Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

British private schools - now just for the rich and foreigners

Announcements Posted on
The News & Current Affairs and Society forums need more moderators! 20-04-2014
TSR wants you: get involved with Power Hour. 10-04-2014
    • 3 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fires)
    Up to a point that's true, until you consider that those schools have private access to a large and wholly disproportionate swathe of pre-reserved places at Oxbridge. (Yes, of course, the Universities pretend they aren't pre-reserved - but we all know they are!)
    Not worth reading after this point. I see we're just dealing with a conspiraloon.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsveta)
    I have always gone to a private (public) school and I intend to send my children to public school. But it is not full of snobby idiots, I have met some of the kindest, most intelligent people there, and I have loved it.

    There are many bursuries and scholarships out there for families with gifted children who cannot afford the fees, so its not just for the rich and foreigners.

    All public schools have to give out a percentage of bursuries and scholarships so its not true
    A percentage, yes. My mother tried to get me into some of the private schools in my area (there are a lot) and all of them said that even if I did pass the entrance exam, they would only pay about 20% of the fees. I know some schools are cheaper than others, but one of them was about £4000 a term. Even if I was gifted enough, I'd still be made to pay £17600 a year. That's almost all of my household's income.

    So actually, yes, there is some truth in the fact that private schools are for the rich. I've heard of some schools that pay all or most of the fees for gifted students, but if they do exist they aren't in my part of the country.

    (I'm not bashing private schools, by the way - I'd send my kids there if I were rich - I'm just saying.)
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    are you serious..they even changed the tuition fees to 9,000 and you bother about the private schools?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 08rbut)
    I wouldn't call my family wealthy... I mean they are both lawyers so lots of people in my year think they are really well off- they are not. They are paying 20 something grand a year for my brother and I. Scraping the barrel and working their butts off, and often when my parents can't give us anything, they feel really guilty. Little do they know I feel guilty too just for asking them in the first place.

    We live in a 4 bed house which is perfectly fine and lovely, but nothing comparable to the mansions my friends live in, I just thank God there is no peer pressure to wear Jack Wills in my circle of friends, or anything else for that matter.

    Tbh, i have about 3 or 4 good friends that are in fairly similar situations else, so no I don't think its for the rich and foreigners. For the not so rich kids(such as myself), its a great opportunity to do well and really help you in the future. I think often people get the wrong end of the stick with private school kids. Yes, i'll admit there are a few ungrateful people in my year but in my friendship group we are all grateful to our parents who have really given us a good life. I have friends who want to go into medicine, law etc, and the others in my year don't want to do much other than find a rich hubby. I have no idea where I would be if i had gone to the local school near my house, but if i had a guess, I'd guess i would be smoking weed behind a bush.

    why neg me?
    Oxymoron :rofl:
    • 26 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaron_xyz)
    You're saying the student population of your private school hasn't become 33% foreign students from Asia yet? :eek:
    I left in 2010 but my sister is still there and I'm pretty sure everyone is white, catholic and Scottish.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by almalibre11111)
    are you serious..they even changed the tuition fees to 9,000 and you bother about the private schools?
    This is exactly the elephant in the room that all the idiots on TSR are missing.

    It's so easy to be a smart alec droning on in ignorance about how clever you are because you went to state school and "beat all the toffs" or how public school "is a waste of £130,000 for a few extra A*s that you could get with hard work".

    Idiots.

    Firstly, it completely misses the point that public school is not about a set of exam results. If you are boiling education down to that - there's no hope for you anyway.

    Secondly - free education is gone. Since the Blair government, it's been a distant memory. You now pay for University at rates very similar to what you pay for public school - with the added bonus that you can effectively pay on credit of course.

    So the idea of criticizing fee-paying school is pretty much redundant unless somehow you're going to get your degree for free. You don't have to agree with it - you just have to be on this planet and accept fees as fact.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    This is exactly the elephant in the room that all the idiots on TSR are missing.

    It's so easy to be a smart alec droning on in ignorance about how clever you are because you went to state school and "beat all the toffs" or how public school "is a waste of £130,000 for a few extra A*s that you could get with hard work".

    Idiots.

    Firstly, it completely misses the point that public school is not about a set of exam results. If you are boiling education down to that - there's no hope for you anyway.

    Secondly - free education is gone. Since the Blair government, it's been a distant memory. You now pay for University at rates very similar to what you pay for public school - with the added bonus that you can effectively pay on credit of course.

    So the idea of criticizing fee-paying school is pretty much redundant unless somehow you're going to get your degree for free. You don't have to agree with it - you just have to be on this planet and accept fees as fact.
    a ok ,so you are one of those that the goverment f them and they say thank you
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by almalibre11111)
    a ok ,so you are one of those that the goverment f them and they say thank you
    I'm one of those people that believes that education is so much more than a set of exam results, and to reduce 12-14 years to a dozen or so hours in the Spring time is absurd.

