The UK is "deeply elitist" do you agree?

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Simply because of the stats that have been quoted in this thread. I'm not making a political point, just a statistical one; though perhaps it could have been better phrased.

It makes people more likely to end up in the upper echelons. But more suitable ? Not from what I see.

 

[Goldstone1976]

It makes people more likely to end up in the upper echelons. But more suitable ? Not from what I see.

And that's the point that I accept (poor choice of initial wording), and have edited the post accordingly...

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

And that's the point that I accept (poor choice of initial wording), and have edited the post accordingly...

Fair do's Squire.

 

[Doc Lynam]

William went to St Andrews, Harry didn't go to university.

It was Charles i was refering too; to be honest if Harry got into Oxbridge i think my wish of a republic would have come about alot quicker.

 

[Goldstone1976]

It was Charles i was refering too; to be honest if Harry got into Oxbridge i think my wish of a republic would have come about alot quicker.

I think even the most ardent of Royalist would concede that Charles didn't get into Cambridge on academic merit. Surely the fact that William went to St Andrews and Harry didn't go at all is a step in the direction of meritocracy being applied to the Royals, which has to be a good thing (even if the "step" isn't big enough for many)?

 

[Frampler]

I have just finished my masters at Cambridge and can say that most people's conceptions of oxbridge are either relayed myths or based on out of date information. I am working class, I worked as a carpet fitter in the summers to support my studies and neither of my parents went to university yet I was not prejudiced against in the selection process and neither are other applicants many of whom come from similar backgrounds. There is a oxbridge domination of the higher roles in society but I can say with confidence there is a gulf in quality between lower universities and the very best. I went to Winchester for undergraduate where I came top of my class and thought studying 10-8 in the week was alot, it was more than my peers, but at Cambridge I had to work most days from 9-12 to keep up with the course, the compulsory extra curricular studies (language courses/crash couses in finance etc/extra seminars). It is the sheer level of work they demand to a much higher standard that makes their graduates desirable, they have the best facilities and connections but you are not given a golden spoon you have to seize youe chance. I met the most intelligent people I have met in my life there, its the well rounded ones who are truly amazing. The university is only made up of 30 per cent roughly of private schoolers, higher than average but it is because their schooling quality is higher, also remember that there is a significant amount of foreign students in attendence so it isnt merely British elitism.you could not get away with favouritism today in the way of letting a rich person with low grades attend, the only way it could take place in theory is a packed course where they have to reject one of two academically identical students then they could ditch the poorer one, but you forget most of the interviewers dont care about the persons family connections they care about what they will become and if they have a chance of adding to the university's lasting legacy. We are not american private universities like harvard where through the legacy scheme you can pay your way in, the costs are not higher than all other unis, attending Cambridge was cheaper and better value than Winchester which reallly suprised me. As a last point most of the stories bashing oxbridge misconstrue thr facts and present them to support their agenda without an objective consideration of the debate, particularly the cases where people are rejected etc which knowing the process have glaring holes when reported to show elitism.

Interestingly, you have the same attitude to paragraphs and spelling as some of my Oxbridge-educated colleagues.

 

[Doc Lynam]

I think even the most ardent of Royalist would concede that Charles didn't get into Cambridge on academic merit. Surely the fact that William went to St Andrews and Harry didn't go at all is a step in the direction of meritocracy being applied to the Royals, which has to be a good thing (even if the "step" isn't big enough for many)?

Agreed

 

[Westdene Seagull]

What's so pathetic about Milburn's report and those which precede it, is that he fails to draw the logical conclusion -- the only way that this will ever stop is if we just grasped the nettle and abolished the private schools. They are a massive blight on our society.

Make a good education an equal right for all, and make it illegal for well-off people to buy their kids a further advantage (the influx of the 7% of pushy parents into the state schools would, incidentally, be a huge pressure for improved standards in those schools). Don't just take away their charitable status, don't waste time trying to get them to share their sports grounds etc with comprehensive schools, just ban the toxic institutions. There was a real opportunity for the Labour party to do this in the 1960s, and some momentum behind it, but they chickened out, presumably because so many of them were themselves beneficiaries of the private schools.

Isn't banning private schools effectively a rush to the bottom of quality standards of education ? By increasing the pupil population of state schools by 7% you aren't going to improve standards - quite the opposite. The spend per pupil will actually go down.

