Private schools should be banned!!!!!!!!
Scroll to see replies
Original post by millie-rose
but that works both ways... who the hell is the government to allow the rich to succeed in private schools whilst letting the majority fail in state because they can't afford it?
I don't think it's quite the same when you turn it around. It's like telling someone who needs medical care that they have to use the NHS just because no one else can afford to go private.
Original post by LeonVII
Why should they be banned? They provide excellent opportunities for people to receive an above average education. Granted, most people cant afford it but if you go by that logic then institutions like the monarchy and the aristocracy should also be abolished.
don't even get me started on the monarchy
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
I don't think it's quite the same when you turn it around. It's like telling someone who needs medical care that they have to use the NHS just because no one else can afford to go private.
No I think private healthcare and private education are completely different things that lead to completely different outcomes and I would not compare it.
Education determines your chances in life, often your job, the people you meet, your university and often your outlook on life. It shapes you as a person. But the most important thing about private education is that the privilege of that education is paid for by your parents , you did not work hard and then pay for it yourself which I would argue makes it fair.
Healthcare does not determine your chances in life (yes of course you can die etc. but you know what i mean). But the most important difference I see is that private healthcare is often paid for with your own money. You have worked hard and earned enough to pay for private healthcare- I personally don't see much problem but with education it's a completely different matter.
Also, the gap in quality between state education and private is extremely 00 high as the majority of state schools cannot even compete with what private schools offer. However, the NHS (even though people like to say it's rubbish etc.) is actually one of the most efficient state healthcare systems in the world (if not the best) and therefore the gap between state/private is minor.
Original post by LeonVII
Haha yeah the monarchy are annoying. Do nothing, live in splendour which has been paid for by people's hard earned money.
abolish the monarchy = use the money to send everyone to private school
solution
Original post by Pikachu123
I believe education should be a sector that should be completely government controlled; that is not to say I advocate following strict government curriculum, rather I believe that a child's basic education should not be influenced by factors such as wealth.
If we are to improve the social mobility of the UK we must expose all children to the same quality of education; this is fundamental to our future generations' progress. Already there is a huge disparity between independent and state funded schools - it is evident by looking at the level of the Common Entrance exam.
Some may argue that the wealthy will always find some means to improve their child's education even if independent schools were to be abolished, that is true; there is no denying that they have the option to send their child to a boarding school in a foreign country, however what happens outside the UK is not the jurisdiction of the UK, therefore should not affect a decision about ENGLISH education. Hiring private tutors is also an option, however hours outside of school is limited; therefore there is less of a difference between the level in which all children are educated at.
Education is a fundamental human right, it is akin to being able to receive medical treatment. Should we not aspire to a better quality of these services for all? Not being able to even make an intelligent, informed decision in elections is an extremely sad state of affairs (which is 38.7% of us), every human being (in the UK) should receive the opportunity to enrich their mind to such a degree.
Banning education would not worsen the experience for all; on the contrary there would be incentive for all (which will include the wealthy - those with the most power) to improve the educational sector and pressurize the government to invest in schools.
Continuing to support independent schools is also a way of segregating those who are wealthy and those who are not; as a general rule. It makes the division between them stark and the wealthy will not be able to identify with those less fortunate, and vice versa. Both will be engulfed within their own 'culture' (evidently this is where the 'chav' culture arose). Being able to expose children to all different types of socioeconomic classes may eventually end the unfounded (and wholly ignorant,) hateful view of the upper echelons of society.
That is why private schools should be banned, they really should be. Rant over.
I know this topic has been covered over many times but I wanted to express my opinion and hope to provide a fresh perspective on this topic (and hopefully influence people into supporting the idea of banning private schools). What I don't understand is the fact that some people are unsupportive of this idea, I mean; their arguments are entirely founded on the basis of the child's right to a better education resting solely on the competence of their parents? Am I right? This doesn't make sense, people don't chose their parents...
P.S. Sorry for any grammatical (or spelling) mistakes in this post.
