Public Vs Comprehensive Watch

Gaz031
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#121
Report 13 years ago
#121
I disagree. You have to get used to the negatvie aspects of life eventually and children who are exposed to them from a young age will find this a lot easier than those for whom they've been hidden.I disagree. You have to get used to the negatvie aspects of life eventually and children who are exposed to them from a young age will find this a lot easier than those for whom they've been hidden.
So we should expose children to things like bullying just so they get used to it?

!!! You're taking what I say out of context and assuming I'm arguing the other side. I said I can agree that it happens in a number of cases, as kellywood says, and that is all - I have not made my opinion on the number of state school pupils who turn out as lazy bums, just that there are definitely a large proportion of private school pupils who are arrogant, lazy and feel they don't need to work! If you go to one, you should know right? There's no denying it!! I'd still send my child to a private school though..
I wasn't attacking anyone. Unfortunately I tend to skim the posts and pick out points that I disagree with, perhaps that's a habit I should break.
I went to a state school but if I wanted children would consider sending them to a private school if I had the financial means to do so.
0
reply
kellywood_5
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#122
Report 13 years ago
#122
(Original post by Gaz031)
So we should expose children to things like bullying just so they get used to it?
No, of course not, although bullying probably happens in every school to a certain extent. I see what you mean, but when I said 'negative aspects of life' I was referring more to things like some pupils being disruptive, some teachers being rubbish and a lack of facilities. These things don't harm a child directly in the same way that bullying does, but they do teach them how to overcome obstacles in life.
0
reply
Champagne Breakfast
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#123
Report 13 years ago
#123
(Original post by Gaz031)
I wasn't attacking anyone. Unfortunately I tend to skim the posts and pick out points that I disagree with, perhaps that's a habit I should break.
I went to a state school but if I wanted children would consider sending them to a private school if I had the financial means to do so.
Sorry for the misunderstanding
0
reply
objectivism
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#124
Report 13 years ago
#124
(Original post by kellywood_5)
So parents who choose to send their children to a state comprehensive because they believe them to have the ability to succeed there, rather than spending lots of money on a private education they don't agree with, are bad parents? Surely in addition to what is taught at school, it's important to teach children to have beliefs and principles that they stick to? What kind of example would you be setting them by doing something completely against what you supposedly stand for?

I never said that rather a bad parent is one who has money but decides to send their child to some dead end comp just because of their political views. Why don't you read what i say? They must have inflated egos to put themelves first for such a vital choice for a child. Just so they can say 'i stuck to my beliefs' there child must suffer. Do you think this is acceptable> If so you will make a bad parent and i pity your children.

Have beliefs and principles that they stick to? In an ideal world sure but id be more concerned with gettng my child into a top uni and into a top job. Your thinking is utopian like all socialists. Also the things that go on in some comps - drugs, bullying etc - quickly destroy any moral fibres they may have had.
0
reply
objectivism
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#125
Report 13 years ago
#125
(Original post by kellywood_5)
Just because some people do well out of private schools doesn't mean they're great for all either. Just because a school has a 100% A-B grade pass rate at A-level and sends x amount of students to Oxbridge every year doesn't mean your child would get As and Bs and go to Oxbridge if they attended that school.
I know, thats why i used the word 'chances' in a past post.
0
reply
objectivism
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#126
Report 13 years ago
#126
[QUOTE=kellywood_5]Yes, I get the point I still believe there is a greater mix of people at state schools though.


Why? They are based on catchment areas and so many areas are the same because they cover relatively small areas, thus you get a similar type of person, for example, comps in certain parts of east london get mostly poor people who are muslims. Why can't you see this?
0
reply
kellywood_5
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#127
Report 13 years ago
#127
(Original post by objectivism)
I never said that rather a bad parent is one who has money but decides to send their child to some dead end comp just because of their political views. Why don't you read what i say? They must have inflated egos to put themelves first for such a vital choice for a child. Just so they can say 'i stuck to my beliefs' there child must suffer. Do you think this is acceptable> If so you will make a bad parent and i pity your children.

