Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

No, you're back-pedalling. 20 seconds on Google, and I've completely demolished your argument, and your reply is that poor people don't get in - well they do, but a lot more got in before the grammar schools were abolished - by Labour and successive governments. We've reaped the whirlwinds with that one.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

Of course they should, but the scandal is our state system can't match it - with funding per pupil in the state sector maybe as much as 80% of the private - has been caused by a poverty of expectation and outright hostility amongst many in the teaching profession to even being well educated, let alone at Oxbridge. I've worked with too many teachers who've said "what do you expect, this is a poor area, and their parents are working class"

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

No, of course they shouldn't. It is vital that pupils from state backgrounds are able to achieve entry into the elite universities. I went to both state & public school. The public school prepped me for the Oxbridge interview and a belief that I *should* attend. My state school thought it was lucky to get a few pupils into Oxbridge. That's the difference; state pupils MUST be encouraged with the belief that they can attend the finest universities.

Are you aware of the statistic that state school pupils achieve better grades at Oxbridge than those from public schools?

Also, if you want an example of just why it's vital to encourage state schools to send kids to Oxbridge you need to look no further than the blissfully out of touch posh boys running the country. The only two worth any salt (Gove & Pickles) are from a state background.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

+1

Grammar schools were the one entry path state pupils had that would do everything possible to prepare them for the best universities. It gave hope to those from less well off backgrounds but who were clever to fulfil their potential in life.

However, that said, the striving middle classes still ensured their children were put forward and supported for the 11+ whereas those bright kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, who were just as clever, never had any parental ambition to encourage them to take the 11+.

Ultimately, parents are the biggest factor in a child's ability to succeed imo.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

With regards to healthcare professions certainly agree with the OP you rarely see ethnic minorities making it to the highest posts in the field but will regularly see them in dead end non training posts that no one else wants. The US medical fraternity is a lot more diverse with every creed and colour represented at all levels unlike the two-tier system present in the UK sadly.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

Indians are 'ethnic minorities' in the UK. Hospitals are full of Indian doctors.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

very superficial point without knowing the system as its well proven those 'indian doctors' in uk hospitals are less likely to be consultants and more likely to be non-training staff grade jobs with no hope of ever being a consultant. just being in the hospital is meaningless!

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

Are you for real? There are tonnes of Indian consultants and consultant surgeons in the NHS!

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

Relative to the number of Indians in staff grade and non-training posts you may wish to redefine your interpretations of 'tonnes'

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

I think racism is still fairly common here in the States, but if you're a white guy like me noticing it is highly dependent on where you are and who you interact with. My wife is ethnically Korean and I notice it a bit more when I spend time with her (although in general, East Asians are well accepted here, the whole "model minority" thing...)

These distinctions can be highly localized. If you live in Cambridge, Ma, Lincoln Park Chicago or Brooklyn, you might be forgiven for thinking this is an extremely racially enlightened country perhaps more so than any other place in the world. If you live in Mattapan Ma, the South Side of Chicago or the Bronx, you would likely have a very different perspective. Likewise, I have a hard time writing off the entire South and West as racist, that's painting with much too broad a brush and there are too many exceptions.

While I imagine you could make these "it depends" type comments about the racial attitudes of people in most countries, I will say that the most endemically, institutionally racist place I've ever lived is Japan. It's not even close, anyone not Japanese is basically subhuman as far as many Japanese are concerned.

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

By that argument there are FAR more white english in staff grade and non-training posts than consultants...

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

according to the BMA that is definitely not the case and it makes sense given there are 12000 SAS doctors in the UK and more than 37000 consultants unless you somehow believe there are 25000+ non-white consultants in the UK!!! get real

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

A lot of them are surgeons a lot of the top surgeons are Indian in some field like ortho. At my local ortho centre where i went hurt my knee and needed work all the guys in the offices with Mr after alll surgeons were indian not white. That was 15 years ago so maybe things have changed a bit

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

Customs yet again you are lurching into unknown territory. Being called 'Mr' just means you have passed the surgical exams, nothing more. Those doctors could have been registrars, staff grades whatever! Even a psychiatrist who has passed his surgical fellowship in years gone by can call himself 'Mr' if he likes!

Re: Does Britain need to catch up ?????
 

Doesn't Mister denote senior specialist above Doctor? :confused::confused: