7% of the Britsih population is privately educated, but they get 60% of the TOP jobs.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by cl_steele
so because their parents have suceeded in life and have made money to send them to good school they should be punished? please grow up, this is nothing but the ramblings of a jealous so and so.
you do realise that private schools arent populated by the 'upper classes' right?
you get what youre given in life, just happens they got lucky whilst people like you get pissy because their parents havent done anything worthwhile in life.
you do realise that private schools arent populated by the 'upper classes' right?
you get what youre given in life, just happens they got lucky whilst people like you get pissy because their parents havent done anything worthwhile in life.
Erm, are you saying here that parents who cannot afford/don't send their children to private schools haven't done anything worthwhile? If so, I feel sorry for you that you think that the only worthwhile things in life are money and status.
My parents don't earn top salaries, not even 'good' salaries, in fact my mother doesn't work at all (through no fault of her own) and my fathers job isnt regarded as highly respectable, but my parents have done so many worthwhile things...made a difference in the communities we live in, raised three children, had so many interesting life experiences.
So yeah, my mother has been to university and my father has been working in his field for twenty years and is now experienced and highly qualified in his area, but I don't think either of them would say these are more worthwhile than many of the other experiences they have.
Money makes life easier, but it's not the be all and end all.
Original post by Steevee
So the people with the best education who are groomed for a life in certain industries do well in those industries?
Well knock me down and call me a goose.
Well knock me down and call me a goose.
You, are a goose!
(I don't actually disagree with your point, I just wanted to call you a goose.....)
I was privately educated......on a scholarship. I grew up in a council estate in Glasgow but my mother and grandmother wanted better for me so found the money to make up the difference between the scholarship and the fees.
My own children were spectacularly failed by the state primary school they attended and so I worked three jobs to send them to a private primary school where they flourished and excelled.
They are now at a state grammar school and doing extremely well.
I want the best for my children and I paid for the best. If the primary school they went to was a good school, I wouldn't have needed to sent them to a private school.
My own children were spectacularly failed by the state primary school they attended and so I worked three jobs to send them to a private primary school where they flourished and excelled.
They are now at a state grammar school and doing extremely well.
I want the best for my children and I paid for the best. If the primary school they went to was a good school, I wouldn't have needed to sent them to a private school.
(edited 12 years ago)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/03/state-school-pupils-university
I think if you read that it might prove you wrong
I think if you read that it might prove you wrong
Why should we abolish private schools? If it's because they apparantly give some kids an unfair advantage, then why don't we abolish good teachers? After all, a kid being taught by a good teacher has an "unfair" advantage over someone being taught by an incompetent.
Private schools don't rely on government money, so abolishing private schools wouldn't even improve education for those who are state schooled.
Private schools don't rely on government money, so abolishing private schools wouldn't even improve education for those who are state schooled.
Its due to the fact that if you go to private schools like Rugby and Eaton you get unconditional offers to Oxford and Cambridge due to their historic relationship whether or not you fail your A levels. And as we all know if you go to Oxford or Cambridge you get the best jobs hence why the rich get the TOP jobs.
Original post by Jivi
Its due to the fact that if you go to private schools like Rugby and Eaton you get unconditional offers to Oxford and Cambridge due to their historic relationship whether or not you fail your A levels. And as we all know if you go to Oxford or Cambridge you get the best jobs hence why the rich get the TOP jobs.
This is simply not true, you've made this up. Its not the 1800s.
(edited 12 years ago)
bring on the revolution.
Someone's been watching John Prescott on Room 101! 
Rich can get richer and poor can get richer (becoming poorer requires a lot of skill actually). Because rich parents know their kids will be rich, their only way to make them even richer is to send them at a private school. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm not saying they want their kids to be rich, but I'm pretty sure every parent wants to see their children succeed in life and possibly outperform them.
I'm not saying they want their kids to be rich, but I'm pretty sure every parent wants to see their children succeed in life and possibly outperform them.
Original post by M'Ling
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.
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.
I don't understand what the ballot would achieve? There aren't and shouldn't be a restriction on subjects chosen outside of the core subjects in my opinion. If you mean the better you do the better an education you get then it would leave the poor achievers completely behind. e.g. they dont do well in primary school/y9 and their whole life is messed up because of it.
I think the German system is a bit like that where you get separated into different types of schools? I'm not sure though, I remember learning about in gcse German.
Private school kids don't do any less work to achieve their grades - they still work for it just like state school students. It's just that private schools often create a better learning environment that encourages work.
There is obviously an issue with people getting jobs due to nepotism but that isn't the product of private education but rather wealth and positions of power in general.
I am at private school - a very large percentage(30% or so) are on scholarships or bursaries.Most pupils are not from wealthy families but familiesthat have chosen to put all of their money into their childrens educations instead of holidays, clothes cars or whatever.That is what my parents chose to spend their money on- mine and my sisters education.
So perhaps alot of these people are just from families that are more driven to get their children into the top jobs insteadof just being superrich?
So perhaps alot of these people are just from families that are more driven to get their children into the top jobs insteadof just being superrich?
Original post by Toaster Leavings
The OPs stat is probably just made up, but anyway assuming it's right...
