a crossed wire or two in a part of the brain which leads to some neat effects and makes life more, er, colourful. If I were to wish for a superpower, believe me, it would be something *really* cool, like the ability to generate loads of money out of thin air.

I thought you played guitar, Jack.

Here's a piece from : http://www.musicianshotline.com/education/200610_educationcenter_eartrai...

"Focus on Listening and Color your Music with Perfect Pitch.
Perfect pitch is easy to understand. It’s just “color hearing” – very much like the way the eye sees visual color. In the field of sight we can perceive all the colors of the rainbow – red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet - because of different wave frequencies. Red light waves vibrate slowly, and yellow light waves vibrate faster; violet light vibrates fastest of all. For some reason, the eye is able to discern distinct and very beautiful colors according to the frequency of the light waves.

It’s the same with musical pitch. All the tones on a piano or a guitar are just a sound spectrum - the tones at the high end have sound waves which vibrate quickly, and the low tones vibrate slowly. If the ear is wide awake, it will hear delicate sound colors which it can learn to identify, much the same way as the eye identifies different light waves as different visual colors. This is color hearing - perfect pitch.

Perfect pitch does not mean that you associate visual colors with tones - for example, thinking of F sharp as red, G as green, etc. Rather, it is the perception of precise sound colors which are heard, not seen. If this seems a little unusual, it is only due to unfamiliarity with the experience."

As I said before, musicians use certain processors (such as tube-amps) because they have certain colours. Many composers hear in colour. How can you justify your theory when it comes to the colour of an outboard processor?

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

I think the problem with this sort of thing (back to the “Indigo Children” topic, btw), is that people who use such labels tend to shroud the actual real truth of the matter in mystical-speak, thus alienating people from the real cause and therefore shooting themselves in the foot in the process (or perhaps more accurately shooting the feet of those they claim to be helping/supporting).

Indigo Kids = gifted/creative/spiritual. Many kids have one or more of these traits, but lose them as they get older, have them suppressed for various reasons or are “misunderstood” or mis-labelled. Kids who are abnormally “gifted” in some way do, most likely, have a lot to offer the world – but is labelling them as “Indigo” really going to help their potential to be realised? I think not!

Psychologists/psychiatrists certainly don’t have all the answers, but it doesn’t make sense to shun all that these and other scientists have given to the world, in favour of “higher” truths. I believe in “higher” (or perhaps “deeper”) truths… But I believe they can be arrived at through all, and not just “mystical,” forms of knowledge.

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

Ha, ha, yes, I was labelled as 'gifted' when I was nine. What has my giftedness given to me? An admin job with the county council and a ten-year-old Golf.

I think this whole idea of indigo children is just silly; why would they all just happen to be born between 1969 and somesuch (for the first wave) and 1983 and somesuch (for the second wave)? Out of all the millennia humans have existed, why just these two particular generations? And have we heard of indigo children being born in, say, Botswana or Panama? Or is this exclusively a middle-class, Western 'phenomenon'? No. Don't bother answering!

I never said it didn't exist just because I didn't experience it. It just seems to me that synesthesia is one of those things, like schizophrenia or ADD, that makes people go, "Oh, I think I've got that!" when they hear about it, because basic descriptions make them sound like very normal things. It's pretty normal to associate music with certain colours - and pop music in particular as some sort of aural firework display - just like it's normal to identify different aspects of your personality that seem to be at war with one another. You have to get an expert opinion before you diagnose yourself as being mentally crosswired.

Yan - that whole extract you quoted is blatantly just wielding colour as a metaphor. One might equally switch the whole thing around and describe colour in terms of different musical chordings. You don't actually *hear* colour, since the specific definition is to do with light wavelengths, and you don't actually *see* music. But what you see and hear can be described in such terms because of the parallels between these senses.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I don't disagree that having an 'expert' diagnose whatever-it-is lends credence to whatever one thinks the issue is; but it's unlikely that I will ever go to, say, a psychologist, and tell him, "Hey, guess what, when I drink mead I see pink and green. Can you diagnose me with something, please?". It's just not worth the bother. I *know* that the mead I drank tasted like pink and green, and that it's neither here nor there. It's just interesting. Not all foods have colours, just some of them. Not all music makes me 'see' colours; just some of it. Hardly worth a diagnosis, is it?

AG said... "I think this whole idea of indigo children is just silly"

Well… I don’t think the central idea is silly… What I was trying to say above was that I think it’s a question of packaging. If an idea is a machine, the machine may be useful and have all the right parts and basically work, but if you encase it in a box which has dolphins and butterflies on it and call it the PsychoMagnotron 2000… it kind of loses its credibility, doesn’t it?

If you trim away all the crap (and there’s a lot of crap) of this “Indigo Children” idea, there seems to be a core of sense and something that may actually be useful…

Intelligent, creative, spiritually-minded kids need to be nurtured and supported more, and if they are allowed to believe in their talents, they can do a lot of good for the world.

See what I mean? It is, of course, totally possible that such kids are imbued with some kind of spiritual GodChip, or they are direct descendants of Christ or whatever, but when we focus on this stuff, we are kind of missing the point. Jesus did speak to people about esoteric, mystical-religious stuff (more of which can be found in the Gnostic Gospels than in the “traditional” New Testament), but his core message about being nice to people was what he was most famous for – and isn’t that what really matters?

I think the Indigo Children movement is probably more likely, in the long term, to damage the children whose status they are supposedly elevating.

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

'Intelligent, creative, spiritually-minded kids need to be nurtured and supported more, and if they are allowed to believe in their talents, they can do a lot of good for the world.'

But shouldn't *all* kids be nurtured and supported more and allowed to believe in their talents? That's what I mean; the whole movement is exclusionist: me, not them, and aren't I special? Well, yeah, *everyone's* special, in their own way...

If I were to go back to this site where I saw the 'Am I an indigo child' question and wrote something like, "What a bunch of self-serving codswallop!", you can bet there'd be howls of protest from amongst the 'enlightened' on the site who choose to believe that their intelligence, talents, psychic ability, etc. are more pronounced than everyone else's. This kind of 'diagnosis', since we are discussing such things, can be very dangerous, and, as you say, ultimately quite harmful.

I am, in essence, agreeing with you, peps! :-)

Human-centrism again...duh...all our existence is and will be is a momentary, insignificant, nanosecond flash of light and energy in the universal 'tale' - billions of years passed before us and billions will pass when we're gone. Not to say that we're not unique seeing as we're (so far) the only part of the cosmos that can address itself, but if you study the history of this indigo idea you'll discover that its origins are even more contrived and fake than the resulting 'indigo' thing! I feel sorry for these poor kids; they're in no better a position than kids who have christianity or islam forced upon them before they're responsible and intelligent enough to make their own life choices. As Dawkins said (yeah, I love that guy:) "There are no christian or islamic children, only christian and islamic parents."

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

AG: “But shouldn't *all* kids be nurtured and supported more and allowed to believe in their talents?”

Well yes they should, but…

Speaking as someone who is the partner of someone who studied giftedness in depth for several years, I believe that the balance, in terms of the support and understanding that is available, is weighted in favour of more obviously “underprivileged” kids. Being “gifted” (and I am speaking about kids who just can’t fit into a normal school) can be as much of a handicap as being autistic, having ADHD or whatever. In terms of a child’s emotional life, it makes no difference whether you exist at the extreme right or the extreme left of the bell curve. The problem with helping gifted kids to realise their potential is that, in many people’s eyes, it smacks of “elitism” (my girlfriend was accused, by a lecturer at the uni where she was studying, of just such a thing) and we fear the creation of a Nazi-like superhuman race or whatever. Whereas all it’s really about is helping gifted kids, like any other kids, feel like they have somewhere where they belong.

Yan: "Human-centrism again..."

Very true, but best make the most of it while we're here, eh?

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

"I believe that the balance, in terms of the support and understanding that is available, is weighted in favour of more obviously “underprivileged” kids. "

I dunno, Peps, this might be just a British thing. Gifted kids get a decent amount of funding in the States; my son was in a programme at the primary school he attended there, and back in the Dark Ages when I was in primary school I was in a pilot programme for gifted kids; they took us out of school three days a week (for three years) to a classroom set up at the local Uni, where the lot of us got to learn how to blow shit up in the Uni chemistry lab, build volcanoes, speak German, etc. I can't say it did a lot of good for most of us 'gifteds' in the long term (none of us are billionaires or have been elected president, so far as I know) but it *did* save us the tedium of everyday school life.

"blowing shit up" = cool!

There's a lot to be said for being saved the "tedium of everyday school life"...
;-)

If I recall my other half's gifted kids studies correctly, yes the situation is much better in the States...

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

Pepsoid said above:

"it makes no difference whether you exist at the extreme right or the extreme left of the bell curve. The problem with helping gifted kids to realise their potential is that, in many people’s eyes, it smacks of “elitism” (my girlfriend was accused, by a lecturer at the uni where she was studying, of just such a thing). Whereas all it’s really about is helping gifted kids, like any other kids, feel like they have somewhere where they belong."

There is a bit of a difference though, isn't there? If you're at one end of the curve you are going to find many things in life significantly more difficult, based on the fact that you are less proficient than the average rather than more proficient end of the curve.

In a situation of limited resources, I'd always say give the resources to the people who need them the most. If someone is unhappy because they might get eight GCSE rather than twelve, I'd say sod them. They're doing okay. Give the resources to the person who's struggling to get one GCSE.

As far as I understood, school wasn't about helping people to find a place to belong. That's your own job, and I can't see the value in throwing loads of resources at people who will probably find their own way anyway, regardless.

In the grand scheme of things, as long as you come out of school with enough qualifications to do something else next, school means f**k all to how you turn out. I'm not buying the line that 'gifted' children suffer far more from being under stretched. Give them a bus pass and tell them to get out and explore the world and to stop worrying so much about school.

They'll be okay. They're better at thinking than other people, if we're taking Pepsoid's proposition as any measure.

Cheers,

Mark

Strongly agree with Mark on this. Not a lot of sympathy for these 'gifted' kids when alienation is par for the course in society anyway. Who decided that they have a monopoly on finding school immeasurably tedious?

I'm sorry, but I do also think that there's something vaguely fetishistic about 'helping' these kids, like we want to see if we can kindle some kind of godlike powers in them or something. It's a bit crass how society largely ignores or pities people who have learning disabilities but wets its pants when the spotlight is turned on some child who's supposedly going to cure cancer with the power of his mind.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

The vast majority of people involved in this indigo illusion are escapists, fantasists, emotionally unstable, world-weary loonies, and those who just want to be different for the hell of it. Alot of them (whom I deal with in mysticism forums all the time) have no apparent disabilities whatsoever other than the inability to understand the concept of reason.

Here's an admirable comment from a member of a forum I visit regularly:-

"well apart from my mom believing im an indigo child, i read up on indigo, crystal, and rainbow children and i have a few characteristics of all of them, but......i also heard about "lightworkers" that they are not indigo, crystal, or rainbow but are here to help these kind of kids, and i have the most characteristics of a lightworker, so to burst my moms bubble, i do not believe i am indigo, crystal, or rainbow.......but i dont want to call myself a lightworker either altho i do have a ton of traits of one, frankly i dont want to call myself anything! lol, because why call myself something just to appear special above everyone else, and plus giving myself a label makes me self conscious about it all the time and i find myself trying to be that way constantly, and if i dont call myself anything, well, i can just be myserlf, and isnt that whats really important? (corny clapping of hands in the background)"

The amount of times members have threatened to mutilate my soul over this argument!

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

"Being “gifted” (and I am speaking about kids who just can’t fit into a normal school) can be as much of a handicap as being autistic, having ADHD or whatever."

Well, being an Olympic sprinter and being born with no legs both have their particular challenges but given the choice...

Having three children, one perfectly average academically, one very much above average, and one dyslexic and dyspraxic child, I can tell you that the less able ones do get more help in education. When they dont have help, they withdraw. An able child gets fuck all help in my experience and ends up destructive, miserable and feeling really crap about school. You may consider this less of a problem, I dont. Giving a 5 year old a bus pass and telling them to go out and stop worrying about school is a pretty facile thing to say. Both ends of the spectrum need extra effort. As a parent I do what I can, and I think i do really well. When asked if I'd allow the child to sit detention for negative attitude, then my answer was no, frankly. They moved her up a year and lo and behold the problem stopped.

Interesting conversation this. I have no idea what 'indigo children' are, but I am aware of the 'special needs' catagory, which in schools today counts the whole spectrum from learning difficutlies to high ablity...