My two children went / go to a private primary school - my step-daughter didn't. The difference in standards between the two was horrific. My children learned far more topics and in far more depth than my step-daughter. So much so that my eldest son who is two years behind my step-daughter in school years helps her with her maths homework when she gets stuck.

As for the accusation, not made by you though, that all private schools do is make train pupils to pass the exams etc to open the door to the next level of education - absolute rubbish. My kids have received a broad and interesting education which far exceeds anything the state could have provided. Now if you want to explain how the state education sector can be brought up to the quality of the private sector I might just have some time for the idea of a ban. Although it would smack of jealousy.

 

[Lawson]

Interestingly, you have the same attitude to paragraphs and spelling as some of my Oxbridge-educated colleagues.

writing on a football forum from my phone, whilst on a train, i for some reason didn't think that paragraphing and spelling really mattered all that much.

 

[brakespear]

Alan Milburn (who led the commission that came out with this report), is absolutely correct in my view in identifying some of the causes of inequality in British society, and it very was nice of him to take some time off from his directorships of the private sector health companies currently engaged in dismantling the NHS, to produce yet another report stating what has been apparent for decades, namely that you can buy your children a way into a powerful and well-remunerated position in society (or at least increase greatly their chances of getting such a position) by paying for their education at a private school. This is true, irrespective of their innate ability and there are lots of reasons for it, including the "better" education (which essentially means better resourced education, with hugely greater expenditure per pupil, smaller classes etc), social networks ("old boys club" etc) and the general air of self-confidence which such schools instil into their pupils.

It is outrageous and unfair, that 7% of the population for no reason other than their parents' money should weasel their way into positions of power like this; it is outrageous and unfair that any child's prospects in life should be so heavily influenced by how much dosh their parents have. It doesn't have to be like that, as other countries (especially those in Scandinavia) show us.

What's so pathetic about Milburn's report and those which precede it, is that he fails to draw the logical conclusion -- the only way that this will ever stop is if we just grasped the nettle and abolished the private schools. They are a massive blight on our society.

Make a good education an equal right for all, and make it illegal for well-off people to buy their kids a further advantage (the influx of the 7% of pushy parents into the state schools would, incidentally, be a huge pressure for improved standards in those schools). Don't just take away their charitable status, don't waste time trying to get them to share their sports grounds etc with comprehensive schools, just ban the toxic institutions. There was a real opportunity for the Labour party to do this in the 1960s, and some momentum behind it, but they chickened out, presumably because so many of them were themselves beneficiaries of the private schools.

I'm with Alan Bennett on this one, although even he doesn't go far enough in my view.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jun/17/alan-bennett-attack-private-education-lecture-wrong

Absolutely this.

 

[sahel]

Isn't banning private schools effectively a rush to the bottom of quality standards of education ? By increasing the pupil population of state schools by 7% you aren't going to improve standards - quite the opposite. The spend per pupil will actually go down.

My two children went / go to a private primary school - my step-daughter didn't. The difference in standards between the two was horrific. My children learned far more topics and in far more depth than my step-daughter. So much so that my eldest son who is two years behind my step-daughter in school years helps her with her maths homework when she gets stuck.

As for the accusation, not made by you though, that all private schools do is make train pupils to pass the exams etc to open the door to the next level of education - absolute rubbish. My kids have received a broad and interesting education which far exceeds anything the state could have provided. Now if you want to explain how the state education sector can be brought up to the quality of the private sector I might just have some time for the idea of a ban. Although it would smack of jealousy.

It seems to me there is a truly fundamental democratic issue here that goes way beyond relative educational standards of private vs public. It is I think undeniable that top jobs in politics, the media, law, the military etc are the province largely of a privately educated elite. The question is simply whether we "the people" are prepared to be ruled/governed by a self perpetuating elite that is only open to the wealthy. For me the answer is a resounding no!

 

[drew]

no, i dont. i think the top jobs benefit most from best educated people. how does it help someone's understanding of law, or military strategy if they've lived on an estate in Swindon? diversity has its place, and background shouldn't be a block to getting into the top Uni's or jobs, but we should expect our "elite" to come through the best education.

the debate is upside down, it seems to assume that these people only got their position solely because of background, that it is inevitable. they still have to pass their A levels, get their degree, do their bar exam or civil service exams etc. not all that go to top schools or top universities go on to join the "elite". sometimes they become journalists.

