UK Schools

[GaryK]

What is the difference between college and university in the UK? Here in the US there really isn't any distinction. In the UK is college more like what we call a community college offering a two-year degree while university offers four-year degrees, masters, and PhDs? Thanks. This will help me make better sense of a story I'm reading. I'm learning a ton of new stuff just from having to use the dictionary to reference British terminology. Oh, the story is great. It's Kit's "Tough Question".

[Red_A]

A university is the only body that can award a degree, bachelors, masters, minor doctorate(eg PhD), major degree (Doctor of Science). A university may be one body (Univerisiy of Bradford, mine) or a federation of colleges (Cambridge).

In English(British), you go to university never college. You get a degree, Bachelor's after 3 years.

You may actually go to the Swansea College, University of Wales, but still go to university.

 

There is no associate degrees. This is basically because the 'A' level which you get at leaving SCHOOL at 18 is associate level but narrower. Independent colleges are generally for more specialised subjects(agriculture) or lower value awards. However, any college can arrange for degree standard courses under the supervision of a university (University of London External Degree).

I am a bit out of date, but this gives the basics, for more detail see Wikipedia "Bologna process"

At the moment all children go to school until they are 16, ~50% carry on at school until they are 18. There is very little tradition of part time education, unlike the states or Germany, and most education is full time.

[Trebs]

I also know for some universities in England, as Red A said, a University such as Oxford or Cambridge will have a number of "Colleges" as part of the University. The wikipedia entry for Oxford has a pretty good description of the interaction between the central organization of the University and the colleges...

 

BTW - on a different subject, at least in California the distinction between the two is that a college can award an associate or a bachelor's degree, but only a university can award a post graduate degree such as Masters, Ph.D., etc...

[GaryK]

Thanks for your reply. It makes a lot more sense than the Wikipedia article did. I'm still not entirely clear on the distinctions between A levels, college and university.

 

When you graduate from high school at 16 what typically comes next in terms of education? In the story one character is attending college while another went on to university because his grades were better. So is college sort of a preparatory time to qualify for university?

 

Thanks Trebs. That article makes it a little clearer. I still don't understand what happens between graduation from high school and starting your higher education. Also what are A levels?

Edited June 2, 2008 by GaryInMiami

[Red_A]

There is no such thing as graduating from school. You graduate when you get a bachelor's degree, at 21.

The normal progression is Secondary school at 11/12, five years later at 16 you take external examinations. If you are good and get good grades in the external examinations you go on to take 'A' level at the same school at 18. A levels are again external examinations and do not depend on how much time you spend at school, but what you are capable of. If you are like me, I passed A level mathematics after one year of not really working but took about 4 to get my basic English qualification. It is not unusual for 14 year old kids to get A levels.

I have not read Kit's work, but college is normal a side line if you cannot get good grades. Generally, it would be a mechanics course, plumber course, or a junior nurse course. But there would be a opportunity for the less academic to get a degree level in say 10 years not 3 years. (But that avenue is very tough).

The term high school generally does not exist. Secondary School 11 to 18/19 may have the title of grammar, comprehensive, academy, or less common high school. But the term is generally secondary school, or just school. There is no ceremony to mark end of school. My experience of USA (Washington State) schooling is that the intensity of schooling is less and there is more social life and team spirit. Graduating is the goal. A friend suggested that to keep American kid at school until 18, there had to be more social life and the graduating level keep low. British schools are more business like with 16 year good grade level the same as a poor graduating level, and poor A levels the same as good graduating level.

[Drewbie]

I would be doomed. There are different schools too right? if you learn a different way?

 

One thing though I would hate to wear a school uniform.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

There is a british school of washington (dc) here, there are other british schools in the us as well in different cities.

Edited June 2, 2008 by Drewbie

[kitten]

I have not read Kit's work, but college is normal a side line if you cannot get good grades. Generally, it would be a mechanics course, plumber course, or a junior nurse course.

 

You give a good summary of the system.

However, in the story one character goes to a sixth form college to retake A levels. Of course you couldn't know that without reading the story.

