Join the Labour Party and save your country!

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Wanting to abolish private schools is an unusual move.

I wonder if they will get Abbott or the bought and paid for Chakrabarti to announce it? That should be a giggle.

Surely they of all people understand the inherent unfairness of private schools better than most, since they seem to think it's *so* unfair that they're willing to pay for the difference between state and private?

It's almost like they have realised there is indeed an inequality in education, but just have the means to maximise the opportunities for their own, which they realise they are lucky to have.

If you believe kids should all be given the same opportunity, then the private school system isn't really fair is it? Just because you want to reduce that inequality, doesn't mean you should put your kids on the wrong side of that, surely?


Anyway, this debate aside, it's bizarre timing.

So who actually believes that all kids should be given the same opportunity?
In practice
- firstly everyone will prioritise their own
- secondly, just think of the level of a) least common denominator and b) pretty fierce state compulsion that would be necessary. How's that going to work out?
- thirdly, whatever resources successful parents have just lost the ability to use will just be redeployed to whatever works in the new regime.

But I'm not disagreeing with your thoughts on inequality. The question (pretty fundamental to all politics, really) is: to what lengths are you willing to go to stamp out inequality? And what unintended consequences, in the form of new or at least reconfigured inequality, are you willing to see? The USSR did away with a lot of old school inequality but had appalling inequality inherent in its own culture, simply substituting the nomenklatura for the old elites.
And I don't think comparisons with the Soviets are overblown, either, when you hear talk of (effectively) forced nationalisation) private schools and expropriating their assets.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Wanting to abolish private schools is an unusual move.

I wonder if they will get Abbott or the bought and paid for Chakrabarti to announce it? That should be a giggle.

Surely they of all people understand the inherent unfairness of private schools better than most, since they seem to think it's *so* unfair that they're willing to pay for the difference between state and private?

It's almost like they have realised there is indeed an inequality in education, but just have the means to maximise the opportunities for their own, which they realise they are lucky to have.

If you believe kids should all be given the same opportunity, then the private school system isn't really fair is it? Just because you want to reduce that inequality, doesn't mean you should put your kids on the wrong side of that, surely?


Anyway, this debate aside, it's bizarre timing.

It's a nice bit of theory but unfortunately the reality of parents trying to do the best for their kids will scupper this. You would have to go along way to enforce equality - for example banning private tutorials. And then how do you deal with the vast variations of standards within the state sector? Maybe ban people moving house to be in the catchment area of a good state school?

If parents want to pay large chunks of their own money to take the stain off the state sector I'm fine with that. And I can't say I'm too hung up about 'fairness' as my kid's grammar gets better results than the local private schools.

Longshot

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Wanting to abolish private schools is an unusual move.

I wonder if they will get Abbott or the bought and paid for Chakrabarti to announce it? That should be a giggle.

Surely they of all people understand the inherent unfairness of private schools better than most, since they seem to think it's *so* unfair that they're willing to pay for the difference between state and private?

It's almost like they have realised there is indeed an inequality in education, but just have the means to maximise the opportunities for their own, which they realise they are lucky to have.

If you believe kids should all be given the same opportunity, then the private school system isn't really fair is it? Just because you want to reduce that inequality, doesn't mean you should put your kids on the wrong side of that, surely?


Anyway, this debate aside, it's bizarre timing.

It's a nice bit of theory but unfortunately the reality of parents trying to do the best for their kids will scupper this. You would have to go along way to enforce equality - for example banning private tutorials. And then how do you deal with the vast variations of standards within the state sector? Maybe ban people moving house to be in the catchment area of a good state school?

If parents want to pay large chunks of their own money to take the stain off the state sector I'm fine with that. And I can't say I'm too hung up about 'fairness' as my kid's grammar gets better results than the local private schools.

Absolutely right. There's far more effective and achievable fights for Labour to have on the equal opportunities front than this one.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Wanting to abolish private schools is an unusual move.

I wonder if they will get Abbott or the bought and paid for Chakrabarti to announce it? That should be a giggle.