If you think private schools produce better students then why would you want to abolish them and bring the whole standard of the country down? If you take away the best education then surely we become uncompetitive against other countries and then everyone loses....The top jobs will then be filled by better educated immigrants who will send money overseas.
Surely the answer is for under-performing schools to match the best not for good performers to be closed down. That's just stupid.
Added to which people who send their kids to private school are paying tax towards state schools and forking out for their own child's education. They aren't taking any money from the state they're just pouring it in. It's not their fault the government can't seem to spend it properly. Although, that said, a lot of state schools are good anyway.
I suspect the major reason these top jobs are filled with private school types is due to nepotism. Networking is how you get a job these days not grades.
If you think private schools produce better students then why would you want to abolish them and bring the whole standard of the country down? If you take away the best education then surely we become uncompetitive against other countries and then everyone loses....The top jobs will then be filled by better educated immigrants who will send money overseas.
Surely the answer is for under-performing schools to match the best not for good performers to be closed down. That's just stupid.
Added to which people who send their kids to private school are paying tax towards state schools and forking out for their own child's education. They aren't taking any money from the state they're just pouring it in. It's not their fault the government can't seem to spend it properly. Although, that said, a lot of state schools are good anyway.
I suspect the major reason these top jobs are filled with private school types is due to nepotism. Networking is how you get a job these days not grades.
Maybe I was naive when I said 'abolishing private schools would be a start'. I still believe they are unfair institutions that propagate inequality. If we are serious about improving social mobility, equal education has to be a long term goal. If we abolished them now, the tax payer would have to carry a pretty big burden. And I don't think we're going to significantly reduce the rich-poor gap under our current mode of production. I guess that's why I'm a socialist.
Oops 's' word.
Original post by AK0001
So in effect you are saying... "Hey look at all these good schools, I don't like schools doing well, so I'm gonna close them down, that way we all have an equally **** standard of education".
You a genius.
You a genius.
Ummm, no. In fact, I am saying the polar opposite of that. Read my post again. My first sentence was not a suggestion, but it was my hope to point out how ridiculous it would be to ban private education and that it is stupid to claim that using private education if you have the means is a bad thing.
I don't want to be a grammar Nazi but your closing statement...
Original post by atheistwithfaith
Ummm, no. In fact, I am saying the polar opposite of that. Read my post again. My first sentence was not a suggestion, but it was my hope to point out how ridiculous it would be to ban private education and that it is stupid to claim that using private education if you have the means is a bad thing.
I don't want to be a grammar Nazi but your closing statement...
I don't want to be a grammar Nazi but your closing statement...
I must admit, I read the first sentence and I stopped reading your post. I am ashamed.
Ah, I did that on purpose, honest!
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Drapetomanic
Maybe I was naive when I said 'abolishing private schools would be a start'. I still believe they are unfair institutions that propagate inequality. If we are serious about improving social mobility, equal education has to be a long term goal. If we abolished them now, the tax payer would have to carry a pretty big burden. And I don't think we're going to significantly reduce the rich-poor gap under our current mode of production. I guess that's why I'm a socialist.
Oops 's' word.
Oops 's' word.
There's nothing wrong in principle with the idea of reducing the rich-poor divide. But doing that by pulling the rich down won't benefit anyone. Of course, improving state schools is a good way of doing it instead. The idea of equal education for all is a nice one, but far from realistic. The difference exists for the same reason as expensive cars exist: people will always want to be able to pay for a better option, and it's too Stalinistic (is that a word?!) to deny them this.
I wonder how much of this is down to education alone. Obviously private schools need to justify the cost of entry, but the benefits and trappings of wealth extend beyond that. I think most the most worrying thing right now is unpaid internships giving some people a route into business that simply escapes others of similar ability. Frankly it's making journalism in particular a bunch of bland opinions from members of one social class.
I'm much more in favour of trying to bridge the gap rather than pull the wealthy down.
I'm much more in favour of trying to bridge the gap rather than pull the wealthy down.
Original post by THECHOOSENONE
I'm gob-smacked really. Just read a disgusting stat, that states that, 7% of people our privately educated in this country, but they make up 60% of the top jobs in this county ranging from, financial services, The law basically high end jobs.
Now I know the snobs will just tell me that they our well educated and deserve all they get, well sir in my opinion it shows just how much of a unfair divide exists between the upper classes and the ordinary folk.
I have no respect for the silver spooned that rub their privilege in peoples faces. I have all respect for the self made but not snobs. Anyway this stat highlights the considerable troubles that hurt society
Now I know the snobs will just tell me that they our well educated and deserve all they get, well sir in my opinion it shows just how much of a unfair divide exists between the upper classes and the ordinary folk.
I have no respect for the silver spooned that rub their privilege in peoples faces. I have all respect for the self made but not snobs. Anyway this stat highlights the considerable troubles that hurt society
I've also calculated that those 7% of people make up 60% of TSR >_>
49 (neg reps) + 32 (pos reps) = 81
49 / 81 = 0.6
What is really amusing is some of the massive chips on shoulders displayed by people in this thread.
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.
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 couldn't disagree more. I've seen so many private school kids who I think have very mediocre brains. Advantage is what they have, and the confidence they should rule.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?