Insane private school fees.

AdamD

steddyeddy wrote: »

My supervisor corrects papers. I have no idea what school a person went to.

Yet you constantly make posts which come to the conclusion that many people who went to private school aren't cut out for their courses and perform worse than those from disadvantaged backgrounds, how exactly are you judging this?

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

As if I said it was. I was responding to the direct insult aimed at those who choose private education.



An unfair, insulting, and untrue generalisation, and a completely unnecessary thing to say about the thousands of parents who choose this route for their kids. Unless you know them all personally, which I doubt.

In an ideal world all schools would be equal in every way, from the calibre of the teachers to the standard of the buildings. But it's not like that in the real world and the free market where education is a commodity as well as a right.

Removing choices from one set of parents will not confer more choices on others, especially where there is no State funding for the private school sector, as in the UK where I was educated.

Hey Candie I apologise for the remark. I was just flabbergasted with the flippant nature of a particular poster's attitude to education.

I have nothing against parents who send their kids to good schools. It's admirable to do so and I'm aware a lot of parents (particularity those less well off) make huge sacrifices to send their kids to good schools.

I'm against the system that allows people to buy an educational advantage over another child who's competing for the same place in college as someone with far better state resources. As a scientist with a love of learning and knowledge I couldn't be for such a system.

Now here's my problem with a lot of the views here. Everyone talks about the parents this and the parents that and the free market. Well that's all well and good but the problem is we're talking about a competition for college places. We choose who goes to college based on intelligence, academic ability and hard work. Those who work the hardest should get rewarded but that isn't always the case unfortunately.

Amazingly the people complaining that the parents who work hard should be rewarded are the same ones supporting a such an anti competitive institution as private schools.

Now you said you feel insulted and I agree my comment was out of line but I too feel insulted by some of the points made on this thread and others.

I read science books from an early age and without being modest had greater understanding of science and maths than some of my teachers yet the school I went to was appalling. My mother worked very very hard in a low paid job and although she did support me (even when her health failed) she couldn't afford to send me to a private school. So lets stop saying my parents worked hard and they cared about education to send their kids to private school. My mother worked hard and wanted me to do well in education. It's not only those who are lucky enough to afford fee paying schools that care about education.

You talk about the free market. I don't see how two people competing for the same place while one gets and unearned advantage over another anything to do with capitalism.

steddyeddy

AdamD wrote: »

Yet you constantly make posts which come to the conclusion that many people who went to private school aren't cut out for their courses and perform worse than those from disadvantaged backgrounds, how exactly are you judging this?

Simply put Adam the people who come from disadvantaged areas have to work al lot harder to get in. They know what they want and work harder for it. A fair amount of people I met from fee paying schools felt didn't have the interest in the course and didn't work hard to stay there.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Hey Candie I apologise for the remark. I was just flabbergasted with the flippant nature of a particular poster's attitude to education.

I have nothing against parents who send their kids to good schools. It's admirable to do so and I'm aware a lot of parents (particularity those less well off) make huge sacrifices to send their kids to good schools.

I'm against the system that allows people to buy an educational advantage over another child who's competing for the same place in college as someone with far better state resources. As a scientist with a love of learning and knowledge I couldn't be for such a system.

Now here's my problem with a lot of the views here. Everyone talks about the parents this and the parents that and the free market. Well that's all well and good but the problem is we're talking about a competition for college places. We choose who goes to college based on intelligence, academic ability and hard work. Those who work the hardest should get rewarded but that isn't always the case unfortunately.

Amazingly the people complaining that the parents who work hard should be rewarded are the same ones supporting a such an anti competitive institution as private schools.

Now you said you feel insulted and I agree my comment was out of line but I too feel insulted by some of the points made on this thread and others.

I read science books from an early age and without being modest had greater understanding of science and maths than some of my teachers yet the school I went to was appalling. My mother worked very very hard in a low paid job and although she did support me (even when her health failed) she couldn't afford to send me to a private school. So lets stop saying my parents worked hard and they cared about education to send their kids to private school. My mother worked hard and wanted me to do well in education. It's not only those who are lucky enough to afford fee paying schools that care about education.

