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

    1
    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. :rolleyes:





    Cheers for your valuable input. S'shame you're too cowardly to actually make a point. Is that all you could manage to read before it got too hard?
    Why the aggressive attitude. Do internet points really mean that much to you.
    Banning private schools because you think they are giving children an unfair advantage is insane. By your argument, where would you draw the line. Should all children have access to the same standard of food, clothing, entertainment, sporting and extra curricular activities, choice of neighborhood to grow up in, etc etc. All would have an effect on the child, their development and therefore their opportunities in later life. To hold all people to the same standard would destroy any notion of a free market. Banning companies from setting up businesses in healthcare and education would be such a draconian thing for any government to do.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee123)
    what schemes are these?
    http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/...entedprogramme
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    I sense jealousy and lots of it in this post.
    You do realise private schools being the charities that they are do do more than just let rich kiddie winks in right? Shall we start with the scholarships and bursarys to those who dont have enough to afford them
    Yeah the scholarships where the majority are 10 % off. Where instead of shelling out £15000, it's only £13500..... The idea of charity is that it is for the ill and poor, not the rich's idea of charity for themselves.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poiuy)
    Yeah the scholarships where the majority are 10 % off. Where instead of shelling out £15000, it's only £13500..... The idea of charity is that it is for the ill and poor, not the rich's idea of charity for themselves.
    "Every little helps"............. I think some people are just plain greedy, next people are going to be asking Tescos to be giving out free food.... It should be give and take people strong work and strive for better things, isn' t that the point of society? If you have nothing to amount too, there isn't very much point in living....Get a decent paying job and pay for a private school end of story.....even a high placing retail manager can afford it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poiuy)
    Yeah the scholarships where the majority are 10 % off. Where instead of shelling out £15000, it's only £13500..... The idea of charity is that it is for the ill and poor, not the rich's idea of charity for themselves.
    You do realise that many parents skimp and save and work fantastically hard and do without all kinds of things so they can get their child through private school on a bursary scheme? Not all kids at private schools are from loaded backgrounds, by a long shot.
    Offline

    0
    I was about to argue FOR private schools, but it looks like lots of people have already done it for me.

    If I work hard to get a good job, why can't I give the benefit of private education to my children?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You do realise that many parents skimp and save and work fantastically hard and do without all kinds of things so they can get their child through private school on a bursary scheme? Not all kids at private schools are from loaded backgrounds, by a long shot.
    True say, its like I don't have any kids or another half for starters and just finished university.....why am I working saving for to send my kids to a £25,000 private school. Its because I had the privilege to go to one and I hope my kids do so too. Its not pocket money either, because there other costs aside, but if your sensible in planning and willing to work then. Anything is possible in life...if you put your mind to it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    Yes to both actually.





    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.


    Parents are still welcome to teach their kids extra things on the side. That's a basic element of family dynamic. Why is it 'fair' that instead, parents can throw money at the problem and provide a better chance than a parent who might spend countless evenings tutoring their child?


    The actual process of banning private schools would be extremely difficult: It just isn't feasible at all. However, in my ideal world, they wouldn't exist, because they create a classical and unavoidable oligarchical culture.


    P.S.

    I'm sure many of you who have been to private school will now take offence. I have no issue with anyone who's been to a private school, I would have loved to have gone to one myself. But unfortunately for me, completely beyond my control, there was no chance. I even won a scholarship and couldn't afford the extras. This is the case for thousands of kids every year, and I find that fundamentally wrong.
    The only feasible way to live in the society you suggest is to clone one male and one female repeatedly so there are no longer inequalities and not allow them a family and give them all the same teacher... see the flaw in your plan? you've basically argued your whole case then gone onto say the only reason I'm suggesting this is because I'm jealous I didn't get to go to private school. On top of this to make society fairer we should make everyone equally ugly/beautiful so peoples feelings don't get hurt
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You do realise that many parents skimp and save and work fantastically hard and do without all kinds of things so they can get their child through private school on a bursary scheme? Not all kids at private schools are from loaded backgrounds, by a long shot.
    I know right, like skimping as not shopping at waitrose and having to shop at sainsburys...