Surely they of all people understand the inherent unfairness of private schools better than most, since they seem to think it's *so* unfair that they're willing to pay for the difference between state and private?

It's almost like they have realised there is indeed an inequality in education, but just have the means to maximise the opportunities for their own, which they realise they are lucky to have.

If you believe kids should all be given the same opportunity, then the private school system isn't really fair is it? Just because you want to reduce that inequality, doesn't mean you should put your kids on the wrong side of that, surely?


Anyway, this debate aside, it's bizarre timing.

So who actually believes that all kids should be given the same opportunity?
In practice
- firstly everyone will prioritise their own
- secondly, just think of the level of a) least common denominator and b) pretty fierce state compulsion that would be necessary. How's that going to work out?
- thirdly, whatever resources successful parents have just lost the ability to use will just be redeployed to whatever works in the new regime.

But I'm not disagreeing with your thoughts on inequality. The question (pretty fundamental to all politics, really) is: to what lengths are you willing to go to stamp out inequality? And what unintended consequences, in the form of new or at least reconfigured inequality, are you willing to see? The USSR did away with a lot of old school inequality but had appalling inequality inherent in its own culture, simply substituting the nomenklatura for the old elites.
And I don't think comparisons with the Soviets are overblown, either, when you hear talk of (effectively) forced nationalisation) private schools and expropriating their assets.

That is indeed the question.

Given how much people bang on about the school they went to deep into adulthood, I guess I think it has an outsized impact on people's social mobility.

It never really bothered me the whole private school thing; I could have gone had I or my parents wanted but I didn't for various reasons.

It's only now I spend a lot of time meeting business leaders I have come to realise how much of an impact it has; to the point where my bewilderment of certain conversations has excluded me from certain client meetings because I literally can't follow what they're on about, because I didn't go to a certain group of schools.

I have met dozens of people who when they describe their career it becomes clear how much they have relied on who they knew at school and not what they know.

I was quite sceptical that it made that much difference; I was brought up to think schools never really mattered because if you are smart you'll get it and if you aren't no level of spoon-feeding will make a difference, but out in the real world it really does feel different. This makes sense if you look at how expensive some of the top schools are; why else would they be paying for it.

I can see where you're coming from re requisitioning schools, but from the other perspective - that model of state only schools, save for exceptions for special neeeds - is so standard across Europe, I don't think the outcome is particularly extreme.

The system *does* preserve privilege and it *does* reduce social mobility, and for those reasons if given the choice, I'd definitely get rid of it - not, I want to make clear, for class warfare reasons, which I suspect is the motivating factor in for this current labour leadership.

I ultimately believe in trying to move the dial as close as is practical to a sort of old fashioned American dream type society where, as much as possible, it's up to you how well you, yourself, do, but if you fail you don't hurt too badly, and that the state can and will pick up the pieces.

TheBigBean

It is worth noting that a number of private schools have launched internationally making them reasonable exports. This shouldn't be seen as a bad thing, but perhaps should be considered in discussions around charitable status and tax.

rick_chasey

On an anecdotal level, though perhaps not trivial, it is nuts that the most effective way of increases the chances that your child becomes PM is to send then to Eton. It is a ludicrous proportion of PMs.

I mean that is properly nuts. *Where* you go should have as little baring as possible, surely.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Wanting to abolish private schools is an unusual move.

I wonder if they will get Abbott or the bought and paid for Chakrabarti to announce it? That should be a giggle.

Surely they of all people understand the inherent unfairness of private schools better than most, since they seem to think it's *so* unfair that they're willing to pay for the difference between state and private?

It's almost like they have realised there is indeed an inequality in education, but just have the means to maximise the opportunities for their own, which they realise they are lucky to have.

If you believe kids should all be given the same opportunity, then the private school system isn't really fair is it? Just because you want to reduce that inequality, doesn't mean you should put your kids on the wrong side of that, surely?


Anyway, this debate aside, it's bizarre timing.

