Downwardly, I'm curious, what do you see as the stratifications in American culture? I agree with you that some Americans seem to be naive about their class system. So if education and wealth can be considered separately, what is left as the essence of class in the US?

Downwardly Mobile, re your statement: "Americans take pride in the idea that someone "low-born" may be president, and assume no one in Britain can entertain similar aspirations." <BR> <BR>Can you be more specific? Which Americans are you talking about who make that assumption? I have never met anyone who made such a statement or who expressed that idea. More the opposite, really.

Besides such aristocrats as Churchill and Macmillan Britain has had PMs such as Thatcher and Major, who were not at all highly born.

I thought percentile rankings had to do with percentages of the population, i.e. if one scored 90%, one had done better than 90% of the people taking the test (if 1000 had taken the test, one had done better than 900 of them, i.e. one was in the top 100.) Thus, if one had scored 99% and 1000 people took the test one had done better than 990 of them; i.e., one was in the top 1%, or top 10 scores. If one was in the 99.9% percentile, one has possibly scored the top score, better than 999 people. <BR> <BR>My problem is, in comparing the relative merits of the three scores, that I do see that someone who scores the top score(99.9) is 2 orders of magnitude away from someone who scores in the top 100 (90.0%) <BR> <BR>But what if one evaluates the relative merits by looking at the test takers one has beaten in the entire population, as opposed to a subset thereof? Then we have to compare 999 vs 990 vs 900, and none of these figures differ by so much as 1 order of magnitude, if I've understood the conversation so far. <BR> <BR>Doesn't this argument depend on how you look at the figures? Or should I go back to showing off my kitchen? <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>

Recently made friends with a couple from England. They sent their two children to boarding school not far (20 minutes or so) from their home for what I think was probably the kids' first eight years of education. The parents would visit the children on the weekend. <BR> <BR>Is this a common thing to do in England or anywhere in the U.K.? What is the class of people who typically do this? (The husband owns a brokerage firm in England)

America has a class system, albeit undeclared and informal. It isn't as rigid as that of the Britain. Most rural counties in America have a group of families who own a great amount of farmland and have roots several generations deep. Informally, they tend to pull the strings in local politics through funding of politicians, most of whom are not the gentry themselves but hired lackies. In my home county of Queen Anne's, state of Maryland, the two Democratic commissioners are basically bought by the landed interests, most of whom dabble in land development in our suburban sprawl county. Our Republican commissioner, though unbought, is acknowledged by his own party as a dimwit who inherited liquor stores(a pretty sure way to riches in America, by the way), a man whose chief claim to fame was that his pet camel was hit by cars as it madly dashed onto our local highway.

Idoknow, <BR> <BR>Are you sure that you are a molecular biologist? Your seventh-grade grammar suggests that you lack the necessary education for such a profession. "... in my daily work too." Also, your last sentence should be separated into two sentences. Typos are expected in this forum because of the #@%! text editor, but bad grammar is usually a sign of poor education. Maybe you were in a hurry. <BR> <BR>I am entirely capable of understanding Idontknow's argument. It is simply incorrect. Consider a high school math test with the following question- "Specify the number that is two orders of magnitude greater than 90?" Do you seriously believe the answer is 99.9? If so, you fail! The answer is 9000. What those quantities represent (percentiles, calories, etc.) is irrelevant. <BR> <BR>If the number of individuals that take an SAT test is one thousand, a 90th percentile score would indicate that one attained a score better than or equal to 900 fellow students that took the test. A 99.9 percentile would indicate that one attained a score better than or equal to 999 fellow students that took the test. Even in this context, the difference is less than one order of magnitude. <BR> <BR>The only interpretation that can produce a difference of two orders of magnitude is the "top percentage." The 90th percentile represents the top ten percent, whereas the 99.9 percentile represents the top 1/10 of one percent. I will point out, however, that 1/10 is two orders of magnitude LESS than 10. <BR> <BR>Unless one is comparing an extremely low value to another value (e.g., 7th percentile to 70th percentile), using the order of magnitude concept to describe percentile differences is foolish.

<BR>Wheredoyougetyourinformation, <BR> <BR>An obvious example of a "low born" person becoming president of the US is Bill Clinton. His mother was a trashy, mascara-caked, chain smoking opportunist with multiple failed marriages. Although I'm not an admirer of Bill Clinton, I am impressed by the fact that he was able to achieve so much from such humble beginnings.

