Turn on thread page Beta
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by SMed)
    Really? That seems extreme. How could that possibly be ethical?
    Why is it not?

    I find it unethical that someone is able to buy their child such an obvious and effective head-start in life.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Would you agree that there has to be some inequality in order to further as a society?

    Don't you think that if everyone had the same standing there wouldn't be much incentive for people to try hard and succeed in life, and further our knowledge and technology?

    I don't think society would work without this and that's why a socialist society wouldn't work.

    Also, what do you think will be the future of the US. With a national debt of 97% GDP and an outdated ideology, do you think American capitalism is gone for good?

    Thanks for the answers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    In power or not, this Party does support the abolishment/shut down/nationalisation of private schools, yes.
    So when I put forward a bill that did just that, how come Socialists - yes, this dyed in the wool Socialist Party - voted against it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oli_G)
    Would you agree that there has to be some inequality in order to further as a society?

    Don't you think that if everyone had the same standing there wouldn't be much incentive for people to try hard and succeed in life, and further our knowledge and technology?

    I don't think society would work without this and that's why a socialist society wouldn't work.

    Also, what do you think will be the future of the US. With a national debt of 97% GDP and an outdated ideology, do you think American capitalism is gone for good?

    Thanks for the answers.
    But why does the "incentive" have to be material gain? In a democratic, socialist society the inquisitive nature of human beings doesn't disappear just because the acquisitive philosophy has.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    :holmes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oli_G)
    Would you agree that there has to be some inequality in order to further as a society?

    Don't you think that if everyone had the same standing there wouldn't be much incentive for people to try hard and succeed in life, and further our knowledge and technology?

    I don't think society would work without this and that's why a socialist society wouldn't work.

    Also, what do you think will be the future of the US. With a national debt of 97% GDP and an outdated ideology, do you think American capitalism is gone for good?

    Thanks for the answers.
    This video deserves a watch in my opinion, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

    But more than that, do you not think that individuals would prosper if the majority of people were not hampered by the gross blocks to success caused by inequality and private privilege?

    As a side note, I think that American capitalism is as strong as ever.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    So when I put forward a bill that did just that, how come Socialists - yes, this dyed in the wool Socialist Party - voted against it?
    I've just taken a look in the subforum and the two Bills you put forward and the first was on the issue of Drugs and the second was on the Ireland issue. The most recent education Bill proposed was the one written by myself that you seconded last summer....

    I don't seriously think this Party would vote against the abolishment of private schools.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Geraldine)
    How is it ethical that certain children are disadvantaged right from the start of their lives, just because their parents are not rich?
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Why is it not?

    I find it unethical that someone is able to buy their child such an obvious and effective head-start in life.
    How would forcing some students to go to the same school improve the education of less well-off students? The parents of more well-off children are still supporting state schools by paying taxes. Why deny some children the chance to have a better education?

    If you know you have an option, and one is better in your opinion, why can't you choose what you want? Private schools have scholarships for very bright less well-off students anyway.

    I'm not rich, and I went to a state school. It didn't stop me from getting into a good uni doing a difficult course.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    I've just taken a look in the subforum and the two Bills you put forward and the first was on the issue of Drugs and the second was on the Ireland issue. The most recent education Bill proposed was the one written by myself that you seconded last summer....

    I don't seriously think this Party would vote against the abolishment of private schools.
    You mean the one I substantially rewrote. Along with the Schools Tax Bill which was voted against by your MPs.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    You mean the one I substantially rewrote. Along with the Schools Tax Bill which was voted against by your MPs.
    I'm not denying this, which is why I asked for your seconding and suggestions on rewriting/improving it.

    As for the Bill, and as far as I can see, the Socialist MPs who did vote went in favour of your Bill not against it. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. In any case I wasn't around in the HoC at that time of this Bill as I had taken a hiatus for nearly 5 months after July.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMed)
    How would forcing some students to go to the same school improve the education of less well-off students? The parents of more well-off children are still supporting state schools by paying taxes. Why deny some children the chance to have a better education?

    If you know you have an option, and one is better in your opinion, why can't you choose what you want? Private schools have scholarships for very bright less well-off students anyway.

    I'm not rich, and I went to a state school. It didn't stop me from getting into a good uni doing a difficult course.
    'It didn't do me no harm' is an age-old excuse for keeping societal problems alive.

    Scholarships are for a tiny minority and even then you would have some children at a school who had to work incredibly hard to be there, and others who simply paid their way in.

    The fact is that some children have an easier time getting into top universities, better paid or positioned jobs, and generally a good life, just because their parents happened to have more money. This is unfair on all of the children who did nothing to deserve worse chances in life. Equalised education would change this and go some way to challenging the social segregation that still exists today.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by SMed)
    How would forcing some students to go to the same school improve the education of less well-off students? The parents of more well-off children are still supporting state schools by paying taxes. Why deny some children the chance to have a better education?
    Because it isn't fair. It may not directly better the education of the 'less well-off' but it will serve to level the playing field. You managed to do well, plenty of people do, well done - but if you don't think that going to a private school drastically improves the chance of a child (who is not necessarily any smarter, more motivated or natural gifted than any number of students at state schools) getting into said top university or competitive course then you are fooling yourself. The closer we move towards meritocracy the better IMO.

    If you know you have an option, and one is better in your opinion, why can't you choose what you want? Private schools have scholarships for very bright less well-off students anyway.
    They have a few, and they tend to go to people from reasonably well off families anyway because these are the families likely to push for such scholarships. I'm not saying parents are wrong for deciding to send their children to private schools while it is an option, indeed poor state schools is, in some cases, an issue; I'm saying the option shouldn't exist.

