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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ellsbells3032)
    I think what you're missing here is that its not the private school's fault for giving a good education but its state schools and government's fault for not giving a good enough education.

    Hows does me going to private school make anyone else suffer? that makes no sense. If you made all private school students go to state school then the government would have more people to support and bigger classes etc and it would lower the standard of education. Your logic that they are bad for the education system makes no sense whatsoever.

    Instead of blaming private schools for doing well then invest in the education system and improve them. if they were better than private schools then we wouldn't need them. Would you just prefer an entire society of badly educated people?

    Instead of increasing the quality of education we just bring the quality of the education down to encourage more people to go to university rather than encouraging them to reach their full potential first.

    personally, I think the worst thing about private schools is the way they don't give anything back to the community. they have charitable status. this should mean that they must help the community, for example by letting the public use all their facilities, by giving out generous bursaries and scholarships (and actively encouraging poorer bright students to get these scholarships)

    in my experience, this is very rarely the case. I also think that private schools should go much, much further, by having properly shared facilities with state schools (playing fields, swimming pools, musical instruments etc) and by interacting all the pupils - comprehensive students have huge prejudices against private school students, and I'm sure the reverse is true as well. private schools must do their job and help the community - otherwise, they shouldn't be charitable organisations. and if they did all this, the quality of education would be brought up all round.


    sorry if I'm going off point there a bit, I'm not trying to argue with you at all, just bringing a new point to the discussion
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Undiscovery)
    Yes. Or are you one of those deluded Labourite sycophants that believes professionals should be burnt alive for daring to have something called disposable income?
    Please.

    I come from a middle class, financially secure background, yet I am considerate enough to notice the misfortunes of those who do not have the privilege - which, as a matter of fact is attributed to us through pure chance, dependent on who our parents are.

    In terms of wealth, professionals do, undoubtedly, contribute more. However, I would argue the prescence of the working class and the jobs they do are just as important to society than those with more lucrative salaries.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Its no surprised tbh, some universities have been doing this for some time and have accepted students from poorer backgrounds and are from schools/ colleges that have below the national standard for a level results.

    I have a friend who got into medicine at kings college with BBCc in her a levels because she went to a average sixth form in a poor borough in london.
    whilst my sister, went to an average sixth form college in not so poor borough and did not even get an interview, despite being predicted AAABb

    you all have to bare in mind, that poor students probably live in a very poor area with poor teaching at their schools (most likely have low pass rates for their gcses/ alevels than the national average).

    having been taught at several different comprehensive schools in london, there is a a variation in teaching between schools in the good boroughs and the poor ones.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rosamund123)
    personally, I think the worst thing about private schools is the way they don't give anything back to the community. they have charitable status. this should mean that they must help the community, for example by letting the public use all their facilities, by giving out generous bursaries and scholarships (and actively encouraging poorer bright students to get these scholarships)

    in my experience, this is very rarely the case. I also think that private schools should go much, much further, by having properly shared facilities with state schools (playing fields, swimming pools, musical instruments etc) and by interacting all the pupils - comprehensive students have huge prejudices against private school students, and I'm sure the reverse is true as well. private schools must do their job and help the community - otherwise, they shouldn't be charitable organisations. and if they did all this, the quality of education would be brought up all round.


    sorry if I'm going off point there a bit, I'm not trying to argue with you at all, just bringing a new point to the discussion

    Actually they do have to. Legally private schools now have to share their facilities with state schools and open them up to the public out of school hours else lose their charitable status so your point is a little void.

    And most private schools do give out many scholarships and burseries. my school gave out about ten a year (out of a year of less than 90).

    But instead of complaining about the good quality of private school why not try and bring state schools up to their standard. The most important investment a country can make is in its education system.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ezekiel)
    This is another reason to be against private schools. They cream the best students off the estate to pretend they are being exclusive and the rest of the working class kids go to the sink school. Whilst this gave you the chance to go to a top school, what kind of education do you think everybody else got who you left behind? Private schools are good for the indiviudals who go to them and bad for everybody else.
    I'm going to try to respond mainly to your long post on the previous page, because I think it was well thought-through and deserves more attention that a one line cursory answer like "raise state school standards" -it's not that simple. I would just respond to the above however -why should the MOST able be held back by the system? I think that was the beauty of Grammar Schools -they enabled those with the highest potential to achieve.

    Turning to your other argument, I think to be honest the problem comes mainly down to the resources (i.e. money). Neither of my parents went to university of did A-Levels, yet my dad is a company director, which is how I was able to afford to go to Private School. To be honest, at primary school, I got left behind and was never given any attention. I have a visual impairment and was often just left to suffer in a class of 30. When I went to private school, I was in classes of no more than 18 (and I was, at A-Level, the ONLY student in my politics A2 class, one of 4 in History, 1 of 8 in Geography, and 9 in English Lit). I came out with AAAa. Now, I agree, that had my parents not been able to afford to send me to private school, I would have been stuck in the state system, and probably come out with Cs. I was always brought up with values of hard work, and my parents would always insist when I was a child, that I read instead of watching T.V -I used to go to the library which is free. It strikes me that with the system being proposed, I would have been better off being a disabled student in a state school with C grades than going to a Private School and getting As. I am still me, and merely changing the SCHOOL I go to (as opposed to my background) makes no difference to my ABILITY, just to my realising that potential. So, I don't think the proposal works -it creates an inherent bias against private school/middle class pupils, which isn't fair.

    I think the number one thing that determines your performance is the support and encouragement you get at home, and whether or not you are motivated. In small classes, there is nowhere to hide, I admit, but even when in classes of 30 at primary, I always did my best and never got into the "wrong" crowd -that's due to my parents and family.

    My view is that the system is unfair. Indeed, I was listening to a repeat of a Radio 4 programme today which suggested that middle class student's social skills are better -it talked about a person who didn't get a job because of their table manners, for example. But surely this is a false premise? Surely you don't have to be middle class in order to have good table manners or to know how to speak to people.

    At the end of the day, allowing people with gaps in their education, for whatever reason, to get onto HE courses is not beneficial.

    Also, who or what exactly is a "middle class" person? Apparently, people who go to university are no longer working class. It's a load of rubbish.

    I think there will always be inequality in society, we must do our best to mitigate it through ensuring our education system improves. But to tar everyone with the same brush and say private schools are wrong is crazy -why hold people back just because other's can't. After all, if that policy were pursued on a global scale, using the same logic, none of us would be able to read or write because some people don't have access to any education. Those people may have POTENTIAL -so why not just let them into uni -they'll do fine...:confused:

    Not all private schools are selective on merit. The school I was at had about 45% of students with a statement of special educational needs, so I don't think it's fair. The private sector actually picks up a lot of pieces created by the state sector. Without private schools, imagine how much more money would need to go into education. My parents still have to pay tax to pay for the education system, even though I don't use it. So it's quite right that private schools have charitable status!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamorgan)
    I'm going to try to respond mainly to your long post on the previous page, because I think it was well thought-through and deserves more attention that a one line cursory answer like "raise state school standards" -it's not that simple. I would just respond to the above however -why should the MOST able be held back by the system? I think that was the beauty of Grammar Schools -they enabled those with the highest potential to achieve.
    (Original post by iamorgan)
    Turning to your other argument, I think to be honest the problem comes mainly down to the resources (i.e. money). Neither of my parents went to university of did A-Levels, yet my dad is a company director, which is how I was able to afford to go to Private School. To be honest, at primary school, I got left behind and was never given any attention. I have a visual impairment and was often just left to suffer in a class of 30. When I went to private school, I was in classes of no more than 18 (and I was, at A-Level, the ONLY student in my politics A2 class, one of 4 in History, 1 of 8 in Geography, and 9 in English Lit). I came out with AAAa. Now, I agree, that had my parents not been able to afford to send me to private school, I would have been stuck in the state system, and probably come out with Cs. I was always brought up with values of hard work, and my parents
    I find this quite strange, It would seem I have a higher regard for your potential than you do. Do you believe yourself to be so stupid, so incapable of achieving anything worthwhile, that had you not been so fortunate to receive a scholarship to a private school that you would have failed and now be languishing in the gutter? I believe, had you not received that said scholarship you would have succeeded just as much as you did in going to the private school. You obtain A’s by doing the extra research and reading, lectures are quite irrelevant. At university if you are doing a social science you will be lucky to receive 6 hours of lectures a week if that, the real work is done in your own time lectures give you the basics and smooth the edges.

    In what way would a motivated driven student be held back by the state system? You were obviously bright, otherwise you wouldn’t have got the scholarship, you have gained nothing academically speaking that you couldn’t not have achieved at a state school; had you put the extra effort in. Sure, you probably had trips abroad, instrument lessons and so on but that is to provide you with “extras” which you then go on to use against your competition in the marketplace; principally “working class” students who didn’t go to a private school and couldn’t secure those extras.

    I don’t blame you for wanting to secure “extras” for yourself but the reality is you use them against your competition, and your competition whilst possibly as bright as you on paper did not have the opportunity to acquire them. This is where the state should come in and redress the imbalance. If middle class students or students in a private school are permitted to acquire “extras” a sharper mind perhaps, due to a smaller class size or instrument lessons debating opportunities, why can’t the state sector provide its intake with the same possibility to secure “extras”? Or in the very least mitigate the distortion private schools make in the marketplace?

    If you are stating that you would not have achieved your potential in a state school, regardless of how bad that state school might have been; that is to say that in that setting you would not be as driven or focused. Your failure in such a school would not be the fault of the state sector but your own.

    (Original post by iamorgan)
    It strikes me that with the system being proposed, I would have been better off being a disabled student in a state school with C grades than going to a Private School and getting As. I am still me, and merely changing the SCHOOL I go to (as opposed to my background) makes no difference to my ABILITY, just to my realising that potential. So, I don't think the proposal works -it creates an inherent bias against private school/middle class pupils, which isn't fair.
    Why is it you think that you got A’s because you went to a private school? I don’t envy people who go to private schools, I actually pity them because I didn’t have to pay to achieve my A’s, I find the whole thing ridiculous. Private schools do one of two things. They give you a kick up the backside to work, or they spoon feed you. If you need the kick up the backside to achieve A’s then fine go for it. Smaller classes are trivial, if students do the work outside the classroom then lecturers and teachers do not need to go over things repeatedly. Lectures are to smooth out the edges and clarify they are not to TEACH and spoon feed, at A-level and university you are introduced to topics you then teach yourself the seminal arguments and debates.