You talk about the free market. I don't see how two people competing for the same place while one gets and unearned advantage over another anything to do with capitalism.

The education system can never be completely homogenised. People will always have better or worse teachers or facilities, or parents, or grinds, or many other variables.

The ideal would be to offer more choice, rather than reduce it.

As a past private school pupil, I find the implication that I'm possibly less deserving and perhaps have only advanced in academia as a result of unearned advantage utterly exasperating. I'm working in a university after ten years of hard slog and have earned my place in the world on merit. Snobbery thrown into sharp reverse is still snobbery.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

The education system can never be completely homogenised. People will always have better or worse teachers or facilities, or parents, or grinds, or many other variables.

The ideal would be to offer more choice, rather than reduce it.

As a past private school pupil, I find the implication that I'm possibly less deserving and perhaps have only advanced in academia as a result of unearned advantage utterly exasperating. I'm working in a university after ten years of hard slog and have earned my place in the world on merit. Snobbery thrown into sharp reverse is still snobbery.

More choice to a select few?

Where did I say you're less deserving? I said private schools are allocated based on income of parents and not academic ability. They are unearned. Anyone who advances in academia does so on their own merit. Getting to academia is another issue. I'm talking about the people who get here and don't give a crap and take the place of someone who does want to be there.

I also find the idea that a hard working student with brains to burn is less entitled to a decent education than someone who is born into the right family disgusting.

SaveOurLyric

Candie wrote: »

I'm working in a university after ten years of hard slog and have earned my place in the world on merit.

I dont doubt. But not everyone has the opportunity to put in ten years of hard slog and earn their place in the world on merit. You are fortunate.

steddyeddy

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I dont doubt. But not everyone has the opportunity to put in ten years of hard slog and earn their place in the world on merit. You are fortunate.

Bingo. Who are top of the class in science right now? Mature students. Many come from backgrounds that didn't afford them the privilege of college early in life. They never lost the passion and they're performance shows they were always meant to be there and would have been if they went to a different school.

eyescreamcone

If fee paying schools are to be banned, should we also ban grinds and grind schools?

steddyeddy

eyescreamcone wrote: »

If fee paying schools are to be banned, should we also ban grinds and grind schools?

Simply put do what Finland does and stop schools collecting fees. Since then Finland's literacy gap between wealthy and poor has closed considerably. The college entry level isn't as shunted in favour of one socio economic group.

SaveOurLyric

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I dont doubt. But not everyone has the opportunity to put in ten years of hard slog and earn their place in the world on merit. You are fortunate.

I am very fortunate, no one could deny that. And as much as I'd love to see a future where equality of opportunity was a reality, I don't think it will ever be the case.

There are simply too many variables in terms of quality of facility, quality of teaching, availability of grinds, even availability of a good study space. Not only would there have to be equality of choice, there would have to be equality of opportunity to make the choices, and the world is too unpredictable for that.

Do we ban private schools, and state schools with better than average teachers? Do we ban schools with advanced programs because other schools don't have them? Ban grind schools and private grinds? Ban parental involvement in study and homework?

The answer isn't in paring off from the top down, it's building up from the bottom and putting the resources into the schools that need it most. But there'll never be true equality of opportunity, not as long as humans remain individuals anyway.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

I am very fortunate, no one could deny that. And as much as I'd love to see a future where equality of opportunity was a reality, I don't think it will ever be the case.

There are simply too many variables in terms of quality of facility, quality of teaching, availability of grinds, even availability of a good study space. Not only would there have to be equality of choice, there would have to be equality of opportunity to make the choices, and the world is too unpredictable for that.

Do we ban private schools, and state schools with better than average teachers? Do we ban schools with advanced programs because other schools don't have them? Ban grind schools and private grinds? Ban parental involvement in study and homework?

