Should State subsidies to fee-paying schools be cut?

JustinDee wrote: »

This is life, fella. Believe it or not, not everyone is "equal" and some stretch to considerable lengths to ensure this is so, as is their right.

"That's the way it is" is not a valid argument in favour of, or against, anything.

No. The basis of argument for the main part against has entailed being "wealthy" or "poorer off" as reading further in your post even shows, despite you making this claim.

What other "grouping"? Those living near the poverty line? Those less well off? Again, you are failing dismally in outlining "who" is "who" and applying the broad brush when it suits.

How about you make the distinction then?

As far as I'm concerned, my point stands: some in society can afford it, others can't. You're squabbling over what the definition of "afford" is rather than admitting the core point to be true. A welfare recipient couldn't pay school fees, nor could someone working for minimum wage, nor could many earning relatively good salaries that have screwed themselves with massive mortgages on properties in negative equity. That those people may or may not have had a hand in their own financial difficulties is irrelevant: their children shouldn't be discriminated against on that basis.

Third level education is an optional extension of your education. Not an obligation. Not a requirement and most certainly not the duty of every citizen in the country to subsidise.

In the global world we live in, unless the majority of our young people are educated to degree level, we're ****ed to be honest. Without the removal of 3rd level fees we'd never have had the genuine surges in growth of the early 90's. Whilst we'd have avoided the tiger bubble, from an economic perspective we'd never have left the 80's. We can't even compete with Eastern Europe in low to medium skilled manufacturing type jobs: we have to produce a highly skilled workforce just to maintain our current position, never mind what we need to do to grow.

No, our universities aren't perfect and yes, we're probably funding plenty of hobby degrees that'll never pay anything back to the economy but that's probably another thread.

There are far more than a "few" and they are vital cogs in the conveyor belt for those who choose to go into third level education but don't go to university.

And away with the begrudgery again. Pro-agendaic line exemplified perfectly with this last paragraph (and the "Daddy's Business School" comment).

How is it begrudgery to object to jobs in areas of our legal profession being restricted to only that group of society that can afford to work for a year without any income?

And sure, Daddy's Business School is a derogatory comment. It's widely called that as there's no academic achievement in gaining entry: it's somewhere Daddy can buy you access to a degree when you're not smart enough to get into the course in a real university and tbh, I see little use for such institutions.

:cool:While it's a statement of fact, the same statement can be made about any status quo.

We're discussing state funding of private education i.e. the state supporting inequality. Whilst it might not be pragmatically possible to rectify this situation at present, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done when it is possible.

Perhaps a good short-term solution would be to forbid those holding state office or civil service positions above a certain grade from availing of the services of the private schools?

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Re Inns, of course being wealthy will get you in (or getting into a lot of student debt), but it will not help you pass your exams....and I'm back to my original point.

Being wealthy won't pass your exams.

Being poor means you don't get the option to sit them.

Do you see nothing wrong in that?

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think you have some inferiority issues tbh. I'm not trying to be mean (we're all adults here) but you seem hell bent on putting people into boxes all the time - in your mind we have all been born with silver spoons in our mouths and nothing anyone tells you will change your mind.

To be totally honest, the education I received would be superior to that received by most (public or private) so it's not an inferiority thing. The condescending tone of JustinDee's posts despite the lack of any actual arguments in them just gets my back up tbh.

I mean, I've been completely honest here. "Admitting" (since it appears to be almost criminal now) to having attended a fee-paying school. I have also explained how my Father grew up in a tenement with an alcoholic father who drank every penney that came into the house. I have described how he worked (in a physically demanding job) for 50 years to provide the best he could for his children. He is now crippled and facing into a knee and possible hip replacement. I told how my parents did not go on foreign holidays until they were in their forties. We didn't build ridiculous extensions onto the house or change the car every year. I remember a time when my parents did not have carpet on their floors. When we were kids my mam used to put a superser in the bedroom for 20 minutes before me and my brother went to bed for gods sake.

I didn't say all this to play the worlds smallest violin on a wednesday afternoon but I am simply trying to make the points that:
1. NOT everyone who goes to a fee-paying school is born with a silver spoon in their mouth
2. Even if your parents send you to the best school, its no substitute for hard work and ability.

Of course, all of this has been ignored. Labels are much more convenient when one has an agenda.

There's no need for violins, we get it, your argument has been accepted and no one has argued otherwise: some people on modest incomes scrimp and scrape in order to afford the best education for their children. I've acknowledged that repeatedly in this thread.

What I've yet to see you acknowledge is the fact that, even were they to attempt to mimic what your parents did for you, many people couldn't achieve that.

Maybe you're fine with an unequal society. I certainly don't consider all people to be equal myself: some people make a positive contribution to society others damage it and others still have no impact one way or the other.

Should we, however, allow a child to be condemned by the actions of their parents?

In my opinion, the provision of a high quality education is the best thing a society can do to maximise the number of those in society who are net contributors and provides those children born on the wrong side of any socio-economic line one chooses to draw the opportunity to work their way across that line.

In an unequal world, an education system based on equality of access and achievement by merit seems the best means of allowing that imo.