    In looking at your personal experiences it seems that you needed a kick up the bum to work harder, you needed to be placed in smaller setting, a kick up the bum is harder to achieve in a larger setting which is why the government is committed to shrinking class sizes and providing students with outside tuition.
    (Original post by iamorgan)
    I think there will always be inequality in society, we must do our best to mitigate it through ensuring our education system improves. But to tar everyone with the same brush and say private schools are wrong is crazy -why hold people back just because other's can't. After all, if that policy were pursued on a global scale, using the same logic, none of us would be able to read or write because some people don't have access to any education. Those people may have POTENTIAL -so why not just let them into uni -they'll do fine...:confused: !!
    Your arguments are rational, but they retain the status quo which you have benefited from. Currently the scale is weighted against poorer students, redressing this will lead to middleclass students losing out, that can’t be avoided. Every argument against what I have said thus far is focused on retaining a system weighted in favour of middle class students or working class students who have been lucky enough to be in the private sector. I don’t blame any of you for wanting to protect your own interests, but don’t dress it up as common sense or critique of a silly government idea; say it as it is, you all want to retain a system that is best for you regardless of the costs to others. I

    None of this is new it’s a class debate, middle class students do it all the time on TSR, Why don’t I get governmental grants, my parents don’t support me. Why don’t I get EMA? Why should they get free meals? Anything the government puts in place to mitigate the rotten system of capitalism those who benefit from it will be against. Left leaning policy think takes have touted ideas like buying working class children laptops and computer equipment, allowing them free entry into university etc people who argue how you have done will be against it, precisely because you wouldn’t get it. All this is the politics of envy, they are jealous of all the extra things your private education has secured for you and you want to retain a system that allows you to do better.

    (Original post by iamorgan)
    Not all private schools are selective on merit. The school I was at had about 45% of students with a statement of special educational needs, so I don't think it's fair. The private sector actually picks up a lot of pieces created by the state sector. Without private schools, imagine how much more money would need to go into education. My parents still have to pay tax to pay for the education system, even though I don't use it. So it's quite right that private schools have charitable status!!
    If private schools were selective on merit, then the vast majority of students in them would be thrown out, as they are there not because they have achieved anything but because of their parents money. What does a high intake of “special needs” children have to do with it? I dare say that the vast majority of those children would have been dyslexic which again is a disability one can buy by going to an educational centre and paying a specialist to diagnose you. Even if they had a disability they would have still paid for entry, I don’t see your point.

    Private school intake is nominal. They do not benefit society in the way you suggest because hardly anybody can afford or are selected to go to them. They are however overrepresented if we look to university and professional jobs. This is not good for society; it’s not inclusive or sustainable. In a previous post I spoke of China, nobody picked me up on that point so I’ll repeat it. Given china churns out more graduates than all of Europe combined how is the current system of Higher education sustainable? If we don’t enlarge intake how do we compete in the world market. That isn’t to mention India or South America or even Africa who is getting its act together. Private schools serve no charitable function whatsoever. You received a scholarship to a private school; I wonder whether you would describe yourself as a charity case? Did the hurrah henrys over at the private school take pity on you; a 21st century young Oliver Twist? I take offense to such sentiment poor people are not charity cases. To put Eton on a par with great Ormond street hospital, is simply absurd.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Why is it you think that you got A’s because you went to a private school? I don’t envy people who go to private schools, I actually pity them because I didn’t have to pay to achieve my A’s, I find the whole thing ridiculous.
    That's you, I'm me. We're all different. One size does not fit all. The local comp by me just was not right for me. Some kids go there and do really well. Not necessarily because they are the brightest, just because they fit into the appropriate box.

    In looking at your personal experiences it seems that you needed a kick up the bum to work harder
    No, I'm afraid that's not true. No one ever gave me a kick up the bum. My primary school tried that, and my response to being kicked was to curl up in a ball and hide. At my secondary school, I honestly never felt under any pressure to do anything but what I personally could do. It didn't matter if you came bottom as long as you'd tried. As it was, I never actually came bottom at anything. I would not be a law student were it not for that school. There were certain individuals there who supported me more than I could ever have wished, and that's what has made me go on to succeed today. At university, you mix with people from all walks of life and realise even more how lucky you are to have had such an opportunity. I don't dispute that had I not been given that chance, I would not be here now, and that's inherently unfair, because there were probably 10 people who deserved my uni place more than me.

    Oh, and I never did any musical instruments. I did go on foreign trips though.

    don’t blame any of you for wanting to protect your own interests, but don’t dress it up as common sense or critique of a silly government idea; say it as it is, you all want to retain a system that is best for you regardless of the costs to others.
    I wonder if you just want the system to change so that the working class do better than the middle class. And no, I don't want to retain the current system. I HONESTLY think it's totally unfair. But what I do think is that state schools need to be better. A state school pupil could have violin lessons -some parents choose not to send their kids to private school and send them to a comp.

    You want to retain a system that allows you to do better.
    No, actually. I can honestly say that I think that every child has the right to a top class education. The playing field will never be equal though will it? There will always be schools that perform well and those that do not. After all, a market-driven economy means that the best teachers will go to the schools where they feel that they stand the best chance of promotion. Unless you're proposing an end to capitalism, then I don't really know how that could work. If you suggest that each school's exam results should be weighted based on the relative success of that school and pupils within it, then I think it's unworkable -how do you account for pupils that have moved between schools, pupils of different backgrounds within the same school, a 'blip' in exam results across a stream due to a teacher's absence or illness etc. Also, how much would all of this cost, no doubt it would require another quango to administer.