The ratio of intelligent:unintelligent people on studentroom is approximately 8:20
If we are to improve the social mobility of the UK we must expose all children to the same quality of education; this is fundamental to our future generations' progress. Already there is a huge disparity between independent and state funded schools - it is evident by looking at the level of the Common Entrance exam.
Some may argue that the wealthy will always find some means to improve their child's education even if independent schools were to be abolished, that is true; there is no denying that they have the option to send their child to a boarding school in a foreign country, however what happens outside the UK is not the jurisdiction of the UK, therefore should not affect a decision about ENGLISH education. Hiring private tutors is also an option, however hours outside of school is limited; therefore there is less of a difference between the level in which all children are educated at.
Education is a fundamental human right, it is akin to being able to receive medical treatment. Should we not aspire to a better quality of these services for all? Not being able to even make an intelligent, informed decision in elections is an extremely sad state of affairs (which is 38.7% of us), every human being (in the UK) should receive the opportunity to enrich their mind to such a degree.
Banning education would not worsen the experience for all; on the contrary there would be incentive for all (which will include the wealthy - those with the most power) to improve the educational sector and pressurize the government to invest in schools.
Continuing to support independent schools is also a way of segregating those who are wealthy and those who are not; as a general rule. It makes the division between them stark and the wealthy will not be able to identify with those less fortunate, and vice versa. Both will be engulfed within their own 'culture' (evidently this is where the 'chav' culture arose). Being able to expose children to all different types of socioeconomic classes may eventually end the unfounded (and wholly ignorant,) hateful view of the upper echelons of society.
That is why private schools should be banned, they really should be. Rant over.
I know this topic has been covered over many times but I wanted to express my opinion and hope to provide a fresh perspective on this topic (and hopefully influence people into supporting the idea of banning private schools). What I don't understand is the fact that some people are unsupportive of this idea, I mean; their arguments are entirely founded on the basis of the child's right to a better education resting solely on the competence of their parents? Am I right? This doesn't make sense, people don't chose their parents...
P.S. Sorry for any grammatical (or spelling) mistakes in this post.
The ratio of intelligent:unintelligent people on studentroom is approximately 8:20
This is utter nonsense. The main reason children go to private schools is to escape from the under funded state sector schools. Might I also like to add that whilst these parents who send their kids to private schools might be wealthy, they also pay for your education in a state school! There is no deduction from taxation for parents - even though their kids aren't using the state education service.
If you banned private schools then state schools would be over crowded; the government simply don't have the money or resources to fund the creation/purchase of new state schools. This would leave Britain not as competitive in the future in the global jobs market as well. Your argument is based on nothing but sheer jealousy and spite that some kids are better off than you and have had an easier lifestyle, that's life, its all about ignoring the rich and focusing on working hard, then nothing will stop you.
Original post by millie-rose
No I think private healthcare and private education are completely different things that lead to completely different outcomes and I would not compare it.
Education determines your chances in life, often your job, the people you meet, your university and often your outlook on life. It shapes you as a person. But the most important thing about private education is that the privilege of that education is paid for by your parents , you did not work hard and then pay for it yourself which I would argue makes it fair.
Healthcare does not determine your chances in life (yes of course you can die etc. but you know what i mean). But the most important difference I see is that private healthcare is often paid for with your own money. You have worked hard and earned enough to pay for private healthcare- I personally don't see much problem but with education it's a completely different matter.
Also, the gap in quality between state education and private is extremely 00 high as the majority of state schools cannot even compete with what private schools offer. However, the NHS (even though people like to say it's rubbish etc.) is actually one of the most efficient state healthcare systems in the world (if not the best) and therefore the gap between state/private is minor.
Education determines your chances in life, often your job, the people you meet, your university and often your outlook on life. It shapes you as a person. But the most important thing about private education is that the privilege of that education is paid for by your parents , you did not work hard and then pay for it yourself which I would argue makes it fair.
Healthcare does not determine your chances in life (yes of course you can die etc. but you know what i mean). But the most important difference I see is that private healthcare is often paid for with your own money. You have worked hard and earned enough to pay for private healthcare- I personally don't see much problem but with education it's a completely different matter.
