Do you think we should abolish private schools? Watch

This discussion is closed.
JamesTheCool
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#181
Report 5 years ago
#181
(Original post by mojojojo101)
I've been teased both for being too posh and too poor, although I will say that these days I tend to shy away from telling people I went to private school and live in rural Surrey because 9 times out of 10 I'm going to get judged for it, even going to the job centre a couple of years ago I got the distinct impression that some of the people who worked their thought I was too posh to be there.

On topic: Why would you decide to destroy the best schools in the country in an attempt to improve education? It's not going to happen, it will only make the education system in this country even worse. The answer is not to ban [private schools, the answer is to improve state schools so that they are operating at an acceptable level. To be honest though this kind of rank stupidity is so prevalent in this country I could see it happening.
Because I had a bad experience with rich kids at university and I'd like to see the smiles wiped off their smug faces.

(EDIT: I admit there wasn't much logic behind typing this but I suppose it was intended as a joke; an ironic, purposefully-ignorant statement to catch your attention before delving into the serious side of my argument. To 'Rinsed' and 'mojojojo101': I'll admit that was a bit sharp-tongued of me, but I think both of you took this way too seriously and saw it as a golden opportunity to lecture me in how spiteful you wrongly perceive me to be, but I'd like to think that my opinion is reflective of a more 'normal person' perspective of people who read newspapers like the Guardian and music publications like NME and Stereogum, which you don't get a lot of on TSR.)

Think of it this way: why does any school need to be that good in the first place? I agree that state education is long overdue for a lot of improvement, but is it really necessary for every state school in the country to be as efficient as the finest public schools? Some state schools are already operating at an acceptable level. Besides if everyone had access to Eton-quality education, wouldn't our lives be too easy?

(EDIT: I'm sorry but I just have little sympathy or reason to defend toweringly expensive schools. It just seems absurd when you can go to school for free and still come out with a string of A*s provided you're focused enough. Since I managed this free of my parents cost or influence (and I'm not even very intelligent!),
all I can do is mock them. Even if I had really thick offspring, I could not justify shelling out tens of thousands of pounds for them just so that, after having teachers spell everything out for them, they can go to a Russell Group university, so they can have a creme but intellectually-demanding job (IF they don't struggle with their degree), when there's every likeliness they'd be better-suited, less stressed and happier selling ice creams.)

You're right, the best schools in the country shouldn't be banned, but pupils should be selected on merit and not on parental income. In other words, private schools should be more like grammar schools, but without children having to sit a difficult test at age 11 to prove themselves 'worthy' - because segregating children at that age and damaging the self-esteem many lives in the process is not very ethical. Children and teenagers should be able to apply to such places whenever they want regardless of how rich or poor their parents are, and go through some sort of rigorous and fair testing so that teachers can determine whether or not they deserve a place - but unlike with scholarships, the testing shouldn't put people off or seem as difficult as slaying a three-headed lion; you shouldn't be led into thinking that it's hopeless if you're not MENSA material. In fact, it should be more about whether your child is 'thick' or 'not thick' rather than whether he or she is 'gifted' or 'not gifted', because that's just another cruel, selective form of elitism in my opinion. Lots of reasonably intelligent children are missing out because this country's education system only cares about 'the best' and won't cater to the needs of people who have 'merely above-average intelligence'...

The wealth of one's parents should not be the key factor of how successful a child becomes. That is completely wrong and I can't believe how much renaissance we still need to go through in order to change the way people think about this. The best universities are dominated by students from the cushiest of backgrounds to the point where it's actually embarrassing. Private schools help harness social inequality and social immobility which I find incredibly demoralising and even quite offensive. It's completely disheartening for non-stereotypical people like me who don't belong to the 'well-off' demographic, but who aren't incredibly thick either, to miss out on a standard education that would probably be very well-invested in us (and before anyone tells me that I should have considered a grammar school, I wasn't in the catchment area of one, nor was I a terribly bright 11-year-old).

Just because you'll never have true social equality doesn't mean there's no room for improving it. Tweaking the education system by making it less plutocratic just seems like such an obvious thing to do. The only people who would be hurt by this are annoying pro-establishment TSR users, but they actually comprise a minor sect of society. If everyone is in the same boat then you're left with fewer pissed-off people overall, just saying...

(EDIT: The pro-establishment bit (I think that's what you intended to say) wasn't specifically aimed at you 'mojojojo101'. It just happens to be the general mentality of people who use TSR. I can understand why some people would get defensive about my rich-bashing remarks (a crime that pales in comparison to rich-praising), but there's no need to cry about an innocently humorous generalisation of a website that both you and I use...)
0
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
#182
Report 5 years ago
#182
This post is so absurd I think it warrants a comprehensive response.

