Indigo Children: Bollocks or Buddhas?

Alot of people do not develop passion for anything until they're out of education, unless you have a teacher or teachers who radiate their own passion onto the kids - which rarely happens or can happen when teaching profession seems to attract grumpy wannabe's but willneverbe's. There was never any passion in my lessons. As soon as the chalk hit the blackboard and the monotonous drone left their mouths I was miles away, playing guitar like Hendrix or screwing Winona Ryder. It was a real drag. The copying. The relentless copying from blackboard, copying from hand-outs, copying from text-books...ugh...sickening. Bizarrely, the lessons that I hated in highschool are now the subjects that I relish - all because a few minds have had the passion to present the subjects to me in exciting and awe-inspiring ways. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

So your kids are gifted. I'll still wail on them. It's not a popular idea with the middle classes, that your kids will not immediately fulfil the ascribed criterion of "godhood" or "MENSA" as I knew it when I was schooled. It's 15 years later, juggling a child of their own with any semblance of their original dreams in life. Can't do it, can you? I want to be stereotyped, I want to be classified.

justin_thyme: "It sounds like the old bollox about how there is a fine line between genius and insanity. Hardly. The fine line is between being a genius and being a con artist. Insanity is very easy to spot and has naught to do with genius." Not “bollox,” I feel! The highly gifted and the (*ahem*) “insane” tend to see the world through different eyes to us “normal” folk… Unless you are one or the other, Justin (and you may well be, I don’t know), how could you possibly know what kinds of thought processes lead to this “alternative” perspective? JC: “They shouldn't be treated like puzzle boxes whose 'potential' needs to be unleashed upon the world through the right deft manoeuvres. Who gives a damn if they don't grow up to be presidents and Olympic athletes? *They* might want to do things their own way.” Well I can’t speak for specific gifted programmes, but the general principle behind them (and obviously there’s going to be uncouth exceptions) is to unleash the potential the kids themselves want to unleash… If, upon seeing what’s on offer, particular kids don’t want to explore the possibilities, fine, but they deserve to be given the option. JC: “And you can't complain about charges of elitism if you insist on calling them 'gifted'. I mean, for Christ's sake. 'Gifted'! You might as well go ahead and call them 'Indigo Children'.” I suppose the term has stuck because it’s easier to say than “Highly Intelligent” or “on-the-extreme-right-of-the-bell-curve”… Except the former would be contentious, because the notion of intelligence is, in a nutshell, woolly. There is “convergent” intelligence, which relates to the more obvious and measurable mathematical, logical and spatial skills; and there is “divergent” intelligence, which is, very generalistically speaking, creativity… and there are all sorts of grey areas in between. Is a highly creative individual highly “intelligent”? This is the sort of question psychologists having been bashing around for years, and are probably unlikely to come up with a simple answer to any time soon. Hence the all-encompassing term “gifted”! JC: “So how exactly do you tell the difference between a gifted kid and a lazy kid?” You don’t, because giftedness and laziness are two separate things – one doesn’t imply the other. Obviously there are occasions where parents, or indeed schools/teachers, will push (or as they would have it, “encourage”) their alleged “gifted” kids too far, against their will. This sort of thing, obviously, is wrong. It’s akin to those ridiculous child beauty pageants. But because there is a chance that this sort of thing might happen, does this mean we should stop trying to help the genuinely gifted kids who want to be helped? Lisa H: “I'm glad they're pushing Tom, but they are also teaching him that if you're special, you can get away with murder. And that's not so good.” No, it’s not! [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

"The highly gifted and the (*ahem*) “insane” tend to see the world through different eyes to us “normal” folk… " Bees also have a different ocology to us normal folk, but we won't allow them special priveleges in our school systems, much to the contrary our children get away with hanging around near summer bins and killing the poor blighters. In terms of "specialhood" being a trait allocated to more and more kids these days, it's important to note that when a child is more intelligent than their parent, there's automatically the assumption that they are gifted. They aren't, it's just 20 years in the future. And most middle class parents interested in this guff are dribbling idiots. We'll all look like knuckle-scrapers in one hundred years time.