Also, the gap in quality between state education and private is extremely 00 high as the majority of state schools cannot even compete with what private schools offer. However, the NHS (even though people like to say it's rubbish etc.) is actually one of the most efficient state healthcare systems in the world (if not the best) and therefore the gap between state/private is minor.
Yeah I wasn't really comparing healthcare and education as much as trying to emphasise how crazy it seems to forbid someone from having something good that's right there for the taking, just because others can't get it. Education is about more than just getting a job and earning money, it shapes a person's whole life and who they are. If I had a kid and enough money then I wouldn't sacrifice their intellectual development just for the sake of being "fair" to "society". It has to be up to the rest of the world to catch up, and that's not an impossible feat, just requires the government putting more money into it instead of wasting it elsewhere. They are the ones to blame, not the parents who've worked themselves into a position to provide the best they can for their family.
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
Yeah I wasn't really comparing healthcare and education as much as trying to emphasise how crazy it seems to forbid someone from having something good that's right there for the taking, just because others can't get it. Education is about more than just getting a job and earning money, it shapes a person's whole life and who they are. If I had a kid and enough money then I wouldn't sacrifice their intellectual development just for the sake of being "fair" to "society". It has to be up to the rest of the world to catch up, and that's not an impossible feat, just requires the government putting more money into it instead of wasting it elsewhere. They are the ones to blame, not the parents who've worked themselves into a position to provide the best they can for their family.
- Firstly,that's exactly the point; 'if' you had enough money for your child then you would give them a better education instead of being fair to society. I understand this, but the fact that money buys better education (and in turn a better lifestyle) is just wrong in today's society.
- yes, the parents who have worked hard are not to blame... completely agree with you. but state school can never catch up to private school as it will never be able to compete with the salaries/facilities/small class sizes. the only way is to abolish private and then bring state to the best standard it can be otherwise it will never match private. if those who get AAA at private schools are really truly smart they would be able to achieve at state school as well.
Original post by millie-rose
but at least starting of equally makes for a just society.
Sorry, but no matter how much social engineering is put in place that will never happen. Should we also ban parents from tutoring their kids or reading to them from a young age because other kids have layabout parents who aren't willing to do the same? Same principle except the parents' wealth has been replaced with their ability and commitment to teaching their children.
On another note universities and employers aren't stupid. If they actually thought state school pupils who achieved inferior grades at school were more capable than their AAA private school counterparts then that would be reflected in the admissions statistics. Ironically at my university I know of quite a few PUBLIC school guys (think Eton, Westminster etc.) who are near top of the year in their degrees, so make of that what you will...
Original post by Jack22031994
Yeah in comparison it isn't a lot but 30k isnt a lot compared to anything
every so often someone starts an 'are you rich poll' and everybody votes no, this is why.
Fwiw median salary is ~21,000
30,000 would be a massive raise for most people in work.
Original post by Pikachu123
I believe education should be a sector that should be completely government controlled; that is not to say I advocate following strict government curriculum, rather I believe that a child's basic education should not be influenced by factors such as wealth.
If we are to improve the social mobility of the UK we must expose all children to the same quality of education; this is fundamental to our future generations' progress. Already there is a huge disparity between independent and state funded schools - it is evident by looking at the level of the Common Entrance exam.
Some may argue that the wealthy will always find some means to improve their child's education even if independent schools were to be abolished, that is true; there is no denying that they have the option to send their child to a boarding school in a foreign country, however what happens outside the UK is not the jurisdiction of the UK, therefore should not affect a decision about ENGLISH education. Hiring private tutors is also an option, however hours outside of school is limited; therefore there is less of a difference between the level in which all children are educated at.
Education is a fundamental human right, it is akin to being able to receive medical treatment. Should we not aspire to a better quality of these services for all? Not being able to even make an intelligent, informed decision in elections is an extremely sad state of affairs (which is 38.7% of us), every human being (in the UK) should receive the opportunity to enrich their mind to such a degree.
Banning education would not worsen the experience for all; on the contrary there would be incentive for all (which will include the wealthy - those with the most power) to improve the educational sector and pressurize the government to invest in schools.
