Insane private school fees.

Shakespeare's Sister

Candie wrote: »

I boarded in a school in Kent for my secondary years. The teachers were the best of the best, they were well paid and worked in ideal conditions and each vacancy had applicants in the 100's, so only the highest calibre applicants got the jobs. I can't fault my education, and even though I complain a bit when I look back on my school days, I have to say I was really lucky. The range of extra curricular activities was fantastic, and we were encouraged to try everything so we could discover what we had a talent for or a passion for. Sports, music, crafts, art, all kinds of hobbies were offered.

We went on regular trips outside the school to museums, lectures and exhibitions and the staff took a great interest in our personal development. We weren't allowed spend hours in front of the tv and outdoor sports were really encouraged, regardless of how talented or otherwise you might have been at it. Class sizes were around 20 and misbehaviour didn't last so there were few interruptions. If anyone showed a particular talent in a subject, they were taught at the level they were at, not what the class was at.

In my class of 20 - 25, I don't know of any who didn't go to Uni, and a large majority continued to at least Masters level. There was some snobbery, and it was leapt on by the faculty and discouraged within the school culture. Girls at my school were lucky to be there, and they were reminded of that constantly.

Most of the boarders were like me, they had parents who's careers took them away from home for long periods and boarding was a good solution to that problem. If I was in a similar position to my parents at that time, I would consider the option without hesitation. If I wasn't and there was a good state school nearby, then I'd consider that option too. It's all about choices.

That seems like an ideal school - if all private schools were like that, they'd definitely be worth at least investigating. It certainly seems a lot better than my school, which was very deceptive before I started going there - great facilities, lovely spacious building, large grounds, lovely rolling green field out the back with trees... but absolutely ruined by this pack of aggressive girls who intimidated pupils and teachers, and a lot of the teachers had clearly just given up caring.

chrissb8

You're paying for status essentially. So that's why fees are so high. No one goes to a private school for anything less. People know that certain social circles will be open to them and later on in life a certain degree of nepotism. Seen it so much. After college is finished a job can be guaranteed. I know some great people from private schools but I think in general people from public schools are better equipped for the world. Exposure to all social classes and a more humble outlook on life.

Tarzana

failinis wrote: »

I went to a grammar school in the UK - compared to experience of my friends in the comprehensives, I would say the grammar was less disruptive and that certainly helped my learning.
I found they pushed maths/sciences and neglected all the other subjects.

Once I left I was so happy, it had an air of snobbery which I hated, but I did get a good start from there - I would consider sending any kids of a grammar.

Public schools, I don't know what I think on them - is it worth the money if the teachers don't give a damn?

That's mad that the grammer you went to had an air of snobbery. I mean, I think they're great but you don't have to be particularly well-heeled to attend one. Unless the snobbery was more of the intellectual kind?

My friend studied graduate medicine in London and was really surprised at the open bluntness and snobbery there was among students over what kind of secondary school you went to.

Shakespeare's Sister

It's not fair to say people only go to private schools for status - it happens sure (some people have laughably said on this thread that they'd only send their kid there because they'd get to associate with the "right" people; bless 'em) but some do just send their child(ren) there because of excellence in education, not all that status bollocks.
It's not like that in this country anyway most of the time - private schools aren't anything like Eton, Harrow etc. Well maybe some Dublin ones veer in that direction, and the odd exclusive rural one, but private schools in e.g. Cork are nothing like even the Dublin ones, let alone the British ones.

steddyeddy

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Agreed!

Can't say that going to a community school in a good area had any downsides. We had the best of everything, except for maybe a pool. LC results were for the most part excellent, with plenty of 550+ and numerous 600 point results.

Do you see anything wrong at all with results of a test being linked to the wealth of your parents?

Frank Lee Midere

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

It's not fair to say people only go to private schools for status - it happens sure (some people have laughably said on this thread that they'd only send their kid there because they'd get to associate with the "right" people; bless 'em) but some do just send their child(ren) there because of excellence in education, not all that status bollocks.
It's not like that in this country anyway most of the time - private schools aren't anything like Eton, Harrow etc. Well maybe some Dublin ones veer in that direction, and the odd exclusive rural one, but private schools in e.g. Cork are nothing like even the Dublin ones, let alone the British ones.

