Social Mobility and Education in England

Social Mobility is a frequent discussion in England. The Left, particularly, laments that England is still a country riven by class division and tradition. Indeed, as someone who has mingled in officer circles as a child due to a father in the airforce, I have subsequently experienced the flip coin of reverse snobbery ; being told "ere, you sound posh, where are you from then?" Every Brit has experienced discrimination or suspicion in their own country because of their accent, and knows how being from 30 minutes away can lead to problems with locals in the neighbouring city. Accents and social mobility in England have a lot to do with schooling. There is a strange obsession, from Conservatives at least, with the apparent success of schools like Eton over state schools. Why strange? 

If you took all the students from Eton, and replaced them with state school pupils, but kept the facilities and the staff, would those staff be able to get similar results given some time?  The answer is a resounding no, and everybody knows it. The results at Eton are the result of academic selection and coming from a wealthy background. Average state schools cannot by definition emulate this, so why does the Conservative government of England try to?  The short answer of course is, they are idiots. Their policies, like most Conservatives around the world, are based on ideology and prejudice with little real analysis or thought, or recourse to evidence. Actual evidence shows the real reasons behind the success of wealthy private school students, ( it's the wealth and exclusion of undesirable students, not the private 'methods' that makes the difference) but the elites of England, and many of the middle class, remain infatuated with the old trappings of power. Hence this governments attempt to privatise British schools with the academy program. Or the farcical relaunching of academies in the state sector, where new super-heads were allowed to expel a hundred trouble makers, and then people wondered why the relaunched school did better.  It was pitiful to see schools being renamed,  as though rebranding could fix the social,  economic and cultural problems that had caused the issues in the first place. Most people are familiar with the idea of students losing learning over the summer vacation, but do they know this generally happens in poor families but not wealthy families? The reasons appears to be access to resources ( which enable activities that aid learning and development ) and cultural, (e.g wealthy families are more likely to have books around and value learning). Wealthy children generally return to school in September having read a few books and likely having had a few lessons from a private tutor to keep up, whilst students from more average families have a tougher time adjusting for the first couple of months back. What happens in the summer months is a far greater indicator of why private school students tend to do better than state school students. Hard evidence proves it.
http://www.onlinecollege.org/2012/05/15/15-critical-facts-everyone-should-know-about-summer-learning-loss/
Furthermore, does anyone imagine Eton graduates really are that much better than an average state school student?  The answer is, on average, yes, actually they are,  but the real question is, why, and what does 'better' mean?  Do Eton teachers and facilities really lead to the greater success of these students at university and in their later careers?  Or do students from schools like Eton have a clearer idea of where they are going, and the knowledge and connections that will help them get there? Boris Johnson, case in point. The rise of this buffoon to Mayor of London and Foreign Secretary of the UK is astonishing to foreigners,  and a damning inditement of our country's infatuation with elitism. Does anyone who takes a hard look at Boris Johnson really think Eton and Oxford are superior wonder schools?

This leads to the question;  how much of the initial progress of Eton graduates in postgraduate studies and careers is due to having Eton and Oxford on a resume?  And again the question arises, how much better is a university like Oxford compared to others, and why are we so obsessed with rankings?  At the postgraduate level,  where students  work closely with professors and research matters more, I have no doubt Oxford has an edge, but what real difference does it make to the vast majority of undergraduates? Smaller class sizes and seminars probably make the most difference. Why do the middle and upper classes swoon for Oxbridge still, and why do so many working class families not value education in the same way?  These are the questions that need answering with respect to education and social mobility, not some naive pursuit of 'private is better'.

Instead of focusing on choice and the methods of the private sector, government should focus on the cultural reasons why more average families do not seem to value education as much, and for cost effective methods to enhance access to educational materials. The Internet is already a great leveller in this respect. Let us look to reduce inequality,  both culturally and in resources. A great start would be to simply focus on literacy and elementary schools more. Every state high school teacher knows most behaviour and academic problems have a lot to do with simple literacy issues. Smaller class sizes at the elementary level would be one of the greatest investments the British government could make. In the meantime, I suspect we will continue to see an illogical infatuation  with schools like Eton for no real reason at all.

Further reading here :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/10689547/Exaggerated-value-of-private-education.html

Who are ISIS?

Perhaps the popular vision or impression of Isis has focused too much on what Isis could become in the future, as opposed to understanding what they are now and where they came from.

