Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    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.
    I'm not saying that we should ban private schools on the premise that states inherently limit choice, I'm saying that a (non-anarchist) defender of private education cannot defend their system on the basis of more (or less constrained) choice for that choice is already highly limited.

    If you are an anarchist then I would take issue with your underlying assumptions. What do you think about Nozick's justification of a minimal state via an invisible hand mechanism?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    What about a child's being born poor justifies their having an inferior education? Or the converse?
    Please elaborate. I'm not saying this to be difficult, I genuinely don't understand your angle, other that the state system needs improvement.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW)
    Please elaborate. I'm not saying this to be difficult, I genuinely don't understand your angle, other that the state system needs improvement.
    Well your contention was (I believe) why should we prejudice the rich by making them have the same education as everyone else?

    My question was what it is about a rich child or a poor child that justifies differentiating them in this way. Have they earnt it, on account of being born? Have they a natural right to it? Does their parents' success justify it, despite children not being their parents, nor being able to choose their parents?

    It seems to me rather arbitrary where we are born (and to whom) in the world. Certainly not the basis for a justified demarcation of rights. Indeed, that has been the contention of egalitarian theorists from the suffragettes to the civil rights movement, to the homosexual liberation of the 70s,80s and 90s. You cannot contest that the rights are the same, for they clearly have different value to the rich and poor.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    Well your contention was (I believe) why should we prejudice the rich by making them have the same education as everyone else?

    My question was what it is about a rich child or a poor child that justifies differentiating them in this way. Have they earnt it, on account of being born? Have they a natural right to it? Does their parents' success justify it, despite children not being their parents, nor being able to choose their parents?

    It seems to me rather arbitrary where we are born (and to whom) in the world. Certainly not the basis for a justified demarcation of rights. Indeed, that has been the contention of egalitarian theorists from the suffragettes to the civil rights movement, to the homosexual liberation of the 70s,80s and 90s. You cannot contest that the rights are the same, for they clearly have different value to the rich and poor.
    People aren't born equal. Until you get over this stumbling block I can't take your point seriously. I'm all for practical solutions that attempt to deal with the failure of the state system to provide a competent education service, but I can't accept the idea that because we are born with equal rights, we must endure the same experiences.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rich2606)
    No, its a way for the wealthy to try and ensure their children get the best educaton possible without relying on the patchy service provided by the state.

    No, its their money. They can do what they want with it. If you want to blame someone, blame the government for providing a substandard service that creates a demand for alternative sources of education.

    No, discrimination is bad, even if you try and spin it with the word 'positive'.
    While I agree with everything you've said, you're also being a little reductionist in your views. There are wider social implications of private schooling and predominant one of them being DISCRIMINATION. From personal experience as well as other reliable sources, I know for a fact that private school children tend to turn their noses down at public school children. They are snotty and bratty a lot of the times. They also grow up in a sheltered society where they communicate with other children who are of the same class and background. They get no experience of other types of people and therefore rely on stereotypes in later life when they do come across people who come from a different class and background.
    Private schooling creates segregation in society between children and parents. I agree private schooling is a much better option then state funded schools these days what with the poor state of education BUT there is a good reason to be concerned about discrimination and other implications of private schooling.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalHollowayHopefully)
    While I agree with everything you've said, you're also being a little reductionist in your views. There are wider social implications of private schooling and predominant one of them being DISCRIMINATION. From personal experience as well as other reliable sources, I know for a fact that private school children tend to turn their noses down at public school children. They are snotty and bratty a lot of the times. They also grow up in a sheltered society where they communicate with other children who are of the same class and background. They get no experience of other types of people and therefore rely on stereotypes in later life when they do come across people who come from a different class and background.
    Private schooling creates segregation in society between children and parents. I agree private schooling is a much better option then state funded schools these days what with the poor state of education BUT there is a good reason to be concerned about discrimination and other implications of private schooling.
    Complete unadulterated ********. It's slightly ironic how you're suggesting it's private school students that are relying on stereotypes, in the middle of a post that horrifically generalises private school students in their entirety. How's this for a reliable source: I went to private school, and you're wrong.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    What about a child's being born poor justifies their having an inferior education? Or the converse?
    Don't be so evasive. The post I quoted amounts to "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", confirm/deny
    The fact that poor kids get an inferior education is no good reason to drag rich kids down. To the extent that inequality is objectionable, the solution is to bring the poor up, not bring the rich down. Bringing the rich down ultimately brings everybody down; I think the rather major problems associated with giving the state a complete and compulsory monopoly over education are self-evident.

    You are the one proposing to limit choice. It is generally accepted that a state should only limit the choice of its citizens where it is justified in doing so. The burden of proof is on YOU to show why private schools should be banned, not on those who support them to show why they should be allowed.