Have beliefs and principles that they stick to? In an ideal world sure but id be more concerned with gettng my child into a top uni and into a top job. Your thinking is utopian like all socialists. Also the things that go on in some comps - drugs, bullying etc - quickly destroy any moral fibres they may have had.
If a parent honestly doesn't believe their child needs to go to private school to succeed in life, why are they bad parents for not wasting their money? I don't know whether you've ever been to a state school- I guess not- but you don't have to 'suffer' just because you go to one. You can, and many people do, achieve good grades, get into a good university and have a successful future, which is surely the aim of education. Socialist? Don't make me laugh- I support the Conservatives! :rofl: As for drugs and bullying, I'm sure they go on to a certain extent in private schools as well, especially drugs since the students have the money to buy them.
0
reply
kellywood_5
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#128
Report 13 years ago
#128
[QUOTE=objectivism]
(Original post by kellywood_5)
Yes, I get the point I still believe there is a greater mix of people at state schools though.


Why? They are based on catchment areas and so many areas are the same because they cover relatively small areas, thus you get a similar type of person, for example, comps in certain parts of east london get mostly poor people who are muslims. Why can't you see this?
I can, but unfortunately you can't see that private schools have a majority of students from the same social background who tend to be well-behaved and hard-working because of parental pressure and intelligent due to the selective nature of the school. Therefore they still don't have a very wide mix of people, whereas comprehensives by their very nature are designed to provide for all irrespective of social class or ability.
0
reply
objectivism
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#129
Report 13 years ago
#129
(Original post by kellywood_5)
If a parent honestly doesn't believe their child needs to go to private school to succeed in life, why are they bad parents for not wasting their money? I don't know whether you've ever been to a state school- I guess not- but you don't have to 'suffer' just because you go to one. You can, and many people do, achieve good grades, get into a good university and have a successful future, which is surely the aim of education. Socialist? Don't make me laugh- I support the Conservatives! :rofl: As for drugs and bullying, I'm sure they go on to a certain extent in private schools as well, especially drugs since the students have the money to buy them.

What kind of parent can tell 16 yrs into the future and know the abilty of the child and how the school will than look and perform?

Many people do suffer at comps, lets not pretend they do not. Sure many go to uni, though propotionally not as many as should and certainly no where as many go to the top uni's as they should. They end up at the weaker uni's. And its not surprising after all private schools help with practice interviews for Oxbridge, many comps do not.

Drugs and bullying? Yes they do go on i all schools. Glad you see this, so do you recongise now that private schools pupils do live in the 'real world'. The point you have made above seems to contradict what you have said previously.

Your a consuervatives? I suggest you read up on tory education polcy than.
0
reply
objectivism
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#130
Report 13 years ago
#130
(Original post by kellywood_5)
I can, but unfortunately you can't see that private schools have a majority of students from the same social background who tend to be well-behaved and hard-working because of parental pressure and intelligent due to the selective nature of the school. Therefore they still don't have a very wide mix of people, whereas comprehensives by their very nature are designed to provide for all irrespective of social class or ability.

Well behaved and hard working? You've just talked about drugs and bullying in private schools!! Make up your mind.

Also this selective nature idea, i don't think you know how private schools work. If you have the money, you get in, sure you have to do tests etc but there more to decide what classes you will be in not whther you will be in the school or not.

Also your right in that comps are designed to provide for all backgrounds but f course that is not the reality because of the catchment area system. Just because a policy aims to do something does not mean it does it, the reality is very different.

Also private schools have members form a range of ethnic minorties, nationaliities, different regions of the country, and economic background due to the number of scholarships. This idea that comps make people see the 'real world' more is nonsence. Many comps are sink schools in which pupils have no ambition and reflect their sink extates (because of the catchment area system). If the 'real world' is drugs and violence than ok they may see more of the 'real world', but of course this is not the real world, these people are living on an extreme not the mainstream. Private school pupils meanwhile are better educated overall, chances are they watch Newsnight, read newspapers etc thus if anything they are more worldly
0
reply
kellywood_5
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#131
Report 13 years ago
#131
(Original post by objectivism)
What kind of parent can tell 16 yrs into the future and know the abilty of the child and how the school will than look and perform?

Many people do suffer at comps, lets not pretend they do not. Sure many go to uni, though propotionally not as many as should and certainly no where as many go to the top uni's as they should. They end up at the weaker uni's. And its not surprising after all private schools help with practice interviews for Oxbridge, many comps do not.

Drugs and bullying? Yes they do go on i all schools. Glad you see this, so do you recongise now that private schools pupils do live in the 'real world'. The point you have made above seems to contradict what you have said previously.

