Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Leave Private Schools Alone! - Thread To End The Private School Debate. Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    No, what I'm actually arguing for is for anyone and everyone to be able to go to a private school in an ideal world. As I said in all of my above posts, it's not possible, and will never happen, but I wanted it clear that I thought it unfair to place one kid above another because of something they have nothing to do with.


    Did you even read my post before rage negging? Might want to go back and actually read it rather than getting angry about something you've made up in your head.

    :
    I believe that what you actually said is that you would ban private schools as well as other private institutions.
    You also said that in an ideal world privte schools wouldnt exist. Perhaps is it you that should read what you actually wrote and stop getting piss n sending pms cos someone gave you a neg.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    I would ban them so that everyone would be born with as much of a chance as possible, and your eventual place in society is based on your ability rather than your parents. Whilst the private schools arent to blame for poor state quality, think of all the private school teachers that could be teaching state school kids. The existence of them exacerbates the problem.
    I think banning private schools would mean that everyone is born with as little of a chance as possible, rather than as much of a chance as possible. Sure, the education system would be fairer, but I don't think fairness is the main priority here.

    Analogy: Suppose there are 100 hungry people. Each one needs to eat at least one sandwich in order to survive until the end of the day. There is only one sandwich available for the remainder of the day.
    If we go for the fair option, and divide the sandwich up equally so that they get a few crumbs each, they'll all die by the end of the day. But if we give the entire sandwich to one person, then 99 people will die, but 1 will survive, which is a better outcome. A single sandwich is more powerful when it is eaten entirely by one person, rather than eaten equally by 100 people.

    In the same way, rather than for everyone to be equally educated, I think it is more important that some people get the maximum quality of education possible. The country isn't going to produce any more Stephen Hawkings and Isaac Newtons by giving everyone equal but mediocre educational opportunities. In terms of advancing the country, achieving academic, medical and technological breakthroughs etc. education is most powerful when it is concentrated within a few people, rather than spread thinly across the entire population. And in the long run, that benefits everybody in absolute terms. This is true even for the less educated people - a person is better off as a "poor" person in a highly advanced and developed country, rather than a person of average wealth in a completely stagnant country.
    It's another example when taking the unfair option yields better results than using the fair option.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wouldn't parents just pay for a tutor instead?
    And I think the attitude that parents take towards their child's education counts for more.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    My argument has always been that the state system should be good enough that people don't feel a need to pay significant amounts for the alternative. If this is not the case the answer is to improve state education, not close private schools.
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blue n white army)
    I believe that what you actually said is that you would ban private schools as well as other private institutions.
    You also said that in an ideal world privte schools wouldnt exist. Perhaps is it you that should read what you actually wrote and stop getting piss n sending pms cos someone gave you a neg.

    I said I would ban them because they deny opportunity rather than allow it. Could you please make a damn point? I'm genuinely curious, and at least I'm stating my views rather than making snide remarks and stroking me e-peen.


    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I think banning private schools would mean that everyone is born with as little of a chance as possible, rather than as much of a chance as possible. Sure, the education system would be fairer, but I don't think fairness is the main priority here.

    Analogy: Suppose there are 100 hungry people. Each one needs to eat at least one sandwich in order to survive until the end of the day. There is only one sandwich available for the remainder of the day.
    If we go for the fair option, and divide the sandwich up equally so that they get a few crumbs each, they'll all die by the end of the day. But if we give the entire sandwich to one person, then 99 people will die, but 1 will survive, which is a better outcome. A single sandwich is more powerful when it is eaten entirely by one person, rather than eaten equally by 100 people.

    In the same way, rather than for everyone to be equally educated, I think it is more important that some people get the maximum quality of education possible. The country isn't going to produce any more Stephen Hawkings and Isaac Newtons by giving everyone an equal but mediocre educational opportunities. In terms of advancing the country, achieving academic, medical and technological breakthroughs etc. education is most powerful when it is concentrated within a few people, rather than spread thinly across the entire population. And in the long run, that benefits everybody in absolute terms. This is true even for the less educated people - a person is better off as a "poor" person in a highly advanced and developed country, rather than a person of average wealth in a completely stagnant country.
    It's another example when taking the unfair option yields better results than using the fair option.

    First of all, thank you for being the first person to respond with anything of worth. :five:


    I'm not sure I agree with the analogy though. You're basically saying trickle down theory, and we all know that doesn't work because of tax havens anyways.

    I don't think the metaphor works in regards to education, because we're not talking about something necessary to survive but a luxury. Also, to do our educational institutions justice, the metaphor would be more fitting as everyone having a sandwhich, and choosing between one or two people having more meat than they could eat inside it or spreading the meet to as many people as possible.

