Private schooling Watch

jacketpotato
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#181
Report 10 years ago
#181
Is this hopping mad kangaroo guy for real?

He really thinks that abolishing the private sector will bring equality and meritocracy into education?
He truly believes that the concept of having 'catch up' schools would work? (if it was so easy to get amazing schools, why isn't that happening already, genius)
And you actually believe that private schools are to blame for people supporting Cameron?


Pic related; people usually accuse things of being Soviet for no particular reason, but your posts would truly make Stalin proud.
0
reply
DaveJ
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#182
Report 10 years ago
#182
Private/state schools is really quite an unfair system, as it relies so much on wealth, but of course, as it is here, it isn't wrong for the wealthy to use it.

Grammar schools is really the fairest system though: smart people go to good schools, regardless of wealth. But of course, that makes people feel like failures, and we can't have that nowadays can we? Everyone is equal of course. :rolleyes:
0
reply
Gremlins
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#183
Report 10 years ago
#183
(Original post by DaveJ)
Private/state schools is really quite an unfair system, as it relies so much on wealth, but of course, as it is here, it isn't wrong for the wealthy to use it.
I really don't understand this argukment either. Cars are here. Pedestrians are here. Does that mean running people over "isn't wrong"? The internet makes cheating on your coursework or essays exceptionally easy. Most people have access to the internet. Does that mean cheating "isn't wrong"? Of course not.


Grammar schools is really the fairest system though: smart people go to good schools, regardless of wealth. But of course, that makes people feel like failures, and we can't have that nowadays can we? Everyone is equal of course. :rolleyes:
Actually, students at grammar schools are disproportionately better off than a cross-section of the local secondary school population.
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#184
Report 10 years ago
#184
(Original post by Gremlins)
Actually, students at grammar schools are disproportionately better off than a cross-section of the local secondary school population.
Because wealthy people tend to be more intelligent or better at getting grades than their counterparts in the state system. I mean, I'm not saying that all rich people are always clever, It's just that their parents are more likely to have the necessary characteristics and so they do too.
0
reply
DaveJ
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#185
Report 10 years ago
#185
(Original post by Gremlins)
I really don't understand this argukment either. Cars are here. Pedestrians are here. Does that mean running people over "isn't wrong"? The internet makes cheating on your coursework or essays exceptionally easy. Most people have access to the internet. Does that mean cheating "isn't wrong"? Of course not.




Actually, students at grammar schools are disproportionately better off than a cross-section of the local secondary school population.
Students at private schools are very very very much disproportionately better off than a cross-section of the local secondary school population.

I know which system I'd rather have.

I don't see what's wrong with rich people using private schools. The government has decided to muck around with education, and they've basically failed epicly. However, there are some wonderful private schools about, so I don't see why people wouldn't take advantage of them.
0
reply
Elementric
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#186
Report 10 years ago
#186
Also I want to clear something up here.
Why do people keep talking about 'rich people' as if it's no cost to parents of privately schooled children to send them there?
The parents have to spend huge amounts of their hard earned money (in the VAST majority of cases) to send their children to private school - it's not like 'rich' people are allowed to go to private school for no cost and 'poor' people are not allowed. I expect a huge number of parents could afford private schooling for their child but choose to spend their money on other things - that is a choice.
Furthermore, my school (as an example) spends forfeits huge amounts of money to provide bursaries and scholarships to intelligent children who could not otherwise afford to go to the school, as ALL private schools must do by law.
0
reply
BJack
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#187
Report 10 years ago
#187
(Original post by Gremlins)
I really don't understand this argukment either. Cars are here. Pedestrians are here. Does that mean running people over "isn't wrong"?
Bad analogies are bad. Going to a private school is equivalent to driving, not running people over.
0
reply
Cognito
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#188
Report 10 years ago
#188
(Original post by Elementric)
Also I want to clear something up here.
Why do people keep talking about 'rich people' as if it's no cost to parents of privately schooled children to send them there?
The parents have to spend huge amounts of their hard earned money (in the VAST majority of cases) to send their children to private school - it's not like 'rich' people are allowed to go to private school for no cost and 'poor' people are not allowed. I expect a huge number of parents could afford private schooling for their child but choose to spend their money on other things - that is a choice.
Furthermore, my school (as an example) spends forfeits huge amounts of money to provide bursaries and scholarships to intelligent children who could not otherwise afford to go to the school, as ALL private schools must do by law.
Oh dear.

