Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by belis)
    I was under an impression that in this day and age most wives can 'fund' themselves. :eek: As to decent upbringing I think that we had this conversation before. Not everyone believes that you need to send your kids to an expensive private school.
    In fairness most seem to these days, I don't however feel you should expect them to. Its their decision and shouldn't be influenced by necessity. Neither do I believe you have to send your kids to an expensive private school, the top twenty state schools will do if one can live close enough.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by becca2389)
    Most of Britain copes on a quarter of that.
    My point exactly, how can one set ones kids up to have no contest from most of Britain in terms of opportunity and prospects when they have to be raised as most of Britain?

    We all have different reasons for working I admit, in my case the main driver is to ensure my kids, which one day I shall hopefully have, get the best possible chance in life. This naturally means the most unfair advantage I can buy them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My family,of 8, have done well on something like that. We all have scurvy and rickets though.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Terp, parden the assumption but have you had a very, er, priveldged childhood?!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lekky)
    Terp, parden the assumption but have you had a very, er, priveldged childhood?!
    Less privileged than my father's. It wasn't that extravagant really. I would however like to set it as the minimum standard for my children.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by terpineol)
    Less privileged than my father's. It wasn't that extravagant really. I would however like to set it as the minimum standard for my children.
    if 100K does not meet your "minimum standard" I'm going to take that as a yes.


    Us commoners are quite happy & able to succeed as well you know:yep:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Edie_Too)
    Your attitude of sneering superiority above your patients, for their "abhorrent behaviour" would be funny if it wasn't true. If you think people are dull then it doesn't say much for your intelligence to choose a patient-focussed career The joy and reward in practicing medicine is in the endless variety of people, their stories, backgrounds, attitudes and beliefs and how that links into the challenge of diagnosis and treatment. From what you've said I'd doubt you've even the ability of listen to a patient, let alone be open minded enough to empathise. When you pigeon hole everyone 'beneath you' as stupid, ignorant and the same no wonder the job appears unsatisfying.
    I find this very rude and critical of people that you have never spoken to (this being your first ever post of TSR) and know nothing about. Your refusal to answer Spencer_Wells' perfectly reasonable question about your stage in the Medical process leads me to believe that you are a self-righteous teenager judging those of us with much more experience of medicine. If I am wrong, you should probably be aware of how you come across.

    As for praising a fascinating patient base, and thinking that there is a "challenge" in diagnosis and treatment perhaps you should be aware that much of medicine is dictated by GMC guidelines nowadays, removing a lot of the personal "challenge". As far as a fascinating patient base, denying that constantly treating high BP, smoking related illness and non-compliance with medication is dull is completely contradictory to every health professional I have ever met.

    As someone who has left medicine, I also find your comments about choice of career offensive and praise Terpineol for his restrained response.

    Saying that, he speaks nonsense regarding a required family income, and I'm keen to know where he's going to find his housewife(!). Stimulating conversation and family extra-curricular activities, the so called "family-time", is so much more valuable than the private school over an average comprehensive.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by michaela_banana)
    As far as a fascinating patient base, denying that constantly treating high BP, smoking related illness and non-compliance with medication is dull is completely contradictory to every health professional I have ever met.
    Personally I find it dull when patients do exactly as they are told. Maybe I have been brain washed by all the teaching on concordence, patient self efficacy etc or maybe it has something to do with the fact that I have a chronic condition and have gone through various rough patches with my meds myself but I think that 'non-complience' is actualy quite intresting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by belis)
    Personally I find it dull when patients do exactly as they are told. Maybe I have been brain washed by all the teaching on concordence, patient self efficacy etc or maybe it has something to do with the fact that I have a chronic condition and have gone through various rough patches with my meds myself but I think that 'non-complience' is actualy quite intresting.
    Fair enough, I was thinking more about anti-hypertensives and statins, with low side effects and high frustration for GPs. Rather than things like epilepsy and cancer treatments which are a bit more interesting (to me, at least) and have had a lot of fascinating research done.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with you Belis, non-compliance is really interesting stuff, as well as communication skills, public health and all that other fluffy stuff. Its fascinating because its practical, hands-dirty stuff that gets whatever good science-based ideas you have actually done and applied to patients. I wrote quite a bit about it in my forth year dissertation, but then that's because I think its worthwhile.

