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

British private schools - now just for the rich and foreigners

Announcements Posted on
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by berryripple)
    What you were talking about was specifically "being coached for Oxford and Cambridge", not general advantages.
    Perhaps you weren't. It is, nonetheless disingenuous of you to suggest that private school kids aren't coached.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Disco)
    Perhaps you weren't. It is, nonetheless disingenuous of you to suggest that private school kids aren't coached.
    I don't feel 'coached' any more than I did at the state school I went to.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by berryripple)
    I don't feel 'coached' any more than I did at the state school I went to.
    So you keep saying.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The thing is, at my oxford college, the two kids from eton are within the smartest 20% of the ppl here. Somehow they just produce better people.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Disco)
    But this isn't about natural advantages that might be passed on genetically. This is about private school kids being coached on how to get in to Oxford and Cambridge, thereby depriving those from state schools who are more intelligent and more deserving of places. This is surely to the detriment of society.
    Absolute bull****. The coaching at private schools is nothing that can't be found on the internet, or without asking friends, family members, teachers, to sit down and ask you questions. Then you have the fact that Oxbridge offer summer schools for state school pupils only and also visit state schools on request. The private school help is not some magical ticket to admission and can easily be replicated for free.

    It is NOTHING to do with what the school teaches and is ALL about the individual student's hard work and dedication.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForKicks)
    Absolute bull****. The coaching at private schools is nothing that can't be found on the internet, or without asking friends, family members, teachers, to sit down and ask you questions. Then you have the fact that Oxbridge offer summer schools for state school pupils only and also visit state schools on request. The private school help is not some magical ticket to admission and can easily be replicated for free.

    It is NOTHING to do with what the school teaches and is ALL about the individual student's hard work and dedication.
    Presumably Prince Harry didn't have his coursework done for him either.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fires)
    According to a recent article in the Telegraph, a combination of the recession and steadily increasing fees means that private schools in this country are becoming more and more the prerogative of really wealthy families and foreigners.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...xcellence.html

    To summarise the main points:

    * British pupil numbers in private school have fallen every year since 2008 and the fall is accelerating.

    * Private school fees are on average up 4.5 per cent in 2011, according to the ISC survey; up to an average £13,800 a year for day places, and £26,000 for boarders.

    * Occupations of head of households for fee-paying schools are rapidly excluding middle-class families who used to use private schools. The bankers and lawyers are still queuing up, but architects, police officers, teachers and pharmacists have melted away.

    * Only 8% on average of private school children receive bursaries - this figure falls as low as 2% at the upper end of private schools. It now costs more than £150,000 to send a child to Eton for five years.

    Given this situation and the increasing polarisation of the fee-paying sector, can it be right that (heavily) state-funded Oxford and Cambridge still draw nearly 50% of their students from fee-paying schools?

    How can these increasingly separate and privileged institutions possibly retain charitable status? The latter should be cancelled. The former should be critiqued and changed.
    The problem is if someone has got the money to send their kid to Eton, even if they don't actually send their kid there, they will be able to translate that money and intelligence into an advantage.

    I personally believe the biggest advantage you can have is bright parents - and public schools and tutors are to some extent ancillary.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForKicks)
    Absolute bull****. The coaching at private schools is nothing that can't be found on the internet, or without asking friends, family members, teachers, to sit down and ask you questions. Then you have the fact that Oxbridge offer summer schools for state school pupils only and also visit state schools on request. The private school help is not some magical ticket to admission and can easily be replicated for free.

    It is NOTHING to do with what the school teaches and is ALL about the individual student's hard work and dedication.
    Precisely this.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Disco)
    Presumably Prince Harry didn't have his coursework done for him either.
    Prince Harry got a B and a D and nothing else.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    That's the market, ain't it? If you support private education, you presumably have to support the right of the schools to set their own prices (and thereby outprice sections of the population for whom you have particular sympathy). We now live in a globalised world, so just as we rely on the international poor to produce our consumer crap, so we rely on international capitalists to buy our goods and services (like education).