    [/QUOTE]If private schools were selective on merit, then the vast majority of students in them would be thrown out.[/QUOTE]

    There is truth in this statement, but it does vary. I'd say the 'top' private schools do have the "best" students, but most others take anybody who doesn't rock the boat and will pay the fees. They do a pretty good job with them, too.

    I dare say that the vast majority of those children would have been dyslexic which again is a disability one can buy by going to an educational centre and paying a specialist to diagnose you. Even if they had a disability they would have still paid for entry, I don’t see your point.
    That's just plain wrong, I'm afraid. To suggest that most pupils there did not have real SENs is not right. A number of kids had autistic-spectrum disorders, others had things like CP, dyslexia (as you say) and numerous other things. To just put this down to these things going undetected or fabricated is insulting. A number of parents chose to sent their kids there because they felt they were lost in state schools. You just don't get the 1-1 support in some schools -some state schools do this, but not everyone is lucky enough to go to these.

    Given china churns out more graduates than all of Europe combined how is the current system of Higher education sustainable?
    But we need to have the right quality graduates. If our schools were capable of churning out all A-grade A-level students then I don't think the HE system would hold them back. I don't agree with the 50% target for HE anyway, and the suggestion that the government will GUARANTEE a person a job, training etc is just ridiculous in a free market.

    I am attempting to understand your point of view, but I guess I can't because I have not been through the state system, you have. You equally can't fully understand the private system, I don't think.

    The more I think about it, the more I am conviced that 'class' has very little to do with it. Class is essentially a snobbish word used at dinner parties. I think it comes down to:
    1. A postcode lottery -if your local comp is on an estate, it is likely to be underfunded and underperforming -you then need more help at home.
    2. If you don't get help at home then you are not going to be as motivated as another person who does have that support, all other things being equal.

    I think "class" is used as a way of saying in a PC way that those with little money are somehow inadequate and don't deserve a place in HE institutions or in top professions. I abhor that point of view, it should have gone many years ago. But, how do you break it? There is no denying that there are 'pockets' of underperforming schools -within each LEA, there is a school that no one wants their kids to go to. Those who can't afford to move away to a different catchment area end up going there. Because these people often come from a home that has no history of education, and some parents either have to work all hours of one day to provide, often with other problems at home too, or else don't care about their kids, it's a vicious circle. My dad came from a rich background but never did any work because his parents were too busy swannying around doing their own thing. My mum was born in a back to back in Smethwick in the Black Country, her dad died when she was three, and her mum did waitressing work etc -despite this, she actually was able to move "up" the class ladder to become middle class, through marriage. I don't know how this happens to some and not to others.

    What I do know though is that success in education all comes down to upbringing and values, not to wealth. Maybe wealth creates a cushion or more pressure, but to be honest, I think it all comes down to values such as hard work, which are instilled by parents or guardians, or inspired through excellent teaching.

    So, why the link between middle classes and high university admissions rates? I would say it comes down to support at home. Middle class kids who get no support do fail first time round. The PROBLEM in my view is that they get a second chance -they often get allowed to lounge around at home all day, and then get in somewhere through clearing in a year's time, or else put in a position in a family business or through a contact. That's what has to change IMHO.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamorgan)
    I don't dispute that had I not been given that chance, I would not be here now, and that's inherently unfair, because there were probably 10 people who deserved my uni place more than me.
    Probably more, but you used the tools that you acquired thought “money” and the private sector, or in your case a scholarship to win that place at university. Great for you, bad for people who couldn’t obtain those same tools that helped you secure your place at University ahead of the 10 people who deserved it more than you.
    (Original post by iamorgan)
    I wonder if you just want the system to change so that the working class do better than the middle class. And no, I don't want to retain the current system. I HONESTLY think it's totally unfair. But what I do think is that state schools need to be better. A state school pupil could have violin lessons -some parents choose not to send their kids to private school and send them to a comp.
    Middle class students currently have an advantage, any fairer system will decrease that said advantage. In plain English, middle class students/ privately educated students will lose out. The state sector needs to do better; this of course is not helped when bright state school students such as yourself are siphoned off to the private sector leaving the state sector with the dross at the bottom of the barrel, and without the funding to bring them up to scratch.
    (Original post by iamorgan)
    No, actually. I can honestly say that I think that every child has the right to a top class education. The playing field will never be equal though will it?
    I’ll make it equal, with one simple word; Quotas. 1/3 working class the best and brightest the most potential 1/3 privately educated 1/3 International. I don’t want to repeat myself but please somebody, anybody tell me how that is less fair than what we currently have. If little working class Jonny with his 4 A’s turns up at Oxford and its is already full of working class top students, that is just tough he can apply to one of his other choices. It might be an idea to allow students to apply to as many universities as they like, I see no reason why there is a cap on it.
    (Original post by iamorgan)
    There will always be schools that perform well and those that do not. After all, a market-driven economy means that the best teachers will go to the schools where they feel that they stand the best chance of promotion. Unless you're proposing an end to capitalism, then I don't really know how that could work.
    Two options you go to your local school or you go private. End of.
    (Original post by iamorgan)
    If you suggest that each school's exam results should be weighted based on the relative success of that school and pupils within it, then I think it's unworkable -
    You’ve plucked that out of thin air. League tables are the biggest pile of TommyTank going. If you churn out dozens of A* students from students who were already A* candidates what have you achieved as a school or for them? You have merely treaded water with them, they’ve not been stretched.