As part of my teacher training I am expected to be able to plan and teach classes which differentiate for ALL levels of pupils. I am expected to give tasks that suit all pupils. I am expected to have extention tasks for more gifted children.. and if appropriate use them to aid less able. In fact this is a good way of reiterating and enhancing all pupils' learning. It is great that I am expected to do this.

There is this thing, a really policy, called 'Every Child Matters'. I think it is very cool. I think it is a good thing. A lot of resources have gone into helping less able children, and that is brilliant. Why should school not bring out the best in every child? In theory in any case.

I am more than happy to plan my lessons for both sides. I feel terrible if I get to the end of a lesson and some kid has finished the work ages ago and is bored. Why should that happen?

"In a situation of limited resources, I'd always say give the resources to the people who need them the most. If someone is unhappy because they might get eight GCSE rather than twelve, I'd say sod them. They're doing okay. Give the resources to the person who's struggling to get one GCSE."

Interesting point - but the resources we are talking here, in many cases, are the resources the teachers have available.

I think people have problem with the word 'gifted', as though some people are born better than others. If it makes you feel better think of it as 'further along the learning path' rather than gifted.

Personally, I get a huge kick from challenging both sides of the spectrum, and don't forget all those in the middle who nobody talks about and are often forgotten.

Cath,

I wasn't telling anyone to give a five year old a bus pass. I was thinking primarily of secondary school, and the output of exams.

It's a fair while since I was at primary school, and I'm unsure how 'standard' my primary education was. I was a bit on the gifted side, and eventually changed schools because of it. I only got a bit more bolshy, and unhappy, when I went to a new school where things were slightly less freewheeling than at my previous one. I did benefit from the input of some more unconventional teaching when at primary school, and was seemingly free of any sort of structured assessment.

I was disagreeing with Pepsoid's statement that it was equally as hard for gifted kids as kids who were struggling.

I was also disagreeing with the provision of extra (beyond teaching) resources for 'gifted' kids. Fergal raises some points that I hadn't really thought about, in that the actually resource that is in use is usually teachers time. Doing extra stuff in class is, of course, correct. I was thinking of being taken away and having something really special done with you, with special teaching etc.

My understanding of gifted is slightly different from yours Fergal, and was following the lead of this thread, meaning children who were innately more able (taken from Persoid's bell curve / normal distribution example), rather than kids who had achieved more, or who could achieve quicker.

I still spend most of my life being as bored as when I was at school.

Cheers,

Mark

Yeah I got that Mark. I think the problem is when anyone talks about 'school' they are predominantly talking about school through their own eyes and how they experienced it...

I know for a fact that the way I am expected to teach now is nothing like how teachers taught me at school... we never had starters and pleneries and all those other things. We never had a SEN register on every single child when I was at school, whereas now against every name in my register I have reading ages, abilities, skills, difficulties etc.

I didn't know any of this till I started teaching, but certainly my idea of 'school' and 'teaching' and 'gifted' has changed since I began. It has changed so much. And I stand by the Every Child Matters thing. It is huge now... A lot of the 'gifted and talented' kids in school get extra things to do, like creative writing classes, or extra maths, or all sorts of things.

I was lucky enough to mentor on nationwide Gifted and Talented scheme in Creative Writing. The kids were all 14-17 and various abilities in the above average catagory. It was integral to their self-esteem and sense of self.

I just feel that every single person, in an ideal world, would be encouraged to develop a solid and self-believing sense of self. Gifted or no.

Maybe, in a year's time I will feel different and my - already difficult and many hours of work - job will be far to consuming to be able to cater to all kids, but I can but try.

I had a bit of a crash course in 'Every Child Matters' the other week when writing a proposal for a project working with young people.

I think, possibly, our notion of what education and educational establishments are for has changed. We all expect a lot more of schools now, rightly or wrongly, as they are the primary way that people are socialised.

I do agree that every child should be able to achieve to the best of their ability, and has a right to a number of things that make this possible. What I'm not sure about is the best of their ability bit, or whether all achievement can or should lie in school.

Surely there's a limit to what a school can do? Or a limit to what it can be expected to do?

It seems that we have a sense of every young person, everywhere, teetering on the brink of some dramatic precipice, ready to fall in unless a swift, meaningful intervention is made. Every young person is a potential tragedy, so to speak, ready to be eaten up by the terrible modern world.

Cheers,

Mark

All kids - gifted or less gifted - suffer from being taught badly.

To do their jobs properly, teachers need to understand the abilities of the kids they're teaching and - as much as they're allowed to - give them work that's relevant to their ability and stretches them enough to keep them interested.

I don't accept that this means that being gifted is equally difficult to not being gifted.

Like Mark, I strongly question whether it's the job of schools to provide young people with 'self-esteem and a sense of self'.

If this is the case I think schools are - in youth work speak - being 'set up to fail'.

I'm speaking as someone who would fall into the gifted category, did have a bad time at school and has suffered from low self-esteem and a questionable sense of self both while in education and afterwards.

Unfortunately it was beyond the bounds of my teacher's abilities to change the fact that I'm a skinny kid with glasses with a strong interested in poetry and politics in school full of kids who were less weird. That was why I had low self-esteem. I've always been quite comfortable with being clever.

If I'd been a skinny kid a skinny kid with glasses with a strong interested in poetry and politics, who had also been semi-literate and unable to add up my school career and subsequent life would have been much more difficult.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Cath...

Some of the comments above demonstrate just how the whole “gifted” concept is misconstrued. I’m not talking about kids who get 8 GCSE’s rather than 1 (or none). I’m not talking about kids who are just generally higher achievers than average. Gifted kids often don’t achieve. They are not challenged, therefore they, as Cath says, withdraw and end up “destructive, miserable and feeling really crap about school.” If their giftedness is not recognised and worked with, they don’t become Olympic athletes, Prime Ministers, CEO’s of companies or whatever... They become as lost in the forgotten parts of society as those with other forms of “learning disability” - because it is just another form of learning disability, if they are inhibited from learning because they are grossly underchallanged. I knew someone who undoubtedly was gifted, but was “educated” in a less-than-progressive school and was therefore treated as a disruptive, cocky kid with special needs, and made to sit at the back of the class - thus missing out on even the “normal” learning, never mind the social and emotional difficulties this treatment caused them to suffer.

Gifted kids - really gifted - can’t be just left to “get on with it” - they won’t “get on with it”! Again, to quote Cath... “Both ends of the spectrum need extra effort.”

Finally, this comment from Jack is just the sort of thing that really gets my goat...

I'm sorry, but I do also think that there's something vaguely fetishistic about 'helping' these kids, like we want to see if we can kindle some kind of godlike powers in them or something.

What?!! Feteshistic?!! These are children we’re talking about, Jack! However intelligent or whatever they are, they have just the same sort of needs as any other children. This is exactly the sort of anti-gifted prejudice I was talking about... Helping kids (gifted or otherwise) to realise their potential doesn’t mean we want to create a Nazi Super-race!!!

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

Maybe we *are* expecting too much of schools. God, the teacher's workload is ridiculous, and they're always hearing about their 'big holidays'... most teachers I know, ones who take their jobs seriously, get to school before 8 and leave at 5-6 and then get home and plan and mark until very late. They also spend weekends planning and sourcing resources.

I see no harm in schools encouraging 'self-esteem and a sense of self'... I mean, children spend all those hours every day there, for all those years... I don't see that doing those things automatically means:

"It seems that we have a sense of every young person, everywhere, teetering on the brink of some dramatic precipice, ready to fall in unless a swift, meaningful intervention is made. Every young person is a potential tragedy, so to speak, ready to be eaten up by the terrible modern world."

No! It doesn't mean that at all Mark, I don't think. I think it is more a case that as a society we are more aware that the traditional idea of school isn't necessarily the way to go, and that instead of that 'dramatic precipice' or a 'swift, meaningful intervention' it is more a case of developing a child's skills over their whole school career, encouraging, spotting and expanding on these and not just saying,

'Unfortunately it was beyond the bounds of (my) teacher's abilities to change the fact that I'm a skinny kid with glasses with a strong interested in poetry and politics in school full of kids who were less weird.'

That is a cop out, I feel. And also, to get to adulthood and truly believe that you were the only weird child at school with your own interests and differences is probably not the most healthy thing.

School can make such a difference in life, if it is done right.

"I'm speaking as someone who would fall into the gifted category, did have a bad time at school and has suffered from low self-esteem and a questionable sense of self both while in education and afterwards."

Yes, so maybe you do agree with me that schools should be looking at the whole child and not just learning a few facts.

I see it as my job, particularly in my subject, to help pupils learn how to argue a point, how to back up their own opinion, to empathise with others, to learn how to express themselves in ways that benefit themselves and others. I know I cannot help every single kid in the world, lord, I may even turn out to be a terrible teacher, but it is worth a shot. I want it to.

You would be amazed how many people think I'm doing the teaching as a gap between proper 'writing'... then when they see I have a first class degree they wonder why I am not doing something more 'exciting'... I had the chance to be a writer full time and I don't want to. I think teaching is one of the Good things to do. I think you can do a lot in that capacity.

And this comes from someone who was above average at school, who was ginger, with braces, chubby and was once punched so hard in the face that her brace went through my upper lip.

If only all teachers were like you, Ferg... ;-)

(my dad was a teacher, btw, so I totally know what you mean about the long hours, high expectations, etc)

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

"That is a cop out, I feel. And also, to get to adulthood and truly believe that you were the only weird child at school with your own interests and differences is probably not the most healthy thing."

As far as I know, I didn't say I was the only child at my school in that position.

Most schools have a large percentage of kids who feel 'different' and unhappy, and some people who feel at home and happy in school are never able to recreate that sense of belonging and self-worth in the outside world.

What I was questionning was whether teachers are responsible for providing a sense of worth (or otherwise).

Other points need more but now leaving office...

It sounds like the old bollox about how there is a fine line between genius and insanity. Hardly. The fine line is between being a genius and being a con artist. Insanity is very easy to spot and has naught to do with genius.

"You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall." Copies of Warsaw Tales available through www.new-ink.org

'Unfortunately it was beyond the bounds of my teacher's abilities to change the fact that I'm a skinny kid with glasses with a strong interested in poetry and politics in school full of kids who were less weird.'

It was there that I thought you were saying you were the worse of in your school. Sorry if that is not what you meant.

Maybe it is not the job of teachers to provide self worth... but it is a biproduct of good teaching is it not?

"What?!! Feteshistic?!! These are children we’re talking about, Jack! "

Egg-fucking-zactly. They shouldn't be treated like puzzle boxes whose 'potential' needs to be unleashed upon the world through the right deft manoeuvres. Who gives a damn if they don't grow up to be presidents and Olympic athletes? *They* might want to do things their own way.

If you can stop them being destructive by moving them up a year, then do it, and move onto the children whose destructiveness isn't such a simple problem.

And you can't complain about charges of elitism if you insist on calling them 'gifted'. I mean, for Christ's sake. 'Gifted'! You might as well go ahead and call them 'Indigo Children'.

"Gifted kids - really gifted - can’t be just left to “get on with it” - they won’t “get on with it”! "

So how exactly do you tell the difference between a gifted kid and a lazy kid? There was a guy I knew at school whose parents clearly believed he was 'gifted' - they moved him up a year, got him extra tuition, encouraged him to get involved in all the extra-curricular activities and harangued the school every time they felt he wasn't getting the right preferential treatment. And yeah, he was probably 'gifted' in the sense that you're talking about - he won clutches of awards every year for excellence in all fields. He just got himself expelled right before his A Levels because all this ridiculous treatment *made* him more and more stupid and arrogant and destructive.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

sighs

Cath, like you, I have a 'gifted' child and a very dyslexic child.

The older one is in year 9, in the first year of his GCSE's for MAths and Science, and expected to get A and A*. This is all great, but can we get him to do homework? He rarely gets punished because he's 'gifted'.

The 11 year old, who also has homework issues, gets loads of help for her learning difficulties, and loads of detentions for missed work. Somehow, that's not fair on her.

I'm glad they're pushing Tom, but they are also teaching him that if you're special, you can get away with murder. And that's not so good.

