Turn on thread page Beta

Private schools should be banned? watch

  • View Poll Results: Should private schools be banned?
    Yes
    134
    21.65%
    No
    457
    73.83%
    Not Sure
    28
    4.52%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why is TSR always a class war? it is a bit of an non-issue
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    To the instilling of positive working attitude and passing on their own knowledge I can only applaud their action and even encourage it, allowing their children to have an advantage not because of a material advantage but because of a superior moral and intellectual standing is fine with me.
    Just out of interest, why is it fine with you? What about parents who have a good attitude but are unfortunately (through no fault of their own) not as intelligent as you and are therefore unable to tutor their kids, much as they might wish they could? Why is it fair that that your kids should have an advantage in life just because they were lucky to be born to intelligent parents, while someone else's parents can only watch helplessly and hope that their children are receiving a good education?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adman32)
    Saying 'Life is not fair' is simply not an excuse for keeping private schools.

    I can't agree that 'Hardly any of the richest people were academic successes'. Where does our Prime minister come from?. I can't understand when people being privately educated say; 'if you work hard it doesn't matter'. If that's true why are they in private schools? Why don't they join a state school if they have so much faith in themselves.
    Some of the sorts of people who go to private schools get through life entirely through the benefit of their family and contacts. There's a show in US called "million dollar listing' in which 3 real estate agents make several million a year representing buyers and sellers of some of California's most prestigious properties. What they fail to realise is that their contacts and fame are 100% attributable to their families. They do a reasonable job, but what differs between them and the tens of thousand other real estate agents is that their properties tend to be 10x - 100x more expensive, and therefore their commissions are that much higher. That's the influence of family.

    What I'm saying is that if you're a genius whether you attend toff-nose private, or jack-blah comprehensive, you're likely to end up succeeding or failing based on decisions which you make yourself. Private schools have their reputations at stake and therefore are motivated and have the funds to find the best teachers. The same person attending state or private school is more likely to excel academically at private, but within certain margins set by their own capabilities. Most of their success will be down to them.

    it is true that most of the wealthiest people are school dropouts and certainly not educated privately. A small minority might have been, but then they would have probably excelled in business whether they went private, comprehensive or not at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ban them and they will make another account.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    I find that private schools are tools of gross social inequality by maintaining a lack of mobility by ensuring the offspring of the successful have a greater chance of success to maintain the inequalities.
    I have a question:

    Suppose we assume that it is extremely impractical to give everyone an equal chance of success; naturally some will have a greater chance of success than others simply due to luck of the circumstances they find themselves in.

    Now, let's look at the people who are lucky enough to have a greater chance of success. Does it really matter whose offspring they are?

    Is there some reason why it is particularly immoral for the kids of successful people to be given the greatest chance of success, as opposed to determining the lucky kids based on some other criteria? Or does it all just boil down to the same thing - life is unfair, and some people will get a better chance at success than others?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adman32)
    With a luxury item yes, but not a basic human right like education. Truthfully, there is little doubt they should be banned. The practicality may be hard I agree, but what are the arguments for why they should exist?

    We can't stop money, but why should a child who has absolutely no control over their parents income have to get anything less then someone down the road that has no control either.
    Education is a privellage, not a human right. The arguments for are that as a parent, I have the right to choose where I want my child to be educated. If I want my child to learn things that they will not learn in a state comprehensive, then I have the right to do that if I can afford it. It's not as if there is no educational provision for people who can't afford it: state schools. But if you want something better, you should be able to pay for it. It's like we have the NHS, but if you want nicer wards, pay for BUPA.

    If a child is intelligent and wants to work, they'll do well at whatever school they're at. I've been to both types of schools and there are clever people in each. The clever people in the private school weren't any more advantaged than the intelligent state school people. Then again, I live in a very middle class area so it's nothing like an inner city comp or anything. But the point is if you want to do well, you will.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adman32)
    A friend of mine comes from a relatively wealthy family and went to the same school as me up to last year. In September he left and enrolled in a private school. But I, and most people I know, would never be able to afford this.

    I know many on this forum are indeed from private schools, so please try and be neutral.

    Perhaps I'm too far on the left, but in my opinion noone should better opportunities simply because of parental wealth. All people should be born equal, and should find success with hard work and ability, not money.