    The achievement is seen in the sink schools who take kids from E’s to C’s and C’s to B’s that is the mark of a good school, not one that churns out A*s out of A* students, those A* students should be going to university early, they should be doing AEAs or there should be taking special private sector tests, that doesn’t really happen. The private sector knows that their parents will be happy as long as they see those 5As when in fact with work they would have always achieved them. I doubt parents send their children to private schools because of all the extras they get more distinguished friends trips abroad etc, it’s the A’s they want to see, and they think its dependent upon the private sector, and it’s not.
    (Original post by iamorgan)
    That's just plain wrong, I'm afraid. To suggest that most pupils there did not have real SENs is not right. A number of kids had autistic-spectrum disorders, others had things like CP, dyslexia (as you say) and numerous other things. To just put this down to these things going undetected or fabricated is insulting. A number of parents chose to sent their kids there because they felt they were lost in state schools. You just don't get the 1-1 support in some schools -some state schools do this, but not everyone is lucky enough to go to these.
    I don’t have a problem with that, those parents use money to better provide for their children. Fantastic, it’s their money let them do what they want with it. What I care about is mitigating the effects of the advantage that their money guarantees for their children. That is what this policy is trying to do. Nobody is trying to take away the “benefits” that money guarantees for those with access to money, what we are trying to do is mitigate the fall out for those who do not.
    (Original post by iamorgan)
    But we need to have the right quality graduates. If our schools were capable of churning out all A-grade A-level students then I don't think the HE system would hold them back. I don't agree with the 50% target for HE anyway, and the suggestion that the government will GUARANTEE a person a job, training etc is just ridiculous in a free market.
    I’ve not done the research but I’d be willing to bet that China and India churn out more firsts than go through the entire British system, they’d certainly deliver more 2:1s. Our current system will have us overtaken. I think the 50% target is a very good idea, the government should have gone further and said 50% and then given a list of subjects like English History Politics Medicine etc. Without such a list the right wing press jeer at Media Studies and Photography.
    (Original post by iamorgan)
    The more I think about it, the more I am conviced that 'class' has very little to do with it. Class is essentially a snobbish word used at dinner parties. I think it comes down to:
    1. A postcode lottery -if your local comp is on an estate, it is likely to be underfunded and underperforming -you then need more help at home.
    2. If you don't get help at home then you are not going to be as motivated as another person who does have that support, all other things being equal. .
    It is underfunded because they have a disproportionate amount of difficult students without the money to cater to them. Precisely because middle class parents keep their children away or the best students are siphoned off into the private sector, so you end up with a school with the most difficult students without the means to help them. If you were forced to go to your nearest comp you wouldn’t have the problem of sink schools because they’d be mixed. If you don’t get help at home that does not mean society should write you off.
    (Original post by iamorgan)
    I think "class" is used as a way of saying in a PC way that those with little money are somehow inadequate and don't deserve a place in HE institutions or in top professions. I abhor that point of view, it should have gone many years ago. But, how do you break it?
    Quotas :P Put all the other debates to one side and tell me what is wrong with quotas. Any argument you come up with will seek to retain an advantage for middle class students or those who have been in to a private school. I’d love to hear one single argument that does not do that. Universities favour middle class / privately educated students, we all know it, the statistics prove it. Some might say; it’s not our fault if the middle class / privately educated students are better suited to the placement, and you’d be right. But that means as long as there is a private sector in education then universities will continue to disproportionately favour those individuals because they are better. They are better not because they are special but because they have secured an advantage principally by money . It doesn’t matter what the comprehensive schools do if they raise their game and start delivering working class students with higher grades then A’s will lose their value we’ll create an A* and middle class / privately educated students will have the edge at obtaining A*s and universities will then favour A* students. What is needed is a quota system that guarantees the best and the brightest from all sections of society a place.
    (Original post by iamorgan)
    .My mum was born in a back to back in Smethwick in the Black Country, her dad died when she was three, and her mum did waitressing work etc -despite this, she actually was able to move "up" the class ladder to become middle class, through marriage. I don't know how this happens to some and not to others.
    She has fought her way up and she wants to secure an advantage for her family. Nothing wrong with that, at a guess I would bet she benefited from positive discrimination like working hours for mums, sexism in the workplace, maternity leave, etc etc. After climbing the ladder you want to pull it up to prevent others from doing the same as its competition for you. That’s naughty, but with a conservative government on the horizon, I’m sure you’ll get away with it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ellsbells3032)
    Actually they do have to. Legally private schools now have to share their facilities with state schools and open them up to the public out of school hours else lose their charitable status so your point is a little void.

    And most private schools do give out many scholarships and burseries. my school gave out about ten a year (out of a year of less than 90).

