Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

7% of the Britsih population is privately educated, but they get 60% of the TOP jobs.

Announcements Posted on
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's a shame really, but that's what you get in a capitalist society. The wealthy will always have an advantage over the rest.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I wasn't privately educated and I've had offers for medicine this year, so to all these people who go on about how most courses and jobs are only for the privileged I don't agree with you. Even though it's more difficult when youre in a class of 30+ compared to a private school class of 5-15 I think it is down to the individual to work hard to try and achieve the top jobs and courses.

    Also, a lot of males who go to comprehensive schools end up having manual jobs e.g plasterers, electricians, engineers etc. (like almost all of my friends ) because I would say that there is a larger emphasis on apprenticeships and technology subjects than at private schools.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James0507)
    I agree that Private education should be banned. I think it should be compulsory for all to attend a state school, and if some want to fork out for private tuition in their own time, that's up to them.
    I don't see why the wealth and social standing of your family should guarantee you a better quality education leading to a better career. There are young people growing up in sink estates who, given the right opportunities, are twice as smart as these private school kids coming out with 3A's. What you achieve and how well you achieve it in life should be entirely down to your determination and effort, not what your parents could afford.
    It is a very, very bleak statistic. It shows the top 7% are being recycled again and again for the top jobs. The same families buying their way through life again and again.
    I'm from a rather typically wealthy town, Harrogate. Very divided in that the proportion in private education here is probably much higher than the national average. For 5 years I attended a school often considered one of the rougher schools locally (nationally it isn't remotely, it was rated outstanding by Ofsted), which is just over the road (literally) from an expensive private school with boarding facilities. I grew up knowing the kids over the road would get a better education because they could afford it, they would get into a better university because of their background, and that they were more likely than me to get the top jobs. The effect of that isnt a pleasant one...I dont like the sound of a society divided so obviously by wealth, and thats what private edication does. I worked my ass off, and to be honest, it paid off for me at GCSE. I can guarantee that given the quality of education I received, I worked harder than those at private schools did to get those grades. Just like how I can guarantee you that a kid in a failing state school worked twice as hard as me to get what he did.
    The standard of teaching plays a massive, massive role in what you can achieve, there's no doubt about it. I don't believe in the idea that some people should be able to buy themselves the best. We need to focus on getting all schools in this country up to standard. It's difficult to do when all the best staff are getting sucked up by the private schools and offered to those who can fork out for it.
    I agree with you in principle about the need to get rid of private schools, however I don't believe it would work. If we did get rid of private schools then parents would still endeavour to get the best education for their child and I fear that this would create a golden halo around certain "good schools" with high house prices etc. Let's face it those schools with middle class catchment areas do best in general and if we did remove the private schools we would just see an exagerated version of this.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M'Ling)
    I think it was rather that Private schools are simply unfair; why should money dictate how well you do in school? Of course, the system will, most likely, never change, and the country will go on with this social fissure where Private-school leavers are more likely to carry a cane and State-school leavers more likely to carry a gun.
    Surely this is just a sign that state schools aren't educating children properly? (I was state educated.) Is scrapping public schools the way to solve that? If state kids are leaving with guns, as you say, I don't see what difference scrapping the public schools would make. Even if filling state schools with rich kids did make a difference, that effect wouldn't be felt in schools in poor areas, because none of the rich kids would be going there. If you'll pardon the crazy analogy (I like crazy analogies), that's like thinking that if you have cancer, killing your healthy friend will solve your problems.

    It tends to be the case that the best performing state schools are the ones in wealthy areas (The Henrietta Barnett School, Kendrick School, The Latymer School, The Tiffin Girls' School), where they get results close to those of the public schools. The worst state schools on the other hand are in the poorest areas. I would therefore argue that it's the economic background of the kids which often causes them trouble in school, and maybe it's the wealthy background of those at public schools that causes them to do well; if that's true it's not sending your kids to a state school that condemns them to a poor life, it's living in a poor area. I fail to see how scrapping public schools would solve that, it's a cultural difference. So, as long as you have people from wealthy or poor backgrounds the divide in the quality of the schools in they attend will exist.
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    i bet the negs are by private educated kids
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's just that private schools have generally the more cleverer students and so because of this, there is an expectation to do well. So the students put the effort in and get the grades. It's not about being rich at all, I go to a private school (technically a grammar school but still fee paying) and most people are just middle-class. The level of education isn't that much different to state schools, yes the teachers care more because everyone wants to do well but that's it. I've been to both state schools and private schools.

    It doesn't matter what kind of school you go to, if you put the effort in, you can achieve what you want to achieve...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Think about this for a second. Should private healthcare be banned as well?
    I know many people who have had their grandparents pay for their private education and they come from a poor family. You are an idiot if you think that all private school students are rich, they are not and for most middle class parents it's affordable.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Then vote for a government that will improve the disgrace that is state education - i.e. don't vote lib / lab.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If private schools weren't better at educating their students than state schools (on the whole) then parents wouldn't send their children to them. As it is. On the whole they are better. So the obvious solution is not to punish these schools that are doing better (that would be counter productive madness), but to improve the quality of current state schools, and even arguably go so far as to re-introduce grammar schools so that children who are not from well off backgrounds, but who have good academic potential can have that potential properly nurtured.

    This is coming from a state school student by the way.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    What would people say to the following idea for ridding the world of private schools?

    Everybody is educated in their local school based on catchment area (going from a primary school to a secondary school after year 6). An independent body will have to regulate that areas in "poor" areas are within 5% of people gaining level 5's as the best ones.)
    In year 9, you do an exam (not the SATs, something new). The better you do, the higher on the ballot you are to pick your GCSEs i.e. the better you do, the first pick you get. Everybody does the same core subjects.
    Similarly, after your GCSEs, the better you do, the higher up on the ballot you are once more to pick A-Levels or other higher-education qualification. This could be based on a UCAS-point type sytem. An independent body would regulate each college to make sure A-Level /other teaching are within 10% of each other.