    The implication of your belief is that exceptional people are created without any other factors, purely from as excellent an education as possible. Yet numerous brilliant minds come from non private education, and in many ways if the people with the benefit of this education alone were permitted to 'live' then we would officially be an oligarchy.

    I simply believe that if someone shows the capabilities, they should be allowed to work hard and have access to as good a facility as possible. Instead there is no bearing how hard working or intelligent a child might be, it is based on elements beyond childrens control. Surely it would be better if Private schools offered exactly the same facilities and teachers, but had an entry system not based on financial backing but on individual merit?
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    In the same way, rather than for everyone to be equally educated, I think it is more important that some people get the maximum quality of education possible. The country isn't going to produce any more Stephen Hawkings and Isaac Newtons by giving everyone equal but mediocre educational opportunities. In terms of advancing the country, achieving academic, medical and technological breakthroughs etc. education is most powerful when it is concentrated within a few people, rather than spread thinly across the entire population. And in the long run, that benefits everybody in absolute terms. This is true even for the less educated people - a person is better off as a "poor" person in a highly advanced and developed country, rather than a person of average wealth in a completely stagnant country.
    It's another example when taking the unfair option yields better results than using the fair option.
    Thing is though, that means that only the people who's mummy and daddy could afford to send them to private school have a chance at any sort of "advancement of humanity" type career. Which isn't fair. Opportunity should be there for everyone, not just those who can pay more.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    I'm not sure I agree with the analogy though. You're basically saying trickle down theory, and we all know that doesn't work because of tax havens anyways.
    I don't really understand what you mean here...

    I don't think the metaphor works in regards to education, because we're not talking about something necessary to survive but a luxury. Also, to do our educational institutions justice, the metaphor would be more fitting as everyone having a sandwhich, and choosing between one or two people having more meat than they could eat inside it or spreading the meet to as many people as possible.
    I think you're misinterpreting my analogy a bit. I'm not saying that we all need top quality education in order to survive, and that state education isn't sufficient for this, or anything like that.

    The analogy is:
    Sandwich <=> Education
    Survival <=> Having enough education in order to create a significant leap in advancement for society.

    The average level of education in our country compared to other countries is indeed admirable. But I don't think I'm doing it an injustice to say that most of the people who have enabled us to reach various academic breakthroughs were only able to do so because they received an education of a well-above average level, and would not have been able to do so if teachers, resources etc. were all equally distributed from school to school, person to person. So I don't think it's more fitting to say that everyone has a "sandwich" (i.e. sufficient education in order to do this).

    I'm just pointing out that the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts. It's better to give one person an iPad than to give two people half an iPad each. The more evenly you spread each "unit" of education amongst a large population of people, the less useful each unit will be. On an overall scale, the education we provide would achieve less for society than it does at the moment. If I were to sketch a graph of "total utility gained from education by a single person" against "quality of education received by a single person", it wouldn't just be a straight, upward sloping line. There would be a point at which, above a certain level of quality of education, the graph would suddenly get a lot steeper.

    (Also, I think the thing I just said about iPads answers your objection that 'education is a luxury, not something we need in order to survive').

    The implication of your belief is that exceptional people are created without any other factors, purely from as excellent an education as possible. Yet numerous brilliant minds come from non private education, and in many ways if the people with the benefit of this education alone were permitted to 'live' then we would officially be an oligarchy.
    No, I'm not saying that these exceptional people will be created purely as a result of top quality education. I'm not saying that if we took the fair option, we'd never have a scientific breakthrough ever again. I just think it would be a step in that direction. We'd have fewer breakthroughs. As I said, when spread thinly across the whole population, each "unit" of education would be worth less than it is now. (Though not entirely worthless, of course).

    I simply believe that if someone shows the capabilities, they should be allowed to work hard and have access to as good a facility as possible. Instead there is no bearing how hard working or intelligent a child might be, it is based on elements beyond childrens control. Surely it would be better if Private schools offered exactly the same facilities and teachers, but had an entry system not based on financial backing but on individual merit?
    I agree - if private schools were able to offer exactly the same top quality facilities, educational environment and opportunities etc. without needing to charge for it, then that would be great. And scholarships and bursaries etc. are an attempt to head in that direction.

