Turn on thread page Beta

Would you send your children to a private school? watch

  • View Poll Results: Would you send your children to a private school?
    Yes
    101
    67.79%
    No
    33
    22.15%
    Don't know yet
    15
    10.07%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I voted yes bit only if there were no good schools locally.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frost105)
    I voted yes bit only if there were no good schools locally.
    surely it doesnt depend on *if* there are any good schools locally, it depends on how over-subscribed they are and wether your child gets in. even if your child passes the tests they may not get a place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lusus Naturae)
    All private schools do provide privilege based on wealth, not merit.
    What's wrong with this? Because it's not fair? Boo hoo, life isn't fair.

    A simplification of the situation. There are numerous reasons why there might be such a degree of Old Etonianism among the front bench of the Tories - perhaps there is a level of ideological congruence between Etonians and the Tory party? Perhaps people with political careers in mind tend to gravitate to places with a history of producing such persons, perhaps, shock horror, the education at places like Eton really does equip one well, and thereby increases your shot at success in whatever field.
    You are naïve to think this. Old Boys from private education tend to be fiercely proud of their school, and the employer might think favourably of an applicant who went to the same school as he/she did. However, it's equally absurd to think that he was given the job based on the fact they went to same school.

    P.S. The people on this board are voting very favourably for private schools, nearly 70%. Which leads me to the conclusion that, with the evidence from the discussion as well, the vast majority of people here believe that private education is leaps and bounds ahead of the state option, in terms of actual qualifications and preparation for life.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Lawz)
    Networking is neither the invention nor the preserve of public school children. The level to which public school functions as a networking opportunity is debateable, and moreover, varies MASSIVELY from school to school.
    I never claimed that is was the preserve of public school children; however, that networking does take place, and that those of greater merit are left aside for those with the same Alma Mater, is undeniable.

    A simplification of the situation. There are numerous reasons why there might be such a degree of Old Etonianism among the front bench of the Tories - perhaps there is a level of ideological congruence between Etonians and the Tory party? Perhaps people with political careers in mind tend to gravitate to places with a history of producing such persons, perhaps, shock horror, the education at places like Eton really does equip one well, and thereby increases your shot at success in whatever field.
    I highly doubt that many politicians had decided that they had wanted to be a politician by thirteen and chose to attend a school which had a history of producing such people, especially considering that the choice of school is most often that of the parent, not that of the child. I agree that it equips them well and increases their chance at success in the field, but considering that there are 50 million people in England, and that only, very roughly, 10,000 of them have attended Eton, whether the vast difference in this ratio on the Tory front bench is entirely down to the better conditioning, or whether it is because of the presence of a catalyst, namely public school networking and favouritism, is highly debatable.

    Are the people on either front bench the BEST in the UK for the Job? Doubtful. Do some of them owe SOMETHING to their networking, whether at school, university or elsewhere? Certainly... so what?
    So public schools provide this networking; over-riding the meritocratic principles we should hold.

    As do children who have parents who remain married, as do children who are fed well, as do children whose parents take them to museums, so do children who enjoy good health, so do children who attend a state school in a preferable catchment area...
    This is simply logically fallacious Lawz; to want to improve a single case of unfairness does not imply that all cases must be improved at the same time. A single step can make an improvement, and society can work towards tackling the other ones in due course. The argument that if we are trying to change one element of our society then we must reform all cases of injustice is wearing thin.


    a) That there are no benefits to having well educated people, even if they are a select group, that help balance the "unfairness"
    My argument was against the unfairness of networking and the other advantages that public schools bring that have nothing to do with the ability of a person to do a job well. I am an ardent supporter of having a well-educated populace.


    Are you implying it is mainly due to nepotism. I would strongly disagree.
    Nepotism and public school privilege are intrinsically linked; I would not go as far to say that it is mainly due to either of them, but together, they do have a sizeable effect.

    [quote] Have you ever attended such a school? What is your basis to comment on the quality of the education vis a vis the supposed "power" and "privilege"?
    The politics example provided above is only a small sample of what extends across law, banking, medicine, and other sectors.

    Hardly. You only need to look at the present government, and much of the House of Commons to realise that most of them are no where near being "aristocracy" of the C18. The notion is grossly overstated all too often.
    Some vestiges of the principles of the aristocracy still remain; that those with money - insert: those who attended a public school in our society today - should rule.


    privilege replaces merit;

    Again, to an extent - but once more you overstate it.
    To an unacceptable extent.


    And could the same be said of many things. As I have asked, is it wrong of us to feed our children better than others? Would it be wrong to purchase after-school tuition? Music lessons? Buy them books?