    When you say many, if you take it into prospective you actually mean very few. A very small proportion of society is privately educated (7% of all children, 18% of over 16's) or indeed could afford to. If I had children and could afford private education I would not send them. One of the reasons if because I do not think you should be able to buy your place at Oxford. Also I wouldn't want them to grow up in a bubble, and so that if they achieved something they'd of had to work hard for it instead of being spoon fed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poiuy)
    I know right, like skimping as not shopping at waitrose and having to shop at sainsburys...

    When you say many, if you take it into prospective you actually mean very few. A very small proportion of society is privately educated (7% of all children, 18% of over 16's) or indeed could afford to. If I had children and could afford private education I would not send them. One of the reasons if because I do not think you should be able to buy your place at Oxford. Also I wouldn't want them to grow up in a bubble, and so that if they achieved something they'd of had to work hard for it instead of being spoon fed.
    I personally don't think there is much difference in shopping in Sainsbury's or Waitrose....heck I would shop in Lidl or Icelands if I really needed something... and wanted so save money. But i live off takeaways... when you send a kid to have a private education, your sending them in to develop a certain kind of lifestyle, learning to appreciate the finer things in life.... such as culture....and no your not spoon fed at all..
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poiuy)
    I know right, like skimping as not shopping at waitrose and having to shop at sainsburys...

    When you say many, if you take it into prospective you actually mean very few. A very small proportion of society is privately educated (7% of all children, 18% of over 16's) or indeed could afford to. If I had children and could afford private education I would not send them. One of the reasons if because I do not think you should be able to buy your place at Oxford. Also I wouldn't want them to grow up in a bubble, and so that if they achieved something they'd of had to work hard for it instead of being spoon fed.
    1.) It wouldn't just be a case of money, you'd have to have kids smart enough to pass the entrance exams that most private schools have.

    2.) Oxford knows how much training private school kids get and takes it into account - you don't have a better Oxbridge chance if you go to a private school. The reason there is a large proportion of private school kids in Oxbridge is a) they do well and b) they are encouraged to apply, and taught about the system, far more than smart kids in a dead-end comprehensive will be.

    3.) We are not spoon-fed. Not even close. (Sorry if this sounds defensive, but it's the truth). I have 2 hours more at school per day than my state-school-attending younger sister, and hours more of homework a night; and I am taking 3 fewer GCSEs than her. We are pushed incredibly hard.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paradoxicalme)
    1.) It wouldn't just be a case of money, you'd have to have kids smart enough to pass the entrance exams that most private schools have.

    2.) Oxford knows how much training private school kids get and takes it into account - you don't have a better Oxbridge chance if you go to a private school. The reason there is a large proportion of private school kids in Oxbridge is a) they do well and b) they are encouraged to apply, and taught about the system, far more than smart kids in a dead-end comprehensive will be.

    3.) We are not spoon-fed. Not even close. (Sorry if this sounds defensive, but it's the truth). I have 2 hours more at school per day than my state-school-attending younger sister, and hours more of homework a night; and I am taking 3 fewer GCSEs than her. We are pushed incredibly hard.
    So for
    1) It's not unfair because rich thick kids can't pass get in as well with smart kids who can't afford the fees?
    2a) Have you heard of talent vs nurture. Any kid who's a bit thick can go to private school and get into Uni. Evidence has shown at University level, state school kids outperform their private school peers as we have a stronger work ethic, are used to having to work independently/teaching our selves the course then the private school kids who get spoon fed it.
    b) You are correct. Private school kids know the system, their parents pay for them to go and prepare for the interviews.
    c) Yes, younger sister. Guess what my younger brother does less work then me. You have hours designated where you do and get help with your homework; we just go home and do it ourselves or in our free periods. You do the same exams as us I guess, so you cover the same material as us, and so you do the same amount of work as us. We have to do it by ourselves, get less help and so have to put more time and effort in then private school kids.
    Offline

    0
    From a comprehensive education: I don't know more than 5 people with a good work ethic out of a college of over 1,000. Plus, they all go and demand help anyways once they realise E's aren't good enough. Besides: Uni's look at where your education takes place.

    They are more likely to take on someone getting AAA from a college average of CCC, then someone getting AAA from a sixth form average of AAA... Plus, they HAVE to take on a certain percentage of people from working class backgrounds and average colleges. So private schools aren't unfair.