(Original post by JamesTheCool)
Because I had a bad experience with rich kids at university and I'd like to see the smiles wiped off their smug faces.
I think we're getting to the heart of the matter.

You are a jealous, vindictive prick, willing to harm the education of hundreds of thousands of innocent children to revenge a personal slight by a few individuals who went to similar schools a few years beforehand.

Very grown up.

Think of it this way: why does any school need to be that good in the first place? I agree that most state schools need significant improvement, but is it really necessary for every state school in the country to be as efficient as the finest public schools? Some state schools are fine just the way they are. Besides if everyone had access to Eton-quality education, wouldn't our lives be too easy?
When does life become 'too easy'? When we all have good, productive jobs, and a high standard of living?

Are you joking?

Instead of being banned, I think private schools should be far less exclusive and only select pupils based on some sort of merit. In other words, they should be more like grammar schools, but without children having to sit a difficult test at age 11 to prove themselves 'worthy' - because segregating children at that age is completely wrong in my eyes. Children and teenagers should be able to apply to such places whenever they want, and go through some sort of rigorous and fair testing so that teachers can determine whether or not they deserve a place - but the testing shouldn't put people off or seem as difficult as slaying a three-headed lion; you shouldn't be led into thinking that it's hopeless if you're not MENSA material. In fact it should be more about whether your child is 'thick' or 'not thick' rather than whether he or she is 'gifted' or 'not gifted', because that's just another cruel form of elitism in my opinion.
Now I do actually agree in principle with a lot of what you say about how grammar schools should select, though of course not that we should absorb all private schools into the state system in this way, mainly because of the entire freedom thing.

I think the 11+ is outdated and a lot of people would agree with that. But whatever you call it, you can't have selection without failure, and kids know it.

The wealth of one's parents should not influence how successful a person is, because that is also rank stupidity. The best universities are dominated by students from the cushiest of backgrounds to the point where it's actually embarrassing. Private schools help harness social inequality and social immobility, which I find offensive. It's completely disheartening for non-stereotypical people like me who don't belong to the 'well-off' demographic, but who aren't incredibly thick either to miss out on an education that would suit us (and before anyone tells me that I should have considered a grammar school, I wasn't in the catchment area of one, nor was I terribly bright at age 11, admittedly).
As I've said before, I believe the main advantage of private schools is, not the quality of teaching, but an ethos where education, hard-work and achievement are encouraged and rewarded. Unfortunately you are more likely to find the opposite ethos in many comprehensives.

You need to stop blaming your education for your own failures. People get into Oxford and Cambridge and other excellent universities from the worst schools in the country, because they have the motivation to sit down and work at it. It is unfortunate that so many bright kids in state schools find themselves distracted, but it is not the fault of private teachers who are able to work their pupils harder.

Just because you'll never have true social equality doesn't mean there's no room for improving it. Tweeking the education system by making it less plutocratic just seems like such an obvious thing to do - in fact this is something that should've been done ages and ages ago...
Your idea of 'tweeking' [sic] is to remove the basic economic freedom to spend your own money on your child's education. It would be the most totalitarian law this country has produced since the restoration. In doing so you would destroy some of the finest institutes of education in not just Britain but the world, and out of pure spitefulness. Tweak indeed!

Anyway, I simply disagree that equality is something to even strive for. I would rather focus on actually helpful things like standard of living, employment, wealth et cetera. If inequality is the price we pay then so be it. A good education is the basis for high achievement, and I would rather have high achieving doctors, lawyers, et cetera, even if a higher-than-average proportion of them went to the same schools.

The fact is that it's not that privately educated people get an advantage so much as the state-system holds people back.

Success is only deserving of self-aware people who can think for themselves, who don't let their schools define them - unfortunately most people are just sheep who have little curiosity about the meanings of their existences, who carry on living their lives without having any capacity or even desire to alter their reality - this goes for privately educated people too.
I think it speaks of your ego that you believe you can decide who does and who does not 'deserve' success. You can't even define success, because different people have very different ideas of it.