So who actually believes that all kids should be given the same opportunity?
In practice
- firstly everyone will prioritise their own
- secondly, just think of the level of a) least common denominator and b) pretty fierce state compulsion that would be necessary. How's that going to work out?
- thirdly, whatever resources successful parents have just lost the ability to use will just be redeployed to whatever works in the new regime.

But I'm not disagreeing with your thoughts on inequality. The question (pretty fundamental to all politics, really) is: to what lengths are you willing to go to stamp out inequality? And what unintended consequences, in the form of new or at least reconfigured inequality, are you willing to see? The USSR did away with a lot of old school inequality but had appalling inequality inherent in its own culture, simply substituting the nomenklatura for the old elites.
And I don't think comparisons with the Soviets are overblown, either, when you hear talk of (effectively) forced nationalisation) private schools and expropriating their assets.

That is indeed the question.

Given how much people bang on about the school they went to deep into adulthood, I guess I think it has an outsized impact on people's social mobility.

It never really bothered me the whole private school thing; I could have gone had I or my parents wanted but I didn't for various reasons.

It's only now I spend a lot of time meeting business leaders I have come to realise how much of an impact it has; to the point where my bewilderment of certain conversations has excluded me from certain client meetings because I literally can't follow what they're on about, because I didn't go to a certain group of schools.

I have met dozens of people who when they describe their career it becomes clear how much they have relied on who they knew at school and not what they know.

I was quite sceptical that it made that much difference; I was brought up to think schools never really mattered because if you are smart you'll get it and if you aren't no level of spoon-feeding will make a difference, but out in the real world it really does feel different. This makes sense if you look at how expensive some of the top schools are; why else would they be paying for it.

I can see where you're coming from re requisitioning schools, but from the other perspective - that model of state only schools, save for exceptions for special neeeds - is so standard across Europe, I don't think the outcome is particularly extreme.

The system *does* preserve privilege and it *does* reduce social mobility, and for those reasons if given the choice, I'd definitely get rid of it - not, I want to make clear, for class warfare reasons, which I suspect is the motivating factor in for this current labour leadership.

I ultimately believe in trying to move the dial as close as is practical to a sort of old fashioned American dream type society where, as much as possible, it's up to you how well you, yourself, do, but if you fail you don't hurt too badly, and that the state can and will pick up the pieces.

I guess it is a factor of the industry you are in. For me it's almost completely irrelevant. The only time it has come up in 20 years is a chat with my director when he was choosing a secondary school for his lad and was amazed to discover that the local state school was actually pretty good. He still went for an independent, as far as I can tell because he went to an independent school himself and just couldn't accept that his son might do well elsewhere.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

On an anecdotal level, though perhaps not trivial, it is nuts that the most effective way of increases the chances that your child becomes PM is to send then to Eton. It is a ludicrous proportion of PMs.

I mean that is properly nuts. *Where* you go should have as little baring as possible, surely.

What kind of psycho plans for their child to be PM?

Pross

To my mind the only reason for banning private schools would be if they are currently making state education worse in some way or if banning them would help improve state education. I don't see either scenario being likely. Whether those that attend a private school get an unfair advantage in later life that is a result of the 'old school tie' rather than improved academic achievement is another thing. If we ban private schools should we then ban the top flight universities and only allow former polytechnics to continue? The 'politics of envy' thing gets thrown about too easily but adopting a policy like this can't be explained any other way in my opinion (I was state educated despite passing the entry exam and securing a partial scholarship offer for a minor public school).

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

I guess it is a factor of the industry you are in. For me it's almost completely irrelevant. The only time it has come up in 20 years is a chat with my director when he was choosing a secondary school for his lad and was amazed to discover that the local state school was actually pretty good. He still went for an independent, as far as I can tell because he went to an independent school himself and just couldn't accept that his son might do well elsewhere.

I guess so - I mean the comp in my industry is fairly high.... I don't bat an eyelid at 7 figures for folk I deal with.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I guess it is a factor of the industry you are in. For me it's almost completely irrelevant. The only time it has come up in 20 years is a chat with my director when he was choosing a secondary school for his lad and was amazed to discover that the local state school was actually pretty good. He still went for an independent, as far as I can tell because he went to an independent school himself and just couldn't accept that his son might do well elsewhere.

