In article , Stan The Man
writes
In article , Kay Easton
wrote:

Yes, UK. Where examination pass grades are _much_ easier to get than
they were when I was at school -- the Government's answer to poorer
teaching and diminished funding.

The proportion of the population obtaining GCSE C+ and A level passes
has hugely increased over my lifetime, and I would be amazed if that
were accounted for by a decrease in marking standards. The emphasis of
exams has changed, from testing acquisition of knowledge, to testing
acquisition of skills, and I think it is very hard to compare between
the two. I know that some of the skills which are being taught to my
children (eg collecting information to prepare a presentation complete
with handouts and other supplementary material) are ones which I have
had to learn during my working career.

Firstly, when I was young, teachers were not required to have a degree,
and in practice only grammar schools had graduate teachers - primary and
secondary modern school teachers had only their teacher training
qualifications. The independent sector did not always require teacher
training qualifications.

Now, all state school teachers are graduates - I don't know about the
independent sector.

My father was a state school teacher for 40 years until 1997. He was
avery learned man but but some of his colleagues did not have degrees.
Where does your information come from?

Sorry - I should have been more precise - entry in to the teaching
profession is now graduate only, either through a four year BEd degree
or through a degree in another subject followed by a post graduate
education qualification. That has been the case for at least the last 10
years.

Gone are the days when girls who could not get into university were
encouraged to take up teacher training whether or not they had any
desire to be a teacher.

Secondly, in what way are standards declining? My children are learning
things that I didn't learn till much later in life.

Maybe they do learn things about modern life that I wasn't taught. But
they learn less of English and mathematics than in my day.

No, not so - they learn different areas of mathematics. Less in the
arithmetical skills area, more of the underlying concepts of
mathematics, for example, some basic concepts of set theory, symmetry,
statistical concepts. It is no longer necessary to be able to accurately
add up a long column of numbers, but it is necessary to be able to
estimate an answer to check against the calculator response, and that is
reflected in the current syllabus.

I have often
been shocked to see the uncorrected errors in my children's homework
after marking. Punctuation, grammar, mental arithmetic and more are way
too far down the list of teaching priorities nowadays.

I agree that few people seem to pay attention to grammar nowadays, but
mental arithmetic is the subject of specific teaching and a separate
paper in the SATS exams.


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

The message
from Stan The Man contains these words:

Perhaps one reason for our declining education standards
is that too many teachers teach without having achieved their degree
and teachers' training qualifications. I know there will be exceptions
but in general we need a way to tell whether we can happily entrust our
children's education to certain institutions or certain teachers.

Send your child to a state school.It's decades since anyone without a
teaching qualification could get a teaching post in a state school.


Janet.

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , tuin man
wrote:

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...

In related areas, if someone is fixing my gas boiler, my teeth, my new
extension, my domestic wiring, my blood pressure, etc, I'm going to
find someone who, first and foremost, is properly qualified to do the
job. If they are also experienced, so much the better.

Simon

And there's the catch; "properly qualified" and how that is to be
interpreted. Many people start off as teachers for a course on a subject
that had seemed to be waiting for them to come along and open the door,
yet
they themselves never become the course's post graduates in the real
sense.

Would that make them unqualified?
And therefore not acceptable to you?

Patrick

Probably not.

To which question? Both?
If so, what about pioneers in any field of expertise?

Perhaps one reason for our declining education standards
is that too many teachers teach without having achieved their degree
and teachers' training qualifications.

Sniped teacher bit because I am not in a position to comment on education
standards

You
seem to be arguing that there is no point to formal training at all and
I can't subscribe to that pov, whatever the field.

At no point am I saying there's no point to formal training at all. Nor can
I see it implied. I am saying it should *also not be used as a pointy stick.
What I am trying to address is your inability to trust someone you *think*
does not have such credentials, such as happened with your assesment of
Charlie D (which Martin corrected)
And your tunnel vision type trust in those who does, or you think does
posses such credentials.

