The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Are private schools fair?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Original post by mevidek
I'd just like to iterate that I'm not a Communist, I'm a Socialist.

1. Haha, yeah sure if you think so. Why is it that the millions of pounds donated to charities come from people who believe that these people can be given a better life. Your view is quite frankly, disgusting. Yes, there will be starvation. But we try to stop it from happening, at least frequently.

2. You are not representative of everybody in society.

3. Yes, but the class system is beginning to fade away - it's now not only the rich and middle-classes going to University and getting better jobs. Healthcare now keeps everybody healthy and alive for longer - it's not just the rich anymore. Grammar and Comprehensive Schools now give people from any background a very good education, and Universities are not limited to the rich anymore either. There will be a time when everyone is on the same level, as we can see how we've evolved rapidly since the feudal system just a thousand years ago. If in such a short period of time we've managed to create democracy, billions of inventions that weren't present before, developed detailed and sophisticated political and social ideologies etc. Times change, as does humanity. It's possible to get to equality, but it's going to be a very, very, very long path.


In your opinion my view is disgusting but it's the truth. You just said it yourself; there will be starvation. Yes telling the truth and not having an overly positive outlook may make me disgusting but whatever it doesn't matter.

And I could say the same about you when you said that private tutors are not as good because neither are you.

I agree that the lines are blurred between the classes these days. But there will never be a time when everybody is the same. The rich still firmly hold the power, there is no blurred lines at that level. I still stand by the point that equality in all aspects of society is impossible due to the existence of the monetary system as it encourages inequality.
Reply 61
Original post by ckingalt
Is it fair? No. Should every child ideally have the same opportunities? Yes.
The problem is that the alternative these posts suggest is worse than inequality.

The real message I'm hearing is, "If I can't have something than neither can they." The expected standard of a private school is higher because of factors like; increased funds, the ability to be more selective (of students and teachers), more freedom with the curriculum, and etc. I consider the most important factor to be that parents who are willing/able to pay for private education are more likely to be involved with their kids education. Private schools have an advantage specifically because they are not public. Taking private education opportunities away from the privileged won't do much if anything to improve conditions in the public sector.

When talking about socially, "leveling the playing field," What you are really talking about is lowering one side, not raising the other. As much as it sucks to run a race in which someone has a head-start, it's worse to run a race in which no one get to win.

If the world was 100 percent socially equal, Everything would be fair, and all our lives would be miserable.


I'm not talking about abolishing one and not giving a **** about raising the other. Had you read what I previously said, you'd realise I think that we should try to make education the best in the world as we're lucky to have it. And it's not about "if I can't have then they can't". It's about giving everybody equal opportunities and education.

Yes, I suppose life might be boring, but then again it would mean there'd be more competition and people would have to work hard to do well, not just a select few.
Reply 62
Original post by KingMessi
Exactly. It hinders the students who could potentially do really well because the teacher's energies are spent on less able students who hold the class back. In fact, I disagree with your last point (the only point I disagree on). If we were in a society where currency didn't matter it would be far from a utopia, because there would be little motivation to do anything or succeed.


Actually the RSA did a lecture on it a while back which showed that money does not actually motivate people anymore. The experiment they carried out actually demonstrated that money only worked up to a point, but giving the workers a small time per week for creative output in their jobs motivated them more.
Reply 63
I don't think it's a matter of the existence of private schools that's 'unfair'.

It's the underfunding and poor management and poor teaching of state schools to such an extent that such a wide disparity between state and private educations exists that is 'unfair'.
Reply 64
Original post by S.J.Shiro
1. In your opinion my view is disgusting but it's the truth. You just said it yourself; there will be starvation. Yes telling the truth and not having an overly positive outlook may make me disgusting but whatever it doesn't matter.

2. And I could say the same about you when you said that private tutors are not as good because neither are you.

3. I agree that the lines are blurred between the classes these days. But there will never be a time when everybody is the same. The rich still firmly hold the power, there is no blurred lines at that level. I still stand by the point that equality in all aspects of society is impossible due to the existence of the monetary system as it encourages inequality.


