Do you think we should abolish private schools?

I didn't do SC judges or the Cabinet for just that reason. This is 'Rising Stars of the Bar', most of them graduated in the early to mid 2000s.

Yes, but how does that explain the dominance of private schools in a sphere where some of those who were state educated have proven they do have the ability by getting into Oxford? Your argument can explain why private schools account for a third of admissions rather than the 20% of A Level students they account for, but not why they then come out of the same university further on top when they went in on a level playing field.

I also went to a comp, but I think your perception may be skewed by how meritocratic Medicine is compared to other professions, the system of medical school and F1 applications means you can't get in simply due to where you went to school, whereas in the private sector there is nothing to stop people just giving jobs to people who went to the same school as them, and they do.

That sounds like pseudo science to me, saying that rich people are generally more intelligent is something I strongly disagree with, and I'd vomit on you for attempting to theorise something so horrible and elitist if I could. A privately educated person's parents might be rich and successful, yes, but why is that? Maybe it's because they went to private schools too and thus were able to thrive in life. People who aren't upper/middle class aren't less intelligent, they're just dangerously misinformed about, well, pretty much everything in their lives...



Why are so many working class people on this thread in favour of private schools? It doesn't make any sense. I think you've all been brainwashed...

I think these kinds of stats can be pretty skewed though.
For one things equality amongst classes for education opportunities includin Oxbridge is a much more recent advancement, many of those at the top of their profession were educated prior to the changes, the same reason there are so many male consultants in the medical profession.

Another thing is as a general rule many people who are privately educated come from successful families, who are successful due to intelligence and hard work. I'm not saying those who have no private education in their families are unintelligent, I just mean generally speaking two intelligent parents are more likely to have intelligent offspring, meaning many successful/high earning people are likely to have been privately educated. There is also the fact that many private schools require passing entrance exams, they are academically selective and therefore likely to have students that go on to be successful.

I am from a working class background, and wasn't privately educated so am not speaking from experience, but I think sometimes inequality can be exaggerated. I went to a fairly poor comprehensive and am now studying medicine, wanting to succeed is the main factor which determines success in my opinion.

I didn't do SC judges or the Cabinet for just that reason. This is 'Rising Stars of the Bar', most of them graduated in the early to mid 2000s.

Yes, but how does that explain the dominance of private schools in a sphere where some of those who were state educated have proven they do have the ability by getting into Oxford? Your argument can explain why private schools account for a third of admissions rather than the 20% of A Level students they account for, but not why they then come out of the same university further on top when they went in on a level playing field.

I also went to a comp, but I think your perception may be skewed by how meritocratic Medicine is compared to other professions, the system of medical school and F1 applications means you can't get in simply due to where you went to school, whereas in the private sector there is nothing to stop people just giving jobs to people who went to the same school as them, and they do.

I see your point, I don't mean this reasons for all who get into Oxford, more that it skews the stats. Unfortunately privilege is something which will always effect those in professions such as law, this isn't fair or just but simply the way it is. However the same can be said for many things in life, if for example you have a parent or relative in a certain profession you are more likely to get relevant, helpful work experience and have connections. This isn't just rich people and is very unfair on those without the connections. However those who really want to succeed often find ways and means and are sometimes more hard working because of the challenges they have had to overcome. I think "connections" rather than private ed per say is the advantage for most people in the cases you describe, which yes quite often go hand in hand, but that would be the case even if they were forced out of private into state education.

Believe me med school can be just the same, there are many people on my course who have had what some may see as unjust advantages to get themselves into med school, but I don't resent them.

Connections is a factor, but for the top end of private schools the actual school you went to in and of its own right can be as important. My friend from uni went to a school whose name you'd recognise straight away. When applying for a job a big City firm he got a call from his Uncle who worked there (the connections element you mention) telling him to wear his school 1st XV tuie as the guy interviewing him was an old boy who'd been in the rugby team. When he got there apparently they quite literally chatted for 5 mins about how the interviwer's son was doing at the school, he left and got the job, for which there were about 70 applicants. In that case the interviewer and interviewee had never met before, their names meant nothing to each other, but the mere fact of his school (quite literally in this case the old school tie) was enough to get him the job.

In Medicine by contrast people can have myriad extra advantages, but ultimately they have to prove themselves at Med school to get F1 jobs due to how UKFPO works, there is no space on that form to bag yourself North Central Thames simply because you're an Old Harrovian/Etonian/Wykehamist/whatever. I think this is what we should aim for everywhere, schools should be able to provide the best education, ECs etc. they can, but I think cultivating a network which encourages naked discrimination in favour of those who went there is a negative for the country as a whole.

