Paladis

Is the Lower class less informed than middle or high class society?

Are the Higher class more intelliegent or just luckier in life than those below them?

Do people treat those of a different class (in thier opinion) any different?

Does the lower class really know no different?

__________________

Ebony&Markus

No.I think there are intelligent people in every class. Hence scholarships for those unfortunate enough not to have the money to pay for tuition fees. However, there is a phenomenon known now as the "underclass". The lower or working class were generally hard working people.

Also you see people moving from class to class. The middle class came about because the surfs died off due to the Bubonic plague and could suddenly ask the lord of the land for money for their work due to lack of people able to do the work!

The underclass are those who choose to live on benefits and become intwined in the circle of the benefit trap, however alot of them like this lifestyle and choose not to change it. (Example Little Britains Vicky Pollard character)

Intelligence is not a matter of class. However, people with more money can enhance their childrens prosperity by buying them learning aids such as computers and sending them to extra tuition classes. Therefore they have an easier start in life. Sure money makes things alot more comfortable and brings a better quality of life, but it certainly does not influence how intelligent you are.

There is however evidence suggesting that malnutrition can harm intellectual development as well, so maybe in the past it was more of the case simply because the rich had better nutrition.

angels_and_daemons

By way of completely contradicting Ebony - yes, in general the lower classes are less well educated, fewer children of working to lower class families will go to college andfew of those will go to university.

While college in the UK is free to under 18's they're not working, but are classed as able to work so council tax allowances can change costing parents money, also benefits levels can change also, so children are encouraged more to go to work than to go to college. Also because thier family before them will have been unlikely to go to college or university they will be more likely to think it unimportant. Even basic things such as litteracy and numeracy are worse in lower class families (which I don't fully understand as in theory every child has to go to school, so why only poorer kids lose out here doesn't seem to make sense).

University of course is not free for anyone and many would want to move away to somewhere new for uni, however without support from parents that option is nearly impossible ... so again encourages kids to re-think and go into work.

Also with parents working in shops, as builders etc they less likely to look down on such jobs, so a future working in the same job as your dad seems fine, where middle and upper class people would look at being a builder or a cleaner as beneath them, so will try harder to get better grades and get more encouragement to do so from parents.

Yes there are always exceptions but I would suggest my above ramblings are pretty much the majority...

Meiko

If your child is still in full-time education you can continue to claim the benefits (I'm sure of that but could be wrong). But as you say more often than not a parent might encourage the child to go out and work to earn a living as some think its ok to kick a kid out at the age of 16.

On the intelliegence side, my boyfriend left school at 14 (as his school didn't encourage kids to stay and is in one of the poorest areas of the town I live in) and home at 15, he went straight into work and has mostly worked ever since. But he is very intelliegent even for leaving school at a young age he never stopped his learning by reading books and watching documentries. By contrast my ex went to college and worked as a chef in several hotels/resturants of London and Birmingham but cooking is the only thing he's concentrated on learning and gambling with cards. He's not made any attempt to learn anything more (something I find a bit ignorant as he wouldn't even watch the news). So its very much down to the individual, some put the effort in to learn things and others don't bother.

People are treated different by other classes but I wouldn't say everyone is like that. Often it can be appearance and the way you talk more than just class. As my mother would say no need to be poor and look poor. (though I'm one of the few of my extended family living solely on benefits, something my mum hates.)

__________________

Made by my friend IrGXaNa.
Travian online Game

Fargo

Class has little or nothing to do with money or intelligence.
Upper class - Aristocracy, may show occasional signs of inteligence but that can be put down to chance, often as poor as the proverbial church mouse, never work.
Middle class - Tradesmen such as solicitors, doctors, clergy etc... often highly motivated and generaly consider themselves clever.
Lower class - Not too sure, but they live in the North and wear cloth caps, most useful when fighting wars as they take instruction surprisingly well and with little complaint.

Sally Buttons

Has the working class been replaced by the lower class? Two totally different things, in my opinion. Being working class is nothing to be ashamed of, but I'd see lower class as the workshy underclass, who don't want to learn or work, and revel in their stupidity. The lottery winner Michael Carroll comes to mind here; the guy won millions and still can't keep himself out of trouble, so money doesn't necessarily enable a person to better themselves, if they are hellbent on being a stupid yobbish cretin for the rest of their life, like that bloke.

__________________

Ebony&Markus

Aye. I agree with Sally. The rise of the underclass.... they are completly different (as I said in my post above) to the working class.

Ta'Samsca'Rial

A person's class is best determined by their aspirations.

__________________

Elise

I don't deny that the type of person people have labelled the "Underclass" exist. Far from it, as I've come across a few fitting that description in my life. However, I don't believe you can pigeonhole every person with sweeping definitions such as class distinctions.

Yes, there's a divide between the have and have nots, but there's also many things that happen which people have little or no choice about, thus pigeonholing them neatly into a category they don't fit into. As for a person's class being determined by their aspirations, sadly no. A person's class is determined by the life choices they make, and the things that happen which they have no control over.