Continuing to support independent schools is also a way of segregating those who are wealthy and those who are not; as a general rule. It makes the division between them stark and the wealthy will not be able to identify with those less fortunate, and vice versa. Both will be engulfed within their own 'culture' (evidently this is where the 'chav' culture arose). Being able to expose children to all different types of socioeconomic classes may eventually end the unfounded (and wholly ignorant,) hateful view of the upper echelons of society.
That is why private schools should be banned, they really should be. Rant over.
I know this topic has been covered over many times but I wanted to express my opinion and hope to provide a fresh perspective on this topic (and hopefully influence people into supporting the idea of banning private schools). What I don't understand is the fact that some people are unsupportive of this idea, I mean; their arguments are entirely founded on the basis of the child's right to a better education resting solely on the competence of their parents? Am I right? This doesn't make sense, people don't chose their parents...
P.S. Sorry for any grammatical (or spelling) mistakes in this post.
The ratio of intelligent:unintelligent people on studentroom is approximately 8:20
If we are to improve the social mobility of the UK we must expose all children to the same quality of education; this is fundamental to our future generations' progress. Already there is a huge disparity between independent and state funded schools - it is evident by looking at the level of the Common Entrance exam.
Some may argue that the wealthy will always find some means to improve their child's education even if independent schools were to be abolished, that is true; there is no denying that they have the option to send their child to a boarding school in a foreign country, however what happens outside the UK is not the jurisdiction of the UK, therefore should not affect a decision about ENGLISH education. Hiring private tutors is also an option, however hours outside of school is limited; therefore there is less of a difference between the level in which all children are educated at.
Education is a fundamental human right, it is akin to being able to receive medical treatment. Should we not aspire to a better quality of these services for all? Not being able to even make an intelligent, informed decision in elections is an extremely sad state of affairs (which is 38.7% of us), every human being (in the UK) should receive the opportunity to enrich their mind to such a degree.
Banning education would not worsen the experience for all; on the contrary there would be incentive for all (which will include the wealthy - those with the most power) to improve the educational sector and pressurize the government to invest in schools.
Continuing to support independent schools is also a way of segregating those who are wealthy and those who are not; as a general rule. It makes the division between them stark and the wealthy will not be able to identify with those less fortunate, and vice versa. Both will be engulfed within their own 'culture' (evidently this is where the 'chav' culture arose). Being able to expose children to all different types of socioeconomic classes may eventually end the unfounded (and wholly ignorant,) hateful view of the upper echelons of society.
That is why private schools should be banned, they really should be. Rant over.
I know this topic has been covered over many times but I wanted to express my opinion and hope to provide a fresh perspective on this topic (and hopefully influence people into supporting the idea of banning private schools). What I don't understand is the fact that some people are unsupportive of this idea, I mean; their arguments are entirely founded on the basis of the child's right to a better education resting solely on the competence of their parents? Am I right? This doesn't make sense, people don't chose their parents...
P.S. Sorry for any grammatical (or spelling) mistakes in this post.
The ratio of intelligent:unintelligent people on studentroom is approximately 8:20
I disagree with your argument on every level.
Ideologically, I believe that any parent who can afford to has the right to buy the best education for their child. This Obviously provides an advantage to the child but it is not an unfair one, it is a result of the success of the parent. If, instead of wishing to deny opportunities to those who have them, people strove to gain those opportunities for themselves the nation would be in a better position both economically and socially.
Practically, private education is an advantage to the state system. The taxes paid by a parent who's child is privately educated still contribute towards funding the state system. Therefore, a parent who pays for their child to be privately educated is effectively subsidising state education for children from lower income families. Basic mathematics, which often seems to be a weakness of socialists like yourself, shows that banning private education would damage the state system. It would mean that the same level of funding would have to be used to support a larger number of pupils, reducing the funding per head.
There will always be a discrepancy between the standards of state and private education but removing private schools would only mean a worse education for everyone. The best way to reduce the gap is to reintroduce grammar schools. Selection would allow students to be taught in a way that best suits their ability, going some way to negating the advantage of smaller classes and individual help in private schools.