The leadership of Isis appears to be largely old Baathist generals, who, with perhaps the exception of Al Baghdadi,  do not seem to be particularly religious. The original core of soldiers appear to be Iraqi Sunnis and al-qaeda. ISIS  have been effective, however, in luring young men, particularly westernized young men, to fight and die for them. Essentially they seem to be after recovering the power they lost after the American invasion of 2003, and they have used a Nazi like version of Islam to appeal to lost young men who feel disenchanted with Western life. In another time, these boys may have become communists, but often due to their heritage, they have found a fascist version of Islam. Due to our own media and effective use of social media, Isis seem to be the most prominent recruiter of Westerners, but in fact a cursory look at the rebel groups in Syria in particular reveals many Islamic groups battling each other. Even when Isis are defeated,  there will be other Islamic groups to deal with. It seems we may have to resign ourselves to dealing with a dictator or a caliphate, or a moderate government besieged by terrorism such as Iraq's or Afghanistan's.

Many of the lone wolves responsible for recent attacks in Europe and America appear to be recent converts who have little real understanding of Islam. Some have parental backgrounds that are linked to Islam. Most have a history of mental illness and have fallen easy prey to online radicalisation. The recruitment  last year of a young Canadian who had neither an Arabic or Islamic background hints at a simplistic narrative that is superficially seducing, much like Hitler's was in the circumstances of the Great Depression. There is a grain of truth to Western callousness to Muslim death, and a little truth is a dangerous thing. "Oftentimes, to win us to their ways, the instruments of darkness do tell us some small truths".  Some recruits , like the young girls from Bethan Green, London, are intelligent but young and naive, led by emotion and the instability of a teenage brain rather than rational thought and analysis; since Isis kill more Muslims than anyone, it would follow that the best way to help your Muslim brothers would be to fight Isis!  There is little evidence that Isis follow the Koran ; they violate numerous passages, and instead seem to follow a personal interpretation of the Koran that is universally condemned by real Muslims who bother to study their faith. Their appeal then, lies more in slick advertising and a particularly extreme brand of Islam that seems to appeal those already of a criminal and mentally unstable nature. In this respect then Isis is more a mental health and criminal problem than a religious or terrorist problem.

Further reading here ;
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29052144

The myth of the weak Liberal

A common charge levelled against Liberals, especially with today's terrorism threats, is that Liberals are naive as to the real threats of the world, and too weak to confront these threats. Appeasement for example  is a common charge levelled against Liberals who seek to avoid war or similar extreme measures. They see it as a last resort, but this is precisely because they fear its ineffectiveness and tendency to make things worse. The Iraq war of 2003 is a prime example.  France's recent troubles are the product of its bombing in Syria,  not it's rather adroit avoidance of a ground war in Iraq. 

In war,  Conservatives have talked big and then failed to back up their words. It was Obama's surge that finally settled down Iraq ( only later for it to be squandered by his tolerance of a divisive Shia government there).  Conservatives have typically failed to fund the very military forces they proclaim to venerate, even to the shameful extent of cutting veterans benefits post war.

On law and order Conservatives have likewise talked big but failed to make progress against crime, mainly due to their blind adherence to ideology as opposed to evidence driven policy. In its broad thrust crime policy is more effective when driven by prevention, treatment, and the certainty of getting caught rather than the severity of the punishment.

On domestic terrorism Liberals are often seen as naive, letting in refugees who will turn against them. Actually, the threat is already inside and refugees are allies fleeing a common enemy. (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/20/the-threat-is-already-inside-uncomfortable-truths-terrorism-isis/)

It takes more courage to remain calm and wait to strike the effective blow, than it does to lash out in fear. Liberals have the courage to wait to identify the right target rather,  than strike first and risk hitting innocents.

Further reading here ;
http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/10-surprising-ways-fight-crime

The Myth of a Golden Age and In Defence of Progress

A common divide between Conservatives and Liberals is their assessment of the 'progress' that society has undergone. In much of Western Europe and North America for example, the sixties saw a sexual revolution and new accepted norms. In our own time the boundaries of acceptable behaviour have been pushed forward with the Internet. Whilst I would argue we have made huge progress with tolerance and diversity, many on the Conservative spectrum would focus on the extremes of modern behaviour as symptomatic of some sort of modern moral decay.  They would say instead we have gone backwards, or rather lowered our standards of behaviour. This I would argue, underestimates the progress and how bad things used to be. It has been scarcely been two hundred years since most societies officially abolished torture. Some may complain that human rights are abused by a minority for spurious purposes, but if this is the price for all that human rights have brought us, I would argue it has been well worth it. And make no mistake. A culture of respect for human rights is not just good for moral reasons and individual welfare but arguably also political stability,  peace and economic growth. One cannot genuinely respect human rights and then cheat people in business and wage war.