richardw: “it's important to note that when a child is more intelligent than their parent, there's automatically the assumption that they are gifted” I just want to say at this point that I am extremely wary of “over-labelling” (if there is such a term…!). I don’t think it’s necessarily helpful to constantly be saying, “My kids got syndromes x, y and z”… and always expecting special treatment on the strength of that. That said, as I said before, I am not talking about kids who are just “more intelligent than their parent” or slightly higher achievers than average. I’m talking about the sort of children who are at the extreme end of the scale and consequently find it very difficult (not just academically, but emotionally and socially) fitting into any kind of mainstream school. [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

Oh the likes of kids with asberger's (sic) syndrome or a sort of borderline autism? I haven't met any but if you bring the genius kid out of school then that kid's gonna have an even greater sense of despondency and alienation. I'm not going too far out of the box in saying that increased power brings with it great responsibility. I mean greater intelligence implies a social pariance (cool new word) that schools need to solve by involving nerds in the community and in PE: kids need integrated not excluded. They're going to be wailed on if they aren't. Even these indigo children or tomorrow people or whatever you want to call them will not have that great an effect on our lives, it's still going to be the cigar-chomping, big-car-driving, no-cock-having, you-buying chief executives we have today. I reckon all the tuition fees can be saved by teaching your kid to shove to the front of queues and complain loudly when things don't go their way. And I'm spent. ag: I don't want no hippy fad - I wanna be just like mom and dad!

"...increased power brings with it great responsibility..." - does that apply if you're not Spiderman? [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

"I don’t think it’s necessarily helpful to constantly be saying, “My kids got syndromes x, y and z" Necessarily? It's awful! Behavioural difficulties are behavioural difficulties, whatever the reason. Some kids might need to be 'challenged' more, others need more stable home lives, others need stricter punishments, others might have a whole tangle of problems. But this whole 'gifted' label implies, 'Oh, they're not like other kids who are troublesome - it's a misdiagnosis.' Sure, schools are often inadequate institutions for dealing with the variety of problems children face - that's why there are people working to change that - but I just don't see the justification in a complaint that these 'gifted' kids are getting alienated and frustrated, when that's happening to all kinds of children for all kinds of different reasons. I think it's especially offensive to suggest that the amount of attention special needs children get is disproportionately high - the facilities available to them are usually the bare minimum they need to get anything out of the education system. It doesn't solve *their* alienation problems. "I’m talking about the sort of children who....find it very difficult (not just academically, but emotionally and socially) fitting into any kind of mainstream school." So, everyone but the mini-socialites? ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Can I point out that not all 'gifted'kids are trouble? Tom is 13 and hasn't hit his growth spurt. So he is under 5 feet, and all his school peers are 5'6" or nearing 6 foot. So he hates PE. But he is actually pretty good on the field because he is small and nimble. He tends to be a loner, quiet, introspectve. He's not trouble at school, if he's bored in a lesson, he tends to sneak a book out of his bag and read. I don't encourage this, but it's better than causing trouble. He has been tested for OCD (he learns a subject to death then moves on) he's been tested for autism and aspergers. He has neither, although one of his few friends at school is an asbergers kid. Now Bea, has massive learning problems. As JC said, trouble kids are usually that way through a variety of problems. She bore the brunt of my ex, and he messed with her head terribly. She is disruptive, bored, unable to learn, but not unintelligent. She is eleven, and a few weeks ago, we caught her smoking. She says she's 'quit' but we're just holding our breath and waiting for whatever is next. She is the child that will make us grey. Don't box kids in too much, they are all different, and a product of environment and genetics. Whether they are disruptive or not is a mix of these influences. What will Tom become? We don't push him. He wants to go to Oxford or Cambridge. He wants to be a scientist and go to Mars. Who knows, I just want him to be happy. If that means running a veg shop on the high street (a secondary goal of his) that's just fine.

In the absence of Miss, it’s good to have someone to bang heads with, Jack… :-) When I say I’m wary of over-labelling, that doesn’t mean I think labels are completely useless. With the huge variety of problems (or “issues” if you like) kids and human beings in general face, many of which require specific methods to tackle them, we can’t dispense with labelling altogether. Psychological problems/issues are admittedly more difficult to define than, say, physical illness, but the same sort of principles apply – you wouldn’t classify people with flu and people with cancer as just “ill” and offer them the same treatment, would you? So labels are, to an extent, necessary, in order to distinguish between different sorts of problems… or issues. I think it’s important to distinguish why particular kids are feeling alienated or whatever (whether it’s related to their “giftedness” or anything else), and treat them accordingly. Behavioural difficulties are not behavioural difficulties! You can’t just throw them all in the same pot. Lisa: "Don't box kids in too much, they are all different, and a product of environment and genetics." Absolutely! But I think “giftedness” is something which is too often overlooked and underappreciated as a contributor to their individual and unique personalities. [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

