effective Irish people who did not need a private school

sensibleken

seven-iron wrote: »

Hang on, I take your point but we haven't tried it yet though! So, how do you know it wouldn't work? I think the UK system is brilliant.

The title of fifth largest economy in the world speaks for itself. EDIT:Their NHS is significantly better than our HSE. So it shows everyone gets looked after! So to say it is cronyism is ridiculous.

You do realise that the person who put the NHS together, Aneurin Bevan, left school at 13 after performing poorly right?

Sky King

I was sent to a private school (didn't really want to go) and from the extensive chats I had with my mates now (none of whom attended one) I think that the standard of education is pretty much the exact same.

We just had great rugger and hockey facilities (neither of which I have any interest in whatsoever so it was kind of a waste sending me there). I had the same mix of very good and shockingly bad teachers that every one else did.

My primary school was probably the roughest in kilkenny and I got a great education there, and if I am ever unfortunate enough to be tricked into having kids, they'd be sent to the closest secondary school.

It's a load of cack... college is where one is properly educated and that's where the dense rich kids lose out to the sloggers that were educated by the brothers.

stovelid

biko wrote: »

If you're a bright kid where you attend school won't matter much.

Essentially but not necessarily true. Even if you're bright, you may not do well or push yourself if you are in a disruptive environment or your home/school environment has an inimical attitude (or even just disinterest) in educational achievement and progress to third-level.

Sugar Free

A surprisingly interesting discussion for AH!

I'm actually not sure where I stand. I definitely think public schools can be more hit and miss and for certain companies in some sectors the school and college you attended will be of some importance. To me, that is more about fitting in with the culture and ethos rather than snobbery.

I went to a very good public school which consistently places high in the league tables (though people can argue about the validity of these tables). I was also naturally bright and a good student. That took care of the academic side.

However the school also placed a big emphasis on sport and through this each year becomes a tight knit group and developed into confident, rounded young men. Even now, I'm still good friends with several of my classmates, not because of parochialism but from the bonds we formed and experiences (mainly sporting) we shared.

All this can undoubtedly be found in private schools too. I feel however, that it may be less commonly found in public schools.

So would I send any children I may have to a private school? If it had a reputation for producing bright, good-natured students then yes I would.

If a public school had a similiar reputation then I wouldn't hesitate to send them there either.

If it was feasible for me to send any sons to my secondary school, I'd do it in a heartbeat! // nostalgia

fontanalis

I'd say a lot of former students of private schools really moved and shook Anglo Irish Skank.

flas

Gyalist wrote: »

Last January when the vast majority of schools closed because of small amount of snow, my son's school opened on time and had the full schedule of classes before the Minister of Education, in his wisdom, ordered that all schools be closed. He went to school 40 minutes earlier than usual last Tuesday because a teacher offered to give them an extra Latin class. I've yet to hear of a state school teacher voluntarily giving so much of their time.

On Saturdays, depending on the season, he has a choice of tennis, cricket, hockey, rugby and other sports - unheard of in state schools. Parent/teacher meetings are held after 6 pm for the convenience of the parents and not the staff. Those mysterious Friday afternoon "staff meetings" that only seem to be held just before long holiday weekends don't happen at his school. He never misses a class because of in-service training or the school being used for elections, etc. This morning I went to play an early-morning squash game and when I arrived at the club at 7:30, there were already students from St. Mary's (not my son's school) there waiting for their PE teachers and tennis coaches to arrive. They played until 8:45 before heading off to start their classes. I'd love to hear of a state school that gives their students those opportunities.

It costs a lot but I choose to do what's best for him. I'm not prepared for him to be a guinea pig in someone's social-engineering experiment. I'll give him the best chances that I can afford although it would be ultimately up to him to make the most of the opportunities.

this happened in the school i attened also, we used to hate when we would be made play anything else except football in PE, especially something like tennis. it was a boys school, with some boarders but most of the students were day boys, and in 3rd year they got rid of all the boarders althoughter. it was still a public school, no fees were needed to attened as a day pubil,it was just a very well ran school, huge achievements in sports nationally aswell, most leinster A medals won in senior gaa and underage aswell. most of the school's we would regularly encounter on our travels due to the football would also be like our, but then again they were all country schools like our own, in county towns and the likes.

id say a good 80% of my year went on to 3rd level education. the teachers would give up there free time to help any student and regularly did, its not something specifically to private schools.

Pace2008

stovelid wrote: »

Essentially but not necessarily true. Even if you're bright, you may not do well or push yourself if you are in a disruptive environment or your home/school environment has an inimical attitude (or even just disinterest) in educational achievement and progress to third-level.

I'd have to agree with Biko; I think the cream will usually rise to the top, especially since most LC subjects can be easily self-taught by someone with a strong academic inclination.

I reckon it's the more average students who'd either make it or break it depending on environment.

seven-iron

You do realise that the person who put the NHS together, Aneurin Bevan, left school at 13 after performing poorly right?

Your missing my point. I'm not saying that people from public schools are less likely to find success.

I'm saying that by and large, people from private schools tend to go on to the better universities. Many of them tend to end up having great careers as judges, doctors and finance professionals.