    You need a better reason than bare inequality, because to simply base your argument on bare inequality you are attacking one of two fundamental propositions of capitalist society:
    1) That inequality exists and needs to exist for the effective creation of wealth
    2) That parents are able to provide for their children
    You need to show at least some sort of pragmatic benefit for poor kids here, inequality on its own is not enough.

    (Original post by RoyalHollowayHopefully)
    While I agree with everything you've said, you're also being a little reductionist in your views. There are wider social implications of private schooling and predominant one of them being DISCRIMINATION. From personal experience as well as other reliable sources, I know for a fact that private school children tend to turn their noses down at public school children. They are snotty and bratty a lot of the times. They also grow up in a sheltered society where they communicate with other children who are of the same class and background. They get no experience of other types of people and therefore rely on stereotypes in later life when they do come across people who come from a different class and background.
    What a load of rubbish.
    The quality of schools people go to in the state sector is often much more reflective of people's personal wealth than the private sector. The current state system gives heavy, heavy, heavy preference to those who live near to a particular school, relying very much on the post-codes of parents. Guess what? This leads to the best state schools being exclusively middle class: even more so than private schools, who at least have scholarships to broaden their clientele. Its just total rubbish that going to a private school means that you only associate with others from a similar background, it really is, especially when the situation is WORSE in grammar schools than in most private schools.
    As for attitudes, I know plenty of people who went to decent state schools who look down their noses at people who went to similar private schools. Its total rubbish to generalise everyone who went to a state school as a **** who looks down at the achievements of those who went to private school, just as its rubbish to generalise everyone who went to a private school as a **** who looks down at those who went to school in the state sector.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    Have they earnt it, on account of being born? Have they a natural right to it? Does their parents' success justify it, despite children not being their parents, nor being able to choose their parents?
    Did you ever earn things that your parents bought you as a child? I still don't understand how depriving people of access to a better education will in any way improve the education of those who cannot afford to go private. Does dragging people down to the lowest level honestly make the country a better place?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    What about a child's being born poor justifies their having an inferior education? Or the converse?
    I simply don't see why the burden of justification should be on the people who want to see their children educated in the best way possible. If someone earns money enough to send their kids to a private school and wants to spend the money that they earned on that private school, why shouldn't they? And why should they have to justify it to anyone else?

    I'm not saying that we should ban private schools on the premise that states inherently limit choice, I'm saying that a (non-anarchist) defender of private education cannot defend their system on the basis of more (or less constrained) choice for that choice is already highly limited.
    But you're still missing the point - it may well be that, by the very nature of states, they limit choice. We agree on that. But what you're arguing for is that choice should be limited above and beyond that - and it certainly is plausible to argue that there should be as much choice as possible, even under the constraints faced.

    If you are an anarchist then I would take issue with your underlying assumptions. What do you think about Nozick's justification of a minimal state via an invisible hand mechanism?
    Well clearly I don't buy it; the first thing I'd do would be to point out the peculiarity of someone who bases his theory of justice in holdings on actual historical considerations - just acquisition, just transfer and just rectification (which I happen to agree with) - also basing his theory of the state on hypothetical considerations as Nozick does.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)


    Well clearly I don't buy it; the first thing I'd do would be to point out the peculiarity of someone who bases his theory of justice in holdings on actual historical considerations - just acquisition, just transfer and just rectification (which I happen to agree with) - also basing his theory of the state on hypothetical considerations as Nozick does.
    Why should we think that a theory of just states and a theory of just holdings should be legitimated in the same way? Holdings are tangible assets so it seems reasonable to justify them in terms of their causal past, states are non-tangible and theoretical - why shouldn't we argue to them from similar grounds.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    I simply don't see why the burden of justification should be on the people who want to see their children educated in the best way possible. If someone earns money enough to send their kids to a private school and wants to spend the money that they earned on that private school, why shouldn't they? And why should they have to justify it to anyone else?
    This is simply ignoring the problem I set you. What exactly about the child born to rich parents legitimates their superior education (facilitated by the state)? Why should the state allow certain schools to cater to the privileged? Why should the state allow people to buy grades for their children, buy jobs for their children, buy massive opportunities for their children?

    Sure rich parents should be allowed to buy better material goods for their children, but why should they be allowed to buy priviledges within the structure of the state's institutions?
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Cognito)
    This is simply ignoring the problem I set you. What exactly about the child born to rich parents legitimates their superior education (facilitated by the state)? Why should the state allow certain schools to cater to the privileged? Why should the state allow people to buy grades for their children, buy jobs for their children, buy massive opportunities for their children?

