Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

B881 - Abolition of Private Education Bill 2015 watch

Announcements
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Yet again, I put to you that by this logic we should not have Oxbridge, after all, they put those who didn't even manage RG at a massive disadvantage.
    You have to earn a place in Oxbridge, you just need rich parents to go to a private school.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    You have to earn a place in Oxbridge, you just need rich parents to go to a private school.
    I'm not sure 'earn' is right per se. You have to be lucky to be born smart, just as you have to be lucky to be born with rich parents.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The key words.

    Also, what currently happens has no bearing on what is ethical.
    Not yet meaning never happening

    And how exactly is it ethical for somebody with a distinct skill set to be paid exactly the same as somebody without any distinct skills; if one chooses to spend time, and money, to acquire new skills to perform a particular role, or was lucky in the lottery of life and has a better 'natural' skill set than others, why should somebody who has sat on their arse all their life and has no real skills beyond the most basic be rewarded exactly the same.

    Let's shift it to pure comodities and resources, should it cost me the same to buy a ton of platinum and a ton of iron? A pint of water and a pint of petroleum? A gram of coke and a gram of baking soda? If not, why not?

    (Original post by United1892)
    You have to earn a place in Oxbridge, you just need rich parents to go to a private school.
    You don't even need rich parents to go to private school, you do realise you can earn it? And for not the first time, if you want to go to a good private school you have to earn it, if you want to talk about the Etons and Harrows I suggest you go and take a look at their entry requirements, you can't be your average retard and throw a bit of money at them to get in.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And how exactly is it ethical for somebody with a distinct skill set to be paid exactly the same as somebody without any distinct skills; if one chooses to spend time, and money, to acquire new skills to perform a particular role, or was lucky in the lottery of life and has a better 'natural' skill set than others, why should somebody who has sat on their arse all their life and has no real skills beyond the most basic be rewarded exactly the same.
    Start from the basic assumption that all humans begin life deserving the same. I don't think anyone can feasibly disagree with that, even if one might defend different starts in practice e.g. on the ground of respect for their parents' private property. When there is no such thing as natural rights (which I strongly believe, but I understand it's a controversial position), there is nothing to create desert of anything else. Thus, nobody 'deserves' anything no matter what they've done - all that's left is a consequentialist allocative problem of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number.

    Let's shift it to pure comodities and resources, should it cost me the same to buy a ton of platinum and a ton of iron? A pint of water and a pint of petroleum? A gram of coke and a gram of baking soda? If not, why not?
    No, it shouldn't cost the same, because you don't have the basic equality between cocaine and baking soda that you do between humans, and so this initial presumption doesn't arise. Incidentally, this is why it is fundamentally flawed to treat human labour as a commodity philosophically (as well as the well-documented huge problems with economic models). I'm not against markets determining pricing signals, I just propose that the fact of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth should mean that the greatest net utility is achieved by making everyone's income equal.

    You don't even need rich parents to go to private school, you do realise you can earn it? And for not the first time, if you want to go to a good private school you have to earn it, if you want to talk about the Etons and Harrows I suggest you go and take a look at their entry requirements, you can't be your average retard and throw a bit of money at them to get in.
    Just going to quickly comment on this, and make sure that it's brought up that people who are born into rich families are much more likely to succeed in school anyway (there's a chapter in Freakonomics about this which is worth a read).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Start from the basic assumption that all humans begin life deserving the same. I don't think anyone can feasibly disagree with that, even if one might defend different starts in practice e.g. on the ground of respect for their parents' private property. When there is no such thing as natural rights (which I strongly believe, but I understand it's a controversial position), there is nothing to create desert of anything else. Thus, nobody 'deserves' anything no matter what they've done - all that's left is a consequentialist allocative problem of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number.
    We live in a society where people, in their role as labourers, are a commodity, some commodities are worth more than others and it works on the same supply and demand principle. On the whole, the better your education the more you're likely to be worth more as it is the precursor to experience. Why is it that the banker is worth more than the shelf stacker? Supply and demand; almost anybody can be a shelf stacker, not anybody can be a good banker. Why is a CEO paid so much more than the average worker? Because they are going to be worth so much more to the business and there are very few people that can do it well etc.

    No, it shouldn't cost the same, because you don't have the basic equality between cocaine and baking soda that you do between humans, and so this initial presumption doesn't arise. Incidentally, this is why it is fundamentally flawed to treat human labour as a commodity philosophically (as well as the well-documented huge problems with economic models). I'm not against markets determining pricing signals, I just propose that the fact of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth should mean that the greatest net utility is achieved by making everyone's income equal.
    Oh God, you're one of these people who genuinely believes that people are equal.

