Should private schools be banned?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Morgasm19
The problem is, how can you make state schools 'just be better'? With what funding?
I agree with what you say about the fact that if state schools were better people wouldn't send their kids to private schools, or rather, they would, but sending your child to Eton/Harrow etc would become more of a status thing, not a means of buying an unfair advantage for your child when it comes to university admissions. And if sending your child to a private school was just about showing off your wealth then perhaps you could compare it to being able to afford expensive items.
But for now it's just disingenuous to equate buying an education for your children with buying an expensive car/house/flying first class. Education is absolutely integral to social mobility.
I didn't used to be pro-abolishing private schools, as I used to think 'It's the parents' choice as to how they spend their money.' But personally it just seems like a case of fairly absolute morality; if you believe in a meritocratic society in which people are given as equal opportunities as possible, then why uphold private schools?
It's not just ethical but economic, too. Whenever any group is held back in society in terms of accessing the higher echelons within careers, holding positions of real power, be this because of gender, race or social class, that means that the best people are not getting the best jobs. I want to be treated by the best doctors, represented by the best lawyers, have the most intelligent and suitable people working in the finance industry, not just the people whose parents could afford to send them to expensive schools.
I agree with what you say about the fact that if state schools were better people wouldn't send their kids to private schools, or rather, they would, but sending your child to Eton/Harrow etc would become more of a status thing, not a means of buying an unfair advantage for your child when it comes to university admissions. And if sending your child to a private school was just about showing off your wealth then perhaps you could compare it to being able to afford expensive items.
But for now it's just disingenuous to equate buying an education for your children with buying an expensive car/house/flying first class. Education is absolutely integral to social mobility.
I didn't used to be pro-abolishing private schools, as I used to think 'It's the parents' choice as to how they spend their money.' But personally it just seems like a case of fairly absolute morality; if you believe in a meritocratic society in which people are given as equal opportunities as possible, then why uphold private schools?
It's not just ethical but economic, too. Whenever any group is held back in society in terms of accessing the higher echelons within careers, holding positions of real power, be this because of gender, race or social class, that means that the best people are not getting the best jobs. I want to be treated by the best doctors, represented by the best lawyers, have the most intelligent and suitable people working in the finance industry, not just the people whose parents could afford to send them to expensive schools.
You just said it yourself: you want to be treated by the best doctors, be represented by the best lawyers. People from private schools aren't given jobs because their parents have money. Rather, people from private schools are able to get a better education/teaching and therefore they are more equipped for uni and jobs and therefore they achieve positions like lawyers and doctors. They get these positions because their knowledge and understanding is of the level required.
If you were to abolish private schools, all you would do is lower the average quality of education and bring it down to the 'median'. You wouldn't really be doing anyone any favours as less people would be equipped with the right skills and understanding.
Surely abolishing private schools would also cost the economy money because the gov wouldn't receive the tax given by private schools, which will be a good amount if they make lots of money.
So since money is going to be lost either way if you abolish private schools or fund state schools, you might as well fund state schools.
I do get what your trying to say about equal opportunities but I think obv it's impossible to really get complete equality, but instead of lowering the standard of education to do so, it makes more sense to increase the standard of education.
Obv I am biased because to me it just makes no sense to take away my opportunity to be able to go to get a higher quality of education and learn in an environment where I'm more comfortable, so that I get the same education as the rest of the population. The country may lose an able doctor that currently I have the potential of becoming but if I went to a state school I might not have.
The problem here is that state education is not good enough, not that private education is better. So this solution of abolishing private schools seems stupid to me as it simply makes the problem worse.
Original post by Morgasm19
But do they really? I mean around 40% of students at Oxbridge are from private schools and yet 10% of the population attends them....now unless people at state schools are just generally less intelligent, clearly not enough is being done to address the unfair advantages that going to a private school gives you.
You have to remember how many people attend secondary school. The majority of state school pupils will not be attending university and many will not get to A-level. Only the brightest from state schools will go to uni. By contrast, there is an expectation that you will go to university if your parents have paid for private education.
Besides, research has shown that if two students get the exact same grades, the state school pupil is more likely to get an offer than the private school one.
Original post by tengentoppa
You have to remember how many people attend secondary school. The majority of state school pupils will not be attending university and many will not get to A-level. Only the brightest from state schools will go to uni. By contrast, there is an expectation that you will go to university if your parents have paid for private education.
Besides, research has shown that if two students get the exact same grades, the state school pupil is more likely to get an offer than the private school one.
Besides, research has shown that if two students get the exact same grades, the state school pupil is more likely to get an offer than the private school one.
Yes of course, that's true and it's wrong.
It's true that only the brightest from state schools will go to uni but not all of the brightest from state schools will get in due to academic underachievement. A lot of people at state schools will feel like getting into uni, especially into a Russell Group/Oxford, is just an unattainable goal and won't even apply.
And how likely is it that if two students from a private school and a state school will get exactly the same grades? How often does that happen? Most of the time private school applicants will have far better grades, have been coached for interviews, have had loads of help with their personal statement and any admissions tests and so they do seem like 'the best candidates'.
