The Guardian recently ran an article by Paul Mason that illustrates how class resentment thrives in Britain. Mason wrote that “brown shoes can ruin a career in investment banking, because they betray a lack of “sheen”, according to a Social Mobility Commission report. “Little wonder” that investment banking “suffers from groupthink on a scale that crashed the world markets in 2008”. No matter how good you are, if you don’t dress the part, you can “take your excellence somewhere else”. Fortunately for those trying to “scam” their way into banking, the sartorial faux pas are easily avoided, “with money, practice, a willing tailor and obedient hair”.
“The difficulty lies in the “unfakeable” bits. Only a handful of schools and universities pass muster at many banks, and you’ll need at least four spring internships – which are “in limited supply” unless you’re the offspring of a banker, or similar. If you want to become a City banker, the efficient-markets must become your religion. Above all, remember that “centuries of good practice show capital can only be allocated efficiently when the participants in the deal played rugby with each other at the age of 12”.
Has Mason actually met any average banker in London? Is this piece of classism fair, or can it be dismissed by as a rant by someone turned down by a bank earlier in his career? My (limited) acquaintance with modern bankers suggests it is wildly out of date, but it does illustrate how, despite the fact that non-private school people have dominated so much of life (particularly in the media and the arts) in the last generation, articles like this can still be published. It wouldn’t be allowed were it about, say, women or people of colour. I find it boring, and exaggerated. The Guarniad (as it is known) in many ways is an excellent paper, the only one offering a liberal alternative to political bias. But sometimes it does for Britain what the Republican mis-informationists do for America, that is, misinform and stoke hatred. Like all these things, there is a smidgeon of truth, but it ignores the bigger picture. Epicureans should protest.
My oldest son is a successful banker with a big international bank. Not only did he not go to Oxford or Cambridge or have multiple internments,etc, but he did not thrive at rugby and managed to fail all A Levels as well. What he has is a knack for the work. He is very smart and is clever at employing good people. None of his friends or acquaintances whom I have encountered fit the Mason stereotype. That is not to say there are none of them, or that there are are not greedy and unscrupulous people in banking. But to stereotype all bankers is crass.
I can’t comment on Mason’s specific example, but I think there is still classism in Britain based on my experience at school. At the very least, the classes would self segregate to a great extent. Middle class friendship groups were seen as more sophisticated and intelligent, whereas working class groups were more sporty and outgoing. But being in a middle class friendship group made you more intellectual, increasing your chances of success at GSCE and A level. However unintentional this effect was, it must be a feature across schools in Britain. This reduces social mobility, and confines people to often stifling social stereotypes.