    I can see both sides of the argument, but when I think about it, having private schools gives me something to aim to beat/achieve.

    And just to add, most, if not all the people I've met from private school pretty much fit the stereotype. On one hand, I do hate Private schools because they create a divide, but on the other, if (hypothetically) I achieved the same grades or better than someone at private school, I could say yeah, I did that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    You know, you can still buy a slave in Modern Britain if you're willing to pay enough money to some shifty Sub-Saharan Warlord to force someone into your servitude by holding their family hostage. You think you should be entitled to that? I suspect a counter argument will go along the lines of "Well, it's illegal so you shouldn't be able to do it!" but then the entire point of this argument is to ban private schools i.e. to make them illegal. There are also other arguments such as the gross violation of human rights found within the slave trade not found within the education system but is the denial of equal opportunities at such an early stage not a gross injustice? But this is an amusing aside and irrelevant to my greater argument.
    But education is a privellage and not a human right.

    And no, this is not the case of "because you can't have something, no one else can". I have had a private education, I also had a private health insurance scheme for that matter but that's an aside not related to this topic, and I find that private schools are tools of gross social inequality by maintaining a lack of mobility by ensuring the offspring of the successful have a greater chance of success to maintain the inequalities. As I mentioned earlier private education gave me an advantage to the extent that I'm not certain I could have been half the man I am now without the advantage. I probably wouldn't have been able to achieve the grades I have, I likely wouldn't have received the non-academic support I had and I most definitely would not have been able to build up a robust network of contacts that I've already used to obtain jobs and work experience. I can't slam it all however, to be honest I'm not slamming any of it but praising it, but without the school I wouldn't have met some of the most important and valuable people in my life. As I also mentioned if someone asks me whether or not I recommend private schools I would be forced to truthfully declare that if you can afford it you should definitely invest in improving opportunities for your child. I would also likely send my child to the best private school I can afford for that matter, perhaps even Eton or one of the hilariously expensive ones, in order to ensure the best start in his/her life. I continue to support the choice of sending my brother to a private school for the sake of his future and the head start it gives him but I also feel uncomfortable with the social inequalities simmering underneath the surface.
    I've been to both state and private schools myself, and honestly, the state school wasn't that bad. We had great support accademically and non academically, brilliant facilities, enthusiastic teachers and fantastic extra curricular opportunities. (However like I said earlier, I acknowledge that living in a middle class country town is a bit different to an innercity state school). If someone wants to do well, they will achieve it wherever they go. I got no better grades at private school then I did generally, because I actually try and want to do well for myself. I also know a lot of influential people not through private school but through my family...thus, even if I had not gone to private school, I would have still had the same opportunities.

    I too would send my children to a top private school, simply because I believe it builds character, and there's less chance they'll have to mix with...unsavoury individuals often found in state schools. I'm aware that sounds terribly snobby, but I would want the best for my children. Why do the inequalities make you uncomfortable? People aren't equal, there will always be a heirarchy. Why pull the top down to the level of the bottom?
    I've read your earlier posts in regards to the fact that parents will want to give their children greater opportunities and it's only natural . I wholeheartedly agree with this notion, which is why the abolition of the private school is the only option to prevent the parents from even having the option of achieving such a thing. Private schools are more than simply about academia, they are about creating all-round 'better' people, to cement the class system and deepen social and economic divides and it is this, as important as anything else, that their abolition is essential. The only way for the parents to pass on their chances of success without a private education will be either by finding private tutors, to instill a positive working attitude within the state school system or to tutor their children themselves. To the private tutors I feel that there's very little we can do about that that doesn't become a gross violation of rights so I suppose they will have to remain as an option to the few that can afford it but I suspect they'll never be as powerful in maintaining the status quo as private schools. To the instilling of positive working attitude and passing on their own knowledge I can only applaud their action and even encourage it, allowing their children to have an advantage not because of a material advantage but because of a superior moral and intellectual standing is fine with me.
    I agree that they are about creating better people as such, but why should a parent not have the right to buy that for their child? If we abolished them here, I'd simply send my child abroad, as I imagine many others would. So all you'd do is send wealthy children out of Britain, bring the average grades down, and make the country less respected.