    But instead of complaining about the good quality of private school why not try and bring state schools up to their standard. The most important investment a country can make is in its education system.
    But you missed my point - I was saying that private schools could and should go a lot further in what they do in terms of sharing facilities, and by doing this, they can help improve the standard of state education
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ezekiel)

    She has fought her way up and she wants to secure an advantage for her family. Nothing wrong with that, at a guess I would bet she benefited from positive discrimination like working hours for mums, sexism in the workplace, maternity leave, etc etc. After climbing the ladder you want to pull it up to prevent others from doing the same as its competition for you. That’s naughty, but with a conservative government on the horizon, I’m sure you’ll get away with it.
    Well, she's still an office administrator, so I don't think she's worked her way up in that way. She actually "got in" (or should I say "out") through marriage. I don't want to pull the ladder away, because I don't think the ladder ever existed as you describe.

    I think we just have to agree to disagree on this. You clearly believe in quotas. The main problem with quotas is that they are too prescriptive. They do not take into account individual cases or mitigating circumstances -once the top chunk in a quota is full, then the door is shut and there is no room. You say yourself that in the current system, those who work hard can achieve.

    I don't see why the state should actually hold back the most able students to state schools. Whatever you say, I think it's wrong to have the most bright students in a class of disruptive others because that harms everyone's education. There will always be sink schools because middle classes live in little pockets, so all of the comps around middle class schools would offer a good education, and those around working class areas would not -the gap would actually widen by creating a scheme as you suggest.

    China's graduates actually have proper degrees, as opposed to degrees that shouldn't actually be called degrees. They also have a different work ethic to most British students. Some students are willing to work, but most don't work as hard as they should. There needs to be a disincentive for those who do not work, not a government bail out.

    I think that education standards have improved under a Labour government, and I have very little confidence in David Cameron's abilities or credibility. However, other areas of society have suffered under Labour. I will not pretend to be otherwise -I am a Conservative, although on a political compass, I come out as a liberal centrist.

    My problem is really that I don't understand how anyone can honestly say that just because somebody doesn't have the CHANCE to excel they should be given a competive advantage. Whether you go to private or state school, you don't succeed unless you put the work in. It's ultimately not the state's role to make you work, it's down to you or your legal guardians.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamorgan)
    I think we just have to agree to disagree on this. You clearly believe in quotas. The main problem with quotas is that they are too prescriptive. They do not take into account individual cases or mitigating circumstances -once the top chunk in a quota is full, then the door is shut and there is no room. You say yourself that in the current system, those who work hard can achieve. .


    That’s fair enough. I simply said that there should be a statuary obligation of X% who are selected to form that x% would be up to the university. So no, quotas don’t have to be prescriptive. Again you create false scenario as if it’s something new. “Once the top chunk is full then the door is shut”, At any university from Oxford to Thames Valley they only have a certain number of places, for arguments sake a 100 after the interview process they fill their places up and if you are a “good university” then you will have no problem filling up your 100 places with AAAAA candidate. No matter how good student number 101 is they’re not getting in. How is this any different, to a quota you believe is “prescriptive” unable to take account of individual cases or mitigating circumstances?

    The difference is currently those 100 places will get filled by middle class privately educated students. The university can take into account all the mitigating circumstances and individual cases they like but they should do so within set parameters, if they want to let in little Jonny who got Cs’ because his parents got hit by a car, fine... they have 99 more places left to fill with working class students or middle class privately educated one. Quotas don’t limit who they can admit but where from and how many.

    Put what I said into context. What I said was you could achieve under the current system on paper you could be as bright, but you are unable to compete because you don’t have the “extras” that private school students are readily equipped with.

    (Original post by iamorgan)
    I don't see why the state should actually hold back the most able students to state schools. Whatever you say, I think it's wrong to have the most bright students in a class of disruptive others because that harms everyone's education. There will always be sink schools because middle classes live in little pockets, so all of the comps around middle class schools would offer a good education, and those around working class areas would not -the gap would actually widen by creating a scheme as you suggest.


    How would the state be holding you back? I have already explained how schools who churn out A students out of A candidates are not good schools as they have added nothing to the student. If a child is disruptive, then remove them. It is utter nonsense to suggest that private schools exist to keep children away from disruption.

    (Original post by iamorgan)
    There will always be sink schools because middle classes live in little pockets, so all of the comps around middle class schools would offer a good education, and those around working class areas would not -the gap would actually widen by creating a scheme as you suggest.


    Not really, as again you could set admission quotas on whom the school accepted. You would have to go to a set of local schools, I’m not being tyrannical I would force a single school one parents, and that school would then have to select students from across a class spectrum.


    (Original post by iamorgan)
    China's graduates actually have proper degrees, as opposed to degrees that shouldn't actually be called degrees. They also have a different work ethic to most British students. Some students are willing to work, but most don't work as hard as they should. There needs to be a disincentive for those who do not work, not a government bail out.


    Again this proves that quotas are needed, we need 40%/50% of students going to university to obtain a degree, you then need to follow it up by saying a degree in these desirable subjects. Perhaps offering extra grants or less tuition fees for certain courses. Or even like the EMA bonus giving students from difficult circumstances a “bonus” at the end of a course for a First class degree or AAAA grades.

    (Original post by iamorgan)
    I think that education standards have improved under a Labour government, and I have very little confidence in David Cameron's abilities or credibility. However, other areas of society have suffered under Labour. I will not pretend to be otherwise -I am a Conservative, although on a political compass, I come out as a liberal centrist.