Original post by kfmp
I disagree with your argument on every level.
Ideologically, I believe that any parent who can afford to has the right to buy the best education for their child. This Obviously provides an advantage to the child but it is not an unfair one, it is a result of the success of the parent. If, instead of wishing to deny opportunities to those who have them, people strove to gain those opportunities for themselves the nation would be in a better position both economically and socially.
Practically, private education is an advantage to the state system. The taxes paid by a parent who's child is privately educated still contribute towards funding the state system. Therefore, a parent who pays for their child to be privately educated is effectively subsidising state education for children from lower income families. Basic mathematics, which often seems to be a weakness of socialists like yourself, shows that banning private education would damage the state system. It would mean that the same level of funding would have to be used to support a larger number of pupils, reducing the funding per head.
There will always be a discrepancy between the standards of state and private education but removing private schools would only mean a worse education for everyone. The best way to reduce the gap is to reintroduce grammar schools. Selection would allow students to be taught in a way that best suits their ability, going some way to negating the advantage of smaller classes and individual help in private schools.
Ideologically, I believe that any parent who can afford to has the right to buy the best education for their child. This Obviously provides an advantage to the child but it is not an unfair one, it is a result of the success of the parent. If, instead of wishing to deny opportunities to those who have them, people strove to gain those opportunities for themselves the nation would be in a better position both economically and socially.
Practically, private education is an advantage to the state system. The taxes paid by a parent who's child is privately educated still contribute towards funding the state system. Therefore, a parent who pays for their child to be privately educated is effectively subsidising state education for children from lower income families. Basic mathematics, which often seems to be a weakness of socialists like yourself, shows that banning private education would damage the state system. It would mean that the same level of funding would have to be used to support a larger number of pupils, reducing the funding per head.
There will always be a discrepancy between the standards of state and private education but removing private schools would only mean a worse education for everyone. The best way to reduce the gap is to reintroduce grammar schools. Selection would allow students to be taught in a way that best suits their ability, going some way to negating the advantage of smaller classes and individual help in private schools.
I wouldn't categorise their idea as 'socialist'.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I don't see the problem with private schools. If you have more money you get better things in life, it's what drives a lot of people when they're in school.
If private schools should be banned then that would mean private health care should definitely be banned and you could make arguments for almost everything private being run by the state.
There's also no real conclusive evidence that private schools are better, a lot of grammar schools can rival the scores of certain private schools.
The final problem I see with banning private schools is the teachers who work there would have to take pay cuts meaning some may end up taking other jobs, lowering the standard of teaching
Posted from TSR Mobile
If private schools should be banned then that would mean private health care should definitely be banned and you could make arguments for almost everything private being run by the state.
There's also no real conclusive evidence that private schools are better, a lot of grammar schools can rival the scores of certain private schools.
The final problem I see with banning private schools is the teachers who work there would have to take pay cuts meaning some may end up taking other jobs, lowering the standard of teaching
Posted from TSR Mobile
As the parent of a privately educated daughter, I feel that I am justified in replying to your 'rant'. Her first few years of education were spent at a local and popular, state infant school, sadly she became one of several victims to three girls who, even at such a young age, were vicious both mentally and physically and were already well rehearsed in the etiquette of gang culture as we have come to know it. Not coming from a 'give as good as you get' background, I went to inform the Head of the problem expecting her to act accordingly. The unbelievable response that I got from her was to be told that "They're all girls, girls can be little bitches and it's also a hot summer and that doesn't help, forget about it and it will blow over before they return after the holidays." Needless to say, it didn't blow over. Also when I requested her teacher at that time, to pick up on any poor grammar such as the use of the word 'ain't, or replacing th sounds in words with f instead, all the things I recall be constantly reminded of as a child, I was told that it was local vernacular! I also recall having to remind several members of the staff that please and thank you should be taught by example.
All in all, not a good start to school for my daughter.
Although the school I write of has a strong academic record, it taught nothing of the rest of the skills needed for life and living within it. As a director of my own company, I know the value of those 'other' skills, good manners, self respect and the consideration of others and wouldn't dream of employing a person without them, no matter how educated.