    Perhaps this is a rubbish plan, it probably has lots of flaws. It seems something similar is necessary to make schools more competitive (i.e. the ballot system). But perhaps this is a far too right-wing idea in a left-wing school system.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegaffer91)
    Hasn't anyone thought that there may be a genetic influence here?

    If people are rich, chances are it is because they are very clever. If not clever, then have some talent, like sport or music. Even if you don't agree that these people should be paid highly, the people who consume their services do, and it would be horrendous for the public sector to meddle in private sector wages (although this is another debate altogether).

    Of all the very rich people in the world, not many don't deserve it. This is often passed down through their genes to their children and grandchildren, meaning they are also very intelligent people. Going to a private school simply enhances this natural intelligence, allowing them to use it to the full potential. Even if they didn't get the best education (except maybe if they were in one of the worst schools in the country), many of them would probably still make it into one of these top jobs. Surely it is better to try to move the standard of the worst off upwards rather than prevent those at the top from getting too far ahead of the others?

    I don't understand why people are so against the private schools. People may see this as the 1% screwing everyone over again by getting a better education than us, but think of it in this way. These are the people who contribute by far the most to tax revenue, which pay for schools, hospitals, benefits and welfare etc. However, if they are privately educated and go to a private doctor, they use far far less in government resources than the average person, and the difference is even more astonishing when you consider how much more they provide to the public purse than the average person.
    I think you need to do some Biology work. Genetics are not as such a factor in intelligence, but rather that education is. If you can make a monkey learn 4,000 characters and allow it the environment in which it can learn, it doesn't matter that it descended from ''dumb apes''. Unless you mean hereditary diseases affected the brain, causing mental retardation, but i severely hope you don't think that much of the population is. Boarding schools and the like usually train students to learn in such a way that they have to work hard and well in order to achieve highly, this is providing an environment. If your parents are intelligent, they are more likely to produce this environment it is not neccessary to be intelligent to provide it, as lower income families can produce intelligent offspring.
    On a more personal note, i think that the more inclined you are to work as of how you have learned = better results, more ''intelligence''.
    Also, if you gain money it is obvious that you will provide more via Taxes ect and your use of resources, but that would be the same even if people from working and lower income backgrounds were rich, they would still contribute. It's not private schools that people are annoyed at, it is the snob attitude portrayed by a minority of students and on the other side the hate towards private schools that they are annoyed at.
    (If it really makes a difference, i was not privately tutored or in private education)
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jcon1)
    it is the snob attitude portrayed by a minority of students and on the other side the hate towards private schools that they are annoyed at.
    (If it really makes a difference, i was not privately tutored or in private education)
    Can you please give me a set of examples for this snobbery displayed by Private schoolers? I have not seen it..
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Borderline)
    Why is it then that most private school students only achieve the same grades as me, a state schooled student, despite having an education worth tens of thousand of pounds? Doesn't sound very genetically clever to me.
    Regardless of the argument, I assume you're aware that anecdotal evidence doesn't constitute proof. Statistically speaking there will always be outliers. The question to ask is, what's the average pattern?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Can you please give me a set of examples for this snobbery displayed by Private schoolers? I have not seen it..
    I have a friend who is privately schooled and looks down on people who do not go to private school. There was another person who called me a ''chav'' and laughed at the college i go to.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jcon1)
    I have a friend who is privately schooled and looks down on people who do not go to private school. There was another person who called me a ''chav'' and laughed at the college i go to.
    Nice generalisations.

    There are no more or less *******s who go to Private school than who go to State school. To claim one type of asshat (private school asshat) is worse than a (state school) asshat or vice versa is pointless. The simple fact remains is, there are asshats, and they are not exclusive or even related to the schools they come from.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps the problem lies with state schools, rather than the private sector for being just too damn good despite not spending that much more on each pupil.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Nice generalisations.

    There are no more or less *******s who go to Private school than who go to State school. To claim one type of asshat (private school asshat) is worse than a (state school) asshat or vice versa is pointless. The simple fact remains is, there are asshats, and they are not exclusive or even related to the schools they come from.
    Wait, you just made the mistake of saying i am generalising, and you didn't realise that i don't mind private schools or their pupils and really dislike quite a few people from public colleges. It's true, asshats are everywhere but doesn't mean you have to get angry at me for saying that snobs are snobs and that generalisation is made by others, i don't believe it as i see many of the private school students just being students ect.

    Edit: did you not read the part where i said ''by a minority''. This suggests NO generalisation AT ALL.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Wait OP!

    You mean if you pay lots of money for a good education, you get a good job?

    Rich people made that connection many years ago. And so the cycle perpetuates.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jcon1)
    Wait, you just made the mistake of saying i am generalising, and you didn't realise that i don't mind private schools or their pupils and really dislike quite a few people from public colleges. It's true, asshats are everywhere but doesn't mean you have to get angry at me for saying that snobs are snobs and that generalisation is made by others, i don't believe it as i see many of the private school students just being students ect.

    Edit: did you not read the part where i said ''by a minority''. This suggests NO generalisation AT ALL.
    Yes but what i am trying to point out is that there is little if any connection between their schooling and their asshattery, what institution they are educated at is irrelevant.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Yes but what i am trying to point out is that there is little if any connection between their schooling and their asshattery, what institution they are educated at is irrelevant.
    Agreed, i just had some bad experiences but the fact still stands that it is environment rather than genetics like that person i quoted first said.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 9, 2012
New on TSR

Have a UCAS application question?

Post it in our dedicated forum

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.