    And of course it's not the case that Oxbridge reserves places for applicants from private schools, it's simply the case that privately educated kids are more likely to 1) have more knowledge of the requisite hoops through which one has to jump, and 2) be more encouraged, and/or motivated, to do the jumping.
    This.
    Also not all schools have fees like the ones you mentioned. Eton is a very particular example and perhaps the most expensive one (?). You can make similar examples in almost every country.

    I go to a private uni which is pricey and I know a few people who are not skilled or hard-working but have rich families. They will not be hired by anyone but their parents, and if they end up screwing up the family company, they'll be fired from that too. Connections matter, but no major company will allow having a moron in charge. Companies care about profit and need good management. If someone graduates with a first from Oxford and gets a top notch job after, he/she is most likely skilled and ambitious.
    I think it's a waste of energy complaining about this, just as much as it is a waste of time moaning about how people in general are born into different families. Whatever, you could have been born in Botswana.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Disco)
    Presumably Prince Harry didn't have his coursework done for him either.
    :facepalm:
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aconcernedparent)
    This.
    Also not all schools have fees like the ones you mentioned. Eton is a very particular example and perhaps the most expensive one (?). You can make similar examples in almost every country.

    I go to a private uni which is pricey and I know a few people who are not skilled or hard-working but have rich families. They will not be hired by anyone but their parents, and if they end up screwing up the family company, they'll be fired from that too. Connections matter, but no major company will allow having a moron in charge. Companies care about profit and need good management. If someone graduates with a first from Oxford and gets a top notch job after, he/she is most likely skilled and ambitious.
    I think it's a waste of energy complaining about this, just as much as it is a waste of time moaning about how people in general are born into different families. Whatever, you could have been born in Botswana.