 

Basically, two characters go to the same secondary school from age 11 to 18. One gets good A levels and goes to uni. The other does badly but doesn't want to stay on at the secondary school to retake the A levels the following year. Instead he goes to a sixth form college.

 

For the benefit of Gary:-

 

Many students here leave school at 16 and the rest stay on until they are 18. They can stay on in the same school for the extra 2 years but they can do the extra years at a sixth form college which only takes students after they have left the secondaray school. So a sixth form college is different from an ordinary college in that most students there are 16-18 years old.

 

Students can transfer to the sixth form college either because their secondary school does not have facilities for teaching to A level or because for some reason they think they will do better away from their old secondary school.

 

In the story Frank does badly in his A level exams and hopes to do better by doing an extra year at the sixth form college and then retaking the A level exams.

 

Hope that helps!

 

Kit

[Graeme]

Interesting I had always assumed that the Australian model was similar to the UK, but it appears that there are more differences than I was aware of.

 

In Australia, there are essentially three levels of education:

 

Primary (up to year/grade six)

 

Secondary (up to year/form twelve)

 

Tertiary (University and other further education)

 

The term 'college' is not formally used. Many secondary schools call themselves colleges. There are colleges associate with universities, but they are typically dorms, not teaching colleges (eg. Queens College at the University of Melbourne is one of a number of places where out of town students can live during school terms).

 

There is a state-wide system of testing/evaluation in year 12 of secondary school, and the results of that feed into the university entry program. This means that students don't typically learn if they get into the tertiary course they want until January (the school year starts in February). There doesn't appear to be an established system of retaking tests like has been described in the UK. That's why year 12 is such a stressful time for Australian students -- so much rides on just one set of exams at the end of the year.

 

Like the UK, secondary schools tend to concentrate on education. Most social activities are completely divorced from the school system. This has the side effect that much of the social activities have wider age groups, too, because they are based purely on common interests. eg. A ham radio group would include enthusiasts from kids of ten (say) through to adults of seventy-plus. Sporting groups tend to congregate more along age lines, but many of these social groups cover a wide range in ages.

[AFriendlyFace]

Interesting I had always assumed that the Australian model was similar to the UK, but it appears that there are more differences than I was aware of.

 

In Australia, there are essentially three levels of education:

 

Primary (up to year/grade six)

 

Secondary (up to year/form twelve)

 

Tertiary (University and other further education)

That's pretty much exactly like the US system, even the terms are the same but less frequently used here.

 

There is a state-wide system of testing/evaluation in year 12 of secondary school, and the results of that feed into the university entry program. This means that students don't typically learn if they get into the tertiary course they want until January (the school year starts in February). There doesn't appear to be an established system of retaking tests like has been described in the UK. That's why year 12 is such a stressful time for Australian students -- so much rides on just one set of exams at the end of the year.

That too is very similar to the way many US states do it. It varies state to state and some have to take exit exams while others don't.

 

In general there are usually additional national or regional tests that the students have to take before entering college/university, but often depending on the state and whether or not the student wishes to go to college in state there is a great deal of overlap.

[GaryK]

For the benefit of Gary:-

 

Many students here leave school at 16 and the rest stay on until they are 18. They can stay on in the same school for the extra 2 years but they can do the extra years at a sixth form college which only takes students after they have left the secondaray school. So a sixth form college is different from an ordinary college in that most students there are 16-18 years old.

 

Students can transfer to the sixth form college either because their secondary school does not have facilities for teaching to A level or because for some reason they think they will do better away from their old secondary school.

 

In the story Frank does badly in his A level exams and hopes to do better by doing an extra year at the sixth form college and then retaking the A level exams.

 

Hope that helps!

 

Kit

That helped perfectly Kit. It gave me everything I needed to know within the context of your story. Thank you so much.

 

PS: I'm just starting Chapter 7 and am totally engrossed. I hated to leave this evening, but I had to attend a party in my honor. I got out of there as soon as possible. It helps that I hate parties and all my friends know it, LOL. Secretly all I wanted to do was get back to "Tough Question".

