Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Howard]Well any parent that would want their children to experience some of these inner city "seats of learning" when they could send them somewhere else needs to see a doctor. There's plenty of time to mix with the great unwashed during one's lifetime but no need to screw up an education to get a head start on it.



    haha cuthbert! Maybe thats the case in some parts of inner london(but maybe it wouldnt be if you didnt have such wealth division!) But the majority of areas do have a civilised enough state school withinn reasonable radius, you must admit
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    But a lot of the views you came out with before, would sound quite derogatory to people with occupations like your parents......? i'm puzzled by that
    My parents don't have these occupations now. (my old man's easy worth a couple mill these days) Anyway, I'm not being derogatory. I don't look down on anyone really; I'm taking the piss in my own sweet way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    kvhiusahochoa*****
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    My parents don't have these occupations now. (my old man's easy worth a couple mill these days) Anyway, I'm not being derogatory. I don't look down on anyone really; I'm taking the piss in my own sweet way.
    ahh what a sweetie(yeah right)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    If its paying for education in terms of a ticket to help you get into positions of authority, than thats not necessarily what i'd regard as a great education. ...
    Surely it's preferable to have well-educated people in positions of authority? You really need to make a distinction between fair and unfair advantages.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by d750)
    Surely it's preferable to have well-educated people in positions of authority? You really need to make a distinction between fair and unfair advantages.
    no no no no of course it is!! ...i was just saying that paying for PS is a bit of a ticket to help you into positions of authority, and thats not necessarily what i'd pay for.. .or regard as a truly great education...as for what is? well thats another debate
    i deleted that post now, cos it got pasted wrongly , forget it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    ahh what a sweetie(yeah right)
    I know. I'm all heart.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Howard, i am not talking about Islington gentry..and why is a wealthy socialist an armchair socialist!!??..Is that the old tory argument about how socilaists should throw all their money away??
    For many people its nothing do with moral high ground, its do with what they want their kids to experience
    well why shouldnt socialist throw all their money away? they spend their lives telling other, wealthier people to. they some how imply that it is morally wrong to work hard and earn a lot of money, and that wealthy people should feel guilty.

    what they want their kids to experience...? that is a load of rubbish and you know it. do you go to a really rough inner-city state school? i doubt it, because if you did, im sure you wouldnt be quite so happy to be going to a state school. as other on this thread have mentioned, you have NO concept of what private schools actually are, or the sort of people that attend them.

    in short, your opinions have no basis in reality whatsoever.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    no no no no of course it is!! ...i was just saying that paying for PS is a bit of a ticket to help you into positions of authority, and thats not necessarily what i'd pay for.. .or regard as a truly great education...as for what is? well thats another debate
    i deleted that post now, cos it got pasted wrongly , forget it
    yeah... tell that to the people from our school who tried to get into oxbridge this year but didnt. obviously our school wasnt private enough, otherwise im sure they would have all easily waltzed in, and from there onto positions of authority... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ant87)
    yeah... tell that to the people from our school who tried to get into oxbridge this year but didnt. obviously our school wasnt private enough, otherwise im sure they would have all easily waltzed in, and from there onto positions of authority... :rolleyes:
    i'm so sorry 100 per cent didint get in so what, its comparitive, yes unis are being more PC now and tying to fill quotas, but networking was undoubtley a facotr in the past
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps the people from your school weren't cunning enough with regard to choosing their colleges. Just as some universities bend over backwards to let in students from state schools, similarly some Oxbridge colleges are easier or harder to get into depending on your background.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=ant87]well why shouldnt socialist throw all their money away? they spend their lives telling other, wealthier people to. they some how imply that it is morally wrong to work hard and earn a lot of money, and that wealthy people should feel guilty.

    That is nonsense, they don't believe in a wealthy person randomly throwing their money anyway! That makes no sense, as it would make minimal difference, and you act according to the society you are living in. They do not imply it is "morally wrong to work hard" and as for earning a lot of money, it depends entirely on what you mean by a lot, yes they believe too bigger wealth division is unhealthy and should not be encouraged, not necessarily that smaller wealth divisions are any problem. I beleive the income earnt after taxation should be assessed and wealth differences here should not be out of control and that as much as possible should be managed by the state. Or you can go the other route like somewhere like Brazil, look at Rio,so much wealth division that many live in slums,a few live in mansions with armed guards...a minimal percentage of the population has all the wealth...america has its problems with wealth divide..i believe it causes higher crime rates..look at the example of some of the scandanavian countries, taxation is high, and money goes into public services, very low crime, lower wealth division than UK, etc. we have the highest wealth division, along with portugal, in Europe now
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Perhaps the people from your school weren't cunning enough with regard to choosing their colleges. Just as some universities bend over backwards to let in students from state schools, similarly some Oxbridge colleges are easier or harder to get into depending on your background.
    shes from a private school though
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=naivesincerity]
    (Original post by ant87)
    we have the highest wealth division, along with portugal, in Europe now
    What's your point? Why do people constantly choose to look at the division of wealth - when what is better surely - is to look at the average standard of living. Lets have a look at some facts:

    1. THE UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2004 says that Ireland has moved to 10th in the world in terms of the standard of living (up 8 places in less than 24 months) despite (or DUE to) lowering corporate taxes, and an increase in the division of wealth.