Your a consuervatives? I suggest you read up on tory education polcy than.
As I've said in a previous post, I don't see the point of private primary education at all because primary school is not important, so it would make more sense to decide at the end of primary school whether to send a child to a state or private secondary school once their work ethic and ability are known. In any case, you can get an idea based on how quickly the child learns to speak, the alphabet, count etc and their personality.

I'm not pretending many people don't suffer at comps- I go to one!- but I believe if a child is intelligent and has the determination to succeed, they'll still get into a top university even if they attend a comp. You assume that everyone should go to univeristy, which is wrong. It was only ever meant for the academically able, and just because about half of students from comps don't go, that doesn't make them failures. They could just be more interested in practical work.

Of course drugs and bullying still happen in private schools. I never pretended they were perfect, but they're still more shielded from the 'real world' than state schools.

I have read up on Conservative education policy, and although I don't completely agree with it (ie subsidising private education) I agree with most of it (parental choice, discipline) and it's a lot better than the policies of the other parties. And for the record; You're a Conservative? I suggest you read up on Tory education policy then. Looks like private education isn't all it's cracked up to be :p:
0
reply
kellywood_5
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#132
Report 13 years ago
#132
(Original post by objectivism)
Well behaved and hard working? You've just talked about drugs and bullying in private schools!! Make up your mind.

Also this selective nature idea, i don't think you know how private schools work. If you have the money, you get in, sure you have to do tests etc but there more to decide what classes you will be in not whther you will be in the school or not.

Also your right in that comps are designed to provide for all backgrounds but f course that is not the reality because of the catchment area system. Just because a policy aims to do something does not mean it does it, the reality is very different.

Also private schools have members form a range of ethnic minorties, nationaliities, different regions of the country, and economic background due to the number of scholarships. This idea that comps make people see the 'real world' more is nonsence. Many comps are sink schools in which pupils have no ambition and reflect their sink extates (because of the catchment area system). If the 'real world' is drugs and violence than ok they may see more of the 'real world', but of course this is not the real world, these people are living on an extreme not the mainstream. Private school pupils meanwhile are better educated overall, chances are they watch Newsnight, read newspapers etc thus if anything they are more worldly
I said that drugs and bullying did happen in private schools, but not as often as they do in state schools. That's not contradicting my statement that the majority of private school students are well-behaved and hard-working.

I've read about private school admissions, as well as hearing about it from some private school students on here, who tell me there is a Common Entrance Exam which is very competitve. It could also be argued that because most parents of private school students are professionals such as teachers, doctors and lawyers, it's more likely that their children will be intelligent.

Wtaching News Night and reading a newspaper isn't the same as actually experiencing something.
0
reply
objectivism
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#133
Report 13 years ago
#133
(Original post by kellywood_5)
As I've said in a previous post, I don't see the point of private primary education at all because primary school is not important, so it would make more sense to decide at the end of primary school whether to send a child to a state or private secondary school once their work ethic and ability are known. In any case, you can get an idea based on how quickly the child learns to speak, the alphabet, count etc and their personality.

I'm not pretending many people don't suffer at comps- I go to one!- but I believe if a child is intelligent and has the determination to succeed, they'll still get into a top university even if they attend a comp. You assume that everyone should go to univeristy, which is wrong. It was only ever meant for the academically able, and just because about half of students from comps don't go, that doesn't make them failures. They could just be more interested in practical work.

Of course drugs and bullying still happen in private schools. I never pretended they were perfect, but they're still more shielded from the 'real world' than state schools.

I have read up on Conservative education policy, and although I don't completely agree with it (ie subsidising private education) I agree with most of it (parental choice, discipline) and it's a lot better than the policies of the other parties. And for the record; You're a Conservative? I suggest you read up on Tory education policy then. Looks like private education isn't all it's cracked up to be :p:

So why is the age of 11 the perfect age for deciding? What if they are late devlelopers? Those crucial first secondary years have been wasted because you thought they did not show promise.

I don't assume anything, i was playing devils advocate on that point as i thought you would realise given tory policy on universities.

I don't think you know what the real world is. The real world is not drugs and violence. This is an extreme not the mainstream. Your views are unoriginal and cliched.

Also tories don't advocate subsidising private education, rather the policy was you can take the money that would follow your child and put it into a private school but are NOT allowed to top it up, rather you would have the chance to find a private school which charges around 5000 pa. Get your facts right.