    Actually, a bonus to private schools is the extra stuff you learn and do. Due to restricted timetables, you only learn directly to the exam in "normal" education which sucks.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poiuy)
    So for
    1) It's not unfair because rich thick kids can't pass get in as well with smart kids who can't afford the fees?

    I have first hand experience of this. I'm going to sound conceited, but the smart kid who can't afford the fees? That's me. I'm going because I got a scholarship. There are bursaries. As long as you have the intellect, private schools will try and make sure you can go. Same as Oxford and Cambridge's mentalities.

    2a) Have you heard of talent vs nurture. Any kid who's a bit thick can go to private school and get into Uni. Evidence has shown at University level, state school kids outperform their private school peers as we have a stronger work ethic, are used to having to work independently/teaching our selves the course then the private school kids who get spoon fed it.

    Actually, no I haven't, because they're codependent. Talent gets nowhere without nurture. Nurture needs a foundation of talent. A talented mathematician who's never been taught to add up will get nowhere; a kid who naturally sucks at maths will most likely continue to, even after years of maths lessons.

    I dispute that generalisation. The work ethic at state schools varies; some have a great work ethic, but you'll find that most kids at a dead-end comprehensive with crappy results will most likely have given up. Most private schools I've seen have a very good work ethic - we have this opportunity and we make the most of it. And you seem to confuse 'being spoon fed' with 'actually being taught'. You are basically saying that private school kids must be less smart because we actually get taught the material rather than teaching ourselves. Apart from the fact that independent study and self-learning is an integral part of our curriculum, we have to have pretty sharp minds to keep up with the work we're given. I have a girl in my year on an art scholarship; she sits in all her lessons, copies down notes, and does nothing else. She's predicted straight Cs and Ds. Not the norm.

    b) You are correct. Private school kids know the system, their parents pay for them to go and prepare for the interviews.

    So we're less deserving of university places because we know how they work? I never said we weren't privileged to know that, but it doesn't make us undeserving. Fact is, we can train for the interviews, but the universities know we train, and take it into account. Plus, no amount of training can make up for bad grades or a lack of passion for the subject. Knowledge of the system plays a smaller role.

    c) Yes, younger sister. Guess what my younger brother does less work then me. You have hours designated where you do and get help with your homework; we just go home and do it ourselves or in our free periods. You do the same exams as us I guess, so you cover the same material as us, and so you do the same amount of work as us. We have to do it by ourselves, get less help and so have to put more time and effort in then private school kids.
    Obviously if she was five years younger I wouldn't have made that claim! She's a year younger, and has a far smaller workload - for more subjects - than I had last year. And she's an A/A* student.

    We get no help with our homework, where'd you get that from? We do it the same as you do - get given it, and do it at home or in our frees if we have any.

    We have to put in just as much time and effort as you, because a) the school keeps pushing us beyond the curriculum and b) the school is hyperfocused on independent learning. You act like the teachers are, as you say, 'spoon-feeding' us everything. Not the case. We have, I'd probably say, a higher amount of independent learning to do than state schools.

    (And by the way, I have plenty of experience teaching myself things - I've basically taught myself the entirety of Spanish GCSE since my crappy teacher is no help whatsoever )
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paradoxicalme)
    Obviously if she was five years younger I wouldn't have made that claim! She's a year younger, and has a far smaller workload - for more subjects - than I had last year. And she's an A/A* student.

    We get no help with our homework, where'd you get that from? We do it the same as you do - get given it, and do it at home or in our frees if we have any.

    We have to put in just as much time and effort as you, because a) the school keeps pushing us beyond the curriculum and b) the school is hyperfocused on independent learning. You act like the teachers are, as you say, 'spoon-feeding' us everything. Not the case. We have, I'd probably say, a higher amount of independent learning to do than state schools.

    (And by the way, I have plenty of experience teaching myself things - I've basically taught myself the entirety of Spanish GCSE since my crappy teacher is no help whatsoever )
    A year is a considerable difference: those who do A2's have to put way more work in than those doing AS. Those doing AS put more work in than those doing GCSE's and you get the idea. Whilst you may of had a crappy spanish teacher, private schools are more selective when it comes to who they employ (better finacial incentives), and they can also dismiss bad teachers for being bad-state schools you have to do something seriously criminal to get sacked. There are more bad teachers in state schools than there is in private. Some lessons the teacher couldn't teach due to their being no discipline, and with really disruptive kids so you just had to teach yourself the work.

