Private schools reduce socially mobility and do a good job of keeping the poor, poor

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 7 years ago
#21
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Business leaders have been banging on about improving education for a long time. If you get a chance read Lord Digby Jones' book 'fixing broken Britain.' He covers a whole chapter on how labours mantra of 'education, education, education' promoting social mobility has actually created a less effective workforce capable if competing on the international scene.

The PM raised the issue of poorer kids not being inspired and got shot down for his comments. Its almost like the default setting in the UK now is criticise success and find excuses for failure. That's what I think is the biggest reason for a perceived lack of social mobility.
The reasons for not doing well in school tend to be cultural. It has nothing to do with lack of money. Children should learn all they need is some will power and determination to sit down for a few hours and get the work done. Attitudes are very short term; it's all it's "uncool" to study or they'd prefer to be outside, but the way I looked at it was if I could get my work done, the quicker I start the quicker I finish and can do things I'd prefer to do. People need to look at consequences more.

But I definitely think there needs to be investment into helping with careers advice, alternatives to university, seeing which learning style suits different people etc. It's all very "one size fits all" in terms of goals (university).
0
Theflyingbarney
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#22
Report 7 years ago
#22
I'd be intrigued to see statistics about the UK being poor for social mobility - I don't think it's too bad, personally. Certainly better than places like the USA.

And I definitely disagree that banning private education is the way to go. The reason private education is better than state education at the moment is because private companies aren't constrained by the tight budgets and unrealistic targets of the state system, and so can attract better teachers and provide better opportunities. Getting rid of private schooling would therefore only make people equal by bringing the top end down, which doesn't benefit anyone. Sure, I'd like to see more opportunities for less well-off kids to make the most of their potential, but that won't happen just by cramming more kids into what isn't a great state education system to begin with. Only when state education is of sufficient quality across the board could banning private education become remotely beneficial - with the system in the state it is at the moment, all it would do is mean that rather than having a self-perpetuating 'elite', we don't have any top-end talent coming out of our country.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#23
Report 7 years ago
#23
(Original post by Ripper-Roo)
The reasons for not doing well in school tend to be cultural. It has nothing to do with lack of money. Children should learn all they need is some will power and determination to sit down for a few hours and get the work done. Attitudes are very short term; it's all it's "uncool" to study or they'd prefer to be outside, but the way I looked at it was if I could get my work done, the quicker I start the quicker I finish and can do things I'd prefer to do. People need to look at consequences more.

But I definitely think there needs to be investment into helping with careers advice, alternatives to university, seeing which learning style suits different people etc. It's all very "one size fits all" in terms of goals (university).
I couldn't agree more with you. We seem to like a one size fits all. Success should be measured individually. For me, success is measured in how much more I achieve than my parents. Others measure their own success in different ways. But this concept of university is the only way to enhance social
Mobility is pants.

Give me a welder over a media studies graduate by day.
0
Dalek1099
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#24
Report 7 years ago
#24
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I'm unsure of what you're trying to get at. We live in a society whereby I'd you have the right attitude and capabilities you can go far.

There's room for improvement, but I don't see how destroying an education system that works would solve anything.
I actually agree with this because children from state schools can still secure good results(I got 11A*s and 5As,7A*s and 3As without BTECs) and these results aren't that out of proportion with private school students and I come from the underclass where parents are long term unemployed and this means that children from state schools can go onto college and do well there and then onto University-the Government are trying to get Oxbridge to accept more poor students so things aren't that bad and then they can go on to get good jobs so the system isn't that bad.The big problem is the reduced opportunity for people going to state schools because whilst its still possible to be successful the opportunities are a lot less for children at state schools compared to those at private schools due to what you've just described but a small amount could be explained by genes and the general poor background, which would remain constant and could intensify if a rich persons son went to a state school because they might mock how poor they are.
0
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 7 years ago
#25
(Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
I don't think his post says that at all. I really can't find anything of that in it, I think you've projected that on to it.

I love my parents, and I'm grateful to all the opportunities they've given me. I'll pass on the same opportunities to my children and ideally send them all to private schools. But I know that isn't fair. There shouldn't be an advantage purely based on the actions of parents, and whilst banning private education wouldn't completely end this, it would go a long way towards it.