It's funny because I completely agree with you but I don't think removal of private ed will change anything. Rather than suggest he wear a particular tie it will be suggested he name drop/mention the firm he had work experience with/mention a place he holiday's etc. There will always be something to try to push yourself and/or you children into a better path in life.

Although F1 is much less of an issue, gaining entry to med school itself is pretty similar. Classes in how to score high on the UKCAT/BMAT, guaranteed hospital based work experience through school connections (one person in particular at their private school were guaranteed 2 weeks of consultant shadowing if applying for med), advantageous teaching to meet the ridiculously high entry grades, and funding from their parents makes med entry much easier for the people of means.

Consultancy and specialist training can be similar. There is nothing to stop a person gaining a training/consultancy job because the interviewer went to the same school as them, it is only F1 which is less open to issues. F1 can often be based on the Med school you go to, of which your place may be a result of privilege, so in a way even F1 can be skewed. I guess it just doesn't worry me too much as I have faith hard work and dedication will see me through, not many people want a rich well spoken lazy trainee over a working class hard worker, and if I am beaten out for a job I want by someone who was privately educated, I hope it's because they are better than me for the job.

I'm thinking that on a basic level rich parents have every right to spend their money how they wish - and if they want to spend it on their children's education then so be it :')

Posted from TSR Mobile

That sounds like pseudo science to me, saying that rich people are generally more intelligent is something I strongly disagree with, and I'd vomit on you for attempting to theorise something so horrible and elitist if I could. A privately educated person's parents might be rich and successful, yes, but why is that? Maybe it's because they went to private schools too and thus were able to thrive in life. People who aren't upper/middle class aren't less intelligent, they're just dangerously misinformed about, well, pretty much everything in their lives...



Why are so many working class people on this thread in favour of private schools? It doesn't make any sense. I think you've all been brainwashed...

Whilst that answers the OP's question it doesn't really get to the heart of the issue. That is because the private pupil/parent goes further and says:

The comments section of the Telegraph Education is incredible for this.

Incidentally if you have kids in independent, or just from knowing people who do through work and so on, does that seem a common attitude amongst parents of indepently educated kids or just a certain element?

Allowing a specific minority of people to succeed in life just because they have well-off parents is a vulgar glorification of an unearned privilege, which is responsible for a lot of understandable jealousy and resentment towards the rich, so of course they should be abolished. If the rich are so clever then why can't they thrive at an ordinary school? Some people manage...

Also, using the 'randomness of birth' argument as an analogy to acknowledge the unfairness of private schools yet defend their existence is utter right-wing propaganda. Yes, the 'randomness of birth' is unfair too but that doesn't mean we don't strive to make the world a better and more fair place for people who aren't lucky. As we've progressed through history, many things have become more and more fair for more and more people. Private schools are one of the last remaining pillars of unfairness that need to be eradicated before the world becomes a truly fair and meritocratic place.

Private schools are only helpful for rich crybabies. Apart from that, they're just there to point a middle finger at the rest of society. Get rid of them, it's so bitingly obvious...

What are your opinions on private, individual (one-on-one) tuition?

So the tutored child does no work then?

Education has become a human right and so, just like with healthcare, people should be afforded the privacy and freedom to ensure they receive this to whatever standard they consider necessary. If someone wants to spend tens of thousands on something they could get for free then that shouldn't be resented: what would be the point in abolishing private schools and then putting added burden on the already stretched state system which even more people would have to endure the mediocrity of.

Read this article I wrote on this (something I care a lot about): http://constructivecriticisms.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/dont-respect-their-privacy/

That's just cheating isn't it? I don't see how that's any different to inserting cheat codes on a game thus making it easier for you. Anything that involves money to enhance a person's education is cheating in my opinion. People should have their lives set to the same difficulty from the start...

On the other hand, I don't necessarily think it would be a bad thing if we could all have individual tuition as I'd personally love to be taught without peers (I'm a bit of a misanthrope), but unfortunately we don't live in a terribly ideal world at the moment. But if you know in your heart that you're not particularly good at something then maybe that's a sign you should give up?

Of course the tutored child works. But the tutored child no longer has to work out the things he doesn't 'get' in his exercise book with as much strenuousness compared to someone of similarly low intelligence who isn't tutored...