I believe strongly
in a meritocracy -

I'm sure we all do, but it's little more than a myth in UK.
Take for example the fact you've outlined R d T's credentials.
When she first appeared on the TV she got what could only be desribed as a
slating here. Mostly female lead bile.
Pretty much none of the objections centred around any knowledge she had
imparted, but concentrated rather a lot on her hair style, fashion sense and
something about her finger nails which for the life of me I just couldn't
fathom.
In spite of your credentials announcement, many of those which you've
acknowledged as accreditated, remain on the not-on-my-tell-
if-you-please-lists.
Then there's the example of your own error of not realising Charlie's
credentials.
On which note, I can understand your assumption. Now I know she mucks in
well and many people like that, but I had 2 grannies who ran large farms
almost singlehandedly and I've worked alongside many such competant femal
gardeners, so that novelty holds no interest for me. But, based on a more
critical assesment of Charlie's abilities, I'd be inclined to assume that
the UK gardening industry is in big trouble, big big trouble, if she is an
example of British gardening expertise.
I have to reflect on the value of the others to hold a more positive view.

and the initial indication of a candidate's merit is
his/her formal qualifications.

I recall doing what you might call a foreign language written test. On one
segment, we were given a set of random words to utilise and incorporate into
a short story. I made mine about my dissapointment on being woken from a
nice dream. I dreamt I was on an isolated beach. Saw something in the water.
It turned out to be another swimmer. As the swimmer approached and stood up,
it was a she and such a pretty face. Then as she emerged she revealed a lack
of upper costume, then a lack of any costume as she walked over to me.
Confident, sexy (I'll stop right there) I utilised what ever words could be
intrepreted to define beauty, longing, excitment, interest, need... you get
the drift.
I got an A+.... and for both the first and last time in my life.
Exams are often won on providing what the examiner wants and not
neccessarily true knowledge.

Without these diplomas and certificates,
we may have no reliable way to whittle 1000 job applicants down to a
manageable shortlist.

That's the way of the world. But it does not mean we should unwarily embrace
such credentials whilst demeaning those without it. And presenting a garden
show (after all how many womwen need a phd in shopping to be 'allowed' out
of the house/) should not require a degree in horticulture. Prehaps it's
needing a degree in meeja studies that is the cause of much of the
irritation witnessed here... or else it's just lain jeolosy. Surely not (-;

Patrick

Simon

On 4/6/04 18:58, in article , "mich"
wrote:

snip
OK if you want someone to balme for this - dont blame the poor teacher who
stands in front of a class every day being called a c***, a t***** a p***
artist, a s*** , a w***** and suffers all kinds of verbal and physical abuse
as well as threats - blame the national curriculum, blame the fact we ( yes
I am a teacher and have taught in classrooms) have no means of sanction
over the childrens behaviour, and most of all blame INCLUSION ( putting SEN
and EBD kids into ordinary classrooms). This is robbing your children of the
attention and the lessons they need. Whilst a teacher is dealing with a
disruptive, statemented EBD child who really shouldnt be in school, she or
he cannot help your kid.

Also blame the dumbing own of educational standards on the same thing. The
system you understand and was educated in was one of meritocracy,
sponsorship and eliteism ( if you were not good enough you would fail the
exam) now we have a mass education system where everything is certificated
and children are not expected to fail anything. if all they can do is write
their name at the top of a bit of paper , we have to certificate it as a
bloody achievement ( for some it is).
Universities now have special needs depts to support students with poor
literacy and numeracy skills. 20 years ago they would not have been in
university , let alone taking nad being awarded degrees.

That is a politcal decision, not an educational one.

rant over.


Well said. I can't imagine why anyone wants to teach now and my hat is off
to those who do.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds after garden to email me)

In article , mich
wrote:

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , Kay Easton
wrote:

In article , Stan The Man
writes

Probably not. Perhaps one reason for our declining education standards
is that too many teachers teach without having achieved their degree
and teachers' training qualifications.

Where are you talking about? Not UK, surely?

Now, all state school teachers are graduates - I don't know about the
independent sector.

My father was a state school teacher for 40 years until 1997. He was
avery learned man but but some of his colleagues did not have degrees.
Where does your information come from?

Then you had better go and check your facts with your father. I am sure he
would be apalled at your arrogance.

Arrogant? Moi?! The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind. I at
least was clearly expressing a personal opinion whereas you are not
only ranting but trying to be patronising and condescending all at the
same time. Did you get a diploma in this?

My father is dead so you will have to trust my recollections.

Even in 1997 the rules stated that all new entrants to teaching had to be
both graduates and have PGCE or teacher training qualifications ( called
QTS)
Whilst some older teachers ( like your dad maybe?) who were trained before
1980 it was either a teaching certificate or a degree. Between 1980 and 1989
some graduates did teach without teaching certificates but not many.