Also your last point is just childish. I don't check my spelling, as its not anyone important is reading this and i type very quickly. I'm concerned with issues, you seem obsessed with ad hominem attacks on spelling!!!
0
reply
objectivism
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#134
Report 13 years ago
#134
(Original post by kellywood_5)
I said that drugs and bullying did happen in private schools, but not as often as they do in state schools. That's not contradicting my statement that the majority of private school students are well-behaved and hard-working.

I've read about private school admissions, as well as hearing about it from some private school students on here, who tell me there is a Common Entrance Exam which is very competitve. It could also be argued that because most parents of private school students are professionals such as teachers, doctors and lawyers, it's more likely that their children will be intelligent.

Wtaching News Night and reading a newspaper isn't the same as actually experiencing something.

But it still makes your more worldly or does bringing a knife into school make you more worldly?

Also i was rather amused by your above point - you defend the source you got the info about access to private schools - reading about it - yet in the very next paragraph you doubt these methods i.e watching inforative programmes. In short you defend yourself for not experiencing something but than you go and condemn others for not 'experiencing'!!

Either way reading still makes you more worldly, thus my initial point still stands.

Also your point about being children of doctors etc - do you support eugenics by any chance?

Addressing your first point, don't you think if there is a minority of troublemakers they will damage the opportunities of others?
0
reply
xx_ambellina_xx
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#135
Report 13 years ago
#135
Let's just say, my state school where kiddies light matches on the walls did me no harm
0
reply
kellywood_5
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#136
Report 13 years ago
#136
(Original post by objectivism)
So why is the age of 11 the perfect age for deciding? What if they are late devlelopers? Those crucial first secondary years have been wasted because you thought they did not show promise.

I don't assume anything, i was playing devils advocate on that point as i thought you would realise given tory policy on universities.

I don't think you know what the real world is. The real world is not drugs and violence. This is an extreme not the mainstream. Your views are unoriginal and cliched.

Also tories don't advocate subsidising private education, rather the policy was you can take the money that would follow your child and put it into a private school but are NOT allowed to top it up, rather you would have the chance to find a private school which charges around 5000 pa. Get your facts right.

Also your last point is just childish. I don't check my spelling, as its not anyone important is reading this and i type very quickly. I'm concerned with issues, you seem obsessed with ad hominem attacks on spelling!!!
It's not the perfect age, and as you say, everyone develops at a different time, but it certainly makes more sense than deciding when the child is so young you don't really know what they're capable of. The first few years of secondary school are in no way crucial either- the GCSE years are what matters, so if you really wanted to, you could always move your child to a private school for Year 10.

If you'd ever read a newspaper or watched the news, you'd realise that 'drugs and violence', sadly, are issues that characterise the modern world. Of course there are positive things as well, but the fact is that negative things also play a part.

That policy is still making private education more accessible to those who would otherwise not be able to afford it. Not everyone can afford £5000.

Obsessed? Hardly. I mentioned it once! As for you, you seem more interested in personal attacks than issues :rolleyes:
0
reply
kellywood_5
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#137
Report 13 years ago
#137
(Original post by objectivism)
But it still makes your more worldly or does bringing a knife into school make you more worldly?

Also i was rather amused by your above point - you defend the source you got the info about access to private schools - reading about it - yet in the very next paragraph you doubt these methods i.e watching inforative programmes. In short you defend yourself for not experiencing something but than you go and condemn others for not 'experiencing'!!

Either way reading still makes you more worldly, thus my initial point still stands.

Also your point about being children of doctors etc - do you support eugenics by any chance?

Addressing your first point, don't you think if there is a minority of troublemakers they will damage the opportunities of others?
No, bringing a knife into school makes you a thug, but being in a school where that happens make you more worldly than someone who just reads about it and says 'oh gosh, how awful!'

How else do you propose that I get information about access to private schools? I'm not exactly going to apply to one and sit all the entrance tests etc when I have no intention of going there. Of course it would be better if I was able to experience it, but it's not practical.

Reading does make you worldly, I agree, but not as wordly as someone actually experiencing it.

I know there are obviously other factors behind someone's intelligence as well as their genes, but it's usually the case that clever parents have clever kids, thick parents have thick kids etc. Also, the knowledge these people would have of the education system and could then pass on to their children would be invaluable.

There are always a minority doing something negative which affects others, and again that's an aspect of 'real life' that it would be best to get used to.
0
reply
objectivism
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#138
Report 13 years ago
#138
[QUOTE=kellywood_5]It's not the perfect age, and as you say, everyone develops at a different time, but it certainly makes more sense than deciding when the child is so young you don't really know what they're capable of.