Further up this thread I said: "It seems that we have a sense of every young person, everywhere, teetering on the brink of some dramatic precipice, ready to fall in unless a swift, meaningful intervention is made. Every young person is a potential tragedy, so to speak, ready to be eaten up by the terrible modern world." What I mean is: We seem to think that school is the be all and end all of everyone's life. We seem to focus hugely upon a number of years at the start of your life. If you mess up school, then that's it, we cast the person from a shonky mould and it's going to be all drugs, bad sex, mental illness, poverty and violence for ever and ever. In this sense, we seem to be looking at childhood in terms of risk, rather than possibility. To put it another way, were constantly looking at the failure of our services or society to do this thing above the average, rather than celebrating that most people do all right. The default feeling seems to be "A kid is at risk of not doing well", rather than "we are happy with what a kid achieves". I dunno, it seems we always feel that someone is cheating us out of something. Sometimes, you just get on with stuff and see how it turns out. Sometimes it works out well, others less so. I don't think I'm arguing from a particular classroom based perspective. Fergal is at the the Chalk Face, and I'm sure wants the best for all of the kids she teaches. I'm thinking in a more general, less specialist sense, of the grand tide of opinion and feeling. I firmly believe in education as the motor of social mobility, but it seems to me the wheels to that particular vehicle are, to say the least, a bit wobbly of late. Cheers, Mark

"When I say I’m wary of over-labelling, that doesn’t mean I think labels are completely useless." Your description was of parents "constantly" referring to their kids as this, that and the other, like it defines them somehow. "I think it’s important to distinguish why particular kids are feeling alienated or whatever (whether it’s related to their “giftedness” or anything else), and treat them accordingly." Yes, but what I object to is the separation of 'giftedness' from all the others. Like there's 'gifted-disruptive' and then just plan 'disruptive', which groups nearly everyone else. You can look at anything in isolation, but why should special allowances be made for the ones who's problem is that schools don't challenge them enough? "Behavioural difficulties are not behavioural difficulties!" Write a paper on that. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Ah, I get ya. Well, I can see that, yeah. The year 11 kids at the school last week had an assembly where their deputy head said, 'You know what, exams are noway near the most important thing in your life. One day you won't even remember what you took them in.' and there seems to be a big emphasis on each kid doing what is good for them. Not always academically, but that probably depends on school to school, teacher to teacher, head to head. But then again, the school I teach at has 40% a-c at GCSE and is proud of that because there is a great sense of community at the school and the kids have lots of interests other than academic. It's true that the pressure from government doesn't help at times - though at other times it does. We are expected to get %52 a-c this year, so I'll have to see what happens if they don't. Hmmm. i dunno.

I suppose it's like when my dad wouldn't let me take art GCSE and A Level despite that being the thing I excelled in and loved. He said it wouldn't 'get me anywhere', which is crap.. that strange attitude that it is only a handful of things that are worth anything.. But those new diplomas come in over the next few years, the skills related ones instead of A levels and GCSEs, so we'll have to see what that does too.

Jack: “Yes, but what I object to is the separation of 'giftedness' from all the others… I never said I thought giftedness should be separated from “all the others”! It just seems that, at present, in the UK, giftedness receives disproportionately low levels of attention. Mark: “We seem to think that school is the be all and end all of everyone's life…” Totally agree with you, Mark. School isn’t the be and end all, and no one – child or adult – should ever be made to feel like there are certain things which they, by some standard, ought to achieve. My points about giftedness come down to options – all kids, gifted or otherwise, should be provided with the means to fulfil whatever potential they choose to fulfil – whether that’s being an astronaut or being a plumber… or a dustman! [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

"It's just not worth it. If my son wants to be a dustman, great, so long as he's happy." I guess the argument is that if you get them through education with the best possible results they can achieve, they have the *choice* of doing a lot more. You don't really know what you want to do for a long time, if ever - and if you've got an degree and good A levels, it won't *stop* you becoming a dustman, while not having that might well stop you doing something else. That said, I find myself in a situation where I feel a certain amount of pressure to pursue a graduate-style career because of the amount of money (and consequently, the amount of time and freedom) my parents have sacrificed to get me a good education.