Did they cull the teachers who were taken on without teaching
certificates or without degrees? Many of them are still teaching. In
the same way that many people are still driving a car without a proper
driving licence. Dangerously, perhaps.

The independent sector has nearly always required its teachers to be
graduate. It also prefers them to have teaching training qualifications. The
FE sector is the same. All FE teachers are now required to have a teaching
qualification as well as their professional qualifications ( even gardeners
..... they will take a BA in Education if they do not have a dgree or its
equivillent in horticulture/agreculture etc)

Secondly, in what way are standards declining? My children are learning
things that I didn't learn till much later in life.

This must be a rhetorical question since you seem, below, to accept
that there has been a dumbing down of educational standards.

Maybe they do learn things about modern life that I wasn't taught. But
they learn less of English and mathematics than in my day. I have often
been shocked to see the uncorrected errors in my children's homework
after marking. Punctuation, grammar, mental arithmetic and more are way
too far down the list of teaching priorities nowadays.

OK if you want someone to balme for this - dont blame the poor teacher who
stands in front of a class every day being called a c***, a t***** a p***
artist, a s*** , a w***** and suffers all kinds of verbal and physical abuse
as well as threats - blame the national curriculum, blame the fact we ( yes
I am a teacher and have taught in classrooms) have no means of sanction
over the childrens behaviour, and most of all blame INCLUSION ( putting SEN
and EBD kids into ordinary classrooms). This is robbing your children of the
attention and the lessons they need. Whilst a teacher is dealing with a
disruptive, statemented EBD child who really shouldnt be in school, she or
he cannot help your kid.

I don't blame teachers exclusively. The whole system of state education
has gone rotten since I left school in 1966. In those days I was afraid
of being caned (or strapped, in Scotland) by the headmaster; and beaten
by my father. And afraid of failing. So I mostly behaved. We didn't
have to rely on PTAs for text books and we didn't need huge student
loans in order to get a degree. We even had sports fields. Exam
questions, at every age, were much more demanding than they are now and
marking was definitely less generous.

Also blame the dumbing own of educational standards on the same thing. The
system you understand and was educated in was one of meritocracy,
sponsorship and eliteism ( if you were not good enough you would fail the
exam) now we have a mass education system where everything is certificated
and children are not expected to fail anything. if all they can do is write
their name at the top of a bit of paper , we have to certificate it as a
bloody achievement ( for some it is).

Universities now have special needs depts to support students with poor
literacy and numeracy skills. 20 years ago they would not have been in
university , let alone taking nad being awarded degrees.

That is a politcal decision, not an educational one.

And bad politics surely fails to create the environment to attract good
people to the teaching profession. My father got such immense
satisfaction from his students' A level grades: I simply can't believe
that the same levels of achievement and job satisfaction are possible
today.

rant over.

Methinks we're way off topic by now - although my father was a botanist.

Simon

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , mich
wrote:

Secondly, in what way are standards declining? My children are
learning
things that I didn't learn till much later in life.

This must be a rhetorical question since you seem, below, to accept
that there has been a dumbing down of educational standards.

I didnt make the comment you are referring to. I did comment on the dumbing
down issue.



I don't blame teachers exclusively. The whole system of state education
has gone rotten since I left school in 1966.

So you were taught almost exclusively by those non graduate teachers who you
suggested earlier were inappropriately qualified and "driving dagerously"
and yet you yourself say that standards were higher under their tuition?

They did a better job than most do today because the standards of teacher
training were different ( higher) Graduates were an even smaller minority
of the population. Trained teachers were an educational "elite"
themseleves, even though they did not have degrees.
So much for their driving licenses making them dangerous drivers who should
be disqualified.



In those days I was afraid
of being caned (or strapped, in Scotland) by the headmaster; and beaten
by my father. And afraid of failing. So I mostly behaved. We didn't
have to rely on PTAs for text books and we didn't need huge student
loans in order to get a degree. We even had sports fields. Exam
questions, at every age, were much more demanding than they are now and
marking was definitely less generous.

Yes , I agree those were all features of the old system. They were still
features ten years later when I came through the system in England (except
corporal punishment wasnt as widely used maybe. We were still well behaved
though because it was possible to use it.). Now its the kids who beat the
teachers up with impunity and the teachers spend their lives in fear - until
eventually it drives most of them out ( four out of five leave in their
first five years of teaching).