1. So we should just give up on them? that's not what I meant. What I meant was that we should try to help those starving, even though it happens (:facepalm:) You don't just kill people with cancer, or people in hospice now do you? You help them. Not ignore them. You try to improve their lives, like donating money to charity or giving everybody equally good, free education.

2. I'm not claiming I am. But I'm talking about the majority of private tutors. They take your money, give you a few sheets and get you to do it. Believe it or not, it's true.

3. Okay, I don't know how to persuade somebody like you in this subject :tongue:
Reply 65
Original post by Xyls
Private school isn't doing harm to anyone, Infact, Think of all that juicy tax money you get from people who go to private school who yes - still have to pay tax AND private tuition fees.

Private school is not just for the rich, It is also for;

1) Son's and daughters of people who are in the army, who may be away from home months at a time and need a stable place to go to school in (If your parents have to move around continuously for the army, is it fair to keep changing schools? Or could you just go to a privately funded boarding school?)
2) The Gifted, We had plenty of 'poor' students who had got into our school on scholarships because they excelled at something. If you feel so hard done by someone going to private school why did you not pursue a schollarship? They are there for a reason.
3) Single parents - Yes, You would be suprised. The longer hours and extra care offered (at my school at least) was highly looked apon by those parents who didn't have a partner at home to help share the child care. If you need to work until 5.30 and can't pick up your kids from school till 6, where else are they going to go (Obviously they could walk home, but what happens if they couldn't?).

Private school isn't a walk in the park. You have to take a test to get in, You have to keep your performance up while you are in and most and for most, People do NOT do your work, hand it to you and ship you off to a top university.

If you want to do well, You do it by yourself. The internet is a wonderful tool and can teach you all you need to know if you feel that you are not getting the best education. I am so fed up with people thinking that those at private school get everything handed too them, I agree we get better experiences and chances to do unique things by my gosh, it is no where near a walk in the park.


1). Only officers children are given free private education.
Reply 66
Original post by mevidek
I'd just like to iterate that I'm not a Communist, I'm a Socialist.


Umm...the point of socialism is that it leads to communism.
Reply 67
Original post by mevidek
1. So we should just give up on them? that's not what I meant. What I meant was that we should try to help those starving, even though it happens (:facepalm:) You don't just kill people with cancer, or people in hospice now do you? You help them. Not ignore them. You try to improve their lives, like donating money to charity or giving everybody equally good, free education.

2. I'm not claiming I am. But I'm talking about the majority of private tutors. They take your money, give you a few sheets and get you to do it. Believe it or not, it's true.

3. Okay, I don't know how to persuade somebody like you in this subject :tongue:


Have you had the majority of private tutors? I think that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation.

I don't think it is the right decision to do what we are doing now. Cancer is different because we are actually working on the root of the problem. With problems in places like Somalia we are not. It's essentially like cutting the leaves on a weed. It's quite ironic that the more you give to charity to help these people live longer the more you will inevitably kill in the long run because none of it tackles the root of the problem. People can only see what is firmly in front of them and not what's in the future.
Reply 68
Original post by richiemayne
"The thing is it's not really about the parents, or how hard they've worked in their life. If they've worked hard and got a lot of money then good for them. But in my view, their child should not be allowed to have a head start in life just because they were arbitrarily born into that family. It's simply not fair on kids from poor backgrounds."


Presumably then you think that parents should starve their children when there's a famine in Africa, refuse to read to them when they're young because not all parents can or bother to do that, provide tutors, provide any sort of learning materials that are not doled out by the state and so forth.

Cheers, but I'm not going to disadvantage my children just because you think it's unfair.
Reply 69
Original post by S.J.Shiro
Have you had the majority of private tutors? I think that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation.

I don't think it is the right decision to do what we are doing now. Cancer is different because we are actually working on the root of the problem. With problems in places like Somalia we are not. It's essentially like cutting the leaves on a weed. It's quite ironic that the more you give to charity to help these people live longer the more you will inevitably kill in the long run because none of it tackles the root of the problem. People can only see what is firmly in front of them and not what's in the future.