This is what I mean about people thinking about when they were at school. I would fail my teaching qualification if I wrote 'could do better' on a kid's work.

It is indeed a form of child abuse, Arch. Another example of parents treating their children like commodities or extensions of themselves (like the child beauty pageants), rather than allowing them to grow within their own personal boundaries and expectations. [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

"I would fail my teaching qualification if I wrote 'could do better' on a kid's work." Surely you are allowed to tell kids they 'could do better' as long you give them useful suggestions about how they could do so?

"It is indeed a form of child abuse, Arch. Another example of parents treating their children like commodities or extensions of themselves (like the child beauty pageants), rather than allowing them to grow within their own personal boundaries and expectations." Well, now, hang on! Parents have to pay for their kids' education. They do so often at considerable disadvantage to themselves. Do you really think they lean on them for results just so they can feel good about themselves? That's pretty cynical. Of course, some go way too far, but the principle, usually, is that the child is too young to make decisions for himself. Same reason you don't let them stay out too late, or watch whatever they want, or go wherever they want. Plenty of time for that later - if you can strike the balance where they enjoy their childhood, and yet do the best they can at school, then you put them in a position where they can develop 'their own personal boundaries and expectations' while possessing the best weapons with which to do that - learnedness, and a record of achievement. Wouldn't you be pissed off if you got to your twenties and realised you were at a ridiculous disadvantage when it came to living any kind of lifestyle because your parents had decided that your laziness was a way of expressing your desire for alternative boundaries and defintiions of success? ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

"Wouldn't you be pissed off if you got to your twenties and realised you were at a ridiculous disadvantage when it came to living any kind of lifestyle because your parents had decided that your laziness was a way of expressing your desire for alternative boundaries and defintiions of success?" I'm lazy. That's why I chose office work over manual labour :) The pay was less in the short-term but it was a good lifestyle choice overall. is someone equating 'lifestyle' with consumerism? There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

"I'm lazy. That's why I chose office work over manual labour :) The pay was less in the short-term but it was a good lifestyle choice overall. is someone equating 'lifestyle' with consumerism?" 'Someone' is equating £5 an hour market research with a plunge into depression, and aware of the fact that their grandparents had to go straight into whatever local work was available from the age of 16 because the parents didn't see the point in any more schooling. 'Someone' is pretty damned grateful they got the chance to go to a good University, and have a good degree, even if they don't want a high-flying career. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