We get it. You are the lone, enlightened individual in a world of pitiful sheep. People clearly cannot think for themselves because it they did it stands to reason that they would all agree with you! I'm no psychiatrist, but I think this all shows a flawed personality.
1
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#183
Report 5 years ago
#183
(Original post by JamesTheCool)
Because I had a bad experience with rich kids at university and I'd like to see the smiles wiped off their smug faces.
And this is why I don't tell people I went to privatre school, even though I fit almost none of the stereotypes that I would be expected to. I'm not rich (I was on 95% bursaries for the school I went to and for 4/7 years I was there my dad was homeless), my parents don't vote Tory, don't have jobs in the City, etc, etc. My Mums side of the family do have a pretty long history of graduates but that was more due to an affiliation with the CofE than any financial power.

If I said I think state schools should be banned because I've met some truly horrible people at uni, some of whom were unbelievably stupid considering I would, rightly, be lambasted for it... I want to know why it is okay for you to say we should ban private schools then not accept criticism for your frankly ridiculous opinions.

Also accusing me of being anti-establishment is about the most ridiculous thing I've heard in months.

As for the rest of your points, they have be well addressed by Rinsed, so I won't bother repeating what has already been said.
0
Mystery_Man
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#184
Report 5 years ago
#184
We shouldn't get rid of private schools (aka Grammar schools) and we should also bring back the grammar school tests for 11 year olds. Because intelligence is 70% genetic and 30% environmental (which is mostly good nutrition, education, etc - which most of us have), it makes sense to segregate kids into different schools based on intelligence, which will help them all and do what they are good at.

Believe me, intelligence is genetic--my experiences with life and some of my family members who are much smarter than me, have lead me to believe this. Also if height, hair colour, personality, etc vary by person, why doesn't intelligence vary :confused:. Liberals will say that is wrong, because according to liberals anything that is unequal doesn't make sense. That's liberal logic for you.
0
Liftman
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#185
Report 5 years ago
#185
(Original post by ChemistryChic)
How on earth can people agree with private schooling? It's beyond belief.

No child should be disadvantaged because their parents did not have the financial means necessary to see them through private education.

But you would happily see a wealthier child disadvantaged, and sent to a lower achieving school by closing the private one?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
0
JamesTheCool
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#186
Report 5 years ago
#186
(Original post by Liftman)
But you would happily see a wealthier child disadvantaged, and sent to a lower achieving school by closing the private one?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Just because a school is 'low achieving' doesn't necessarily mean that every pupil is. Some teenagers can actually think for themselves. If wealthy children are sent to a low achieving school and the rate of failure among them is the same as for poor children, it would invalidate the dangerous misconception that Boris Johnson has recently made - either as a joke or not - about wealth being associated with high intelligence - which is something I'm much more concerned about than ensuring some socialite brat from Chelsea called Eleanor Harrington-Smythe has an easy life at the psychological expense of everyone else.
0
flipflap99
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#187
Report 5 years ago
#187
i heard today from one of my teachers that apparently some A level maths teachers in state schools only have a b or c in a level maths (that is as their highest qualification related to mathematics).
that is why the country is falling behind in education, because they use tax payers money to hire sub rate teachers.
Nearly every school has a smartboard in most classrooms, but whats the point of all this government funded high tech equipment if the person teaching with it is a moron....
food for thought
0
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#188
Report 5 years ago
#188
(Original post by yoitsro)
i heard today from one of my teachers that apparently some A level maths teachers in state schools only have a b or c in a level maths (that is as their highest qualification related to mathematics).
that is why the country is falling behind in education, because they use tax payers money to hire sub rate teachers.
Nearly every school has a smartboard in most classrooms, but whats the point of all this government funded high tech equipment if the person teaching with it is a moron....
food for thought
First of all, there has been a long term shortage of maths teachers. Therefore others had had to be persuaded into it. The alternative was to offer no maths course.

Furthermore contrary to what a 17 year old might think, the state of someone's knowledge of a subject isn't fixed at 18 or indeed 21.

A teacher without a maths degree who is teaching A level maths probably has a degree in the physical sciences or if not, has undertaken in service retraining into maths.

Moreover, I posted on another thread a selection of the grades required in clearing in 1988 (so that's a teacher in their early 40s today) and I will repeat a selection here.

Mathematics

KCL CCD
LSE BCC
Leeds BBB
Reading BCC
Manchester CCC

Mathematics and Education

Cambridge DDE
Exeter DDD
Warwick DDE
0
Cal97g
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#189
Report 5 years ago
#189
jamesthecool has completely changed my viewpoint. I now think that we should just shoot everybody who wants to abollish private schools on the spot.
1
Yorpul
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#190
Report 5 years ago
#190
On terms of recieving educational prestige simply because of a wealthy family, then yes, private school's should be abolished.
0
Cal97g
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#191
Report 5 years ago
#191
(Original post by Yorpul)
On terms of recieving educational prestige simply because of a wealthy family, then yes, private school's should be abolished.
I don't see what's wrong with all the nuts. Money buys things, and better schooling should be one of the things you can buy.