[Daisy]

To explain about the 6th form college name. When my parents were at school the numbering of the years was different. age 16 was still the general age that people left school for jobs and the select few would continue onto the higher 'A' levels.

You would go to primary school.

Then Highschool (in my area we my school was ___(name of town)__Highschool. but we generally did refer to it as school)

Nowadays the first year at highschool is refered to normally as year7(age11) but in those days it was just 1st year. by the time you got to 16 (last standard year and year of now GSCE's (or then 'O' levels) you were in 5thyear (or as in the old schools your year/class/tutorial was refered to as 'form' - have you read Enid Blyton?), so then next two years were special, few people (statistically) carried on with academic education, and it was called '6th form'. it takes 2 years to get 'A' levels usually and so it was split into lower 6th and upper 6th. the colleges developed as someone else said because not all schools provided for 'A' levels and people would have to move to another that did, or one that was better staffed/equipped/reputation. I carried on at my highschool, but alot of my friends moved to the bigger 6thform college because they wanted to get away from all the kids and be around more people.

 

 

I also know for some universities in England, as Red A said, a University such as Oxford or Cambridge will have a number of "Colleges" as part of the University. The wikipedia entry for Oxford has a pretty good description of the interaction between the central organization of the University and the colleges...

 

About the 'colleges' as in Oxbridge. I am at Durham University. It is also a 'collegiate university'. Mine is slightly different to Oxbridge but its the same original concept. Its simply how they split up the students and house them etc. In my uni, there are 15 colleges and you either pick one or you are assigned one. It becomes your home for the 3 years, pastoral care is centred there, you are in accomodation with people from the same college, you eat together, and they also have social functions, sports, societies, a bar, within the college, some staff based, most organised and funded by students. There is a big college rivalry within durham, especially in first year and its all about college spirit, its a great thing to be apart of. How it differs from Oxbridge though, is that they don't just compartmentalise their students/staff like that (and everyone must belong to one almost), in Durham your eductation is with your department not college. Most people have to pick a focussed degree while they are doing 'A' levels (apart from special circumstances you generally need 3 A levels to get into uni) and you stick with that department, say geography, sociology, physics throughout. I think for Oxbridge your education is also organised through your college, you have specific say chemistry tutors within the college, so the meaning of the college is bigger. and of course if you decide to go to oxbridge certain colleges have bigger/smaller, have more money, better reputation, only girls etc (at least thats in Cambridge) so picking the right one is important. In Durham its less important its more about comadre and your admin needs/pastoral care. Not many uni's in england are collegate as far as I'm aware, I know of one other - lancaster uni, and the colleges there really are more about where you live.

 

Allthough to get a degree you must go to a uni, there are leaguetables of the uni's and some have better reputations than others. There were somethings called Polytechnic colleges which have been now all given the name of uni's, and they were the less academic, or places where the degree's were generally valued less. In opposition you get the'redbrick' uni's which are known as the older, kind of thought of as 'better'. The boundaries are very blurred now as uni's rise and fall.

 

Also just to confuse you all, depending on the parts in the country you are from, some places have middleschools too. The bit about Grammer schools is also an old legacy of times gone by (but again in some parts of the country there are still some left- I really don't understand why we don't just have one system everywhere). When you left Primary school (ages 4-10) you took an exam called the '11+'. If you passed it you were eligible to go to the Grammer school. If you failed you went to the Comprehensive school. The Grammer school, I think, were better funded and had more prestige, you had alot more chance of suceeding in life and going onto professional jobs and 'A' levels. Whereas I presume most at the Comps left at 16, did vocational course at 'colleges' (thats the non-uni and non-6thform type) that provided that, or aprenticeships or got jobs/army etc. I refer to my school as highschool, I don't get the comp system which operates someplaces nowadays (differently to above). Other than that there are private schools (confusingly also refered to as 'public schools') from the very prestigous like Eton etc where the princes etc go to school and are boarding (live there), to the several that are in my local area that people commute to but are thought to be better - or you have a better chance of getting into a good uni. I think it just depends how hard you work, but I can see the difference in the support and grades that come out of private schools versus being left to usually fend for yourself and push for the best as I needed to do at my school.