Why even take the risk, if this is your child, why would you play around with such an important choice?



The first few years of secondary school are in no way crucial either- the GCSE years are what matters, so if you really wanted to, you could always move your child to a private school for Year 10.


Of course GCSE year matter but whether you do well depends a great extent on past performance. If you can't do your timetables you are not going to be able to do more complicated maths, the same with so many more subjects. On your logic lets just educate people when they are 15 and 16.




That policy is still making private education more accessible to those who would otherwise not be able to afford it. Not everyone can afford £5000.


Yes and i support it, i'm a tory. However i'm not arguing for or against the policy rather im pointing out that you got tory party policy wrong.





Obsessed? Hardly. I mentioned it once! As for you, you seem more interested in personal attacks than issues :rolleyes:


Thats original.
0
reply
kellywood_5
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#139
Report 13 years ago
#139
(Original post by objectivism)
Why even take the risk, if this is your child, why would you play around with such an important choice?
It is an important choice, and it's also a lot of money, which is why I don't think it's worth sending a child to a private school until you're sure they won't be able to do just as well at a state school.

(Original post by objectivism)
Of course GCSE year matter but whether you do well depends a great extent on past performance. If you can't do your timetables you are not going to be able to do more complicated maths, the same with so many more subjects. On your logic lets just educate people when they are 15 and 16.
I'm not arguing that what you learn in Years 7-9 isn't important in terms of providing you with a background knowledge for GCSEs, rather that those years don't matter in the grand scheme of things because you don't do any important exams in them, so why waste money sending a child to a private school so they'll get 877 in pontless SAT exams that don't mean anything? Why not save 3 years of fees and send them in Year 10 so they'll get A*s in their GCSEs, which do matter for university applications?

(Original post by objectivism)
Yes and i support it, i'm a tory. However i'm not arguing for or against the policy rather im pointing out that you got tory party policy wrong.
Not really. I said it was subsidising private education, which it is in a way because it's providing people with the means of buying something that was previously out of reach.

(Original post by objectivism)
Thats original.
Maybe not, but what does that have to do with anything? It's true.
0
reply
kellywood_5
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#140
Report 13 years ago
#140
(Original post by objectivism)
It dosen't make you more worldly rather more scared. The idea that rough comps and council estates are the real world is a cliche and a lie. They are not the norm or the mainstream.
:banghead: As I've said many times before but don't seem to be getting through to you, I never said it was the norm, but that it does happen and therefore people should be prepared for it.

(Original post by objectivism)
Again you miss my point. I;m not proposing you get a new source, rather keep your present method and don;t condemn others for using the same methods. To do so is hypocricy.
:rofl: I can't believe I'm being lectured on hypocrisy by someone who claims to be against private schools, yet then proceeds to have a long debate about why they're so much better than state schools and why people should send their kids to them!

(Original post by objectivism)
So someone going on school trips to many countries as private school pupils do are they not more wordly? After all they are experiencing variety, rather than just their home town as many comp pupils have to make do with.
Yes, that does make them more worldly, but we were talking about mixing with a greater variety of people on an everday basis, not occasionally.

(Original post by objectivism)
So you do support eugenics? Please answer.
I'm not entirely sure what it is...


(Original post by objectivism)
So if there is 'real life' occuring in private schools why not send your kids there? They get the both of best worlds - a top education, facilities etc plus the 'real world' i.e seeing violence etc but also top trips abroad. Also the 'real world' does not impinge on their education to the extent that their education is ruined i.e pupils ruling the school as opposed to teachers.
'Real life' does occur in private schools, but to a lesser extent than in state schools. Part of the 'real world' is encountering problems, such as disruptive pupils or poor teaching, and learning how to overcome them. I'm not saying it's a good thing that this happens or that parents should be pleased about it, but it will make pupils better equipped to deal with problems in life.
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

University open days

  • University of East Anglia
    All Departments Open 13:00-17:00. Find out more about our diverse range of subject areas and career progression in the Arts & Humanities, Social Sciences, Medicine & Health Sciences, and the Sciences. Postgraduate
    Wed, 30 Jan '19
  • Aston University
    Postgraduate Open Day Postgraduate
    Wed, 30 Jan '19
  • Solent University
    Careers in maritime Undergraduate
    Sat, 2 Feb '19

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (904)
79.93%
Leave (227)
20.07%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed