Dick Knights Mumm
Take me Home Falmer Road
It makes people more likely to end up in the upper echelons. But more suitable ? Not from what I see.
The UK is "deeply elitist" do you agree?
- Thread starter Doc Lynam
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
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
Take me Home Falmer Road
Fair do's Squire.
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
New member
Interestingly, you have the same attitude to paragraphs and spelling as some of my Oxbridge-educated colleagues.
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.
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
Doctor Worm
Absolutely this.
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!
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.
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
New member
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
Well-known member
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.
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
Well-known member
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.
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
Well-known member
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.
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
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,940
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.