    Sure rich parents should be allowed to buy better material goods for their children, but why should they be allowed to buy priviledges within the structure of the state's institutions?
    Private schools do not sell grades. A moron will get low GCSEs and A-levels no matter how much his or her parents' spend. Trust me, I spent the vast majority of my years at a private school and I had classmates who went on to go to ex-polytechnics. Going to private school does not guarantee a perfect future. Stop with the hyperbole.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    i would like to highlight people like bill gates and warren buffet who do not believe in dynastic wealth and are giving way a large percentage of their fortune.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    The thing that really aggravates me about privately educated people is that they always get the top jobs. No matter how much effort a state school pupil puts in, they are massively disadvantaged in comparison to their private counterparts. Have a look in Wikipedia and you'll see that most famous British people you can think of were privately educated.

    Why does this happen? Even if what they do (acting, music etc) has nothing to do with academia, they are always the ones who break through. I hate it.

    It's the same with everything. Pompous judges and politicians, who've got no idea what it's like to be an ordinary person, dictate to people who haven't had anything like the opportunities that they have and try to tell them what to do/rule over them.

    I think private education creates an unacceptable divide in society.
    Offline

    3
    HappinessHappening, wouldn't most of those people be from one or more generations ago? I'm not sure it's fair to condemn the current system based on a problem created in times when society rejected meritocracy as a matter of course.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    I simply don't see why the burden of justification should be on the people who want to see their children educated in the best way possible. If someone earns money enough to send their kids to a private school and wants to spend the money that they earned on that private school, why shouldn't they? And why should they have to justify it to anyone else?

    But you're still missing the point - it may well be that, by the very nature of states, they limit choice. We agree on that. But what you're arguing for is that choice should be limited above and beyond that - and it certainly is plausible to argue that there should be as much choice as possible, even under the constraints faced.



    Well clearly I don't buy it; the first thing I'd do would be to point out the peculiarity of someone who bases his theory of justice in holdings on actual historical considerations - just acquisition, just transfer and just rectification (which I happen to agree with) - also basing his theory of the state on hypothetical considerations as Nozick does.
    Because it creates an unacceptable, perpetual cycle of wealth and priviledge. I'm all for meritocracy, but everyone should have the most equal starting positions possible.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    HappinessHappening, wouldn't most of those people be from one or more generations ago? I'm not sure it's fair to condemn the current system based on a problem created in times when society rejected meritocracy as a matter of course.
    Even people in the modern day fit this pattern though. Do you really think our generation will see more MPs and celebrities that were state educated? I doubt it very much. And I don't think that's right, personally.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    The thing that really aggravates me about privately educated people is that they always get the top jobs. No matter how much effort a state school pupil puts in, they are massively disadvantaged in comparison to their private counterparts. Have a look in Wikipedia and you'll see that most famous British people you can think of were privately educated.

    Why does this happen? Even if what they do (acting, music etc) has nothing to do with academia, they are always the ones who break through. I hate it.

    It's the same with everything. Pompous judges and politicians, who've got no idea what it's like to be an ordinary person, dictate to people who haven't had anything like the opportunities that they have and try to tell them what to do/rule over them.

    I think private education creates an unacceptable divide in society.
    Gordon Brown went to a state comprehensive. And in one fell swoop your massive, unfair generalisations are proved incorrect.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    Even people in the modern day fit this pattern though. Do you really think our generation will see more MPs and celebrities that were state educated? I doubt it very much. And I don't think that's right, personally.
    A very significant portion of the Houses of Parliament neither went to private schools nor attended Oxbridge. If it's that good now, there's no reason to suspect the situation won't improve in future.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    The thing that really aggravates me about privately educated people is that they always get the top jobs. No matter how much effort a state school pupil puts in, they are massively disadvantaged in comparison to their private counterparts. Have a look in Wikipedia and you'll see that most famous British people you can think of were privately educated.

    Why does this happen? Even if what they do (acting, music etc) has nothing to do with academia, they are always the ones who break through. I hate it.

    It's the same with everything. Pompous judges and politicians, who've got no idea what it's like to be an ordinary person, dictate to people who haven't had anything like the opportunities that they have and try to tell them what to do/rule over them.

    I think private education creates an unacceptable divide in society.
    If only privately educated people were up to the job, then getting rid of private education would only lead to rubbish MPs/judges/policiticans/entertainers.

    Frankly, this is the result of generations past. Plenty of state educated people are rising and have risen to prominence. Almost every prominent person has gone to Oxbridge, this used to be a problem for state educated people. Now that state schoolers get an advantage in the admissions process and university education is funded by the government, this will be cured, and already seems to be happening.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.