Thank you for highlighting 'choice' because that is clearly the crucial word. It is not a free choice, but one contingent upon wealth.
Equally the claim that the parent's money is 'hard earned' (by which I'd imagine you mean earnt by irresponsibly ruining the financial system) has nothing to do with matters. You can only spend your hard earned money on certain things, we are contending that private schooling should not be one of them. It doesn't matter whether they earnt it working 90 hour weeks or on the lottery.

A family of 3 (single mum and two kids) living on benefits will get £150 a week: for food, rent, bills, clothes etc.
Yearly tuition at Westminister school costs over £20,000 for one pupil.

Not a free choice.
0
reply
Cognito
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#189
Report 10 years ago
#189
(Original post by Cognito)
Oh dear.

Thank you for highlighting 'choice' because that is clearly the crucial word. It is not a free choice, but one contingent upon wealth.
Equally the claim that the parent's money is 'hard earned' (by which I'd imagine you mean earnt by irresponsibly ruining the financial system) has nothing to do with matters. You can only spend your hard earned money on certain things, we are contending that private schooling should not be one of them. It doesn't matter whether they earnt it working 90 hour weeks or on the lottery.

A family of 3 (single mum and two kids) living on benefits will get £150 a week: for food, rent, bills, clothes etc.
Yearly tuition at Westminister school costs over £20,000 for one pupil.

Not a free choice.
Equally, free choice within a set of options does not justify the set of options so there's no way your position can hold.
0
reply
Elementric
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#190
Report 10 years ago
#190
(Original post by Cognito)
Oh dear.

Thank you for highlighting 'choice' because that is clearly the crucial word. It is not a free choice, but one contingent upon wealth.
Equally the claim that the parent's money is 'hard earned' (by which I'd imagine you mean earnt by irresponsibly ruining the financial system) has nothing to do with matters. You can only spend your hard earned money on certain things, we are contending that private schooling should not be one of them. It doesn't matter whether they earnt it working 90 hour weeks or on the lottery.

A family of 3 (single mum and two kids) living on benefits will get £150 a week: for food, rent, bills, clothes etc.
Yearly tuition at Westminister school costs over £20,000 for one pupil.

Not a free choice.
I didn't say it always was, just for a lot of people. Oh and your ideas about earning money are hilarious. Maybe if your parents worked a day in their lives instead of scrounging off the government you would understand.
0
reply
Officer Dibble
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#191
Report 10 years ago
#191
So much jealousy and bitterness in this thread....

Typical ' I can't have it so no one can have it' socialist rubbish.


Life. Isn't. Fair.
0
reply
DrunkHamster
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#192
Report 10 years ago
#192
(Original post by Cognito)
Oh dear.

Thank you for highlighting 'choice' because that is clearly the crucial word. It is not a free choice, but one contingent upon wealth.
Equally the claim that the parent's money is 'hard earned' (by which I'd imagine you mean earnt by irresponsibly ruining the financial system) has nothing to do with matters. You can only spend your hard earned money on certain things, we are contending that private schooling should not be one of them. It doesn't matter whether they earnt it working 90 hour weeks or on the lottery.
All economic choices are contingent upon something, whether that is personal wealth (in a capitalist system) or the state's resources (in a socialist one). You're advocating, it seems to me, the abolition of all choice simply because some people don't have it. I don't really understand how this makes any sense.
0
reply
Cognito
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#193
Report 10 years ago
#193
(Original post by DrunkHamster)
All economic choices are contingent upon something, whether that is personal wealth (in a capitalist system) or the state's resources (in a socialist one). You're advocating, it seems to me, the abolition of all choice simply because some people don't have it. I don't really understand how this makes any sense.
No, I'm saying you can't defend private schools on the grounds that sending children to them is a free parental choice - because this is not a choice all parents can make.

