Classism and socio-economic inequality.

[Soul Saver]

First off, I am aware that topics like this can be highly controversial.

We all know that different people have different incomes. Some have really obscene salaries, some have average, some have subsistence-level pay. People tend to be divided into socio-economic classes relating to their income, skills, and style.

Is this guy prejudiced, and just plain "unfairly" discriminatory?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7414311.stm

Is it justified to say such things?

 

[Fusilli]

Ugh, if you ask me, Mr Charlton there is absolutely ridiculous. =/ Uh-huh, because we all know that no matter how much poor folk try to learn, no amount of studying or general knowledge will sink in because we require bath-loads of cash to buy brains.

I'm going to use my sister as an example here, who got an unconditional offer at St Andrew's Uni, which is the top in the country, and top university in Britain after Oxbridge. I mean, Prince William went there for crying out loud! >_> And where is she from? Lochgelly... and for those of you who don't know that town (all of you bar one or two >>) it is, according to The Times, the 'Cheapest place to live in Britain'. And my dad grew up here too, and he has an IQ of 166! M'hmm, 'Dr Charlton' reeeaaally knows his stuff, I tell ya. *rolls eyes*

 

[Rockman X]

Wtf? That's a load of crap. Sure, some "working class" people are retards, but I've worked with plenty who aren't dumb. I've seen plenty of managers at fast food places and grocery stores who've chosen it as their career, and they don't seem like they're any less smart than I am.

Not to mention the IQ test itself isn't an accurate measure of intelligence. It doesn't take into account things like learning disabilities, and some people are really smart but just crack under the pressure of tests. Would an IQ test show that? No, it would just call them dumb.

(and no, I'm not butthurt about a low IQ score, I got 123)

 

[Davey Gaga]

No, he's not prejudiced. This annoys me already.

Working class people have lower IQs than those from wealthy backgrounds and should not expect to win places at top universities, an academic has claimed.

"Yet in all this debate a simple and vital fact has been missed: higher social classes have a significantly higher average IQ than lower social classes."

These two points are quite different. The title of that news report suggests that there's absolutely no chance they'd be allowed into Universities, while the direct quote says nothing of the sort. Your IQ doesn't really reflect your learning capabilities - ANYONE can read a book, take information from it and write it down.

Besides, if it's a statistical fact, then it's hardly prejudice.



Universities don't exclude you because of your background - they exclude you if your grades don't match what they're looking for, or if there've been too many applicants and they've had to whittle down numbers.

As for the actual topic ... I'm not saying it's a brilliant thing to come out with, when the press are involved, but it does seem to be the trend. I'm not, for one minute, suggesting that anyone who comes from a less-wealthy background is thick, or incapable, or anything like that. However, from anything I've seen, in and around school, the trend goes that those who are not particularly wealthy tend to do worse and/or leave school to go straight to the workplace. As I say, though, it's only a trend - it's not a strict rule. There're plenty of others, whom I know to be much less wealthy than others in the school, who have stuck on and are doing brilliantly. There's just less of them.

Hell, I'm hardly from a rich family myself - with my dad as the only source of income for the family, I'm not particularly rich. Currently, I'm in high school, studying the highest attainable levels for my year for every subject.

I have a feeling I'll have to re-word something in the course of this thread. Let me know if you've taken something from this that's any more controversial than the topic at hand.

 

[Rockman X]

However, from anything I've seen, in and around school, the trend goes that those who are not particularly wealthy tend to do worse and/or leave school to go straight to the workplace.

Yes, that's true, but this is probably the worst part of the article:

Working class people have lower IQs than those from wealthy backgrounds and should not expect to win places at top universities

When you say something like that, you're essentially saying "why bother applying? you won't get in, there's no point." Not a good message to be sending to kids in poorer schools. Plus, there's a large chance that someone could see that statement and become disillusioned from it, or just write off trying hard in school. "Well the statistics say I won't get into uni, so why should I bother?"

People need to be more careful when choosing their words. Instead of saying poor people shouldn't expect to get in, they should have said something like "will have to work harder to get in." It's much less depressing.

 

[Bambi]

Im right at the bottom of the social rung I think

Doesn't mean Im not gunna try to do something with myself....at some point. People just seem to write us off when we come from poor backgrounds.

My mate did shiiite at school and she's studying for nursing at the moment and plans to go on to university, she is a single parent and just as skint as I am.

Sure it's harder when you come from this kind of background but it doesn't give that stuck up git the right to say we shouldn't expect to make anything of ourselves because we won't get anywhere

 

[BalambFish]

Bah! If I got my hands on him, I'd kick him in the ass and send him straight back to wherever he came from.

I don't know about you guys but where I am growing up, a lot of kids coming from working class backgrounds are much smarter than the rich foo's. In fact, here, children from struggling families are more likely to be accepted in a good university.

It's unfair what that guy said bec. if you did come from that background, you'd be very discouraged and possibly give up. Money is never really a factor in being successful(lol, you dont even need to go uni) all it takes is hardwork. For all the working classes out there, Fight-O!

 

[Rockman X]

It's unfair what that guy said bec. if you did come from that background, you'd be very discouraged and possibly give up.

Exactly. People are already gonna be discouraged enough as is, but if they see some crap like that, chances are high that they'll just say the hell with it.

Money is never really a factor in being successful(lol, you dont even need to go uni) all it takes is hardwork.