    Everyone has to pay now. It's been the case for years, and should be obvious to anyone. The days of going to university and getting paid for it ended when the government of the day decided to socially engineer the graduate population.

    What I object to is the stupidity of saying on the one hand "People who pay for schooling are rich/stupid/elitists", and then pay to go to university, presumably wanting to go to the best university. Not everyone who goes to university is rich, but for some reason apparently everyone going to public school is. It's apparently stupid to pay for school as one can get the same results at state school. Well, one can get into many professions as a non-graduate, or by going to poor universities - so why is that not stupid? Or if learning is for its own sake - why go to university at all? As for elitism....please. This is TSR. The motto should be: "Trots at school, Elitists as undergrads."
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    I'm one of those people that believes that education is so much more than a set of exam results, and to reduce 12-14 years to a dozen or so hours in the Spring time is absurd.

    Everyone has to pay now. It's been the case for years, and should be obvious to anyone. The days of going to university and getting paid for it ended when the government of the day decided to socially engineer the graduate population.

    What I object to is the stupidity of saying on the one hand "People who pay for schooling are rich/stupid/elitists", and then pay to go to university, presumably wanting to go to the best university. Not everyone who goes to university is rich, but for some reason apparently everyone going to public school is. It's apparently stupid to pay for school as one can get the same results at state school. Well, one can get into many professions as a non-graduate, or by going to poor universities - so why is that not stupid? Or if learning is for its own sake - why go to university at all? As for elitism....please. This is TSR. The motto should be: "Trots at school, Elitists as undergrads."
    You're completely missing the point. Private schools are paid UP FRONT and BY PARENTS. Therefore completely through privilege and wealth.

    I come from a very poor family, and I done fairly well for the education I have and am at University, but I am paying for it by myself, in the future and not up front.

    Universities ARE elitist - University is a little bubble unto itself. But not nearly as close to some of the private schools out there for little Gideon and Arnie.
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)

    What I object to is the stupidity of saying on the one hand "People who pay for schooling are rich/stupid/elitists", and then pay to go to university, presumably wanting to go to the best university. Not everyone who goes to university is rich, but for some reason apparently everyone going to public school is. It's apparently stupid to pay for school as one can get the same results at state school. Well, one can get into many professions as a non-graduate, or by going to poor universities - so why is that not stupid? Or if learning is for its own sake - why go to university at all? As for elitism....please. This is TSR. The motto should be: "Trots at school, Elitists as undergrads."
    Not everyone who goes to Uni is rich, but increasingly at the upper universities they are. For example, the percentage of students from families with a combined income of more than £100K at RG unis has nearly doubled in the last 15 years. They are becoming less diverse socially and returning to the 1920s/30s model where only the children of a tiny elite went to university, if you count the non-RG and non-top unis as "lower-tier" or "pretend" universities.

    Note that I didn't say in my OP that people who pay for private schools are elitist or rich - just that the evidence is that they are becoming richer and that parts of the middle class that used to reliably send their children to independent schools are now no longer able to do so.

    This is also of course why the Tories are banging the drum for parents to be able to set up state-funded independent schools, as they are trying to cadge votes from the "disenschooled" middle-middles who can no longer afford private education.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HelenOn)
    Actually If the fee-paying schools didn't exist, quality in the state sector probably would rise, because the activist parents would ensure it would - on the other hand, elite state schools would doubtless become even more elite. It's hard to stamp on the well-off paying for privileged education.
    That's a huge assumption to make, did upping the uni fees make either private and public sector education better, since the govt would inevitably spend more money there? Nope. Will capping benefits make everyone's life better as there surely should be more money in the country's funds? Nope. The problem here is with the government, why private school children should have to suffer at the hands off the awful government is beyond me just because the rest of the country is.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    This is exactly the elephant in the room that all the idiots on TSR are missing.

    It's so easy to be a smart alec droning on in ignorance about how clever you are because you went to state school and "beat all the toffs" or how public school "is a waste of £130,000 for a few extra A*s that you could get with hard work".

    Idiots.

    Firstly, it completely misses the point that public school is not about a set of exam results. If you are boiling education down to that - there's no hope for you anyway.

    Secondly - free education is gone. Since the Blair government, it's been a distant memory. You now pay for University at rates very similar to what you pay for public school - with the added bonus that you can effectively pay on credit of course.

