This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Are private schools fair?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Cicerao
My point is that all schools should be of a good quality instead of having one tier for those who can afford a good education and another tier for those who have to "settle" for a lesser education. Nobody's saying we have to get rid of good state schools because for a lot of people they are the ideal - a good education without eye-watering fees. Poor, uneducating comps are nobody's ideal. That's why it's not true to say that people want to bring standards down. They want to bring standards up, but for everybody instead of it being seen as a luxury for a privileged few. I hope I explained it a little.
Then why are you arguing against independent schools? It's just counterproductive. Everyone wants universally good education: we should achieve it by making the public sector better.
Original post by michael321
Then why are you arguing against independent schools? It's just counterproductive. Everyone wants universally good education: we should achieve it by making the public sector better.
Because as long as private schools are there for the elite to put their kids in, there will be far less pressure to improve the state sector.
It's just my opinion, you don't have to agree.
Original post by Cicerao
Because as long as private schools are there for the elite to put their kids in, there will be far less pressure to improve the state sector.
It's just my opinion, you don't have to agree.
It's just my opinion, you don't have to agree.
There is always pressure for "the elite" to try to improve the private sector. We all want the better, more cohesive society produced by good education.
Improving the education system is a job for government. As I've already mentioned, the state sector did very well, and the private very badly, when grammar schools were at their height and the public sector actually offered some competition.
Having been to both schools, i.e. State and Private, the level of education that I recieved was at a similar level at both. My 'state' school was an average school just outside London. I don't think it really makes any difference where you study.
My point is that no matter how much your parents pay, it's the amount of work that the pupil puts in! Any pupil can pick up a text book and do extra work. They can do extra past papers, and only they can do extra research. And surprisingly, even pupils that go to private schools, and pay thousands for the pleasure, still fail!
My point is that no matter how much your parents pay, it's the amount of work that the pupil puts in! Any pupil can pick up a text book and do extra work. They can do extra past papers, and only they can do extra research. And surprisingly, even pupils that go to private schools, and pay thousands for the pleasure, still fail!
Original post by Clip
The usual TSR narrow focus seems to permeate this thread.
So much of this debate seems centred on class war and lack of appreciation of education.
Given that there are now universal fees for tertiary education - it is a mystery to me why this debate even still exists.
Class War - say no more. This is simply the politics of envy. What the opponents of Public school seems to be saying is that if they can't have something, then no one should. The logical conclusion of this is a communist state. Why should people be permitted to buy better anything? If you are not permitted to buy better education, why should you be permitted to buy a better car or better clothes? Why doesn't everyone get issued the same crap mobile phone run off a single government-owned network?
Secondly, Fee-paying education (indeed, education in general) is so much more than a set of exam results - which is the point that gets so often missed on TSR.
Public schools very often provide a nice environment and facilities for pupils - that which it would very often be unreasonable to expect the state to provide universally. If someone wants to pay to send their children to a school with beautiful grounds and buildings - why does anyone begrudge that?
Some people pay to have the specialist facilities that state schools either do not provide or provide at a level below that which some parents/pupils would like. Not all state schools have strong sports facilities - many public schools do. Some excel in it. Games like Rugby and Lacrosse are not often well supported at state schools due to the higher skill levels required to coach them safely.
Some schools offer pastoral care that is not available in state schools. Some girls (and boys) are extremely sensitive or introverted at a young age, and some schools cater for them. Class warriors will no doubt scoff at that - but if people want to pay for their children to have a smooth ride - what on earth is wrong with that? If they can remedy upset and unhappiness at school by buying a better one - why not?
Remember the Tom Daley situation? Bullied and harassed at his state school for being a sports star. The school was unable to deal with it - so he moved to a public school where there was no problem. The cretins amongst us that watch Glee can no doubt relate that to the Kurt Hummel story.
There are any number of reasons why people want to buy private education - and I cannot fathom any of them as being "unfair". Huge numbers of children in public school are not "rich" - they are either on bursaries or their parents sacrifice other things in lieu of school fees.
Again, the class warriors will no doubt rub themselves with glee that their comprehensive has achieved "better" results than the £10,000pa school down the road. This is the essence of the problem - total lack of comprehension.
So much of this debate seems centred on class war and lack of appreciation of education.
Given that there are now universal fees for tertiary education - it is a mystery to me why this debate even still exists.
Class War - say no more. This is simply the politics of envy. What the opponents of Public school seems to be saying is that if they can't have something, then no one should. The logical conclusion of this is a communist state. Why should people be permitted to buy better anything? If you are not permitted to buy better education, why should you be permitted to buy a better car or better clothes? Why doesn't everyone get issued the same crap mobile phone run off a single government-owned network?