 

We don't have a 'graduating' ceremony as such when we leave school, but at 16 there was an assembly/ceremony in the gym where the whole school was there, presentations etc, music etc, and they dismiss the class of that year. Everyone would leave school at lunch and we were warned heavily by the school to behave because everyyear the badass scousers (liverpudlians) would do some big prank or something, everyone in my town descended on the beach for a party/drinking. we did have a 'prom' but it was quite pathetic (and it is an imported idea from the US), at the end of 6thform we all went for a meal in liverpool and drank in the afternoon in the open air bars together (it was a smallish yeargroup - most left after 16).

 

Oh yeah remembered, Graeme. In the UK, in may be changing soon though, we take our 'A' level exams in the summer (mostly) - my brother is doing his now. You apply at the begining-to middle of you upper 6th year to 6 universitys, and have to wait (up until april sometimes) to find if they have accepted you on you predicted/last year grades, you then pick 2 (your fav, and a backup). You get your results in August - about the 16th or so, if get grades you are in. some uni's then start at the begining of september so you have about 2 weeks to get ready and go. Mine started in Oct so I had a month but thats rare. So yeah the pressure is immense. If you don't get the grades you go into 'clearing' for all the places that havent been filled and its a mad scramble, but its generally the lesser known/poor courses/uni's that are left.

 

In 6th form we could all wear the clothes that we wanted (generally). it was only the private schools that insited they carried on in uniform. and we had a 'commonroom' which was our hangout from the rest of the school, it varied between schools as to how furnished they were, some have sofas, games etc, we just had tables, vending machines and music. but the rest of the school were forced outside during 'break' with no where to 'hangout' unless you're eating (but of course we had 'free' lessons unlike the lower years).

 

Oh and of course Scotland is different all over again. Will have to leave that to a Scot to explain, but they go to uni at 17.

 

Well, hope thats helpful (if not info overload). Am sure I may have got some details wrong about the contemporary Comprehensive's, so other brits feel free to correct me.

Celia

Edited June 3, 2008 by Smarties

[GaryK]

Thanks Celia. Every little bit helps. It seems to me the system is a bit of a throwback to the days when society was divided into more class groups. So that basically most people would stop regular school at 16 and then, depending on their social status, either went to a trade school to learn the vocation they would spend their life working in, or on to higher education. Except that nowadays there's a better opportunity to advance to higher education if your grades make you deserving. Am I close to understand things?

[clumber]

In England, as far as I know (did school/6thform college in scotland and am in uni in england), its like this:

 

 

Secondary School - takes you as far as the end of GCSE's, which are more or less when you are 16

 

 

6th form 'College' - A levels. 1 year courses and the entry requirements into uni's tends to be A-levels of varying grades/quantities etc, you know what I mean.

 

 

Colleges - These are separate whatsits that do A-levels, and also HND and the like (sort of halfway between Bachelor certificate and A-level) In some area's the secondary schools may not provide 6th form and so you would have to go to one of these colleges in order to go to university.

 

 

Universities - These are the only places that can award the Bachelor certificates (BA's, BSc's) and Masters and Doctorates and all that lot. In england you have to be 18 to get into a university.

[GaryK]

Thanks Martin.

[Daisy]

Thanks Celia. Every little bit helps. It seems to me the system is a bit of a throwback to the days when society was divided into more class groups. So that basically most people would stop regular school at 16 and then, depending on their social status, either went to a trade school to learn the vocation they would spend their life working in, or on to higher education. Except that nowadays there's a better opportunity to advance to higher education if your grades make you deserving. Am I close to understand things?