    The class system will remain no matter what. There are always people more tasteful, more refined, and who have more money. That's life. I don't see why some people have such an issue with it to be honest.
    So is this a case of "because you can't have something, no one else can"? I think not, to me this is a case of "because I've seen first hand the gross advantages the private school system generates, it is only just that the inequalities generated must be tackled.". I'm also, however, inclined to the taking a third option - not to refuse to give licenses to private institutions (which is how I imagine how banning private schools would function) - but to instead make that advantage irrelevant by the massive improvements in the state sector. I don't see that as a real possibility however and so am inclined to the lesser of two evils when the only 'good' option is currently a practical impossibility, namely the banning of private school institutions.
    I can see how you would like to improve state schools, and I agree that they do need reforming, my personal opinion would be to allow explusion again (you now can't expel people without losing funding, so the moronic apes that cause trouble are allowed to stay. Pathetic!) and bring back corporal punishment to instill a sense of discipline in students.


    You will probably grossly disagree with me though, because you seem quite left, ideologically speaking, and I'm rather right wing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah lets put an additional strain on the taxpayer. ****ing genius. Only difference between a state and a private school is the motivation to do well. Honestly if you want to pay 10 k for that then you deserve to be ripped off.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The majority of arguments on this thread follow the 'Life's not fair' route.

    Q: Why is life not fair? Why can some people afford to live in more affluent areas whilst others cannot? Why can some afford private education whilst others cannot?

    A: Some are have better upbringings from birth, enabling them to get better jobs, providing them with more money with which to buy better goods and services.

    Q: What are some of the reasons for which these people have easier access to better jobs?
    A:
    1. They have better qualifications
    2. (To a lesser extent but still relevant) Their family may know people/colleagues/"contacts" with whom young graduates may gain early career experience; internships being one example of this.

    Both these advantages are not exclusive to a privately educated pupil. However, they are more easily obtained if one has been able to afford a private education. It is easier for teenagers at private schools to get the A Level grades required to enter the most competitive universities, and the social exclusivity of these instutions engenders a culture whereby the wealthy mix with the wealthy.

    This person may in turn gain access to a better job, and thus better services for their children's better upbringing, including private education. The vicious circle is thus perpetuated, but would be broken if education were not one of these 'services' that could be bought as easily as, say, a car.


    Private education is not merely an unfortunate symptom of an unequal society, but one of the causes.

    Those that think a person 'have the freedom to choose' if they want to educate their child privately are missing the point: most parents, and most children, don't have that luxury of choice.

    Those that argue that there is no point 'crippling the top' forget that the fees that the wealthy currently pay to private schools would be used to improve an equal state sector that everyone DOES have access to.

    To claim otherwise is at best ignorant, and at worst regressive.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    But education is a privellage and not a human right.
    Education is a civil right in this country. Private education is a privilege, which I'm surprised you're unable to spell considering you claim to have gone to a private school yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Education is a civil right in this country. Private education is a privilege, which I'm surprised you're unable to spell considering you claim to have gone to a private school yourself.
    No, education is not a human right, or at least it shouldn't be. I'm dyslexic, thankyou for pointing that out though, I mean I've never noticed that I have difficulty spelling before...:rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Private schools at full of toffs. Goverment should ban them asap.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adman32)
    A friend of mine comes from a relatively wealthy family and went to the same school as me up to last year. In September he left and enrolled in a private school. But I, and most people I know, would never be able to afford this.

    I know many on this forum are indeed from private schools, so please try and be neutral.

    Perhaps I'm too far on the left, but in my opinion noone should better opportunities simply because of parental wealth. All people should be born equal, and should find success with hard work and ability, not money.
    :facepalm:

    So you're argument is, because some people can't afford it... it should be banned?
    That makes no sense whatsoever.

    So instead of affording people opportunities and benefits which they are willing to pay for, you will force them to have fewer and worse opportunities in life, on the only basis that it is more equal? That is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adman32)
    With a luxury item yes, but not a basic human right like education. Truthfully, there is little doubt they should be banned. The practicality may be hard I agree, but what are the arguments for why they should exist?

    We can't stop money, but why should a child who has absolutely no control over their parents income have to get anything less then someone down the road that has no control either.
    But everyone still gets education. It is provided by the state.