    There are numerous people who can't afford such things. By doing so are we "perpetuating" the "antiquated" notion of wealth over innate merit?
    Please do not attempt to push me down a slippery slope.

    What makes allowing people to succeed based on the genetics they were born with fairer than allowing them to succeed based on the wealth they were born with? Are both not accidents of birth?
    A poor analogy; genetics are inherently biological; privilege based on networking is social.

    And yet it actually often functions as the ENGINE of a prosperous populace.
    The attainment of positions of power through networking and charm, not merit, means it is a shoddy engine indeed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lusus Naturae)
    I am an ardent supporter of having a well-educated populace.
    then why do you not want parents having the choice to give their children a better education? it takes pressure off the state system and therefore raises the standard of education for everyone.

    (Original post by Lusus Naturae)
    Please do not attempt to push me down a slippery slope.
    why? its a perfectly reasonable argument. where exactly do you draw the line
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by high priestess fnord)
    you didnt answer my question. if your child needed help that his/her school couldnt provide would you allow them to go through life with a disability that would cripple them for the rest of their life or would you abandon your ideals?
    The reason that I shall not answer this is because I am debating a principle. My own personal opinions are completely irrelevant; if you knew me then you would realize that what I am arguing does not necessarily correlate to how I feel. Please attack ideas in a debate; do not attack people.

    no i dont agree. im not going to go into the whole schollarship thing which i could but many not-so-rich parents work all hours under the sun, scrimping and saving to get their kids a better education. once you get to the private shcool you are then expected to work very hard. its the opportunity that the parents pay for but the kids have to work their arses off to make use of it.
    Ignoring the tiny minority of scholarships, the vast majority of students are at the school because their parents are able, and have decided, to pay for the education. How hard their respective parents work is irrelevant. They are there because their parents are paying while other parents are not, regardless of the child's individual merit, that is the stark reality of the situation.

    i personally have been in two state schools with very very poor support for dyslexia and you only have to use the search button to find hundreds of other people here on tsr who have had similar problems. there are never going to be stats on this because the government is not going to advertise their failings. if special needs support was good you would be able to prove me wrong by finding the stats.
    And I personally have been in two state schools with very good support for dyslexia. In addition, I have seen how my local Council provides adequate support for those with special educational needs. I am not claiming that it is by any means perfect, but saying that hundreds of other people have had similar problems means that there are thousands that are not.

    why? its a perfectly reasonable argument. where exactly do you draw the line
    I am not arguing that it should take precedence over other reforms; I am not arguing that it should be done when others should not; I am simply arguing it is unmeritocratic. So, if we want a meritocratic society, we should abolish them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lusus Naturae)
    I never claimed that is was the preserve of public school children; however, that networking does take place, and that those of greater merit are left aside for those with the same Alma Mater, is undeniable.
    Is there some networking? I suppose. But at age 17 and having never attended such a school, it isn’t surprising that you have no real concept of how much of it goes on or how it works. In short you grossly overstate it, and the majority of networking comes from much later in life.

    Regardless... its a fairly obvious point...

    I highly doubt that many politicians had decided that they had wanted to be a politician by thirteen and chose to attend a school which had a history of producing such people, especially considering that the choice of school is most often that of the parent, not that of the child.
    You would be surprised. You would also be surprised how many of them have parents who wanted to keep such a career open to them.

    I agree that it equips them well and increases their chance at success in the field, but considering that there are 50 million people in England, and that only, very roughly, 10,000 of them have attended Eton, whether the vast difference in this ratio on the Tory front bench is entirely down to the better conditioning, or whether it is because of the presence of a catalyst, namely public school networking and favouritism, is highly debatable.
    Why you choose to concentrate on the Tory front bench is also beyond me. If you look at the Commons as a whole, the last four Prime Ministers and indeed the next one, not one of them went to Eton (PMs that is) and as far as I can recall, a majority didn't attend public school.

    Again, yes there is networking - but you discount too many other factors, such as people seeing Eton/Oxbridge as a pedigree they want to bring to their company/organisation/political party. That doesn't necessitate networking.

    However, you can apply the same idea to Labour - many of them have similar backgrounds and have known each other for years. There is certainly an element of networking there too...

    The fact is, networking (ie hiring and mixing with people you know or have a connection or commonality with) is extant in EVERY walk of life.

    So public schools provide this networking; over-riding the meritocratic principles we should hold.
    Again you grossly overestimate it. You simply havent got the experience or the basis for your claims, and your naive approach to the issue is leading you into the utopian fallacy over and over again.