I guess so - I mean the comp in my industry is fairly high.... I don't bat an eyelid at 7 figures for folk I deal with.

A lot of your world view seems skewed by the industry to work with on a daily basis. You could do with looking outside the goldfish bowl a bit more as it is pretty much an irrelevance to most people in day-to-day life. I've met very few people who earn a seven figure package (although I had a meeting last week with a self-made billionaire last week and I'm also working for a company owned by an ex-comprehensive school pupil who apparently has a private net worth of over £400 million). The only person I know personally who works in the City earning the sorts of numbers you're talking about was also educated in a South Wales comprehensive.

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I guess it is a factor of the industry you are in. For me it's almost completely irrelevant. The only time it has come up in 20 years is a chat with my director when he was choosing a secondary school for his lad and was amazed to discover that the local state school was actually pretty good. He still went for an independent, as far as I can tell because he went to an independent school himself and just couldn't accept that his son might do well elsewhere.

I guess so - I mean the comp in my industry is fairly high.... I don't bat an eyelid at 7 figures for folk I deal with.

A lot of your world view seems skewed by the industry to work with on a daily basis. You could do with looking outside the goldfish bowl a bit more as it is pretty much an irrelevance to most people in day-to-day life. I've met very few people who earn a seven figure package (although I had a meeting last week with a self-made billionaire last week and I'm also working for a company owned by an ex-comprehensive school pupil who apparently has a private net worth of over £400 million). The only person I know personally who works in the City earning the sorts of numbers you're talking about was also educated in a South Wales comprehensive.

Sure, but by the same token, these are people who by various measures you can describe as having made it, and in this world, with the big bucks, in certain parts anyway (markets are wonderfully meritocratic for the most part), it matters loads.

coopster_the_1st

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Wanting to abolish private schools is an unusual move.

I wonder if they will get Abbott or the bought and paid for Chakrabarti to announce it? That should be a giggle.

Surely they of all people understand the inherent unfairness of private schools better than most, since they seem to think it's *so* unfair that they're willing to pay for the difference between state and private?

It's almost like they have realised there is indeed an inequality in education, but just have the means to maximise the opportunities for their own, which they realise they are lucky to have.

If you believe kids should all be given the same opportunity, then the private school system isn't really fair is it? Just because you want to reduce that inequality, doesn't mean you should put your kids on the wrong side of that, surely?


Anyway, this debate aside, it's bizarre timing.

It's a nice bit of theory but unfortunately the reality of parents trying to do the best for their kids will scupper this. You would have to go along way to enforce equality - for example banning private tutorials. And then how do you deal with the vast variations of standards within the state sector? Maybe ban people moving house to be in the catchment area of a good state school?

If parents want to pay large chunks of their own money to take the stain off the state sector I'm fine with that. And I can't say I'm too hung up about 'fairness' as my kid's grammar gets better results than the local private schools.

Purely the politics of envy, as are most of their plans.

Why didn't they promise to get all schools up to the level of private schools?

I can't stand this position that all children should be treated the same. Kids are different and develop at different speeds. Some are more intelligent, some are taller, some are better at football. Their talents should be identified and maximised rather than held back to those who are not so gifted.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I guess it is a factor of the industry you are in. For me it's almost completely irrelevant. The only time it has come up in 20 years is a chat with my director when he was choosing a secondary school for his lad and was amazed to discover that the local state school was actually pretty good. He still went for an independent, as far as I can tell because he went to an independent school himself and just couldn't accept that his son might do well elsewhere.

I guess so - I mean the comp in my industry is fairly high.... I don't bat an eyelid at 7 figures for folk I deal with.