In order to increase my children's chances of success I want them to go to the most prestigious private schools. Hopefully get the education that is needed for a successful career. To reiterate, public schools are not bad, of course there not, but I want my children to have better than average chances of a successful career. Whatever it may be.

Pace2008

seven-iron wrote: »

Your missing my point. I'm not saying that people from public schools are less likely to find success.

He was addressing this point:

seven-iron wrote: »

Look at the UK politicians. They all went to the best and most prestigious private schools in England. Personally, I think that is a route that we should follow. We should have our brightest and best in office. If you have a poor education you should be made step aside.

The health system you were lauding was set up by a man uneducated by today's standards.

parker kent

seven-iron wrote: »

Your missing my point. I'm not saying that people from public schools are less likely to find success.

I'm saying that by and large, people from private schools tend to go on to the better universities. Many of them tend to end up having great careers as judges, doctors and finance professionals.

In order to increase my children's chances of success I want them to go to the most prestigious private schools. Hopefully get the education that is needed for a successful career. To reiterate, public schools are not bad, of course there not, but I want my children to have better than average chances of a successful career. Whatever it may be.

So why not just judge people on their University education?

Edit: Obviously I am not saying that a person's merit should be entirely based on whether they went to University. Just getting that in before anybody accuses of saying that!

sensibleken

seven-iron wrote: »

Your missing my point. I'm not saying that people from public schools are less likely to find success.

I'm saying that by and large, people from private schools tend to go on to the better universities. Many of them tend to end up having great careers as judges, doctors and finance professionals.

In order to increase my children's chances of success I want them to go to the most prestigious private schools. Hopefully get the education that is needed for a successful career. To reiterate, public schools are not bad, of course there not, but I want my children to have better than average chances of a successful career. Whatever it may be.

You said that those who have had a poor education should 'stand aside' from politics. Nobody is questioning your choices of where to send your kids.

A lot of people have a natural talent for administration and go on to be successfull because of those talents and despite a disadvantage of a poor education. Those people should be aplauded, not kept out of the system. Its the people with no cop on and a sense of entitlement because of a privilidged back ground that should be kept out

seven-iron

Right, the NHS is administered by;

Lord Howe - Christ Church (well known private school)
Andrew Lansley - Brentwood boarding school (private school)

Past Ministers:
Hugh Taylor
Nigel Crisp
Christopher Kelly Graham Hart
Christopher France

All private schools.

And our Minister: Mary Harney; some convent in Wicklow

parker kent

seven-iron wrote: »

Right, the NHS is administered by;

Lord Howe - Christ Church (well known private school)
Andrew Lansley - Brentwood boarding school (private school)

Past Ministers:
Hugh Taylor
Nigel Crisp
Christopher Kelly Graham Hart
Christopher France

All private schools.

And our Minister: Mary Harney; some convent in Wicklow

Last I heard Inchicore and Clondalkin were not in Wicklow. You also ignore that she went to Trinity College.

seven-iron

You also ignore that she went to Trinity College.

Yes because this is not a thread about universities.

Pace2008

seven-iron wrote: »

Yes because this is not a thread about universities.

You helped steer it that way with the flagrant (possibly misphrased?) remark that representatives without sufficient education should step aside.

sensibleken

seven-iron wrote: »

Right, the NHS is administered by;

Lord Howe - Christ Church (well known private school)
Andrew Lansley - Brentwood boarding school (private school)

Past Ministers:
Hugh Taylor
Nigel Crisp
Christopher Kelly Graham Hart
Christopher France

All private schools.

And our Minister: Mary Harney; some convent in Wicklow

Yet it was founded by a barely educated man. Thus proving a private education is not neccesary. There are plenty of other examples, the chairman of the labour court in Ireland also left school at 14.

What school did Nigel crisp attend? I notice he has a degree in philosophy which I also have, does that make me equally qualified to administer the NHS despite going to a crap public school?

Pace2008

sensibleken wrote: »

What school did Nigel crisp attend? I notice he has a degree in philosophy which I also have, does that make me equally qualified to administer the NHS despite going to a crap public school?

Why not, don't they say that good health is all in the mind? :P

seven-iron

I notice he has a degree in philosophy which I also have

:cool: Right so, we'll philosophise our way out of the recession.

does that make me equally qualified to

You don't qualify for that type of thing, you earn it.

A Primal Nut

seven-iron wrote: »

Most business owners, entrepreneurs and doctors come from private schools. Same with all the high level judges. I'm definitely sending my kids to private school. I think they'll get the best possible education and hopefully the best opportunities in life.

Actually most self-made entrepreneurs left school at a young age. The ones you are referring to are the ones who made it thanks to their parents; and would have made it anyway regardless of their schooling.

The reason students do better in private schools is because of the kind of students who go there. Their parents are obviously very interested in their child doing well at school if they are paying all that money. The level of interest from the parents is the biggest reason for whether or not a child succeeds at school in my opinion. Of course the parents of most students in public schools care just as much, but of course there are going to be a lot more who don't care.