    So the idea of criticizing fee-paying school is pretty much redundant unless somehow you're going to get your degree for free. You don't have to agree with it - you just have to be on this planet and accept fees as fact.
    There's a massive difference between uni fees and private school fees; at the point of consumption university is free (provided you take a student loan), and you don't have to start paying it back until you're earning a decent salary.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AeroLB)
    A lot of armed forces kids at my school get ~90% of their fees paid by the MOD...
    that said CEA under under review and there's a suggestion that few Naval Families, a small proportion of RAF families and a reduced proportion of Army families will remain eligible, especially with the draw down from Germany

    the reasoning there is much of the Navy is based around a couple of different places and once you are established there you are unlikely to move, ditto with the RAF as aircrew and engineering staff tend to stick with a single fleet for a reasonable period of time also when you look at the location of bases etc there are distinct clusters e.g. Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire for the RAF ...

    the Army is also coalescing into Super garrisons and there's far less of the random movement of whole units than there may have been in the past, and once the draw down from Germany is complete the number of foreign postings rather than deployments will be considerably smaller.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CUFCDan)
    Universities ARE elitist - University is a little bubble unto itself. But not nearly as close to some of the private schools out there for little Gideon and Arnie.
    Surely elitism is good? I would hate to see the top uni's take anyone regardless of intelligence..
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It isnt natural though that if you have more money, you will want your children to go to a better school even if it means paying. We can't say that given the same situation we wouldn't do the same either.

    And people who are rich, unless its inherited they have earned their money when people either went to a 11plus school or state school for free. Not their fault they climbed the social mobility ladder.

    (I'm from a low income family but i am the first person to go to university to do medicine so its not like im from a private school but if im successful, i would probably send my kids in the future. I got into a grammar school so thankful for that but if i went to a school where other kids didnt want to learn, at a young age, you will probably get influenced as well)
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThumbsUp)
    That's a huge assumption to make, did upping the uni fees make either private and public sector education better, since the govt would inevitably spend more money there? Nope. Will capping benefits make everyone's life better as there surely should be more money in the country's funds? Nope. The problem here is with the government, why private school children should have to suffer at the hands off the awful government is beyond me just because the rest of the country is.
    There is no sense in which private schools are suffering at the hands of the government - exactly the reverse is true. Private schools currently receive large quantities of money from government via charitable status and support for places from the Armed Forces and one or two other branches of government.

    The argument that you were responding to, that state education might improve if private education ended is likely to be true, as funds would inevitably get redirected, with well-off parents doing more fund raising for the schools, etc. As suggested, this would likely go mainly to those state schools in well-off areas, as indeed it already does to some extent.

    I have nothing against the concept of private education per se, but I do object to taxpayers having to subsidise it, and worse, those private businesses being able to collar for themselves an undue percentage of the places at the top universities, which are also taxpayer-funded. If they want to set up their own private universities and use those, fine.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fires)
    There is no sense in which private schools are suffering at the hands of the government - exactly the reverse is true. Private schools currently receive large quantities of money from government via charitable status and support for places from the Armed Forces and one or two other branches of government.

    The argument that you were responding to, that state education might improve if private education ended is likely to be true, as funds would inevitably get redirected, with well-off parents doing more fund raising for the schools, etc. As suggested, this would likely go mainly to those state schools in well-off areas, as indeed it already does to some extent.

    I have nothing against the concept of private education per se, but I do object to taxpayers having to subsidise it, and worse, those private businesses being able to collar for themselves an undue percentage of the places at the top universities, which are also taxpayer-funded. If they want to set up their own private universities and use those, fine.
    How does the taxpayer subsidise private schools?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    So the middle classes are receiving the same "aspirational" helpings from society as the working class.

    Is this the bit where we're meant to break down in tears of sympathy?

    Open them up to the working class as well or just stfu with middle class whinging tbh.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fires)
    There is no sense in which private schools are suffering at the hands of the government - exactly the reverse is true. Private schools currently receive large quantities of money from government via charitable status and support for places from the Armed Forces and one or two other branches of government.

    The argument that you were responding to, that state education might improve if private education ended is likely to be true, as funds would inevitably get redirected, with well-off parents doing more fund raising for the schools, etc. As suggested, this would likely go mainly to those state schools in well-off areas, as indeed it already does to some extent.

    I have nothing against the concept of private education per se, but I do object to taxpayers having to subsidise it, and worse, those private businesses being able to collar for themselves an undue percentage of the places at the top universities, which are also taxpayer-funded. If they want to set up their own private universities and use those, fine.
    If you are tax exempt then that does not mean you are subsidised.
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    If you are tax exempt then that does not mean you are subsidised.
    It does and directly, partly through tax reliefs for contributors, partly through VAT alleviations and partly through the lack of corporate taxes paid. Many "independent" schools are not truly independent at all - they would never survive without this status unless they substantially raised their fees. In effect, the general taxpayer is subsidising privileged education for the few and that "privilege subsidy" is then being further extended to Oxbridge.

    I recall reading a few years back some research that showed that the average taxpayer contributes £40 a year more to wealthy kids' education than they do to non-private school kids education.

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?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  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 completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: May 16, 2012
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.