It was purely to address the lack of life skills that I sent my daughter to a private school where, thanks to their excellent pastoral care, she has grown into lovely young woman (and I am so proud of her).
A final few words and I promise to finish. I'd just like to say that the company I own and which employs a number of staff, was built up by sheer hard work and determination as I received very little academic education at all.
All in all, not a good start to school for my daughter.
Although the school I write of has a strong academic record, it taught nothing of the rest of the skills needed for life and living within it. As a director of my own company, I know the value of those 'other' skills, good manners, self respect and the consideration of others and wouldn't dream of employing a person without them, no matter how educated.
It was purely to address the lack of life skills that I sent my daughter to a private school where, thanks to their excellent pastoral care, she has grown into lovely young woman (and I am so proud of her).
A final few words and I promise to finish. I'd just like to say that the company I own and which employs a number of staff, was built up by sheer hard work and determination as I received very little academic education at all.
Original post by Pikachu123
I believe education should be a sector that should be completely government controlled; that is not to say I advocate following strict government curriculum, rather I believe that a child's basic education should not be influenced by factors such as wealth.
If we are to improve the social mobility of the UK we must expose all children to the same quality of education; this is fundamental to our future generations' progress. Already there is a huge disparity between independent and state funded schools - it is evident by looking at the level of the Common Entrance exam.
Some may argue that the wealthy will always find some means to improve their child's education even if independent schools were to be abolished, that is true; there is no denying that they have the option to send their child to a boarding school in a foreign country, however what happens outside the UK is not the jurisdiction of the UK, therefore should not affect a decision about ENGLISH education. Hiring private tutors is also an option, however hours outside of school is limited; therefore there is less of a difference between the level in which all children are educated at.
Education is a fundamental human right, it is akin to being able to receive medical treatment. Should we not aspire to a better quality of these services for all? Not being able to even make an intelligent, informed decision in elections is an extremely sad state of affairs (which is 38.7% of us), every human being (in the UK) should receive the opportunity to enrich their mind to such a degree.
Banning education would not worsen the experience for all; on the contrary there would be incentive for all (which will include the wealthy - those with the most power) to improve the educational sector and pressurize the government to invest in schools.
Continuing to support independent schools is also a way of segregating those who are wealthy and those who are not; as a general rule. It makes the division between them stark and the wealthy will not be able to identify with those less fortunate, and vice versa. Both will be engulfed within their own 'culture' (evidently this is where the 'chav' culture arose). Being able to expose children to all different types of socioeconomic classes may eventually end the unfounded (and wholly ignorant,) hateful view of the upper echelons of society.
That is why private schools should be banned, they really should be. Rant over.
I know this topic has been covered over many times but I wanted to express my opinion and hope to provide a fresh perspective on this topic (and hopefully influence people into supporting the idea of banning private schools). What I don't understand is the fact that some people are unsupportive of this idea, I mean; their arguments are entirely founded on the basis of the child's right to a better education resting solely on the competence of their parents? Am I right? This doesn't make sense, people don't chose their parents...
P.S. Sorry for any grammatical (or spelling) mistakes in this post.
The ratio of intelligent:unintelligent people on studentroom is approximately 8:20
If we are to improve the social mobility of the UK we must expose all children to the same quality of education; this is fundamental to our future generations' progress. Already there is a huge disparity between independent and state funded schools - it is evident by looking at the level of the Common Entrance exam.
Some may argue that the wealthy will always find some means to improve their child's education even if independent schools were to be abolished, that is true; there is no denying that they have the option to send their child to a boarding school in a foreign country, however what happens outside the UK is not the jurisdiction of the UK, therefore should not affect a decision about ENGLISH education. Hiring private tutors is also an option, however hours outside of school is limited; therefore there is less of a difference between the level in which all children are educated at.
Education is a fundamental human right, it is akin to being able to receive medical treatment. Should we not aspire to a better quality of these services for all? Not being able to even make an intelligent, informed decision in elections is an extremely sad state of affairs (which is 38.7% of us), every human being (in the UK) should receive the opportunity to enrich their mind to such a degree.