With your polish a turd point, I'd say that a thick kid from a private school is abundantly more likely to get a job than an intelligent kid from a worse school. The mannerism they're encouraged to adopt, compared to those less affluent children are inculcated with, are far more important than raw skills.
My point was that some parents will always have greater advantages for their children than other parents. You can't remove that and create a level playing field. Also where do you draw the line at outlawing private schools, do you view nicer neighbourhoods more negatively, should parents take their children on holidays, buy books, cover the cost for their university education, even create a job for them in their business? It opens a can of worms.

Education is a right, so there must be adequate access and quality for all, but it seems illiberal to ban private schools as it is a choice for parents to make and there is only so much thinking for the greater good that they can do.
0
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 7 years ago
#26
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I couldn't agree more with you. We seem to like a one size fits all. Success should be measured individually. For me, success is measured in how much more I achieve than my parents. Others measure their own success in different ways. But this concept of university is the only way to enhance social
Mobility is pants.

Give me a welder over a media studies graduate by day.
Exactly, people seem to insist on having their own achievements validated by others. It's relative to the individual.

Quite a few degrees seem pointless because you're essentially learning things you could find out on the internet in five minutes. You learn skills but for some people (especially me), feel more motivated if there's a goal or actual job in sight, rather than feeling you look for a magical job when you're close to graduation.

It's depressing really and quite a major flaw in the UK's education system.

It'd be nice to be able to just work your way up :daydreaming:
0
Fizzel
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#27
Report 7 years ago
#27
(Original post by 4RealBlud)
I think you're forgetting how much these institutes milk the country of the best teachers. They pick out the best teachers and give them on a plate to the rich. It may come as a surprise to you, but our education system is among the best in the world, ranked 6th.
The best teachers go to where they can be paid the market rate, that will still happen but on an international level and in the job market in general. Teachers will leave for higher paying teaching jobs abroad and into other areas of work, much like they do in the university system. At best you are going to get teachers, quite frankly wasting their talent trying to pan for gold in pig ****, in a poorly functioning inner city comp.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20498356
We have a good education system, it's just that it all goes to the few.
We have a decent education system when you consider nations as a whole. But does our education system equip the kids in general with a skills set so they can go toe to toe with the cream of the crop from less education systems?
0
Le Nombre
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#28
Report 7 years ago
#28
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
That's a possibility, but I doubt that the old boy network is anywhere near what it used to be. Human capital needs a return on investment just like any other business exchange. I don't want to come across as belittling your post, but by playing devils advocate I could say that its just sour grapes on your behalf.
I know them because I work with them It does, but the system is so weighted in favour of certain inudstries (IB, accountant, law etc.) making profit that it becomes very tempting for people to favour their own. It's well known in our firm for instance that Paulines find the path to a job very smooth.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#29
Report 7 years ago
#29
Here's another viewpoint that goes against blaming state schools. I was recently chatting with some
Indian guys on my course and they weren't impressed with our welfare state, they were shocked with it as they couldn't see how it promoted success as in their words it rewarded failure.


I'm a great believer in any issue being down to one factor. Maybe out welfare system makes it so comfortable so as to reduce the desire for social mobility.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...ocial-mobility

Of the twelve nations in the guardians article, 11 have more social mobility than we do. Of those 11, 9 have, or have recently had conscription. Maybe that's a factor? Chuck people
In a big meting pot that gives them confidence in their own abilities me promotes in merit.

The point I'm trying to make us that you can't just highlight one potential factor and say 'that's it'
0
Hal.E.Lujah
  • Study Helper
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#30
Report 7 years ago
#30
(Original post by Ripper-Roo)
My point was that some parents will always have greater advantages for their children than other parents. You can't remove that and create a level playing field. Also where do you draw the line at outlawing private schools, do you view nicer neighbourhoods more negatively, should parents take their children on holidays, buy books, cover the cost for their university education, even create a job for them in their business? It opens a can of worms.

Education is a right, so there must be adequate access and quality for all, but it seems illiberal to ban private schools as it is a choice for parents to make and there is only so much thinking for the greater good that they can do.

I don't see why you feel it's adequate to fall back on the idea that the level 'playing field' is impossible and that therefore we should do nothing. I acknowledged that in my original post, so I'm not going to waste energy typing anything again if you're just going to read selectively anyway

You're just disagreeing with me out of principal rather than attempting a discussion. Do you actually have any legitimate reasoning that private schools shouldn't be banned? There are plenty of strong arguments for it, I don't see why you're just repeating something that is clearly a fallacy.