    It isn't a case of the rich people buying education for their children, while the poor don't get educated.

    It's a case of the rich people trying to buy better education, and despite not going to a private school, I don't see anything wrong with that.

    Would you not say food is a basic human right? Rich people can buy more food than poor people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acerbic)
    At the least private schools should not receive tax breaks in the form of having charity status. But a broader policy to reduce income inequality might be more effective. European countries tend to have far lower rates of private education, as well as lower income inequality. Just a suggestion. But it might be wise to treat private schools as a symptom of a larger problem, rather than the problem the problem itself.
    If they didn't receive these tax breaks then they would indeed cease to exist, as most wouldn't be able to pay the inflated rates. Now tell me where exactly the Government would get the cash to pay for the tens of thousands of extra pupils that they would have at state funded schools?
    Even if the Private Schools did stay open the local community on the whole might suffer. In order for private schools to have charitable status they give back to the community. At my school this comes in the form of sharing our fields, pool and astro with local sports clubs and state schools. I don't see what would be gained from taking away the tax breaks tbh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098)
    The majority of arguments on this thread follow the 'Life's not fair' route.

    Q: Why is life not fair? Why can some people afford to live in more affluent areas whilst others cannot? Why can some afford private education whilst others cannot?

    A: Some are have better upbringings from birth, enabling them to get better jobs, providing them with more money with which to buy better goods and services.

    Q: What are some of the reasons for which these people have easier access to better jobs?
    A:
    1. They have better qualifications
    2. (To a lesser extent but still relevant) Their family may know people/colleagues/"contacts" with whom young graduates may gain early career experience; internships being one example of this.

    Both these advantages are not exclusive to a privately educated pupil. However, they are more easily obtained if one has been able to afford a private education. It is easier for teenagers at private schools to get the A Level grades required to enter the most competitive universities, and the social exclusivity of these instutions engenders a culture whereby the wealthy mix with the wealthy.

    This person may in turn gain access to a better job, and thus better services for their children's better upbringing, including private education. The vicious circle is thus perpetuated, but would be broken if education were not one of these 'services' that could be bought as easily as, say, a car.


    Private education is not merely an unfortunate symptom of an unequal society, but one of the causes.

    Those that think a person 'have the freedom to choose' if they want to educate their child privately are missing the point: most parents, and most children, don't have that luxury of choice.

    Those that argue that there is no point 'crippling the top' forget that the fees that the wealthy currently pay to private schools would be used to improve an equal state sector that everyone DOES have access to.

    To claim otherwise is at best ignorant, and at worst regressive.
    Yet it was possible for my mother to pay me through private school despite at the time earning around £15k a year? Ok I had a scholarship which took a third off the fees, but any applicant who is really deserved of a top education would gain of these. That still only left around £8k to live off for that year. I don't think people understand what it is to sacrifice for future gain
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    No, education is not a human right, or at least it shouldn't be. I'm dyslexic, thankyou for pointing that out though, I mean I've never noticed that I have difficulty spelling before...:rolleyes:
    I said civil right, not human right. There's a differenceyou moron.

    PS. I too have a non-existent illness, purple-monkey deficiency
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    I said civil right, not human right. There's a differenceyou moron.

    PS. I too have a non-existent illness, purple-monkey deficiency
    Wow, someone's rude. Just because someone has a different viewpoint doesn't mean you need to be an arse. Oh wait I forgot, this is TSR, where any deviation from the majority view = abuse and neg train. :rolleyes: In my opinion, education isn't a right in any way, shape or form.

    Dyslexia isn't non-existant you total and utter ignoramus, it's a learning difficulty. You can deny it's existance all you want, I'll still get my extra time in exams as well as free equipment and money. Make you mad?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i'm ex state comper and voted no. Like if u didn't have toff aka private schools u'd get these toffs in our state comps. Like that'd be nightmare init? **** em and let them go to their posh schools and leave us alone. That's the best way man. Leave system as it is. And those douches who want to go to private currently being in state comps....think hard before u go to the dark side. Private school peoples are arrogant, have head shoved so far up their arses they no nuffin about common people - you'll become a mini david cameron - i.e. an effing ****...or worse still...clegg...a ****ing two faced liar.

    The choice is yours. :rolleyes:
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,791

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

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.