I doubt if the LC results would show the private schools dominating in Ireland.

SaveOurLyric

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I doubt if the LC results would show the private schools dominating in Ireland.

Nevertheless, they do.

Shakespeare's Sister

University is a rite of passage for middle-class/well-off people though - it's not just because of the private school being good academically.
State schools in middle-class areas will have a high turnover of third level attendees also.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Minjor wrote: »

When the parents who send the kids there are often the ones paying the most tax into the system?

You're saying their tax shouldn't be allowed fund the schools they send their children to?

Most of them wouldn't be able to afford Eton level fees anyway.

My tax isn't benefiting me in a lot of cases but I still have to pay .I'm indirectly funding all schools in this country. I've no children so therefore I'm just educating the little ****ers that will be competition for my job in a few years time.Should I be allowed to complain about this or should I accept that you have to pay tax whether or not you get the benefit out of it.

steddyeddy

Guys I'm in academia I see many people from private school who shouldn't be there (thick outside of the ability to prepare for a test) and many from bad schools who are far more intelligent. For any test to work it needs to be standardised to the prior training.

Tarzana

Candie wrote: »

In my class of 20 - 25, I don't know of any who didn't go to Uni, and a large majority continued to at least Masters level.

I'm not sure this is all down to ability and teaching quality. Friends of mine from private day and boardings say it was pretty much drummed into to you from day one that you were going to go to university. No others path was ever given consideration or airtime. It's just what you did, it was your destiny.

Tarzana

steddyeddy wrote: »

Guys I'm in academia I see many people from private school who shouldn't be there (thick outside of the ability to prepare for a test) and many from bad schools who are far more intelligent.

Yes, we know, it's a hobby horse of yours.

The reverse is also true, private school students with lots of ability, state school students with much less.

What really needs to be addressed has little to do with private schools. The most fundamental thing that aids children in their academic pursuits is parental support and encouragement. It is SO important. That support structure needs to be in place at home for any student to prosper, or an equivalent structure for boarding school kids.

Glock Lesnar

steddyeddy wrote: »

Guys I'm in academia I see many people from private school who shouldn't be there (thick outside of the ability to prepare for a test) and many from bad schools who are far more intelligent. For any test to work it needs to be standardised to the prior training.

Is that how you start all your conversations?

SaveOurLyric

Glock Lesnar wrote: »

Is that how you start all your conversations?

I guess it depends on whether the 'academia' you are in is one that prizes grammar or not.

I thought an ability to pass exams was still useful 'in academia', but its a good while since I was there.

steddyeddy

Glock Lesnar wrote: »

Is that how you start all your conversations?

The ones that relate to academia.

conorh91

steddyeddy wrote: »

Guys I'm in academia I see many people from private school who shouldn't be there (thick outside of the ability to prepare for a test) and many from bad schools who are far more intelligent. For any test to work it needs to be standardised to the prior training.

I'm so fed up of this myth whereby people love to imply that fee-paying students are usually of below average intelligence, and non fee-paying students are being discriminated against and trampled upon, or could excel if all the big-bad-universities gave them a chance. BS.

Fee-paying schools almost always have above average learning resources, as well as favourable student-teacher ratios. Presumably, there's a smaller but an important correlation with parental ambition, too.

It is ludicrous to ignore these factors, and pursue some fallacious line that fee-paying students only progress to University and professional careers because of 'elitism'.

How can we claim that student resources matter, and that student-teacher ratios matter, and simultaneously claim that fee-paying students are no better (or even, worse) than non fee-paying students.

That just does not add up. It is dishonest to make that kind of claim.

Shakespeare's Sister

I think it's fair to say though that some people from private schools in e.g. UCD are thick as two planks and incapable of critical thinking.

cloud493

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

I think it's fair to say though that some people from private schools in e.g. UCD are thick as two planks and incapable of critical thinking.

You could say that of literally any school :P

Duck's hoop

The primary motivation for parents send their kids to the likes of Harrow and Eton in the UK, and Blackrock and Glenstal in ROI, is access to a very tightly knit, elite social and business network.

conorh91

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

I think it's fair to say though that some people from private schools in e.g. UCD are thick as two planks and incapable of critical thinking.

It's equally fair to say that some people from public schools, e.g. in IT Tallaght are thick as two planks and incapable of critical thinking.