    Exactly! It is like when we were taught in school sports 'don't look at what the person next to you is doing, focus on the finish line'. That's how to win.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    First, people not at public schools are in no position to comment on them whatsoever. Now, I would like to debunk a few public school myths.There are always facts and figures that the media love to wheel out, but what they always fail to tell you is that the vast majority of pupils at Britain's elite public schools (one of which I attend) are, in fact, normal, British teenagers. There is an image of people being brought up with a silver spoon in their mouth but a lot of people are either a) on bursaries (more than 20% of my year are) or b) are scraping around, saving everything they can in order to get through public school. The reason for this is that there is something extraordinarily special about British public schools that very few people understand. The holistic nature of the education and the encouragement and effort put in by teachers is phenomenal. Everybody at my school knows that they are extremely privileged and lucky - we are not blind to that, but is it our fault that there is a better education out there? Of course it's grossly unfair, but so are a lot of things in life and it's really the government's duty to improve the state system.
    The high percentage of public school students at Oxbridge is not a success of public schools, but a failure of state schools. This is proved by the grades that public schools achieve compared to state schools (obviously there are exceptions, but on the whole, 'elite' public schools achieve grades that are incomparably higher across the board) Oxbridge wants to take the best students and those are, on the whole, those with the best grades. They try their hardest to spot potential, but at the end of the day, you need to get the grades and it is no secret that that is significantly harder at a state school - this should certainly not be the case.
    I would also like to point out now that, despite the high number of public school students at Oxbridge, there are in no way 'reserved' places. In fact, it is this myth that I find most vulgar, because there actually exists a distinct discrimination against public school students, especially those from 'elite' public schools in Oxbridge applications. This is why I absolutely detest this myth - students who are perfectly capable, in fact, probably more capable than other students, are rejected simply because of their education as Oxbridge tries to shed its reputation for being a preserve only for the rich and privileged. This is why this myth is so ugly - it is clearly perpetrated by those jealous of public school students who have managed to get into Oxford and are begrudging them their success. As for the 'training' that supposedly goes on and the ability to 'jump through hoops', this is complete rubbish. Any knowledge of the Oxbridge interview system would immediately debunk this - no amount of training can prepare you for an Oxbridge interview and there are no hoops to jump through. So, this is ridiculous.
    Furthermore, the excellent grades and Oxbridge entrance rates are by no means universal throughout public schools. There are a few 'elite' public schools that do achieve very high grades and Oxbridge entrance rates, but that is because they have very stringent entrance tests, which allows only the most intelligent of pupils to pass. Now, imagine the environment that this creates - an environment, where, rather than being shunned, intelligence is celebrated and academic study is encouraged heartily. Obviously, this leads to good results academically, but imagine if the state were allowed to do this - the results, surely, would be similar. So, it is not simply that some public schools somehow have a magic 'path to Oxbridge', it is that they are very selective and the atmosphere that this creates encourages excellence, which is appreciated by Oxbridge. If more schools were to follow their example, I'm sure similar results would follow. This is another example of the state failing education, in trying to be too 'fair' and nice (although academies are a good step forward).
    Finally, I would like to say that, although the fees are ridiculous, I know they are, this is no reason why the schools should lose their charitable status. They are still educating our young and still provide many people with scholarships which give them amazing opportunities, which they would not be able to do without charitable status. Also, we try our hardest to give back to the community, we appreciate that we are extremely lucky and so we try and help those around who are not so fortunate, mentoring those in local schools in English or Maths so that they can achieve better grades and hopefully go on to better jobs. We do not simply sit in our chairs, burning cash and laughing as some people seem to think - we are more conscientious than others imagine. The school that I attend has a vision that one day it will be needs blind and that it will be a school for the most intelligent children in the country to attend and thrive and without charitable status, that dream would not be possible.
    So, please, reconsider, at least, your position on public schools and please don't base your view on what you read in the media - they have an agenda and they want to sensationalise everything, so before you form an opinion, listen to both sides of the argument.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lukas1051)
    Doesn't surprise me. The cost to put your kid in a private school is completely ridiculous and not worth the money - £26,000 a year for five years to get a few more A's at GCSE? You can do that for £130,000 less with a bit of hard work. It's mad, you have to be clinically insane. It's no wonder only the very rich still send their children to them.
    i don't really believe that, i mean i go to a private it school , and it costs about 4000 rials which is 2000 euros and its totally worth it, the people are great, its an amazing place to graduate from
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by patrickinator)
    No it is not. Please stop stereotyping. It is mostly fulled of middle class parents struggling to get by and they need more burasaries. jeez, these institutions provide some of the most intelligent people in the world today, if you want to stop them then the government should build better state schools!
    They should ensure the state schools are better regardless.
    • 5 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jadomcp)
    First, people not at public schools are in no position to comment on them whatsoever. Now, I would like to debunk a few public school myths.There are always facts and figures that the media love to wheel out, but what they always fail to tell you is that the vast majority of pupils at Britain's elite public schools (one of which I attend) are, in fact, normal, British teenagers. There is an image of people being brought up with a silver spoon in their mouth but a lot of people are either a) on bursaries (more than 20% of my year are) or b) are scraping around, saving everything they can in order to get through public school. The reason for this is that there is something extraordinarily special about British public schools that very few people understand. The holistic nature of the education and the encouragement and effort put in by teachers is phenomenal. Everybody at my school knows that they are extremely privileged and lucky - we are not blind to that, but is it our fault that there is a better education out there? Of course it's grossly unfair, but so are a lot of things in life and it's really the government's duty to improve the state system.
    The high percentage of public school students at Oxbridge is not a success of public schools, but a failure of state schools. This is proved by the grades that public schools achieve compared to state schools (obviously there are exceptions, but on the whole, 'elite' public schools achieve grades that are incomparably higher across the board) Oxbridge wants to take the best students and those are, on the whole, those with the best grades. They try their hardest to spot potential, but at the end of the day, you need to get the grades and it is no secret that that is significantly harder at a state school - this should certainly not be the case.
