Do you think we should abolish private schools?

That's a good point about cheating, it's a reason why I wouldn't send my children to private schools (if I ever have any and if I had the money to), because I want their achievements to be due to ability not the convenience of me being able to afford it! I'd rather invest into living in a nice house in a good neighbourhood which is in the proximity of high-achieving state schools.

That's a good point about cheating, it's a reason why I wouldn't send my children to private schools (if I ever have any and if I had the money to), because I want their achievements to be due to ability not the convenience of me being able to afford it! I'd rather invest into living in a nice house in a good neighbourhood which is in the proximity of high-achieving state schools.

So if a child has a parent who can help him get his head around a subject he is struggling with, is that 'cheating'? Or is it just the introduction of money that is so reprehensible?

What if a parent buys the child a revision guide to work from, which perhaps a poorer parent could not afford?

Yes. It's a power that shouldn't be, and if a child isn't particularly bright then why does he/she deserve to do as well as smart kids? Although smartness doesn't really equate to good grades; the link seems very spurious to me (especially if you look at how many affluent kids there are at Oxford University who pretty obviously went to private schools). However I do think success should be open to all who put forth the effort, and I don't like to label kids as either 'smart' or 'dumb' but some kids happen to be faster learners in some areas than others and sometimes you should just accept the talents you're born with and stop trying to artificially make yourself multi-talented.

Schools generally provide for revision guides anyway, and most revision is freely available online.

So if your kid asked you for help with his times tables, you wouldn't help them? Or if they asked you to read to them, you wouldn't? And you wouldn't discuss current events around them? All these things help a child do better in life, and not every child gets them, which is what you say you're against.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I can't believe how stupid all you pro-establishment people are. I bet you all have crappy music tastes too...

How is this morally any different?

You may not be directly paying for it, but the premium charged on houses in certain catchment areas is little more than another way for the middle classes to buy their way into a good school.

In my opinion this is worse than privately educating your child. It could be said that you are directly snatching a place in a good state school from a child whose parents can't afford to live in that catchment area. As has been pointed out before, private eduction hurts no one.

I'm not that bothered about the practice, but I think it illustrates the hypocrisy of many of the 'private schools are evil' brigade.

Yes. It's a power that shouldn't be, and if a child isn't particularly bright then why does he/she deserve to do as well as smart kids? Although smartness doesn't really equate to good grades; the link seems very spurious to me (especially if you look at how many affluent kids there are at Oxford University who obviously went to private schools, and, despite their high levels of confidence, buffoonery and level-headed-ness, it's actually embarrassing, shameful evidence of just how conservative Britain is and how pathetic our social mobility is that these Hooray Henries are the dominance of everything desirable). However I do think success should be open to all who put forth the effort, and I don't like to label kids as either 'smart' or 'dumb'; it's more the case that some kids happen to be faster learners in some areas than others, and I think sometimes you should just accept the talents you're born with. On the other hand that does sound horribly right-wing...

Schools generally provide for revision guides anyway. But that's irrelevant because in most subjects you're given an exercise book which contains everything you'll need for the exam(s), and most revision is freely available online.

Private education does hurt because it's essentially one big middle finger aimed at the majority of society. Letting people have a superior education because their parents are wealthy is completely disheartening. The fact that private schools exist in the first place is absolutely criminal. Unfortunately this country and its media are practically dominated by people who were privately educated themselves, who will of course do everything they can to keep things the way they are by brainwashing their pro-establishment views onto the masses of ignorant underclass patriotic turds who read their vile tabloid newspapers. The precious little cycle of elitism is maintained as the rest of us exist like continuous, raw pieces of cattle, living our meaningless little soap-opera lives just for the sake of it. Evil prevails...

The issue is more the idea that if a child's future is decided by their parent's income, then we are not equal from birth, which is the equality that we tend to aim for.

How is this morally any different?

You may not be directly paying for it, but the premium charged on houses in certain catchment areas is little more than another way for the middle classes to buy their way into a good school.

In my opinion this is worse than privately educating your child. It could be said that you are directly snatching a place in a good state school from a child whose parents can't afford to live in that catchment area. As has been pointed out before, private eduction hurts no one.

I'm not that bothered about the practice, but I think it illustrates the hypocrisy of many of the 'private schools are evil' brigade.

no we need to abolish public schools so people that actually want an education can get one, universal education != qualifications

So you would deprive your child of a superior education because it was unfair? The problem is the link education has with the workplace, most people learn fk all to do with the job they do in the modern period - leave education to actually accumulating knowledge not political bureaucracy that limits freedom.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with charging money for someone to access better tuition or resources; if it were available to everyone that would be fantastic - but in reality under capitalism things cost money and frankly with teachers having such a low salary private tuition is a good thing.

You seem to be very confused as to the meaning of a 'public school' in Britain.



Yes, I have the same opinion and absolutely would. If I get my child tuition they are going to feel their grades have been bought, I know I would have done. I don't want them walking out of school on results day going 'I did well, but I'm not as clever as X who got the same grades because X didn't need drilling by a tutor every night of the week to get them'. I want them to feel their achievements are their own, not something I have bought for them, God knows they'll have enough passive advantages without getting involved in purchasing active ones for them too.

If state school ithout tutoring did fine by me and their likely mother then it'll do right by them too.



That would presumably mean giving everyone legal aid for legal issues, I can't see any other potential source for this than taxation.

Given the cost of lawyers in fields such as employmeny, family, pensions, property and all the other fields which affect the general public this is going to get very expensive. If you say companies should all have the right to equal legal representation too it's going to get ridiculous.

You really think people buy their grades? They work just as hard as everyone else the difference is they get more help - which we should be encouraging - education isn't about achievment it's about learning.

Well what elese are private schools asking me to spend 10-12k a year on around where I live? If their pitch is 'You spend your money but we'll have little impact on your child's grades' then what exactly do they offer? The fact you're buying the help to get their child's grades doesn't mean it's not a pretty significant factor. If a client comes to us and suggests we run their case instead of themselves then yes they're just buying some legal help, but I think buried at the back of their minds might be a slight inclination that retaining us just made their chances of winning a lot higher too.

I don't object to other people doing it, it's their money to spend how they wish, but I do object to other people telling me what I should want for my child. I feel that to bring in extra help will devalue my child's grades in their own eyes as that's how I would feel. By the same token I have no objection to people using contacts to help their children into the profession or indeed just giving them training places, but I wouldn't do it for my own children as I feel to do so would devalue the achievement of winning a training contract.

contacts, excellent facilities and connections to business, access to excellent libraries (because they actually have money to invest), smaller class sizes - it really isn't just grades. I understand what you're saying about achievement. Why not go to Africa and educate your children there? It will add to the achievement.