Using words like 'some' and 'many' is 'sometimes' a way of disguising a generalisation.

It's offensive to 'many' when I make a generalisation about IT Tallaght. But 'some' people feel at liberty to apply similar negative 'examples' to fee-paying students.

Shakespeare's Sister

conorh91 wrote: »

It's equally fair to say that some people from public schools, e.g. in IT Tallaght are thick as two planks and incapable of critical thinking.

But that's what lots of people think anyway, whereas private school + UCD = automatically intelligent according to the popular consensus.

The stats bear out too that people from schools in economically and socially disenfranchised areas are less likely to progress in education, whereas it's the reverse for people who go to private schools (and state schools in middle-class/affluent areas) so nobody's contradicting this (or at least nobody has cause to contradict these trends), it's just that sometimes thick doesn't go away despite private school/uni education.

Strong Life in Dublin

The contacts you make etc are the main reasons someone would send their kids to a school like Harrow

jahalpin

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

That's how much they should cost here too, if it wasn't for the state subsidised elitism. Private schools should be entirely self-funded.

The state has a legal obligation to pay for the primary and secondary education for every child in the state

The amount that it costs the state to educate a child in a private school is actually less than it costs to educate a child in a public school, so by paying private school fees, the parents of children in private schools are actually subsidising the state.

Richard D James

Strong Life in Dublin wrote: »

The contacts you make etc are the main reasons someone would send their kids to a school like Harrow

Thats true enough. In the UK at least, most people who end up in government, running the country, will have gone to Harrow, Eton, so they will end up serving the elite few, their mates etc...

steddyeddy

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm so fed up of this myth whereby people love to imply that fee-paying students are usually of below average intelligence, and non fee-paying students are being discriminated against and trampled upon, or could excel if all the big-bad-universities gave them a chance. BS.

Fee-paying schools almost always have above average learning resources, as well as favourable student-teacher ratios. Presumably, there's a smaller but an important correlation with parental ambition, too.

It is ludicrous to ignore these factors, and pursue some fallacious line that fee-paying students only progress to University and professional careers because of 'elitism'.

How can we claim that student resources matter, and that student-teacher ratios matter, and simultaneously claim that fee-paying students are no better (or even, worse) than non fee-paying students.

That just does not add up. It is dishonest to make that kind of claim.

I don't have anything against people who go there or people who send their kids there. If anything parents are to be admired for spending money on their kids education. What I cannot accept is a system that favours the income of the family you were born into over intelligence. I cannot accept anything that gives an inaccurate representation of the academically gifted.

Tarzana

Duck's hoop wrote: »

The primary motivation for parents send their kids to the likes of Harrow and Eton in the UK, and Blackrock and Glenstal in ROI, is access to a very tightly knit, elite social and business network.

Definitely some truth in this. No doubt about it.

Tarzana

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

But that's what lots of people think anyway, whereas private school + UCD = automatically intelligent according to the popular consensus.

I wouldn't say that's the popular consensus at all.

steddyeddy

conorh91 wrote: »

It's equally fair to say that some people from public schools, e.g. in IT Tallaght are thick as two planks and incapable of critical thinking.

Using words like 'some' and 'many' is 'sometimes' a way of disguising a generalisation.

It's offensive to 'many' when I make a generalisation about IT Tallaght. But 'some' people feel at liberty to apply similar negative 'examples' to fee-paying students.

Lets put it this way. It's easier for someone who's not academically gifted to get into college if he goes to a better school than someone of equal ability who goes to a sub par school.

Tarzana

steddyeddy wrote: »

Lets put it this way. It's easier for someone who's not academically gifted to get into college if he goes to a better school than someone of equal ability who goes to a sub par school.

You do need to delve deeper into the socioeconomic reasons for that too though. It's not just about money. Are children from some areas and backgrounds likely to get more parental support than others? This is something that needs to be looked at and examined. And parents need to be encouraged to get more involved.

Shakespeare's Sister

Tarzana wrote: »

I wouldn't say that's the popular consensus at all.

Some younger people might question it, but overall people are going to think: private school + UCD = brainbox.

I think all Steddyeddy was saying was that university students who went to a private school aren't always intelligent, and some people who went to a state school in a disenfranchised area can be very intelligent but don't have the same opportunities.