    I would also like to point out now that, despite the high number of public school students at Oxbridge, there are in no way 'reserved' places. In fact, it is this myth that I find most vulgar, because there actually exists a distinct discrimination against public school students, especially those from 'elite' public schools in Oxbridge applications. This is why I absolutely detest this myth - students who are perfectly capable, in fact, probably more capable than other students, are rejected simply because of their education as Oxbridge tries to shed its reputation for being a preserve only for the rich and privileged. This is why this myth is so ugly - it is clearly perpetrated by those jealous of public school students who have managed to get into Oxford and are begrudging them their success. As for the 'training' that supposedly goes on and the ability to 'jump through hoops', this is complete rubbish. Any knowledge of the Oxbridge interview system would immediately debunk this - no amount of training can prepare you for an Oxbridge interview and there are no hoops to jump through. So, this is ridiculous.
    Furthermore, the excellent grades and Oxbridge entrance rates are by no means universal throughout public schools. There are a few 'elite' public schools that do achieve very high grades and Oxbridge entrance rates, but that is because they have very stringent entrance tests, which allows only the most intelligent of pupils to pass. Now, imagine the environment that this creates - an environment, where, rather than being shunned, intelligence is celebrated and academic study is encouraged heartily. Obviously, this leads to good results academically, but imagine if the state were allowed to do this - the results, surely, would be similar. So, it is not simply that some public schools somehow have a magic 'path to Oxbridge', it is that they are very selective and the atmosphere that this creates encourages excellence, which is appreciated by Oxbridge. If more schools were to follow their example, I'm sure similar results would follow. This is another example of the state failing education, in trying to be too 'fair' and nice (although academies are a good step forward).
    Finally, I would like to say that, although the fees are ridiculous, I know they are, this is no reason why the schools should lose their charitable status. They are still educating our young and still provide many people with scholarships which give them amazing opportunities, which they would not be able to do without charitable status. Also, we try our hardest to give back to the community, we appreciate that we are extremely lucky and so we try and help those around who are not so fortunate, mentoring those in local schools in English or Maths so that they can achieve better grades and hopefully go on to better jobs. We do not simply sit in our chairs, burning cash and laughing as some people seem to think - we are more conscientious than others imagine. The school that I attend has a vision that one day it will be needs blind and that it will be a school for the most intelligent children in the country to attend and thrive and without charitable status, that dream would not be possible.
    So, please, reconsider, at least, your position on public schools and please don't base your view on what you read in the media - they have an agenda and they want to sensationalise everything, so before you form an opinion, listen to both sides of the argument.
    Ahh, block text.
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jadomcp)
    First, people not at public schools are in no position to comment on them whatsoever. Now, I would like to debunk a few public school myths.There are always facts and figures that the media love to wheel out, but what they always fail to tell you is that the vast majority of pupils at Britain's elite public schools (one of which I attend) are, in fact, normal, British teenagers. There is an image of people being brought up with a silver spoon in their mouth but a lot of people are either a) on bursaries (more than 20% of my year are) or b) are scraping around, saving everything they can in order to get through public school. The reason for this is that there is something extraordinarily special about British public schools that very few people understand. The holistic nature of the education and the encouragement and effort put in by teachers is phenomenal. Everybody at my school knows that they are extremely privileged and lucky - we are not blind to that, but is it our fault that there is a better education out there? Of course it's grossly unfair, but so are a lot of things in life and it's really the government's duty to improve the state system.
    The high percentage of public school students at Oxbridge is not a success of public schools, but a failure of state schools. This is proved by the grades that public schools achieve compared to state schools (obviously there are exceptions, but on the whole, 'elite' public schools achieve grades that are incomparably higher across the board) Oxbridge wants to take the best students and those are, on the whole, those with the best grades. They try their hardest to spot potential, but at the end of the day, you need to get the grades and it is no secret that that is significantly harder at a state school - this should certainly not be the case.
    I would also like to point out now that, despite the high number of public school students at Oxbridge, there are in no way 'reserved' places. In fact, it is this myth that I find most vulgar, because there actually exists a distinct discrimination against public school students, especially those from 'elite' public schools in Oxbridge applications. This is why I absolutely detest this myth - students who are perfectly capable, in fact, probably more capable than other students, are rejected simply because of their education as Oxbridge tries to shed its reputation for being a preserve only for the rich and privileged. This is why this myth is so ugly - it is clearly perpetrated by those jealous of public school students who have managed to get into Oxford and are begrudging them their success. As for the 'training' that supposedly goes on and the ability to 'jump through hoops', this is complete rubbish. Any knowledge of the Oxbridge interview system would immediately debunk this - no amount of training can prepare you for an Oxbridge interview and there are no hoops to jump through. So, this is ridiculous.
    Furthermore, the excellent grades and Oxbridge entrance rates are by no means universal throughout public schools. There are a few 'elite' public schools that do achieve very high grades and Oxbridge entrance rates, but that is because they have very stringent entrance tests, which allows only the most intelligent of pupils to pass. Now, imagine the environment that this creates - an environment, where, rather than being shunned, intelligence is celebrated and academic study is encouraged heartily. Obviously, this leads to good results academically, but imagine if the state were allowed to do this - the results, surely, would be similar. So, it is not simply that some public schools somehow have a magic 'path to Oxbridge', it is that they are very selective and the atmosphere that this creates encourages excellence, which is appreciated by Oxbridge. If more schools were to follow their example, I'm sure similar results would follow. This is another example of the state failing education, in trying to be too 'fair' and nice (although academies are a good step forward).
    Finally, I would like to say that, although the fees are ridiculous, I know they are, this is no reason why the schools should lose their charitable status. They are still educating our young and still provide many people with scholarships which give them amazing opportunities, which they would not be able to do without charitable status. Also, we try our hardest to give back to the community, we appreciate that we are extremely lucky and so we try and help those around who are not so fortunate, mentoring those in local schools in English or Maths so that they can achieve better grades and hopefully go on to better jobs. We do not simply sit in our chairs, burning cash and laughing as some people seem to think - we are more conscientious than others imagine. The school that I attend has a vision that one day it will be needs blind and that it will be a school for the most intelligent children in the country to attend and thrive and without charitable status, that dream would not be possible.
    So, please, reconsider, at least, your position on public schools and please don't base your view on what you read in the media - they have an agenda and they want to sensationalise everything, so before you form an opinion, listen to both sides of the argument.
    Interesting list of points, but not all of them are alas correct. It isn't true that bursaries are a bigger feature of the more upmarket schools - as the school's own statistics show, the percentage of bursaries falls higher up the social scale - places like Eton, Harrow, Marlborough, etc, all offer fewer as a percentage than the lower-end schools.