Plus you can't jump from your premise
-all economic choices are contingent upon something
To the conclusion
-you are advocating the abolition of all choice
(not least because you're moving from economic choice to choice per se)

We must consider more values than economic choice when we discuss education. You could be economically free to buy a nuclear bomb but that doesn't validate its use, nor does it mean that your wealth entails that you should be free to choose it.
0
reply
DrunkHamster
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#194
Report 10 years ago
#194
(Original post by Cognito)
No, I'm saying you can't defend private schools on the grounds that sending children to them is a free parental choice - because this is not a choice all parents can make.
Yes, but equally it is a choice that some parents can make - and this itself is enough to conclude that interfering with private schools really does limit choice.

I think the issue really comes down to one of free association.
0
reply
Cognito
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#195
Report 10 years ago
#195
(Original post by Elementric)
I didn't say it always was, just for a lot of people. Oh and your ideas about earning money are hilarious. Maybe if your parents worked a day in their lives instead of scrounging off the government you would understand.
My parents aren't on benefits but that's not the point. Do you think that the mentally disabled, the physically disabled, those suffering from mental illness scrounge off the state? Do you honestly begrudge them their meagre (financial) existence just because you somehow feel entitled to the more economically stable life you have?
0
reply
Cognito
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#196
Report 10 years ago
#196
(Original post by DrunkHamster)
Yes, but equally it is a choice that some parents can make - and this itself is enough to conclude that interfering with private schools really does limit choice.

I think the issue really comes down to one of free association.
Sure but the mere existence of a state limits choice. That is not an argument in favour of private schools any more than it is an argument in favour of anarchism.
0
reply
jacketpotato
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#197
Report 10 years ago
#197
(Original post by Cognito)
Oh dear.

Thank you for highlighting 'choice' because that is clearly the crucial word. It is not a free choice, but one contingent upon wealth.
Equally the claim that the parent's money is 'hard earned' (by which I'd imagine you mean earnt by irresponsibly ruining the financial system) has nothing to do with matters. You can only spend your hard earned money on certain things, we are contending that private schooling should not be one of them. It doesn't matter whether they earnt it working 90 hour weeks or on the lottery.

A family of 3 (single mum and two kids) living on benefits will get £150 a week: for food, rent, bills, clothes etc.
Yearly tuition at Westminister school costs over £20,000 for one pupil.

Not a free choice.
So the fact that the single mum with two kids can't afford private schooling means that the rich kids should get an inferior education in the name of social engineering?
0
reply
DrunkHamster
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#198
Report 10 years ago
#198
(Original post by Cognito)
Sure but the mere existence of a state limits choice. That is not an argument in favour of private schools any more than it is an argument in favour of anarchism.
As a supporter of both private schools and anarchism, this doesn't bother me too much.

But it does show your point to be flawed: just because the existence of the state limits choice, why do you think it doesn't matter if you limit choice even more? 'It's OK to ban private schools, because all states inherently limit choice anyway' is a very unsound argument - it fails to realize that some states limit choice more than others.
0
reply
JW
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#199
Report 10 years ago
#199
Would whoever negged me for this

(Original post by JW)
That's quite an assumption you're making. Why is it that you feel private school students lack intelligence? I can't wait for the day when state schools provide a service sufficient to stop people like you *****ing.
with the description 'you're an idiot' be kind enough to explain why the state system doesn't need improvement.
0
reply
Cognito
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#200
Report 10 years ago
#200
(Original post by jacketpotato)
So the fact that the single mum with two kids can't afford private schooling means that the rich kids should get an inferior education in the name of social engineering?
What about a child's being born poor justifies their having an inferior education? Or the converse?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1119)
78.97%
Leave (298)
21.03%

Watched Threads

View All