Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maddyg)
    Oh sorry it's not srs
    lol I was joking, I come from a very very poor area with parents who make less than 27k lol.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by AmyS93)
    You can't, as far as I am aware, buy a place to Oxbridge like you seem to think rich people do, but what you can do buy is a better education so your children gain the academic ability necessary for application to Oxbridge.
    EDIT: just to clarify, I'm not saying you need a private education to go to Oxbridge but it can help.
    I don't think the better education is what most people object to when it comes to applying to Oxbridge. It's the fact that private (and grammar) schools often have 'Oxbridge clubs' where they actively work to get otherwise mediocre students into Oxbridge using every trick they can. Timetabled coaching on interview technique, entrance exam prep, anything at all that will allow them to increase the statistic by which they advertise themselves to future students/parents: the number of people they sent to Oxbridge the previous year.

    It's part of a wider problem with class in this country but, frankly, I don't see how the people who run these schools sleep soundly at night, knowing that they're helping a potentially undeserving student to get into a top university in exchange for money, thereby depriving a more deserving student of that place. But again, it's all about the national obsession with class -- the people running these schools likely have a considerable amount of pressure put on them by parents who want to see returns on their investment.

    As far as I see it, university admissions cannot be fair as long as this perversion of education continues unabated. My usual stance is to be opposed to positive discrimination of any kind but, on this one occasion, I'll make an exception. If this problem isn't going to be fixed on the level of schools, it'll have to be fixed by universities and private school students can moan all they want about it; I don't care. It's not the job of public universities and state school students to ensure that the upper class get returns on their investment.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Much better we abolish state schools. Fully private schools would allow real educational freedom and competition.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I don't think the better education is what most people object to when it comes to applying to Oxbridge. It's the fact that private (and grammar) schools often have 'Oxbridge clubs' where they actively work to get otherwise mediocre students into Oxbridge using every trick they can. Timetabled coaching on interview technique, entrance exam prep, anything at all that will allow them to increase the statistic by which they advertise themselves to future students/parents: the number of people they sent to Oxbridge the previous year.

    It's part of a wider problem with class in this country but, frankly, I don't see how the people who run these schools sleep soundly at night, knowing that they're helping a potentially undeserving student to get into a top university in exchange for money, thereby depriving a more deserving student of that place. But again, it's all about the national obsession with class -- the people running these schools likely have a considerable amount of pressure put on them by parents who want to see returns on their investment.

    As far as I see it, university admissions cannot be fair as long as this perversion of education continues unabated. My usual stance is to be opposed to positive discrimination of any kind but, on this one occasion, I'll make an exception. If this problem isn't going to be fixed on the level of schools, it'll have to be fixed by universities and private school students can moan all they want about it; I don't care. It's not the job of public universities and state school students to ensure that the upper class get returns on their investment.
    Most of those drop out from Oxbridge or go to a lesser university. I met a guy who started Maths at Oxbridge and a year later, he was studying Philosophy at a mid-tier RG uni.

    It is really a self solving problem, like most created by the market. State interference will result in government apparatchiks having the power to decide who studies where. Great for the apparatchiks but not so great for everyone else.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I just find it quite amusing that people spend tens of thousands on their child's education, whereas other students, like myself, haven't had their parents spend anything more than a bus pass for my education, yet we still pretty much reach the same level of attainment and career prospects. It is a bit of a cop-out for less able students to succeed, whereas the equally abled students wouldn't do so well in a state school due to the environment they are in, but still no one should judge you just for paying if it's what you want to do for your kids.

    My uni course is probably 70-80% privately educated, if not more tbh. This is mainly because of all the international students, which just baffles me even more. They have had their parents pay tens of thousands in their home country, and now they're paying huge uni fees up-front. It shows a lot of dedication to supporting their child's future, but it's so strange that I'm at the same level with pretty much no family investment.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by 41b)
    Most of those drop out from Oxbridge or go to a lesser university. I met a guy who started Maths at Oxbridge and a year later, he was studying Philosophy at a mid-tier RG uni.

    It is really a self solving problem, like most created by the market. State interference will result in government apparatchiks having the power to decide who studies where. Great for the apparatchiks but not so great for everyone else.
    That solves only half the problem and relies on the less than guaranteed outcome that every mediocre person who goes to Oxbridge will, in fact, drop out for one reason or another. Even if it were to be assumed that every person who isn't good enough to go to Oxbridge but gets in anyway did drop out, that does nothing to address the problem that, in so doing, they've deprived somebody more deserving of a place (who may have gone to either a private, grammar or state school). There's no automatic mechanism that replaces every drop-out with another person who was rejected in favour of the person who dropped out. It just doesn't work like that.