Nope, but it's true, people say that the majority of tutors that they've had do very little XD

So we should just give up?

And we do help many, many people because of charities and donations.
Reply 70
Original post by Hipster

Original post by Hipster
I don't think it's a matter of the existence of private schools that's 'unfair'.

It's the underfunding and poor management and poor teaching of state schools to such an extent that such a wide disparity between state and private educations exists that is 'unfair'.

This.
I think it's fair that people should be able to spend their money on whichever commodities they so choose, and if a good state-provided education does not exist to a particular family, then they should not hesitate to invest in their child's future. If there weren't failing schools, there would be no incentive, a monetary disincentive even, to sending children to private schools.
Reply 71
Original post by Hipster
Umm...the point of socialism is that it leads to communism.


That's what Marx believed. I don't agree with Marxism as it's incompatible with Democracy among other things.
Reply 72
Original post by KingMessi
Fair enough. But if we're taking this ideology to its natural conclusion, why is that fair? It also seems unsustainable. Surely if you're paying, to use your example, for a school focused more on the arts, then this school attracts all the best arts students, but god art students who can't afford it won't be able to go. And you say this isn't a specific disadvantage, but for those who want a career in the arts I'm sure that they'd disagree.


It's not totally equal, but everyone would have access to a good quality general education. That was my main gripe. :smile:
if someone has worked hard to earn money i think it is perfectly acceptable for them to (possibly) improve their childs academic life. if someone has earnt all that money (and somewhere along the line someone probably has, whether it's parents or great x6 grandparent) then they have the right to do what they wish with that money. if they want to use it to give their child a "head start" then i really don't think that should be an issue. i think the only issue arises when people (or children) start thinking it means they are better than other or above them.

personally i think the only advantages to private schools are smaller classes and better connections... i don't think the teaching is any better. i don't go to a private school nor know anyone who does but i don't have a problem with them... if i ended up in a position where i had spare cash floating around and the school in my area wasn't very good, i would probably send my future children to a private school. if the school were good then there'd be no need for private schooling, eg. my old state secondary school was the best school in the area, including two private schools.


life isn't "fair and equal"... is it fair that people and children are dying in africa of starvation? no. does that stop you going to do you weekly shop in tescos, because it isn't fair that you are able to do so? no.


of course it annoys me when people are only sucessful because of daddy's (or mummy's) money... of course i don't think it's FAIR. but that's not to say they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 74
Original post by mevidek
Nope, but it's true, people say that the majority of tutors that they've had do very little XD

So we should just give up?

And we do help many, many people because of charities and donations.


If you withdraw all funding and one hundred thousand people starve in the next year. You then place this funding into attacking the route causes of that particular place on earth. You eliminate or severly hamper the route causes and you end up saving nine hundred thousand people that would have otherwise died then surely that would be better in the long run, right?

What they are doing at the moment is essentially looking at a gushing wound and holding a towel under the falling blood and attempting to then desperately put the blood back in. What I just described is instead letting some of the blood gush out and then putting a towel over the wound and thus severly reducing the bleeding. But people are too soft and they find such a decision to be unthinkable because they can't think of the future.
Yes, it is a basic primeval instinct to provide your children with the best and nothing but the best. Abolishing what's good about our education system won't help it overall, bringing up the standard of state schools will.
Reply 76
Personally what I would like to see done in the long term is the a gradual change in the system so that private schools are nationalised and made into grammar schools. Still the high standards of entry, still the same funding per student (well maybe slightly less as there is no incentive for profit), still the same high standards of education, but a system whereby you do not have to directly pay exclusive prices for a good education.

Just a thought.

Oh and also I agree with the view that standards in state schools need to be driven up. But that's a slightly different matter.
As many others have said, one cannot address this in terms of fairness when the advantages enjoyed by any child in the UK are far in excess of those enjoyed in many parts of the world.