The answer isn't in paring off from the top down, it's building up from the bottom and putting the resources into the schools that need it most. But there'll never be true equality of opportunity, not as long as humans remain individuals anyway.

You do realise that while there is a disparity between education students from vastly different schools are competing for the same places? Of course the disparity matters. Finland achieved reduction in literacy gap between economic groups quite nicely so don't say it can't be done.

evolving_doors

steddyeddy wrote: »

More choice to a select few?

Where did I say you're less deserving? I said private schools are allocated based on income of parents and not academic ability. They are unearned. Anyone who advances in academia does so on their own merit. Getting to academia is another issue. I'm talking about the people who get here and don't give a crap and take the place of someone who does want to be there.

I also find the idea that a hard working student with brains to burn is less entitled to a decent education than someone who is born into the right family disgusting.

"People who get there and dont give a crap" aint just from fee charging schools ya know. Is there any stats on where the first year drop-outs went to secondary?

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

You do realise that while there is a disparity between education students from vastly different schools are competing for the same places? Of course the disparity matters. Finland achieved reduction in literacy gap between economic groups quite nicely so don't say it can't be done.

I didn't say it can't be done, I said it can't be completely done. Huge big difference. Build from the most deserving up, don't dumb from the top down. We should be aiming to elevate the overall standard, not levelling it downwards.

evolving_doors

steddyeddy wrote: »

You do realise that while there is a disparity between education students from vastly different schools are competing for the same places? Of course the disparity matters. Finland achieved reduction in literacy gap between economic groups quite nicely so don't say it can't be done.

Yes but whats the PTR in finland compared to Ireland?

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

I didn't say it can't be done, I said it can't be completely done. Huge big difference. Build from the most deserving up, don't dumb from the top down. We should be aiming to elevate the overall standard, not levelling it downwards.

Where did I say I want to level downwards?

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Where did I say I want to level downwards?

Your hostility towards what you describe as the unfair advantage conferred by a private education. If we get rid of private schools because they give pupils an unfair advantage by virtue of being better schools, you are getting rid of better schools.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

Your hostility towards what you describe as the unfair advantage conferred by a private education. If we get rid of private schools because they give pupils an unfair advantage by virtue of being better schools, you are getting rid of better schools.

No I don't suggest getting rid of the schools. I suggest preventing them collecting a fee like Finland do.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

No I don't suggest getting rid of the schools. I suggest preventing them collecting a fee like Finland do.

Private fees? Or state grants? Making private schools into state schools is the same as getting rid of them.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

Private fees? Or state grants? Making private schools into state schools is the same as getting rid of them.

Candie according to other posters the only advantage a private school has is it's "bells and whistles". If they're theory is correct then the schools should be grand.

Yes private fees.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Candie according to other posters the only advantage a private school has is it's "bells and whistles". If they're theory is correct then the schools should be grand.

So you want to make them state schools, but claim you don't want to get rid of them? Will you put a ban on all extra curricular options as well?

I don't get your point above, although I'm sure you're aware every school is different, public or state.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

So you want to make them state schools, but claim you don't want to get rid of them? Will you put a ban on all extra curricular options as well?

I don't get your point above, although I'm sure you're aware every school is different, public or state.

My point is that many posters claim that if the same pupils went to state schools they would do equally well. If that's the case when fees are removed they would still be the best schools.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

My point is that many posters claim that if the same pupils went to state schools they would do equally well. If that's the case when fees are removed they would still be the best schools.

Do you want to get rid of private schools or not Eddy?

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

Do you want to get rid of private schools or not Eddy?

I want to stop them being private yes. Not make make them worse as you claim.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

I want to stop them being private yes. Not make make them worse as you claim.

Well since it's the money generated by the fees that pays for the superior facilities and the best teaching staff, it will be making them worse. I'm specifically thinking of my old school here, which attracted the most talented teachers with higher salaries, and got no state subsidy.