    Well yes you’re trying to maintain the status quo that’s generally what liberal conservatives do. You don’t like Cameron because he’s a “One Nation Conservative” to be honest I’m not sure what the conservative party is. What comes out of Cameron’s mouth is quite different to what we see in policy. I really don’t know what to make on them. I’m a Labour man myself, and I just don’t know what to make of them, half the things he says I could endorse, but I think he’s just saying it I don’t think he actually believe it.

    (Original post by iamorgan)
    My problem is really that I don't understand how anyone can honestly say that just because somebody doesn't have the CHANCE to excel they should be given a competive advantage. Whether you go to private or state school, you don't succeed unless you put the work in. It's ultimately not the state's role to make you work, it's down to you or your legal guardians.


    It is not the child’s fault they were born to disadvantage. Many people make similar arguments for people on benefits. Why does that mother have 6 children why should I pay for them, somebody should take her benefits. You not only penalise the parent in doing that but the child also. Every child deserves a chance, otherwise poverty cycles will be never ending. If your born in poverty and disadvantage you shouldn’t be forced to live your days, then die in it, or hope and pray for some rich benefactor like in Great Expectations to throw you a bone out of pity.

    Deu 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm from a middle class family, i'm attending 6th form at a comp, and my brother, 3 years older than me attended a grammar school. May i first start by saying grammar schools are essential for a certain calibre and mind set of children, i am clever but would have hated it at a grammar school, and the same can be applied vice versa. What it boils down to however is that comprehensive schools can only get so good. The inclusion of poorer ability students, and those who disrupt, is a huge negative influence on the education of others. It drove me mad that such twa** were in my classes and disrupting my learning. However this wasn't neccersarily related to family income. My school is in a middle class area, and we have exactly the same calibre of scummy children coming into our school than you would in a stereotypical inner city school, every child thinks he's a gangster, difference is his mommy gives him a lift every morning.

    To make an actual point, being middle class, i am eternally infuriated by the financial help given to poorer students, ( or rather the lakc of help given to the other people). EMA an example, £30 a week, i can speak knowing fully that EMA does not help the vast majority of students(at my school), i only know one person who i can say truely deserves ema. While EMA is a very good inscentive to come to school, unfortunately, if this is the only inscentive, the students will work to the absolute bare minimum, drop out throughout the year, and largely drop out at AS-level results day, wasting a year getting failed AS-levels.

    May i also say the financial aid given to Students of poorer backgrounds is vastly unfair. My brother has calculated that he got £600 help from my parents last year, great thanks very much, however, he qualifies for no, or nearly no bursary, whereas students from poorer backgrounds can access over £3,000

    If this financial unfairness wasn't enough, the government is now making it accademically harder for middle class families to put their children through universities.


    The exam boards have made GCSE's easier and easier to meet government targets, may i tell you students aren't getting cleverer .... thank goodness labour won't get in next election
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ezekiel)
    Or even like the EMA bonus giving students from difficult circumstances a “bonus” at the end of a course for a First class degree or AAAA grades.
    I am sick an tired of hearing this kind of stuff. Students from poorer backgrounds get over £3,000 in bursaries. Just because they excel doesn't mean they should get money. Bare in mind, about 75% of your time at university, is spent at university, not at home, thus while you are at university, you are living of bursaries, and so the financial situation of your existing family should not affect you in any negative way. The bursaries already hugely outweigh any financial disadvantage that poorer students find themselves in. I am sick of being middle class because i get no financial help from my parents (because they have nothign to give) and no financial help from the gov. Thus i'm the type of person who has to work his ass off in a part time job at uni, to make ends meet. I would like to see the financial bursary scheme stretched out, far further so that all students are on a fairer financial par.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ezekiel)
    If your born in poverty and disadvantage you shouldn’t be forced to live your days, then die in it, or hope and pray for some rich benefactor like in Great Expectations to throw you a bone out of pity.
    You're right I think that you shouldn't be forced to stay in a disadvantaged status, but you shouldn't automatically escape either. Equally, middle class people do slide down and die penniless. I agree it is rare, but it does happen.

    I still disagree with quotas because they are prescriptive -they say that x percent from a certain background is the best way -well, that is prescriptive because you are prescribing people to certain institutions. Universities should be totally free to choose who gets in.

    I agree with you that fees should be lowered on courses based on a demand basis -although I really don't see why there should be tuition fees at all for anyone. Bonuses for achieving at university are wrong in my view. I suppose you knew I would say that, and it's obviously because I'm middle class and jealous I can't have EMA or a performance-related bonus.

    Where is the incentive for me to work then? I reiterate my main point, which has been engulfed in the full debate -not all working class people are disadvantaged just because they are working class. Why give an incentive to a student merely because they happen to come from a poor background and do well, but not offer the same to someone from a different background?

    I take your point about schools -I agree that there should be a way to measure "value-added" (God, I hate these cliches!)

    I would hold short of not giving parents a choice. I think that a choice of school is key because in an ideal world, each child would be put in their "best fit" school. Individuality is key.

    As for China, I reiterate the point that just achieving x% at univeristy is not enough, and we do need to make people work. China has a different starting point to us.

    Those little extras like a musical instrument etc surely are key character traits. It's all very well to say that a person would have played the violin and be fluent in Hebrew were they not poor, but that should not be held against the student who is able to offer those benefits.