In article , mich
wrote:

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , mich
wrote:

Secondly, in what way are standards declining? My children are
learning
things that I didn't learn till much later in life.

This must be a rhetorical question since you seem, below, to accept
that there has been a dumbing down of educational standards.

I didnt make the comment you are referring to. I did comment on the dumbing
down issue.

I apologise for the munged attributions.

I don't blame teachers exclusively. The whole system of state education
has gone rotten since I left school in 1966.

So you were taught almost exclusively by those non graduate teachers who you
suggested earlier were inappropriately qualified and "driving dagerously"
and yet you yourself say that standards were higher under their tuition?

You're jumping to conclusions. In fact, my English, History, Geography,
French, Spanish and Maths teachers all had degrees. so Perhaps I struck
lucky.

They did a better job than most do today because the standards of teacher
training were different ( higher) Graduates were an even smaller minority
of the population. Trained teachers were an educational "elite"
themseleves, even though they did not have degrees.
So much for their driving licenses making them dangerous drivers who should
be disqualified.

In those days I was afraid
of being caned (or strapped, in Scotland) by the headmaster; and beaten
by my father. And afraid of failing. So I mostly behaved. We didn't
have to rely on PTAs for text books and we didn't need huge student
loans in order to get a degree. We even had sports fields. Exam
questions, at every age, were much more demanding than they are now and
marking was definitely less generous.

Yes , I agree those were all features of the old system. They were still
features ten years later when I came through the system in England (except
corporal punishment wasnt as widely used maybe. We were still well behaved
though because it was possible to use it.). Now its the kids who beat the
teachers up with impunity and the teachers spend their lives in fear - until
eventually it drives most of them out ( four out of five leave in their
first five years of teaching).

That's the tragedy. Almost all of my teachers were 'lifers' and by the
time I got them they were middle-aged or older.

Simon

In article , Stan The Man
writes
In article , mich
wrote:

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...


Kay wrote:

Secondly, in what way are standards declining? My children are learning
things that I didn't learn till much later in life.

This must be a rhetorical question since you seem, below, to accept
that there has been a dumbing down of educational standards.

No, it is not a rhetorical question. Where have I accepted that there is
a dumbing down? None of what you have quoted below was written by me.

Maybe they do learn things about modern life that I wasn't taught. But
they learn less of English and mathematics than in my day. I have often
been shocked to see the uncorrected errors in my children's homework
after marking. Punctuation, grammar, mental arithmetic and more are way
too far down the list of teaching priorities nowadays.

OK if you want someone to balme for this - dont blame the poor teacher who
stands in front of a class every day being called a c***, a t***** a p***
artist, a s*** , a w***** and suffers all kinds of verbal and physical abuse
as well as threats - blame the national curriculum, blame the fact we ( yes
I am a teacher and have taught in classrooms) have no means of sanction
over the childrens behaviour, and most of all blame INCLUSION ( putting SEN
and EBD kids into ordinary classrooms). This is robbing your children of the
attention and the lessons they need. Whilst a teacher is dealing with a
disruptive, statemented EBD child who really shouldnt be in school, she or
he cannot help your kid.

I don't blame teachers exclusively. The whole system of state education
has gone rotten since I left school in 1966. In those days I was afraid
of being caned (or strapped, in Scotland) by the headmaster; and beaten
by my father. And afraid of failing. So I mostly behaved. We didn't
have to rely on PTAs for text books and we didn't need huge student
loans in order to get a degree. We even had sports fields. Exam
questions, at every age, were much more demanding than they are now and
marking was definitely less generous.

Also blame the dumbing own of educational standards on the same thing. The
system you understand and was educated in was one of meritocracy,
sponsorship and eliteism ( if you were not good enough you would fail the
exam) now we have a mass education system where everything is certificated
and children are not expected to fail anything. if all they can do is write
their name at the top of a bit of paper , we have to certificate it as a
bloody achievement ( for some it is).

Universities now have special needs depts to support students with poor
literacy and numeracy skills. 20 years ago they would not have been in
university , let alone taking nad being awarded degrees.

That is a politcal decision, not an educational one.

