Are Public Schools such as Eton and Harrow a blight on British society?

Scroll to see replies

Not . What ARE a blight on our society are all the Muslim schools,indoctrinating them with their shite, which leads them to grow up and hate us.

wow, let the hate flow through you :tongue:

You sound like a dailymail reader :h:

Reply 21

Josh Lyman

Original post by callum_law

Grade inflation wasn't as pervasive back then as it is now, youngling.

3a* 5a's 2b's in 1997 at GCSE, I guess you're right but after going to the top school in the country for 5 years costing 200k still seems ridiculous that someone would get b's.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 22

markova21

Original post by SirAlexFerguson

wow, let the hate flow through you :tongue:

You sound like a dailymail reader :h:

I read both The Guardian AND The Daily Mail.

Reply 23

KingKoala

Original post by Medicnohoperno.9

You're perfectly entitled to hold that view, but how would our state school system cope if the number of pupils it had to educate increased by 8%?

Also, the argument you're putting forward looks like a 'mediocrity for all' argument.

It wouldn't be a mediocrity for all argument, just one way of trying to bring everyone on more of a level playing field. The money should come after the education, not influence before or during, totally unfair in my opinion.

Reply 24

TimmonaPortella

Original post by MalayHKG

Society will always be a place where the wealthy dominate. Take a look at our cabinet ministers and our Prime Minister. 50% went to Oxbridge wit the majority going to public and independent schools like Eton.

Attendance at Oxbridge is an indication of academic attainment and ability, not of wealth. That is perfectly desirable in our politicians.

Reply 25

callum_law

Original post by KingKoala

Yes, however I believe there are certain things which people should not be limited too because of lack of resources/money. Education is one of them. Everyone should be given an equal shot of making something brilliant of their lives and not be held back due to their parents situation.

It is not exactly limited. Everyone in this country is given basic opportunities to education. It is simply the case that some people have better opportunities than others. Take away the public schools and instead we would turn to an HK/Singaporean system of extracurricular tutorship affording some people more support than others based on wealth of parents.

This "problem" is really inescapable. What we should be doing is improving education provided in state schools rather than taking apart the public school system. If I have two functioning eyes and you sadly have one eye, it's best that we should do something about fixing your non-working eye rather than insisting that I should poke one of mine out to make it evens.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 26

MalayHKG

Original post by Jazzy Foot

How exactly are they are a blight? They educate some of the finest young minds in the country and will send on their students to the best universities and into the best professions. Many will anger at the money that is paid to attend say Eton but they are also generous with scholarships for those who warrant them. If you have the money to spend then you should be able to send your children to the best if that's what you desire. Having schools like Eton also act as a beacon of inspiration to other schools wanting to improve and raise their game to reach those standards too.

The day the likes of Rugby, Harrow and Eton cease to exist will be the same day Hell freezes over.

But the idea of state schools becoming similar to that of Harrow or Eton is in reality impossible. The budget constraints that state schools are put under inevitably means that all the extra curricular clubs and societies that students have at Public schools, will never be able to exist in state schools.

Reply 27

TeeEm

Original post by SirAlexFerguson

wow, let the hate flow through you :tongue:

You sound like a dailymail reader :h:

Reply 28

97Y

Original post by KingKoala

I feel like I have the ground to comment; I live on the second largest estate in Europe and my mum is a single mother of four. I also attend one of the best private institutions in the North. Bursary, obviously.
My one wish for my siblings is for them to follow the same path, they're far more academically gifted than me and I endured state education for 7 years where I was not challenged, not catered for and lacked resources for me to explore anything past the syllabus. I would say that state education is there to cater for the majority -which is fine- but if you are not in that majority you suffer. Either bring back selective schooling or accept that people will seek better means to be in a more nurturing environment.

Reply 29

MalayHKG

Original post by TimmonaPortella

Attendance at Oxbridge is an indication of academic attainment and ability, not of wealth. That is perfectly desirable in our politicians.

But the thing is the majority of people who gain places to Oxbridge come from independent schools and they significantly outnumber the number of state school students. 7% of the British population are privately educated, yet 50% of Oxbridge students are from private schools.

You say attendance to Oxbridge is an indication of academic attainment, but the problem is that the people who attain these grades are all privately educated which is absolutely preposterous which signifies that wealth plays a key role.

Reply 30

Jazzy Foot

Original post by MalayHKG

Of course. But they can do the best within their means and the fact is some state schools just really aren't performing.

Everyone has the right to a choice and if they can afford to do so, should be allowed to send their children to the best schools.