    I see what you mean about state interference and I'm in agreement that I don't want the government imposing even more restrictions on private institutions. However, as long as this isn't corrected by private/grammar schools themselves, they'll have to be discriminated against in university admissions. There's no other way to make sure that they don't have an unfair advantage (which, funnily enough, is the goal of many parents in enrolling their child in a private school in the first place).

    Every test and every measure that universities come up with gets perverted by the influence of money -- the personal statement, admissions tests, A Level (or equivalent) grades, you name it. If they came up with another measure, it wouldn't be long before that was corrupted by money too. And I really don't care if private schools or their students complain about that -- the whole point of their institutions is to give people an unfair advantage so they're really in no position to be complaining when this advantage gets stripped from them at the admissions stage.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by intelligent con)
    I find it disgusting how these toff factories are still allowed to operate. Everyone who has come to my comprehensive from a private school has been posh and weird so this shows how people in these schools live in a bubble. Additionally it is scientifically proven that state schooled children are smarter than public school ones and do better at uni. Why do we honestly allow these elitist institutions to continue to operate? I wish blair had abolished them while labour was still in power and hope corbyn puts this in his manifesto. Why should money buy people good grades?
    I would hesitate to agree with the statement that 'money' is what buys people better grades in private schools. Simply put, money means nothing if pupils don't perform in the exam. What private schools offer are better teaching and better exam and career advice to maximise the potential of their students. In contrast, what I see in a lot of low-performing state schools is a general culture of just trying to 'scrape by' i.e., to ensure that people pass some GCSEs, regardless of the grade. So to ban private schools would be simply to get rid of some of the best education in Britain without targeting the root problem: the failure of some state schools to offer a high-enough quality education.

    At the end of the day, I think we have to work out to what extent equity in education should be pursued. Of course, as you've said, banning private schools may be politically appealing to some, but it wouldn't for example stop richer parents from paying for more expensive private tuition for A levels and GCSEs. Nor would it stop better off families, living in more affluent areas, from having access to the best (postcode wise) state schools (see David Cameron's children).

    Let's not forget that in the 70s and 80s, a lot of private schools like Manchester Grammar and King Edwards in Birmingham were Direct Grant schools, with a large number of pupils attending on completely free places. It was Labour who abolished that system as well as grammar schools, meaning that many smart students were limited in the quality of school they could attend. I think the best way then, to address your concern, rather than banning private schools, would be to reintroduce grammar schools in more areas. I would set a maximum income band on those grammar schools to prevent rich families from taking advantage of tuition to get in. It seems that would be a much better solution that simply banning private schools.

    (tl;dr: Banning private schools won't solve anything, and other discrepancies like richer parents paying for tuition and living in better off areas will still exist. Let's instead promote grammar schools as a means of helping smart but less well-off pupils, with a maximum income level to prevent the rich from taking advantage of them. Although this might be a naive or simple solution, it would be one aspect that could be used.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)

    But don't then whine about state schooled students getting contextual consideration/offers in university admissions. In fact, make that positive discrimination. If you don't want the playing field levelled on the grounds that they're private institutions, you surely won't mind being set straight when the institutions in question are public (as most UK universities are).
    They don't use positive discrimination and that's totally right I don't know whether anyone is claiming that contextual information shouldn't be taken into account, either Parents who pay for their children's education themselves, however, benefit the state, and thus state school pupils, by reducing the strain on public resources which, by virtue of being able to afford private schooling, they pay more for in the first place Nor would it be at all right to ban people from paying for their children's education, pretty much the most legitimate and beneficial object of expenditure imaginable
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    They don't use positive discrimination and that's totally right I don't know whether anyone is claiming that contextual information shouldn't be taken into account, either Parents who pay for their children's education themselves, however, benefit the state, and thus state school pupils, by reducing the strain on public resources which, by virtue of being able to afford private schooling, they pay more for in the first place
    I don't care if they do benefit the state by sending their children to private schools. The education system is being corrupted by money, particularly when it comes to university admissions. That's a pretty poor argument, in all honesty. If I had to sum it up, it'd be like this: 'Because the parents of privately schooled students pay more tax, the benefit that this provides to state schooled students is great enough to justify the blatant disadvantage they're at when it comes to university admissions, particularly admission to top universities.' It doesn't stand, sorry.