Of course not, but if you read it, he's not arguing that point. He's saying someone educated at Oxbridge will have a better understanding of such things than someone uneducated from a deprived background.

In other words, he doesn't care about their background, he'd just prefer someone making decisions to have been educated to the highest level as opposed to spending those years on a Swindon estate.

I don't agree that that is what his post implies, although I can't say whether that is what he meant to say. There is no reference to the fact that he thinks the Swindon resident is an uneducated person, merely that his background will preclude him from having an understanding of the law or military strategy.

I think we all know that part of implied problem is not that people are educated to a different standard but that once you have the qualifications, it is not what you know but whom you know. There will be exceptions and, thankfully, those exceptions are more and more common. As Greerselbow pointed out, these stats are based on people who probably went through the education system 20,30 or even 40 years ago. The question should be what is the background of the next generation of military commanders, judges and MPs etc etc.

 

[soistes]

Isn't banning private schools effectively a rush to the bottom of quality standards of education ? By increasing the pupil population of state schools by 7% you aren't going to improve standards - quite the opposite. The spend per pupil will actually go down.

My two children went / go to a private primary school - my step-daughter didn't. The difference in standards between the two was horrific. My children learned far more topics and in far more depth than my step-daughter. So much so that my eldest son who is two years behind my step-daughter in school years helps her with her maths homework when she gets stuck.

As for the accusation, not made by you though, that all private schools do is make train pupils to pass the exams etc to open the door to the next level of education - absolute rubbish. My kids have received a broad and interesting education which far exceeds anything the state could have provided. Now if you want to explain how the state education sector can be brought up to the quality of the private sector I might just have some time for the idea of a ban. Although it would smack of jealousy.

I disagree with your first point. The point is not that the extra 7% would make the difference, but that the rich elite, once prevented from siphoning their brats off into the private sector, would put huge political pressure on the state to improve the quality of (and expenditure on) the state schools, so the effect would be disproportionately larger than the 7% might suggest. Countries in which private schools barely exist (except for specialist religious or cultural reasons), and in which sending your kids to a private school would be seen as weird and antisocial (as indeed it is), such as Finland for example, enjoy a uniformly high standard of state education for all, without postcode lotteries etc.

I agree with your second point, however. I sent my kids to state schools in Brighton, as a matter of principle, although I could have afforded to send them to private schools. They actually did very well -- one went on to complete a PhD and the other has a good Masters' level qualification, but I can see the main difference between their education and that of some of their peers (children of acquaintances) who went to private schools is that the better private schools, because of their extra resources per head, clearly offer a much broader education (including cultural and sporting activities, and teaching beyond the exam curricula etc) than the state schools. In that sense, my kids clearly lost out because of my socialist principles (which are, incidentally, emphatically not driven by jealousy as you sort of imply). I don't regret it, however, as they are both streetwise, happy, socially well-adjusted young adults, with no sense of snobbery or elitism. They did well in the state system, partly because they have middle class, educated parents, a house full of books etc. I just think it's a shame (a scandal actually) that what's available to the kids in Brighton College is not available to most of the children who live less than a mile away in Whitehawk.

On your third point, I partly agree -- see my previous point. The (better) private schools teach widely beyond the exam curriculum and offer facilities and opportunities that most state schools couldn't dream of. However, there is good statistical research (e.g. from the Sutton Trust) which shows that if you take two kids, both with the same A-levels, one coming from the state system and the other from the private system, the state school kid will, on average, do better at university. That's partly because, if they've got good A-levels, the state school kids will have had to show a lot of drive, initiative and be self-organised, whereas the private school kids are subject to a lot of discipline and spoon-feeding (so even quite thick ones get good exam results) and often, when they get to university, where those structures aren't there and they have to think and work for themselves, they don't thrive as well as the state school kids.

Anyway, it's clear that if you've got an average/thick kid, and you can afford it, they'll get better GCSEs/A levels if they go to a private school. I just don't think you should be allowed to buy them that advantage, rather they should have to take their chances in the normal schools like kids from poor families do. If you don't like that, then use your money to campaign for better state schools, rather than making the problem worse by taking your kids out of that system.