    Us state school kids do get taught beyond the curriculum, either if a kid asks or the teacher goes off a bit on what interests us. Believe it or not the teachers push us to read extra material, set us harder exercises but it's our responsibility we do it. For 'beyond the curriculum' I'm not sure if you were talking about academic or sports/interests but the latter we do take part yet there's a limit on what clubs we do in school so tend to do it outside of school. Pure interest if you don't mind me asking, why did you go to private school whilst your sister went state. Siblings tend to go to the same schools unless they're single sex schools.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJoshwha)
    From a comprehensive education: I don't know more than 5 people with a good work ethic out of a college of over 1,000. Plus, they all go and demand help anyways once they realise E's aren't good enough. Besides: Uni's look at where your education takes place.

    They are more likely to take on someone getting AAA from a college average of CCC, then someone getting AAA from a sixth form average of AAA... Plus, they HAVE to take on a certain percentage of people from working class backgrounds and average colleges. So private schools aren't unfair.

    Actually, a bonus to private schools is the extra stuff you learn and do. Due to restricted timetables, you only learn directly to the exam in "normal" education which sucks.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Do you know or have even seen all 1000 kids in your college to make a judgement?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poiuy)
    So for
    1) It's not unfair because rich thick kids can't pass get in as well with smart kids who can't afford the fees?
    2a) Have you heard of talent vs nurture. Any kid who's a bit thick can go to private school and get into Uni. Evidence has shown at University level, state school kids outperform their private school peers as we have a stronger work ethic, are used to having to work independently/teaching our selves the course then the private school kids who get spoon fed it.
    b) You are correct. Private school kids know the system, their parents pay for them to go and prepare for the interviews.
    c) Yes, younger sister. Guess what my younger brother does less work then me. You have hours designated where you do and get help with your homework; we just go home and do it ourselves or in our free periods. You do the same exams as us I guess, so you cover the same material as us, and so you do the same amount of work as us. We have to do it by ourselves, get less help and so have to put more time and effort in then private school kids.
    Then what do we do with the excess money we earn after a hard days work..... spend it on hookers and blow? If we can't spend it on bettering the lives of people we care about.....I think that is where my money is going to go....
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poiuy)
    Oh it's you trolling again, so pleased to see you xx
    You just don't have an rational answers, rather than be skeptical over an issue you like this. Have you considered increasing your income to pay for a private school for your kids in the future? Being work shy isn't a good quality.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poiuy)
    A year is a considerable difference: those who do A2's have to put way more work in than those doing AS. Those doing AS put more work in than those doing GCSE's and you get the idea. Whilst you may of had a crappy spanish teacher, private schools are more selective when it comes to who they employ (better finacial incentives), and they can also dismiss bad teachers for being bad-state schools you have to do something seriously criminal to get sacked. There are more bad teachers in state schools than there is in private. Some lessons the teacher couldn't teach due to their being no discipline, and with really disruptive kids so you just had to teach yourself the work.

    Us state school kids do get taught beyond the curriculum, either if a kid asks or the teacher goes off a bit on what interests us. Believe it or not the teachers push us to read extra material, set us harder exercises but it's our responsibility we do it. For 'beyond the curriculum' I'm not sure if you were talking about academic or sports/interests but the latter we do take part yet there's a limit on what clubs we do in school so tend to do it outside of school. Pure interest if you don't mind me asking, why did you go to private school whilst your sister went state. Siblings tend to go to the same schools unless they're single sex schools.
    You make some good points.

    -I'm in second year of GCSEs, she's in the first year (Y10). A gap, yes, but not one big enough to justify the differences in our workloads. Plus, I often find myself teaching her concepts she can't grasp, which does show that I get taught things pretty thoroughly at school.

    -That is true about the teachers, I'll admit. In my old state school we had three autistic kids in my class one year (who should have been in a special school but the school would look bad if they expelled them) and we barely learnt anything because every five minutes one of them would start yelling/running around and would have to be taken out by their helper, brought back in, repeat cycle. However, whilst it honestly does suck that there are some crappy teachers in state schools, universities do take that into account when considering AS results. And this might sound strange, but if you get good results despite of bad teachers, it proves to universities that you can work under duress and do independent research, so they'll be more likely to take you than someone with the same grades from private.

