[Polioz]

Finland has one of the best education systems in the world, last few years always top 3-5 in the world, came even 1st a few times. This is ahead of like korea and saudi where they butcher the kids childhood and work their ass off till breaking point. But
finland has NO private schools and tell all their kids there is no competition here, just learn.

The system we have now is bs, but no one can imagine anything else so it will stay.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people...uccessful.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8601207.stm

[lucaf]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
I think the inequality is too great.. I mean the difference in average grades are huge..

I'll just compare it to a company that owned slavery, would it be right for the Government to close this down?

Regardless of whether or not they should be shut down, I do feel a little cheated and they can't ignore this.

but the thing is, it isn't like private schools have some secret teaching method hidden from the state that allows them to do better. they may have a bit better facilities and smaller class sizes, but the biggest reason they do better is because it is an environment where success is expected. the school expects the students to do well to maintain the schools status, the parents expect them to do well because they are paying for it and because they have done well themselves, and this means the students work for it. in most state schools there is not so much of an expectation for students to succeed and so they are not pushed, or pushing themselves, to do so.

that is why the grammar schools should be brought back; they offer the same atmosphere where excellence is expected and where the students are pushed to do well, and it is accessible for people regardless of income.

[Mr Einstein]

Threads like this are so ****ing depressing, and they're everywhere.

Please stop making them!

[krissy73]

Having seen many comments on here from people who say that they are currently attending/have been to state schools that are 'good' (possibly selective..) i.e high GCSE pass rate and a good standard of teaching, what are your views on students who go to 'bad' state schools? I went to a failing state school in London which had a GCSE pass rate of 25% in 2010! Teaching was poor in most subjects and all the teachers at the school led us to believe that getting 5A*-C's was a big achievement. Yes, the amount of hard work an individual puts in does to a great extent influence their exam results but surely quality of teaching is also a major factor?
btw: the school in question is now an academy after being in special measures for 2 years...

[i_hate_ucas]

You cant blame the fact you dont go to a private school for not getting the results you want, at the end of the day its the pupil's responsibility to do well in an exam. I go to a pretty average state school and Ive done well in my exams because i work hard, not because the teaching is any better than in other schools

[Intriguing Alias]

(Original post by im so academic)
What is "a top 3 university"?

Care to mention?

Lol I think that's code for LSE.

EDIT: Turns out he goes to Durham. Awkward..

[bownessie]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
Ultimately it really is because there's a massive difference in performance of state schools and private schools, and it doesn't matter if you tell me "I could have tried harder" etc.. perhaps if I went to a private school I would have tried harder. I'm not sure what the differences are because I've been in a state school all my life but in black and white.. people with money that attend private schools get significantly better grades than those that dont.

Yes, but are you saying that because my parents worked VERY hard to get me into private school, it is unfair?

[i_hate_ucas]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
It also could harm it. For example perhaps I'll miss out on a place at Oxbridge because 50% go to 8% of the population.

but 50% dont go to oxbridge because oxbridge purposefully select pupils with private education, they go because theyre better candidates. if you wanted to go that bad youd work you ass off in state school and get there off your own back, the source of your education makes no difference. I got rejected from cambridge this year not because i go to a state school but obviously because im just not good enough for them, end of

[AverageExcellence]

Thats a little something called capitalism

[The Epicurean]

(Original post by Steevee)
So your argument is essentially, we shouldn't have so many exams and we should lower the level of education, so it's fair for everyone?

Life isn't fair. But everyone gets a good education in this country. If I could afford to give my kid the best education, I would. The fact that Barry down the road can't isn't a concern.

Reducing the level of exams does not equal lower level of education. When it comes to exams, teachers are severly restricted as to what they can teach and students just cram for the exam, merely to regurgitate facts which they soon forget. If teachers were less restricted by the curriculum, they would be a lot more motivated and passionate about teaching and be able to pass that passion onto the students. Examination however just encourages teaching to the test and no possibility of going beyond that subject matter.

Also, I'm arguing to improve education, not lower it.

The fact is that everyone wants and should be able to give their children the best education possible. But such opportunities are assigned randomly to those whom are born to rich parents. The fact that Barry down the road can't may not be your concern, but it is his concern and his parents concern.

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
Not really. I just haven't seen a decent reason on here why they should stay.

Getting rid of them won't solve anything, just create more problems.

[i_hate_ucas]

(Original post by zedbrar)
Reducing the level of exams does not equal lower level of education. When it comes to exams, teachers are severly restricted as to what they can teach and students just cram for the exam, merely to regurgitate facts which they soon forget. If teachers were less restricted by the curriculum, they would be a lot more motivated and passionate about teaching and be able to pass that passion onto the students. Examination however just encourages teaching to the test and no possibility of going beyond that subject matter.
.

Do you not think that lowering the level of exams will simply result in teachers and students cramming to a lower level?

[tufc]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
I think the inequality is too great.. I mean the difference in average grades are huge..

I'll just compare it to a company that owned slavery, would it be right for the Government to close this down?

Regardless of whether or not they should be shut down, I do feel a little cheated and they can't ignore this.

If a company had slaves, they would be breaching the liberty of those slaves, so government involvement would be necessary and right.