    Nor would it be at all right to ban people from paying for their children's education, pretty much the most legitimate and beneficial object of expenditure imaginable
    Didn't say it would be. It would, however, be right to actively discriminate against them when it comes to university admissions. That's the sort of thing I usually argue against but until they set themselves straight, which is unlikely, that's my favoured solution. If parents want to buy their children a head start, then they had better be willing to have greater demands placed on them for university places.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It is my view that government schools should be banned. The Anglican education system should be restored.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I don't care if they do benefit the state by sending their children to private schools. The education system is being corrupted by money, particularly when it comes to university admissions. That's a pretty poor argument, in all honesty. If I had to sum it up, it'd be like this: 'Because the parents of privately schooled students pay more tax, the benefit that this provides to state schooled students is great enough to justify the blatant disadvantage they're at when it comes to university admissions, particularly admission to top universities.' It doesn't stand, sorry.



    Didn't say it would be. It would, however, be right to actively discriminate against them when it comes to university admissions. That's the sort of thing I usually argue against but until they set themselves straight, which is unlikely, that's my favoured solution. If parents want to buy their children a head start, then they had better be willing to have greater demands placed on them for university places.
    What about the middle class people I know who don't go on holiday and spend money on other things to send their children to a top private school? Also extra tutoring. What about them. They aren't rich or very well off. They choose to put their money into their children's education. This can't be allowed in your government tyranny? Maybe if my parents had done the same with me, I would be able to spell and use grammar correctly.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by william walker)
    What about the middle class people I know who don't go on holiday and spend money on other things to send their children to a top private school? Also extra tutoring. What about them. They aren't rich or very well off. They choose to put their money into their children's education. This can't be allowed in your government tyranny? Maybe if my parents had done the same with me, I would be able to spell and use grammar correctly.
    The same rules as detailed in previous posts would apply to them. You seem to be misconstruing my stance as a partisan anti-rich people stance; it isn't. I'm opposed to the influence of money in education and I don't give a damn about the social class of the individuals perpetrating this.

    You also seem to be implying that I should make some special concession for them because they're sacrificing holidays (if those can be termed a sacrifice in the first place) to give their children an unfair advantage as opposed to simply spending small change (for them) on it. Sorry, but I'm a little more principled than that on this issue.

    As for 'government tyranny' -- most of our universities are already public universities and therefore subject to government regulation. I don't see what additional tyranny I've added to that. I also don't see why your spelling and grammar are relevant to the matter at hand; with the exception of a few rhetorical questions lacking question marks, your English seems fine.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I don't care if they do benefit the state by sending their children to private schools. The education system is being corrupted by money, particularly when it comes to university admissions. That's a pretty poor argument, in all honesty. If I had to sum it up, it'd be like this: 'Because the parents of privately schooled students pay more tax, the benefit that this provides to state schooled students is great enough to justify the blatant disadvantage they're at when it comes to university admissions, particularly admission to top universities.' It doesn't stand, sorry.



    Didn't say it would be. It would, however, be right to actively discriminate against them when it comes to university admissions. That's the sort of thing I usually argue against but until they set themselves straight, which is unlikely, that's my favoured solution. If parents want to buy their children a head start, then they had better be willing to have greater demands placed on them for university places.
    I don't see it as part of 'the education system'. I see it as private citizens legitimately making their own arrangements, and consider that they are entirely entitled to do so; it is an additional point in this direction that they have paid their proper dues to the state regardless of the fact that they don't use the state's educational provision. It's fundamentally none of the state's business how a parent chooses to educate their children where they choose to do so outside the state system, except so far as concerns the welfare of the child.

    If admissions tutors choose to take educational background into account in assessing which candidates have the most merit, I'm all for that. However, universities are concerned with choosing the best students, not with trying to use the admissions process as a means to change society. If, therefore, you don't want privately educated pupils to have any advantages over state schooled pupils, I suggest you advocate for the improvement of the state system.

