public school people at oxbridge!

According to what your saying, students who go to well performing state schools should also be discriminated against, and anyone who has any advantages whatsoever through hard work until everybodys at the same (low) threshold.

I am merely pointing out that we do not live in a world which is fair or equal. This is a situation which the vast majority of private schoolers approve of, and have no desire to change. They attend private school in order to enhance their own opportunities at the expense of others, in the full knowledge that resources for education are not unlimited and that they are allocated unequally. The majority of their parents resist higher taxation which could help to raise state schools to an equal or similar standard to those in the private sector. Indeed they do not wish to increase opportunity because they want to retain the maximum of scarce resources (including places at elite universities) for their own offspring.

Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. As soon as the less privileged, thanks to a labour government, start to demand that universities take into consideration the fact that some have had a huge advantage over others in terms of the opportunities they have been given , they start bleating about 'discrimination' and 'unfairness' - words that barely figured in their vocabulary before!

'Hard work' is completely irrelevant. Since when were university places ever offered on the basis of hard work? In fact some of the brightest ppl at oxbridge would never have got there if this were the case! Hmmm, now that is a revolutionary idea...

I think a vouncher system wherein you would be given a certain amount of vouchers, which would allow you to use them for the local comprehensive OR you use them in conjunction with your own money to send your kid to a fee-paying school is a plausible idea. This would mean that many that say they could not afford the fees before, will pay a much lesser amount for a fee-paying school. The vouchers would be quite a high amount, as it entitles a child to education in the state sector, which okay isn't great but certainly isn't cheap (teaching, equipment etc), and therefore would probably knock quite a bit off of the fees for fee-paying schools, helping those less wealthy to afford fee paying schools if they so want. Then everybody really does get a choice.

or you could just improve the state schools

But that requires more Government spending and Mr Brown already doesn't have enough money. Plus much money spent by the government has been totally wasted e.g in the NHS there are more administrators than beds!

Ultimately the government will end up spending more money on education anyway. To avoid wasting money they need to tackle the problem at the source

With comments such as:

"They attend private school in order to enhance their own opportunities at the expense of others, in the full knowledge that resources for education are not unlimited and that they are allocated unequally"

you sound like a communist. The basic economic problem is that resources are FINITE anyway, and people have been pondering over this for ages but they will always be finite.

We live in a capitalist country and yes things are unequal in their distribution, that is how it is and will always BE.

"The majority of their parents resist higher taxation which could help to raise state schools to an equal or similar standard to those in the private sector. "

What a load of rubbish. What are you suggesting, they resist higher taxation by illegal means????

The reason that most fee-paying parents don't pay higher taxation is because they earn low incomes anyway. They fall into the lower bands and so their marginal rate of tax is invariably low. However their number 1 priority is EDUCATION, that's where ALL their money goes,

which you would realise if you read my example of my mate who's father is a rubbish collector.

And please get over the whole 'less opportunities thing', you have to make opportunities for them to exist, motivation and enthusiasm should be the cause.

You are suggesting that since we live in a world which is not fair or equal we should make it even more unfair and unequal by disadvataging anyone who has EVER had an advantage in their life! One of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard..

Under your proposals, all students would be better off going to the very worst comprehensive they could possibly find so that they recieve positive discrimination for university entrances.

I take it you agree with the essential truth of my statement then, despite your pathetic attempt to undermine its veracity by calling me a communist


Britain has one of the most unequal distributions of wealth in europe and hmmmm the most virile private school system...
And thats fine I suppose , just so long as this inequality favours you?

They attend private school in order to enhance their own opportunities at the expense of others, in the full knowledge that resources for education are not unlimited and that they are allocated unequally.

The majority of their parents resist higher taxation which could help to raise state schools to an equal or similar standard to those in the private sector.

Indeed they do not wish to increase opportunity because they want to retain the maximum of scarce resources (including places at elite universities) for their own offspring.

Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I am merely pointing out that we do not live in a world which is fair or equal. This is a situation which the vast majority of private schoolers approve of, and have no desire to change. They attend private school in order to enhance their own opportunities at the expense of others, in the full knowledge that resources for education are not unlimited and that they are allocated unequally. The majority of their parents resist higher taxation which could help to raise state schools to an equal or similar standard to those in the private sector. Indeed they do not wish to increase opportunity because they want to retain the maximum of scarce resources (including places at elite universities) for their own offspring.

OMIGOD!
Surely, private/ public school pupils' families paying for their kids education is freeing up resources in the state education system for those who are unable to pay??
You base your argument on the assumption that everyone who goes to private schools is rolling in money. This is really very untrue! Certainly my friends mostly come from families who had to scrimp and save to afford paying for education. Also my mother, despite being a highly experienced, talented and qualified primary school teacher, has not gone to the private sector to earn a packet at somewhere like the Dragon, but has stayed with her struggling primary school. She is paid poorly for this, and until teachers are valued as they are in the private sector then education will not improve and this imbalance of standards will not be redressed. But this isn't the fault of people who happen to have gone to private schools!


Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. As soon as the less privileged, thanks to a labour government, start to demand that universities take into consideration the fact that some have had a huge advantage over others in terms of the opportunities they have been given , they start bleating about 'discrimination' and 'unfairness' - words that barely figured in their vocabulary before!

'Hard work' is completely irrelevant. Since when were university places ever offered on the basis of hard work? In fact some of the brightest ppl at oxbridge would never have got there if this were the case! Hmmm, now that is a revolutionary idea...

I was just wondering what people feel about the whole thing about public school people either having it easier or not to get into oxbridge.

Amidst all the ranting I would just like to remind ppl that the original thread is below:


It is not about taxation, the wealth or otherwise of fee paying parents, or the benefits or otherwise of ppl 'saving' the Chancellor money by sending kids to private school!

On other threads we have seen that the process of getting into Oxbridge and other top unis is definitely something of a lottery (leading to much bitterness in some cases). It is certainly not based entirely on A level grades, but attempts to use many factors to select ppl for their 'academic potential'. I fail to see how this can possibly be done in a fair way if the unis totally ignore ppls background and the opportunities they have had so far! The only valid position for those of you who do not like this view is that university offers should be based on exam grades alone, this being the only objective form of assessment.
Everything else, personnal statment, teachers report, performance at interview is coloured by previous life experience.

However, to contradict my argument, the people from Eton at Oxford tend to do bloody brilliantly. And in History mods (1st yr exams), 5 of the 6 boys from Radley got a 1st.