 

I think you've pretty much got it. we are a ridiculously class-based society, even today. I think they are planning to have an overhaul of the A level system, I don't really follow the news stories on it anymore now that I'm out of it. I heard a rumour that they are going to try and up the legal requirement that you stay in school until 18. But they will re-arrange the way qualifications are awarded and whats taught where, and the general format of the alevel to something more appropriate-- no idea what - I think they are begining to train the teachers for this new system (I think, I could be horribly wrong). and I also heard they are going to overhaul the applying to uni/results thing, but all this could take years, I have no idea what stage it is at in government. but overall I think we are more exam/qualification focused even in primary school than we ever were. to even get a basic job you generally are required to have 5 GSCE's a-c, but I think it some places the pass rate is really really low (and those GSCE's are fairly easy, at least were for me), generally indicating they can't even really read/write/add-up in some parts of the country, like areas of liverpool which are very deprived (even though now those schools generally get more money than the good highschools it still the same).

 

It is easier to get Alevels nowadays, more people are doing them because Uni has been pushed as something that you need to do, but often people go to poor uni's and never need/use their degree after - but I wouldnt trade the uni experience. I think they are very hard to do well in though, most underestimate them and drop out (or at my school they did). In the last few years there has been a hooha about positive discrimination from the good uni's for comp/highschool students rather than public/private. Places like Oxbridge, particulary Cambridge I think were turning down people from private for comp students to fill more equal quotas. Recognising it may be more difficult to do well. but of course the private parents werent happy. at my uni though there is a way disproportionate number of private - i think its about 60% private (and you can tell by the accents - we call them 'rhas') but I think private school was/is more popular with higher middleclass so that adds to it and you wouldnt be able to tell by looking at them unlike the rha's (posh 'british' type). No idea why its like this. It is known for being the oxbridge reject place, so maybe its those type of people that apply here generally over others who would prefer the newer up and coming big names. It is a strange dynamic though.

 

I've learnt quite abit reading all the stories here and elsewhere about the american system, could tell it was quite different.

Celia

Edited June 3, 2008 by Smarties

[GaryK]

I've learnt quite abit reading all the stories here and elsewhere about the american system, could tell it was quite different.

Celia

It is quite different. Plus it also varies from region to region.

 

When I went to school grades 1-6 were called elementary school. Grades 7-9 were Junior High School. And grades 10-12 were high school. After that you could attend a community college and get a two year degree, or a full-fledged uni for a bachelors, masters or doctorate.

 

Nowadays portions of elementary, junior and high school are called middle school. So you go from elementary to middle to high school.

 

In other parts of the country, and even parts of my state, it's completely different. In my state everyone has to take a test at the end of high school before they can graduate and get a diploma that lets them move on to a community college or uni. So basically the entire last year of school is spent teaching you how to pass this silly test. Even worse, schools with a high number of students who don't pass the test get less funding the following year. Shouldn't they be getting more?

 

I'm glad I got out of that environment a long time ago and earned both my college/university (they're pretty much used interchangeably here) degrees. One in journalism and another in computer sciences (MIS).

[clumber]

And then of course there are the little left-over things that nobody ever gets around to getting rid off in the UK system... such as (if I remember rightly) a Bachelors award from Oxford or Cambridge can be upgraded to a Masters a year after you get it for a small fee.

 

 

I think, basically, the UK is like a very complex piece of machinary which has a problem with a small but vital component. The component is "sanity"... we seem to struggle with the concept What you get is a total and complete disaster that is indefinetaly post-poned.

 

Martin

[GaryK]

And then of course there are the little left-over things that nobody ever gets around to getting rid off in the UK system... such as (if I remember rightly) a Bachelors award from Oxford or Cambridge can be upgraded to a Masters a year after you get it for a small fee.

The same thing exists here for certain degrees. I know in my father's case when he graduated from law school he could pay an fee and get upgraded to a doctorate. He thought it was a bunch of foolish nonsense. So do I.

 

Why does it seem like you need a doctorate just to figure out the school systems?

[Daisy]

And then of course there are the little left-over things that nobody ever gets around to getting rid off in the UK system... such as (if I remember rightly) a Bachelors award from Oxford or Cambridge can be upgraded to a Masters a year after you get it for a small fee.