    Your justification for charitable status continuing is frankly hogwash. Private schools are businesses and whilst they doubtless reinvest any profits, and act like social enterprises in some ways, they have one and only one significant aim - to advantage the children of the well-off in every way they can. That's how they justify their fees and that's what they offer. How can that possibly by any stretch be described as "charitable"?
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fires)
    Interesting list of points, but not all of them are alas correct. It isn't true that bursaries are a bigger feature of the more upmarket schools - as the school's own statistics show, the percentage of bursaries falls higher up the social scale - places like Eton, Harrow, Marlborough, etc, all offer fewer as a percentage than the lower-end schools.

    Your justification for charitable status continuing is frankly hogwash. Private schools are businesses and whilst they doubtless reinvest any profits, and act like social enterprises in some ways, they have one and only one significant aim - to advantage the children of the well-off in every way they can. That's how they justify their fees and that's what they offer. How can that possibly by any stretch be described as "charitable"?
    They are charities as it reduces the fees charged, allowing more people to attend and ultimately reduces the burden on the state school system.
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForKicks)
    They are charities as it reduces the fees charged, allowing more people to attend and ultimately reduces the burden on the state school system.
    Oh do us a favour! They are charities because a compliant state allowed them to be as the kids of the government elites were educated in those same schools. They don't reduce the burden on anyone, in fact, they burden everyone because they are also subsidised in various ways by taxpayers and they sequester places in elite, expensive universities that cost the taxpayer a great deal.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fires)
    Oh do us a favour! They are charities because a compliant state allowed them to be as the kids of the government elites were educated in those same schools. They don't reduce the burden on anyone, in fact, they burden everyone because they are also subsidised in various ways by taxpayers and they sequester places in elite, expensive universities that cost the taxpayer a great deal.
    Okay, well if private schools shouldn't get charity status, neither should universities. I would like to see your attitude when your uni has to make cuts and charge you for everything.

    Like **** they sequester places in the elite. If that was going to happen, it could take place with family and friends even if they went to state school.

    Listen, what goes on in private schools does not affect your ability to succeed. Only if you get caught up and obsessed with it would it affect your chances :rolleyes:

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 16, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

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.