(Original post by Theflyingbarney)
I'd be intrigued to see statistics about the UK being poor for social mobility - I don't think it's too bad, personally. Certainly better than places like the USA.

And I definitely disagree that banning private education is the way to go. The reason private education is better than state education at the moment is because private companies aren't constrained by the tight budgets and unrealistic targets of the state system, and so can attract better teachers and provide better opportunities. Getting rid of private schooling would therefore only make people equal by bringing the top end down, which doesn't benefit anyone. Sure, I'd like to see more opportunities for less well-off kids to make the most of their potential, but that won't happen just by cramming more kids into what isn't a great state education system to begin with. Only when state education is of sufficient quality across the board could banning private education become remotely beneficial - with the system in the state it is at the moment, all it would do is mean that rather than having a self-perpetuating 'elite', we don't have any top-end talent coming out of our country.

The bold part is what I take issue with. Private school systems make it fundamentally impossible for the state school system to ever improve to the levels of opportunity they offer.


In terms of budgeting, I actually agree with you though. The reason for private school success comes from the nature of the society they are placed in rather than vice versa. Bringing the level of our countries education down for the sake of equality, in a world in transition, is a move that isn't secure and would case more harm than good. Our country would have to be alot more stable to potentially risk crippling our affective labour economy, even if it's morally just to do so.


Spoiler:
Show

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Here's another viewpoint that goes against blaming state schools. I was recently chatting with some
Indian guys on my course and they weren't impressed with our welfare state, they were shocked with it as they couldn't see how it promoted success as in their words it rewarded failure.


I'm a great believer in any issue being down to one factor. Maybe out welfare system makes it so comfortable so as to reduce the desire for social mobility.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...ocial-mobility

Of the twelve nations in the guardians article, 11 have more social mobility than we do. Of those 11, 9 have, or have recently had conscription. Maybe that's a factor? Chuck people
In a big meting pot that gives them confidence in their own abilities me promotes in merit.

The point I'm trying to make us that you can't just highlight one potential factor and say 'that's it'

I'm just going to say here, try not to derail the thread. I get the point you were trying to make and it currently adds to the discussion, barely, but it's thin ice and I know you'll find it hard not to respond if someone quotes you to discuss any of the areas you've highlighted above.

0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#31
Report 7 years ago
#31
(Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
I don't see why you feel it's adequate to fall back on the idea that the level 'playing field' is impossible and that therefore we should do nothing. I acknowledged that in my original post, so I'm not going to waste energy typing anything again if you're just going to read selectively anyway

You're just disagreeing with me out of principal rather than attempting a discussion. Do you actually have any legitimate reasoning that private schools shouldn't be banned? There are plenty of strong arguments for it, I don't see why you're just repeating something that is clearly a fallacy.
I think the pint he's making is that by lowering standards in some areas to level the playing field just screws over some people with no net benefit. If they did it parents would just end up paying for private tutors etc to get their kids ahead. I couldn't afford private tutors but my mum went to night school and did GCSE maths to make sure she could help me.

Parents who want to see their kids succeed will do whatever needs doing.
0
Hal.E.Lujah
  • Study Helper
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#32
Report 7 years ago
#32
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Parents who want to see their kids succeed will do whatever needs doing.

Nothing you have said changes anything I have said. It's still a fallacy to say 'This won't fix everything at once so why bother'. There are so much better arguments out there guys, other users have already employed them... come on.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#33
Report 7 years ago
#33
(Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
Nothing you have said changes anything I have said.
I've read it again and my comments still stand. Parents will in most cases always try and give their kids an advantage over the competition. Even with a level playing field.
0
John Stuart Mill
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#34
Report 7 years ago
#34
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
In my life time I've had a prime monster who left school with three o levels and another who was a grocers daughter. I see successful business people lake alan sugar and Richard Branson who have made it to the top who have t come for particularly affluent backgrounds.

I don't know how much of the criticism about lack if social mobility is actually being made by people who know that they have nothing special to offer and won't be bothered putting any effort in using it as an excuse to come up with reasons why they'll not be successful.

I went to the local school, come from a single parent working class family and am not exactly gifted academically, but I've worked hard and improved my lot in life.
Nice examples but too bad these are few (and already from reasonably well off backgrounds)
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#35
Report 7 years ago
#35
(Original post by John Stuart Mill)
Nice examples but too bad these are few (and already from reasonably well off backgrounds)
But examples if people who can make it big.