Alot of people do not develop passion for anything until they're out of education, unless you have a teacher or teachers who radiate their own passion onto the kids - which rarely happens or can happen when teaching profession seems to attract grumpy wannabe's but willneverbe's. There was never any passion in my lessons. As soon as the chalk hit the blackboard and the monotonous drone left their mouths I was miles away, playing guitar like Hendrix or screwing Winona Ryder. It was a real drag. The copying. The relentless copying from blackboard, copying from hand-outs, copying from text-books...ugh...sickening. Bizarrely, the lessons that I hated in highschool are now the subjects that I relish - all because a few minds have had the passion to present the subjects to me in exciting and awe-inspiring ways.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

So your kids are gifted. I'll still wail on them.
It's not a popular idea with the middle classes, that your kids will not immediately fulfil the ascribed criterion of "godhood" or "MENSA" as I knew it when I was schooled. It's 15 years later, juggling a child of their own with any semblance of their original dreams in life. Can't do it, can you?

I want to be stereotyped, I want to be classified.

justin_thyme: "It sounds like the old bollox about how there is a fine line between genius and insanity. Hardly. The fine line is between being a genius and being a con artist. Insanity is very easy to spot and has naught to do with genius."

Not “bollox,” I feel! The highly gifted and the (*ahem*) “insane” tend to see the world through different eyes to us “normal” folk… Unless you are one or the other, Justin (and you may well be, I don’t know), how could you possibly know what kinds of thought processes lead to this “alternative” perspective?

JC: “They shouldn't be treated like puzzle boxes whose 'potential' needs to be unleashed upon the world through the right deft manoeuvres. Who gives a damn if they don't grow up to be presidents and Olympic athletes? *They* might want to do things their own way.”

Well I can’t speak for specific gifted programmes, but the general principle behind them (and obviously there’s going to be uncouth exceptions) is to unleash the potential the kids themselves want to unleash… If, upon seeing what’s on offer, particular kids don’t want to explore the possibilities, fine, but they deserve to be given the option.

JC: “And you can't complain about charges of elitism if you insist on calling them 'gifted'. I mean, for Christ's sake. 'Gifted'! You might as well go ahead and call them 'Indigo Children'.”

I suppose the term has stuck because it’s easier to say than “Highly Intelligent” or “on-the-extreme-right-of-the-bell-curve”… Except the former would be contentious, because the notion of intelligence is, in a nutshell, woolly. There is “convergent” intelligence, which relates to the more obvious and measurable mathematical, logical and spatial skills; and there is “divergent” intelligence, which is, very generalistically speaking, creativity… and there are all sorts of grey areas in between. Is a highly creative individual highly “intelligent”? This is the sort of question psychologists having been bashing around for years, and are probably unlikely to come up with a simple answer to any time soon. Hence the all-encompassing term “gifted”!

JC: “So how exactly do you tell the difference between a gifted kid and a lazy kid?”

You don’t, because giftedness and laziness are two separate things – one doesn’t imply the other. Obviously there are occasions where parents, or indeed schools/teachers, will push (or as they would have it, “encourage”) their alleged “gifted” kids too far, against their will. This sort of thing, obviously, is wrong. It’s akin to those ridiculous child beauty pageants. But because there is a chance that this sort of thing might happen, does this mean we should stop trying to help the genuinely gifted kids who want to be helped?

Lisa H: “I'm glad they're pushing Tom, but they are also teaching him that if you're special, you can get away with murder. And that's not so good.”

No, it’s not!

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

"The highly gifted and the (*ahem*) “insane” tend to see the world through different eyes to us “normal” folk… "

Bees also have a different ocology to us normal folk, but we won't allow them special priveleges in our school systems, much to the contrary our children get away with hanging around near summer bins and killing the poor blighters.

In terms of "specialhood" being a trait allocated to more and more kids these days, it's important to note that when a child is more intelligent than their parent, there's automatically the assumption that they are gifted. They aren't, it's just 20 years in the future. And most middle class parents interested in this guff are dribbling idiots. We'll all look like knuckle-scrapers in one hundred years time.

"I want to be stereotyped, I want to be classified."

OOOOh, richardw! Are you a Descendents fan?! At last, I've found one!!

*swoons*

richardw: “it's important to note that when a child is more intelligent than their parent, there's automatically the assumption that they are gifted”

I just want to say at this point that I am extremely wary of “over-labelling” (if there is such a term…!). I don’t think it’s necessarily helpful to constantly be saying, “My kids got syndromes x, y and z”… and always expecting special treatment on the strength of that. That said, as I said before, I am not talking about kids who are just “more intelligent than their parent” or slightly higher achievers than average. I’m talking about the sort of children who are at the extreme end of the scale and consequently find it very difficult (not just academically, but emotionally and socially) fitting into any kind of mainstream school.

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

Oh the likes of kids with asberger's (sic) syndrome or a sort of borderline autism? I haven't met any but if you bring the genius kid out of school then that kid's gonna have an even greater sense of despondency and alienation. I'm not going too far out of the box in saying that increased power brings with it great responsibility. I mean greater intelligence implies a social pariance (cool new word) that schools need to solve by involving nerds in the community and in PE: kids need integrated not excluded. They're going to be wailed on if they aren't.

Even these indigo children or tomorrow people or whatever you want to call them will not have that great an effect on our lives, it's still going to be the cigar-chomping, big-car-driving, no-cock-having, you-buying chief executives we have today. I reckon all the tuition fees can be saved by teaching your kid to shove to the front of queues and complain loudly when things don't go their way.
And I'm spent.

ag: I don't want no hippy fad - I wanna be just like mom and dad!

"...increased power brings with it great responsibility..."

- does that apply if you're not Spiderman?

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

"I don’t think it’s necessarily helpful to constantly be saying, “My kids got syndromes x, y and z"

Necessarily? It's awful!

Behavioural difficulties are behavioural difficulties, whatever the reason. Some kids might need to be 'challenged' more, others need more stable home lives, others need stricter punishments, others might have a whole tangle of problems. But this whole 'gifted' label implies, 'Oh, they're not like other kids who are troublesome - it's a misdiagnosis.'

Sure, schools are often inadequate institutions for dealing with the variety of problems children face - that's why there are people working to change that - but I just don't see the justification in a complaint that these 'gifted' kids are getting alienated and frustrated, when that's happening to all kinds of children for all kinds of different reasons. I think it's especially offensive to suggest that the amount of attention special needs children get is disproportionately high - the facilities available to them are usually the bare minimum they need to get anything out of the education system. It doesn't solve *their* alienation problems.

"I’m talking about the sort of children who....find it very difficult (not just academically, but emotionally and socially) fitting into any kind of mainstream school."

So, everyone but the mini-socialites?

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Can I point out that not all 'gifted'kids are trouble? Tom is 13 and hasn't hit his growth spurt. So he is under 5 feet, and all his school peers are 5'6" or nearing 6 foot. So he hates PE. But he is actually pretty good on the field because he is small and nimble. He tends to be a loner, quiet, introspectve. He's not trouble at school, if he's bored in a lesson, he tends to sneak a book out of his bag and read. I don't encourage this, but it's better than causing trouble. He has been tested for OCD (he learns a subject to death then moves on) he's been tested for autism and aspergers. He has neither, although one of his few friends at school is an asbergers kid.

Now Bea, has massive learning problems. As JC said, trouble kids are usually that way through a variety of problems. She bore the brunt of my ex, and he messed with her head terribly. She is disruptive, bored, unable to learn, but not unintelligent. She is eleven, and a few weeks ago, we caught her smoking. She says she's 'quit' but we're just holding our breath and waiting for whatever is next. She is the child that will make us grey.

Don't box kids in too much, they are all different, and a product of environment and genetics. Whether they are disruptive or not is a mix of these influences.

What will Tom become? We don't push him. He wants to go to Oxford or Cambridge. He wants to be a scientist and go to Mars. Who knows, I just want him to be happy. If that means running a veg shop on the high street (a secondary goal of his) that's just fine.

In the absence of Miss, it’s good to have someone to bang heads with, Jack… :-)

When I say I’m wary of over-labelling, that doesn’t mean I think labels are completely useless. With the huge variety of problems (or “issues” if you like) kids and human beings in general face, many of which require specific methods to tackle them, we can’t dispense with labelling altogether. Psychological problems/issues are admittedly more difficult to define than, say, physical illness, but the same sort of principles apply – you wouldn’t classify people with flu and people with cancer as just “ill” and offer them the same treatment, would you? So labels are, to an extent, necessary, in order to distinguish between different sorts of problems… or issues. I think it’s important to distinguish why particular kids are feeling alienated or whatever (whether it’s related to their “giftedness” or anything else), and treat them accordingly. Behavioural difficulties are not behavioural difficulties! You can’t just throw them all in the same pot.

Lisa: "Don't box kids in too much, they are all different, and a product of environment and genetics."

Absolutely! But I think “giftedness” is something which is too often overlooked and underappreciated as a contributor to their individual and unique personalities.

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

Further up this thread I said:

"It seems that we have a sense of every young person, everywhere, teetering on the brink of some dramatic precipice, ready to fall in unless a swift, meaningful intervention is made. Every young person is a potential tragedy, so to speak, ready to be eaten up by the terrible modern world."

What I mean is: We seem to think that school is the be all and end all of everyone's life. We seem to focus hugely upon a number of years at the start of your life. If you mess up school, then that's it, we cast the person from a shonky mould and it's going to be all drugs, bad sex, mental illness, poverty and violence for ever and ever.

In this sense, we seem to be looking at childhood in terms of risk, rather than possibility. To put it another way, were constantly looking at the failure of our services or society to do this thing above the average, rather than celebrating that most people do all right. The default feeling seems to be "A kid is at risk of not doing well", rather than "we are happy with what a kid achieves".

I dunno, it seems we always feel that someone is cheating us out of something. Sometimes, you just get on with stuff and see how it turns out. Sometimes it works out well, others less so.

I don't think I'm arguing from a particular classroom based perspective. Fergal is at the the Chalk Face, and I'm sure wants the best for all of the kids she teaches. I'm thinking in a more general, less specialist sense, of the grand tide of opinion and feeling.

I firmly believe in education as the motor of social mobility, but it seems to me the wheels to that particular vehicle are, to say the least, a bit wobbly of late.

Cheers,

Mark

"When I say I’m wary of over-labelling, that doesn’t mean I think labels are completely useless."

Your description was of parents "constantly" referring to their kids as this, that and the other, like it defines them somehow.

"I think it’s important to distinguish why particular kids are feeling alienated or whatever (whether it’s related to their “giftedness” or anything else), and treat them accordingly."

Yes, but what I object to is the separation of 'giftedness' from all the others. Like there's 'gifted-disruptive' and then just plan 'disruptive', which groups nearly everyone else. You can look at anything in isolation, but why should special allowances be made for the ones who's problem is that schools don't challenge them enough?

"Behavioural difficulties are not behavioural difficulties!"

Write a paper on that.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'To put it another way, were constantly looking at the failure of our services or society to do this thing above the average, rather than celebrating that most people do all right. The default feeling seems to be "A kid is at risk of not doing well", rather than "we are happy with what a kid achieves.'

Mark, I continue to love you. This is my philosophy exactly. My son, who is very bright but is what I'd call a 'deliberate' thinker rather than a 'quick' thinker, doesn't do well on his (timed) maths tests. I had a near-argument with his teacher about this. She felt he's not fulfulling his potential - 'think of the sense of achievement he'd feel if he completed his maths tests on time!'. I pointed out that a) he's eight, and why on earth are eight-year-olds subjected to timed tests in the first place when they should be enjoying learning; and b) some people *just aren't that good at taking tests*, and therefore I wasn't going to worry about him. Oh, she didn't like this attitude at all. No doubt she feels, deep inside, that it's my lack of parenting that will bring about his academic downfall, when really I feel that school is only a part of the huge learning tapestry of life, and, while important, is not worth me riding him to 'achieve' something he isn't yet ready to tackle.

Sorry, was that a rant?

Ah, I get ya.

Well, I can see that, yeah.

The year 11 kids at the school last week had an assembly where their deputy head said,

'You know what, exams are noway near the most important thing in your life. One day you won't even remember what you took them in.'

and there seems to be a big emphasis on each kid doing what is good for them. Not always academically, but that probably depends on school to school, teacher to teacher, head to head.

But then again, the school I teach at has 40% a-c at GCSE and is proud of that because there is a great sense of community at the school and the kids have lots of interests other than academic. It's true that the pressure from government doesn't help at times - though at other times it does. We are expected to get %52 a-c this year, so I'll have to see what happens if they don't.

Hmmm. i dunno.

I suppose it's like when my dad wouldn't let me take art GCSE and A Level despite that being the thing I excelled in and loved. He said it wouldn't 'get me anywhere', which is crap.. that strange attitude that it is only a handful of things that are worth anything..

