Turn on thread page Beta

Education for profit. Good or bad? Why? watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    1.Why would you say "some people" instead of "all people"?

    2. I'm not quite sure why you are using university education as a comparison, because everyone can afford to attend university.
    1. Because there is a difference between some and all. I highly doubt independent schools could get all kids in the UK onboard.

    2. That is not exactly true. Everyone can afford to attend university as long as not everyone attends university. Too confusing? Let me put it like this: everyone in the UK can walk inside the Parliament as long as not everyone in the UK walks in the Parliament (at the same time). It makes the difference between going to uni when Stephen Fry did and with the history he had and the way current students go to uni with the history that they have.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gott)
    Evidence?

    That sounds like lefty BS to me and its hardly relevant to the overall effectiveness of the system

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...alth-care.html
    I thought that it was common knowledge. The NHS is not perfect, but it is world-leading.

    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...&utm_campaign=

    http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...erPritWall.pdf

    http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/topics/n...hs-performance

    http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1079

    Name:  commonwealth fund on national health system efficacy.jpg
Views: 69
Size:  170.8 KB
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gott)
    Evidence?

    That sounds like lefty BS to me and its hardly relevant to the overall effectiveness of the system

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...alth-care.html
    I see that you have now edited your post to include a link from the DM.

    If you are going to cite a study, cite the study, not what the Daily Mail chose to select from the study.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    I see that you have now edited your post to include a link from the DM.

    If you are going to cite a study, cite the study, not what the Daily Mail chose to select from the study.
    Somewhat Offset by BMJ to be fair

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Any actual statistics? You must realise that centralisation and state ownership breeds inefficiency, I'd have thought tha that was common knowledge
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gott)
    Any actual statistics? You must realise that centralisation and state ownership breeds inefficiency, I'd have thought tha that was common knowledge
    Inefficiency but uniformity - everyone knows (roughly) what to expect from school or the NHS.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gott)
    Any actual statistics? You must realise that centralisation and state ownership breeds inefficiency, I'd have thought tha that was common knowledge
    There are data tabulations in two of the reports I linked to you:

    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/me...irror_2014.pdf

    http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...erPritWall.pdf

    Most applied reports aren't going to include massive data-sets; their point is to integrate the findings as to help guide policy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by panda14)
    Inefficiency but uniformity - everyone knows (roughly) what to expect from school or the NHS.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Like with the Soviet health system you mean? That argument if it can be called do that is communistical
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    There are data tabulations in two of the reports I linked to you:

    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/me...irror_2014.pdf

    http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...erPritWall.pdf

    Most applied reports aren't going to include massive data-sets; their point is to integrate the findings as to help guide policy.
    I'm not comparing all the statistics, give me overall death rates and recovery rates and I might be convinced perhaps
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gott)
    I'm not comparing all the statistics, give me overall death rates and recovery rates and I might be convinced perhaps
    The reports are exactly the answer to your wish: they integrate various data as to produce tangible conclusions. Why would I re-interpret what health professionals already have with much care? In any case, healthcare metrics are infinitely more complicated that comparing death rates and recovery rates...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    The reports are exactly the answer to your wish: they integrate various data as to produce tangible conclusions. Why would I re-interpret what health professionals already have with much care? In any case, healthcare metrics are infinitely more complicated that comparing death rates and recovery rates...
    I doubt its reliability then
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gott)
    I doubt its reliability then
    Why..?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    1. Because there is a difference between some and all. I highly doubt independent schools could get all kids in the UK onboard.

    2. That is not exactly true. Everyone can afford to attend university as long as not everyone attends university. Too confusing? Let me put it like this: everyone in the UK can walk inside the Parliament as long as not everyone in the UK walks in the Parliament (at the same time). It makes the difference between going to uni when Stephen Fry did and with the history he had and the way current students go to uni with the history that they have.
    I said:

    Obviously they wouldn't be able to cope, but at least they make their education available to people who would not normally be able to afford it.
    Then you said:

    I am going to be really annoying and say that the specifically "make their education available to some people who would not normally be able to afford it" rather than "ALL people who would not normally be able to afford it".
    Firstly, I didn't say ""ALL people who would not normally be able to afford it"" in my first post.

    Secondly, everyone can apply for a place at an independent school, it doesn't matter you are from a poor background or a wealthy background. The places are made available to everyone, but not everyone will get accepted (based on interviews, entrance exams, etc.)

    Saying "I highly doubt independent schools could get all kids in the UK onboard" is irrelevant.

    It is entirely true. I said that "everyone can afford to attend university", because that is currently the case in 2015. Your condescending crap doesn't work here.

    Saying "imagine if" doesn't mean anything. We are talking about now, not in some hypothetical future where we have a "significant East Asian population"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    Why..?
    Stats can be manipulated
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gott)
    Evidence?

    That sounds like lefty BS to me and its hardly relevant to the overall effectiveness of the system

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...alth-care.html

    "That sounds like Orc mischief to me" :rolleyes:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ess-story.html

    Daily mail say a lot of things.

    How confused is that above article? Labour are evil bad lefties for being right wing and privatizing a well functioning "success story" state ran socialist NHS hospital.

    The left is bad because they are right. Now go vote right.

    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    Why..?
    cognitive dissonance?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gott)
    Stats can be manipulated
    I presume that you do not usually think a given piece of information being manipulable is sufficient reason for denying the validity of the information in entirety. Because, if that was indeed your position, you would be forced to a scepticism such that you couldn't live an ordinary life. You have produced a series of very imbecilic excuses for not accepting, and by all appearances not reading, the reports I cited. It's more than obvious that that's because you disagree with their conclusions from sheer dogmatism. If you think the reports are wrong, the burden is upon you to demonstrate as much.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    I said:



    Then you said:



    Firstly, I didn't say ""ALL people who would not normally be able to afford it"" in my first post.

    Secondly, everyone can apply for a place at an independent school, it doesn't matter you are from a poor background or a wealthy background. The places are made available to everyone, but not everyone will get accepted (based on interviews, entrance exams, etc.)

    Saying "I highly doubt independent schools could get all kids in the UK onboard" is irrelevant.

    It is entirely true. I said that "everyone can afford to attend university", because that is currently the case in 2015. Your condescending crap doesn't work here.

    Saying "imagine if" doesn't mean anything. We are talking about now, not in some hypothetical future where we have a "significant East Asian population"
    You didn't but you implied it. If you say 'TSR users can post and edit comments', it is safe to assume that you mean all TSR users unless you say otherwise.
    "The places are made available to everyone". Factually wrong. "Applications for a place are made available to everyone." At any given independent school, the number of applications can be unlimited but the number of places is not. Would love to see a counter-example if one exists in the UK or anywhere in the Earth.
    If you don't cannot get in, it does not matter whether you are able to apply or not. Every sixth former in the UK can apply to Oxford, that does not mean that every sixth former can get in Oxford. Similarly, every student might be able to apply for a funded a place at an independent school but it does not mean that they can get in. And all it matters is whether they get in not whether they can apply for a funded place (which does not guarantee a place). That was my point.

    I might come across highly critical but that is become I don't think independent schools (with or without funded places) can replace state schools with the purpose of improving the educational outcomes of poor kids.

    There is no need for you to use emotional adjectives in a rational conversation. I assume that you are a person who is capable of keeping his emotions aside when engaging in a mature conversation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why is it that people presume that private provision of any service would be more expensive and/or worse than state provision? This is quite obviously not the case. Cf. Air travel, food, manufactured goods, delivery, cars, communications, water supply, fuel etc etc.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Gott)
    I doubt its reliability then
    You've dismissed it because you obviously cannot summon the facility to read.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi guys, I know this thread has died down, but I found the debate very interesting and I wanted to share my point of view.

    I work for a private sector provider, but these are purely my personal views and I have not been asked by my employer to post here.

    First, in order to be able to deliver quality education, any institution, whether private or public, needs to have its finances sorted.Universities also have to be financially sound, otherwise it becomes hard to maintain standards, retain academic staff and, consequently, students. In the private sector, having cash in the pot at the end of the financial year is called 'profit'; in the public sector, 'surplus'. No institution, whether public or private, can afford to make loss for a very long time - if this happens to private institutions, they are simply out of business, but in the case of public unis, we (the taxpayer) end up picking up the bill.

    Second, it is thanks to the profit that private providers make that they are able to afford delivering courses such as HND programmes for a fraction of the funding that public universities receive. Let's just try and think - if universities charge £9k a year to teach students, it is because teaching is not cheap. Now, in the case of private providers, the fees charged for HND courses (currently the main kind of course for which public funding is available in the private sector) are only £6k. Of course these aren't full degree programmes, but taking students on board incurs similar costs - and in fact many students on HND courses tend to demand more from the institution in terms of resources or academic support given that many of them have been out of education for a significant time. Profit is one of the factors that have enabled the widening of access to higher education in the UK.

    Third, due to the fact that private providers don't receive research funding, they have to spend their money wisely and focus on teaching and student services. This is certainly an advantage to students on classroom-based courses - teaching is the lecturers' main priority, not just aside job.

    My fourth point is about choice. Having more institutions o fall types brings a wider range of options for all. Competition can only benefit students as institutions are forced to deliver value for the money they charge.Not everyone can get into Oxbridge; the whole 'campus university experience' might not be a priority for everyone. If private providers are still going it is because there is a market for them. A wider variety of institutions helps to ensure there is certainly a place for everyone.

    Finally, my last point is about the reception that private providers have had so far. I'm well aware that the private sector has had a fair bit of bad press but this helps to ensure issues are addressed, teething problems are solved and, most importantly, that regulation is done properly.Private providers don't have it easy here in the UK - it's not a free for all as many people think. Providers have to meet the same (and sometimes tougher)levels of regulation and scrutiny as the public sector. But if there are private providers more successful and with more students than universities year on year, it is probably because they are doing something right.

    Higher education is finally evolving in the UK. Not everyone will agree with my views, but the debate we are having here is really positive and can only contribute to the on-going development of the sector.

    Thanks a lot!
 
 
 

2,810

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.