    However, to seek to eradicate all advantage to certain pupils is an utterly hopeless task. For a start, state schools are as much an issue here as private schools: on the present system you can buy your way into top state schools by moving into expensive areas, and getting rid of private schools wouldn't change that one little bit. Nor would it change the tremendous effect that parents have on their children's educational development. What are you going to do, stop teachers giving their own children help at home? You're chasing an impossible idea of 'fairness'. Far better to let people make whatever arrangements for their children's education they wish, and make sure that tutors know of the extra preparation they've had for interviews etc in assessing their applications.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by intelligent con)
    Good I hate grammar schools. Comprehensives all the way
    (Original post by enaayrah)
    Nah g we dont wanna mix with those toffees anyway ini lmaoo(Private schools (and grammar for that matter) should have been abolished completely much longer ago)
    Please enlighten me, what is wrong with Grammar schools? Why is selection by academic ability wrong?

    (Original post by NimbleNeil)
    As a non-privately educated yet still straight A student, I have always walked past my local private colleges ( Trent college and Nottingham boys high school) and just felt depressed, how lovely the grounds are, good condition their sports facilities, and just the learning environment of being surrounded by like-minded people who want to get good grades rather than " mess around" every lesson compared to the education that I've received..
    No Grammar schools in your area then?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Are there examples where banning people using money to get a better product improves the lives of lower class people?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Johann von Gauss)
    Please enlighten me, what is wrong with Grammar schools? Why is selection by academic ability wrong?



    No Grammar schools in your area then?
    Why should a small group of students be taken away from the rest and given better resources and help? All too funded by the government. Sorry, what gives them the right to have that over others?

    Come on, think about it, these kids are already blessed with ability, and then to have extra exclusively for them...
    We know these kids are the best but what about the rest? Yeah let's dump them into comprehensives, give them fewer resources and the worst teaching available and no room to improve themselves.

    Besides, in practice, too many wealthier parents pay to tutor their kids to the hilt for those entrance exams. Grammar schools are also usually in particular areas so that those same parents don't have to pay to send their little darling to a top school. Attracting poor but bright? Sod that.

    How do you accurately measure academic ability in a 11 year old anyway? :confused:

    In a sense, grammar schools are actually worse than private. Yes, private schools create divisions, but grammar schools are inequality served to you by the same people who are supposed to advocate equality.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NimbleNeil)
    As a non-privately educated yet still straight A student, I have always walked past my local private colleges ( Trent college and Nottingham boys high school) and just felt depressed, how lovely the grounds are, good condition their sports facilities, and just the learning environment of being surrounded by like-minded people who want to get good grades rather than " mess around" every lesson compared to the education that I've received.

    Now that I'm in year 13, I've sort of come to realise that it gets better at university as everybody has the same opportunity ( apart from oxbridge which has a vastly disproportionate amount of privately educated students).

    In the end it is only a disadvantage if you allow it to be one, anybody going to any school can get straight A* GCSE's and A levels if they spend enough time working, it's just that those that have been fortunate enough to have had a private education have had the comfort of doing that work in a more pleasing environment and often with teachers educated to a higher level - my chemistry teacher for AS read Biology at university, not the best.
    Well since oxbridge judge you based on your schools reputation, identical students form public and private. The private would be at a disadvantage rather than an advantage.

    Plus who are we kidding University is just the equivalent of having all private schools at a particular level.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by steeplings)
    Are there examples where banning people using money to get a better product improves the lives of lower class people?
    Probably
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by enaayrah)
    Why should a small group of students be taken away from the rest and given better resources and help? All too funded by the government. Sorry, what gives them the right to have that over others?
    Come on, think about it, these kids are already blessed with ability, and then to have extra exclusively for them...
    Slightly hypocritical, coming from an Oxbridge applicant...

    You know Cambridge has more resources than other Universities, right? They offer their students extensive libraries, 1:1 supervisions, guaranteed accommodation, stuff other Universities cannot afford. They do this, and are encouraged to do this, because their students are the best. Their students will, given the opportunity, do great things. It would be great if everyone was given that opportunity, but that is unfeasible. Should we ensure nobody gets that opportunity? Maybe, but can you imagine what effect that will have on science and industry?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Private schools actually benefit everyone, not just the pupils who go there.
    I go to a private school, yet my parents still pay taxes which go to our local state school.
    Therefore, my parents are paying for a school which I don't attend. This means that the state school is still getting money, and they are less one student (because I go to private), leaving more room and resources for students who do go to the state school.
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

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.