Secondly, Fee-paying education (indeed, education in general) is so much more than a set of exam results - which is the point that gets so often missed on TSR.
Public schools very often provide a nice environment and facilities for pupils - that which it would very often be unreasonable to expect the state to provide universally. If someone wants to pay to send their children to a school with beautiful grounds and buildings - why does anyone begrudge that?
Some people pay to have the specialist facilities that state schools either do not provide or provide at a level below that which some parents/pupils would like. Not all state schools have strong sports facilities - many public schools do. Some excel in it. Games like Rugby and Lacrosse are not often well supported at state schools due to the higher skill levels required to coach them safely.
Some schools offer pastoral care that is not available in state schools. Some girls (and boys) are extremely sensitive or introverted at a young age, and some schools cater for them. Class warriors will no doubt scoff at that - but if people want to pay for their children to have a smooth ride - what on earth is wrong with that? If they can remedy upset and unhappiness at school by buying a better one - why not?
Remember the Tom Daley situation? Bullied and harassed at his state school for being a sports star. The school was unable to deal with it - so he moved to a public school where there was no problem. The cretins amongst us that watch Glee can no doubt relate that to the Kurt Hummel story.
There are any number of reasons why people want to buy private education - and I cannot fathom any of them as being "unfair". Huge numbers of children in public school are not "rich" - they are either on bursaries or their parents sacrifice other things in lieu of school fees.
Again, the class warriors will no doubt rub themselves with glee that their comprehensive has achieved "better" results than the £10,000pa school down the road. This is the essence of the problem - total lack of comprehension.
This is an impressively clear rebuttal to those who oppose private education. It would be very difficult to refute directly without sounding envious or foolish. Interestingly enough, none of the opposition has tried. Funny how that happens.
Original post by A.Fitzgerald
I really liked the way you argued your point there richie. The ability for the state to intervene and demand that a person has to enroll their child in a state school is a morally justifiable option. The problem lies in the fact that an individuals right for specific freedoms (with regards to spending their money) would normally supersede the notion of a just playing field for all children to start from.
In addition, the fact that an individual is formed from a combination of environment and crucially the genes that they inherit seems to further negate your proposed argument.
Furthermore, within the private system itself there are comparable filters that affect who can and can't entertain certain objectives in so far as getting into better universities. Were you to spend X amount in educating your child it does not necessarily follow that you would get an equivalent academic (or any other attribute) payout.
I believe that the individual nature of man means that certain evident truths, that would seem to be morally undeniable are in fact practically untenable. It is this practicality that seems to me to be the prime candidate for disagreeing with your notion.
Paradoxically, I would still envy a country that had such a system.
In addition, the fact that an individual is formed from a combination of environment and crucially the genes that they inherit seems to further negate your proposed argument.
Furthermore, within the private system itself there are comparable filters that affect who can and can't entertain certain objectives in so far as getting into better universities. Were you to spend X amount in educating your child it does not necessarily follow that you would get an equivalent academic (or any other attribute) payout.
I believe that the individual nature of man means that certain evident truths, that would seem to be morally undeniable are in fact practically untenable. It is this practicality that seems to me to be the prime candidate for disagreeing with your notion.
Paradoxically, I would still envy a country that had such a system.
Here is another great response. When coupled with the previous quote from clip you must be either, remarkably stubborn, ignorant, or blinded by envy not to see reason and reality.
Original post by ckingalt
Original post by ckingalt
Here is another great response. When coupled with the previous quote from clip you must be either, remarkably stubborn, ignorant, or blinded by envy not to see reason and reality.
Thanks!
Original post by Cicerao
This will never, ever happen, simply because the elite of society do not give a rat's about the quality of the state system. There is no need for them to even think about improving anything because they can send their children off to Eton and escape the proles stuck in the local comp with 29 other students in the class. They will always be "needed" because shipping your child off to boarding school is far easier than bothering to develop an efficient state system for all.
Well that depends, it isn't the responsibility of the parents to make the state system good is it? The state is the provider, the state needs to come up with regulations to make the school better. It isn't the responsibility of wealthy parents to potentially put their own children's education at risk for the sake of 'equality'. The state needs to have its role enhanced, and whilst it perhaps doesn't have the resources to produce the opportunities private schools give to its students, grammar schools tend to have very similar budgets and do very well (Because of the concentration of intellect). If one concedes the point that the concentration of intellect improves standards of education, then one also has to concede the point that it requires a dramatic initial downturn in the standards of the top in order to bring up the bottom, no wealthy parent is going to want their child to be the 'sacrificial lamb' in this, and as I said before, no effort will go into improving the entire state sector, just a few that the wealthy will hog.