    2. The UK ranks 12th in the world in terms of % of population living in poverty. That is as compared to The US (who have a lower tax burden and a greater division of wealth) who rank at 8, and as compared to Germany (19th), Austria (14th), Finland (13th), and France (16th) - ALL with higher taxes and a smaller division of wealth.

    3. Indeed the Germans have actually seen a decline in their standard of living and a growth in the number of poor despite what are "socialist" policies as compared to the UK.

    4. Karl Zinsmeister also has noted that though "We have conventionally thought of Europe as having about the same standard of living as Americans. This is less and less true. For the European Union as a whole, GDP per capita is presently less than two thirds of U.S. levels. America's poorest sub-groups, like African Americans, now have higher average income levels than the typical European."

    Of course Norway can be given as an example of a country with high taxes, and a high standrad of living. However, one doesnt necessarily follow the other. There are countless countries in which higher taxes, and a smaller division of wealth have not meant a better situation for anyone. The aim shoudl be to give each individual a better standard of living, NOT reducing the gap between him and the wealthier members of society simply for the sake of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brasil85)
    Yes why not. Many working class people are clever so should be allowed into private school like Eton.
    I go to a public school(like Eton) and I think that if working class ppl want to go they should, so long as they have the ability to, however, you would also have to take into account whether they would first of all want to. I know a lot of ppl in my school who would comment if a working class person came into the school, but that's just wrong! Everybody deserves a good education

    Besides we're not all toffs!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    What's your point? Why do people constantly choose to look at the division of wealth - when what is better surely - is to look at the average standard of living. Lets have a look at some facts:

    1. THE UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2004 says that Ireland has moved to 10th in the world in terms of the standard of living (up 8 places in less than 24 months) despite (or DUE to) lowering corporate taxes, and an increase in the division of wealth.

    2. The UK ranks 12th in the world in terms of % of population living in poverty. That is as compared to The US (who have a lower tax burden and a greater division of wealth) who rank at 8, and as compared to Germany (19th), Austria (14th), Finland (13th), and France (16th) - ALL with higher taxes and a smaller division of wealth.

    3. Indeed the Germans have actually seen a decline in their standard of living and a growth in the number of poor despite what are "socialist" policies as compared to the UK.

    4. Karl Zinsmeister also has noted that though "We have conventionally thought of Europe as having about the same standard of living as Americans. This is less and less true. For the European Union as a whole, GDP per capita is presently less than two thirds of U.S. levels. America's poorest sub-groups, like African Americans, now have higher average income levels than the typical European."

    Of course Norway can be given as an example of a country with high taxes, and a high standrad of living. However, one doesnt necessarily follow the other. There are countless countries in which higher taxes, and a smaller division of wealth have not meant a better situation for anyone. The aim shoudl be to give each individual a better standard of living, NOT reducing the gap between him and the wealthier members of society simply for the sake of it.

    Sure, but thats comparing standard of living and poverty in terms of actual wealth in world terms. How about poverty as in relative wealth within countries? My point is that much poverty is relative and psychological and societies where the have-nots are aware of the huge gap between them and the haves are inclined to be more discontented. Although blacks, USA's poorest subgroup may,if you're correct,have higher average incomes than the typical european, they are,more importantly, relatively much poorer compared to those living within in a short radius of them, and there are huge ghettos with great crime problems. I'd imagine the unemployment rates are not any lower in the states.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Although blacks, USA's poorest subgroup have higher incomes than the typical european, they are relatively much poorer compared to those living within in a short radius of them, and there are huge ghettos with great crime problems and i'm sure the unemployment rates are not any lower in the states.
    WTF are you talking about? That's utter *******s on both counts I've highlighted. Please stop making things up as you go along.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    if the working class person, like any other member of society, meets the criteria for the particular private school, then they can go. its really that simple.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    WTF are you talking about? That's utter *******s on both counts I've highlighted. Please stop making things up as you go along.
    Howard the first one is a quote from Lawzzz actually, if you look above, i was arguing his point by taking his word, the second one was speculation which i was asking for confirmation of?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    if the working class person, like any other member of society, meets the criteria for the particular private school, then they can go. its really that simple.
    Well one of the criteria must be being able to afford it. So if you can't afford it you can't go (unless the school is kind enough to grant a scholarship of some sort) But that's the school's business.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.