 

[Seasidesage]

Yeah lets allow the great unwashed to influence decisions on important matters in society. Most of them can't manage their own lives, let alone considering anyone else's.

As opposed to the landed gentry, deciding which peasant child they want for the evening? Neither's brilliant but one is a lot fairer than the other...

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

I repeat: don't ban private schools. Make state schools so good that paying for a child's education is a waste of money.

And if it means raising the top rate of tax to pay for it, then some of the people who had to pay extra would get a trade-off in that they wouldn't have to find all those school fees, and would have the rosy glow of knowing that they'd be helping everyone else out into the bargain.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

There is good statistical research (e.g. from the Sutton Trust) which shows that if you take two kids, both with the same A-levels, one coming from the state system and the other from the private system, the state school kid will, on average, do better at university. That's partly because, if they've got good A-levels, the state school kids will have had to show a lot of drive, initiative and be self-organised, whereas the private school kids are subject to a lot of discipline and spoon-feeding (so even quite thick ones get good exam results) and often, when they get to university, where those structures aren't there and they have to think and work for themselves, they don't thrive as well as the state school kids.

Anyway, it's clear that if you've got an average/thick kid, and you can afford it, they'll get better GCSEs/A levels if they go to a private school. I just don't think you should be allowed to buy them that advantage, rather they should have to take their chances in the normal schools like kids from poor families do. If you don't like that, then use your money to campaign for better state schools, rather than making the problem worse by taking your kids out of that system.

I certainly found that at university. We felt a bit sorry for some of the public school kids who found it a bit hard to keep up - especially those who were on closed awards from specific schools. Initiative wasn't their strong point, and the Oxford tutorial system meant doing a lot of your own research then having to defend what you'd written.

 

[soistes]

I repeat: don't ban private schools. Make state schools so good that paying for a child's education is a waste of money. .

The two are not mutually exclusive. A ban would be an important stimulus to improving state schools, because of the pressure that all the erstwhile private school parents would then put on the government, local authorities, the Department for Education etc.
As long as the elite can just opt out of state schools, that pressure will never be enough to get the improvements in state schools that you propose.

 

[pastafarian]

Can you explain how someone from a privelaged background studying the same degree as the council kid from Swindon has a better understanding of military strategy?

you are far more likely to come across military strategy if you went to a "posh" school.
The Combined Cadet Force has 250 contingents in independent schools and 65 contingents in state schools.

 

[Lawson]

The two are not mutually exclusive. A ban would be an important stimulus to improving state schools, because of the pressure that all the erstwhile private school parents would then put on the government, local authorities, the Department for Education etc.
As long as the elite can just opt out of state schools, that pressure will never be enough to get the improvements in state schools that you propose.

Why should people who can afford it not have the right to spend their hard earned money on privately educating their kids? they are allowed to buy sports cars, second homes and holidays but not on a wise investment like their children's future. i was not private schooled but i respect their right to be able to do it, there is no guarantee removing private schools would improve public schools, it might just dilute the quality of British students. the background of students is extremely important for academic achievement, it is the environment at home which is a key determinant from which the kid learns their work ethic. i had some idiots in my class; disrupted lessons, had no interest in learning and had a negative effect on everyone around them, it doesnt matter what money you threw at them they were always going to be losers, the battle for their futures had already been lost by bad parenting.

 

[beorhthelm]

I don't agree that that is what his post implies, although I can't say whether that is what he meant to say. There is no reference to the fact that he thinks the Swindon resident is an uneducated person, merely that his background will preclude him from having an understanding of the law or military strategy.

it is what i meant, and it is implied. background doesn't matter if you have the education, diversity is a tarty concept of people who think that it addresses everything but it doesn't. lets be clear, there are places for it - police or magistrates spring to mind - but it doesn't solve any perceive problem here. turn it around, do we want to have quotas, 10% of High Court judges to have no formal law training, 15% of civil service to have no degree or live? or 5% come from socio-demographic D, at the expense of better educated and skilled personnel get passed over for the top roles.

do we want to enforce diversity by lowering standard? there are those that do actually say yes to this (ignoring that standards somehow are lowered by such an approach), but i disagree entirely.