[Closed] Private school vs state school

I went to private school.

We smoked a lot of weed and liked to take LSD whenever anyones 'rents went away.

I liked meeting kids from all over manchester of all different races. I didn't like not knowing many kids locally.

My grades were ok. The teaching can't make that much difference. I've got mates from private schools that are decorators and mates from the comp that run their own businesses.

I think by separating your kids from society at large you take away the need for them to learn to deal with a broad spectrum of people. Sure, They might learn some more latin without the local dickheads firing elastic bands at them but I think they miss some valuable life lessons.

I won't be sending my kids to private school.

That seems like a very generalised view of it though.

Some private schools are horrendous for insulating kids from the real world and worse, for giving them a sense of superiority. IME it's not the stereotypical Eton that's bad for that (in fact, I'd say that a few high profile Etonians give the majority a very bad and undeserved name) but rather many of the other very expensive and desirable but not-quite-Eton ones that are the worst examples.

given the choice of a good teacher trying to improve the results of 30 kids or the same one trying to do the same for 15, I can see which is likely to be more successful.

The one who gains twice the experience every year of the other? 🙂

it's not the stereotypical Eton that's bad for that (in fact, I'd say that a few high profile Etonians give the majority a very bad and undeserved name) but rather many of the other very expensive and desirable but not-quite-Eton ones that are the worst examples.

Could well be a strange, compensatory inferior-superiority complex. I went to Durham Uni, so met some Oxbridge rejects who were particularly unpleasant in a chip-on-their-shoulder kind of way.

And I was at Bristol which in that respect was no doubt very similar (and I was a Cambridge reject as it goes. Twice 😉 )

Some private schools are horrendous for insulating kids from the real world and worse, for giving them a sense of superiority.

What no-one is willing to admit here (though I have heard others admit it) is that that sense of superiority is actually seen as a desirable trait by some and is part of the point of sending kids to private school. Teach kids that they are special and superior and to some extent that confidence becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

given the choice of a good teacher trying to improve the results of 30 kids or the same one trying to do the same for 15, I can see which is likely to be more successful.

The one who gains twice the experience every year of the other? 

you're talking bollocks again!

you're talking bollocks again!

I do it for a living, remember 🙂

What no-one is willing to admit here (though I have heard others admit it) is that that sense of superiority is actually seen as a desirable trait by some and is part of the point of sending kids to private school. Teach kids that they are special and superior and to some extent that confidence becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It helps them get ahead in life. That's a good thing.

grum - Member
What no-one is willing to admit here (though I have heard others admit it) is that that sense of superiority is actually seen as a desirable trait by some and is part of the point of sending kids to private school.

I assume grum that you have not spent too much time experiencing life within a private school. One thing that you would find, if you did, is that any ideas of superiority are quickly squashed by fellow pupils and by staff. If a parent sends their child to a private school in order to gain a sense of superiority, I fear that that would be a waste of rather a lot of money.

You're too late THM, andyrm already admitted it. 😉

Nice edit BTW.

He says that it may help them get ahead. Any school that is well suited to the child will do that. That is not synonymous with a sense of superiority. Confirmation bias?

Thank you.

Think the superiority thing comes more from parents rather than a private school and takes many forms such as those who believe they are superior because they have more money, a private education or even those who feel they are morally superior due to their political views....takes all sorts to make the world.

I assume grum that you have not spent too much time experiencing life within a private school. One thing that you would find, if you did, is that any ideas of superiority are quickly squashed by fellow pupils and by staff. If a parent sends their child to a private school in order to gain a sense of superiority, I fear that that would be a waste of rather a lot of money.

You might spend your entire first year ironing spats and toasting teacakes for the prefects and being spanked with a cricket bat for your troubles, but hey, at least you're still not a Muggle.

And if as has been said on here, one person has made sacrifices to send their kid to a better school, why don't others do the same rather than complaining about a tiered system? You aren't going to invert the pyramid in your lifetime so work it.

I am not going to stop robbing or fraud either should I join in with that as well? Exploit it for my own personal gain or can I still object to it?

s that any ideas of superiority are quickly squashed by fellow pupils and by staff. If a parent sends their child to a private school in order to gain a sense of superiority, I fear that that would be a waste of rather a lot of money.