 

 

I think, basically, the UK is like a very complex piece of machinary which has a problem with a small but vital component. The component is "sanity"... we seem to struggle with the concept What you get is a total and complete disaster that is indefinetaly post-poned.

 

Martin

 

Yep I'd fondly agree!

 

Also, at oxbridge, all bachelors are 'arts' (BA), not 'science' (BSc) even if they do science.

And aren't we both up late .

 

Celia

[GaryK]

And aren't we both up late .

It's 4:40 AM there isn't it? As your unofficial nanny I want you both to goto sleep immediately!

[kitten]

Thanks Celia. Every little bit helps. It seems to me the system is a bit of a throwback to the days when society was divided into more class groups.

 

I think you've pretty much got it. we are a ridiculously class-based society, even today.

 

When discussing class-based society in the UK in the past I've often found that people have had distorted ideas or made wrong assumptions. Now, neither of the above quotes are factually wrong and of course I've no idea what assumptions lie behind them. However, there is much left unsaid in the quotes, so just in case anyone reading them makes the wrong assumptions, I'd like to address some points.

 

Class distinctions are not confined to the UK and nowadays they are not much different in the UK from anywhere else in the capitalist world. Pretty well all human societies have class systems. Class distinctions have existed throughout the whole of human history. I'm sure that everyone knows about the caste system that has lasted in India for thousands of years. Even the ancient Greek 'inventors of democracy' had class distinctions. (Nobles, citizens, women, non-citizens).

 

Human beings tend to produce stratified societies even when they deliberately set out to remove class distinctions. So, in the USA the stratification can be based on money. Poor, average, rich, very rich, etc. The top class being the 'old-rich' families (e.g. the Kennedys) in which money and power have been concentrated and passed down for generations.

 

In Russia before the revolution the main class distinction was between aristocrat and peasant. After the revolution the distinction was between Communist Party members and non-members. Now it seems that a money-based class system similar to that in the USA is evolving.

 

In England (before the UK existed) the distinction used to be be quite complex - different levels of aristocracy (duke, earl, baron, knight, etc.) and even different levels of peasantry. To make things even more complicated there was the church and its hierarchy which for a long time had a lot of political influence. Although the highest posts in the English church were usually reserved for aristocracy it was possible for commoners who were very intelligent to reach even the highest posts. For example over 800 years ago Thomas Becket, born into the middle classes, became Archbishop of Canterbury and even challenged the powers of the king.

 

For a long time in the UK it was pretty much the case that only the aristocracy held land. Then the middle classes got richer and bought land. So an additional class (non-aristocratic landowners) was added to the mix. At one time only landowners could vote so this distinction was important. However, to give some context, even after non-landowners got the vote Catholics and women could not vote even if they owned land.

 

Nowadays in the UK we have a class system similar to that in the USA. Aristocratic titles are still there, but although they may provide some prestige they have no political power and they generate more amusement than respect. A rich commoner will have much more power and influence than a poor aristocrat.

 

As regards the specific point in this thread: for a long time (centuries) now it has been money, not aristocratic status that has controlled the type and quality of education. Is this not very much the same as the USA? This is not just the ability to pay for private schools but also the ability to provide financial support when student loans can't cover everything. Now, where state schools have cachment areas, well-off people can actually afford to move house to be within the cachment area of a school with a better reputation. So, with few exceptions, class, as defined by money, has a great effect on education.

 

To summarise, therefore:

The statements quoted above, that education is class-based and that there is a class system in the UK are not untrue. However, by omitting the fact that the current class system is mainly money-based and so not unlike the USA and most other countries, those statements may be misleading.

 

Kit

[AFriendlyFace]

When discussing class-based society in the UK in the past I've often found that people have had distorted ideas or made wrong assumptions. Now, neither of the above quotes are factually wrong and of course I've no idea what assumptions lie behind them. However, there is much left unsaid in the quotes, so just in case anyone reading them makes the wrong assumptions, I'd like to address some points.

....

 

....