If it weren't for all of those rich people who can afford to pay for private schooling for their own children, everybody elses education would be considerably worse.
1
Yorpul
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#192
Report 5 years ago
#192
(Original post by Cal97g)
I don't see what's wrong with all the nuts. Money buys things, and better schooling should be one of the things you can buy.

If it weren't for all of those rich people who can afford to pay for private schooling for their own children, everybody elses education would be considerably worse.
I never argued with paying for better schooling, there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion. I simply argue that the mere fact that you attended a private school should actually count for anything in a fair society.
0
Kimina
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#193
Report 5 years ago
#193
(Original post by ChemistryChic)
How on earth can people agree with private schooling? It's beyond belief.

No child should be disadvantaged because their parents did not have the financial means necessary to see them through private education.


Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm sorry!? Most private school offer scholarships to anyone who is smart enough and it's not the private school's fault that many state schools are so abysmal.

The standard of education in the country may be even worse that 24th in the world without them. Also if private schools were banned the wealthy would simply settle for private tuition, and the social divide would remain the same. They already are more likely to read to their children and breastfeed ect. and all manner of things which are linked to higher IQs.

Your argument is like saying that all children should grow up in the same environment. I know they should be take from parents at birth and should all grow up in care homes so no child would be disadvantaged as they would all grow up in equally awful environments.

Private schools also take the pressure of the state system as the children who attend these are freeing up money and resources in the state system, improving the state system and ensuring that it isn't even more overcrowded.
1
Kimina
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#194
Report 5 years ago
#194
(Original post by JamesTheCool)
Because I had a bad experience with rich kids at university and I'd like to see the smiles wiped off their smug faces.

(EDIT: I admit there wasn't much logic behind typing this but I suppose it was intended as a joke; an ironic, purposefully-ignorant statement to catch your attention before delving into the serious side of my argument. To 'Rinsed' and 'mojojojo101': I'll admit that was a bit sharp-tongued of me, but I think both of you took this way too seriously and saw it as a golden opportunity to lecture me in how spiteful you wrongly perceive me to be, but I'd like to think that my opinion is reflective of a more 'normal person' perspective of people who read newspapers like the Guardian and music publications like NME and Stereogum, which you don't get a lot of on TSR.)

Think of it this way: why does any school need to be that good in the first place? I agree that state education is long overdue for a lot of improvement, but is it really necessary for every state school in the country to be as efficient as the finest public schools? Some state schools are already operating at an acceptable level. Besides if everyone had access to Eton-quality education, wouldn't our lives be too easy?

(EDIT: I'm sorry but I just have little sympathy or reason to defend toweringly expensive schools. It just seems absurd when you can go to school for free and still come out with a string of A*s provided you're focused enough. Since I managed this free of my parents cost or influence (and I'm not even very intelligent!),
all I can do is mock them. Even if I had really thick offspring, I could not justify shelling out tens of thousands of pounds for them just so that, after having teachers spell everything out for them, they can go to a Russell Group university, so they can have a creme but intellectually-demanding job (IF they don't struggle with their degree), when there's every likeliness they'd be better-suited, less stressed and happier selling ice creams.)

You're right, the best schools in the country shouldn't be banned, but pupils should be selected on merit and not on parental income. In other words, private schools should be more like grammar schools, but without children having to sit a difficult test at age 11 to prove themselves 'worthy' - because segregating children at that age and damaging the self-esteem many lives in the process is not very ethical. Children and teenagers should be able to apply to such places whenever they want regardless of how rich or poor their parents are, and go through some sort of rigorous and fair testing so that teachers can determine whether or not they deserve a place - but unlike with scholarships, the testing shouldn't put people off or seem as difficult as slaying a three-headed lion; you shouldn't be led into thinking that it's hopeless if you're not MENSA material. In fact, it should be more about whether your child is 'thick' or 'not thick' rather than whether he or she is 'gifted' or 'not gifted', because that's just another cruel, selective form of elitism in my opinion. Lots of reasonably intelligent children are missing out because this country's education system only cares about 'the best' and won't cater to the needs of people who have 'merely above-average intelligence'...