So we've established you think that private schools are better and confer an unfair advantage, and that you think they should be made into state schools. I'd prefer to see state schools properly funded and parents to have greater choice of schools within their cachement areas, rather than remove any choices at all.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

Well since it's the money generated by the fees that pays for the superior facilities and the best teaching staff, it will be making them worse. I'm specifically thinking of my old school here, which attracted the most talented teachers with higher salaries, and got no state subsidy.

So we've established you think that private schools are better and confer an unfair advantage, and that you think they should be made into state schools. I'd prefer to see state schools properly funded and parents to have greater choice of schools within their cachement areas, rather than remove any choices at all.

Actually you've just established that the money you're born into determines the quality of teachers you have access to. I think that's an unfair advantage yes. I think making sure that students who deserve to college get there on the basis of hard work and intelligence and not money is more important than choice open to a small number of people anyway.

shruikan2553

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually you've just established that the money you're born into determines the quality of teachers you have access to. I think that's an unfair advantage yes. I think making sure that students who deserve to college get there on the basis of hard work and intelligence and not money is more important than choice open to a small number of people anyway.

But people can just pay someone to teach their children in a subject anyway.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually you've just established that the money you're born into determines the quality of teachers you have access to. I think that's an unfair advantage yes. I think making sure that students who deserve to college get there on the basis of hard work and intelligence and not money is more important than choice open to a small number of people anyway.

Tell me how. Ban grinds, extra curricular, parental involvement, clone teachers and end parents association fundraising? All those things confer an unfair advantage to those without.

You do private school kids a disservice if you think they didn't get to college without hard work and intelligence. And I work in a Uni too, I know the mix that gets in. Generalising with a bias against privately educated people is just as unfair as generalising with a bias towards those who come from more challenging circumstances.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

Tell me how. Ban grinds, extra curricular, parental involvement, clone teachers and end parents association fundraising? All those things confer an unfair advantage to those without.

You do private school kids a disservice if you think they didn't get to college without hard work and intelligence. And I work in a Uni too, I know the mix that gets in. Generalising with a bias against privately educated people is just as unfair as generalising with a bias towards those who come from more challenging circumstances.

Candie these schools already have a bias towards those from more challenging circumstances by exlcuding those with parents who can't afford them. I actually had students in college write to schools in question begging for a scholarship because they came from foster homes and were gifted academically. They sent evidence of grades and work but many were ignored (Belvedere is the exception here as they play a huge role in helping disadvantaged youths.) I just don't have good experience with these schools and disagree with their ethos.

I don't think people in private school are not very intelligent or automatically get it easier but I do have a problem with the system as a whole.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Candie these schools already have a bias towards those from more challenging circumstances by exlcuding those with parents who can't afford them. I actually had students in college write to schools in question begging for a scholarship because they came from foster homes and were gifted academically. They sent evidence of grades and work but many were ignored (Belvedere is the exception here as they play a huge role in helping disadvantaged youths.) I just don't have good experience with these schools and disagree with their ethos.

I don't think people in private school are not very intelligent or automatically get it easier but I do have a problem with the system as a whole.

You need to explain your vision of the alternative. How does the playing field get truly levelled?

The enrolment in the public (private) school I went to in Kent was 10% fully funded scholarships and 20% partially funded scholarships. In my university, up to 70% of students are in receipt of some level of financial aid, and 20% pay no tuition. You'd ban these schools instead of recognising the opportunities they afford.

shruikan2553

Candie wrote: »

You need to explain your vision of the alternative. How does the playing field get truly levelled?

The enrolment in the public (private) school I went to in Kent was 10% fully funded scholarships and 20% partially funded scholarships. In my university, up to 70% of students are in receipt of some level of financial aid, and 20% pay no tuition. You'd ban these schools instead of recognising the opportunities they afford.

I think the idea is that the rich kids can no longer buy their way into college so all the poor super smart children can get into medicine now that they are no longer being oppressed.