"Wouldn't you be pissed off if you got to your twenties and realised you were at a ridiculous disadvantage when it came to living any kind of lifestyle" Why are people at a "ridiculous advantage" regards "living any kind of lifestyle" if they chose not to attend uni? There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Partly because they haven't had the chance to live somewhere else on a big, low interest rate loan, in an environment full of people in the same position, and thus have to get through the rigmorale of finding a place to rent, and sorting out all the stuff they need, on what's likely to be a pretty pathetic pay packet. And partly because they don't have access to Uni career advisors, or because, as was the case with me, the area where my parents live is simply not very conducive to certain lifestyle choices (most places *aren't* London) and you don't really know how to live anywhere else. I'm sure that some people are fine jumping straight out of school and into a job, but most will likely find it a difficult transition. Many just get stuck in the rubbish towns they grew up in. University isn't just about getting a degree. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'Partly because they haven't had the chance to live somewhere else on a big, low interest rate loan, in an environment full of people in the same position...' It's what we do our whole lives, Jack. Regards living somewhere else, is that part of your definition of a successful person? Living Somewhere else? 'most places *aren't* London' If I'm not mistaken, all places aren't London, except for London. One of the conscious lifestyle choices I made was to stay as far away from cities as possible. Does that me less of a success than you? 'Many just get stuck in the rubbish towns they grew up in.' People from small, 'rubbish' towns are often labelled as small/narrow minded, but judging by your comments above I'm inclined to conclude that it applies no matter where you live or what experience you might think you have. How well travelled are you, Jack? How many miles is it from your parent's house to London then? There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Yan, you're arguing against a straw man. Stop making up what you *think* I said and start reading what I actually said. I'm talking about *lifestyle* choice, not success. The simple fact is that there's a lot of things you can't do if you're stuck in the town you grew up in. It might be OK if your 'lifestyle' choice is to do go down the pub every now and then or, I dunno, there might be a local S&M club, but everyone I've ever known to come from a small town, Parish or village, including myself, agrees that they're pretty shit for range of activities on offer, and is very glad they escaped. University is the major escape method. "If I'm not mistaken, all places aren't London, except for London." Gah! I should stop saying things with the assumption that people understand understatement. "How well travelled are you, Jack?" Just in England? Lived in Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Bucks and Norwich - only moved to London in the last few months. For lifestyle reasons. Shockingly, having a degree made it a lot easier to find a job I wanted here. Also stayed in various other places: Dorset, Abergele, Aberystwyth, Middlesbrough, Hastings, Devon... nothing too exciting, as I'm not rich enough to go galavanting off everywhere. If you really think that University doesn't make any difference at all to the number of lifestyle options available to someone then you need to rethink the situation. I'm glad I was pushed to do my best at every stage, and don't feel it took anything away from my childhood at all - I've got all the same memories of great cartoons, toys, holidays, parties and pals as any other pampered middle class kid. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'It might be OK if your 'lifestyle' choice is to do go down the pub every now and then...' I know a guy who did that for 15 years until he met a girl and they started an employment agency. I know a guy who refused to work because he enjoyed fishing. It took him 10 + years and a jail sentence to realise that it wasn't so much the fishing but nature that he enjoyed and he started a very successful gardening business. There was another guy who spent 20 years after school doing nothing but getting stoned and taking acid. He realised he was pretty damned good at painting and now he's director of an art studio complex in liverpool. All this happened in one of the "rubbish towns" you speak of. I live very close to Jodrell Bank radio telescope and I can betcha there's a kid nearby cursing the town he grew up in ,unaware that one of the world's leading astronomers specifically chose his 'rubbish town' as an ideal base to discover radio galaxies at the edge of the universe. Lifestyle depends solely on your expectations. There are many different roads. Some people have no expectations other than to follow their passions from moment to moment and don't necessarily care where they end up. Some people's expectations don't involve attending university as part of their lifestyle formula. Some do. Some people start out with clear-cut expectations and find themselves in a completely different situation years later. I know one girl who attended uni in the netherlands and then came back and ran a pub. One guy at school wanted to be a bus driver! fair enough - he did what he wanted and also managed to acquire his own continental coach company along the way. Serendipity graces many people throughout life too. Personally I can live quite happily in a quiet town in the knowledge that there are 4 major cities within spitting distance. It's ok for nights out, shopping, museums, art galleries, gigs, theatre, blah blah...but that's about it. I'd rather live somewhere intended for good living rather than in an industrial furnace. Lifestyle choices involve many factors and to hold the narrow minded view that the best of those choices can be made by moving to london and attending university is just ridiculous. That attitude seriously contributes to the homeless population. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

So your refute to my argument is examples of people who collectively wasted nearly half a century doing eff all? Nice one. "Some people's expectations don't involve attending university as part of their lifestyle formula. Some do." The simple fact is that the vast majority of lifestyles that any person might aspire to are made more possible by the University experience. You cite a few examples of what someone can do in their hometown, but none of these are things that can't be done by graduates living in a big city - on the other hand, there are plenty of things that graduates living in a big city can do that people stuck in their hometown can't. Go into publishing, for instance. I don't think London is perfect. I'd like to move out at some point and go to somewhere 'nicer', as I expect most Londoner's do. But for me, as for many others, it's by far the best place in England for doing what I want to do, for getting on the road. Norwich was lovely, but there's no question it was holding me back, and I'm not going to sit around fishing for a decade just on the slim chance that some useful purpose for my life will occur to me. Not when I know I can make it happen *now*. "Lifestyle choices involve many factors and to hold the narrow minded view that the best of those choices can be made by moving to london and attending university is just ridiculous." Straw man alert! That's not what I said. Let's say it again: *most* lifestyle choices are made more accessible by the University experience. Many are still *possible* without attending Uni, but will subsequently require more effort, persistance and sheer luck. A very narrow band are unaffected. So in most cases, whatever it is you've decided to do, University is giving you the best possible chance of being able to do it. That maximising of your chances goes back right to your GCSE's, and if it's possible to balance out doing your best with leading a relatively stress-free and enjoyable childhood, why not do it? Why should parents accept laziness as a kid's 'choice' to deprive themselves of further choices in the future? Any parent who does that sucks ass as bad as the ones who push their kids too hard. "That attitude seriously contributes to the homeless population." No it doesn't, Yan. That's the most stupid thing you've said thus far. My girlfriend's father is a teacher in Grimsby. He tells his best students, "Whatever you do, get out of Grimsby!" He does so in the knowledge that he is urging them to save themselves from what will be, in the vast majority of cases, a terrible fate. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