The wealth of one's parents should not be the key factor of how successful a child becomes. That is completely wrong and I can't believe how much renaissance we still need to go through in order to change the way people think about this. The best universities are dominated by students from the cushiest of backgrounds to the point where it's actually embarrassing. Private schools help harness social inequality and social immobility which I find incredibly demoralising and even quite offensive. It's completely disheartening for non-stereotypical people like me who don't belong to the 'well-off' demographic, but who aren't incredibly thick either, to miss out on a standard education that would probably be very well-invested in us (and before anyone tells me that I should have considered a grammar school, I wasn't in the catchment area of one, nor was I a terribly bright 11-year-old).

Just because you'll never have true social equality doesn't mean there's no room for improving it. Tweaking the education system by making it less plutocratic just seems like such an obvious thing to do. The only people who would be hurt by this are annoying pro-establishment TSR users, but they actually comprise a minor sect of society. If everyone is in the same boat then you're left with fewer pissed-off people overall, just saying...

(EDIT: The pro-establishment bit (I think that's what you intended to say) wasn't specifically aimed at you 'mojojojo101'. It just happens to be the general mentality of people who use TSR. I can understand why some people would get defensive about my rich-bashing remarks (a crime that pales in comparison to rich-praising), but there's no need to cry about an innocently humorous generalisation of a website that both you and I use...)
The highest ranking private schools in the country have admissions test which, if are not the grammar school 11+ are as difficult as and they are incredibly competitive to get into due to international competition (if boarding schools) and reputation. So getting into a good private school is not just dependent on having rich parents. The intelligence of child also comes into play.
0
Cal97g
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#195
Report 5 years ago
#195
(Original post by Yorpul)
I never argued with paying for better schooling, there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion. I simply argue that the mere fact that you attended a private school should actually count for anything in a fair society.
It doesn't, the results you get in exams do.

I suppose you did say prestige. You can probably just ignore me.
0
RoseB96
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#196
Report 5 years ago
#196
It really angers me how your parents income dictates whether or not you get a better education. It is simply not fair. The fact is, private school students are much more likely to do well in education and achieve more academically compared to students in state schools. I myself went to a state school and finished school with decent GCSEs (now doing a-levels) however, I do wish a lot of the time that I had of been given the chance to go to a private school as I feel I would've excelled even more in my education and would have been able to work to my full potential.
I think every child, no matter rich or poor, should be given equal opportunities when it comes to education. Why should money allow some people better opportunities over others?
0
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#197
Report 5 years ago
#197
(Original post by RoseB96)
[COLOR=#505050][FONT=Arial]It really angers me how your parents income dictates whether or not you get a better education.
But it also determines whether you go on holiday to St Tropez or Clacton, whether you have a pet pony or a pet goldfish and whether your dinner comes from Waitrose or the Tesco value range.
1
btuck812
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#198
Report 5 years ago
#198
In an ideal world, yes. They act directly against the meritocratic ideals of our country. But that is not the biggest inequality in the system - there is a bigger gap between the amazing schools in good areas and crappy schools in bad areas. This means that our society decides how good a school you go to based on where your parents choose to live. There is no logic in that, and private schools actually alleviate this by giving people in bad areas the chance of going to a good school. So instead of abolishing private schools, in bad areas we should bring back grammar schools for the top 40% as it has been shown that putting the 10-30% in with the top 10% increases their performance, and also have military schools for troublesome kids who are unlikely to ever get jobs so they have a guaranteed place in the army and therefore can't complain no one wants to employ them. This would hopefully raise standards of schools in bad areas and give the clever kids a good chance at getting an equal education to those who live in better areas or go to private schools. And as a byproduct, it also might get rid of a load of private schools that aren't needed any more.
0
Катя
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#199
Report 5 years ago
#199
(Original post by thewagwag)
What it says on the tin.

I just left a private school, and I think the government should try to get state schools (the average) up to private school level before thinking about abolishing them. Why drag everyone down just in the name of faux 'equality'?

Discuss.
Define "up to private school level".

So we should have all "Eton and Harrow"s everywhere?
0
btuck812
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#200
Report 5 years ago
#200
(Original post by nulli tertius)
But it also determines whether you go on holiday to St Tropez or Clacton, whether you have a pet pony or a pet goldfish and whether your dinner comes from Waitrose or the Tesco value range.
These don't give you an edge over everyone else in the future. As long as you're happy and not starving, none of these things matter in the long run. Schools, however, are the most important thing that decides your future.
3
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (67)
22.33%
The paper was reasonable (131)
43.67%
Not feeling great about that exam... (53)
17.67%
It was TERRIBLE (49)
16.33%

Watched Threads

View All