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
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    You have to work to get in. If you're even half as lazy as me you have no chance.
    Nah, you don't. Nearly everyone I met there breezed through GCSEs and A Levels without having to bother with much work - and I suspect that correlates with qualities they like in their interviewees (good logical ability, quick assimilation + retention etc).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    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.
    How would Rawls respond to this?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    How would Rawls respond to this?
    I could convince him.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I could convince him.
    I doubt he's that daft.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I completely oppose this bill, it will simply serve to drag everybody down, rather than improve the education of every student in the United Kingdom. This bill is outright stealing, with all private schools being taken over by the state, without any compensation for the owners.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by United1892)
    However this would bring them under state control with the schools staying in existence.
    However, I think the main reason that private schools are better for disabled students for the simple reason that state schools refuse to do enough for the student.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    However, I think the main reason that private schools are better for disabled students for the simple reason that state schools refuse to do enough for the student.
    Although that is something that needs improving it is not exclusive to all schools in the state school system.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

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



    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.



    I agree. Doesn't affect anything though.
    So it is ethically right to pay somebody worth less more and somebody worth more less? Surely that is ethically wrong because it endorses laziness and fails to recognise and plays down exception.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Duncs11)
    I completely oppose this bill, it will simply serve to drag everybody down, rather than improve the education of every student in the United Kingdom. This bill is outright stealing, with all private schools being taken over by the state, without any compensation for the owners.
    That's the way the hard left works though
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by United1892)
    Although that is something that needs improving it is not exclusive to all schools in the state school system.
    I am not experienced enough to accept or deny that statement. However, considering my school was supposedly good for dealing with disabled students; it wasn't really.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So it is ethically right to pay somebody worth less more and somebody worth more less? Surely that is ethically wrong because it endorses laziness and fails to recognise and plays down exception.
    The notion that it 'endorses laziness' is laughable, given those who have high-paying jobs have mostly got there largely through sheer luck anyway. And there is no difference in value between people ethically. Market value has absolutely nothing (zilch. nowt. nada.) to do with ethical value.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The notion that it 'endorses laziness' is laughable, given those who have high-paying jobs have mostly got there largely through sheer luck anyway. And there is no difference in value between people ethically. Market value has absolutely nothing (zilch. nowt. nada.) to do with ethical value.
    So if these people have got there through dumb luck then how come there seems to be the common trend with most of them that they are intelligent and well educated, whilst those who are unintelligent and not well educated, well, not many of those so well educated and intelligent, but then some have other relatively unique skills; in much the same way that the intelligent and well educated earn a lot in "normal" jobs, those with, say, particular sporting prowess, well above that of the average man, gets paid more, again, a bit of a trend forming. So given that those who are at the top have generally worked hard, whether that be training for their respective sport, spending years and years at universities and doing all sorts of other training or whatever got to be a professional footballer, or a lawyer, or a banker through dumb luck? I would hate to live in your world where you just throw people into a job without giving them any qualifications or training.

    Are you suggesting then that hard work should not be rewarded?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So if these people have got there through dumb luck then how come there seems to be the common trend with most of them that they are intelligent and well educated, whilst those who are unintelligent and not well educated, well, not many of those so well educated and intelligent, but then some have other relatively unique skills; in much the same way that the intelligent and well educated earn a lot in "normal" jobs, those with, say, particular sporting prowess, well above that of the average man, gets paid more, again, a bit of a trend forming. So given that those who are at the top have generally worked hard, whether that be training for their respective sport, spending years and years at universities and doing all sorts of other training or whatever got to be a professional footballer, or a lawyer, or a banker through dumb luck? I would hate to live in your world where you just throw people into a job without giving them any qualifications or training.
    Because being intelligent is dumb luck in the first place. As is having the propensity to try hard.

    Are you suggesting then that hard work should not be rewarded?
    No. Hard work should be rewarded with an average standard of life among those who work hard. Those who choose not to work ought not be rewarded at all (but note that while people can still be unfortunate, they ought to be rewarded equally to the more fortunate).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Because being intelligent is dumb luck in the first place. As is having the propensity to try hard.



    No. Hard work should be rewarded with an average standard of life among those who work hard. Those who choose not to work ought not be rewarded at all (but note that while people can still be unfortunate, they ought to be rewarded equally to the more fortunate).
    And now we get to the absurdity of your argument: we should ban formal education.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And now we get to the absurdity of your argument: we should ban formal education.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, we shouldn't. We should just accept that equality of opportunity, while paramount, is impossible without equality of outcome, and thus strive to achieve equality of outcome.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    No, we shouldn't. We should just accept that equality of opportunity, while paramount, is impossible without equality of outcome, and thus strive to achieve equality of outcome.
    Anybody got the number for the asylum?

    Regardless, we should ban private schools because they allegedly give an advantage over state schools; but state schools give an advantage over those with no education, and we only have schools because of dumb luck, so abolish formal education so we all have equality of opportunity and outcome, because nobody has a school to go to (opportunity), and nobody has any formal qualifications (outcome). And u guess we get to the lefty ideal of everybody being equally well off and in work because everybody will be banging rocks together with nothing to show for it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Anybody got the number for the asylum?

    Regardless, we should ban private schools because they allegedly give an advantage over state schools; but state schools give an advantage over those with no education, and we only have schools because of dumb luck, so abolish formal education so we all have equality of opportunity and outcome, because nobody has a school to go to (opportunity), and nobody has any formal qualifications (outcome). And u guess we get to the lefty ideal of everybody being equally well off and in work because everybody will be banging rocks together with nothing to show for it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nah, we should maximise the quality of education but for the good of society, not for the educated individuals. Opportunity = the opportunity of achieving an outcome. If all outcomes are equal, then everyone has equal opportunity. We still want to maximise each individual's abilities. I don't get what is hard to understand. Socialism is not bringing everyone down to the lowest standard. It is increasing the majority's quality of life while maintaining social output.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nah, we should maximise the quality of education but for the good of society, not for the educated individuals. Opportunity = the opportunity of achieving an outcome. If all outcomes are equal, then everyone has equal opportunity. We still want to maximise each individual's abilities. I don't get what is hard to understand. Socialism is not bringing everyone down to the lowest standard. It is increasing the majority's quality of life while maintaining social output.
    So why does every socialist I have ever heard spout their socialist ways seem to give the impression that it matters not how well or poorly people do, so long as those evil people (aka anybody better off than oneself) is brough down to your own level? Is that actually it, or is that the only way to achieve the goals?

    And if all outcomes are equal you have a dysfunctional society
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So why does every socialist I have ever heard spout their socialist ways seem to give the impression that it matters not how well or poorly people do, so long as those evil people (aka anybody better off than oneself) is brough down to your own level? Is that actually it, or is that the only way to achieve the goals?

    And if all outcomes are equal you have a dysfunctional society
    We do attribute alot of problems in society to injustice itself.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    We do attribute alot of problems in society to injustice itself.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Which doesn't answer anything about the post.
 
 
 
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.