    This is simply logically fallacious Lawz; to want to improve a single case of unfairness does not imply that all cases must be improved at the same time.
    That wasn't the implication. The implication was that if you use your reasoning to "abhor" one type of inequality, you should also "abhor" another.

    I couldnt agree more that finding a solution with preferable results is a different matter. Indeed, it's a point you should remind yourself of in regard to the perceived injustice of public schools. Would it be great if everyone had an amazing and equal education? Of course. However, that isnt really possible without:

    a) levelling down
    b) A massive and counter-productive increase in taxes.

    Pointing out a problem is not the same as necessitating a solution, especially the solution you seem to favour - ie option a).

    A single step can make an improvement, and society can work towards tackling the other ones in due course.
    So let me ask again - DO you abhor feeding children properly when others are not so fed? DO you abhor someone picking a house on the basis that the state school in the area is a good one?

    The argument that if we are trying to change one element of our society then we must reform all cases of injustice is wearing thin.
    Except my young friend, that wasn't the point at all. Strawmen only waste time - let's leave them to the side shall we?

    My argument was against the unfairness of networking and the other advantages that public schools bring that have nothing to do with the ability of a person to do a job well. I am an ardent supporter of having a well-educated populace.
    And you would further that aim by banning the best educational institutions in the country? Rather odd.

    Once again - you are levelling down. You want equality for the sake of it, not for any particular benefit it may bring. It's a common mistake made by people, but a rather basic one.

    Nepotism and public school privilege are intrinsically linked; I would not go as far to say that it is mainly due to either of them, but together, they do have a sizeable effect.
    May I ask this...

    How on EARTH do you know?

    Let's put it this way, I attended one of the public schools I listed, I work in the city, I work as a lawyer. The mix at my firm (one of the top in the world) is huge. There are NO other lawyers from my school there, there are none from the others as far as I know either.

    When it comes to jobs in the city, in law, in finance, your grades are all that matters. You have a TRULY warped view if you honestly believe that in an interview where you did your A levels matters one iota. Seriously, you simply dont have a basis for you claims.

    The politics example provided above is only a small sample of what extends across law, banking, medicine, and other sectors.
    It simply doesnt.

    Again - as a 17 year old still sitting his A levels, with no experience of any of those sectors, you just dont have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.

    I will admit that there are vestiges of nepotism at the bar - but those are almost all university and family related - not public school related.

    Some vestiges of the principles of the aristocracy still remain; that those with money - insert: those who attended a public school in our society today - should rule.
    Simply isnt the case.

    Thatcher wasnt wealthy, Major wasnt wealthy, Brown wasn't wealthy, Blair was very middle class...

    the notion that this country is ruled by wealthy fops simply isnt born out in fact no matter how much you say it is.


    To an unacceptable extent.
    Again - utopian fallacy.


    Please do not attempt to push me down a slippery slope.
    No need to push - you headed down it at great speed all on your own. Its a simple question. If equality is all important, then all such things should be objectionable. Trying to use "slippery slope" as a byword for "sneaky and yet poorly argued point" just doesnt hunt. If it was good enough for Sokrates, it certainly will do for you.

    A poor analogy; genetics are inherently biological; privilege based on networking is social.
    A distinction without any difference. So what if one is social and one is biological. Are both not accidents of birth? Is one accident a fairer basis for success than another?

    The attainment of positions of power through networking and charm, not merit, means it is a shoddy engine indeed.
    it's certainly a better engine than the levelled down utopia you propose - not equally good education - just equally bad - because equal is what counts right?
    Offline

    14
    It is surprising to see a lawyer resorting to a textbook ad hominem argument in places.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lusus Naturae)
    It is surprising to see a lawyer resorting to a textbook ad hominem argument in places.

    Point to one please.

    Using your personal traits as evidence of your inability to have had the requisite experience to make some of your comments is NOT ad hominem. Or are you refering to something else? Please explain your rather odd post/
    Offline

    14
    But at age 17 and having never attended such a school
    Except my young friend
    Again - as a 17 year old still sitting his A levels, with no experience of any of those sectors, you just dont have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.
    Constantly pointing to my age only gives the impression that you want to discredit my argument on grounds other then the argument itself, namely that I am too young to have any experience of such areas and thus others should ignore what I say; it is highlighting the fact that you are older than me so should be given more weight.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lusus Naturae)
    Constantly pointing to my age only gives the impression that you want to discredit my argument on grounds other then the argument itself, namely that I am too young to have any experience of such areas and thus others should ignore anything I say about them.
    That simply isn't what ad hominem implies.

