Controversial????? Discuss!!
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Controversial????? Discuss!!
Yet another article in the Daily Mail!!
This one reporting Chris Woodhead's thoughts on middleclass children, genes and intelligence. Makes an interesting read I think and certainly one for debate:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pt-it.html
This one reporting Chris Woodhead's thoughts on middleclass children, genes and intelligence. Makes an interesting read I think and certainly one for debate:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pt-it.html
I do not agree with this at present but as our society becomes more equal I do think that bright working class children will eventually become middle income earners and the thick ones will remain at the bottom of the pile so it may well be the case in the future that middle class or middle income earners are brighter. The thick rich will generally always remain wealthy because they will inherit money or pay an intelligent middle class FA to look after his money!
Chris Woodhead is right in some ways that some people are more practically minded and not academic. Such people are the backbone of our working society and should be appreciated and not looked down on.
Chris Woodhead is right in some ways that some people are more practically minded and not academic. Such people are the backbone of our working society and should be appreciated and not looked down on.
-
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:16 pm
Oh noooo
I feel a long thread coming on.
We are living proof that is not true.Don't want to sound like I am boasting so enough to say that my children are achieving very well, this despite having a very" working class "mum.
I think it would be very interesting to define what Chris Woodhead meant by "class". Who does he view as middle class? Are they middle to top earners who can afford more opportunity for their children, hence their greater success?
I could say a lot more, and often do , but have things to do.
I feel a long thread coming on.
We are living proof that is not true.Don't want to sound like I am boasting so enough to say that my children are achieving very well, this despite having a very" working class "mum.
I think it would be very interesting to define what Chris Woodhead meant by "class". Who does he view as middle class? Are they middle to top earners who can afford more opportunity for their children, hence their greater success?
I could say a lot more, and often do , but have things to do.
-
- Posts: 1245
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:31 pm
Let's have a science reference rather than relying on Daily Mail!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142841.htm
"Genes appear to influence intelligence by determining how well nerve axons are encased in myelin — the fatty sheath of "insulation" that coats our axons and allows for fast signaling bursts in our brains. The thicker the myelin, the faster the nerve impulses."
Maybe DNA testing soon rather than VR, NVR etc?
Have you seen the film GATTACA? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/
Regards
SVE
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142841.htm
"Genes appear to influence intelligence by determining how well nerve axons are encased in myelin — the fatty sheath of "insulation" that coats our axons and allows for fast signaling bursts in our brains. The thicker the myelin, the faster the nerve impulses."
Maybe DNA testing soon rather than VR, NVR etc?
Have you seen the film GATTACA? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/
Regards
SVE
Animis opibusque parati
-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:20 pm
-
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:16 pm
-
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:34 am
- Location: S East
-
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:34 am
- Location: S East
Obviously the contoversy will surround his semi-eugenics point.
On that he was probably selectively misquoted, but I don't care because the issue is too complicated to be encapsulated in a Daily Mail article.
However I thought the more important and interesting point he was making is that:
1. some students are not academically able
2. it is bad for them to keep them studying academic subjects beyond a certain age
3. it is bad for their more academic peers that they should be kept at school beyond a certain age
4. it is bad for their teachers that they should be kept at school beyond a certain age
5. Therefore the government should drop its fixation with academic education for all, and start providing good vocational education for those that need it.
A win-win-win situation all round.
This is what Switzerland and Germany do.
One can quibble with his take on the details, but it seems an eminently sensible analysis.
My guess is that people will prefer to discuss the controversy
On that he was probably selectively misquoted, but I don't care because the issue is too complicated to be encapsulated in a Daily Mail article.
However I thought the more important and interesting point he was making is that:
1. some students are not academically able
2. it is bad for them to keep them studying academic subjects beyond a certain age
3. it is bad for their more academic peers that they should be kept at school beyond a certain age
4. it is bad for their teachers that they should be kept at school beyond a certain age
5. Therefore the government should drop its fixation with academic education for all, and start providing good vocational education for those that need it.
A win-win-win situation all round.
This is what Switzerland and Germany do.
One can quibble with his take on the details, but it seems an eminently sensible analysis.
My guess is that people will prefer to discuss the controversy
Exams are formidable for the best prepared. The greatest fool may ask what the wisest man cannot answer.