But those new diplomas come in over the next few years, the skills related ones instead of A levels and GCSEs, so we'll have to see what that does too.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's important that kids do as well academically as they can, but in the largest picture, unless the kid is on a track leading to a career in academia, it doesn't matter quite so much as the Govt would like to think. I was considered 'gifted', but was only an average student. I was shite at maths until I went back to Uni at 29, when the whole maths world opened out for me. I would say that the *rest* of my life has proven far more 'educational' than anything in school ever was. I don't want to discourage my kids from doing well in school if they are capable of doing well (which they are); however, neither do I want my kids to commit suicide at age 17 to escape the pressures of 'doing well' on their exams, as some poor girl did here recently. It's just not worth it. If my son wants to be a dustman, great, so long as he's happy.

Jack: “Yes, but what I object to is the separation of 'giftedness' from all the others…

I never said I thought giftedness should be separated from “all the others”! It just seems that, at present, in the UK, giftedness receives disproportionately low levels of attention.

Mark: “We seem to think that school is the be all and end all of everyone's life…”

Totally agree with you, Mark. School isn’t the be and end all, and no one – child or adult – should ever be made to feel like there are certain things which they, by some standard, ought to achieve. My points about giftedness come down to options – all kids, gifted or otherwise, should be provided with the means to fulfil whatever potential they choose to fulfil – whether that’s being an astronaut or being a plumber… or a dustman!

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

"It's just not worth it. If my son wants to be a dustman, great, so long as he's happy."

I guess the argument is that if you get them through education with the best possible results they can achieve, they have the *choice* of doing a lot more. You don't really know what you want to do for a long time, if ever - and if you've got an degree and good A levels, it won't *stop* you becoming a dustman, while not having that might well stop you doing something else.

That said, I find myself in a situation where I feel a certain amount of pressure to pursue a graduate-style career because of the amount of money (and consequently, the amount of time and freedom) my parents have sacrificed to get me a good education.

" I guess the argument is that if you get them through education with the best possible results they can achieve, they have the *choice* of doing a lot more. You don't really know what you want to do for a long time, if ever - and if you've got an degree and good A levels, it won't *stop* you becoming a dustman, while not having that might well stop you doing something else."

This is absolutely correct, IMO, Jack. The gripe I have with pressuring my kids academically stems from my own personal experience in school. My parents were of the, "so, you got two As and two Bs on your report card. You can do better," school of thought, which led to a rather ruinous cycle of me NOT doing that much better and feeling horrible about it. I refuse to put that kind of onus on my kids, where they feel their efforts aren't 'good enough', when actually in the long run, they *will* be.

The fear I have about the 'gifted' label is the horror stories one hears about phenomenally 'talented' children, these 'child prodigies', who are relentlessly pushed by their parents, and many of whom seem to end up very famous and emotionally scarred, or simply emotionally scarred, their entire sense of self wrapped up in their accomplishments in whatever subject it is they have been forced to perfect. This seems to happen a lot with, say, chess champions and musicians. I think it's a form of child abuse, really, but sadly one that isn't culpable to any laws. I'll be happy with mediocre, but happy and well-adjusted, kids, thanks very much.

This is what I mean about people thinking about when they were at school.

I would fail my teaching qualification if I wrote 'could do better' on a kid's work.

It is indeed a form of child abuse, Arch. Another example of parents treating their children like commodities or extensions of themselves (like the child beauty pageants), rather than allowing them to grow within their own personal boundaries and expectations.

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

"I would fail my teaching qualification if I wrote 'could do better' on a kid's work."

Surely you are allowed to tell kids they 'could do better' as long you give them useful suggestions about how they could do so?

"It is indeed a form of child abuse, Arch. Another example of parents treating their children like commodities or extensions of themselves (like the child beauty pageants), rather than allowing them to grow within their own personal boundaries and expectations."

Well, now, hang on! Parents have to pay for their kids' education. They do so often at considerable disadvantage to themselves. Do you really think they lean on them for results just so they can feel good about themselves? That's pretty cynical.

Of course, some go way too far, but the principle, usually, is that the child is too young to make decisions for himself. Same reason you don't let them stay out too late, or watch whatever they want, or go wherever they want. Plenty of time for that later - if you can strike the balance where they enjoy their childhood, and yet do the best they can at school, then you put them in a position where they can develop 'their own personal boundaries and expectations' while possessing the best weapons with which to do that - learnedness, and a record of achievement.

Wouldn't you be pissed off if you got to your twenties and realised you were at a ridiculous disadvantage when it came to living any kind of lifestyle because your parents had decided that your laziness was a way of expressing your desire for alternative boundaries and defintiions of success?

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

"Parents have to pay for their kids' education. They do so often at considerable disadvantage to themselves."

Well, I don't pay for my kids' education as they're in a village school. I guess I 'pay' through my taxes. I *do* have to pay for afterschool care, which I hate. The biggest disadvantage is that school doesn't run the same hours that work does, or vice-versa (unless of course one goes down to part-time, which I suppose is 'paying' for education, via a much smaller paycheck).

But to this:

"Do you really think they lean on them for results just so they can feel good about themselves? That's pretty cynical."

I think there are most definitely cases of children being perceived as extensions of their parents, and so the academic triumphs of the children are seen as triumphs for 'brilliant parenting' by the parents. I would think this would especially be the case for private schools; if the parents are forking over 12K-plus a year for the kid's education, you can damn well be sure that the kid feels pressure to 'perform' to the expectations of the parents. Private schooling has all sorts of ramifications attached to it, to accompany the perceived 'benefits'.

"Wouldn't you be pissed off if you got to your twenties and realised you were at a ridiculous disadvantage when it came to living any kind of lifestyle because your parents had decided that your laziness was a way of expressing your desire for alternative boundaries and defintiions of success?"

I think this is an extreme argument, and doesn't hold up well when applied to the vast majority of people in the middle of the curve.

"Wouldn't you be pissed off if you got to your twenties and realised you were at a ridiculous disadvantage when it came to living any kind of lifestyle because your parents had decided that your laziness was a way of expressing your desire for alternative boundaries and defintiions of success?"

I'm lazy. That's why I chose office work over manual labour :) The pay was less in the short-term but it was a good lifestyle choice overall. is someone equating 'lifestyle' with consumerism?

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

"I'm lazy. That's why I chose office work over manual labour :) The pay was less in the short-term but it was a good lifestyle choice overall. is someone equating 'lifestyle' with consumerism?"

'Someone' is equating £5 an hour market research with a plunge into depression, and aware of the fact that their grandparents had to go straight into whatever local work was available from the age of 16 because the parents didn't see the point in any more schooling. 'Someone' is pretty damned grateful they got the chance to go to a good University, and have a good degree, even if they don't want a high-flying career.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

"Wouldn't you be pissed off if you got to your twenties and realised you were at a ridiculous disadvantage when it came to living any kind of lifestyle"

Why are people at a "ridiculous advantage" regards "living any kind of lifestyle" if they chose not to attend uni?

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Partly because they haven't had the chance to live somewhere else on a big, low interest rate loan, in an environment full of people in the same position, and thus have to get through the rigmorale of finding a place to rent, and sorting out all the stuff they need, on what's likely to be a pretty pathetic pay packet.

And partly because they don't have access to Uni career advisors, or because, as was the case with me, the area where my parents live is simply not very conducive to certain lifestyle choices (most places *aren't* London) and you don't really know how to live anywhere else.

I'm sure that some people are fine jumping straight out of school and into a job, but most will likely find it a difficult transition. Many just get stuck in the rubbish towns they grew up in.

University isn't just about getting a degree.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'Partly because they haven't had the chance to live somewhere else on a big, low interest rate loan, in an environment full of people in the same position...'

It's what we do our whole lives, Jack. Regards living somewhere else, is that part of your definition of a successful person? Living Somewhere else?

'most places *aren't* London'

If I'm not mistaken, all places aren't London, except for London. One of the conscious lifestyle choices I made was to stay as far away from cities as possible. Does that me less of a success than you?

'Many just get stuck in the rubbish towns they grew up in.'

People from small, 'rubbish' towns are often labelled as small/narrow minded, but judging by your comments above I'm inclined to conclude that it applies no matter where you live or what experience you might think you have.

How well travelled are you, Jack? How many miles is it from your parent's house to London then?

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Yan, you're arguing against a straw man. Stop making up what you *think* I said and start reading what I actually said. I'm talking about *lifestyle* choice, not success. The simple fact is that there's a lot of things you can't do if you're stuck in the town you grew up in. It might be OK if your 'lifestyle' choice is to do go down the pub every now and then or, I dunno, there might be a local S&M club, but everyone I've ever known to come from a small town, Parish or village, including myself, agrees that they're pretty shit for range of activities on offer, and is very glad they escaped. University is the major escape method.

"If I'm not mistaken, all places aren't London, except for London."

Gah! I should stop saying things with the assumption that people understand understatement.

"How well travelled are you, Jack?"

Just in England? Lived in Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Bucks and Norwich - only moved to London in the last few months. For lifestyle reasons. Shockingly, having a degree made it a lot easier to find a job I wanted here. Also stayed in various other places: Dorset, Abergele, Aberystwyth, Middlesbrough, Hastings, Devon... nothing too exciting, as I'm not rich enough to go galavanting off everywhere.

If you really think that University doesn't make any difference at all to the number of lifestyle options available to someone then you need to rethink the situation. I'm glad I was pushed to do my best at every stage, and don't feel it took anything away from my childhood at all - I've got all the same memories of great cartoons, toys, holidays, parties and pals as any other pampered middle class kid.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'It might be OK if your 'lifestyle' choice is to do go down the pub every now and then...'

I know a guy who did that for 15 years until he met a girl and they started an employment agency. I know a guy who refused to work because he enjoyed fishing. It took him 10 + years and a jail sentence to realise that it wasn't so much the fishing but nature that he enjoyed and he started a very successful gardening business. There was another guy who spent 20 years after school doing nothing but getting stoned and taking acid. He realised he was pretty damned good at painting and now he's director of an art studio complex in liverpool. All this happened in one of the "rubbish towns" you speak of.

I live very close to Jodrell Bank radio telescope and I can betcha there's a kid nearby cursing the town he grew up in ,unaware that one of the world's leading astronomers specifically chose his 'rubbish town' as an ideal base to discover radio galaxies at the edge of the universe.

Lifestyle depends solely on your expectations. There are many different roads. Some people have no expectations other than to follow their passions from moment to moment and don't necessarily care where they end up. Some people's expectations don't involve attending university as part of their lifestyle formula. Some do. Some people start out with clear-cut expectations and find themselves in a completely different situation years later. I know one girl who attended uni in the netherlands and then came back and ran a pub. One guy at school wanted to be a bus driver! fair enough - he did what he wanted and also managed to acquire his own continental coach company along the way. Serendipity graces many people throughout life too.

Personally I can live quite happily in a quiet town in the knowledge that there are 4 major cities within spitting distance. It's ok for nights out, shopping, museums, art galleries, gigs, theatre, blah blah...but that's about it. I'd rather live somewhere intended for good living rather than in an industrial furnace.

Lifestyle choices involve many factors and to hold the narrow minded view that the best of those choices can be made by moving to london and attending university is just ridiculous. That attitude seriously contributes to the homeless population.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

So your refute to my argument is examples of people who collectively wasted nearly half a century doing eff all? Nice one.

"Some people's expectations don't involve attending university as part of their lifestyle formula. Some do."

The simple fact is that the vast majority of lifestyles that any person might aspire to are made more possible by the University experience. You cite a few examples of what someone can do in their hometown, but none of these are things that can't be done by graduates living in a big city - on the other hand, there are plenty of things that graduates living in a big city can do that people stuck in their hometown can't. Go into publishing, for instance.

I don't think London is perfect. I'd like to move out at some point and go to somewhere 'nicer', as I expect most Londoner's do. But for me, as for many others, it's by far the best place in England for doing what I want to do, for getting on the road. Norwich was lovely, but there's no question it was holding me back, and I'm not going to sit around fishing for a decade just on the slim chance that some useful purpose for my life will occur to me. Not when I know I can make it happen *now*.

"Lifestyle choices involve many factors and to hold the narrow minded view that the best of those choices can be made by moving to london and attending university is just ridiculous."

Straw man alert! That's not what I said. Let's say it again: *most* lifestyle choices are made more accessible by the University experience. Many are still *possible* without attending Uni, but will subsequently require more effort, persistance and sheer luck. A very narrow band are unaffected. So in most cases, whatever it is you've decided to do, University is giving you the best possible chance of being able to do it.