We can finger point and come up with excuses all we want.

I've recently been watching a documentary series about eton. Those kids are driven. Not by what money they have spent on them, but its obviously been instilled in them from
An early age by their parents.
0
Le Nombre
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#36
Report 7 years ago
#36
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I think the pint he's making is that by lowering standards in some areas to level the playing field just screws over some people with no net benefit. If they did it parents would just end up paying for private tutors etc to get their kids ahead. I couldn't afford private tutors but my mum went to night school and did GCSE maths to make sure she could help me.

Parents who want to see their kids succeed will do whatever needs doing.
Depends, I know my parents would never have sent me or my sister to private, they're too ideologically set against the idea. I've no idea if we'd have done better at private, but I know even if it were objectively obvious we would have done it wouldn't be an option that was on the table.
0
felamaslen
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#37
Report 7 years ago
#37
The real problem is a lack of interest in education by parents. I was lucky enough to be brought up in a family which valued education highly, and so while I am by no means a genius, I am certainly far better placed to be accepted onto a good university course and therefore a good career than many other people my age (no thanks to me, this is simply an accident of birth). And I go to a state school.

No, getting rid of private schools would not do anything good. What it would do is expose the deep flaws in our culture and state education system, and exacerbate them. Besides, it would be a draconian policy which the Bolsheviks would be proud of.
0
4RealBlud
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#38
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#38
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
But examples if people who can make it big.

We can finger point and come up with excuses all we want.

I've recently been watching a documentary series about eton. Those kids are driven. Not by what money they have spent on them, but its obviously been instilled in them from
An early age by their parents.
But these singular examples mean nothing. Of course there have been people who have succeeded, there are people who have succeeded from even the most disadvantaged of situations. The fact there's only few of them shows that these are the creme de la creme of their class, not people of poorer backgrounds aren't doing as well, because they're making excuses. And if they were born in a higher class, they would be the very best of that class as well.

This philosophy is much like the Victorian philosophy that the poor are poor because they are lazy, rather than they haven't been given a comparable start in life.
0
vnupe
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#39
Report 7 years ago
#39
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Here's another viewpoint that goes against blaming state schools. I was recently chatting with some
Indian guys on my course and they weren't impressed with our welfare state, they were shocked with it as they couldn't see how it promoted success as in their words it rewarded failure.


I'm a great believer in any issue being down to one factor. Maybe out welfare system makes it so comfortable so as to reduce the desire for social mobility.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...ocial-mobility

Of the twelve nations in the guardians article, 11 have more social mobility than we do. Of those 11, 9 have, or have recently had conscription. Maybe that's a factor? Chuck people
In a big meting pot that gives them confidence in their own abilities me promotes in merit.

The point I'm trying to make us that you can't just highlight one potential factor and say 'that's it'
I notice you haven't addressed the statement made by Le Hombre... The human animal tends to congregate and surround themselves with like individuals... When there is an abundance of choice, with many aggregating at the high end, and no discernible differences between candidates, it is not uncommon for decision makers to decide on the devil that they know (or are familiar with), than the devil that they are unfamiliar with... Case in point the cabal also known as the Prime minister's cabinet. All if not most not only come from Oxbridge, but also from the same exclusive public schools... Coincidence? I think not...

There is a danger in that type of situation... If all come from the same background etc, it could be argued that they start to exhibit group think and new ideas/ways of thinking are subljugated.... Additionally how can this insular group truly understand or empathize with the common man and their struggles/issues...
0
silverbolt
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#40
Report 7 years ago
#40
(Original post by DaveSmith99)
The combination of private schools and the declining quality of state education reduces social mobility. Rather than banning private schools I'd rather see us throw as much money as possible at the state education system, we literally can't spend enough money on education.
this. It seems to be a UK mindset that instead of making the bad better you make the good bad
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (189)
5.04%
Uncertainty around my education (551)
14.69%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (420)
11.19%
Lack of purpose or motivation (516)
13.75%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (187)
4.98%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (223)
5.94%
Loneliness (315)
8.4%
Financial worries (138)
3.68%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (145)
3.86%
Exposure to negative news/social media (168)
4.48%
Lack of real life entertainment (213)
5.68%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (335)
8.93%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (352)
9.38%

Watched Threads

View All