I'm not sure either of our experiences is particularly representative. It's fair to say that a lot more people went to independent schools than end up earning 7-figure salaries. I'm more amused that these business leaders are just as tribal as everyone else.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I guess it is a factor of the industry you are in. For me it's almost completely irrelevant. The only time it has come up in 20 years is a chat with my director when he was choosing a secondary school for his lad and was amazed to discover that the local state school was actually pretty good. He still went for an independent, as far as I can tell because he went to an independent school himself and just couldn't accept that his son might do well elsewhere.

I guess so - I mean the comp in my industry is fairly high.... I don't bat an eyelid at 7 figures for folk I deal with.

A lot of your world view seems skewed by the industry to work with on a daily basis. You could do with looking outside the goldfish bowl a bit more as it is pretty much an irrelevance to most people in day-to-day life. I've met very few people who earn a seven figure package (although I had a meeting last week with a self-made billionaire last week and I'm also working for a company owned by an ex-comprehensive school pupil who apparently has a private net worth of over £400 million). The only person I know personally who works in the City earning the sorts of numbers you're talking about was also educated in a South Wales comprehensive.

Sure, but by the same token, these are people who by various measures you can describe as having made it, and in this world, with the big bucks, in certain parts anyway (markets are wonderfully meritocratic for the most part), it matters loads.

But when you look at the list of British born billionaires (once you leave out those who have inherited substantial wealth) it suggests to me that where you were educated doesn't matter if you have the vision and work ethic. They are generally the wealth creators and (in my admittedly limited knowledge of the FS sector) the City millionaires are generally making their money off gambling on the success or failure of them. It seems to be at that level where the who you know not what you know element comes into play and where in turn the public school connections play and unfair advantage.

Pross

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Wanting to abolish private schools is an unusual move.

I wonder if they will get Abbott or the bought and paid for Chakrabarti to announce it? That should be a giggle.

Surely they of all people understand the inherent unfairness of private schools better than most, since they seem to think it's *so* unfair that they're willing to pay for the difference between state and private?

It's almost like they have realised there is indeed an inequality in education, but just have the means to maximise the opportunities for their own, which they realise they are lucky to have.

If you believe kids should all be given the same opportunity, then the private school system isn't really fair is it? Just because you want to reduce that inequality, doesn't mean you should put your kids on the wrong side of that, surely?


Anyway, this debate aside, it's bizarre timing.

It's a nice bit of theory but unfortunately the reality of parents trying to do the best for their kids will scupper this. You would have to go along way to enforce equality - for example banning private tutorials. And then how do you deal with the vast variations of standards within the state sector? Maybe ban people moving house to be in the catchment area of a good state school?

If parents want to pay large chunks of their own money to take the stain off the state sector I'm fine with that. And I can't say I'm too hung up about 'fairness' as my kid's grammar gets better results than the local private schools.

Purely the politics of envy, as are most of their plans.

Why didn't they promise to get all schools up to the level of private schools?

I can't stand this position that all children should be treated the same. Kids are different and develop at different speeds. Some are more intelligent, some are taller, some are better at football. Their talents should be identified and maximised rather than held back to those who are not so gifted.

Now I'm worried, I'm in agreement with Coopster! :shock:

cycleclinic

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Wanting to abolish private schools is an unusual move.

I wonder if they will get Abbott or the bought and paid for Chakrabarti to announce it? That should be a giggle.

Surely they of all people understand the inherent unfairness of private schools better than most, since they seem to think it's *so* unfair that they're willing to pay for the difference between state and private?

It's almost like they have realised there is indeed an inequality in education, but just have the means to maximise the opportunities for their own, which they realise they are lucky to have.

If you believe kids should all be given the same opportunity, then the private school system isn't really fair is it? Just because you want to reduce that inequality, doesn't mean you should put your kids on the wrong side of that, surely?


Anyway, this debate aside, it's bizarre timing.

It's a nice bit of theory but unfortunately the reality of parents trying to do the best for their kids will scupper this. You would have to go along way to enforce equality - for example banning private tutorials. And then how do you deal with the vast variations of standards within the state sector? Maybe ban people moving house to be in the catchment area of a good state school?