"there are sooo many people out there who have achieved a great deal of success without a degree, or who have a degree and wind up doing something absolutely unrelated to anything their degree involved." Doesn't contradict what I said. "She *started* university, dropped out, got married, had me, divorced, then decided somewhere along the line to go into real estate, which netted her a VERY comfortable and well-off life." Doesn't contradict what I said. "The difference between success and failure in life isn't *all* down to education." Not what I said. "It's down to how hard you're willing to bust your arse in order to make success happen, and what you're willing to sacrifice to make it so." That's a factor. People with degrees generally have to bust their arse less, or can expect quicker results from their arse-busting. "I went through a good chunk of early adulthood without a degree, and still managed to find decently paid, interesting work in all sorts of places." Lucky you. In Grimsby, if you go to an employment agency without a track record of experience in a certain area, there's one thing they'll offer you: factory work. What neither you or Yan seem to understand is that your examples only prove that it's *possible* to do certain interesting things without a degree. Neither of you have come anywhere near disproving the point that University simply gives you a lot more options. All these things your mother did and you did could have been done *with* a degree. But there are certain goals in life that are unattainable without one, and many more that are more easily attainable with one. You can show me a thousand blind people doing very well for themselves, but you'll never convince me that sight isn't an advantage for most people. Not to mention the fact that University gives you an environment where you have a lot more time, space and encouragement to work out what it is that you want to do. If you leave school, and have to get a job straight away, nearby, only a certain number of people will have the strength of will to pursue distant dreams and goals - most will settle for whatever bum deal they get. If, having achieved as well as you could in school, you get the chance to go to Uni, you can spend three years, maybe more, trying to decide what future will suit you best. You can try things out. You have a lot more freedom to change direction. This doesn't mean that those who don't go don't stand a chance - they simply have it harder. Less choice, more work required, more lateral thinking required, more luck required. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'So your refute to my argument is examples of people who collectively wasted nearly half a century doing eff all? Nice one.' In the eyes of those whom I used as examples they may not have believed that they were wasting their lives. If your idea of living a 'constructive' life is leaving school, going to college, uni, and then moving to London because there's more cheap thrills to be had then yes! You could say they've wasted their lives. But for some people that particular life-path is not to their taste. There isn't a golden gate that you walk through when you leave school which reveals to you your passions and life ambitions. Everyone moves to their own beat and make choices based on experiences, good and bad. The guy who spent 20 years getting stoned and taking acid also spent 20 years singing in a band whereupon he travelled the UK and Europe gigging. I did the same when I left college. Uni was a deffo no no at that particular time because my passions had already been roused by music and to sacrifice what was an incredibly exciting time for a lecture room and a dorm or shared house was not my cuppa tea. Although some people relish the thought of that kind of life. Many people's futures are shaped incrementally with only passion and the intensity of the moment to guide them. I don't think I've ever drawn-up a five year plan because it's not in my nature to care for things like that. I live pretty much on my passions and if it means sacrificing a few material comforts then that's fine. I find much more awe and comfort in a spring morning than I do an airsprung mattress. I know that sounds a little romantic but the point I'm trying to make is that conformity to a path you were conditioned to and encouraged to follow is good for you but not everyone else. Life is too rich and complex to be too rigid. The ultimate goal in justifying life is to find things that make it worth living. That differs for everyone. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

