This discussion is closed.
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#61
Report 16 years ago
#61
(Original post by Eggy Hog)
Which rather defeats the point then that public schools monopolise the best resources
Not completely, it's just one factor. As is the factor that some teachers would not be teachers at all if they could work in the private sector. But it doesn't render the issue pointless, as it's still something which is taking place.
0
Eggy Hog
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#62
Report 16 years ago
#62
(Original post by fishpaste)
The most able is actually not the same as 'the richest.'
Entirely true. It's still elitist though
Ban "elitist" public schools, ban anything elitist.
0
Ben.S.
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#63
Report 16 years ago
#63
(Original post by Joey_Johns)
I will be going to Cambridge later this year. People pay it because you get a better all round education, people forget that.
My dad prefers state educated applicants over their independent counterparts - there's a reason for that. You do NOT get a better 'all-round' education in the independent sector - why do you think that state people tend to perform better at university?

Ben
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#64
Report 16 years ago
#64
(Original post by Eggy Hog)
Entirely true. It's still elitist though
Ban "elitist" public schools, ban anything elitist.
Cambridge rewards people on merit, not on social class. The latter is wrong, the former is fair.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#65
Report 16 years ago
#65
I'm glad I'm not at a grammar school or a private school. If I did and achieved a mixture of say11 A/A*grades at GCSE and 3 As at A-Level, it would be like so what? But if I were a student achieving say, a mixture of A*/A/Bs at a bog standard comp looks much better.
0
me!
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#66
Report 16 years ago
#66
it depends on the individual
0
Eggy Hog
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#67
Report 16 years ago
#67
(Original post by fishpaste)
Cambridge rewards people on merit, not on social class. The latter is wrong, the former is fair.
Still elitist though. You can't only half-do things.
0
Joey_Johns
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#68
Report 16 years ago
#68
(Original post by fishpaste)
The most able is actually not the same as 'the richest.'
Once again I will use my girlfriends family as an example. Her grandad is 'working class' he admits that. He is a very rich man now and because of that like to provide for his family. My girlfriends parents perceived it would be best to send my girlfriend to a public school becuase they thought it best for her.

So in one generation my girlfriends family has gone from poor to rich and able to provide the best educated percieved possible for their children. That is not a crime.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#69
Report 16 years ago
#69
(Original post by Eggy Hog)
Still elitist though. You can't only half-do things.
But you're generalising what I said, I said the private school system should be banned because it's socially elitist, or I made that clear anyway. You can't then generalise my statement to something which I did not say and cut me down on that.

I really don't see how being against unfair social elitism and for ability based elitism is a contradiction. They're different things.
0
me!
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#70
Report 16 years ago
#70
(Original post by happysunshine)
I'm glad I'm not at a grammar school or a private school. If I did and achieved a mixture of say11 A/A*grades at GCSE and 3 As at A-Level, it would be like so what? But if I were a student achieving say, a mixture of A*/A/Bs at a bog standard comp looks much better.
If you're at a public school you have more people motivating you to do better and also everyone there 99% of the time is going to listen to the teacher and learn, unlike at state schools where a large majority of kids disrupt lessons but despite all that going on the kids who still get decent grades and achieve in their exams show a certain sort of independance and self motivation. Not that I'm saying kids at public schools aren't self motivated it's just a different type of education...
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#71
Report 16 years ago
#71
(Original post by happysunshine)
I'm glad I'm not at a grammar school or a private school. If I did and achieved a mixture of say11 A/A*grades at GCSE and 3 As at A-Level, it would be like so what? But if I were a student achieving say, a mixture of A*/A/Bs at a bog standard comp looks much better.
Its a bit like that with me, I attended one of the worst schools in the country (since closed), the average pass rate was 10% for 5 A-Cs GCSE. I got 5 C's and 3 D's. I even got my picture in the paper as a result so I feel this is worth at least as good as a student that got 5 B's an A in a grammer school. Academeic success was not important at my school, coming home alive was. I ended up in Hospital twice.

But the fact I went to a crappy school makes me a no worse person and I can still do any job I want dispite a poor background. I do believe in grammar schools but there is no way I would pay for my kids to go to a private school.

My uncle went to a secondary modern (pre comp system) these schools are the same as bad inner city ones now, he is now cheif executive of a very large electrical engineerig company and is earning £70k a year.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#72
Report 16 years ago
#72
(Original post by Joey_Johns)
Once again I will use my girlfriends family as an example. Her grandad is 'working class' he admits that. He is a very rich man now and because of that like to provide for his family. My girlfriends parents perceived it would be best to send my girlfriend to a public school becuase they thought it best for her.