That maximising of your chances goes back right to your GCSE's, and if it's possible to balance out doing your best with leading a relatively stress-free and enjoyable childhood, why not do it? Why should parents accept laziness as a kid's 'choice' to deprive themselves of further choices in the future? Any parent who does that sucks ass as bad as the ones who push their kids too hard.

"That attitude seriously contributes to the homeless population."

No it doesn't, Yan. That's the most stupid thing you've said thus far. My girlfriend's father is a teacher in Grimsby. He tells his best students, "Whatever you do, get out of Grimsby!" He does so in the knowledge that he is urging them to save themselves from what will be, in the vast majority of cases, a terrible fate.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'The simple fact is that the vast majority of lifestyles that any person might aspire to are made more possible by the University experience.'

Oh, how much I disagree with this statement! Yan is right: there are sooo many people out there who have achieved a great deal of success without a degree, or who have a degree and wind up doing something absolutely unrelated to anything their degree involved. My mother is a prime example. She *started* university, dropped out, got married, had me, divorced, then decided somewhere along the line to go into real estate, which netted her a VERY comfortable and well-off life. No uni involved, just some training (which didn't require a degree) and lots and lots of hard work.

The difference between success and failure in life isn't *all* down to education, I'm afraid. It's down to how hard you're willing to bust your arse in order to make success happen, and what you're willing to sacrifice to make it so. The number of people in my class at high school (who are all now in their late 30s) who have told me that their degrees were a complete waste of time and money is rather startling. I went through a good chunk of early adulthood without a degree, and still managed to find decently paid, interesting work in all sorts of places. The *only* reason I chose to finally do a degree was because I was at one point aiming to become a physician, but decided I didn't want to work 100 hours per week and forget my children's names; had I not done the degree, I would have found another path toward my goals nonetheless.

'Serendipity graces many people throughout life too.'

Yan, this is a beautiful view, and very true, IMO.

"there are sooo many people out there who have achieved a great deal of success without a degree, or who have a degree and wind up doing something absolutely unrelated to anything their degree involved."

Doesn't contradict what I said.

"She *started* university, dropped out, got married, had me, divorced, then decided somewhere along the line to go into real estate, which netted her a VERY comfortable and well-off life."

Doesn't contradict what I said.

"The difference between success and failure in life isn't *all* down to education."

Not what I said.

"It's down to how hard you're willing to bust your arse in order to make success happen, and what you're willing to sacrifice to make it so."

That's a factor. People with degrees generally have to bust their arse less, or can expect quicker results from their arse-busting.

"I went through a good chunk of early adulthood without a degree, and still managed to find decently paid, interesting work in all sorts of places."

Lucky you. In Grimsby, if you go to an employment agency without a track record of experience in a certain area, there's one thing they'll offer you: factory work.

What neither you or Yan seem to understand is that your examples only prove that it's *possible* to do certain interesting things without a degree. Neither of you have come anywhere near disproving the point that University simply gives you a lot more options. All these things your mother did and you did could have been done *with* a degree. But there are certain goals in life that are unattainable without one, and many more that are more easily attainable with one.

You can show me a thousand blind people doing very well for themselves, but you'll never convince me that sight isn't an advantage for most people.

Not to mention the fact that University gives you an environment where you have a lot more time, space and encouragement to work out what it is that you want to do. If you leave school, and have to get a job straight away, nearby, only a certain number of people will have the strength of will to pursue distant dreams and goals - most will settle for whatever bum deal they get.

If, having achieved as well as you could in school, you get the chance to go to Uni, you can spend three years, maybe more, trying to decide what future will suit you best. You can try things out. You have a lot more freedom to change direction. This doesn't mean that those who don't go don't stand a chance - they simply have it harder. Less choice, more work required, more lateral thinking required, more luck required.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'So your refute to my argument is examples of people who collectively wasted nearly half a century doing eff all? Nice one.'

In the eyes of those whom I used as examples they may not have believed that they were wasting their lives. If your idea of living a 'constructive' life is leaving school, going to college, uni, and then moving to London because there's more cheap thrills to be had then yes! You could say they've wasted their lives. But for some people that particular life-path is not to their taste.

There isn't a golden gate that you walk through when you leave school which reveals to you your passions and life ambitions. Everyone moves to their own beat and make choices based on experiences, good and bad. The guy who spent 20 years getting stoned and taking acid also spent 20 years singing in a band whereupon he travelled the UK and Europe gigging. I did the same when I left college. Uni was a deffo no no at that particular time because my passions had already been roused by music and to sacrifice what was an incredibly exciting time for a lecture room and a dorm or shared house was not my cuppa tea. Although some people relish the thought of that kind of life.

Many people's futures are shaped incrementally with only passion and the intensity of the moment to guide them. I don't think I've ever drawn-up a five year plan because it's not in my nature to care for things like that. I live pretty much on my passions and if it means sacrificing a few material comforts then that's fine. I find much more awe and comfort in a spring morning than I do an airsprung mattress. I know that sounds a little romantic but the point I'm trying to make is that conformity to a path you were conditioned to and encouraged to follow is good for you but not everyone else. Life is too rich and complex to be too rigid.

The ultimate goal in justifying life is to find things that make it worth living. That differs for everyone.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

I get it now. The reason you hate straw men so much is because you didn't go to Uni yourself and feel that any attempt to cite it as an important experience is some kind of slur on your choices.

Yan, I don't have a lot of money. I don't really want a lot of money. But I'm not going to argue that having a lot of money isn't an advantage when it comes to doing what you want to do.

I didn't do a creative writing MA at UEA. I had the chance to, and decided no. But I'm not going to argue that having the MA isn't an advantage to those who want to earn a living from writing.

Stop arguing with the hard facts. University opens up a lot more opportunities for most people. You dimiss the career route as one formulaic endeavour, but there are hundreds of different paths someone's post-Uni career can go, suiting many different ideals of personal success, and many of which, as I say, are unattainable to those without degrees. On the other hand, having a degree doesn't put anyone at a disadvantage if they choose to live any of these alternative lifestyles. It's simple maths: Uni maximises choices.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'What neither you or Yan seem to understand is that your examples only prove that it's *possible* to do certain interesting things without a degree.'

How patronising and cocksure coming from someone who has done a singular path in life so far, and who can argue only from one perspective: the one you yourself have done!

It is *possible* to do *plenty* of things without attending University, and not all of them involve lifting rubbish bins or washing dishes in restaurants.

'Not to mention the fact that University gives you an environment where you have a lot more time, space and encouragement to work out what it is that you want to do.'

True, if you are in your late teens or early twenties, are unmarried, have no children, and have parents who are willing to 'support' you. But I went to university under quite different circumstances, and it had taken me the previous twelve years of wandering the globe and actually *experiencing* life, to get to that point. I've known many, many people who became successful, minus a degree. And not just in a few diverse 'interesting' jobs, either.

'University opens up a lot more opportunities for most people.' I'm not arguing with this. I'm arguing against your singlemindedness. The university model is one of a myriad paths one can choose, and attain success by. But to imply that most people would do a lot better for themselves had they gone to University, is absurd.

Erm... I've always quite liked the Indigo Girls. Their first album, the eponymously-titled one, was superb, despite many of Emily's wrung-out lyrical excesses. And Amy sure can belt 'em out.

Sorry to break the flow of discussion there.

Relax a bit, people. Don't take it all so seriously and personally. No one wins in the 'war of the last word' in the end. It's a war of attrition.

"The university model is one of a myriad paths one can choose, and attain success by. But to imply that most people would do a lot better for themselves had they gone to University, is absurd."

It's not absurd.

If doing 'better for themselves' means earning more money and having more choice of what jobs they do most people - as in more than half - would be better off with a degree. It's a stone cold fact.

Graduates earn more on average and millions of jobs - including some that are desirable but not necessarily well-paid - are only open to graduates.

That's not to say that university is right for every individual - I chose not to go - but it does (or would) help most people in the job market.

I've had Nina Simone's 'Mood Indigo' in my head whenever I've read this thread. I do know people who would fit into the descriptions given, but it does all sound a bit spooky! I'd choose astrological rationales over rainbow ones, but then I am a bit tiddly (early to be tiddly: doesn't take much).

Re the 'lifestyle' chat- I hate that word (white wine speaking) - I think the styles of life one is offered or sees as attainable are more related to social class / race/ gender and levels of privilege than whether one's been to university or not. I mean to say that it probably matters less if you haven't gone to university if you're from a semi-auto-didactic or economically 'successful' family background, or are so good looking that Select model agency pounce on you in the Kings Road and take you to the land of money-for-genetic-good-fortune and coke fuelled anorexia.

I did go to university and liked it so much that I went back. There are loads of things I've done in between that I would never have been able to do without a degree, so I am grateful (to my parents, my previous self) that I went this route. But - though I am nearly the first person in my extended family to go to university - I am middle class, and the option of not going to university was very unspoken. For a middle class person it's probably an act of courage not to go.

Wine's dragging me off to sofa now.

Jack... correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that what you are saying can be summarised thus...

A = options available if one goes to uni.
B = options available if one doesn’t go to uni.
B is always and inclusively a subset of A.

...?

If not, then please ignore the following.

If so... I disagree! There are numerous instances in which the “uni experience” limits one’s options. It’s probably the right choice if you want to be a doctor, a psychiatrist, a physicists, etc; but if you are less than sure what career you want to pursue, I would always (perhaps moreso these days) advise extreme caution to anyone considering going to uni. Yes, it can of course be invaluable for all the reasons you mentioned. But...

1. You will probably emerge from the experience with a huge pile of debt, which has psychological as well as fiscal ramifications.
2. There are employers who actively discriminate against people with degrees.
3. Your expectations (or those of people in your sphere of influence) may be raised such that, if you choose not to pursue a “graduate” career, following graduation, you may feel like a failure (or be made to feel like a failure by people in your sphere of influence) for not doing so.

As to the concept of “laziness”...

Such negative connotations you place on the word, Jack! Read Tom Hodgkinson’s “How to be Idle” (or visit www.idler.co.uk) and your eyes may be opened to all sorts of positive ways of viewing the concept/lifestyle choice. If one chooses to be lazy/idle (a child or an adult), and does so in a positive frame of mind, and with a positive demeanour, can this not be a perfectly valid course of (in)action? We are, as humans, cerebral creatures - at least potentially. Is it not acceptable, if a person chooses, to live a cerebral, internal life? To “be,” as opposed to being dragged along by the social pressures to act, to work, to achieve? Is inaction not (potentially) the wellspring of great ideas and creative thought? As a poet, Jack, I would have thought “laziness” was your friend and not something to be derided! Please let me know if I have misread your words, however, and I am speaking to the aforementioned “straw man”...

:-)

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

'But to imply that most people would do a lot better for themselves had they gone to University, is absurd."

It's not absurd.'

You're misunderstanding the connotation here, Bukh; Jack is appearing to imply that to attend University is to be successful, whereas not attending university is to not be successful, to which I say: bullshit. First perhaps we should define what we mean by success; THEN perhaps we can have an argument about whether going to university is the only way of attaining it.

I don't think Jack understands that if he chooses to embrace a particular ideology for shaping his life then he can't willy-nilly compare that choice with others who choose to embrace different ideologies. Peps is right - "laziness" is one of those words that has been used successfully by capitalist ideology to encourage the masses to employ social sanctions against those who choose not to conform to the model. These days, anyone who doesn't go at it like a dog is considered lazy - such an impact that this particular model has had within society is clear. Once upon a time it was considered desirable to be seen to have plenty of free time -especially by those elite who were otherwise busy calling the plebs lazy (?) That's only one such example, btw.

Uni's a good deal if the field you're planning on entering demands that level of education - it goes without saying. There are many many more opportunities for higher education available in the workplace nowadays too. I worked in a purchasing dept for three years and everyone, from your goods receiver to your assistant buyer, were required to complete their CIPS. An ex-girlfriend left sixth form with top grades and was offered a lucrative research post at Zeneca, which she opted out of a uni place for. And there's always the chance that you might become "golden bollocks" in the workplace! I've heard alot of managers claim that they'd never emply a graduate for certain posts because "they know fuck all really." I know that doesn't apply across the board but there's all these variables to consider.

I suppose there are pros and cons with all pathways.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

"I went to college and all I got was this damned overdraft."

Actually, I DID go to college, though not for any thoughts about increasing my job/money-making potential. I went because I wanted some education. Since graduating, I've earned far less, on average, than I earned in the five years BEFORE I went. Doesn't bother me. No one can take that education away. I'm cool with it.