Original post by arfah
I personally think they should be banned. It is unfair that everyone does not get the same education, and people are practically buying their/ child's education.
I wonder what everyone else's view is on this?
I wonder what everyone else's view is on this?
No. That is a stupid idea. Bring the bottom up and not the top down.
Why in gods name would you want to make education worse? Are you drunk?
I know, lets ban I phones too becausr some people cant afford them!
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
nope, what a bull**** idea
Original post by SocialistIC
I think they should banned. It's not just that it's unfair - I think that banning private schools will encourage rich people, who would otherwise send their kids to private school, to fight to make state schools better which would raise standards for everyone. There's so much nepotism involved in them as well which just means that the children of rich people are so much more likely to do well in life. Let's say I was a multi-millionaire and I sent my kids off to Eton - chances are I'd meet plenty of other rich people including lawyers, investment bankers etc. This means that, I can easily get my child all sorts of work experience and internships giving them an unfair head start in life. David Cameron only got his original political job in the Conservative Research Department because of a mysterious call from Buckingham Palace which apparently said "I understand you are to see David Cameron. I've tried everything I can to dissuade him from wasting his time on politics but I have failed. I am ringing to tell you that you are about to meet a truly remarkable young man."
You cant tell other people what to do with their money. That is called being authoritarian.
If i work hard and get a good wage I want to pay for the best education.
Your argument is stupid too. See above.
Dont **** around with a childs education.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by the mezzil
You cant tell other people what to do with their money. That is called being authoritarian.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
You can tell people not to pay for the murder of someone else. You can tell someone not to buy drugs, humans or organs. I know they're not exactly comparable but you can absolutely tell people what they can and can't do with their own money - the idea you can't is ridiculous.
Original post by SocialistIC
You can tell people not to pay for the murder of someone else. You can tell someone not to buy drugs, humans or organs. I know they're not exactly comparable but you can absolutely tell people what they can and can't do with their own money - the idea you can't is ridiculous.
You cant compare a hitman to honest father trying to get the best education for their children.
Why work at all then? Why even have money if you wish us all to be poor and have a crap education
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by the mezzil
Why work at all then? Why even have money if you wish us all to be poor and have a crap education
Posted from TSR Mobile
Why work at all then? Why even have money if you wish us all to be poor and have a crap education
Posted from TSR Mobile
Why work at all if you have already lost?
Original post by the mezzil
You cant compare a hitman to honest father trying to get the best education for their children.
Why work at all then? Why even have money if you wish us all to be poor and have a crap education
Posted from TSR Mobile
Why work at all then? Why even have money if you wish us all to be poor and have a crap education
Posted from TSR Mobile
Look, I've had debates with you before and, from my experience, I'm not sure whether you are a troll or just pushing the boundaries of human stupidity. I argued that banning private schools would make education better for everyone. Read it before commenting on it.
Original post by SocialistIC
I think they should banned. It's not just that it's unfair - I think that banning private schools will encourage rich people, who would otherwise send their kids to private school, to fight to make state schools better which would raise standards for everyone. There's so much nepotism involved in them as well which just means that the children of rich people are so much more likely to do well in life. Let's say I was a multi-millionaire and I sent my kids off to Eton - chances are I'd meet plenty of other rich people including lawyers, investment bankers etc. This means that, I can easily get my child all sorts of work experience and internships giving them an unfair head start in life. David Cameron only got his original political job in the Conservative Research Department because of a mysterious call from Buckingham Palace which apparently said "I understand you are to see David Cameron. I've tried everything I can to dissuade him from wasting his time on politics but I have failed. I am ringing to tell you that you are about to meet a truly remarkable young man."
I strongly doubt that you'll meaningfully reduce nepotism by banning private schools. There will still remain networks of people who will offer help to their friends and their friends' kids. How many people do you know who get work experience off their classmate's parents as opposed to 'family friends'?
As to the question in the OP: no, I don't think they should be banned. They educate children at the personal cost of the well-off and they reduce pressure on the state service, so they act as a form of additional taxation. The education they provide is generally at a high standard, which is a good thing for society as a whole. As for an 'unfair advantage', universities take the school you went to into account* and so the current system is pretty good imo.
*And they're moving more towards doing this in a proper evidence-based manner i.e. they compare the % of 2.1s achieved by state schoolers with AAB vs the % achieved by private schoolers with AAB. They're getting more and more accurate at distinguishing actual ability to succeed on the course from privileged schooling.
Original post by SocialistIC
Look, I've had debates with you before and, from my experience, I'm not sure whether you are a troll or just pushing the boundaries of human stupidity. I argued that banning private schools would make education better for everyone. Read it before commenting on it.
No it really will not improve schools. The rich would just move houses to where the better state schools are, driving up house prices and forcing the poor out. State standard of education would remain the same.
I know it is hard being a socialist, but please use your brain.
Anyway, why punish hardworking rich people?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ClickItBack
I strongly doubt that you'll meaningfully reduce nepotism by banning private schools. There will still remain networks of people who will offer help to their friends and their friends' kids. How many people do you know who get work experience off their classmate's parents as opposed to 'family friends'?
