[Nick100]

(Original post by dannyoh)
Furthermore I pity many of you publically schooled lot. You'll never get the real experience of dealing with real people - 15year old pregnant girls, smokers, alcoholics, those from real tough areas, those who'll be arrested and equally those who try really hard. Life will seem all cushion-y cushion-y in an unrealistic world. No matter if I was the richest person alive, I'd never send my kids to a Private school. They need to experience hard work in the real world.

I don't understand your point here. Your life will seem cushion-y to people in third world countries; will you send your kids to live in a famine stricken country so that they can "experience hard work in the real world"?

[Beebumble]

I'm not against private schools. I think what people do with their money is their business and if the state schools should be given more support in trying to give people an equal education.

I can however see where these people are coming from state schools lose a lot of good teachers because by going to the private sector they get better pay and more freedom in terms of what they teach and how they teach it but then maybe the public sector should look at why that is happening.

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by muddywaters51)
Yeah so basically rich people should pay for poor peoples stuff

LOL

No, rich people should pay more tax to pay for goods that they share. Do you want to live in a country where people aren't forced to pay for one another's educations? Do you think that that leads to progress?

The rich people earn more than they deserve, the poor earn less than they deserve.
The state mitigates this tragic truth of the free market.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
it shouldnt be such that 'education is a neccessity, but good education is a special treatment/privilege (if thats the right word)'...

Well, when you say "education is a right/necessity" - exactly what quality of education is it that people have a right to? Do they have a right to good education? Or brilliant education? Or super-amazing education?
There's no limit to how good education can be, in theory. So at what point does it stop being a right/necessity? It has to stop somewhere, doesn't it? You surely can't suggest that everyone has the right to the best education in existence - because there simply aren't enough people capable of providing it, are there?

I would have said that education is a basic life necessity, up to a point. People couldn't get by in life without knowing basic maths (e.g. addition and subtraction), basic science (e.g. the fact that fire and electricity can hurt you if you touch it). But when it comes to education in terms of appreciating the fine literary works of Shakespeare or something like that, I personally fail to see how that is a basic human necessity.

[TheIronist]

I don't agree that we should ban private schools. If we want more educational equity (and I am not sure that this is a serious goal), there's another way to do it. Transform public education. In fact, if we can create very competitive public schools, and I think the evidence is quite clear on that, there's no reason why we ought to ban private schools.

But it would require more than just passing a law. Teachers need to be better paid, their social prestige should rise, investement in public education should be increased enormously, class sizes must shrink, etc, etc.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by muddywaters51)
Bunch of made up statistics and assumptions. All irrelevant anyways.

Attachment 148907

[carpe diem 123]

People who want to ban Private Schools are just jealous and narrow minded. They just want standards to drop so that they can feel better about themselves. Pftttt

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by beepbeeprichie)
You didn't answer my question.

And why do we want egalitarianism (to paraphrase Parfit, " material equality is pointless because making people more equal does not in itself lead to anyone being better off").

And how do you reconcile private property with this redistribution of wealth?

All right, sir. Let's look at your questions:

'Why should the rich suffer because the poor are poor?'
1) The rich don't suffer. They give more of their income away, because they earn more than they really deserve. This is because the free market is fallible.
2) The poor aren't there due to their own fault. They are victims of circumstance and poor birth. ∵ There is no free will ∵ Currently the people at the bottom are necessary ∵ There are an inordinate amount of steps from production to consumption ∴ There is an incredibly unequal society.

'Why do the rich have an enforceable duty to give money (indirectly) to the poor?'
The rich earn more than their skills or value to society warrant. Their money is for the benefit of society, not just the poor. The poorest have unfair living conditions, and earn pitiful amounts of money. The rich wouldn't otherwise give so much money to society if the state didn't force them to. Capitalism isn't perfect, and the state has the duty to mitigate it.

'And why do we want egalitarianism?'
Egalitarianism means that everybody is economically equal (thus also socially and academically). This means that everybody is better off. It means that there are consistently high standards across everywhere, and the lowest levels of production are rendered obsolete by scientific progress due to higher levels of education. By making all education better, one doesn't detract from the best education. By making all healthcare better, one doesn't detract from the best healthcare. By making all lifestyles better, one doesn't detract from the best lifestyles.

'And how do you reconcile private property with this redistribution of wealth?'
I personally think that the state should enforce a minimum living standard for everybody, irrespective of salary, everyone should be housed and nourished. Working harder, more, and being more successful still earns one more money. This can be used to purchase luxuries. I personally think that the state should act to decrease house prices as a whole, as they oughtn't be a primary investment for anybody.

[Ocassus]

The irony is if you were to try and make State schools as good as the Private sector by implementing the practices of the Private School system these people would be the first to object to it as the ethos and methods of these schools would be labelled 'archaic' or 'traditionalist' or 'unnecessary' or 'damaging'.

[TheIronist]

Oh also, tbh, I am more than okay having rich parents send their children off to private schools. It frees up resources that poorer children could otherwise use. Less pupils/class is what public schools should be aiming for.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Well, when you say "education is a right/necessity" - exactly what quality of education is it that people have a right to? Do they have a right to good education? Or brilliant education? Or super-amazing education?
There's no limit to how good education can be, in theory. So at what point does it stop being a right/necessity? It has to stop somewhere, doesn't it? You surely can't suggest that everyone has the right to the best education in existence - because there simply aren't enough people capable of providing it, are there?