Private schools aren't breaching the liberty of anyone. They might give people an unfair advantage; but the way to solve that is to help people near the bottom of the ladder up the ladder: it's not to kick the people at the top down.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
I think the inequality is too great.. I mean the difference in average grades are huge..

You keep seeming to ignore a huge factor. The best private schools are selective. This means that there are no thickies who don't want to be at school bringing down the average with their straight Ds and Es.

When you couple that fact with the superior teachers and resources available at private schools, it is no wonder the grades are better.

Instead of bringing private schools down to the level of the state sector, more efforts should be made to bring the standard of state education up to that of private education.

[Greenlaner]

(Original post by Drewski)
Why is it fair for someone with more money to have better clothes than me?

I know were going somewhat off topic, but what do you mean by "better"? Better just because they have some branded logo on them? In my opinion, designer/branded clothing is the biggest scam ever. For example i was in a shop recently, and there was plain white t-shirt on sale for £70, justified (and i use that term very loosely) only by a tiny label on the inside bearing the logo of some designer brand. For a plain white t-shirt!

Regardless of how much wealth you have, you would have to be a complete mug to spend that much money on a t-shirt, especially when you can buy plain white t-shirts, of often even better build quility for less than a fiver in a supermarket.

When i see somebody walking around dressed head to toe in such clothing i have never thought to myself, "Oh wow, look at their expensive designer clothing, they are so much better than my clothes. Im so jealous of their wealth and status". Usually im thinking, "What a complete and utter tool, im so glad im not a brainless slave to status symbolism".

[hyokami]

quite simply, you get what you work for. its a bit pathetic to complain that private school kids get better education when all you need to do is prove you are worth a scholarship. there are plenty out there if you are willing to put in some effort to attain it.

[Steevee]

(Original post by zedbrar)
Reducing the level of exams does not equal lower level of education. When it comes to exams, teachers are severly restricted as to what they can teach and students just cram for the exam, merely to regurgitate facts which they soon forget. If teachers were less restricted by the curriculum, they would be a lot more motivated and passionate about teaching and be able to pass that passion onto the students. Examination however just encourages teaching to the test and no possibility of going beyond that subject matter.

Also, I'm arguing to improve education, not lower it.

The fact is that everyone wants and should be able to give their children the best education possible. But such opportunities are assigned randomly to those whom are born to rich parents. The fact that Barry down the road can't may not be your concern, but it is his concern and his parents concern.

That depends on what subject you are talking about, and even without exams we'd need a curriculum. And if we do away with exams, how do we test? And then we end up with the situation of kids leaving school never having been expected to perform.

Add more pupils to an already overflowing system. Yeah, sounds good.

Then his parents should encourage him to try hard. I've been in a Comp all my life, and I haven't done so badly. My current mediocre results are because I have not given school all of my attention, had I then I am of no doubt the teaching would have allowed me to get As without issue.

[Pinkool14]

Wow....just look at the Most of the kids in India and China....who cares if you are rich or poor!!! Its NOT about private or State...its about YOURSELF and how determined you are to get ahead in life!.... The kids there just pick up the damn books and start reading and working for themselves! Even those who are struggling to live on the streets manage to work their A** off! and eventually will get somewhere in life! some of them have supportive parents, and some don't even any!
So make the most of your ******* time at school and realize that MONEY ISNT EVERYTHING! Forget abt the shyt teachers bcoz they're not doing the exams, it's all down to YOU and only YOU can make a change!

[AverageExcellence]

Getting rid of them wouldnt solve the problem whoever poses that question is just stupid. Think about it all you would effectively be doing is reducing the quality education which (if i assume correctly) that you think oxbridge would have to let in an equal spread of people from different backgrounds because everyone has a fair level. Would you want oxbridge to then drop their standards? all it would do is disadvantage british educated kids and people would go abroad to get educated and be much more advantaged than they are already.

God i ****ing hate liberals

[JOSHIK1]

(Original post by Pinkool14)
Wow....just look at the Most of the kids in India and China....who cares if you are rich or poor!!! Its NOT about private or State...its about YOURSELF and how determined you are to get ahead in life!.... The kids there just pick up the damn books and start reading and working for themselves! Even those who are struggling to live on the streets manage to work their A** off! and eventually will get somewhere in life! some of them have supportive parents, and some don't even any!
So make the most of your ******** time at school and realize that MONEY ISNT EVERYTHING! Forget abt the shyt teachers bcoz they're not doing the exams, it's all down to YOU and only YOU can make a change!

This is a ridiculous argument, being on the studentroom it is more than likely that you are an above average student in terms of commitment at least, but this is not the case for many of those in comprehensives. Studies show that people in private schools tend to work harder because of the pressure put on them by their parents who are paying a lot, by the school who needs good grades to get new students and also are in a better working environment where it is encouraged.

So to suggest that people who aren't in private schools should just try and work harder would not solve anything, they have, bar a few exceptions, been in an environment which openly discourages working hard. This coupled with a worse standard of teaching, as the best do not want to teach students who do not wish to learn leads to a vicious circle.

That is why grammar schools are the answer, they offer education at a level which is comparable to the private schools, and tend to have a better working environment.

For those who do not want to work, at least academically, they should be able to leave school earlier to develop a trade skill, and become good at it.