And bad politics surely fails to create the environment to attract good
people to the teaching profession. My father got such immense
satisfaction from his students' A level grades: I simply can't believe
that the same levels of achievement and job satisfaction are possible
today.

rant over.

Methinks we're way off topic by now - although my father was a botanist.

Simon

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In article , mich
writes


Yes , I agree those were all features of the old system. They were still
features ten years later when I came through the system in England (except
corporal punishment wasnt as widely used maybe. We were still well behaved
though because it was possible to use it.). Now its the kids who beat the
teachers up with impunity and the teachers spend their lives in fear - until
eventually it drives most of them out ( four out of five leave in their
first five years of teaching).

Maybe not entirely a bad thing? What I see of my children's work is a
damned sight more interesting than the teaching I had.

I think one can have a rosy view of one's own education - I came across
some of my school work in my father's loft, and I was horrified at the
standard of it - facile arguments, incomplete comprehension, careless
mistakes. And I was not just top of the class in my grammar school, I
was top of the year! It made me think ;-)


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:04:43 +0100, Kay Easton
wrote:


No, not so - they learn different areas of mathematics.

My son did no real geometry for GCSE or A level maths. He did nothing
that I hadn't done for A level maths 40 years before, whereas the A
level maths I did covered topics he didn't.

Less in the
arithmetical skills area, more of the underlying concepts of
mathematics, for example, some basic concepts of set theory, symmetry,
statistical concepts. It is no longer necessary to be able to accurately
add up a long column of numbers,

isn't this an arithmetic skill?

but it is necessary to be able to
estimate an answer to check against the calculator response, and that is
reflected in the current syllabus.

That skill existed decades ago in the days of logarithms and slide
rules.

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:04:43 +0100, Kay Easton
wrote:


No, not so - they learn different areas of mathematics.

My son did no real geometry for GCSE or A level maths. He did nothing
that I hadn't done for A level maths 40 years before, whereas the A
level maths I did covered topics he didn't.

Though I know squat about what happens in school nowadays, I can relate to
the above.
Back in '95 I was doing a course and needed to refresh the maths level I had
done for the equivalent of the UK's GCSE.
On account of having a sibling almost 9 years younger, I had noticed
homework standards had increased so that by the time she was starting
secondary school, she was at the level that I had begin at GCSE level.
Furthermore, by the time she got to GCSE, she was doing in advance of my
Leaving Cert. level (Irish equitant of A level ).
With that in mind, I assumed the information I wanted might, by 1995, be in
an even more junior section than secondary level. But no. So I looked at
GCSE level, but not there either. Eventually, I found it, though at a
substandard level, within an A level maths text book!
i.e. 19 years after in had being in Ireland's Intermediate certificate
level..

Patrick

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article
Perhaps one reason for our declining education standards
is that too many teachers teach without having achieved their degree
and teachers' training qualifications. I know there will be exceptions
but in general we need a way to tell whether we can happily entrust our
children's education to certain institutions or certain teachers.

Though I understand the educational aspect within the link between the
teachers topic and the garden show Telly presenters, I think it's stretched
a bit too far.

Firstly, there's the route difference between "children's education" and
the age of those who might wish to absorb some titbit of information from
the telly gardening programme.

I never took too much notice of names, so quite unlike you, I don't
recognise most of the names previously mentioned, but perhaps the cockney
bloke could pop into make-up and then appear on our screens for the next
April 1st slot, as a very old man, at least in his late forties (-:
delivering information at precisely the same level he normally adopts.

Aside from that, the schoolteacher topic deflects from another area you
mentioned; Meritocracy.



Once, whilst in conversation with my now ex accountant, I responded to what
he was saying by acknowledging I would need to raise my prices. But though
he was not my customer, nor connected with any such person, he responded in
turn that I have no right to do so, simply because I need more money. His
argument being that I was seeking to extend above my station in life.

His prices in contrast, were running at about 10 times per hour more than
mine, even though he worked from home, thereby not incurring anything like
the overheads I have.



Perhaps who will agree with the inherent contradiction between 2 comments
you've made.

Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004

Subject: Beeb Chelsea coverage

"Without these diplomas and certificates, we may have no reliable way to
whittle 1000 job applicants down to a manageable shortlist."



& Also contributed on the same day;



"Anyone who interviews the wrong people for a job vacancy deserves whatever
they get."



Sometimes a job is won on account of the academic excellence of a candidate,
who is nonetheless the worst possible choice for the positions offered.