    I'm not rich, and I went to a state school. It didn't stop me from getting into a good uni doing a difficult course.
    Awesome, that's great but this is largely irrelevant to the debate as nobody has stated that it is impossible, or improbable for a state-school student to be offered a similar place for a similar course - what has been made are statements about probability which are evidenced by statistics that everyone is aware of.

    I really shouldn't enter into these things when I've not slept - I forget what I'm saying half-way through a sentence XD
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    I'm not denying this, which is why I asked for your seconding and suggestions on rewriting/improving it.

    As for the Bill, and as far as I can see, the Socialist MPs who did vote went in favour of your Bill not against it. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. In any case I wasn't around in the HoC at that time of this Bill as I had taken a hiatus for nearly 5 months after July.
    I can't remember the specific bill but there was certainly an education one that I did at some stage when your socialists decided it didn't go far enough and voted against the bill without ever having debated its points.

    However, without getting drawn into personals there, I stand by the point I made before that the Socialists trade on a "radical" edge but haven't shown it for a long time because they draw themselves into ideological semantics and this daft notion that to be radical means not partaking in the democratic process...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    You're the exception, I'm afraid.
    I take exception to Stricof being the only exception
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jace Falco)
    I take exception to Stricof being the only exception
    I had you as the exception that proves the rule
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What are your views on education? What do you think about the increase in competition for university places?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Because it isn't fair. It may not directly better the education of the 'less well-off' but it will serve to level the playing field. You managed to do well, plenty of people do, well done - but if you don't think that going to a private school drastically improves the chance of a child (who is not necessarily any smarter, more motivated or natural gifted than any number of students at state schools) getting into said top university or competitive course then you are fooling yourself. The closer we move towards meritocracy the better IMO.
    What would you say to the argument that private schools actually help the less well off due to the same amount of money for resources (as was said, well off parents still pay into the system via tax whether their children are in private or state education) being divided between less students? Of course the same argument could be extended to healthcare and similar areas where there is a state run system and private systems.

    There are also benefits in employment (as an example) as well. Like it or not many rich people do not want their children going to school with any tom, **** and 'arry so banning private schools would simply lead to more students studying in private education overseas. This would obviously have a knock on effect to our teaching staff employment and supporting professions (for example cleaning) employment prospects.

    Fairness is important, and it can't be denied that private schools are not fair, but is it worth reducing the amount of money per child avalible in state schools and potentially damaging employment rates for it?

    Just interested in your (or anyone elses, especially socialists) arguments.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Fairness is important, and it can't be denied that private schools are not fair, but is it worth reducing the amount of money per child avalible in state schools and potentially damaging employment rates for it?
    This point, in particular, riles me no end because it implies without a shadow of irony that those of use in comprehensives should be somehow grateful to the rich middle classes and aristocrats for the pittance we get spent on our education because they'd been so philanthropic as to take their children out of the spending pool. Oh well lucky us.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Adorno)
    This point, in particular, riles me no end because it implies without a shadow of irony that those of use in comprehensives should be somehow grateful to the rich middle classes and aristocrats for the pittance we get spent on our education because they'd been so philanthropic as to take their children out of the spending pool. Oh well lucky us.
    Well, that isn't what I was meaning at all. The argument is though that banning private schools would actually worsen the state education system. that doesn't mean that the argument rules out increased taxes on the rich to help better fund the state school system. If the state education system was to be improved to the same class sizes and level of investment as private schools the argument would, imo, fall away as then the only reason you would want send your child to private rather than state education would be to get them away from the 'proles' and make connections that are only avalible in private education, but which should be avalible to all.

    I'm only asking because that is the argument I heard against banning private schools and I'm interested in how others would respond as I couldn't really find an argument against it. As it happens I heard that argument from some who I believe would consider themselves a socialist (or a social democrat) why was unhappy because they were struggling against that argument as well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Well, that isn't what I was meaning at all. The argument is though that banning private schools would actually worsen the state education system. that doesn't mean that the argument rules out increased taxes on the rich to help better fund the state school system. If the state education system was to be improved to the same class sizes and level of investment as private schools the argument would, imo, fall away as then the only reason you would want send your child to private rather than state education would be to get them away from the 'proles' and make connections that are only avalible in private education, but which should be avalible to all.
    Improved this, improved that. The fallacy proceeds from using private education as the benchmark for state education. They are two fundamentally different things. State education provides, without prejudice, for the education of everyone. Private education (and I throw religious education into this mix) discriminates on what ever basis it chooses to. Thus to improve state education to the level of a discriminating, materialist sector seems daft to me. The challenge to state education comes from stretched budgets, ancient buildings, and class sizes that are too big. This has a cumulative effect on the ability of a school to teach effectively and also for the individual student to feel part of a unit. Inner city schools that are many thousands of pupils large are far too big and need to be split up but the political will doesn't hold to that because politics is far too driven by the spurious comparison between Private = Elite = Good and State = Mass = Bad. I'm sorry if I don't share that. Private school people don't like state schools? ignore them. Let's take state schools on their own merits and stop comparing unlike with unlike.

    I'm only asking because that is the argument I heard against banning private schools and I'm interested in how others would respond as I couldn't really find an argument against it. As it happens I heard that argument from some who I believe would consider themselves a socialist (or a social democrat) why was unhappy because they were struggling against that argument as well.
    It's a spurious counter-argument, truly spurious.
 
 
 
Poll
Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?

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.