    -Doing harder exercises is our responsibility too, often we have to teach ourself the harder material at home before doing the exercises. I didn't really know how far state schools go in that direction because I've never seen it with my sister.

    -I meant academic But with sports/interests, yes, on the whole private schools most likely have better facilities in that regard, though currently I'm too busy to do any more than one or two clubs. However, in the long run, we make the best of the facilities we have. For instance, I'm in a street dance club at my school. The 'facilities' consist of a fairly small gym and a beaten-up stereo that stops and starts all the time. But because I love dancing, I kept at it and got good - same as I would've at a state. Facilities aren't everything.

    -People ask me that a lot Basically, my sister and I both went to a relatively crappy state primary school. My sister had a great time, made loads of friends, and therefore went to the big (and good) nearby state secondary with them (where most kids from my primary go). Plus, she's quite laid-back and occasionally lazy - she's said she'd despise my school, since it's quite pressured.

    I, on the other hand, was badly teased/bullied throughout my eight years there (I'm extremely smart - makes me sound arrogant, but it's the one thing I know is true about me - and I also have pretty bad social skills). I was basically traumatised by my time there and wanted to get as far away from those people as possible. So I entered for the private school on the other side of town, and was surprised to find I loved it and there were a lot of kids there like me - smart, socially inept, bullied - and how happy everyone seemed to be. So I went, and it's the best place for me, but it most definitely would not be for my sister. Apart from anything else, it's all-girls, and whilst I'm kind of hardened to all the *****ing, my sister is highly sensitive and insecure - she's be crying her eyes out every five minutes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paradoxicalme)
    You make some good points.

    -I'm in second year of GCSEs, she's in the first year (Y10). A gap, yes, but not one big enough to justify the differences in our workloads. Plus, I often find myself teaching her concepts she can't grasp, which does show that I get taught things pretty thoroughly at school.

    -That is true about the teachers, I'll admit. In my old state school we had three autistic kids in my class one year (who should have been in a special school but the school would look bad if they expelled them) and we barely learnt anything because every five minutes one of them would start yelling/running around and would have to be taken out by their helper, brought back in, repeat cycle. However, whilst it honestly does suck that there are some crappy teachers in state schools, universities do take that into account when considering AS results. And this might sound strange, but if you get good results despite of bad teachers, it proves to universities that you can work under duress and do independent research, so they'll be more likely to take you than someone with the same grades from private.

    -Doing harder exercises is our responsibility too, often we have to teach ourself the harder material at home before doing the exercises. I didn't really know how far state schools go in that direction because I've never seen it with my sister.

    -I meant academic But with sports/interests, yes, on the whole private schools most likely have better facilities in that regard, though currently I'm too busy to do any more than one or two clubs. However, in the long run, we make the best of the facilities we have. For instance, I'm in a street dance club at my school. The 'facilities' consist of a fairly small gym and a beaten-up stereo that stops and starts all the time. But because I love dancing, I kept at it and got good - same as I would've at a state. Facilities aren't everything.

    -People ask me that a lot Basically, my sister and I both went to a relatively crappy state primary school. My sister had a great time, made loads of friends, and therefore went to the big (and good) nearby state secondary with them (where most kids from my primary go). Plus, she's quite laid-back and occasionally lazy - she's said she'd despise my school, since it's quite pressured.

    I, on the other hand, was badly teased/bullied throughout my eight years there (I'm extremely smart - makes me sound arrogant, but it's the one thing I know is true about me - and I also have pretty bad social skills). I was basically traumatised by my time there and wanted to get as far away from those people as possible. So I entered for the private school on the other side of town, and was surprised to find I loved it and there were a lot of kids there like me - smart, socially inept, bullied - and how happy everyone seemed to be. So I went, and it's the best place for me, but it most definitely would not be for my sister. Apart from anything else, it's all-girls, and whilst I'm kind of hardened to all the *****ing, my sister is highly sensitive and insecure - she's be crying her eyes out every five minutes.
    Fair enough you actually sound like you have a well balanced opinion, unlike some of the views held by other private school kids.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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.