I would have said that education is a basic life necessity, up to a point. People couldn't get by in life without knowing basic maths (e.g. addition and subtraction), basic science (e.g. the fact that fire and electricity can hurt you if you touch it).

When it comes to education in terms of appreciating the fine literary works of Lord Byron or something like that, I personally fail to see how that is a basic human necessity.

exactly, so why does there need to be a 'quality' of education in this country? why are there divisions/categories?as you put it, why good education, brilliant education? why not concentrate on making sure the average grades in the uks states schools are raised (no not making exams easier, raising grades isnt exactly the point, not getting more A*s, as i make out, but such that kids are improving such that they can handle more challenging things) rather than making private schools? why not continually strive to improve state education across the country? not simply just improving, but to make sure schools are all at least relatively similar? is that not more beneficial to the people, to the majority of the parents (rich and poor) rather than making just the rich parents glad to see their kids are supported in privates?

appreciating fine art and culture is one thing, but to achieve a successful young bright mind that can understand problems, resolve them etc is another
there was a phrase where kids can be disadvantaged due to their life style, but i cant remember the term... i think its social d-something...

[Benniboi1]

(Original post by dannyoh)
You can't really knock people for not being in agreement with private education - I don't know where many of you live but I live 'up north and I couldn't afford to be privately educated at all

I am a real libertarian and I feel if someone makes lots of money by their own doing, that's fine, but for children to receive a better education based on the work of their parents seems unfair to me, and the fact that they get a better education than me seems unfair also. This is proven by the <10% of children who are privately educated yet the 50% or so that are in Oxbridge. Too kids in those areas, and to me when I was a bit younger, it's totally unfair

Equally anybody can easily achieve the same grades regardless of where they come from by hard work and determination, as I think I have with 10A*s from a state school, and I will always be proud that I've worked hard rather than be lifted into a position.

Furthermore I pity many of you publically schooled lot. You'll never get the real experience of dealing with real people - 15year old pregnant girls, smokers, alcoholics, those from real tough areas, those who'll be arrested and equally those who try really hard. Life will seem all cushion-y cushion-y in an unrealistic world. No matter if I was the richest person alive, I'd never send my kids to a Private school. They need to experience hard work in the real world.

Although the argument here is should be ban private schools. I don't really see this as the issue, but the issue itself being lets get state schools on the same level as private schools.

I

I sometimes lose faith in people our age on TSR, but you have just restored it.

Couldn't agree more, +1

[beepbeeprichie]

(Original post by TheIronist)
Oh also, tbh, I am more than okay having rich parents send their children off to private schools. It frees up resources that poorer children could otherwise use. Less pupils/class is what public schools should be aiming for.

Damned Rawlsian!

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
exactly, so why does there need to be a 'quality' of education in this country? why are there divisions/categories? why good education, brilliant education? why not concentrate on making sure all average grades in the uks states schools are raised (no not making exams easier) rather than making private schools? why not continually strive to improve state education across the country? not simply just improving, but to make sure schools are all at least relatively similar? is that not more beneficial to the people, to the majority of the parents (rich and poor) rather than making just the rich parents glad to see their kids are supported in privates?

I think you're missing my point. Even if all education in this country was identical, it still wouldn't change the fact that it is possible for that education to be better. There's no limit to how good it can potentially be.
If education is a fundamental human right, it still leaves the question unanswered - to what extent is it a fundamental human right?

In the same way that, we usually consider food (in general) to be a basic human right. But we don't consider caviar to be a right. There comes a point when it becomes a privilege.
A person who considers education to be a fundamental human right should also think about and be able to answer: to what extent is this the case?

[miml]

Just make all schools private, then the market would have it's way and we'd all be better off.

Obviously the left will never understand this.

[ed-]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
All right, sir. Let's look at your questions:

'Why should the rich suffer because the poor are poor?'
1) The rich don't suffer. They give more of their income away, because they earn more than they really deserve. This is because the free market is fallible.
2) The poor aren't there due to their own fault. They are victims of circumstance and poor birth. ∵ There is no free will ∵ Currently the people at the bottom are necessary ∵ There are an inordinate amount of steps from production to consumption ∴ There is an incredibly unequal society.

'Why do the rich have an enforceable duty to give money (indirectly) to the poor?'
The rich earn more than their skills or value to society warrant. Their money is for the benefit of society, not just the poor. The poorest have unfair living conditions, and earn pitiful amounts of money. The rich wouldn't otherwise give so much money to society if the state didn't force them to. Capitalism isn't perfect, and the state has the duty to mitigate it.

'And why do we want egalitarianism?'
Egalitarianism means that everybody is economically equal (thus also socially and academically). This means that everybody is better off. It means that there are consistently high standards across everywhere, and the lowest levels of production are rendered obsolete by scientific progress due to higher levels of education. By making all education better, one doesn't detract from the best education. By making all healthcare better, one doesn't detract from the best healthcare. By making all lifestyles better, one doesn't detract from the best lifestyles.

