why do people hate private schools?

Entertainment Forum Helper

Original post by Kallisto

In other words: private schools are overrestimated and go for nothing and are just a waste of money in your opinion?

Yes, spending £30,000 or more a year on your kids education and they don't get into Oxbridge? What's the point?

Original post by AnnieGakusei

That's not the only reason parents send their kids to private school. Sometimes they want their children to develop a strong work ethic (depending on the school of course, this can be made much more difficult in state schools) and make connections which might help them in the job market.

Also, I've noticed that private school kids are often much better behaved than state school kids, because if they don't learn discipline early on the school is able to kick them out.

Oh wow, big whoop, nothing you've said couldn't be taught to kids by their parents or obtained via appropiate voluntary work. If parents just spent some quality time with their kids a strong work ethic and discipline could be built without shelling out stupid amounts of money every year. Unless the kid ends up in Oxbridge it's a total waste

Reply 543

AnnieGakusei

17

Actually, parents probably have less influence over the way a child develops then their peers do. If you have good discipline and strong work ethic at many state schools, you'll probably end up being bullied for it / getting incredibly frustrated by people who show no respect and waste important lesson time.

I went to a state school and remember my teacher telling me I had a really strong work ethic... he sounded surprised, like it wasn't something he was used to seeing.

Reply 544

Kallisto

22

The priviledge to go to a private schools which means to be a part of the elite for most people, even if this is not true?

Reply 545

Original post by AnnieGakusei

Actually, parents probably have less influence over the way a child develops then their peers do. If you have good discipline and strong work ethic at many state schools, you'll probably end up being bullied for it / getting incredibly frustrated by people who show no respect and waste important lesson time.

I went to a state school and remember my teacher telling me I had a really strong work ethic... he sounded surprised, like it wasn't something he was used to seeing.

Hmmm, that may be true in part but people in state schools still manage to achieve all A*'s and all A grades at a-level and still get into Oxford for medicine (I know people who went to comprehensives and did this)

How can parents have less influence? Your parents bring you up right from day one and you adopt the values you see your parents display most. It's not until you get to seconddary school the whole peer pressure thing could come into play but peer pressure is irrelevant because only the weak minded succumb anyway

Reply 546

Trill

14

I would hazard a guess say that it's because they can't afford it

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 547

Original post by Kallisto

The priviledge to go to a private schools which means to be a part of the elite for most people, even if this is not true?

Yes, it may afford you bragging rights but if you get 3 C's on your a-levels and go to UCLan to study journalism how is that impressive? If anything it shows how dumb you are because you've had privately educated GCSE's and a-levels.

Reply 548

Achieving something despite barriers isn't the same as achieving something with support and assistance.

If you've got the choice between one or the other, which would you pick?

Incidentally I'd argue that the teaching is typically better in private schools because there is less admin nonsense to waste their time and they can focus more energy on teaching.

I suspect that another factor for private school children doing better is that the parents are clearly invested in their children's education. This has a significant effect.

Reply 549

drogon

2

Put it this way. It's more commendable if a state school kid got an A* compared to a private school kid who got the same grade.

Reply 550

Original post by Elivercury

Achieving something despite barriers isn't the same as achieving something with support and assistance.

If you've got the choice between one or the other, which would you pick?

Incidentally I'd argue that the teaching is typically better in private schools because there is less admin nonsense to waste their time and they can focus more energy on teaching.

I suspect that another factor for private school children doing better is that the parents are clearly invested in their children's education. This has a significant effect.

Basically what drogon quoted below me said.

Original post by drogon

Put it this way. It's more commendable if a state school kid got an A* compared to a private school kid who got the same grade.

Reply 551

Yup, but why make life hard for yourself?

Reply 552

Original post by Elivercury

Yup, but why make life hard for yourself?

Which one is more impressive?

I got 9 A*'s in spite of bullying, idiot peers and bad teachers because I actually did some work off my own back in my free time and it shows that I'm an independent and self motivated student.

or

I got 9A*'s because my parents could afford to pay £30,000 a year for what is essentially overpriced tuition lessons.

Reply 553

The former. However, from a qualification basis they're identical.

I know which route I would choose if I had the choice

Reply 554

Original post by Elivercury

The former. However, from a qualification basis they're identical.

I know which route I would choose if I had the choice

Not really. Lets say these two hypothetical applicants apply for a competitive course, say, Medicine at Oxford. Both meet the average number of A*'s at GCSE and lets assume they got identical A-Level results aswell. Who is going to stand out more to Oxford? The one who went to the bad comprehensive because Oxford looks at your secondary school and takes into account the average GCSE attainment there. Therefore the one who went to the bad school stands out more

Reply 555

Not really. You'll likely find that the student with the better teaching has had more time to invest in extra-curricular subjects and will have been actively encouraged to be involved in them because of how favourably the universities view them.

However I suspect this isn't what you are looking for, you want me to judge whether achievement through a state school is more valuable than achievement through a private school assuming they end up with exactly the same circumstances. Ultimately the answer is no.

Assuming they make it to the interview with the exact same qualifications they will judge it on how they perform in the interview. It's entirely possible the state school kid will make a better showing due to their hard work and enthusiasm. It's entirely possible they will not.

Qualifications are just that - qualifications. How you got them is pretty much moot I'm afraid. With this in mind, I would definitely opt for the better/easier path if given the choice. As would you I suspect, unless you're a masochist.

Reply 556

Original post by Elivercury

Not really. You'll likely find that the student with the better teaching has had more time to invest in extra-curricular subjects and will have been actively encouraged to be involved in them because of how favourably the universities view them.

However I suspect this isn't what you are looking for, you want me to judge whether achievement through a state school is more valuable than achievement through a private school assuming they end up with exactly the same circumstances. Ultimately the answer is no.

Assuming they make it to the interview with the exact same qualifications they will judge it on how they perform in the interview. It's entirely possible the state school kid will make a better showing due to their hard work and enthusiasm. It's entirely possible they will not.

Qualifications are just that - qualifications. How you got them is pretty much moot I'm afraid. With this in mind, I would definitely opt for the better/easier path if given the choice. As would you I suspect, unless you're a masochist.

Extra-curriculars don't mean anything when applying for medicine unless you're talking about work experience and caring voluntary work. British universities don't care about extra-curriculars, we aren't American, you know :tongue:

All Oxford is concerned about is your academic achievement, so you are wrong on that count. If you don't believe me it even says it on their website.

Private school kids coast along in the classroom due to their superior teaching but don't do much work themselves because everything gets handed on a plate to them. With state school kids this is isn't what happens at all. So the state school kid demonstrates more gumption and drive than the private school kid who got everything handed to them on a plate. I guess your internal qualities such as enthusiasm and ambition come into this aswell, but the state school kid is more likely to be ambitious and driven than the private school kid with the same grades

Anyway, this is kind of a moot argument because it's already happening, I think Oxford takes about half of its intake from comprehensive kids anyway. Yes, if given the choice, the private school option is superior and possibly easier, but most of us don't have £30,000 a year to toss at our schooling so the vast majority of people have to make do with what they can

Reply 557

math42

20

Because the only possible purpose of a superior education is to get into Oxbridge? :s-smilie:

(I went to a pretty poor comprehensive school, but I can sympathise with parents who want their children to have a good education, and I think it is rather presumptive to think that their only motivation is to get the kid into Oxbridge. There is more to life than this and I am sure there are rich people who realise it too..)

Reply 558