Public schools would have a mixture of students where parents care a lot about how their children do, parents who care but don't pressure their kids and parents who don't care. So you are going to bet a bigger mix of success than in private schools. Public schools would obviously have a bigger mix of students from different class areas, which would make it more difficult for some to do well, or where the emphasis isn't on becoming a judge/doctor, but perhaps following their parents into the family trade or getting a job making a decent living without needing to be "the best" in life. This is a bigger reason for the difference in performance between private and public than the quality of teaching.

I would imagine that most private school students would have done just as well in life had they gone to public schools, as the parental pressure, interest and class expectations are there regardless. It just so happens that more of those would go to private schools.

Another thing of course, is that if the parents can afford to send their kids to a private school, then they are clearly very successful themselves - many would be doctors, lawyers, business owners, etc. Clearly this makes life a lot easier for their children, with regards to getting internships, work experience, etc. Most people who make it in the legal profession have close contacts already in it.

I'm fairly sure most people who went to private schools would have had the same success had they gone to private schools, as the reason for their success is mostly due to outside influences, i.e. the kind of people that go to private schools.

sensibleken

seven-iron wrote: »

:cool: Right so, we'll philosophise our way out the recession.




You don't qualify for that type of thing, you earn it.

Exactly my point. You earn it. You shouldnt be excluded because you went to the wrong school, a decision not made by you

Pace2008

seven-iron wrote: »

You don't qualify for that type of thing, you earn it.

...So people should be appointed on the basis of merit, not on the institutions they've attended nor the papers they've acquired?

seven-iron

sensibleken wrote: »

Exactly my point. You earn it. You shouldnt be excluded because you went to the wrong school, a decission not made by you

Your more likely to earn it if you went to a private school because of training, teaching, practice, hard work and contacts.

seven-iron

which would make it more difficult for some to do well, or where the emphasis isn't on becoming a judge/doctor, but perhaps following their parents into the family trade or getting a job making a decent living without needing to be "the best" in life.

Yes I agree with you these people are unlikely to reach high governmental positions anyway.

sensibleken

seven-iron wrote: »

Your more likely to earn it if you went to a private school because of training, teaching, practice, hard work and contacts.

If you are indeed more likely to get there because of a private education then thats fine. That will make itself evident through your experience, achievements etc. you know, the kind of thing they look at in job interviews. If they immediatly discount you because of the school you go to then thats illegal discrimination.

What you are saying is that people with a bad education should step aside from public life. Hard work, contacts, talent and being well read are not the sole property of the well schooled.

Pace2008

seven-iron wrote: »

Your more likely to earn it if you went to a private school because of training, teaching, practice, hard work and contacts.

So your earlier comment was misjudged - competence is all that's required for a position of importance, but this is more likely to be attained through a private education?

sensibleken

Pace2008 wrote: »

So your earlier comment was misjudged - competence is all that's required for a position of importance, but this is more likely to be attained through a private education?

You see, this makes sense.

In my opinion what needs to be done if there is the political will and finances to do it is redress the imbalance in education to ensure as fair and equal opertunity to every child regardless of the wealth of the parent.

If someone from a poorly educated back ground is successfull they should be applauded. Too many smart people are unable to make the full contribution they are capable of because of a sub-par education. If they re-indroduce 3rd level fees that will make it even worse

mariaalice

This is largely a Dublin thing and maybe other large cities....The school my daughter goes to is not a private school and it is excellent its very academic and every year some students get Trinity sponsorships...The big thing is its the sort of school where the students talk about WHEN i go to college NOT if i go to college...in the school its as taken for granted as breathing that they will go to college!

A teaches i know say the best schools are usual small community schools in rural areas.

ascanbe

Have to laugh at the premise in the original post that it might be difficult to find an 'effective' Irish person that did not attend private school.
By the way, there are no truly private schools in Ireland, as far as i'm aware; they are all subsidised by the government.
A particularly striking example of how this state actively fosters a two-tier system.

parker kent

seven-iron wrote: »

Yes because this is not a thread about universities.

I was making a remark aimed at this line that you used earlier in the thread. You brought Universities into this debate.

I'm saying that by and large, people from private schools tend to go on to the better universities. Many of them tend to end up having great careers as judges, doctors and finance professionals.

Harney went to one Ireland's most internationally respected University, therefore she meets your criteria. People have no way that they can influence whether they go to a private school, you can either afford it or not (ignoring things like loans,scholarships etc). But people can work hard and get to University. Somebody that gets a good third-level education, deserves an opportunity to have what you deem as "great careers". Hard work is not a bad trait.

I am not anti-private schools in the slightest. I can see the obvious advantages. But that hardly means that people not fortunate enough to have the money to go to them should be cast aside. That is a frankly ridiculous proposition.

parker kent

sensibleken wrote: »

If someone from a poorly educated back ground is successfull they should be applauded. Too many smart people are unable to make the full contribution they are capable of because of a sub-par education. If they re-indroduce 3rd level fees that will make it even worse

Not to totally sidetrack the topic, but fees would not be a bad thing as long as they helped subsidise an improved grant/scholarship scheme.