I get it now. The reason you hate straw men so much is because you didn't go to Uni yourself and feel that any attempt to cite it as an important experience is some kind of slur on your choices. Yan, I don't have a lot of money. I don't really want a lot of money. But I'm not going to argue that having a lot of money isn't an advantage when it comes to doing what you want to do. I didn't do a creative writing MA at UEA. I had the chance to, and decided no. But I'm not going to argue that having the MA isn't an advantage to those who want to earn a living from writing. Stop arguing with the hard facts. University opens up a lot more opportunities for most people. You dimiss the career route as one formulaic endeavour, but there are hundreds of different paths someone's post-Uni career can go, suiting many different ideals of personal success, and many of which, as I say, are unattainable to those without degrees. On the other hand, having a degree doesn't put anyone at a disadvantage if they choose to live any of these alternative lifestyles. It's simple maths: Uni maximises choices. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Erm... I've always quite liked the Indigo Girls. Their first album, the eponymously-titled one, was superb, despite many of Emily's wrung-out lyrical excesses. And Amy sure can belt 'em out. Sorry to break the flow of discussion there.

Relax a bit, people. Don't take it all so seriously and personally. No one wins in the 'war of the last word' in the end. It's a war of attrition.

"The university model is one of a myriad paths one can choose, and attain success by. But to imply that most people would do a lot better for themselves had they gone to University, is absurd." It's not absurd. If doing 'better for themselves' means earning more money and having more choice of what jobs they do most people - as in more than half - would be better off with a degree. It's a stone cold fact. Graduates earn more on average and millions of jobs - including some that are desirable but not necessarily well-paid - are only open to graduates. That's not to say that university is right for every individual - I chose not to go - but it does (or would) help most people in the job market.

I've had Nina Simone's 'Mood Indigo' in my head whenever I've read this thread. I do know people who would fit into the descriptions given, but it does all sound a bit spooky! I'd choose astrological rationales over rainbow ones, but then I am a bit tiddly (early to be tiddly: doesn't take much). Re the 'lifestyle' chat- I hate that word (white wine speaking) - I think the styles of life one is offered or sees as attainable are more related to social class / race/ gender and levels of privilege than whether one's been to university or not. I mean to say that it probably matters less if you haven't gone to university if you're from a semi-auto-didactic or economically 'successful' family background, or are so good looking that Select model agency pounce on you in the Kings Road and take you to the land of money-for-genetic-good-fortune and coke fuelled anorexia. I did go to university and liked it so much that I went back. There are loads of things I've done in between that I would never have been able to do without a degree, so I am grateful (to my parents, my previous self) that I went this route. But - though I am nearly the first person in my extended family to go to university - I am middle class, and the option of not going to university was very unspoken. For a middle class person it's probably an act of courage not to go. Wine's dragging me off to sofa now.

Jack... correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that what you are saying can be summarised thus... A = options available if one goes to uni. B = options available if one doesn’t go to uni. B is always and inclusively a subset of A. ...? If not, then please ignore the following. If so... I disagree! There are numerous instances in which the “uni experience” limits one’s options. It’s probably the right choice if you want to be a doctor, a psychiatrist, a physicists, etc; but if you are less than sure what career you want to pursue, I would always (perhaps moreso these days) advise extreme caution to anyone considering going to uni. Yes, it can of course be invaluable for all the reasons you mentioned. But... 1. You will probably emerge from the experience with a huge pile of debt, which has psychological as well as fiscal ramifications. 2. There are employers who actively discriminate against people with degrees. 3. Your expectations (or those of people in your sphere of influence) may be raised such that, if you choose not to pursue a “graduate” career, following graduation, you may feel like a failure (or be made to feel like a failure by people in your sphere of influence) for not doing so. As to the concept of “laziness”... Such negative connotations you place on the word, Jack! Read Tom Hodgkinson’s “How to be Idle” (or visit www.idler.co.uk) and your eyes may be opened to all sorts of positive ways of viewing the concept/lifestyle choice. If one chooses to be lazy/idle (a child or an adult), and does so in a positive frame of mind, and with a positive demeanour, can this not be a perfectly valid course of (in)action? We are, as humans, cerebral creatures - at least potentially. Is it not acceptable, if a person chooses, to live a cerebral, internal life? To “be,” as opposed to being dragged along by the social pressures to act, to work, to achieve? Is inaction not (potentially) the wellspring of great ideas and creative thought? As a poet, Jack, I would have thought “laziness” was your friend and not something to be derided! Please let me know if I have misread your words, however, and I am speaking to the aforementioned “straw man”... :-) [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