Bukowski didn't go to university. Harold Pinter didn't go to university. Steinbeck dropped out, Faulkner never made it, Dylan Thomas either. Who else? Alan Sugar. Clive Sinclair. Queen Elizabeth. Christ? He didn't go. GWB?

Does it fucking matter? Who gives a shit?

Get drunk. Take drugs. Write deathless prose or poetry. Enjoy life. It's short enough. You guys'll just wear yourselves out with this carping, and no one'll win in the end.

aww, sniper, I *love* you.

Start again

"Jack is appearing to imply that to attend University is to be successful, whereas not attending university is to not be successful."

No, I never said that. You're arguing against that because it's easy to be stroppy about than the stone cold truth, which is that Uni *does* make a huge difference for a lot of people, and does/would improve a lot of people's lives.

My grandparents didn't go to University, but they understood that it makes a big difference to people's lives. That's why they paid for the entirety of my dad's University expenses. This generation takes it for granted, but once upon a time, most people simply did not have the option to go to Uni. They had to work as soon as they got out of school, and for most of them, it was shit. To throw away hard-won opportunities now just because your kid seems to have 'chosen' his X-Box 360 over his homework is irresponsible and stupid.

Sure, there are choices out there for people who don't go to Uni. I've never argued against that, except in your imaginations. There are always possibilities. But the people who will pursue those alternatives are in the minority - they will be people of a particular character. Most people *will* put up with bum jobs and tough lives, either because their commitments prevent them taking risks, or because they're too drained to do anything but chill out in the little free time they have. Going to University off the back of the school puts you in the position where you're *encouraged* to make choices about your future, whereas anyone in employment is generally discouraged from leaving.

"As a poet, Jack, I would have thought “laziness” was your friend and not something to be derided!"

No. As a poet - as anyone who does anything seriously - I work hard at what I do. Relaxing is important, sure, but 'laziness' isn't relaxing - laziness is making hard work out of doing nothing.

"Peps is right - "laziness" is one of those words that has been used successfully by capitalist ideology to encourage the masses to employ social sanctions against those who choose not to conform to the model."

This is too retarded to reply to.

"Does it fucking matter? Who gives a shit? Get drunk. Take drugs. Write deathless prose or poetry. Enjoy life. It's short enough. "

As is this.

You kids are preaching the naive philosophies of those who don't seem to understand what it's like to *feel* you don't have a choice of futures, to understand that, yes, there are multiple paths in life, but that you and your family are stuck, cordoned off from all the good ones, in a cycle of hard work and scraping by. Once you've got something you're after, it's easy to say, "Hey, that wasn't too hard - we should all just relax and follow our dreams," but an awful lot of people are tied to lives where they just don't get the time.

I'm fucked if I'm going to take for granted what my parents and grandparents sacrificed so much for on the basis of brainless hippy cod-philosophy.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Cosseted buffoon.

If that's directed at me, then fuck you.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I'm not sure what people are arguing about any more...

Coddled lamb.

All that university education and thats the best you can do? My.

Your argument is SO flawed.

coveted bassoon

double-post

'I get it now. The reason you hate straw men so much is because you didn't go to Uni yourself and feel that any attempt to cite it as an important experience is some kind of slur on your choices.'

Jack, I don't think uni is unimportant. It does provide more choices and, judging by some of my wife's tales about uni life, can be one of the most enjoyable periods of a young person's life. But lifestyle choices don't start and end with status and consumption. I'll definately be encouraging my daughter to attend uni...if her chosen path demands it. My sister went to uni, my wife did, and one of my close cousins is a lecturer...I forget which uni now. I must hate most of my immediate family.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

I'm just glad I'm not from Grimsby. Apparently they have the longest idiot savant production line in Europe.

"But lifestyle choices don't start and end with status and consumption."

Never said they do. But you need money to *live*, and the fact is that wealthier people get to enjoy far more lifestyle freedom, because they don't have to work every single day to get the bread on the table. People who are in jobs that they enjoy are also, undoubtedly, in a better position to feel they're in control of their lifestyle. The vast majority are locked into the system one way or another. If you can maximise your range of choices and your earning potential, that puts you a step closer to actually getting something out of it other than a trickle of money.

I've never argued that things are impossible without Uni, or that you're a failure if you don't go. But on the other hand, careers aren't just capitalist nonsense, easily thrown off and disregarded. Am I supposed to believe that all the people stuck in crap, lowpaid jobs, struggling to balance budgets, are actually really pleased about it, because if they weren't, they could go and do whatever they want to at any time? That my grandparents should have said to my dad, "Come on now - what use is a degree? Stay in Hartington and walk five miles to the brick factory every day like your father did, or help out at the shop." And then my dad should have said the same thing to me? Because, hey, if either of us had wanted to do anything else, we could have just gone out and done it any time? Sure.

"All that university education and thats the best you can do? My."

It's all your pithy comment is worth. I'm sorry that I'm grateful for priveleges other people in the world don't have, Liana. I'm sorry that I don't believe that it was a total waste of time and that I might as well not have bothered.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Just to avoid me (and

Jack, what job do you do as a result of your degree?

I'm a court reporter. But it wouldn't matter if I was a gravedigger. The point is that I had a lot of options available to me, and the chance to think seriously about what I wanted to do. I wasn't very good at deciding, and I don't know if I'm there yet, but when I was looking at jobs in London, most of the ones I was interested in specified a degree. Sure, I could have got into an industry I really wanted to be in without my degree, but that would require a singlemindedness and determination I don't possess. There's no particular thing, other than writing, I want to do so much more than other things.

I know for a fact, from summers between semesters, that there were few, if any, options for working from my parent's home. I would have had to put up with what was within reach. Hairdresser's assistant? Scanning invoices? There weren't that many options in Norwich either, so I ended up getting the same job as tonnes of other people around there, and that was rubbish. First week I was there, someone asked about my background, learned about my degree, and exclaimed, "What are you doing here? Get a real job!"

I don't want to use myself as a case in point because my argument has never been, "I turned out fine - everyone be like me." It's just plain truth that Uni opens up the possibilities for young people. Most have probably done better out of it than me, since I've been too indecisive to really take advantage.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Come on, BBF. Everyone knows Jack Cade was the leader of a rebellion against the government of Henry VI. I thought he'd been dead for 556 years, tho.

History ahoy!

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Jack, many jobs specify a degree, they don't always mean it. I have successfully applied for many jobs that specified a degree, without having one myself. What employers want to see is evidence of ability, application and achievement. University is only one way of expressing this, there are many others. The labour market is a complex place, but with a bit of application and enthusiasm, people can get on, degree or not. I think you argument has more to do with Grimsby than academia.

a singlemindedness and determination I don't possess.

You could've fooled me Jon. Your steely and dogged refusal to allow another person to have an opinion which differs to your own, despite your constant vows that you are prepared to listen, displays each of those qualities superbly.

Liana - been to uni, lived in four different countries.

I dunno.. there is more to life than your job... something a lot of people of my generation forget and then wonder why they are unhappy.

All my family live in the same town they grew up in. Amongst them are paintsprayers, builders, shop workers, care workers, road gangers, and secretaries. Some of them love their jobs. Some of them don't. But one thing they do share is a strong sense of place, of home, of family.

Their lives consist, mostly, of what they do in their free time, the meals, the card games, the trips to the pub for kareoke, the camping trips in summer, the winter barbeques.

For many years I was the 'up and coming' one. I did a degree. I worked in good jobs. I was lonely as hell and nothing has come close to what I'm feeling now that I've moved near to where they live and see them at the weekends. It feels so good to part of something tangible, something that feels like something.

Then again, I am enjoying my job now more than anything I've ever done, including writing. And I couldn't be a teacher without a degree... I guess that everyone here is saying it is different for everyone. Just because you don't have a degree and your job seems 'deadend' it doesn't mean you don't have a good life, just has having a degree and and a top job doesn' tmean you have a good life.

Some people go to uni and love it, and get lots of it. Some go and don't. Some don't go and get loads out of life. Some don't and don't.

Am I missing something here?

oops that should have said 'get lots from it'... and I accidentally posted under Rioja instead of fergal as I was writing a 200 word story.

Didn't live in Grimsby, Tim. Lived in Bucks. Nice if you have a car and a lot of money. Not so good for career/lifestyle options if you don't make your home your castle.

Wouldn't have my present job if not for my degree. That's for definite. Not that it's probably any better than anyone else's, but again, the degree just gave me more choice. Even if some of the jobs that claim to require one want me to demonstrate something else.

"Your steely and dogged refusal to allow another person to have an opinion which differs to your own, despite your constant vows that you are prepared to listen, displays each of those qualities superbly."

I don't have to respect opinions that I think are ill-judged and plain wrong. I can neither 'allow' not 'not allow' them to have that opinion, but I can tell them what I think of it as often as I like - which, strangely, is usually only as often as they tell me what they think of mine.

I can be swayed on things. I've admitted I'm wrong plenty of times. There are lots of things I don't claim to have any grounds for an opinion on. But you've got to do a better job than what's gone on here, and it doesn't help when people make up things I haven't said.

Ironically, I've also been arguing with my dad recently from the opposite end of this. He takes a far harder line on it than me. I've been telling him a degree isn't everything, and there are plenty of alternatives to what he sees as a successful career path. He sees it as downright ungrateful and selfish not to take advantage of all the opportunities afforded to you and make the stab at financial/career success you possibly can.

I don't agree with that. Doesn't mean I agree with this 'Uni makes no difference' crap either.

"I dunno.. there is more to life than your job... "

But it's easy to forget that when your job is rubbish and tiring and takes up most of your day. Far better to have a good life outside your job *and* a job you enjoy.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Didn't live in Grimsby, Tim. Lived in Bucks. Nice if you have a car and a lot of money. Not so good for career/lifestyle options if you don't make your home your castle.

Wouldn't have my present job if not for my degree. That's for definite. Not that it's probably any better than anyone else's, but again, the degree just gave me more choice. Even if some of the jobs that claim to require one want me to demonstrate something else.

"Your steely and dogged refusal to allow another person to have an opinion which differs to your own, despite your constant vows that you are prepared to listen, displays each of those qualities superbly."

I don't have to respect opinions that I think are ill-judged and plain wrong. I can neither 'allow' not 'not allow' them to have that opinion, but I can tell them what I think of it as often as I like - which, strangely, is usually only as often as they tell me what they think of mine.

I can be swayed on things. I've admitted I'm wrong plenty of times. There are lots of things I don't claim to have any grounds for an opinion on. But you've got to do a better job than what's gone on here, and it doesn't help when people make up things I haven't said.

Ironically, I've also been arguing with my dad recently from the opposite end of this. He takes a far harder line on it than me. I've been telling him a degree isn't everything, and there are plenty of alternatives to what he sees as a successful career path. He sees it as downright ungrateful and selfish not to take advantage of all the opportunities afforded to you and make the stab at financial/career success you possibly can.

I don't agree with that. Doesn't mean I agree with this 'Uni makes no difference' crap either.

"I dunno.. there is more to life than your job... "

But it's easy to forget that when your job is rubbish and tiring and takes up most of your day. Far better to have a good life outside your job *and* a job you enjoy.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I don't think anybody would ever disagree with,

'far better to have a good life otusdie your job *and* a job you enjoy.'

I wasn't disagreeing with you anyway Jon. I was just saying that there is more to a life than a job... and lots of this comes down to what sort of attitude one has to life in general.

I have friends who are very 'successful' and financially very well off. One in particular is stressed, tired, angry, aggressive, paranoid, obsessed with getting more 'stuff', competetive and unable to make many friends. No thanks very much for me, even though, on paper she is at the top of her field, a wunderkind as a child who has made her name for herself in the legal proffession and who gets mentioned in the papers for her quality work.

I guess it all comes down, in the end, to what you qualify as 'success'.

My dad didn't go to university. He wished he had. He thought his whole life would have been different if he had, like it was some magic button to happiness, but he was wrong. I wanted to be a weaver - seriously - but he would not let me. He thought university was the be all and end all. I dropped out twice because, frankly, I did not want to study politics and french and become big in Europe. Whatever that meant.

In the end I did my degree late in a subject I loved, paying my way by being a chef in a wine bar. I loved it for what I learned, for what the knowledge and the books gave me.

Success is an imaginary thing I think. It comes from people sitting around imagining how other people live, imagining them as though they are in a movie with lots of bright colours and wonderful things. Not many people live like that.

And I have to say I have issues with the word 'lifestyle'. My favourite lecturer at University once said that the modern world's obsession with the word 'lifestyle' made him sick to his stomach. He said, 'there is life and there is style.. but the two should NEVER be stapled together.'