Perhaps one day it will not seem like such a heresy to question why it is
so, that post-graduates are automatically deemed to be more deserving of
position and success.



In bygone days, presumption to the rights of status, e.g. money, were mostly
inherited, similarly current criteria requires an existing combination of
favourable age, nationality, accent, colour, creed, gender, and appearance,
along with an acknowledgement from our academia dominant educational system
to the effect that the candidate has been decreed to be a model example of
the finished product from said academia's manufacturing line.

It can be a bit like needing an address before getting a bank account, but
needing a bank account to get an address. Yet fulfilling such criteria is no
guarantee of not turning out to be a dud.



Meritocracy! Ha!

Though one does not need a degree to reason, in order to arrive at an
informed opinion, nevertheless, without a degree and regardless of the
merits of such considerations, when contested, such views are often
discounted by society as surely wrong. You do seem to be sharing, or at
least propagating such injustice.

Sometimes injustice is perpetrated through a method of drawing a simple line
between graduates and non-graduates, in order to arrive at an easy (lazy)
conclusion as to whose view must be correct. But sometimes via on account of
how many, like you, seek to readily hold lack of degree status as evidence
that the view of a non-graduate, regardless of how it has been arrived at,
is the product of an uneducated mind and therefore irrelevant beyond
amusement value. Thereby re-enforcing the illusion of current and future
post-graduates value.



Meritocracy!

If the considerable rewards and losses that follow current social pecking
order was fair and accurate, then we would not need to ask someone if s/he
knows a "good" lawyer, accountant, doctor, etc because they would all be
good. Similarly there wouldn't be much point in looking out for a "good"
blue-collar, or non post graduate worker, because they would all be lazy,
stupid, dishonest and just plain bad people.



Horticultural knowledge can be just as complicated and requiring of even
greater intellectual input and imagination than is the case for many
"professional" jobs where the pay is far greater.

Yet, it is not one of those jobs that the majority of the population would
equate with using the word "career".



I've encountered persons whose lifestyles reflect the rewards of their
postgraduate gained professions and yet, they've stumbled over matters of
common sense. Such as that if one wants to cut something with a loppers,
it's no use stabbing the twig with the loppers closed. Even if one does not
know the best place to cut, it works better if said loppers is first opened
prior to encircling said twig, before closing again to facilitate the whole
cutting-of-the-twig bit.

It is therefore an indictment on so-called meritocracy, that the going rate
for good professional gardeners, be they horticultural post-graduates or
not, is a mere small fraction of other occupations requiring even less
resources.



An article within "The Times" (towards the end of March), concerning the
best job to have, seemed to angle towards gardening. But did so in a manner
as to suggest someone there doesn't quite know the difference between a job
and a hobby, irrespective of how high up the graduate level s/he may be.



A hobby may be a piece of work, wonderfully bridging a route to success in
itself, by entailing the need, or opportunity to indulge in creativity and
imagination, leading to the by-product: great personal satisfaction.

However, I suggest that only when it also leads to meeting worldlier,
political necessities such as money, power and social credibility that it
can be called a job.



So much for being the best job, in the article, gardening did not even merit
the lofty title of ""so-called trade profession" in reference to the list of
such trades mentioned, albeit a sarcastic acceptance of professionalism
within those trades and clearly casts further doubts on the integrity of
trade professionals.

Though you have agreeably commented on Alan T's professionalism, if he were
a, erm, mere gardener, albeit one running his own business, he would not be
classed as "professional"

Generally, when dealing with the occupation of gardener, the media prefer to
identify one of my occupational peers, but only after having ensured to
mention a more upmarket position previously held by that person, lest he/she
is perceived as having no credibility at all. A bit like a BNP steward, at a
BNP rally removing black boot polish from the face of a slumbering 'white'
stag-party prank victim, in order to show and assure everyone present that
the reveller is not really black skinned.



Over the years I've encountered what I can only describe as occupational
apartheid. Where is the meritocracy in that?



When reading accommodation to rent adverts, or any other adds that defines
criteria in terms of; ...would suit, / seeks professional... I've always
known that means; not the likes of me. It's like saying No Trade.

