On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:56:55 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-06-30 10:34:57 +0100, Linda Fox said:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:43:11 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

There are always options. Qualifications are but one factor and are
not a necessary prerequisite for success. Take a look at the
biographies of Ingvar Kamprad, Alan Sugar, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates,
the Albrechts. None had a university education apart from Gates who
didn't complete his.

"None had university education" Oh, ha-ha.

Check their biographies.

No, the ha-ha wasn't referring to that. You've separated the rest of
the paragraph, making it look as though it was. It was referring to
the fact that you should think that's the big divide. One of the
cleverest people in my circle of friends chose not to go to
university. net because she couldn't get in, but because she decided
that wasn't the way she wanted to go.

I'm mentally going through
a row of children in our current year 4 and trying to remember how
many of them have ever told me what their parents do. University
education doesn't come anywhere near it. In quite a few cases very
little in the way of secondary school qualification at all.

Illustrating that qualification is only one precursor for success (as
the individual sees it), but not a mandatory one.

And that meant? Did anyone understand his point?

I was talking about the parents of the children in my school, just in
case you were speed-reading. The ones I'm thinking of probably
wouldn't meet your criteria of success by any stretch of the
imagination. Neither does that mean they're layabouts and scroungers
(necessarily...)

What do you think is the "likelihood" of their having been so
successful had they been below average? (Isn't half the population?)

It is but one factor.

It's a bloody huge factor, Andy. How many people of indisputably less
than average intelligence can you name who have made a complete
success of their careers? (And how do you expect them otherwise to be
able to pay for having their teeth well looked after, which is where
this bit started?)

There are people of high IQ who have not or did not make a lot of
money.

For a large number for different reasons. Some of us haven't aspired
to it. Some of us don't measure our achievement by what we earn.

Of course. Which is why I make the point *as the individual sees it*.

Thus rendering the entire proposition fatuous and pointless. I'm sure
not-his-real-name Robert's father is a very good bin-man, and Robert
is very proud of him, particularly when the class learnt to sing My
Old Man's a Dustman, but with a limited education and probably lower
than average IQ, how do you expect him _ever_ to aspire to the
lifestyle of Alan Sugar et al?

I don't accept the premise that because someone is of average or below
average intelligence that they should resign themselves to a life of
drudgery.

I'm not talking about +/- drudgery, I'm talking about +/- earning
potential. Do you seriously think they're the same?

Nope. In one of your points you say "Some of us don't measure our
achievement by what we earn" . In the next you say "I'm talking about
+/- earning potential"


Whch discussion would you like to have?

Preferably a discussion with someone who has the courtesy to read
properly. The two ideals are not incompatible. I got an Oxbridge
degree and further training at the Royal Acedemy of Music. Since then
I've made a lot of decisions about my life which were not necessarily
the best for an affluent future, but (in some cases, not all) best for
the lifestyle I wanted. That does not necessarily mean I didn't have
the earning _potential_, just that I chose not to sacrifice other
things in order to fulfil that one aspect of my lifestyle. I've
probably had much greater earning potential, right up until very
recently, than I've chosen to realise because it would have limited
other choices I wanted to make. Nevertheless I'm still motivated by
achievement. I just don't equate that with money.

Now do you get it?

Linda ff