If parents want to pay large chunks of their own money to take the stain off the state sector I'm fine with that. And I can't say I'm too hung up about 'fairness' as my kid's grammar gets better results than the local private schools.

Purely the politics of envy, as are most of their plans.

Why didn't they promise to get all schools up to the level of private schools?

I can't stand this position that all children should be treated the same. Kids are different and develop at different speeds. Some are more intelligent, some are taller, some are better at football. Their talents should be identified and maximised rather than held back to those who are not so gifted.

Not all private schools perform well. Also there more to education than grades. That maybe the focus of the system but it should be skills. all well and good having good grades but with out skills those grades means nothing.

Being able to cook, grow food or understand how its done is a skill. Coding whould be an intergal part of primary and secondary education just like literacy and numeracy are. It is a skill that can be graded but without the ability to programm the bsuiness of the present and future cant function.

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I guess it is a factor of the industry you are in. For me it's almost completely irrelevant. The only time it has come up in 20 years is a chat with my director when he was choosing a secondary school for his lad and was amazed to discover that the local state school was actually pretty good. He still went for an independent, as far as I can tell because he went to an independent school himself and just couldn't accept that his son might do well elsewhere.

I guess so - I mean the comp in my industry is fairly high.... I don't bat an eyelid at 7 figures for folk I deal with.

A lot of your world view seems skewed by the industry to work with on a daily basis. You could do with looking outside the goldfish bowl a bit more as it is pretty much an irrelevance to most people in day-to-day life. I've met very few people who earn a seven figure package (although I had a meeting last week with a self-made billionaire last week and I'm also working for a company owned by an ex-comprehensive school pupil who apparently has a private net worth of over £400 million). The only person I know personally who works in the City earning the sorts of numbers you're talking about was also educated in a South Wales comprehensive.

Sure, but by the same token, these are people who by various measures you can describe as having made it, and in this world, with the big bucks, in certain parts anyway (markets are wonderfully meritocratic for the most part), it matters loads.

But when you look at the list of British born billionaires (once you leave out those who have inherited substantial wealth) it suggests to me that where you were educated doesn't matter if you have the vision and work ethic. They are generally the wealth creators and (in my admittedly limited knowledge of the FS sector) the City millionaires are generally making their money off gambling on the success or failure of them. It seems to be at that level where the who you know not what you know element comes into play and where in turn the public school connections play and unfair advantage.

You honestly think that there is no advantage to sending your kids to private school?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I guess it is a factor of the industry you are in. For me it's almost completely irrelevant. The only time it has come up in 20 years is a chat with my director when he was choosing a secondary school for his lad and was amazed to discover that the local state school was actually pretty good. He still went for an independent, as far as I can tell because he went to an independent school himself and just couldn't accept that his son might do well elsewhere.

I guess so - I mean the comp in my industry is fairly high.... I don't bat an eyelid at 7 figures for folk I deal with.

A lot of your world view seems skewed by the industry to work with on a daily basis. You could do with looking outside the goldfish bowl a bit more as it is pretty much an irrelevance to most people in day-to-day life. I've met very few people who earn a seven figure package (although I had a meeting last week with a self-made billionaire last week and I'm also working for a company owned by an ex-comprehensive school pupil who apparently has a private net worth of over £400 million). The only person I know personally who works in the City earning the sorts of numbers you're talking about was also educated in a South Wales comprehensive.

Sure, but by the same token, these are people who by various measures you can describe as having made it, and in this world, with the big bucks, in certain parts anyway (markets are wonderfully meritocratic for the most part), it matters loads.

But when you look at the list of British born billionaires (once you leave out those who have inherited substantial wealth) it suggests to me that where you were educated doesn't matter if you have the vision and work ethic. They are generally the wealth creators and (in my admittedly limited knowledge of the FS sector) the City millionaires are generally making their money off gambling on the success or failure of them. It seems to be at that level where the who you know not what you know element comes into play and where in turn the public school connections play and unfair advantage.

You honestly think that there is no advantage to sending your kids to private school?