The idea of people swishing around leading a 'lifestyle' rather than a 'life' makes me rather sad.

I guess it depends on what me mean by 'lifestyle'. I took it that we were talking about what kind of pattern of living suits you best. And certainly, there is no magic formula for happiness - I agree with that wholeheartedly. Career success and remuneration doesn't automatically equate to being fulfilled. You've got to find your own way to whatever you consider is the best situation you can put yourself in.

This kicked off because I said I think it's grossly unfair to accuse parents who urge their children to do well in school of trying to live out their dreams through their kids. Those parents very often just want the best for their kids and recognise that, in most cases (not all, by any means) paving the path to University will give them the best chance at being able to control the subsequent direction their life goes in.

All protestations that followed, to my mind, miss the point. We shouldn't trivialise parents' efforts by asserting that Uni makes no difference. If they want their children to do well, if they feel that they aren't doing as well as they could do, I just don't see how it's selfish or misguided to want to change that, with the possibility in mind of maximising employment opportunities, and thus 'lifestyle' options through higher education.

To hold the view that University doesn't help in any way, or is only suitable for certain kinds of people who want certain kinds of success, is pretty insulting to them, and to all parents who have sacrificed a lot to send their children there.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'You could've fooled me Jon. Your steely and dogged refusal to allow another person to have an opinion which differs to your own, despite your constant vows that you are prepared to listen, displays each of those qualities superbly.'

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bollocks here. Jon *does* listen to other people's opinions, and he demonstrates the fact that he's listened by responding in detail. Just because he doesn't necessarily agree with an opinion, it doesn't follow that he is denying that person's right to a differing viewpoint. These kind of ad hominem snipes demonstrate - from a debating perspective, at least - that Jon has successfully responded to the points raised and that Liana has no other recourse than cheap, inaccurate slights.
I don't agree with everything Jon says, but in my humble opinion he's one of the most polite and evenhanded posters.

I don't think Jack is particularly even-handed; what he does is pick out the parts of others' protestations he disagrees with and then refutes them, sentence by sentence, instead of reading the entire argument, thus not seeing the forest for the trees.

'Let's say it again: *most* lifestyle choices are made more accessible by the University experience. Many are still *possible* without attending Uni, but will subsequently require more effort, persistance and sheer luck. A very narrow band are unaffected ... University is giving you the best possible chance of being able to do it.'

'To hold the view that University doesn't help in any way, or is only suitable for certain kinds of people who want certain kinds of success, is pretty insulting to them...'

Talk about a straw man! None of us have said that university doesn't help in any way; what those of us who disagree with you are saying, I believe, is that to assume that going to university is the only valid door into a successful 'lifestyle' is to not give a thought to all those undereducated people from Shiteston who *have* been successful through other means. To dismiss the successes people have sans degree is insulting to them, too, surely.

'Most lifestyle choices are made more accessible through the University experience.' Feh!

To assume that university makes it easier in life to get on the 'success ladder', is flawed. How many well-educated graduates did I pip to the job post, sans degree? Most employers aren't looking for book learning, but transferrable skills. I don't feel I had to work any harder or more diligently without a degree than I have to now that I have one. The people who hire me don't even ASK about the degree. They ASK what I'm capable of doing in the workplace.

That is *not* to dismiss all the hardworking parents who pay for their children's university degrees; aren't they lucky to be able to do so? But a degree *really* isn't the be-all and end-all of employability. It's a candle on the cake.

They may be cheap slights, but they certainly arent inaccurate. The very response that Jon gives, is entirely the point I made - 'I don't have to respect opinions that I think are ill-judged and plain wrong.'
Yes, you should respect them, and if you don't agree, then argue with respect for the factthat someone does believe them. You dont. You bang on and on and on and fucking ON until people lose the will to damn well live. The general idea is that you might enlighten someone and change their minds, not encourage them to go fetch a bloody noose. You are endless. ENDLESS in your refusal to just accept that others differ... it's really remarkable.
Never thought that I'd be so wholeheartedly in agreement with archergirl, but she (in my opinion) is no less than 100% right. Jon, you are priviliged. I went to uni, and paid my own way whilst working at the same time (I got the same result as you - who'd have guessed, least of all you).
Just give yourself a BREATH occasionally.

'But a degree *really* isn't the be-all and end-all of employability. It's a candle on the cake.'

First sentence - yes, but Jon never said that. Second sentence - depends on the type of job you want. Try finding a job in medicine, vetenary science or law without a relevant degree. In these situations, a degree is a sine qua non.
The term 'degree' covers a vast range of courses, disciplines and institutions, some of which probably constitute a better use of a student's time than others. For my part, doing a BA then an MA has opened up a whole host of job opportunities that I would never have otherwise had - *not* so much because people want to see that I've been educated to the requisite standard (although for most employers this *has* been important) but because the skills and knowledge I've gained have been essential in the performance of my duties.

'To assume that university makes it easier in life to get on the 'success ladder', is flawed. How many well-educated graduates did I pip to the job post, sans degree?'

Yes, but that depends entirely on the area you're working in. There are plenty of careers (see above) for which you simply wouldn't be considered.

'But a degree *really* isn't the be-all and end-all of employability. It's a candle on the cake.'

First sentence - yes, but Jon never said that. Second sentence - depends on the type of job you want. Try finding a job in medicine, vetenary science or law without a relevant degree. In these situations, a degree is a sine qua non.
The term 'degree' covers a vast range of courses, disciplines and institutions, some of which probably constitute a better use of a student's time than others. For my part, doing a BA then an MA has opened up a whole host of job opportunities that I would never have otherwise had - *not* so much because people want to see that I've been educated to the requisite standard (although for most employers this *has* been important) but because the skills and knowledge I've gained have been essential in the performance of my duties.

'To assume that university makes it easier in life to get on the 'success ladder', is flawed. How many well-educated graduates did I pip to the job post, sans degree?'

Yes, but that depends entirely on the area you're working in. There are plenty of careers (see above) for which you simply wouldn't be considered.

Andrew Pack doesnt have a degree. Didnt go to uni.

"I don't think Jack is particularly even-handed; what he does is pick out the parts of others' protestations he disagrees with and then refutes them, sentence by sentence"

If I responded to the whole post, sentence by sentence, my already gargantuan posts would crash the site. So instead I pick out the points where I believe people's arguments go wrong, and address them.

"Talk about a straw man! None of us have said that university doesn't help in any way..."

You have! As good as. What you and Yan have effectively been arguing - and this is the woods, rather than the trees - is that a University education is only suitable for certain people who want to pursue certain narrow career paths, or that if it is at all helpful to anyone else, it's not in any decisive way.

Since University is incredibly expensive, both in terms of time and money, that's as good as saying it's not worth it at all for most people. No one in their right mind pays £8000 and puts in three years of work for something that's just a vaguely useful. But they do pay it to open a lot of doors in the most straightforward way possible.

I have never said, implied or even vaguely hinted at the idea that people who go to University are always successful, or that people who don't are never successful, yet you insist on skewering this idea, rather than the one I've consistently put forward, which is that University makes, or could make, a big difference to a lot of people. David backed me up on this and you straight away suggested that he had somehow misunderstood you, which is rubbish. What you had said was plain:

"The university model is one of a myriad paths one can choose, and attain success by. But to imply that most people would do a lot better for themselves had they gone to University, is absurd."

As David said, it's not absurd. A lot of people would do a lot better for themselves had they gone to University, by their own standards of success. Not everyone, by any means. But for most of us, it's a very decisive leg-up, an experience that changes the course of our lives for the better.

Even Conservatives are aware of this when they argue against government policy of pushing people into Universities. They know how much of a difference it makes, but their argument is that people *shouldn't* all be able to access all these different kinds of jobs, because then there'd be no one left to stack the shelves.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

please could someone precis this argument for me?

i don't have the concentration these days ...

Hmm... it's not like Jon is debating with himself. I often feel like he's wasting his time with endless clarifications when there are people predisposed to 'read between the lines' and arrive at their own daffy conclusions about what he's really saying, but at least he makes the effort.
I may be wrong on the whole 'certain jobs require specific degrees' schtick, but I always assumed that to be a doctor you needed a medical degree. I didn't need any specific, explicitly quantifiable qualifications to become a writer, but four years at university gave me more of a boost than anything I've ever done. I wouldn't dream at looking down my nose at writers who haven't had a university education - indeed, I'm more likely to cock a snook at someone who *has* been through the system and is still shit.
Liana - if Jon's comments affect you in such a disproportionate way then why reply? He's not responsible for your hissy fits.

yeah I know - I didnt reply for ages because i was so astounded really - a combination of not knowing where to start to reply to such narrow mindedness, and the fact that I have better things to occupy myself with., But not today apperently. Either that or I just couldnt stand to see such snotty elitism any longer.
You think I've had a hissy fit? Something I have rarely... I'm a grown up. I certainly don't have hissys about people disagreeing with me on internet talk boards... I leave that to Jon. His hissys are *monumental* in stature.

"Yes, you should respect them..."

No, I shouldn't. This always comes up. Understanding that people have the right to other opinions doesn't mean that you have to respect those opinions if they're badly thought out. I don't have to respect the views of a racist and I don't have to respect the views that University is a negligible factor in the lives of all but a narrow band of bankers and lawyers.

"I went to uni, and paid my own way whilst working at the same time (I got the same result as you - who'd have guessed, least of all you)."

Why wouldn't I have guessed that? What's that even got to do with it? Why does this have to come down to an emotional appeal to who's the most priveleged, the most wronged, or faced the toughest odds? If it must come down to that, how many people like you, Liana, might not have had the strength of character to go to Uni and do so well? Just because you've done it and know it's possible doesn't mean that there aren't lots of people like you who likewise didn't had the opportunity when they are young, and find themselves unable to do it now, and wish they could.

It strikes me as pretty awful that people could be in that position not because their parents couldn't afford University, but because their parents decided that their reluctance to try at school was a conscious decision to depirve themselves of that opportunity.

Nah... but thats not it, is it? Obviously I'm not saying that you have to respect the views of a racist - that's just absurd. But people here aren't expressing morally evil POV's - just different to yours, and NOT all of them are flawed. I hate hate hate to bring it down to this - because I know you despise it - but you are so young, to be so narrow! I didnt go to uni as a teen, at the time my parents couldnt have afforded it, and more than that - I didnt really have a clue where I wanted to go. So, I travelled. I went to Spain for a long while, then I lived in Holland. I moved to London at 22, then I lived for some years in Birmingham and Wales (god help me). I've spent extensive periods of time in both Belgrade and Prague, and I held down a responsible and extremely well paid job for 10 years - working my way to the top of that, in two.
University ISNT the only option. Yes of course for specific careers it is - but are you saying that you cant be a court reporter without a degree? I bet you can you know. I just bet you can.
You were suggesting that small towns are crap. That people who live and work in them, 'scrape' a living and have 'bum lives'. Thats not true. I love what Ferg says about wanting different things from life... that's the truth I reckon.

"Andrew Pack doesnt have a degree. Didnt go to uni."

More pointless crap! You still don't get it. This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Uni makes a difference! Of course Andrew Pack, or anyone, can succeed without going to Uni. Doesn't change anything I've said.

"please could someone precis this argument for me?"

No, because apparently no one can summarise or repeat my viewpoints with any degree of accuracy.

"Going to University gives you a lot of advantages, choices etc."
"So.... you're saying University graduates are better than the rest of us?"
"No, that's not what I'm saying."
"Sorry, so that is what you're saying?"
"No."
"Did you just say yes?"
"No."
"You did it again. You said yes."
"No."
"Why do you keep saying yes?"
**JC kills**

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

"please could someone precis this argument for me?"

seconded

I know where you're coming from, jack - plain old common sense, that's where. But the basis of this argument lay in your comment: ' I'm talking about *lifestyle* choice, not success.'

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Nope it was in response to Rokkit's point, to be a lawyer you need a degree. Do keep up Jon.

You are the one who said that you are more likely to have a crap life if you dont go to uni - get out of grimsby etc etc ad fucking nauseum. You cant start stamping your foot and saying "thats NOT WHAT I SAID" when you did.

Not really wanting to discuss Andrew Pack behind his back, but the last (only) time I saw him, he was flat broke and hated his job.

Sorry, Liana. I am getting irritated now, and snapping in posts. This is the kind of conversation I should be having in real life, not over a hesitant connection on a forum.