To summarise, therefore:

The statements quoted above, that education is class-based and that there is a class system in the UK are not untrue. However, by omitting the fact that the current class system is mainly money-based and so not unlike the USA and most other countries, those statements may be misleading.

Good points, Kit! Thanks

 

For example over 800 years ago Thomas Becket, born into the middle classes, became Archbishop of Canterbury and even challenged the powers of the king.

As I recall that didn't earn him many points with the monarch.

[Daisy]

When discussing class-based society in the UK in the past I've often found that people have had distorted ideas or made wrong assumptions.

 

Nowadays in the UK we have a class system similar to that in the USA. Aristocratic titles are still there, but although they may provide some prestige they have no political power and they generate more amusement than respect. A rich commoner will have much more power and influence than a poor aristocrat.

 

Hia, yeah you make good points. I hadnt meant to imply that there were necessarily fixed categories, and yeah I had assumed what I meant was based on money and opportunity, but also I think the 'class' in the uk if people are talking about it they are also talking about the character of the people and where they live. You will get millionaires saying they are 'working class' because they cherish the people qualities they attribute to it. But that is a different way of talking about class.

 

And what about the House of Lords? I thought they had power. I know the PM can over-rule them if he deems it absolutley necessary, but they still have to approve laws and the such don't they? or am I completely confused about how the country works? My understanding was it was the older gentry (older land-based titles) and specific memebers of the CofE who were members.

 

Celia

[kitten]

And what about the House of Lords? I thought they had power. I know the PM can over-rule them if he deems it absolutley necessary, but they still have to approve laws and the such don't they? or am I completely confused about how the country works? My understanding was it was the older gentry (older land-based titles) and specific memebers of the CofE who were members.

 

Hi Celia!

 

Only 92 of the 745 members of the House of Lords are heriditary peers. So the heritary peers can't be said to have much power as a 'class' there.

 

All the rest are life peers, political appointees whose peerage is not heriditary. Life peers are appointed from all walks of life - doctors, lawyers, former politicians, retired civil servants etc. Some of them may have had working class origins. So I don't know if that qualifies them as a 'class'.

 

Also, the powers of the House of Lords are very restricted e.g. they can at best only temporarily delay any Bill that originated in the Commons.

Regardless of their lack of power (or, in fact because of it!) I personally think we should have an elected upper house like most (all??) other democracies. (But that's totally OT for this thread!).

 

As you say, however, 'class' is now a very fluid term. Is a multi-millionaire businessman born from working class parents still working class? If so then the working class has more power than the average aristocrat. Perhaps the working class millionaire will try to prove his credential by showing behaviours commonly associated with the working class, e.g. dipping his cookies in his tea!

 

On the other hand, that association may be inaccurate because many working class may deliberately avoid such behaviour because they don't want to be seen as working class. Then, of course you've got the inverse-snobbery whereby the the working class, especially those who become rich and successful, are inordinately proud of their origins and take every opportunity to decry those they perceive as upper or middle class.

 

As far as class matters, it seems to me nowadays that it is related more to occupation and wealth. A university professor is 'higher class' than a barman even if the professor's parents were unskilled workers and the barman's parents were senior civil servants. Class seems to be very fluid and mobilty is relatively easy.

 

A hundred years or more ago it may have been that a poor aristocrat would have more prestige and power thana a rich businessman, but I think that now the most important stratification now in the UK is related to money.

 

To relate this back to the original topic...

The sort of education one can get is much more related to family wealth than anything else. To what extent that wealth is related to class is debatable.

 

Kit

[Rabble_Rouser]

Just to add to Graham's comment, in Canada (except the Province of Quebec):

 

Elementary School: Kindergarten- Grade 8 (4yrs to 14)

Secondary School: 14-18 (grades 9-12)

 

Then you can go to:

 

College: 2 or 3 year trade or technical programs (similar to a US Junior College) - You graduate with a Diploma or Certificate

University: Undergrad and Grad School - Graduate with a Bachelors\Masters\Doctorate

 

Quebec is a WHOLE different story which maybe Jack Frost can explain as I've never really figured out what exactly a CEGEP is!

 

Steve