So I've not being dumb enough to apply. Where I have assumed I could apply,
I've encountered those who slam down the phone as soon as I mention my
gardening profession. Or, as in the case of letting/estate agents, declare
they have nothing for me, unless it's some rubbish strewn, crumbling, rat
infested, draughty, damp dump, possibly run by someone they want off their
backs. Or if they forget to ask the job question until after an appointment
is made, then all but one have never turned up. (In 16 years!)

Along with that, I've had the experience of people angrily walking away from
me abruptly as soon as I've honestly answered their "So, what do you do for
a living?" question.

Imagine you're seeing two men, strangers to each other, chatting at the pub
and one asks the other the job question, to which the other guy winks,
slides up a little closer and informs he is a male prostitute who has just
found himself a customer. Imagine just how angry the first guy might look.
How enraged he might look as he storms off.

Well I've had just such a reaction, mostly from women and solely because I
did nothing more than say; "I'm a gardener."

It's no wonder those who I've worked along side have asked me not to say
what we do for a living when we're socialising.



Now if instead of being a gardener, I was an ex. Convict and was on the
receiving end of the inferior person's low income-linked standard of living
that I'm currently deemed to merit, then there would be quite a few amongst
the great and the good that would holler how unacceptable it is and would do
so on the strength of slogans such as "has paid his debt..."



Meritocracy!

Funny old world isn't it!



Patrick

In article , tuin man
wrote:

(snip)
Sometimes a job is won on account of the academic excellence of a candidate,
who is nonetheless the worst possible choice for the positions offered.

Perhaps one day it will not seem like such a heresy to question why it is
so, that post-graduates are automatically deemed to be more deserving of
position and success.

In bygone days, presumption to the rights of status, e.g. money, were mostly
inherited, similarly current criteria requires an existing combination of
favourable age, nationality, accent, colour, creed, gender, and appearance,
along with an acknowledgement from our academia dominant educational system
to the effect that the candidate has been decreed to be a model example of
the finished product from said academia's manufacturing line.
(snip)

Meritocracy should simply mean that the best achieve success and
position. It doesn't mean that they should also attain status or
respect. The best qualified estate agent or PR men in the country
should be the most successful in their field - but it won't guarantee
that people don't walk away from them at a cocktail party.

If you have encountered people who shun you because you're a gardener,
more fool them. Whenever I meet a professional - or trade - gardener, I
always have a pile of questions to ask.

Simon

In article , tuin man
wrote:

(snip)
Sometimes a job is won on account of the academic excellence of a candidate,
who is nonetheless the worst possible choice for the positions offered.

Perhaps one day it will not seem like such a heresy to question why it is
so, that post-graduates are automatically deemed to be more deserving of
position and success.

In bygone days, presumption to the rights of status, e.g. money, were mostly
inherited, similarly current criteria requires an existing combination of
favourable age, nationality, accent, colour, creed, gender, and appearance,
along with an acknowledgement from our academia dominant educational system
to the effect that the candidate has been decreed to be a model example of
the finished product from said academia's manufacturing line.
(snip)

Meritocracy should simply mean that the best achieve success and
position. It doesn't mean that they should also attain status or
respect. The best qualified estate agent or PR men in the country
should be the most successful in their field - but it won't guarantee
that people don't walk away from them at a cocktail party.

If you have encountered people who shun you because you're a gardener,
more fool them. Whenever I meet a professional - or trade - gardener, I
always have a pile of questions to ask.

Simon

In article , tuin man
wrote:

(snip)
Sometimes a job is won on account of the academic excellence of a candidate,
who is nonetheless the worst possible choice for the positions offered.

Perhaps one day it will not seem like such a heresy to question why it is
so, that post-graduates are automatically deemed to be more deserving of
position and success.

In bygone days, presumption to the rights of status, e.g. money, were mostly
inherited, similarly current criteria requires an existing combination of
favourable age, nationality, accent, colour, creed, gender, and appearance,
along with an acknowledgement from our academia dominant educational system
to the effect that the candidate has been decreed to be a model example of
the finished product from said academia's manufacturing line.
(snip)

Meritocracy should simply mean that the best achieve success and
position. It doesn't mean that they should also attain status or
respect. The best qualified estate agent or PR men in the country
should be the most successful in their field - but it won't guarantee
that people don't walk away from them at a cocktail party.

If you have encountered people who shun you because you're a gardener,
more fool them. Whenever I meet a professional - or trade - gardener, I
always have a pile of questions to ask.

Simon