But I am not being narrow-minded. I have admitted about a blillion times by now that of course there are other ways of doing things, and that University isn't for everyone. But as I keep saying, the vast majority of people live inside the system, and don't go out travelling or career-jumping. They will settle for steady work, even if it's not ideal, and make do as best they can with that. Later on, family commitments will prevent them from taking risks - you can't always afford to take a pay cut, but you may have to if you want to switch career.

University, for a young person not yet going into employment, opens up so many more possibilities that most people simply do not imagine, starting at home and trying to work out what to do next.

"You were suggesting that small towns are crap."

No. They're crap for people who want to do anything other than the small range of starter jobs on offer. I'm sure they're great once you're in the industry you want to be in and are prepared to commute. Nice and quiet.

They're also, generally, crap for leisure activities, which is why you get kids hanging around on street corners with nothing much to do, but that's another matter.

"That people who live and work in them, 'scrape' a living and have 'bum lives'."

Lots of people do scrape a living and get bum deals out of work. Are you denying this? You think that people living in council estates have it easy? You think they're there because they've chosen that life above all others?

I'm sorry, but it seems all you and the others are saying is that University makes no difference to anyone except a few ambitious types, and that everyone else will sort themselves out somehow anyway. *Someone* does all these crap jobs, and for you guys, it's obviously those who are incapable of doing anything better, rather than those who're locked into them.

"Yes of course for specific careers it is - but are you saying that you cant be a court reporter without a degree? I bet you can you know. I just bet you can."

Maybe, but (and again, repeating myself for the umpteenth time) if you don't really know what you want to do, it takes a hell of a lot more work to get into some of these industries, work that you might not be prepared to put in if you're not sure about it. A degree is an easy way to drop straight in, and try it out for a while. I don't know why it works that way, but it does. People who do not have a very specific ambition will not have the tenacity and willpower to break into a career they might find more enjoyable. This is true, to an extent, even if you *do* have a degree - there are plenty of areas where you just can't compete because the jobs go to people who've known they've wanted to do this since they were in their teens.

I'm guessing you've put up another reply, in the time it's taken to respond to this, that takes me up on my more narked off post.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Ah Dan... that was while he was in London. He's in Birmingham now, back on the top of the social care law side and loving every minute of it. On his way over to see us soon. London you see... not the be all and end all.
(Sorry, couldnt resist)

Jon, dont get so worked up. I know, I'm a fair one to talk, but it's not healthy. You cant keep going on and on like this. Use those energies for good.

You dont want to talk to me about council estates... you really dont.

'You are the one who said that you are more likely to have a crap life if you dont go to uni...'

Citing individual examples doesn't negate that assertion, which is one of probability. You can't demonstrate that any of these people who didn't go to uni and yet feel they've done all right wouldn't have done better or had a wider range of opportunities if they had got a degree.
Perhaps this isn't reaching much of a conclusion because neither side has any means of proving or disproving their position, just anecdotal evidence. Statistically, uni graduates earn more on average than non-graduates - however, as Yan points out, this doesn't equate directly to greater choice (although having money allows more choice in certain areas) nor does it guarantee a better quality of life.
As far as I'm concerned, uni was right *for me* and I would strongly encourage others to attend. However, I wouldn't argue that those who don't go are necessarily less intelligent, cultured or happy, nor would I argue that someone who didn't attend is necessarily disadvantaged - there's no generic 'graduate' to compare against a generic 'non-graduate', just statistics, which merely demonstrate trends.

The problem I had is that your choice to attend uni was a *lifestyle* choice you made at the time. You may have been aware that that particular lifestyle choice had the benefit of potentially increasing your future lifestyle choices also. But at the same time many other people were making similar *lifestyle* choices based on their circumstances and they also either foresaw a future benefit or maybe they just made a choice because it was harmonious with their moment-moment lifestyle and, due to their character and worldview, that choice was in keeping with the lifestyle they'd envisaged.

Simple, but you claimed that your lifestyle choice at that time was far superior to anybody elses because it gave you the added benefit of making certain firm predictions about your future prospects. Not all people live that way. Many do but make alternative lifestyle choices based on their wants and needs. If we're not talking about success then the only benefit you can claim is that the probability of you having a future advantage regards your choices is higher then others. fair enough...for your wants and needs only.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

On the University debate.

A degree in itself will open doors that may not otherwise be open. The thing is, there are many doors that don't require it, so not having the degree isn't really going to hinder somebody searching for professional satisfaction. I've seen many a graduate get professionally pigeon-holed by that degree and lose some flexibility in determining their career path. If you want to be a doctor or lawyer or corporate execuitve, that degree is pretty much required. If you want to make a good living outside of those realms, don't worry about it. I know more people without degrees making a ton of money, much more than most lawyers and doctors I've known.

I'd reason that the typical university graduate has a higher IQ (not as a result of attending the university) and that a person's IQ is a greater determinant of earnings than a degree. Smarter people do well, eduacation isn't intelligence, it is education...it helps but doesn't make up for the shortcoming of lacking intelligence to begin with. Stupid people generally don't do well in a university.

Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

OK, yan, I see where you're coming from but, no, that wasn't what I was trying to say. I just think as many people should have the *opportunity* of University as possible, so I sympathise with parents who struggle against their children's natural idleness and rebelliousness to put them in that situation. I would even sympathise with parents who argue against their kids if they decide Uni isn't for them, because it *may* be that they're making that decision under misconceptions.

RD: it could be completely different in the US. I've no idea. I've heard, numerous times, that degrees from American Universities are simply not considered as good as degrees from English Universities. Don't know how well that holds up. But even then, you just can't judge it from the people you know.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Jon,

It would depend on the university. The best US colleges are as good or better than any university in the UK or world for that matter, and there are probably more to choose from. Now, if you're talking about a typical "state" school, they don't offer anything significantly different from one another and are mostly education mills.

I can judge from people I know of. I've worked professionally as a military person, engineer, publisher and writer for over 35 years. I was at one time a professional student. I never obtained a degree. I've known thousands of college graduates and many more non-graduates, working in these and many other professions. I've probably interviewed several hundred people over the years, with and without degrees and hired dozens for many different positions. I'm not interested in conducting a scientific study, because I know what the truth is. If you need a scientific study, go read The Bell Curve.

Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Addendum to "Disappearing Robots")

I think I would have to agree with those on the forum who have said that Uni is good for *some* people, some of the time. For *some* people it's great to go straight from school to university where they can dick around for a few years, drink too much, shag too much, and come out the other side with a piece of paper and some idea of what they might like to do.

Me, I tried university three times before I made it through. Once at seventeen; once at twenty; once at twenty-five; and finally at twenty-nine. But what got me the jobs wasn't the degree; it was the life experience.

I don't think anyone said that you don't need a degree to be a doctor or lawyer, Rokkit. You're inventing things.

But Jack, as a wordsmith you ought to know by now that it's not necessarily what you write; it's what people read *between the lines*. It's not your concrete arguments that are causing the debate; it's the assumptions you seem to be making in forming those arguments.

Sometimes I think these debates are tests to see how much we can pick an idea apart; the same idea but from different angles.

"It's not your concrete arguments that are causing the debate; it's the assumptions you seem to be making in forming those arguments."

Well, it's people's misguided assumptions of my assumptions. Maybe if I put it this way: I don't think someone who chooses not to go to University is necessarily throwing away a better life. But for the majority of things you might decide you want to do, in terms of careers and the accompanying lifestyles, will be made more attainable through University, so if you have no idea what you want to do yet, Uni is your best bet.

People who don't have that option, if they lack some guiding ambition, are in serious danger of getting tied down to something they do out of necessity, rather than choice. You need to have an idea of what you *want* to get away from what you *don't want*. I think a lot of people go through life never really knowing what the former is. They know they want to go on holiday and retire, but they have no idea what other things they could have done that they might have found more rewarding. Uni gives you a lot of time and support in trying to work out what that is.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'Uni gives you a lot of time and support in trying to work out what that is.'

Yes, perhaps, but that is assuming, again, that one goes to Uni straight out of school. Not everyone does. Not everyone should.

'so if you have no idea what you want to do yet, Uni is your best bet.'

I had no fucking idea what I wanted to do when I was seventeen and tried Uni the first time. It was an unmitigated disaster; I got two Fails and two Withdrawals. Hence my hesitation at your unquestioning recommendation that parents urge their kids to excel in school and hie themselves to university.

I am more inclined to suggest to my children (and anyone else's, should they care to listen), to actually WORK for a couple of years first; TRAVEL around the world for a bit; and THEN, *perhaps*, they will be ready to tackle academic rigours. Many people just aren't ready to commit themselves to studying, straight after finishing school.

And, let's face it, having some actual *work* experience (and not just a Connexions placement at 16, I mean) plus a degree is FAR more likely to land you a good job in your early twenties, than just having a degree. Many of the students I see in Cambridge, with all their exalted education at Queens College, etc., couldn't pour shit out of a boot for a living, and some, apparently, don't even know how to do their own laundry. Would I hire them? Not bloody likely.

Err... AG, I think sometimes you read between the lines in people's posts the same way schizophrenics read between the lines in the Book of Revelations and conclude the Eschaton is coming Monday week in a hail of Eccles cakes.
This thread has become a bit of a mess of people talking at cross purposes and so I think it might be time to bow out. I certainly don't doubt the intelligence of its many contributors. Here's to future life choices and the great things that may come of them. I daresay one day somebody will write a fascinating pHD thesis on this subject. ^_^

"I had no fucking idea what I wanted to do when I was seventeen and tried Uni the first time. It was an unmitigated disaster; I got two Fails and two Withdrawals."

I said 'best bet', not guarantee. I'm sure unmitigated disasters are in the minimum. I have friends who dropped out, one who retook the first year but still dropped out, and yet they don't describe it as a disaster - it just didn't work out as well as it could have.

Travel is fine, imo. People recommend that anyway. Or doing a gap year work placement. But two years is probably going too far, because it's hard to go back into education once you've started employment. People I know who've done that have described the experience as very weird, and seemingly 'wrong' at first.

In the end though, a delay of one to two years doesn't change the fact that your A Levels will be a factor in what Uni places you can grab, so again, the better ones you have, the more choices are available.

"And, let's face it, having some actual *work* experience (and not just a Connexions placement at 16, I mean) plus a degree is FAR more likely to land you a good job in your early twenties, than just having a degree."

That's absolutely true.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I am a bit lost in this debate as well. I went into Biomedical publishing after a Biological science degree and the degree was required even though I could have done the job without the degree. However I probably wouldn't have had the passion for the journals and books we published that stems from the understanding of the subject matter.

I then moved into a different area of publishing, a job secured due to my experience in the industry rather than my degree, but my boss had no degree, he worked his way up from the postroom! I don't think I'm adding anything useful to the discussion here, just musing.

BTW, I live on a council estate and yes, I chose to live there. I can afford to rent in the private sector, but why pay sky-high rent or an astronomical mortage for a shoebox when I get a generously sized one-bedroom house for far less money? Also my neighbours far from being the sterotypical wife-beaters, whores and crack addicts seem to be really nice folk. I've had more 'good mornings' in the week I've lived there than I did in the whole five years in the flat I owned in London. It is a council estate, it has its problems, but it has a real sense of community. Ok, given EVERY 'choice' I might prefer a two-up/two-down in Surrey but with today's houseprices, not even my degree and successful career in publishing can buy that anyway.

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

"...schizophrenics read between the lines in the Book of Revelations and conclude the Eschaton is coming Monday week in a hail of Eccles cakes..."

You mean it isn't?

Damn, I like eccles cakes...

:-/

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Review of "Casino Royale")

Jude>"...sterotypical wife-beaters, whores and crack addicts.."

Now...it occurs to me anyone married to a whore or crack addict may be well motivated to become a "wife-beater" Are the three intertwined in some way?

Just a thought.

Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Quite likely! Many of the estate's residents have multiple problems and they are probably intertwined. Poverty, poor education, lack of opportunities leading to drug and alcohol problems that lead to prostitution to pay for it and so on. The estate was given £54 million in the 'New deal for communities' initiative. Working in partnership with London South Bank Uni, Morley college and starting homework clubs, the GCSE pass rate for the estate is up 15% year on year for the past 2 yrs. Community wardens on 24 hour patrol mean that crime is now actually 20% lower than for Southwark Borough as a whole. Drug programs and youth inclusion schemes mean things are tangibly better for the residents. They're knocking the estate down though anyway!

To reign in a conversation that has digressed as only an abc discussion can, according to sociologists 'cultural creatives' (and therefore those more likely to label their kids 'indigos') are drawn almost exclusively from the middle-classes and upper-middle-classes. So unlikely to be many of them in my area!

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

Sorta like UFO's isn't it?

Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/