I also need to point out that at eton, academic standards aren't amazingly high in comparison to other Private schools, eton is good because of tradition and connections. The former is a byproduct of an ethos that is somewhat outdated even by private school standards, but lives in on private schools and grammars which helps them attain high educational output. The latter will not be prevented, like it or not.
Original post by themarksy
I highly value your judgement, but are you saying State school pupils don't work just as hard? I worked hard to attain 3 A's + an A2 A* this year in my AS'. Admittedly, you do get those who publically procrastinate, but who's to say that just because their education is paid for, Private pupils won't procrastinate either? Determination may be a personality trait more than a constructed and expected working ethos - something which is encouraged in the Private education sector. But thank you for enlightening me with your experience, it's interesting to pinpoint the differences 
By no means was I saying that some people at state schools don't work hard too. Of course in any school there will be people that work hard and do well for themselves, and also those that don't really value their educations. However, in my experience, at private school you are really encouraged to work hard and achieve the best results that you can, whether you are good at the particular subject or not. Whilst, again in my own personal experience, at mystate school it was very easy to blend into the background and (so long as you weren't failing) you could go pretty much unnoticed. I know that it's different at every school but this is just how it was for me
Original post by mevidek
I'm not talking about abolishing one and not giving a **** about raising the other. Had you read what I previously said, you'd realise I think that we should try to make education the best in the world as we're lucky to have it. And it's not about "if I can't have then they can't". It's about giving everybody equal opportunities and education.
Yes, I suppose life might be boring, but then again it would mean there'd be more competition and
people would have to work hard to do well, not just a select few.
Yes, I suppose life might be boring, but then again it would mean there'd be more competition and
people would have to work hard to do well, not just a select few.
You and I are almost 180 degrees out in ideology. However, I completely agree with you on making public education as good as is reasonable. I disagree with most social programs to some extent, but education is one of the few I would willingly contribute my resources too. So yes lets make all public schools as good as the best private schools are... If we can.
Now, lets say we do manage to achieve this goal. Private schools, if allowed to exist, by their very nature will seek to provide something specialized, extra, or better than the wonderful new standard we just achieved in the public sector. They will seek, require, and obtain extra resources to achieve this goal, and they will succeed. Suddenly we are back to the disparity which creates an unfair advantage to the privileged. So if you're for better education great. If you're for equality, you have to take the option of providing private education away from the privileged.
I understand your desire for a fair game, but at what point do we stop making rules and just let people play? This is somewhat off topic, but when do we stop putting restrictions on individuals to ensure equality? If mevidek could wave a magic wand and set the world right, would people be able to distinguish themselves after we all begin with the exact same opportunities? What restrictions would you put on the people who do fairly distinguish themselves to keep them from using their fairly earned resources to give their children or friends an unfair advantage? What happens to their fairly earned money when they die? What of their property? What if they die before their kids are grown? What if they die after? Won't we just find ways to hide our resources if we can't pass them on, and what would that do to the economy and society?
Have you completely considered the massive impact a truly equal and fair society would have on personal choice, freedom, and incentive. I you say yes that you are willing to surrender substantial freedom for social fairness, then I can understand that our different priorities give us different ideologies. If you think we can achieve real fairness with minimal freedoms lost however, I believe you are either very naive, or deluded.
Original post by mevidek
I think you have now forced me to rethink my opinion. Your logic and wit have helped set me straight, as there is clearly no way to refute the brilliant argument you have just put forward. I must yield.
You are smart and I am dumb.
You are attractive and I am ugly.
You are strong and I am weak.
You are tall and I am short.
You are all that is good and I am all that isn't.
Capitalism is right and socialism is wrong.
You are smart and I am dumb.
You are attractive and I am ugly.
You are strong and I am weak.
You are tall and I am short.
You are all that is good and I am all that isn't.
Capitalism is right and socialism is wrong.
It is good of you to admit it. I'm glad we were able to sort out our differences. Regards.
(edited 12 years ago)
boarding schooler here.
my dad was in the army for 25 years and we didn't have any money for a long time. we lived basically on my dads army paycheck and it was awful.
then he left the army, worked his ass off to set up a company in security.
got enough money to send me to private school.
i don't think i deserve to go, however my dad deserves to use the money whichever way he wants and if that's sending me to a better school then so be it
my dad was in the army for 25 years and we didn't have any money for a long time. we lived basically on my dads army paycheck and it was awful.
then he left the army, worked his ass off to set up a company in security.
got enough money to send me to private school.
i don't think i deserve to go, however my dad deserves to use the money whichever way he wants and if that's sending me to a better school then so be it
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