I would argue two main forces drive the human race forward ; peace,  and the advance of knowledge.  Religion and tradition,  by dividing people and questioning science,  are holding us back. Science is pulling us forward, and not just in technology. If we truly understand the world and ourselves, we can be a more just and compassionate people. Whilst a few in the liberal west may be pushing new moral boundaries, the behaviour of the majority is usually better than most in a more traditional society where sins abound behind closed doors. Anybody who has lived in a more traditional and religious society knows this truth ; rather than enhance the morals of a people, religion and tradition usually enable the abuse of power, particularly of women.

By most metrics, the world is a vastly better place than a hundred years ago. Even with recent setbacks, millions continue to be pulled out of poverty. Technology continues to give us exciting new prospects, only threatened by our own political infighting. Do Conservatives and those ideologies focused around tradition and religion do more harm than good?   Like the campaign of Trump, they may misleadingly make the world look a lot worse than it really is. As hard as it is to believe, the world is a healthier and safer place than ever before.  But if a darker picture than reality is painted, people may more readily agree to extreme measures e.g draconian terrorism laws. It was once famously said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. I would perhaps rephrase that ; there are very real things to fear, but science and data analysis can help us identify and prioritise real threats, whilst debunking those we 'over-fear'. As a people we are still children, afraid of the dark. Science and cooperation can help bring us into the light.

Further reading here ;
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-23/world-actually-safer-ever-and-heres-data-prove

" I feel and believe, therefore I am. I am a conservative."

The Rise of Donald Trump - Right Wing Feeling vs. Left Wing Thinking ?

The rise of Trump in the United States has many shaking their heads in disbelief. Yet really, this phenomenon is nothing new. History has shown time and time again that people will tend to avoid viewpoints they do not like, even if on some level they know this contradicts reality. Due to confirmation bias, people tend to seek out evidence that confirms their already existing prejudices ,and will cherry pick the evidence that does support them, whilst simultaneously avoiding evidence that tends to contradict their views. Hence, Trump tends to blatantly lie and yet somehow the lies are believed because they seem to have emotional resonance with so many people, particularly that section of the population who have suffered a relative drop in status. As Hitler said ( paraphrased ) :
" the bigger the lie, the more people believe it".

The popularity of right wing politicians such as Trump would seem to confirm the viewpoint that conservative voters tend to be lesser educated, more religious, and generally less in touch with facts and reality. (1) . Even when conservatives  seem highly educated in one sphere, they seem to lack even basic knowledge  of other areas. Ben Carson, a brain surgeon who doesn't believe in evolution, case in point. In particular, conservatives tend to suffer from drawing simplistic conclusions about causation ( e.g more immigrants cause more terrorism, rather than vice-versa ) and seem less able to think critically about the dangers of extrapolating from their own individual experiences to make judgements about society ( hence higher rates of racism and other prejudice ; over-generalising from some isolated incidents  ). There is also increasing evidence that right wing voters tend to differ emotionally from left wing voters, such as with a tendency to be more fearful and less trusting : (2). This would seem to explain the rise of the right in times that feature particularly threatening  instability, economic depression and possible war ( or even more of it ). In the nineteenth century, conservatives were often called reactionaries ( those who sought to turn back the French Revolution ), a term that became synonymous with those who resisted change, and the drive for liberty and equality against the privilege of the elites. Perhaps reactionaries is a term that should be revived for conservatives ; they tend to react rather than think and analyse.  George W. Bush, a President who insisted on keeping briefings to one page so as to suit his reading preferences, famously bragged that he was a 'gut player'. Not necessarily a problem in all circumstances, unless you happen to be full of crap. A brain seems to be a reasonable organ to fall back on if you're not sure your guts are always right.