As to the question in the OP: no, I don't think they should be banned. They educate children at the personal cost of the well-off and they reduce pressure on the state service, so they act as a form of additional taxation. The education they provide is generally at a high standard, which is a good thing for society as a whole. As for an 'unfair advantage', universities take the school you went to into account* and so the current system is pretty good imo.
*And they're moving more towards doing this in a proper evidence-based manner i.e. they compare the % of 2.1s achieved by state schoolers with AAB vs the % achieved by private schoolers with AAB. They're getting more and more accurate at distinguishing actual ability to succeed on the course from privileged schooling.
As to the question in the OP: no, I don't think they should be banned. They educate children at the personal cost of the well-off and they reduce pressure on the state service, so they act as a form of additional taxation. The education they provide is generally at a high standard, which is a good thing for society as a whole. As for an 'unfair advantage', universities take the school you went to into account* and so the current system is pretty good imo.
*And they're moving more towards doing this in a proper evidence-based manner i.e. they compare the % of 2.1s achieved by state schoolers with AAB vs the % achieved by private schoolers with AAB. They're getting more and more accurate at distinguishing actual ability to succeed on the course from privileged schooling.
I think it would reduce it - there would no longer be a culture of giving someone a job based on the fact they went to the same private school that you/someone in your family did. Obviously, more is needed to tackle nepotism but it would be a good start. As for them taking pressure off the state service, I disagree. I think you could encourage people to pay more tax and do more to help the state system if everyone had to educate their kids through the state system.
Original post by SocialistIC
I think it would reduce it - there would no longer be a culture of giving someone a job based on the fact they went to the same private school that you/someone in your family did. Obviously, more is needed to tackle nepotism but it would be a good start. As for them taking pressure off the state service, I disagree. I think you could encourage people to pay more tax and do more to help the state system if everyone had to educate their kids through the state system.
Nobody gets a job "just because they went to the same school as them". They get the job because that school provided the best education and contacts which provided work exp.
Start using your common sense.
AND NOBODY WANTS TO PAY MORE TAX. Especially not the poor!
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Georgie_M
That is why private schools are essentially a complete waste of money, they have been shown to have very little added value in terms of the child's achievement. Children who come from similar backgrounds tend to do just as well at either private or state schools.
Having attended both private and state schools, my own experience is that private school is worth paying for if you can afford it. The grammar school was one of the best in the country, but it still didn't foster the air of achievement that the private school did.
How people can claim to wanting to help the poor and in the same sentence advocate increased taxes is beyond full retard.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by the mezzil
How people can claim to wanting to help the poor and in the same sentence advocate increased taxes is beyond full retard.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
It depends on what your economic belief is. The poor have benefited from wealth redistribution via taxation. The inability to comprehend why someone would suggest that is beyond full retard. As is someone who uses retard as an insult
Original post by TurboCretin
Having attended both private and state schools, my own experience is that private school is worth paying for if you can afford it. The grammar school was one of the best in the country, but it still didn't foster the air of achievement that the private school did.
I agree in my own personal experience the difference was quite remarkable and I found it quite a culture shock going to state. However although that is my personal experience and seems common sense research indicates that children from wealthy families do well wherever they go to school.
Having said that I don't have any data on the added value for working class children (non-gifted) going to independent schools this would probably reveal significant differences.
Original post by the mezzil
No it really will not improve schools. The rich would just move houses to where the better state schools are, driving up house prices and forcing the poor out. State standard of education would remain the same.
I know it is hard being a socialist, but please use your brain.
Anyway, why punish hardworking rich people?
Posted from TSR Mobile
I know it is hard being a socialist, but please use your brain.
Anyway, why punish hardworking rich people?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Yeah, you're right, us socialists are all thick, aren't we? That's why renowned moron Albert Einstein said "I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion." That's also why Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells, George Orwell, Noam Chomsky and Oscar Wilde were/are all socialists too - because we're all idiots.
Not all rich people are hardworking - most are rich through an element (and usually a very large one) of luck.
It would encourage rich people to pay more in tax and a good government would reasonably equally spread that, making all state schools a lot better. Even in a state school system, children of rich parents would still have a leg up (because of being able to get tutors etc) but everyone would be better off.
Why does every argument for state-supported inequality and capitalism have something to do with rich people moving? It has to be the most defeatist and ridiculous ideology ever come up with by man.
Original post by the mezzil
How people can claim to wanting to help the poor and in the same sentence advocate increased taxes is beyond full retard.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Erm Socialists?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Are single-sex schools a thing of the past? Should they be abolished or not?
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Fire Work
- Where to apply with a poor UCAT score?
- Should mobile phone use be banned in schools?
- thoughts on no phones at school
- LNAT Essay feedback
- Mobile phones being banned at start of class
- Can I be a teacher with tattoos
- Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirms
- Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challenge
- Rishi Sunak considers curbing social media use for under-16s
- Mobile phones should be banned from the classroom?
- Twin block braces
- Are these rules for my school necessary?
- Do you think universities should ban meat from their menus?
- Woman attacked by her own dog, an xl bully
- I Need friends lol
- [Golden Thread] Which TSR users quoted you in the last 12 months?
- What jobs do private school kids end up doing?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