So in one generation my girlfriends family has gone from poor to rich and able to provide the best educated percieved possible for their children. That is not a crime.
So what about somebody not so lucky. Somebody without a rich family. THey'll lose out on access to a good teacher now beause she was swiped by your girlfriend's private school. I think that is, in a way, a crime.
0
Ben.S.
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#73
Report 16 years ago
#73
(Original post by Joey_Johns)
Once again I will use my girlfriends family as an example. Her grandad is 'working class' he admits that. He is a very rich man now and because of that like to provide for his family. My girlfriends parents perceived it would be best to send my girlfriend to a public school becuase they thought it best for her.

So in one generation my girlfriends family has gone from poor to rich and able to provide the best educated percieved possible for their children. That is not a crime.
There's nothing wrong with it - but it might make sod-all difference.

Ben
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#74
Report 16 years ago
#74
(Original post by Eggy Hog)
Still elitist though. You can't only half-do things.
Well, I'm afraid society only functions because there are elite people.

Even Lenin acknowledged that when he conceded economic failure in about 1923 when, after a disasterous spell in proletariat hands, he finally returned control of the manufacturing base to the "elitist" technocrats.
0
amexblack
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#75
Report 16 years ago
#75
(Original post by Ben.S.)
I'm at Cambridge - it's about 50:50 state:independent here. Paying an extortionate amount of money for an intermediate education (which doesn't seem to make much of a difference) is a bit odd - but people are free to waste their money as they see fit.

Ben
Hohoho, what a twisted view of education you have. You seriously believe that parents send their children to public school simply so that they will get into and perform well at a good university?

I don't think I need to spiel out the proper benefits of a public school education, but I will if you need to be enlightened. This "intermediate education" (which, to me, is a paradox in itself) is not simply about achieving As at, frankly, trivial A Levels. That's not what an education is about.
0
Ben.S.
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#76
Report 16 years ago
#76
(Original post by fishpaste)
So what about somebody not so lucky. Somebody without a rich family. THey'll lose out on access to a good teacher now beause she was swiped by your girlfriend's private school. I think that is, in a way, a crime.
No - it's not. It's unfortunate, but perfectly legitimate. I wish I knew how private schools 'taught better' - do they 'coach' intensively for exams?

Ben
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#77
Report 16 years ago
#77
(Original post by amazingtrade)
Its a bit like that with me, I attended one of the worst schools in the country (since closed), the average pass rate was 10% for 5 A-Cs GCSE. I got 5 C's and 3 D's. I even got my picture in the paper as a result so I feel this is worth at least as good as a student that got 5 B's an A in a grammer school. Academeic success was not important at my school, coming home alive was. I ended up in Hospital twice.

But the fact I went to a crappy school makes me a no worse person and I can still do any job I want dispite a poor background. I do believe in grammar schools but there is no way I would pay for my kids to go to a private school.

My uncle went to a secondary modern (pre comp system) these schools are the same as bad inner city ones now, he is now cheif executive of a very large electrical engineerig company and is earning £70k a year.
You have been given the qualification of life experience, at least you wont become disillusional with what the world is really like.

Your uncle has done fantastic, just goes to show success doesn't mean you have to had gone to a priv/grammar!
0
Eggy Hog
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#78
Report 16 years ago
#78
(Original post by Ben.S.)
No - it's not. It's unfortunate, but perfectly legitimate. I wish I knew how private schools 'taught better' - do they 'coach' intensively for exams?

Ben
Smaller classes, teachers are always around, better libraries, and so forth. Often nothing to do with the quality of the teacher at all
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#79
Report 16 years ago
#79
(Original post by amexblack)
Hohoho, what a twisted view of education you have. You seriously believe that parents send their children to public school simply so that they will get into and perform well at a good university?

I don't think I need to spiel out the proper benefits of a public school education, but I will if you need to be enlightened. This "intermediate education" (which, to me, is a paradox in itself) is not simply about achieving As at, frankly, trivial A Levels. That's not what an education is about.
Exactly that is why I am make my case for comprehensive schools because they provide you the alternative education. Not some forumula some scientest invented 300 years ago or ethics of a Shakespere play. Comprehensive schools are about survivial and making good use of limited resources.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#80
Report 16 years ago
#80
(Original post by Eggy Hog)
Smaller classes, teachers are always around, better libraries, and so forth
And rich pushy parents who bribe their children with money and the future promise of success.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
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

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (533)
66.71%
No (266)
33.29%

Watched Threads

View All