Private Schools Ought to be Abolished Watch

Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#381
Report 9 years ago
#381
(Original post by CyclopsRock)
What about private music lessons?
They should knock off points for them too - plenty of kids teach themselves the guitar etc more or less by themself.
0
reply
jacketpotato
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#382
Report 9 years ago
#382
(Original post by billydisco)
With finite resources you have to 'spend' these wisely. So who do you give a good education to, a council estate full of teenagers who will end up involved in drugs? Or a middle class area where they will be encouraged by their parents to do well?
So, you advocate giving council estate kids a rubbish education. Presumably you are also unconcerned by the fact that we built these massive grey council estates, a major factor causing people to be locked into poverty, in the first place. Is it any wonder that these people end up on drugs?
0
reply
Renner
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#383
Report 9 years ago
#383
(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
I never said that all publically educated students are like that, but a sizable majority are. Unfortunately they show up at my university and destroy the experence for the people who do deserve to be there. Unfortunately, it is a fact that the dim but well educated show up in the top universities in droves and the universities themselves cannot be bothered to do anything about it.
University pick students on how good there grades are, Public schools get the best grades because they have a better education system, so what’s the problem?


As for travel opportunities, most of our lecturers are well travelled. Rather hear it from them than some posh twit gloating about how well cultured he / she apparently is.
Can you really be any more of a ****?
0
reply
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#384
Report 9 years ago
#384
(Original post by Renner)
University pick students on how good there grades are, Public schools get the best grades because they have a better education system, so what’s the problem?
Because grades do not directly correspond to academic ability - surely an A-level I taught myself should be worth far more than one that someone has been spoon fed? (For the record, I got straight A's without a private education)

Can you really be any more of a ****?
Way to make an argument... :rolleyes:
0
reply
ch0c0h01ic
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#385
Report 9 years ago
#385
(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
I never said that all publically educated students are like that, but a sizable majority are. Unfortunately they show up at my university and destroy the experence for the people who do deserve to be there.
The problem here is that you're simply drawing on your own experiences rather than looking at the broader picture. I go to a university with a very high proportion of privately educated students (which has been duly criticised) and I have never had or seen any of the problems you describe.

Education and backgrounds have come into the conversation multiple times but nobody has ever been able to guess right who was state schooled and who wasn't.

(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
Unfortunately, it is a fact that the dim but well educated show up in the top universities in droves and the universities themselves cannot be bothered to do anything about it.
Places are awarded by merit, not background.

Yes some top institutions contain some people from wealthy backgrounds who are bright but dim, equally there are some from less well of backgrounds who are just as well educated and just as bland.

(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
It is completely wrong for an academic student to be picking students on the basis of sporting or musical prowess - competition should be purely on academic ability.
Extra curricular activities display advantageous skills and characteristics, like being able to communicate with others across a wide range of ages and backgrounds, ability to work within a team, ability to lead, commitment, determination, etc. They're one of many very useful criteria. To discount them simply breeds very knowledgeable people with no real interests or abilities (ie; the 'dim' people which you chastise).

To give you an example, the Medical and Veterinary establishments have had huge problems over the years with students who are yes, are very academically able, but incapable of working with people and/or animals. Now extra curricular activities (among other things) are extensively used during selection and I do know of many people who despite having good grades were rejected.

(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
As for travel opportunities, most of our lecturers are well travelled. Rather hear it from them than some posh twit gloating about how well cultured he / she apparently is.
Travelling is hugely beneficial, it breeds understanding of other cultures, tolerance, independence, maturity, etc. Privately educated students have more opportunities to travel and more importantly benefit from it (something which is recognised by universities and employers).

On the whole travelling and extra curricular activities create a more rounded individual.
0
reply
CERECEREREVOLUTION
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#386
Report 9 years ago
#386
(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
Because grades do not directly correspond to academic ability - surely an A-level I taught myself should be worth far more than one that someone has been spoon fed? (For the record, I got straight A's without a private education)
Bad news, the system for gaining entry to tiered schools won't correspond to academic ability either.
0
reply
CyclopsRock
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#387
Report 9 years ago
#387
(Original post by DougieG)
Not as fundamental as academic education, but kids who show exceptional promise should be given support if their parents cannot. Schools ought to be providing support with access to clubs and free use of school-owned instruments.
Does anyone show exceptional promise as a musician without first receiving some lessons? Even Mozart, famous for his composing his first piece at the age of 5, was heavily schooled in Music his whole (though short) life before that point.

And how does one define "fundamental"?
0
reply
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#388
Report 9 years ago
#388
(Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
The problem here is that you're simply drawing on your own experiences rather than looking at the broader picture. I go to a university with a very high proportion of privately educated students (which has been duly criticised) and I have never had or seen any of the problems you describe.

Education and backgrounds have come into the conversation multiple times but nobody has ever been able to guess right who was state schooled and who wasn't.
Yeah - because the small minority who went to a comprehensive school and had no private tuition are hardly going to make a fuss over it. Socially, it can be suicide in those places.

Places are awarded by merit, not background.

Yes some top institutions contain some people from wealthy backgrounds who are bright but dim, equally there are some from less well of backgrounds who are just as well educated and just as bland.
Far more come from private schools. Though I am against cheats and thieves of all backgrounds, which is essentially what these people are.

Extra curricular activities display advantageous skills and characteristics, like being able to communicate with others across a wide range of ages and backgrounds, ability to work within a team, ability to lead, commitment, determination, etc. They're one of many very useful criteria. To discount them simply breeds very knowledgeable people with no real interests or abilities (ie; the 'dim' people which you chastise).

To give you an example, the Medical and Veterinary establishments have had huge problems over the years with students who are yes, are very academically able, but incapable of working with people and/or animals. Now extra curricular activities (among other things) are extensively used during selection and I do know of many people who despite having good grades were rejected.
There are plenty of extra curricular activities that actually relate to subjects - sport and music rarely relate to degree courses. I don't actually care how knowledgable someone is, I care that they have ability in their subject. Unfortunately university examinations systems too often assess the wrong abilities. If they were meritocratic, all the morons would leave at the end of the first year.

Travelling is hugely beneficial, it breeds understanding of other cultures, tolerance, independence, maturity, etc. Privately educated students have more opportunities to travel and more importantly benefit from it (something which is recognised by universities and employers).
I would rather have a doctor who makes the right diagnosis with dreadful bedside manner, than someone polite but mostly useless.
On the whole travelling and extra curricular activities create a more rounded individual.
Its an unnecessary arms race - people should be competing on academic ability, rather than how much social nonsense their parents have gotten them to spend their time doing.
0
reply
DougieG
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#389
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#389
(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Does anyone show exceptional promise as a musician without first receiving some lessons? Even Mozart, famous for his composing his first piece at the age of 5, was heavily schooled in Music his whole (though short) life before that point.

And how does one define "fundamental"?
Well Its hardly as big an issue. How many people use GCSEs, A levels and degrees to get jobs, compared to musical qualifications? Say 0.5% of the population are professional musicians (still probably an overestimate), the rest of the working population will have got their jobs most likely with A levels or degrees. You don't get to be a doctor with grade 8 flute.
0
reply
CyclopsRock
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#390
Report 9 years ago
#390
(Original post by DougieG)
Well Its hardly as big an issue. How many people use GCSEs, A levels and degrees to get jobs, compared to musical qualifications? Say 0.5% of the population are professional musicians (still probably an overestimate), the rest of the working population will have got their jobs most likely with A levels or degrees. You don't get to be a doctor with grade 8 flute.
Ha. I wrote a post about the grey areas of education a while ago. I just made a search to find it, and it was in this very thread. One small section of that post is the following:

"Besides, I think it's a practical impossibility - aside from the question of where the resources would come from to suddenly have another load of students supported on a system that was previously not supporting them, you have others issues too. What constitutes private education? Big private schools? Small, after-school tutors? Home tutors? Summer schools? Religious Sunday-school? Home teaching by parents? Music lessons? A poetry society? I think it would simply be impossible to get rid of all forms of paid education, simply because "education" comes in so many forms."
0
reply
DougieG
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#391
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#391
(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Ha. I wrote a post about the grey areas of education a while ago. I just made a search to find it, and it was in this very thread. One small section of that post is the following:

"Besides, I think it's a practical impossibility - aside from the question of where the resources would come from to suddenly have another load of students supported on a system that was previously not supporting them, you have others issues too. What constitutes private education? Big private schools? Small, after-school tutors? Home tutors? Summer schools? Religious Sunday-school? Home teaching by parents? Music lessons? A poetry society? I think it would simply be impossible to get rid of all forms of paid education, simply because "education" comes in so many forms."
You're quite right, but schools cover the vast majority of those things. I'll address them individually:

Home tutors probably couldn't be banned. That's too draconian and I don't believe in tyranny, just equal opportunities. Regardless of tutors, the poor would still have a much better shot at the best schools than they currently do.

Summer schools ought to be operated on a gifted and talented project, as many currently are. Yet, again to ban private ones would be silly. I don't think that they would create a vast gap in inequality - in my experience, academic summer schools were attended only by those who were struggling, and didn't tend to put any of them ahead of the brighter students.

Sunday school is more damaging to a child's intellectual development, it teaches them to accept what they are told without question and not to be too critical of things in which you 'believe'. I think they're fundamentally wrong, but not for any academic reason. They certainly don't give the children who attend a headstart.

Home teaching. In an ideal world, all parents would do a degree of this, but extra help ought to be given to kids whose parents neglect them (indeed, this is already the case in many primary schools).

I've talked about music lessons.

Poetry groups etc ought to be run by schools. Kids don't need to pay for school-run clubs and activities. Time could be given to teachers by reducing the paperwork they have to do so that they could work until 5 every day and run clubs for those who want to do them.
0
reply
ch0c0h01ic
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#392
Report 9 years ago
#392
(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
Yeah - because the small minority who went to a comprehensive school and had no private tuition are hardly going to make a fuss over it. Socially, it can be suicide in those places.
I go to one of 'those places' and I can tell you as a fact that educational background is not an issue. Sure if you want to make background, education, race, etc an issue by insulting people and ramming it down their throats (like you are doing) then yes, it probably will be, but you're talking about a tiny minority on both sides of the coin.

(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
Far more come from private schools. Though I am against cheats and thieves of all backgrounds, which is essentially what these people are.
State or private schooled they worked just as hard for the same places. Going to a private school doesn't automatically qualify you to work hard, get good marks in your coursework and pass all of the relevant exams.

Cheating and exam coaching is just as prevalent in state schools as it is private ones.

(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
There are plenty of extra curricular activities that actually relate to subjects - sport and music rarely relate to degree courses. I don't actually care how knowledgable someone is, I care that they have ability in their subject. Unfortunately university examinations systems too often assess the wrong abilities. If they were meritocratic, all the morons would leave at the end of the first year.
Nobody said that universities compromise academic ability for extra curricular activities - for many they are a useful supplement. Of course in some instances they aren't relevant so they have little or no role in the selection process, but equally in some instances they are relevant and they are used.

It is a meritocratic system, when did you ever hear of a student who got DDD in their A-levels, but played croquet at national level and so was accepted into Cambridge? *Pauses for the increasingly ludicrous conspiracy theory* Never, but it must be because they've hushed it all up because they don't want us to find out.

(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
I would rather have a doctor who makes the right diagnosis with dreadful bedside manner, than someone polite but mostly useless.
Who said that you can't have both? That's what the universities are striving to create.
0
reply
CERECEREREVOLUTION
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#393
Report 9 years ago
#393
(Original post by DougieG)
That's too draconian and I don't believe in tyranny, just equal opportunities.
He says while banning people from setting up private schools and parents from sending children to these schools.
0
reply
DougieG
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#394
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#394
(Original post by CERECEREREVOLUTION)
He says while banning people from setting up private schools and parents from sending children to these schools.
You're not allowed to have a private army. Is that draconian?
0
reply
CERECEREREVOLUTION
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#395
Report 9 years ago
#395
(Original post by DougieG)
You're not allowed to have a private army. Is that draconian?
You pretty much are allowed to have a private army. Besides, there's a huge gap between having a group of people trained to kill people and teaching children.

Currently your system takes up huge amounts of money, is introducing arbitrary restrictions on freedom, is probably going to be even worse than the current system in terms of people being able to use money to buy a superior education, and all in all isn't going to work. As said before, focusing on grammar schools is probably the best thing you can do.

Keep it simple is the best approach to the problem, especially when the people who'll be doing the work are civil servants.

And because I feel like addressing a previous issue raised by HoppingMad: apparantly dim students who made it through a good university aren't going to end up in jobs 'deserved' by someone else because the recruitment process is far more robust than school or university entry processes.
0
reply
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#396
Report 9 years ago
#396
(Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
I go to one of 'those places' and I can tell you as a fact that educational background is not an issue. Sure if you want to make background, education, race, etc an issue by insulting people and ramming it down their throats (like you are doing) then yes, it probably will be, but you're talking about a tiny minority on both sides of the coin.
It is a massive issue, just one which gets delibrately buried.

State or private schooled they worked just as hard for the same places. Going to a private school doesn't automatically qualify you to work hard, get good marks in your coursework and pass all of the relevant exams.
Actually I don't give a monkeys how hard someone works, I care about what they can achieve. Hard work is an excuse to justify uselessness.
Cheating and exam coaching is just as prevalent in state schools as it is private ones.
Going to private school in itself is a form of cheating. Yes, there is a lot of cheating in state schools too, but I would ban that too.

Nobody said that universities compromise academic ability for extra curricular activities - for many they are a useful supplement. Of course in some instances they aren't relevant so they have little or no role in the selection process, but equally in some instances they are relevant and they are used.
They do in the social environment - which means that people have other opportunities stolen from them.
It is a meritocratic system, when did you ever hear of a student who got DDD in their A-levels, but played croquet at national level and so was accepted into Cambridge? *Pauses for the increasingly ludicrous conspiracy theory* Never, but it must be because they've hushed it all up because they don't want us to find out.
A-levels are not always a measure of merit, all I will say is that they are a lot easier in one environment compared to another.
Who said that you can't have both? That's what the universities are striving to create.
One isn't neccesary - its a pointless luxury.
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#397
Report 9 years ago
#397
(Original post by DougieG)
Yes, you give the best resources to the best kids. That's what us 'left wingers' are advocating. The 'best kids' are generally not the snotty, arrogant ten year olds who got a pony for Christmas, but are spread across a range of social backgrounds. Intelligence is a combination of nurture and innate ability (more of the latter, though) and so the best way is surely to measure a combination of these, and not take the parents' bank accounts into consideration when looking at admissions to the best resourced schools.
Since when do left-wingers advocate that?! Don't make me laugh! Equality, equality, equality! Even if its equally screwed education!

You have completely missed my point about advice. It shouldn't matter what the balance of your parents bank account is, but as i quite clearly stated, those with more money tend to be able to give their children better advice!

So back to my original point, why waste finite resources on those who are going to drop out at 16??
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#398
Report 9 years ago
#398
(Original post by jacketpotato)
So, you advocate giving council estate kids a rubbish education. Presumably you are also unconcerned by the fact that we built these massive grey council estates, a major factor causing people to be locked into poverty, in the first place. Is it any wonder that these people end up on drugs?
Right, so what do we build them, a village in Buckinghamshire?

Please tell me where it says in the human mind "i dont have money therefore i'll have kids and not give a crap about how they do at school"?

Actually its rather ironic, those who work more and have less free time have time to spend with their kids giving them good advice. Those who live on the dole, with lots of free time never give their kids any time.

Oh hang on, its because they're watching sky sports news 24/7! The poor have never put their priorities in the correct order, its why they are what they are.
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#399
Report 9 years ago
#399
Right so the muppet who wants to ban private schools gets his way, whats going to stop a family paying me to teach their children maths and physics in the evenings?

Is the Government going to outlaw private tuition? Oh hang on, isn't that making learning illegal?

Exactly, absolutely stupid and dumb.....
0
reply
DougieG
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#400
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#400
(Original post by billydisco)
Since when do left-wingers advocate that?! Don't make me laugh! Equality, equality, equality! Even if its equally screwed education!

You have completely missed my point about advice. It shouldn't matter what the balance of your parents bank account is, but as i quite clearly stated, those with more money tend to be able to give their children better advice!

So back to my original point, why waste finite resources on those who are going to drop out at 16??
Well I'm a socialist and that's what I'm advocating. You're clearly one of these bigoted right wingers who can't even be bothered to consider ANY point of view if it is proposed by a socialist, so wrapped up you are in your self-satisfaction.

The points you made in your later posts have already been dealt with by me and others.
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

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (329)
37.34%
No - but I will (71)
8.06%
No - I don't want to (63)
7.15%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (418)
47.45%

Watched Threads

View All