To Steve: Author: Where DoYouGET ([email protected]) <BR>Steve: In his remarks, Downwardly states that: <BR> <BR>"Americans take pride in the idea that someone "low-born" may be president, and assume no one in Britain can entertain similar aspirations" <BR> <BR>My question to him was about the latter part of his statement--about the British entertaining similar aspirations. <BR> <BR>We all know about the freedom in American <BR> <BR>

There have been several PMs who come from fairly humble backgrounds, Margaret Thatcher is the daughter of a small grocer, Edward Heath's mother was a housekeeper, John Major's father was a circus performer. I think that Ramsey McDonald was a small crofter's son, Sheila can correct me here. <BR>I'm not sure about Tony Blair, but I think that his grandfather had fairly humble origins. His wife Cherie Booth is a top barrister and likely to be a judge soon. She is the daughter of an actor who left her mother to cope alone. <BR>One interesting fact about her is that she is descended from the actor who killed Lincoln. <BR>It is possible to rise in the social scale and also to fall as in the Yorkshire saying: "Clogs to clogs in three generations"

<BR>WhereDidYouGet, <BR> <BR>I stand corrected.

To me the biggest difference between people who are definitely upper class and the people who are still half in a middle-class mindset even if they're really wealthy comes really with regard their unconscious habits. In a real upper class family no one has ever set foot in a public school or a Wal-Mart, but not only that, it would really never occur to them to do so. There is nothing at Wal-Mart they would possibly have any desire or need to buy. Your upper-class aspirant maybe considers it a big deal to get his children into a good boarding school, rather than a "done deal". Also any hint of anxiety/inferiority about one's dress as being a bar to social acceptance/advancement is very much a giveaway. The attitude of the upper classes in such matters is that one's fashion sense is not especially important as long as all of one's clothes are well-made, well-fitted and of quality materials, even if they are old or threadbare, and there is a certain amount to be said for this point of view. Also the upper class view on things like the work ethic is considerably different; they would not expect, or allow, their teenage children, for example, to work at some demeaning and totally pointless type of job. It would be regarded as a waste of time, as well as completely irrelevant to the type of character and responsibility building that are considered important in upper class life. Those are just some general elements of the mindset anyway, as it seems to me.

to erlsegaard-Thank you--the window you just showed us was totally fascinating. Do you have anything more to tell?

Uggh!! This discussion is sickening and I wished I hadn't opened it. I know many people in industrialized Western nations judge their fellow human beings by their dress and speech. They can then feel superior to those who do not use "proper" speech and do not "dress" in subtle, classy clothes. Uggh!! Is this the way we want to treat each other? What a petty game to play! Help each other out instead of judging and dismissing others by their income and education.

xxx - If you think that it is only the in the industrialized western world that people judge each other by their speech, you're sadly mistaken.

I must sadly agree with the last poster. In India, two teenagers were hanged (lynched) recently. Their 'crime'? They had the temerity to fall in love, but came from different castes.

So xxx hates people being so judgmental. People make judgements all the time. Men who wear baseball caps indoors are lower class. People who say the f word in public are lower class. Public spitting- the same.

erlsegaard makes a very good point. <BR>There are two classes in the UK whose members don't give two hoots what people think of them. That's the "rough" working class and the upper class. I went on holiday as a child to a small select seaside resort where I and my brother were the only children on the beach without nannies. We saw a middle aged man who looked like the sort of person you would give 50 pence to in the street. He was actually Lord XXX.

Seems to be some confusion here (particularly from the Occidental side of the Atlantic) the difference in the Orient between class and caste. These two terms are not synonymous and never have been. Caste is far far more than class can ever be or has been and has a religious nature which unfortunately has given it an imperviousness to attempts to eradicate it.

Where'd this thread pop up from! The grave? still giving the recent death of the Queen Mum its a fascinating one. I was in Windsor last week for work reasons and couldnot believe the size of the queue to see the tomb. It must have taken people hours to get up the hill into the Castle proper (made parking a nightmare too!)<BR>However it is my strong belief that this represents the last hurrah for the Royal Family. When this Queen dies there will be real discussion about the future of this nation and whether we wish to drag ourselves into the modern world. I honestly belief that whilst Charles is king the country will opt for a republic. Support for the monarchy (to be blunt) is dieing out. What the middle aged discuss around the dinner party table is an anethema to their parents and not enough for their children. Give it another 20 years and then if there is the slightest whiff of scandal the barricades will be up in the streets before you can say "Mines a Gin and Dubonnet!"