    But it's quite unrealistic to expect that banning private schools (i.e. making them all non-fee paying) would enable them to keep up their top quality environment, retain their concentration of top quality teachers, and without suffering from a dip in the educational standards they offer. So even though this would be more "fair", and everyone would be on a more equal footing, I think it would be to the detriment of society overall.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    Thing is though, that means that only the people who's mummy and daddy could afford to send them to private school have a chance at any sort of "advancement of humanity" type career. Which isn't fair. Opportunity should be there for everyone, not just those who can pay more.
    I agree, it isn't fair. But I also explained in my post (the one that you quoted) why fairness should not be the main priority.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I agree, it isn't fair. But I also explained in my post (the one that you quoted) why fairness should not be the main priority.
    Surely the main priority would be improving state education so that poorer people aren't disadvantaged, and therefore the cycle of poverty doesn't continue endlessly.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I agree, it isn't fair. But I also explained in my post (the one that you quoted) why fairness should not be the main priority.
    Surely it is better to aim to have state provision at the level of private schools? The top state schools, eg. the Oratory or Hills Road for 6th Form, currently can, and do, compete with private schools, so why not aim to have all state schools at that level rather than resigning ourselves to them automatically being worse? It seems evident the vast majority of private schools aren't offering something educationally that the state sector is incapable of providing.

    At that point private schools could be just for those who want certain facilities the state simply can't offer (eg. Millfield's sporting facilities) or who simply want their little darlings to avoid mixing with anyone too poor to afford the fees (in which case their look out, seems stupid but they can spend their money on what they want).

    I'm not sure this is some impossible dream either, some countries on the continent and in Scandinavia have little by way of private schooling as the vast majority of people perceive the state system to be more than adequate.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    Surely the main priority would be improving state education so that poorer people aren't disadvantaged, and therefore the cycle of poverty doesn't continue endlessly.
    Surely it is better to aim to have state provision at the level of private schools? The top state schools, eg. the Oratory or Hills Road for 6th Form, currently can, and do, compete with private schools, so why not aim to have all state schools at that level rather than resigning ourselves to them automatically being worse? It seems evident the vast majority of private schools aren't offering something educationally that the state sector is incapable of providing.

    At that point private schools could be just for those who want certain facilities the state simply can't offer (eg. Millfield's sporting facilities) or who simply want their little darlings to avoid mixing with anyone too poor to afford the fees (in which case their look out, seems stupid but they can spend their money on what they want).

    I'm not sure this is some impossible dream either, some countries on the continent and in Scandinavia have little by way of private schooling as the vast majority of people perceive the state system to be more than adequate.
    Well what I'm arguing is this:

    Priority 1: Make sure an extremely high level of education (as high as possible) exists within the country.
    Priority 2: Ensure that as many people as possible are able to receive the best level of education available (i.e. fairness).

    An extremely high level of education certainly does exist within our country. So I agree that it would be great if we could move onto Priority 2, by improving state schools and giving poorer people access to top quality education. This would make the system more fair. Although realistically, this is quite difficult to do (because the state sector lacks investment, finds it more difficult to separate pupils based on ability etc.) But if it's possible to bring state schools up to the same standard, then I say go for it.


    But as an alternative way of achieving fairness, people suggest banning private schools as a sort of 'quick and dirty' solution. The hope is that private school teachers would be absorbed into the state sector, and opportunities would be spread more evenly. But the reason I disagree with this idea is because, although it fulfils Priority 2, it sacrifices Priority 1 in order to do so.

    I reduced it to a simple analogy earlier - even though it's "unfair", it's better to give one person an iPad than to give two people half an iPad each. Similarly, it's better to give one person a fantastic education and one person a poor education, than to give each of them a mediocre education, because the overall usefulness gained from education will be greater.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Well what I'm arguing is this:

    Priority 1: Make sure an extremely high level of education (as high as possible) exists within the country.
    Priority 2: Ensure that as many people as possible are able to receive the best level of education available (i.e. fairness).

    An extremely high level of education certainly does exist within our country. So I agree that it would be great if we could move onto Priority 2, by improving state schools and giving poorer people access to top quality education. This would make the system more fair. Although realistically, this is a very difficult thing to do (because the state sector lacks investment, finds it more difficult to separate pupils based on ability etc.)

    As an alternative way of achieving fairness, people suggest banning private schools. The hope is that private school teachers would be absorbed into the state sector, and opportunities would be spread more evenly. But the reason I disagree with this idea is because, although it fulfils Priority 2, it sacrifices Priority 1 in order to do so.


    I reduced it to a simple analogy earlier - even though it's "unfair", it's better to give one person an iPad than to give two people half an iPad each.
    I completely see your point, I know exactly what you're saying, and it does make sense. However, I think that improving state schools would still be the better method of achieving fairness and a high standard of education, despite it being more difficult.

    I love how this thread is supposed to be the one to end discussion. Oh OP, you're so naive. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    The private school debate still rages on. However, it is clear that arguments against private schools do not have much of a strong basis upon which to stand.

    Some arguments against private schools range from education being a fundamental human right to socioeconomic segregation.

    However, a few simple points will illuminate the silliness that arguments against private schools are basked in:

    - Would you ban private hospitals/healthcare?

    - Would you ban private companies/services?