'And how do you reconcile private property with this redistribution of wealth?'
I personally think that the state should enforce a minimum living standard for everybody, irrespective of salary, everyone should be housed and nourished. Working harder, more, and being more successful still earns one more money. This can be used to purchase luxuries. I personally think that the state should act to decrease house prices as a whole, as they oughtn't be a primary investment for anybody.

Who are you to say that the rich don't deserve the money they earn? I'm sorry but that's highly subjective and I completely disagree. Social and economic hierarchies are a neccesary part of society.

The poor are not poor because their parents were poor (neccesarily). It has a lot to do with values that people are brought up with. If a poor family brings their child up with the mentality of being poor it's them that's holding their child back. Same goes for if they drink, smoke, don't encourage them to engage in academic activities, let them watch exessive television etc.
It's true that poor families have these bad values more than rich families - but values aren't to do with how much money you have. If you're bitter because you haven't made anything of yourself; fine, but don't inflict that on your children through bad values.
Money doesn't have everything to do with doing well. Are you trying to imply that no one has ever acheived anything from state schools? Last time I checked, poor people have just as much right to go to grammar schools as anyone else. If they don't get into a grammar school I'd say that's a comment on their intelligence and upbringing, not their wealth.

The rich do not earn more than they deserve (on the whole). Skills don't = money. Sure, bankers may not be able to weld, or paint or plaster. But likewise manual workers can't manage the country's economy. Put it into proportion. We're not a rich country due to manual workers; we're a rich country due to the people ordering the manual workers.
Capitalism isn't perfect - that's why there is a welfare system and free education at all, as well as a tiered tax system.

The system you proposed just sounds like communism ... Who wants a system where everyone is equal? It's a ridiculous notion. It doesn't work. People thrive on diversity. If everyone was of equal intelligence and wealth people would get mutinous very fast. I think some things should be more equal - but that should come from improving state systems, not denying people the right to use their money how they see fit.

Poor people already have good living conditions in this country compared to others'. Those on benefits - I feel - have too comfortable a lifestyle. You shouldn't be comfortable on benefits - otherwise where is the insentive to improve? Again, a ridiculous notion. If people have good living standards for doing nothing, where is the insentive to contribute to society?

[dannyoh]

(Original post by miml)
Just make all schools private, then the market would have it's way and we'd all be better off.

Obviously the left will never understand this.

Fantastic idea. Then I and other young people around me would end up not living out our full potential and be stuck at the bottom end of society without any education or the chance todo well as we couldn't afford it.

And this is coming from someone not on the left.

[Astronomical]

It is a result of the fact that, unfortunately, the attitude of the public at large has evolved from one of aspiration to one of resentment and jealousy.

That is to say, people no longer see somebody better off and think "thats what I want, how can I get that for myself?" but rather "I don't have that, so neither should they nor anyone else, this is so unfair!".

Also, just throwing this out there, but generally private schools give out a lot of scholarships. I mean a lot; I could not name 10 people whom I know at my school that do not have one.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
I think you're missing my point. Even if all education in this country was identical, it still wouldn't change the fact that it is possible for that education to be better. There's no limit to how good it can potentially be.
If education is a fundamental human right, it still leaves the question unanswered - to what extent is it a fundamental human right?

In the same way that, we usually consider food (in general) to be a basic human right. But we don't consider caviar to be a right. There comes a point when it becomes a privilege.
A person who considers education to be a fundamental human right should also think about and be able to answer: to what extent is this the case?

i understand your point in that you make it sound like education is like levels, where theres no limit to how high you can go (e.g. making a super saiyan reference for example), but making this point doesnt justify having private education... education itself is a human right but not such that state schools represent the bare minimum, and private schools go beyond... do you not think it is unfair that great education has to be one of benefits that can be given to a child simply because ones wallet is well endowed? so if one couldnt afford such a priviledge, he or she is left there, regretting what (potentially) amazing opportunity could have been given to his/her child?

good example but the flaw is that one does not base his life/his career/ his future on caviare or good food... food beyond the minimum is a luxury, i dont believe education should be the same...

i dont understand your point at the end about extent? is it not to create future where:
1) level of education is pretty much similar across the country
2) such that they prepare kids to be outstanding pupils that are capable of getting a job
3) make sure kids are challenged, to be able to resolve problems
4) etc

fair enough with best education. why does there need to be a 'best' education? why not continually strive to improve education rather than find out if there is such a thing as best education or essentially, why need to find the limit/extent to where this can go. i think your question is more to do with the way of thinking, rather than an actual problem to be dealt with or a flaw...

an appropriate education system is needed to achieve this, which may be difficult but can be improved and refined with time.... a division, state and private education isnt needed

[muddywaters51]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
No, rich people should pay more tax to pay for goods that they share. Do you want to live in a country where people aren't forced to pay for one another's educations? Do you think that that leads to progress?

The rich people earn more than they deserve, the poor earn less than they deserve.
The state mitigates this tragic truth of the free market.

In summary, the rich people should pay for the poor peoples free stuff