    Just going to quickly comment on this, and make sure that it's brought up that people who are born into rich families are much more likely to succeed in school anyway (there's a chapter in Freakonomics about this which is worth a read).
    Whilst it is true in general it is not a total truth, people from poorer backgrounds can do better and people from richer backgrounds can do worse because, you know, we aren't all equal. And even siblings won't do as well as each other
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Ah, but they don't pay as much as they should. This also makes income tax avoidance for non-doms much more difficult as they're paying it for a mandatory service.
    Then raise taxes, don't introduce charges in the education system.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I'm not sure 'earn' is right per se. You have to be lucky to be born smart, just as you have to be lucky to be born with rich parents.
    That is beyond human control though - not everyone is born with the same intelligence and potential for learning.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    We live in a society where people, in their role as labourers, are a commodity, some commodities are worth more than others and it works on the same supply and demand principle. On the whole, the better your education the more you're likely to be worth more as it is the precursor to experience. Why is it that the banker is worth more than the shelf stacker? Supply and demand; almost anybody can be a shelf stacker, not anybody can be a good banker. Why is a CEO paid so much more than the average worker? Because they are going to be worth so much more to the business and there are very few people that can do it well etc.
    I know how a market works ffs, I'm arguing ethics. The notion of desert is an ethical question, and the operation of markets is irrelevant.

    Oh God, you're one of these people who genuinely believes that people are equal.
    They don't have equal ability, I accept that - but that cannot be linked to the question of what it is right to give them (or at least, it needs to be shown why that is the case rather than 'that's how markets work lol'). I believe that no individual's interests should be prioritised over any other, because there is absolutely no evidence that any individual is any more or less morally (rather than economically) important than any other.

    Whilst it is true in general it is not a total truth, people from poorer backgrounds can do better and people from richer backgrounds can do worse because, you know, we aren't all equal. And even siblings won't do as well as each other
    I agree. Doesn't affect anything though.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Then raise taxes, don't introduce charges in the education system.
    It has exactly the same consequence, except the education system changes are tougher to evade, which is a bonus. I don't see why parents should have the choice of what school their children go to. As a society we want children to receive the best education possible - and this is an objective question, to which the irrational dilly-dallying whims of parents are irrelevant.

    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    That is beyond human control though - not everyone is born with the same intelligence and potential for learning.
    I agree. What is not beyond human control is the outcomes people receive. Equality of opportunity can only really be meaningfully thought of as a proxy for equality of outcome.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I'm not sure 'earn' is right per se. You have to be lucky to be born smart, just as you have to be lucky to be born with rich parents.
    Not sure lucky is the right word, some people simply have a genetic predisposition to a higher intelligence potential than others. Of course you get bright chav's who never realise their potential and slow rich kids who make it okay in life which distorts things.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Not sure lucky is the right word, some people simply have a genetic predisposition to a higher intelligence potential than others. Of course you get bright chav's who never realise their potential and slow rich kids who make it okay in life which distorts things.
    While we assume intelligence is a good thing (which I don't think anyone could realistically dispute), surely being born with that genetic predisposition is a very fortunate thing indeed? There is a lot of luck in every stage of life, very little in the way of any individual's own enterprise (incidentally, this is why the whole 'aspirational society' *******s is completely devoid of merit).
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    While we assume intelligence is a good thing (which I don't think anyone could realistically dispute), surely being born with that genetic predisposition is a very fortunate thing indeed? There is a lot of luck in every stage of life, very little in the way of any individual's own enterprise (incidentally, this is why the whole 'aspirational society' *******s is completely devoid of merit).
    Well i'd argue that it's not luck per say but rather sexually selective choices made over several generations which yield some people with a better set of genes than others. I'm not aware of genes being entirely random.

    That said, most people don't breed on a conscious level with somebody who they consider to have a superior set of genes (i imagine it will become so in the future though with genome mapping), it's more an instinctual thing (strong males = healthy on some level historically).

    I agree that there's a lot of luck in life, but i'm not sure i'd call it luck at that stage.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Well i'd argue that it's not luck per say but rather sexually selective choices made over several generations which yield some people with a better set of genes than others. I'm not aware of genes being entirely random.

    That said, most people don't breed on a conscious level with somebody who they consider to have a superior set of genes (i imagine it will become so in the future though with genome mapping), it's more an instinctual thing (strong males = healthy on some level historically).

    I agree that there's a lot of luck in life, but i'm not sure i'd call it luck at that stage.
    Nevertheless, an individual has no control over his genes.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nevertheless, an individual has no control over his genes.
    True.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Ahh, the old commie lets cut off our nose to spite our face argument.

    As I read this bill, it shuts down most professional associations as well. So not only do our education standards nosedive, our professionals that pay for ongoing specialist training have to go to another country to get it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nevertheless, an individual has no control over his genes.
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    True.
    Mostly true. But that's changing... Gene therapy
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    Mostly true. But that's changing... Gene therapy
    Yup. Hurrah for the coming age of designer babies.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Yup. Hurrah for the coming age of designer babies.
    Gypsies in my country are already naming their children e.g. Armani or Versace. They're leading technical progress. :mmm:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I'm not sure 'earn' is right per se. You have to be lucky to be born smart, just as you have to be lucky to be born with rich parents.
    You have to work to get in. If you're even half as lazy as me you have no chance.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    Ahh, the old commie lets cut off our nose to spite our face argument.

    As I read this bill, it shuts down most professional associations as well. So not only do our education standards nosedive, our professionals that pay for ongoing specialist training have to go to another country to get it.
    It shall be amended if I bother with a second reading.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 11, 2015
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?

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.