    With regard to David Cameron -I agree entirely with you. I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for him at an election, but no way to Gordon. I think I am more like Vince Cable or Menzies Campbell, but no way to Clegg! I guess Laissez-Faire sums it up -but obviously there are limits to this ideology. I accept entirely that my political ideology is grounded in my background and upbringing. I'm sure your association with the Labour party is equally influenced -aren't we all really just a canvas of our surroundings?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ojrules123)
    I am sick an tired of hearing this kind of stuff. Students from poorer backgrounds get over £3,000 in bursaries. Just because they excel doesn't mean they should get money. Bare in mind, about 75% of your time at university, is spent at university, not at home, thus while you are at university, you are living of bursaries, and so the financial situation of your existing family should not affect you in any negative way. The bursaries already hugely outweigh any financial disadvantage that poorer students find themselves in. I am sick of being middle class because i get no financial help from my parents (because they have nothign to give) and no financial help from the gov. Thus i'm the type of person who has to work his ass off in a part time job at uni, to make ends meet. I would like to see the financial bursary scheme stretched out, far further so that all students are on a fairer financial par.
    I agree. I'm sure Ezekiel doesn't :p:

    Look, we're coming from a middle-class perspective, so we see things from our point of view. Ezekiel comes from a different background and sees things differently. I'm sure political ideology also has a lot to do with it.

    I don't think it's fair that people are paid for results. People should be proud to be at uni and not need any other financial incentive. They should have their bursary stopped if they don't achieve, that would be fairer. Equally, those who don't achieve who get a student loan should get that stopped.

    In fact it's only just struck me -bursaries are a form of class engineering. It's a typical Labour initiative which they say is designed to help poor students pay their fees, but in reality is designed to engineer a society in 20 years that has more working class people rising up the ranks. The problem with this is that they forget all of the other students who work as hard but get no recognition. A cynic might say labour's primary motivation is to ensure success in general elections in about 15-20 years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ezekiel)

    How would the state be holding you back? I have already explained how schools who churn out A students out of A candidates are not good schools as they have added nothing to the student. If a child is disruptive, then remove them. It is utter nonsense to suggest that private schools exist to keep children away from disruption.
    .
    As i said earlier i go to a comprehensive, and from years 7 to 11 my classes were constantly disrupted, and thus my learning disrupted, by noisy disruptive students. I have seen disruptive children given every single chance, and do absolutely nothing with it. I am sick of this. Grammar schools have a key role in educating the brillaint students, comprehensive schools are apt at educating the rest.

    My school was recently awarded outstanding status, and is now a national leader of schools, and i can say from reliable sources, that the vast majority of the school report was written before the inspectors visited, and that every bad point about the school, was conviniently " unrecordable"(- where a inspector cannot find sufficient evidence for a conclusion, the field is left blank) .. still don't see what's happening?.. the governement is setting up hoops for itself to jump through, but it's all fixed. My school is not outstanding, and frankly the fact that problem children attend is one of the majour reasons. You can't have it all, quality education for all, along with quality education for disruptive students.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ezekiel)


    The difference is currently those 100 places will get filled by middle class privately educated students. .
    Middle class families cannot affort to put their children through private education. The class you are talking about is upper class. I'm neutral about private schools, i don't see why they can't be replaced by excellent grammar schools however. The labour government tried to completely de-layer education. This is wrong. Taking out private schools removes the financial advantage given to some few children, however taking out grammar schools takes out the quality education gifted students need.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    At last, people are agreeing with me! I was beginning to think that I was some sort of relic from the 19th century. I think the comment that Labour de-layered education is exactly right -it is where the problem is.

    Someone else, and I'm sorry I can't see it now -said that Labour CANNOT ACCEPT that equal chances do not result in equal outcomes, and I think this, combined with the de-layering comment, and the one above about OFSTED, box ticking, targets etc, completely hits the nail on the head.

    I think the problem with labour is that they seem to think that you can apply a certain formula and that by throwing money at people society will magically improve. There will always be a class divide, all Labour will do at best is made today's middle class tomorrow's working class, and today's working class tomorrow's middle class. But they will, by letting in people who are just not up to the job (through bumping up grades) of being managers, politicians or the like, completely ruin Britain and it's current positioning in the global market. But they will manipulate KPIs and the like in an Orwellian newspeak esque manner to show that their policies are working. We'll all be worse off. What they are doing is cutting their nose to spite their face -their mentality is that "if everyone can't have it then no-one should". Unfortunately, that comes very close to communism and is dangerous.
    Labour is a party of jealousy.

    Setting up such a scheme would be, in the true sense of the phrase, a pyrrhic victory
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ojrules123)
    I am sick an tired of hearing this kind of stuff. Students from poorer backgrounds get over £3,000 in bursaries. Just because they excel doesn't mean they should get money. Bare in mind, about 75% of your time at university, is spent at university, not at home, thus while you are at university, you are living of bursaries, and so the financial situation of your existing family should not affect you in any negative way. The bursaries already hugely outweigh any financial disadvantage that poorer students find themselves in. I am sick of being middle class because i get no financial help from my parents (because they have nothign to give) and no financial help from the gov. Thus i'm the type of person who has to work his ass off in a part time job at uni, to make ends meet. I would like to see the financial bursary scheme stretched out, far further so that all students are on a fairer financial par.
    +1 -totally agree
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    While i do not dislike the fact that there are private schools, i can completely understand why people do not like them. However the role of grammar schools, as i continue to say is essential
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 13, 2009
  • 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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • 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

    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.