I think the answer is: it depends. If you want to get into the world you're describing then quite possibly. Other areas less so.

rolf_f

In educational terms, apparently the advantage of private schools is that they get a lot more out of the unmotivated or less bright students. Basically, if your child is smart and you interest themselves in their education they should do fine in any decent school and you are wasting your money coughing up.

But of course that ignores the old boys network benefits. Which are obviously potentially considerable. But then you risk turning your child into a Mini-Mogg and who would want that?

bompington

When it comes to Etonians and prime ministers, surely there's a bit of cause and effect there isn't there? If you took an ethnic minority council house boy and sent them to Eton, how much chance would they have?

If you abolished private schools, the elite would find another way to keep the old boy network going.

I'm privately educated myself, my kids go/went to state schools, I used to teach at an exclusive private school that was over twice as expensive as Eton - that's what you have to pay to look after the neediest and most difficult kids - now I teach in the state sector. Meanwhile Mrs(Dr) Bomp - NI grammar school, but that's a whole different story - is busy trying to develop and apply "contextual factors" for uni admission so that those who have the potential to be good doctors win out over those who could get decent grades with a bit of cramming plus a pretty personal statement at their family network's expense.

And I would much rather the private sector withered through natural selection: you get the impression that an awful lot of the whole industry is devoted to passing on privilege. I wouldn't mind that if the core of independent school culture was real education: I loved the education I got, there was a lot of genuine intellectual stimulation, and a major part of the culture was to remind us the we were privileged, and it was our duty to use that for the common good (I know, it feels a bit patrician, quaint and old-fashioned these days). But you get the impression that it's not like that these days: even in my Dad's day (taught at private schools from the 50s to the 90s) he would observe, sadly, that the culture of respect for education was eroding, replaced by the idea that you were a hired hand whose job was simply to guarantee success.

I don't mind a few rich kids getting better jobs than they deserve, what people miss about privilege and diversity is that we want the people in every job who can do it best - everyone benefits that way, except of course for those whose appropriate level of social mobility is downward

Still, it's easy to paint the braying hoorays getting jobs on the old boy network as pantomime villains, but like everything, the whole story is a lot more complex, and the consequences of compulsion-driven social engineering will be even less pleasant than the thought that my savings and pension are being managed (and, effectively, dipped into) by someone whose only qualification is the school on their CV.


PS: is it actually true that private schools are actually illegal in Europe?

Pross

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I guess it is a factor of the industry you are in. For me it's almost completely irrelevant. The only time it has come up in 20 years is a chat with my director when he was choosing a secondary school for his lad and was amazed to discover that the local state school was actually pretty good. He still went for an independent, as far as I can tell because he went to an independent school himself and just couldn't accept that his son might do well elsewhere.

I guess so - I mean the comp in my industry is fairly high.... I don't bat an eyelid at 7 figures for folk I deal with.

A lot of your world view seems skewed by the industry to work with on a daily basis. You could do with looking outside the goldfish bowl a bit more as it is pretty much an irrelevance to most people in day-to-day life. I've met very few people who earn a seven figure package (although I had a meeting last week with a self-made billionaire last week and I'm also working for a company owned by an ex-comprehensive school pupil who apparently has a private net worth of over £400 million). The only person I know personally who works in the City earning the sorts of numbers you're talking about was also educated in a South Wales comprehensive.

Sure, but by the same token, these are people who by various measures you can describe as having made it, and in this world, with the big bucks, in certain parts anyway (markets are wonderfully meritocratic for the most part), it matters loads.

But when you look at the list of British born billionaires (once you leave out those who have inherited substantial wealth) it suggests to me that where you were educated doesn't matter if you have the vision and work ethic. They are generally the wealth creators and (in my admittedly limited knowledge of the FS sector) the City millionaires are generally making their money off gambling on the success or failure of them. It seems to be at that level where the who you know not what you know element comes into play and where in turn the public school connections play and unfair advantage.

You honestly think that there is no advantage to sending your kids to private school?

I think the answer is: it depends. If you want to get into the world you're describing then quite possibly. Other areas less so.