I've seen alot of rich yuppies in Nashville who just dick around in school and don't take it seriously. Why? Cuz their parents are rich and they all get nice sports cars from mommy and daddy and don't need to work for anything. Plus mommy and daddy usually have connections and can find them a job whether or not they dick around in school.

Often times its the lower class people who make the better students because they're used to working hard and have more motivation to make a better life. Perfect example is Dr. Ben Carson. He was a poor black kid, had it really hard growing up, but he tried his absolute hardest in school and his mom encouraged him alot...today he's a leading neurosurgeon. Being low class certainly didn't give him a low IQ. His autobiography is actually really interesting and pretty inspiring, if anybody is bored enough to read.

 

[Donald Trump]

I think his premise is accurate to an extent. Untill he states that lower socio-economic groups are inherently stupidier than the upper classes. Which is of course wrong. Richer people have access to better educations that the poor. Which is why they are smarter, but they are naturally smarter, it is a consequence of their class.

However it is so much harder for poor people to advance their life. Only those who are gifted at sports and music can get out of their economic station. Some through sheer hardwork and intelligence can get degrees and get jobs with large salaries. But, the vast majority can simply not afford to. Either their parents can't afford for them to go to uni, or they have to work to support their families.

 

[Soul Saver]

I think that Mr. Professor simply generalised, and tarred all working class people with the same brush. He essentially says that all people are poor because of lower I.Qs.
What he failed to mention was the educational advantage that middle and upper class people tend to have, and their upbringing. There is a much broader range of factors than simply intelligence.

No doubt, there are fewer barriers than there were a century ago, and there has been a vast improvement in public educational standards. However, I have met many "working class" people who are smarter than those in better economic circumstances. (for the record, I would consider most of my family "academic" lower-middle class. Not poor, but not wealthy, either.) Intelligence is a factor, but so is upbringing.
Sometimes, intelligence is not the only factor that comes into play. Some people might just not have other abilities which are required.
Naturally, conventional intelligence is partly genetic, but those with average intelligence can still prosper. Intelligence isn't the only factor which decides income. Some rich people have reached where they are now by ruthlessness.
Also, there are different kinds of intelligence. The IQ test is merely a guideline, and is not a universal measure, and some people may do poorly due to cracking under pressure.

Whereas one person might be mainly a maths genius, and suck at strategy despite being educated to an excellent degree in both; another may be a strategic genius, and be poor at maths by comparison, with no realistic chance to further their maths skills.

To deny anyone a place in a prestigious university purely because of their supposed social status is unacceptable, and is regression, not progress. Rather than look at social class, people and society in general should look at the individual.

True, accents and mannerisms can also be factors. If someone is impolite, and has uncouth, unpleasant mannerisms, you wouldn't want them to work for you. This is quite often to do with class, but it is perhaps one thing that I think is an acceptable basis for discrimination. "Smart" style and politeness are the way to go.

 

[Rockman X]

What he failed to mention was the educational advantage that middle and upper class people tend to have, and their upbringing. There is a much broader range of factors than simply intelligence.

He made it sound as if poor people are inherently dumber, which implies that well-off people are inherently smarter. It's a load of crap. Well-off people having better education makes them more knowledgeable, but that knowledge wasn't there to start off with.

True, accents and mannerisms can also be factors. If someone is impolite, and has uncouth, unpleasant mannerisms, you wouldn't want them to work for you. This is quite often to do with class, but it is perhaps one thing that I think is an acceptable basis for discrimination. "Smart" style and politeness are the way to go.

I suppose you could call this discrimination...but yes, it's acceptable. When you run a business you have to look at it from a professional standpoint and hire professional-looking people. It'll present a very bad image if you have a bunch of slack-jawed yokels or sloppy teenagers working in a store or wherever. They might be a very small minority the company has hired, but to the public they are what represents the company because they're the visible part of it.

If a college was to discriminate based on someone's looks, or income, it would look pretty bad though. Colleges are supposed to help people further themselves in life so they don't have to live in bad conditions anymore....so I can't imagine that sort of discrimination going over well.

 

[Contra Fates]

What I'm most interested in for this article, is how this guy collected his data.

Did he just go up to all of the kids in regular classes who had a job and ask them to take an IQ test, and then went to the honors and gifted kids who were rich and asked them to do the same?

On average, I'm sure, in general world-population terms, there may some truth that 'wealthier families have higher IQs,' simply because it's such a SMALL percentage of people, compared to the VAST amount of those in the 'working class.' It's such a skewed comparison to begin with, because CEOs and Entrepreneurs would be assumed to be of higher intelligence, same with Politicians, so they would make up a large percentage of the tiny 'rich people percentile.' But when you look at the huge working class population, you're going to get a lower average, because of all of those that just AREN'T educated. The population of those persons alone is far greater than the 'rich' population of the world, or even in most areas.

This article is bothersome, because there could be some truth to the statement of 'rich people have higher IQs,' but the truth is only achieved with such skewed and unfair ways.

 

[Soul Saver]

Well, it isn't said how Mr. Professor collected his data.

I think that intelligence can be genetic to some degree. You would expect a highly intelligent person to have intelligent children. This is often, but not always the case. Other factors than just genes affect intelligence and skills, such as education, upbringing, and culture. Intelligence can be stunted or enhanced through nurture.
There are many blood families which show evidence of some sort of hereditary intelligence, and families which show genetic stupidity. It might be attributed naturally having more or less proteins and hormones which affect raw intelligence.
Though, you see plenty of successful "average" intelligence people, and plenty of failed supposedly "smarter" people, so this can not mean a genetic guarantee of success or failure.