    - The fact is that most private schools are private institutions. They provide services to those who wish to make use of them - why on Earth would you want to ban them if they are operating within the law?

    - The existence of private schools should not be blamed for the poor quality of education in *some* state schools. Such is the fault of the government and the government alone.

    - The "wealth and unfairness" argument is ridiculous - surely, you would also be arguing against private healthcare and private hospitals? Surely you would be arguing against private car services?


    What do you think? Surely arguments against private schools are petty and ridiculous - if you would ban private schools, you would also ban private healthcare and private tutors, no?
    Private schools inherently have the capacity to offer an objectively better education than state schools. From your post, can I infer that you have absolutely no moral qualms with the idea that one person has the right to a better education than another simply because his parents are richer?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    I completely see your point, I know exactly what you're saying, and it does make sense. However, I think that improving state schools would still be the better method of achieving fairness and a high standard of education, despite it being more difficult.
    I agree. I would prefer it if we tried to improve the state system to such a high level, that private schools are no longer needed.

    But instead of getting state schools to successfully compete with private schools, many people instead just suggest banning private schools - which is a bit like throwing a banana peel at the racer ahead of you hoping he'll slip on it, rather than running faster to catch up with him. It reduces overall quality. I don't think banning private schools is a good idea at all.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    I said I would ban them because they deny opportunity rather than allow it. Could you please make a damn point? I'm genuinely curious, and at least I'm stating my views rather than making snide remarks and stroking me e-peen.


    I already made my point in my first post which you kindly ignored and falsely accused me of misreading your post.

    My original point was that the main solution to inequalities in the education system is based around removing the opportunities that come with private schools.

    What is wrong with parents working hard to become rich and then paying for their children to be given an advantage?

    Also if you create a system where anyone can go to private school then you'll encounter the same problems that the university sector has. Too many graduates and a devalued degree.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blue n white army)

    Also if you create a system where anyone can go to private school then you'll encounter the same problems that the university sector has. Too many graduates and a devalued degree.
    Sorry, but that's a false comparison. A degree gets part of its value from the institution who assess and then issue it, and the perceived rigour of that assessment, and the instiution itself has the power to award the degree. Because of this the more institutions=more degrees.

    Your GCSEs by comparison are not issued by your school, an A* in History at Eton is no different to one at Boggo Comp in terms of curriculum and assessment (assuming the same exam board), and you don't have to be affiliated to an institution in order to sit the exams, they are controlled centrally.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobifier)
    Private schools inherently have the capacity to offer an objectively better education than state schools. From your post, can I infer that you have absolutely no moral qualms with the idea that one person has the right to a better education than another simply because his parents are richer?
    They are private institutions. Ergo, those who are able can go to such private institutions and make use of their services - I see no problem with that. Just as with private healthcare - those who are able can make use of such services. I can't see what the issue is - we live in a free and democratic society.

    There are private institutions around - if parents who are able desire to send their child to a private institutions instead of a state school, then what is the problem in that? They are, as free citizens, free to choose to do so. The right to freedom of choice - this is available; such parents are simply making use of such.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I agree. I would prefer it if we tried to improve the state system to such a high level, that private schools are no longer needed.

    But instead of getting state schools to successfully compete with private schools, many people instead just suggest banning private schools - which is a bit like throwing a banana peel at the racer ahead of you hoping he'll slip on it, rather than running faster to catch up with him. It reduces overall quality. I don't think banning private schools is a good idea at all.
    True State schools should be improved but where do you get the funding ? surely if there is an increase in the satnderd of education there has to be a rise in taxes to fund books, teachers etc. Its too short sited to say "Oh no more foreign aid to save money" but Gove is/was trying to improve the standard of attainment within state schools with his reforms.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Even if independent school were banned, there is still a massive gap in terms of quality in the state school sector for a huge number of reasons. Also if they were banned then its going to be a massive strain on the government budget to accommodate the extra students.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roh)
    Sorry, but that's a false comparison. A degree gets part of its value from the institution who assess and then issue it, and the perceived rigour of that assessment, and the instiution itself has the power to award the degree. Because of this the more institutions=more degrees.

    Your GCSEs by comparison are not issued by your school, an A* in History at Eton is no different to one at Boggo Comp in terms of curriculum and assessment (assuming the same exam board), and you don't have to be affiliated to an institution in order to sit the exams, they are controlled centrally.
    But if more children go to a private school then more children are going to be Achieving an A* grade.


    An A* is going to be worth a lot more if only 10 people had ever achieved one than if 10,000,000 people have one.

    That's the same with degrees, i appreciate what you say about the institution having an effect on the value of a degree but back in our parents day someone with a degree was seen as the bee knees and they stood out from the crowd now everybody has one.
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?

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

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.