    I think the fact that you are too young to have had any experience of the worlds which you discuss in a manner that implies authority on their mechanics and operations is highly relevant. You have offered no evidence for your contentions on that front, and so one can only assume you are asking me/us to rely on your knowledge of the matter... your age is thus of importance.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by high priestess fnord)
    surely it doesnt depend on *if* there are any good schools locally, it depends on how over-subscribed they are and wether your child gets in. even if your child passes the tests they may not get a place.
    I wouldnt want my child to go to a bad school so would do as much as i could to get them into a good school. I went to a shocking secondary school and managed to do an entrance exam at 13 to transfer to a grammer school-best thing ever did!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    an Ad Hominem attack is a attack on ones character, infering a fallacy in the validity of ones claim. Your age and therefore your experiences his highly relavent to his argument and he does draw a fair and safe inference, that does not constitute an Ad Hominem attack.

    Wangers
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    ^^ Totally agree.

    It's all very well pointing to disgusting nepotism, or public school favouritism, but it doesn't exist to the extent you make out. Those days are gone. I will admit that in the fairly recent past, public schools just told Oxbridge colleges who they should take, then they entered a pre established path. No longer. The world is too intellectually competitive now for any companyh to survive without maximising its talent. What matters is achievement on personal merit. A banker, or lawyer, who was ineffectual would be fired, despite going to Eton.

    Earlier you dismissed the genetics argument, but it is a surprisingly strong one. Why should it necessarily be the case that those people who happen to be born with favourable traits should do so well in life, in terms of their personal success and achievement? After all, what you are born with is just as much a matter of luck as who you were born to. It is very easy to fall into the trap of favouring systems that would naturally make you better off without fully explaining why that is justified. Note - clearly I am playing devil's advocate here. But you cannot immediately dismiss the argument offhand.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by high priestess fnord)
    surely it doesnt depend on *if* there are any good schools locally, it depends on how over-subscribed they are and wether your child gets in. even if your child passes the tests they may not get a place.
    A good school doesn't necessarily have to have admission tests, there are plenty of good state schools about.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mylla)
    totally depends on the personality of my children. I've been to both state and public schools and I feel that a bright, motivated child will succeed pretty much any where, so if my child was clever and determined, I would be happy to send them to a state school. However, if my child was average, lacked motivation or had dyslexia or something, I think I feel they would be better off in a public school, simply because they are more likely get more one-to-one support. I don't think that you can send a child to a type of school based solely on your principles. You have to do what's best for your child.

    :ditto:

    Apart from that i haven't been to private school. I've had a comprehensive school education all the way through and it wasn't great but i've still done well for myself. I would like to think that if my children worked hard they could do well anywhere, but i'm not willing to sacrifice their education for my principles. If the state school was good, they would go there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mousy)
    A good school doesn't necessarily have to have admission tests, there are plenty of good state schools about.
    "Good" is a subjective term. It depends on what the individual makes it reletive to.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mousy)
    A good school doesn't necessarily have to have admission tests, there are plenty of good state schools about.
    which yo have to pass the 11+ t get into, then if you dont manage that there is the 13+. even if you pass both these tests there may not be space for you in the school. they re-evaluate at 6th form using gcses as a test of the students ability. you make it sound as if good state schools are easy to get into. they arent and there are admission tests just like a private school. i was admitted to a grammer school because my gcse grades were good.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lusus Naturae)
    The reason that I shall not answer this is because I am debating a principle. My own personal opinions are completely irrelevant; if you knew me then you would realize that what I am arguing does not necessarily correlate to how I feel. Please attack ideas in a debate; do not attack people.
    if i was going to attack you a would have been a little more offensive :rolleyes:

    all i asked was a simple question and it is perfectly in keeping with the principle you are arguing. you should be a politician. you keep wriggling out of questions that dont support your argument.

    (Original post by Lusus Naturae)
    How hard their respective parents work is irrelevant. They are there because their parents are paying while other parents are not, regardless of the child's individual merit, that is the stark reality of the situation.
    so accourding to your principles parents should not be allowed to stay at home and read to their children, spend time with them and generally nurture them because some parents work. it would not be fair on the kids who see very little of their parents due to their long hours of work and would give the child an advantage regardless of the his/her individual merit.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by high priestess fnord)
    which yo have to pass the 11+ t get into, then if you dont manage that there is the 13+. even if you pass both these tests there may not be space for you in the school. they re-evaluate at 6th form using gcses as a test of the students ability. you make it sound as if good state schools are easy to get into. they arent and there are admission tests just like a private school. i was admitted to a grammer school because my gcse grades were good.
    Yeh, but you can have a good state school, that isnt a grammer school and doesnt require an entrance exam.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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

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