    Just because Terp doesn't though, doesn't mean he's anything other than someone who doesn't think public health is what he wants to do with his life. Which is fair enough, no need to lay into him about it, whatever his bizarre views on personal finance or the fact he'd even consider city number-shifting, which to me sounds dull as a dull thing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Edie_Too)
    Your view of how much money is enough is clearly very skewed when taken in perspective with the population as a whole. The vast majority of people manage to provide for their children, even if their wives or partners are stay-at-home mothers, on a LOT less than £100k a year. The lifestyle you are accustomed to is that of the very privileged minority and the maintenance of that privilege should not be the basis of how much doctors are paid.

    Where I am professionally is no concern of yours Spencer Wells, you argue my points as you find them. Only a fool would think that a political viewpoint is strengthened by position alone.
    :rofl: Who is this guy? He talks complete sence!
    Fair play to you Sir :rofl2:

    Term, it shows the kind of background you come from if you believe that earning £100K+ is not good enough... simply austounding!

    I don't have enough experience or knowledge to comment further.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by michaela_banana)
    I find this very rude and critical of people that you have never spoken to (this being your first ever post of TSR) and know nothing about. Your refusal to answer Spencer_Wells' perfectly reasonable question about your stage in the Medical process leads me to believe that you are a self-righteous teenager judging those of us with much more experience of medicine. If I am wrong, you should probably be aware of how you come across.

    As for praising a fascinating patient base, and thinking that there is a "challenge" in diagnosis and treatment perhaps you should be aware that much of medicine is dictated by GMC guidelines nowadays, removing a lot of the personal "challenge". As far as a fascinating patient base, denying that constantly treating high BP, smoking related illness and non-compliance with medication is dull is completely contradictory to every health professional I have ever met.

    As someone who has left medicine, I also find your comments about choice of career offensive and praise Terpineol for his restrained response.

    Saying that, he speaks nonsense regarding a required family income, and I'm keen to know where he's going to find his housewife(!). Stimulating conversation and family extra-curricular activities, the so called "family-time", is so much more valuable than the private school over an average comprehensive.
    Michaela I can't deny that there are aspects of the job that are routine, mundane even. That is the way of work, and if you'd gained the maturity of having had an alternate career you'd realise that ALL jobs have boring parts. Such is the nature of work. I think you'll find lab work towards a doctorate has plenty of repetitious elements. Try running the same PCR for days on end trying to get it to work.

    What sticks in my throat about your and Terpineol's view point is the arrogance towards ordinary people it shows. Your patients. If you cannot have basic respect for people, or lack the ability to understand different backgrounds and social pressures and psychological processes that result in lifestyle choices and decisions, then you frankly should not be practicing as doctor.

    TBH I think the attitude you both express is relatively rare among younger colleagues nowadays. Then again, I very much doubt any of them would express such bigoted views to me because they would not remain unchallenged. Thank god medical school selection is weeding out those who choose the career solely on the basis of financial reward and social position.

    As a piece of perfectly serious advice, if you took the time to properly listen to patients I think your interest in them and the decisions they take would grow.

    You may consider my responses rude, but I think you probably just have a problem recognising an alternate POV. Believe me when I mention restraint in answering Terpineol's frankly ridiculous, over privileged opinion that 100k is insufficient to fund his lifestyle. Personally I would close every private and "public" school (what a joke these 'charities' are) to prevent the transmission of priviledge and power amongst people of his class.

