The Student Room Group

Elitism: should private schools be abolished?

There was recently a piece of research in the news that found top (most high-paying - e.g. judges) jobs to be filled by people who had attended Oxbridge and/or very exclusive independent schools. Anyway, I saw an article this morning suggesting that the solution to this was to abolish private schools (like Eton) altogether as the majority of those who attended Oxbridge went to private schools - and a few in particular. Here it is (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/when-elitism-grips-the-top-of-british-society-to-this-extent-there-is-only-one-answer-abolish-private-schools-9696813.html)


I just wondered what people's opinions on this might be? Personally I think this would definitely make things a lot fairer as private schools, I think, allow the class system to continue and allow those from the most privileged backgrounds to have access to top unis (and therefore top jobs) What does everyone else think?

Scroll to see replies

Oh is it time for the weekly "should we get rid of private schools?" thread already?!
Reply 2
private schools should not be abolished. this is another example of pushing down the intelligent rather than pulling up the unintelligent in the name of Equality.
We shouldn't ban private schools because that would be immoral. The only justification from banning something is if it causes people harm (of course, not everything that can cause harm should be banned, but this is a necessary condition). Private schools do not harm those who go to state schools - they provide an advantage to a certain group of people above others. To say that 'we should ban things that provide people with an unfair advantage' is to allow some very totalitarian policies. Using the same logic in other fields, we could justify banning just about everything.

The only solution is to make state schools as good as private schools, although I highly doubt this will ever happen.

Besides, when people point out that private schools and Oxbridge dominate, they seem to ignore the fact that people attending these institutions are generally more capable. Given that all private schools are selective (either socially, academically, or both) it is no surprise that they produce the best pupils. They take in a much more able intake, and then provide a higher quality of education (in general). It should come as no surprise that their alumni are so successful.
Reply 4
Original post by JFens


I just wondered what people's opinions on this might be? Personally I think this would definitely make things a lot fairer as private schools, I think, allow the class system to continue and allow those from the most privileged backgrounds to have access to top unis (and therefore top jobs) What does everyone else think?



so your saying parents can not spend their money on their children to help them?
Reply 5
Original post by PythianLegume
We shouldn't ban private schools because that would be immoral. The only justification from banning something is if it causes people harm (of course, not everything that can cause harm should be banned, but this is a necessary condition). Private schools do not harm those who go to state schools - they provide an advantage to a certain group of people above others. To say that 'we should ban things that provide people with an unfair advantage' is to allow some very totalitarian policies. Using the same logic in other fields, we could justify banning just about everything.

The only solution is to make state schools as good as private schools, although I highly doubt this will ever happen.

Besides, when people point out that private schools and Oxbridge dominate, they seem to ignore the fact that people attending these institutions are generally more capable. Given that all private schools are selective (either socially, academically, or both) it is no surprise that they produce the best pupils. They take in a much more able intake, and then provide a higher quality of education (in general). It should come as no surprise that their alumni are so successful.


Fair enough, I respect your view. However, surely trying to bring state schools up to the same level as private schools is useless as the state only has so much to spend whereas independent schools have huge amounts of money, mainly from fees.
Even if you ban private schools there will not be "equality" in the education system. Certain schools in a state system will still be run better with better teachers and management than others and parents will fight to get their children in those schools. You also can't account for private tutors or possibly parents who are degree educated and able to devote time outside of school helping their children.

I also find the concept of banning private schools to be immoral. Some people simply work harder in life and as a result are able to provide a better education for their offspring. There is nothing wrong with this, it is completely fair to me. If you want to ban private schools do you also want to ban things like inheritance, children of rich parents being given more pocket money and Christmas presents or banning rich families from going on holiday simply because it would be unfair to the people who couldn't afford it? I suggest you go live in another country if you want those kinds of things and I assure you any country which operated in such manner would just stagnate and have a poor quality of living for the whole population because there would be no motivation to achieve.
Original post by JFens
Fair enough, I respect your view. However, surely trying to bring state schools up to the same level as private schools is useless as the state only has so much to spend whereas independent schools have huge amounts of money, mainly from fees.


Well yes, hence why I said it would likely never happen, although I think we are much closer than people think. If you control for factors like the quality of intake and SES of pupils, private schools aren't much better than state schools. The point is that trying to bring up state schools is the only defensible position to take.
Reply 8
Original post by Wee.Guy
so your saying parents can not spend their money on their children to help them?

People, in my view should not have an unfair advantage based on their wealthy background. Therefore, yes.
Original post by JFens
People, in my view should not have an unfair advantage based on their wealthy background. Therefore, yes.


Maybe we ought to bring up all children in state nurseries to equal out the differences that come from having educated, involved parents.
Reply 10
Original post by JFens
People, in my view should not have an unfair advantage based on their wealthy background. Therefore, yes.



but theyre allowed to have an "unfair advantage" in other aspects. why is money different?
Reply 11
Why shouldn't parents be entitled to be paying extra money to guarantee their children a prosperous future. If I can afford it when I'm older, I'd put my children in a private school as I'd want them to do well in life.
Reply 12
Original post by PythianLegume
Maybe we ought to bring up all children in state nurseries to equal out the differences that come from having educated, involved parents.

This is one idea that might work. However, obviously no government would be willing to propose this for financial reasons, and also they might be accused of being too left wing.
Reply 13
Original post by JFens
People, in my view should not have an unfair advantage based on their wealthy background. Therefore, yes.



so whats the purpose of social mobility then? to make more money for extravagant spending rather than helping their children?
Original post by JFens
This is one idea that might work. However, obviously no government would be willing to propose this for financial reasons, and also they might be accused of being too left wing.


You'd support this? :lolwut:

Leaving aside the moral implications of taking away people's children, it would be terrible for the country. You'd want everyone growing up in the conditions that children in institutional foster homes do? To wish such a fate on millions of children is almost evil.
Reply 15
Original post by Wee.Guy
but theyre allowed to have an "unfair advantage" in other aspects. why is money different?

Such as?
Reply 16
Original post by JFens
Such as?



genetics, time (both the individual and parents)
Reply 17
Original post by PythianLegume
You'd support this? :lolwut:

Leaving aside the moral implications of taking away people's children, it would be terrible for the country. You'd want everyone growing up in the conditions that children in institutional foster homes do? To wish such a fate on millions of children is almost evil.


I misunderstood your earlier post. I thought you meant some sort of state pre-school? Obviously taking away people's children is immoral but there has to be some way to make sure social background doesn't influence academic success
Reply 18
Original post by Wee.Guy
genetics, time (both the individual and parents)

So you think some people are genetically superior?
Sounds like a certain A. Hitler
Their exams should be made harder to offset the addition coaching they've been given and give a more accurate reflection of the pupil's actual academic ability. They should also be forced to live up to their charity status by sharing their facilities with local state schools.

Quick Reply

Latest