You can be the best educated, most articulate person in the world, but if your partner, or child, or even your parent ends up needing full time care, you'll end up on state benefits, with practically no way out. People like this get penalised financially for wanting to seek work, and so eventually, they end up giving up, and accepting their life of handouts. And then, along comes society and sticks the same label on them as the 16 year old who got pregnant deliberately to avoid getting a real job.

So yeah, there's a definate class divide. But it comes from people who look down their noses at a particular group of people without bothering to think of whether these people have thoughts, or opinions or feelings. The same, of course, works in reverse, with the so called "lower class" looking down their noses at the "toffee nosed snobs". It's a tad pathetic, imho, and little more than playground rules applied to the adult populace.

__________________

Andrew

what a load of snobbery

Ta'Samsca'Rial

Yes but education and personal wealth have nothing to do with class. Class is a social rank given by the rest of society based upon a persons aspirations and the resulting oppinions, choices and company they keep.

Someone who was going to be a doctor before having to put someone into full time care is not the same as someone who was going to be a factory worker despite going on to have superficially similar lives. They are different. They have different desires. They do different activities. They move in different circles with friends who have different beliefs and belong to differing classes. They make, due to their social enviroment, different choices in life.

An aristocrat, for example, doesn't cease to be a member of the upper class if he has some bad luck that effects his personal fortune. He only ceases to be an upper class if he no longer concerns himself with matters associated with that class and likely ceases to interact with people of that class.

In the same way a proffesional top-flight footballer is hardly upper class despite earning more money than they could ever have imagined as a child. They don't suddenly take on the mindset and desires of the middle or upper class just because they have aquired money.

__________________

Elise

Education and personal wealth have a -lot- to do with class. Class is a social rank given by society based on what a person does for a living, what type of house they live in, what type of car they drive, where their children go to school etc etc etc.

When someone is forced to become a full time carer for a relative, their desires, aspirations, chances in life, income, opportunities for socialisation with anyone (let alone the circle of friends they've had for years) all change. They wind up moving in the same circle of people as every other carer of a person with the same infirmity/disability as the person they care for, and their old lives are largely swallowed up by the demands of the new. They become different people, and 99% of that old life, before they began caring, is no longer relevant. Not only do I speak from personal experience here, but many of the new friends I've made since my children were born and diagnosed have related similar experiences.

An aristocrat generally never ceases to be an aristocrat, I'd agree with you there. But then the lifestyle comes down to your financial bracket in the first place, so I'm afraid that yet again, it comes down to money.

Ok, example, David Beckham. From a small semi. Makes pots of money, now lives in a palatial home, drives big flash cars, has a trophy wife, wears designer labels and won't work for what would have passed for a wage if he'd kept to the aspirations and education his personal social circumstance of birth handed to him. I'd say that counts as the mindset and desires of an upper class person, personally.

As a final note to this, the word "Class" in this context derives from the sociological term "Socio-Economic Class", the dictionary definition of which is "People having the same social, economic, or educational status". Therefore education and personal wealth -do- have a lot to do with what class you are, or you're talking about a different type of class to me.

__________________

Kaelith

your start in life is almost certainly decided by your parents wealth and their choice of up bringing for you, but after that i think it can be changed by the individual by the ways that olk was talking about.

i think a problem with using wealth as a measure for social class is that high paying jobs are far more accessible nower days, and there is a scale all the way to the top. whereas in the past i think there was a clear divide between upper class jobs and labourers.

you can get people on 50-80k a year who are common as muck, where jeans all the time, talk like a common person and would never consider themselves upper class. and you can get people who earn 20-30k who are very well spoken, live in a well managed household and hang around with other more cultured and well-to-do people.

basically you both have valid points, but it's a mix of both. people can aspire to higher classes if they wish and people can be common if they wish.

i've come from a very well to do family, but generally have hung around with lower class people most of my childhood and i can't stand public school boys. i'd consider myself probably middle/lower class. but i've certainly come from what other people would call middle/upper class.

Meiko

I agree with Elise alot on this. There are people out there who are happy to do factory work, labouring jobs etc which are mostly low paid but to then think of them as a lower class just because they choose to do hands on work is wrong.

Some people have little choice because their parents might of been on benefits and most their family, they can either be completely discouraged to work or only encouraged a little. Or they may be encouraged alot but grow up around kids that aren't and get labeled a swat etc. for trying harder at school to get any decent results.

Yes there may be people out there that don't want to work, can't be bothered but not everyone living on benefits is like that. Often there's jobs but they pay little more than what you'd get on benefits so seem hardly worth it. Or there's always the training problems. Like my bf (again using him as an example) He wants to do Labouring, plumbing or Security but the companies want their people to have specific certificates. Trouble is alot of places won't train the people to get them because so many have got the certificate and left for a different company. So they might either charge the person from their wages to get it or say sorry you need the experience first and then you enter a continous circle. And then alot of labouring and security is done in contracts so you can have a term of work and then be out of work for a while before there's some available again.

__________________

Made by my friend IrGXaNa.
Travian online Game

Ebony&Markus

This thread reminds me of that great sketch from Monty Python. What a classic.