    Regarding my career, it is none of your business if I am a consultant or an F1 doctor. Like I said, you argue points and deference to your seniors without challenging them is never an attractive trait, likewise dismissal of a point of view due to being at the early stages of a career. I can however reassure you that I am not a teenager
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Edie_Too)
    Believe me when I mention restraint in answering Terpineol's frankly ridiculous, over privileged opinion that 100k is insufficient to fund his lifestyle. Personally I would close every private and "public" school (what a joke these 'charities' are) to prevent the transmission of priviledge and power amongst people of his class.
    In all fairness, the 100k thing was assuming the worst case scenario of 3 kids, unemployed wife and of course, giving your kids the best start in life. In that case, I wouldn't even think it'd be enough, or well, it'll scrape in as just about enough with not much if any to spare. Anyone able to send their kids to a better school probably would, and having gone through a predominantly state school education with 2 years in a public school on a scholarship and bursary, I have to say that the standard of education and provisions are much, much better - and if I had the money in the future, I'd pay for my kids to be sent to a better school as well. Who wouldn't?

    If you closed down all public schools, then parents would simply move to the catchment area of good state schools, paying the higher price for housing if they have to... or send their kids to a decent grammar school. You're saying you wouldn't pay for your kids to go to a public school even if you had more than enough money!? Come on... even Labour politicians, who should... due to their political standpoint, send their kids to state schools... don't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have more than enough money and yes, I do not choose to send my children to a private school because I do not believe in buying privilege. Contrary to your belief there are plenty of people who take this viewpoint.

    I agree that closing private schools would not negate the problem of variance among state schools. It would however ensure that those in power suddenly put a great deal more investment in improving state education if their own children went to state school.

    It may interest you to know that 7% of the UK population are educated privately. They represent over 70% of Government. This is wrong.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Edie_Too)
    You may consider my responses rude, but I think you probably just have a problem recognising an alternate POV.
    Personally I think that is your problem.

    (Original post by Toiletpaper8)
    Who wouldn't?
    I wouldn't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toiletpaper8)
    In all fairness, the 100k thing was assuming the worst case scenario of 3 kids, unemployed wife and of course, giving your kids the best start in life. In that case, I wouldn't even think it'd be enough, or well, it'll scrape in as just about enough with not much if any to spare.

    I would disagree with that and would question your lifestyle. I know people earning less than 20k in a household with three children. Obviously they don't have the "best start" but I'm pretty sure the extra 80k can give them that.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonnyofengland)
    I wouldn't.
    Well, I would never subject my kids to what I had to go through. As for the question of fairness, yes, it is unfair and yes, we do not all have the same opportunities in life. As unfair as it is, I'm not making it harder on my children simply because of a principle.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OriginofSymmetry)
    I would disagree with that and would question your lifestyle. I know people earning less than 20k in a household with three children. Obviously they don't have the "best start" but I'm pretty sure the extra 80k can give them that.
    My lifestyle?? You disagree with the whole "sending kids to public school" concept? Fees are about 14k per year - so for 3 kids that's 42k a year. That leaves 58k per year between 2 people and 3 kids for general living costs. Hardly extravagant, no?

    If you're on less than 20k for the whole household, why have 3 children...

    Though aside from that question, they're on benefits and clearly won't have anywhere near the same opportunities as kids whose parents can afford to send them to a good school, pay for them to maybe learn how to play an instrument should they want to or whatever...

    You're right that the extra 80k would give them that. You're also right that it's not fair, if that's what you're saying... but frankly I don't care if it's fair. They're not my kids.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    And another question. When you're all on 100k or so a year as consultants, and your kids are about secondary school age... what are you going to do with all that money??

    You're not going to send your kids to a better school... as you've said, so what are you going to do? Give the money to charity? Buy a better car??

    Don't your kids matter more...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Edie_Too)
    I have more than enough money and yes, I do not choose to send my children to a private school because I do not believe in buying privilege. Contrary to your belief there are plenty of people who take this viewpoint.

    I agree that closing private schools would not negate the problem of variance among state schools. It would however ensure that those in power suddenly put a great deal more investment in improving state education if their own children went to state school.

    It may interest you to know that 7% of the UK population are educated privately. They represent over 70% of Government. This is wrong.
    You're damn right it's wrong and I agree it's wrong. Given those stats of yours, I'm now more inclined to educate my kids privately.

    Why don't you ask your kids if they want to be sent to private school? Given the fact you have the money, it should be their choice. You're willing to put your kids through state school even though you have the money, just for a principle??
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.

  • 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

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