I don't think Jack understands that if he chooses to embrace a particular ideology for shaping his life then he can't willy-nilly compare that choice with others who choose to embrace different ideologies. Peps is right - "laziness" is one of those words that has been used successfully by capitalist ideology to encourage the masses to employ social sanctions against those who choose not to conform to the model. These days, anyone who doesn't go at it like a dog is considered lazy - such an impact that this particular model has had within society is clear. Once upon a time it was considered desirable to be seen to have plenty of free time -especially by those elite who were otherwise busy calling the plebs lazy (?) That's only one such example, btw. Uni's a good deal if the field you're planning on entering demands that level of education - it goes without saying. There are many many more opportunities for higher education available in the workplace nowadays too. I worked in a purchasing dept for three years and everyone, from your goods receiver to your assistant buyer, were required to complete their CIPS. An ex-girlfriend left sixth form with top grades and was offered a lucrative research post at Zeneca, which she opted out of a uni place for. And there's always the chance that you might become "golden bollocks" in the workplace! I've heard alot of managers claim that they'd never emply a graduate for certain posts because "they know fuck all really." I know that doesn't apply across the board but there's all these variables to consider. I suppose there are pros and cons with all pathways. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

"I went to college and all I got was this damned overdraft." Actually, I DID go to college, though not for any thoughts about increasing my job/money-making potential. I went because I wanted some education. Since graduating, I've earned far less, on average, than I earned in the five years BEFORE I went. Doesn't bother me. No one can take that education away. I'm cool with it. Bukowski didn't go to university. Harold Pinter didn't go to university. Steinbeck dropped out, Faulkner never made it, Dylan Thomas either. Who else? Alan Sugar. Clive Sinclair. Queen Elizabeth. Christ? He didn't go. GWB? Does it fucking matter? Who gives a shit? Get drunk. Take drugs. Write deathless prose or poetry. Enjoy life. It's short enough. You guys'll just wear yourselves out with this carping, and no one'll win in the end.

aww, sniper, I *love* you.

Start again

"Jack is appearing to imply that to attend University is to be successful, whereas not attending university is to not be successful." No, I never said that. You're arguing against that because it's easy to be stroppy about than the stone cold truth, which is that Uni *does* make a huge difference for a lot of people, and does/would improve a lot of people's lives. My grandparents didn't go to University, but they understood that it makes a big difference to people's lives. That's why they paid for the entirety of my dad's University expenses. This generation takes it for granted, but once upon a time, most people simply did not have the option to go to Uni. They had to work as soon as they got out of school, and for most of them, it was shit. To throw away hard-won opportunities now just because your kid seems to have 'chosen' his X-Box 360 over his homework is irresponsible and stupid. Sure, there are choices out there for people who don't go to Uni. I've never argued against that, except in your imaginations. There are always possibilities. But the people who will pursue those alternatives are in the minority - they will be people of a particular character. Most people *will* put up with bum jobs and tough lives, either because their commitments prevent them taking risks, or because they're too drained to do anything but chill out in the little free time they have. Going to University off the back of the school puts you in the position where you're *encouraged* to make choices about your future, whereas anyone in employment is generally discouraged from leaving. "As a poet, Jack, I would have thought “laziness” was your friend and not something to be derided!" No. As a poet - as anyone who does anything seriously - I work hard at what I do. Relaxing is important, sure, but 'laziness' isn't relaxing - laziness is making hard work out of doing nothing. "Peps is right - "laziness" is one of those words that has been used successfully by capitalist ideology to encourage the masses to employ social sanctions against those who choose not to conform to the model." This is too retarded to reply to. "Does it fucking matter? Who gives a shit? Get drunk. Take drugs. Write deathless prose or poetry. Enjoy life. It's short enough. " As is this. You kids are preaching the naive philosophies of those who don't seem to understand what it's like to *feel* you don't have a choice of futures, to understand that, yes, there are multiple paths in life, but that you and your family are stuck, cordoned off from all the good ones, in a cycle of hard work and scraping by. Once you've got something you're after, it's easy to say, "Hey, that wasn't too hard - we should all just relax and follow our dreams," but an awful lot of people are tied to lives where they just don't get the time. I'm fucked if I'm going to take for granted what my parents and grandparents sacrificed so much for on the basis of brainless hippy cod-philosophy. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Cosseted buffoon.