He says that it may help them get ahead. Any school that is well suited to the child will do that. That is not synonymous with a sense of superiority.

So, given that the thing most likely to help a child succeed is the ethic instilled by parents (as you said yourself after not bothering answering my question a page or so earlier), one wonders whether private school suits certain types of parents rather than certain types of children.

One does indeed, doesn't one!!!

Well I dunno...are you just insulting me again or agreeing with me? It's a struggle sometimes to find the true meanings behind your winks, brackets and exclamations.

I can't get my head round choosing (as opposed to our circumstances forcing you to) to send your child away to board. THM talks of financial sacrifices to send kids to fee-paying and boarding schools, and parents like him arriving in clapped-out cars.

My wife and I work less than we could and so earn less (60 hours between us) so that we can [i]spend more time with[/i] our children; this is our "financial sacrifice" and it means we are the sort of parents who are at the school gate morning and afternoon five days a week, know our kids' teachers well, eat dinner round the table together and spend quality time with them at play and at homework time: to work ourselves into the ground so we cold afford to send them away (and give us more time to work ourselves into the ground to afford school fees) just seems alien to me.

I appreciate the different and in some cases unique life experiences and social skills that boarding brings, but I would rather that my wife and I teach my children to iron, sew, tidy and debate, and trust that the absence of millionaire parents in our school (a brother and sister who are mates with my kids do have parents in prison though and not for anything middle class like financial irregularities!) does not blinker them too much to the full range of our society. Hey, even if they only get to somewhere crap for university (both are in brightest 10% so far) they are bound to meet plenty of foreign students and some millionaire's offspring who 'flunked'. I certainly did!

[edit] fwiw to qualify the above with my own inherited educational values/faimly scripts about this, five of my 'whole' cousins and four second/third cousins the same age as me all went to boarding school. As parents in their 30's and 40's now, none are looking at sending their children to board. My dad also boarded from age 12 (and as his dad ran a boarding/prep school technically he already lived in his prepschool and somewhere in it his parents did too so i won't count that as boarding from age 6...) ...and Dad would never have dreamed of sending us to board. In fact none of my three siblings and me even did the 11+ and we went to local comp. Three out of four of us are graduates, my sister is a headteacher but I am winning on academic points and multiple university alumnus mailshots. 😉

julianwilson +1

Fancy taking my fella for a few years? Being self-employed, I'm finding him a bit of a drain on my time. Your house sounds ideal. He's a good sleeper! 🙂

DD, you could pop him in the van and bond with him over the joys of hardwood flooring. 😀

Seriously, back when it was allowed, my mum used to bring me (age 7-11) to work in the blind folks' home and that was a great way of introducing me to a broader range of society and understanding what happens when your parents go to work. (dad was a teacher so I already had a good idea about that bit) BTW other things I learnt were to never assume that just because someone is 80 and can't see that they don't know exactly what you are up to. Or can't beat you at most board games!

julianwilson +another 1

my mum used to bring me (age 7-11) to work in the blind folks' home

I beat you: I got to ride in the cab of my grandad's truck 🙂

Julian - a well articulated argument in favour of a multi-tiered system. Parents and kids have different needs and should have the ability to make those choices as they see fit. It's a personal choice above all. Banning certain schools does little to achieve that.

Banning certain schools does little to achieve that.

All in your opinion, of course. Needs adding as you continue to cite yours as if factual.

Parents and kids have different needs and should be able to have these met in a state education system, regardless of the ability to pay, in a way which is equitable to all.

Banning certain schools does little to achieve that.

banning private schools may impeove social mobility though

Parents and kids have different needs and should be able to have these met in a state education system, regardless of the ability to pay, in a way which is equitable to .

Not talking bollocks

Not talking bollocks

Cos I'm at home now 🙂

Yes, I do keep saying it deadly, correct. In my lifetime I have experienced the abolition of certain schools that helped my parents and many others achieve social mobility (and the likes of Harold Wilson and Ted Heath) on misguided whims. You regularly complain about the lack and reduction of social mobility in the UK - any coincidence there? BBC4 now for a refresher.