So, what can be done about countering the tendency of right wing voters to ignore evidence and reality ?  Or at the very least their tendency to ignore the crucial context and scale of a problem ? Since Conservatives tend to be religious, they already have a natural tendency to believe myths and ignore evidence. Yet a more consistent narrative that seeks to actively counter the mythical history of conservative politicians might be a start. Two policy areas that conservatives tend to win with many voters are fiscal responsibility and law and order. Yet, again the track record of many conservative governments is worse than liberal governments on both counts ; 9/11 happened under Bush's watch, whilst Obama's government finally nailed Bin Laden. Reagan and Thatcher's 'voodoo economics' saw national debts balloon to finance tax cuts for the rich. Many who read around politics and economics will be aware of these issues, yet the general public not so much ?  Why ?

Education and political bias aside, one reason might be the long term effects of right wing  policies such as 'voodoo economics'  are not felt till long after, yet at the time people generally seem to benefit from the short term effects.

Thatcher and the squandering of North Sea Oil and Gas in 1980's Britain

 Thatcher's misuse of North Sea Oil and Gas is a case in point, and one Brits would do well to be more aware of. North Sea Oil and Gas could have been a national resource that could have been managed like the Norwegians have managed their oil. Norway created a huge Sovereign Wealth Fund from the proceeds of some of the oil revenue that to this day is financing crucial public services and investment. The conservatives in 1980's Britain used their own oil find to finance tax cuts that promoted short term growth. Yet if even if a fraction of the money had been invested in long term projects rather than year to year spending, the effects would have been significant. It is estimated that :" if just 10 per cent of UK tax receipts from the North Sea had been put into an oil fund starting in 1980 and continuing until 2008, and if the nominal return had been 3 per cent, the value of the fund would be £24bn per annum. Twenty per cent of oil revenues on a return of 5 per cent would have created a pot of £66bn per annum." ( New Statesman, April 2013 ) . Yet because at the time this bonanza fueled a boom , Thatcher largely has a reputation as being fiscally responsible ! Clearly the media have to do a better job of reminding the public of long term effects of policies.

 

Problems with general problems understanding economic jargon - Stephen Harper's "Surplus" in Canada, 2015 

 

In the build up to the Canadian General Election of 2015, Harper's government, after running deficits for ten years and building up the National Debt, cynically cooked the books for their final year by creating a surplus for one year by, amongst other means, withholding veterans benefits and  unemployment insurance whilst  selling off the government's shares in GM for a temporary windfall. Hence the myth was created among conservatives that Trudeau's Liberal government had  inherited  a surplus which they are now squandering with reckless left wing spending ( on, by the way, infrastructure ; one of the pillars of a successful economy ! ) The myth persists because of a common misunderstanding among the general public about the difference between a yearly budget deficit and the National Debt. Imagine you take a snapshot of your current account right after pay-day, and present this as a general indication of the state of your finances. Meanwhile, you have a huge mortgage, car payments, and credit card debt. Clearly,  the state of your finances is not good ( assuming your monthly pay is not incredible ! ) Your current account is like the governments Deficit, whilst your mortgage and other obligations are like the National Debt. Basically, Harper's conservatives took a snapshot after payday, selling off assets and holding back some spending, and presented this as an indication of their general management of the economy. Meanwhile they had treated the Athabsaca tar sands ( it is tar, not oil, until refined ) much like Thatcher had treated North Sea Oil and Gas. Short termism was the order of the day, as opposed to long term investment. The price of oil crashed, and Alberta wallows in depression now. Simple enough really, yet how often does the media take the time to explain such crucial distinctions ? 

 

Most Victims of ISIS are other Muslims 

   

Not much to say on this one  ; given a moment's thought and five minutes of reading on Middle Eastern affairs and this should be obvious. Islam is rent by sectarian divisions and Shia muslims in particular suffer horribly at the hands of ISIS. Most Muslim immigrants fleeing ISIS  hate them even more than westerners.  Yet again how often does media stress this fact ? A detailed look at most recent 'lone wolves'  reveals them to be late converts to Islam, sexually confused petty criminals who sought redemption and clarity with ISIS's extreme interpretation of the faith (3). How widely shown and shared are such sentiments ? Judging by the reaction of conservatives to ISIS, not very ! Perhaps even if they were, conservatives would discredit the source as biased media. But that is a post for another day perhaps, the 'myth of the liberal media' . For those interested in this next particular topic, I direct you to Media Lens :http://www.medialens.org/

-Keep Calm, and Carry On Thinking, not just Reacting.