Banning education would not worsen the experience for all; on the contrary there would be incentive for all (which will include the wealthy - those with the most power) to improve the educational sector and pressurize the government to invest in schools.
Continuing to support independent schools is also a way of segregating those who are wealthy and those who are not; as a general rule. It makes the division between them stark and the wealthy will not be able to identify with those less fortunate, and vice versa. Both will be engulfed within their own 'culture' (evidently this is where the 'chav' culture arose). Being able to expose children to all different types of socioeconomic classes may eventually end the unfounded (and wholly ignorant,) hateful view of the upper echelons of society.
That is why private schools should be banned, they really should be. Rant over.
I know this topic has been covered over many times but I wanted to express my opinion and hope to provide a fresh perspective on this topic (and hopefully influence people into supporting the idea of banning private schools). What I don't understand is the fact that some people are unsupportive of this idea, I mean; their arguments are entirely founded on the basis of the child's right to a better education resting solely on the competence of their parents? Am I right? This doesn't make sense, people don't chose their parents...
P.S. Sorry for any grammatical (or spelling) mistakes in this post.
The ratio of intelligent:unintelligent people on studentroom is approximately 8:20
What would you suggest for those children of military families who move house every 2/3 years to different parts of the country/abroad? Private boarding schools are the only means of a consistent education, and even non-military kids can get huge scholarships/discounts that prevent the schools being exclusivley for the well-off.
Original post by Butane
Sorry, but no matter how much social engineering is put in place that will never happen. Should we also ban parents from tutoring their kids or reading to them from a young age because other kids have layabout parents who aren't willing to do the same? Same principle except the parents' wealth has been replaced with their ability and commitment to teaching their children.
On another note universities and employers aren't stupid. If they actually thought state school pupils who achieved inferior grades at school were more capable than their AAA private school counterparts then that would be reflected in the admissions statistics. Ironically at my university I know of quite a few PUBLIC school guys (think Eton, Westminster etc.) who are near top of the year in their degrees, so make of that what you will...
On another note universities and employers aren't stupid. If they actually thought state school pupils who achieved inferior grades at school were more capable than their AAA private school counterparts then that would be reflected in the admissions statistics. Ironically at my university I know of quite a few PUBLIC school guys (think Eton, Westminster etc.) who are near top of the year in their degrees, so make of that what you will...
That's ironic because it is reflected in admission statistics :-) Top Uni's such as Bristol have AAA offers for Law, but determining on the school you go to they can make a 'contextual offer' of AAB because they know of the hardship you face in education compared to those in private. I applied for an AAA course at Exeter but because at my college barely even 20% of people pass A Levels I was offered AAB. Think of that what you will.
Well, for starters, I myself have only ever been educated in private schools - the one I am in is struggling for money and the teachers are mostly sub par. But, by your logic the teachers must be better.
anyway, about 4 too many ! in the title for me to take seriousy. my 2 cents.
anyway, about 4 too many ! in the title for me to take seriousy. my 2 cents.
Original post by imaginative name
Well, for starters, I myself have only ever been educated in private schools - the one I am in is struggling for money and the teachers are mostly sub par. But, by your logic the teachers must be better.
anyway, about 4 too many ! in the title for me to take seriousy. my 2 cents.
anyway, about 4 too many ! in the title for me to take seriousy. my 2 cents.
What a waste of money.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Fire Work
- Are single-sex schools a thing of the past? Should they be abolished or not?
- Where to apply with a poor UCAT score?
- Should mobile phone use be banned in schools?
- thoughts on no phones at school
- LNAT Essay feedback
- Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirms
- Mobile phones being banned at start of class
- Can I be a teacher with tattoos
- Rishi Sunak considers curbing social media use for under-16s
- Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challenge
- Mobile phones should be banned from the classroom?
- Twin block braces
- Are these rules for my school necessary?
- Do you think universities should ban meat from their menus?
- Woman attacked by her own dog, an xl bully
- I Need friends lol
- [Golden Thread] Which TSR users quoted you in the last 12 months?
- I’ve been on TSR for 20 years. AMA
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