So mike, I appreciate the offer. We can have some state boarding schools so I can choose to chase a highly paid job overseas, leave the kids behind and let someone else pay for it. What an idea!!! Cheers! That's almost as good as working for the Halo Trust.

Thm, I fear that by making an argument specifically against sending one's children to boarding school, and it being understood by you as an argument for multi tiered education I really must have missed out on something in my state education that you gained from yours. 😕
Please have the 'quality of education' argument with someone who is actually arguing it. I would however welcome your experiences of parenting children away from the family home and how you came to the decision. Were there really no suitable/affordable local schools or were there other considerations? FWIW I too worked in aboarding school once upon a time but it was a (French) state school with impoverished locals and rich boarders alike. (much like your post just above) As such I see the arguments about boarding and fee paying as separate but with some overlap in places.

Not talking bollocks

I beg to differ, what does is mean in practice?

Do we have one teacher for each subject and do it over the internet so that everyone receives the same? and therefore ban additional tuition?

Do we ban parents taking an interest in their kid's education because that is not fair to those who don't?

I could go on ad infinitum, but a platitudinous phrase like that is no more useful than a Miss World contestant wanting world peace.

Yes, I do keep saying it deadly, correct.

There's no need to tell me that. I already know. I guess you're sure of it in your own head. Doesn't make it a fact though.

You regularly complain...

Oh do give it a rest and stick to the subject.

Now, I don't have much experience of Grammar Schools (though my own secondary schooling was similar to what I understand Grammar Schools to have been). Were they fee paying? There's only the one left in Bristol (BGS). It's only the children of my wealthiest clients that go there. I'm guessing it's not free judging from the queue of cars waiting to pick them up whenever I'm passing.

I could go on ad infinitum

Rather than just ad absurdum like this?

Do we ban parents taking an interest in their kid's education because that is not fair to those who don't?

Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly normal way of proving a premise wrong.

Do we ban parents taking an interest in their kid's education because that is not fair to those who don't?

Forgetting the perhaps intended absurdity of your statement, perhaps we encourage parents to take more of an interest. Even the most passionate proponents of exclusivity on this thread have admitted that that combined with good quality schooling gives the child the best chance.

Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly normal way of proving a premise wrong.

'Reductio ad absurdum is only valid when it builds on assertions which are actually present in the argument it is deconstructing, and not when it misrepresents them as a straw man'

Doesn't make it a fact though.

Absolutely not, agreed. See my post on the Kant thread. I broadly agree with it. Are all you views fact? Or did I miss the regular use of IMO?

Absolutely not, agreed. See my post on the Kant thread. I broadly agree with it. Are all you views fact? Or did I miss the regular use of IMO?

I'll pass on your post on the Kant thread, but thanks for the offer. It's all in the presentation. I liked how you twisted julianwilson's post. Quite clever that. Btw, I asked you earlier, were you privately educated yourself?

Julian, I did note the irony involved and my response was 50% straight and 50% tongue-in-cheek. In answer to your other question, long story not really for sharing sorry. Suffice to stay I left Uni with two goals re education in mind. I have achieved one and looking to satisfy the other now.

Quite clever that.

How kind.

Ok, fairy nuff.

Equitable means fair and impartial - is it fair that some parents take no interest in their kids education - clearly not. So how do you make it fair, I asked a question which essentially suggested one way, please come up with another. Actually don't bother, the point I was making was that the statement alone is pretty useless, the key is to have a detailed plan to achieve that objective. If anyone can do that, they should stop wasting their time on here, go into politics and try to make a difference.

Btw, that question about Grammar Schools. Did they charge fees? I really must go and find out why they were all closed. All I ever hear these days is hyperbole from those with whom I'm fairly sure I'm going to disagree. There must have been real reasons for such a dramatic change to the education system.

No they didn't charge, my grandparents would not have been able to afford it.

I asked a question which essentially suggested one way,

[i]Essentially[/i] you suggested something absurd.

something absurd.

You make that sound like fact, deadly 😉