This. There are probably a few sectors of life where it's a distinct advantage (in addition to FS I would say politics and elements of the Civil Service plus academia itself are pretty obvious examples) but there are plenty of well paid professions where I don't think it makes the slightest bit of difference. For example, those involved with high tech engineering often come from other backgrounds as their skill sets aren't often the sort of thing that public schools promote.

In addition, there are examples of private schools allowing the local state sector schools to benefit from their facilities. The school I had an offer from works closely with the state secondary school in the town. I just feel it's looking at things backwards to suggest banning something that offers a potentially better education to some just because others aren't able to access the same opportunities. As Coopster said (yes, I know!) the aim should really be to invest in state education so that it is on a par with the best fee paying establishments.

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

If you abolished private schools, the elite would find another way to keep the old boy network going.

unpaid internships in central London would seem like quite a good way of screening out the hoi polloi.

I'm privately educated myself, my kids go/went to state schools, I used to teach at an exclusive private school that was over twice as expensive as Eton - that's what you have to pay to look after the neediest and most difficult kids - now I teach in the state sector. Meanwhile Mrs(Dr) Bomp - NI grammar school, but that's a whole different story - is busy trying to develop and apply "contextual factors" for uni admission so that those who have the potential to be good doctors win out over those who could get decent grades with a bit of cramming plus a pretty personal statement at their family network's expense.

As I may have posted before, my mother was involved with the interviewing for Bristol Vet School for a few years. I remember her commenting that grades were a pretty poor indicator of how they came across in the interview and suitability to become a veterinary surgeon.

Longshot

Pross wrote:

There are probably a few sectors of life where it's a distinct advantage

The ones that involve money and power. They don't really care about the others.

rjsterry

Longshot wrote:

Pross wrote:

There are probably a few sectors of life where it's a distinct advantage

The ones that involve money and power. They don't really care about the others.

The Chancellor went to the local comprehensive and then the local technical college. Granted that is unusual, but it shows that it can be done.

rick_chasey

So the thinking here is, it's fine it's unfair, because that's what parents want?

And because you know some people who have done alright from a state school?

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

unpaid internships in central London would seem like quite a good way of screening out the hoi polloi.

What do you do when a high paying client asks if one of their kids can do some work experience? It would be hard to argue that it is bribery as you are receiving free labour, but ultimately it is. And having done the free work experience in multiple places, they then have a much better CV than others.

Part of me wonders whether the correlation is not so much about whether people went to private schools, but that the people with the money and power send their children to private schools, and that it is actually the money and power that assists with success. That discounts connections made at a peer level, and connections through peers' parents though.

The main appeal for me about private schools is the reduced probability of ending up in a gang.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

unpaid internships in central London would seem like quite a good way of screening out the hoi polloi.

What do you do when a high paying client asks if one of their kids can do some work experience? It would be hard to argue that it is bribery as you are receiving free labour, but ultimately it is. And having done the free work experience in multiple places, they then have a much better CV than others.

Part of me wonders whether the correlation is not so much about whether people went to private schools, but that the people with the money and power send their children to private schools, and that it is actually the money and power that assists with success. That discounts connections made at a peer level, and connections through peers' parents though.

The main appeal for me about private schools is the reduced probability of ending up in a gang.

:shock: It was all making sense until that last bit. What schools have you been to?

Other than that, I agree.

Longshot

Rick Chasey wrote:

So the thinking here is, it's fine it's unfair, because that's what parents want?

And because you know some people who have done alright from a state school?

I'm not sure anyone said "it's fine".

Realistically, what is this Labour proposal going to achieve? The kids of the OSN will be privately tutored in addition to their new state education and, anyway, being thick has never stopped any of them from progressing further than the average kid.

So, the taxpayer will end up paying a fortune in CPO costs to buy all the land/property, thousands of teachers will get a pay cut and nothing will actually change in reality.

robert88

bompington wrote:

PS: is it actually true that private schools are actually illegal in Europe?

You are having a laugh aren't you?