Reply 31

user73867

Original post by MalayHKG

It's interesting to note that not all public schools or academies are better funded than state schools. If I remember correctly, the last labour government MASSIVELY increased the education budget and spent billions on new school buildings. Yet public schools still consistently outperform their state school counterparts.

You're right in that places like Harrow & Eton are very well-funded and many public schools are. I'm just pointing out that money isn't the only reason for their success.

I attended both comprehensive and public schools, both had their advantages.

SS

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 32

callum_law

Original post by Josh Lyman

3a* 5a's 2b's in 1997 at GCSE, I guess you're right but after going to the top school in the country for 5 years costing 200k still seems ridiculous that someone would get b's.

You say you accept my point, but then go back to the false equivalence and assume that Bs were somehow bad. Now achieving Bs would be a shock, yes, partly because they are the third highest grade you could achieve. Back then, Bs (in combination with an A or two) were enough to get you into St Andrew's and even Oxbridge, partly because Bs were the second highest grade you could achieve at the time.

Reply 33

MalayHKG

Original post by 97Y

I assume your idea of "selective schooling" is referring to things like grammar schools. In theory, Grammar schools are a great idea however, the large majority of those who can pass the entrance exams have had their education imposed on them from their wealthy parents who have had their children tutored in order to get into these schools. As a result, the majority of students who get into these Grammar's aren't the intelligent working class, but actually the middle class.

Reply 34

Josh Lyman

Original post by callum_law

Fair enough, he did the best in their family by far so I'm sure a second highest grade would have delighted them.

Reply 35

97Y

Original post by MalayHKG

So what do you propose? It's frustrating, I understand that, but life isn't fair and if you are fortunate enough to have parents who push for your education like that, well, it can't be helped.

Do you want everyone to come down to the level of the average estate child? I am sorry, the majority of them can't read a simple classic. Do you want every illiterate child to become a scholar? It's the same argument financially - you cannot push the rich down in order to push the poor up.

Reply 36

TimmonaPortella

Original post by MalayHKG

Oh, sure, there's no doubt that background is a factor in determining how likely someone is to reach the required standard at 18. Incidentally, this differs as much between good and bad state schools as between state and private schools (there are some top state schools in, ah, 'leafy' areas which send loads of people to Oxbridge), and is affected by parents and other home factors too, not just by schooling.

The answer to this, as far as there can be one, is to make sure everyone has access to the sort of educational environment that can prepare them adequately for Oxbridge. This does not justify the government telling people that they can't spend their money on their children's education, even if it would solve the problem -- which it categorically wouldn't.

Beyond improving state schooling, there are some deeper problems, such as a lack of academic motivation, lack of respect for education, amongst people from certain backgrounds, etc, that will always be difficult. At this point the state ends up with a bit of a leading a horse to water situation. We should do what we can, through state programs, to motivate people from all backgrounds to take advantage of the opportunities available to them, but we shouldn't necessarily expect that we will ever have equal numbers of attendees of Oxbridge or other top universities from all backgrounds, because there's unfortunately no equally effective replacement for parental motivation.

Reply 37

MalayHKG

[QUOTE="Supersaps;62272213"]It's interesting to note that not all public schools or academies are better funded than state schools. If I remember correctly, the last labour government MASSIVELY increased the education budget and spent billions on new school buildings. Yet public schools still consistently outperform their state school counterparts.

You're right in that places like Harrow & Eton are very well-funded and many public schools are. I'm just pointing out that money isn't the only reason for their success.

I attended both comprehensive and public schools, both had their advantages.

SS[/QUOTE

I would argue that money is actually why Public schools are so successful. Harrow and Eton charge around £35,000 annually and have around 800 students each. This equates to around £30,000,000 only from school fees! My current academy has 1100 students and has an annual budget of less than £20 million.

All the money the Public schools receive can then be reinvested into things like employing teachers to work on weekends meaning students spend more time in the classroom which enables them to succeed.

As a prospective Harrow student applying for Sixth Form entry, could you perhaps tell me about your experiences at your public school?

Reply 38

MalayHKG

Original post by 97Y

Dealing with this problem is incredibly hard.

There is no real 'solution' to this problem.

I propose that more money is invested into state primary schools as this will help build the foundations for success. This will ideally reduce the number of people who are illiterate and become more intelligent and allow people from a lower socioeconomic status to expect more from themselves. This with the help of public schools opening up places to a larger group of people from lower social classes through bursaries and scholarships , will increase the number of people who receive a world class education.