One has to look at this in terms of whether one ought to have the freedom to spend one's wealth on one's children's education. In the 1970s there were quite a lot of Labour supporters who considered this to be impermissable. It was a mainstream view. It isn't today. Only pretty extreme socialists would suggest that the government should be entitled to ban parents from buying schooling.

However, and this is equally important, in the same way that parents are entitled to seek an advantage for their children by sending them to a private school, others are entitled to disregard that advantage by weighting results against them. It is this point that private school heads tend to neglect. If, for example, a university or, as nnounced today an exam board, wants to skew results against private schools, then they are free to do so. Those heads tend to regard any advantage they can secure for their pupils as fair game, but any resulting disadvantage as fundamentally wrong.
Original post by richiemayne

Original post by richiemayne
Quite a simple question: is it fair that wealthier parents are able to pay for their child to have a better education than a child from a family that cannot afford to send them to private school?

I am quite open to change my mind on this topic but this is my view at the moment.

I don't really think it's fair that one child should be allowed to allowed to have a better education than another because of the family that they were born into. I understand the argument that some people make that "well I worked hard for my money, so why can't I give my children the best start I can get them?"

The thing is it's not really about the parents, or how hard they've worked in their life. If they've worked hard and got a lot of money then good for them. But in my view, their child should not be allowed to have a head start in life just because they were arbitrarily born into that family. It's simply not fair on kids from poor backgrounds.

In my view, it creates a subtle divide between the majority of people who go to state school and the minority who go to private. The state schools kids think "eugh they went to private school, they just bought their education, they don't really deserve it".

I can't comment on the view of privately educated people because I myself was educated at an average state school. But that is the general view I have picked up in my time at state school.

I also think it creates a long term social divide. Wealthy families are able to pay for their child to have a better education and are thus more likely to be wealthy when they are older. Poor families get a poorer education and are more likely to stay in the same poor jobs even though they may be just as talented as many privately educated children. I realise this is a large generalisation but you get the idea, the private/state school distinction is not good for social mobility.

Anyway, that's my view. I'd quite like to hear general views on this topic so please argue against my points, agree with me, whatever. :smile:


I really liked the way you argued your point there richie. The ability for the state to intervene and demand that a person has to enroll their child in a state school is a morally justifiable option. The problem lies in the fact that an individuals right for specific freedoms (with regards to spending their money) would normally supersede the notion of a just playing field for all children to start from.

In addition, the fact that an individual is formed from a combination of environment and crucially the genes that they inherit seems to further negate your proposed argument.

Furthermore, within the private system itself there are comparable filters that affect who can and can't entertain certain objectives in so far as getting into better universities. Were you to spend X amount in educating your child it does not necessarily follow that you would get an equivalent academic (or any other attribute) payout.

I believe that the individual nature of man means that certain evident truths, that would seem to be morally undeniable are in fact practically untenable. It is this practicality that seems to me to be the prime candidate for disagreeing with your notion.

Paradoxically, I would still envy a country that had such a system.
You can't say it's only attending private schools which gives wealthier kids an advantage. They'll also have bigger houses, better holidays, private lessons in any activity they want, the latest clothes and accessories - not to mention better healthcare, if they go private.

Even if they didn't go to private schools, kids from well-off families would still have an advantage in terms of education. They'd have had more opportunities to develop their skills away from the classroom: and, if they've been surrounded by wealthy people all their lives, they'll often have had more encouragement to work hard in school and get a high-paying career themselves.

I think it's a lot more difficult for kids from rough areas to believe in themselves and aspire to getting a really high salary - if you came from a family like my dad's where no one stayed in school after 16 and who were largely long-term unemployed, you'd have to be incredibly self-motivated and hard working to stay in school and try and make a better life for yourself.

Overall: just being well-off gives kids advantages that are "unfair". I'm not saying it's morally right that some people are given more chances than others, but that's how it is and that's how it's always been. Though I think grammar schools - like the one I went to - are the best option, while the school system remains as it is I can't blame any parent for sending their child to a private school. Any good parent wants to give their kid the best start they can, and, when I've got kids, I'll probably send them to private school if I have the money.

Latest