The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
Well that is your opinion. I think you need to do a survey of pbers. You might be deluded.
More seriously when are we going to see your article on creating all private schools and the funding thereof. I'm genuinely intrigued as it sounded interesting and because I am conflicted with my desire to see a good and fair education for all versus my dislike of state interference in peoples lives.
There is part of me wishing Starmer was PM now facing the same issues
I believe a good part of his popularity is coming from the public sector who assume he would give them a far better pay settlement than the conservatives, and importantly more than the country can afford as there is no evidence he would take difficult and unpopular decisions
That is way too narrow minded. Public sector workers look back at the last 12 years and think every aspect of their working life would be better without a conservative government.
But that is the majority of public sector workers most of the time, so it doesn't really explain the big increase in Starmer's popularity over the last 12 months.
A couple of things going on, I reckon.
One is that, over the last year, the Conservative Party has shown its very worst face, again and again. Johnson gave us Paterson, Parties and Pincher. Conservative MPs put up with all that for far longer than was really conscionable- including leaving BoJo in place over the summer, when he should have been drummed out in disgrace.
The party then gave us Truss- who turned out to be unhinged, and whose mini-budget is seen (fairly or not) as having thrown billions of pounds down the toilet. And whilst Sunak is an improvement on his predecessors, he is still a Conservative cleaning up a Conservative mess. Which is going to be a tricky sell.
Besides, real terms pay have been drifting down since summer 2021, certainly well before Ukraine. Governments that leave people poorer tend not to do well, and then Starmer picks up popuarity by defualt.
As for public sector workers, they've been a fairly barren field for the blue team for a while. But I do sense a change in the mood- a souring from "this isn't good is it" to "right, that's enough". Maybe it's the increasing pay gap over the last year- private sector pay has fallen behind inflation, but public sector pay has fallen even more behind. The government banging on about increased pay as a Brexit win can't have helped. Also, everyone working in the public sector just seems tired all the time, partly Covid, partly a longer period of austerity, now the hassle of papering over the gaps appearing in staffing everywhere.
The government understandably doesn't want to pay public sector workers more. Tough. That option looks like it has been squeezed as far as it can go. Either stump up the cash, or go without.
Interestingly Alistair Meeks wonders when this Government will announce the U-turn and add VAT onto private school fees
https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1597938542541692931 Alastair Meeks @AlastairMeeks The back-and-forth about private schooling today feels like the back-and-forth about windfall taxes in the spring. The govt will defy public opinion before eventually realising that it's unsustainable to leave a financial privilege for the rich.
So, how long till the uturn?
I suspect he’s right. It’s one on the list of “all in it together” issues.
I’m already paying through the nose for private school fees and increasingly wondering what’s the point. It’s financially ruinous, the educational benefits are marginal and offset by adjustments made by universities, and it leaves me with the feeling of social guilt that I could do without.
It’s the bloody open days that do it, with all the swish facilities.
I think the main attraction - apart from smaller class sizes and fewer virtue signalling teachers - is the absence of the minority of challenging kids who occupy everyone's time in urban state schools. Very different in rural areas - although parental poverty is equally crushing.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
When did I make that argument?
But I do think they are an aspiration for many, particularly if the local state schools are failing.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
Who could forget the great skin colour vote? Dougie obviously backed the photoshopped pinky-beige candidate.
People had the opportunity to vote for far right candidates standing on a platform of repatriation and zero immigration in every general election and they chose not to. So I think it's wrong to say that there was no vote on this. Or at least, it's only true in the sense that it's true of any issue over which we have never had a single issue referendum. The reality is that we had free movement with the Empire/Commonwealth for centuries on the assumption that the traffic would be one way. As soon as the traffic reversed we started tightening up the rules in successive stages. We could have tightened more or faster but our democratically elected governments chose not to. Personally I am very happy with where we are now, but I get it that some people aren't, that's their choice.
A more measured response than I feel like giving. I'm fine with some of my friends having voted Brexit, and accept that they didn't do it in order to promote racial preferemce. Murray is doing them an outrageous disservice by assuming otherwise.
You're aware that you were elected on a manifesto promising to end chain migration?
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
Well that is your opinion. I think you need to do a survey of pbers. You might be deluded.
More seriously when are we going to see your article on creating all private schools and the funding thereof. I'm genuinely intrigued as it sounded interesting and because I am conflicted with my desire to see a good and fair education for all versus my dislike of state interference in peoples lives.
That piece is still a work in progress.
I know this will shock PBers, but I was the quiet, shy, and humble type at school, it was university that I turned into the cocksure gobshite with all intellectual confidence you see on display.
The reason I send my kids to a private school is the class sizes, I don't know how state schools are expected to do well with class sizes of 20+ and 30+.
The spider plant suffers from a lack of focus, for me
But, more importantly, WTF is going on with that laptop - is SKS holding it in the air, possibly with assistance from a stack of books? Or is it some dodgy photoshop with the laptop replacing the beer and curry?
His chair’s too high so he was looking down into the screen. That didn’t play wel with focused groups so they reshot him to be looking straight forward in a confident and commanding way. But he couldn’t look over the screen as that would be the wrong impression. Hence the book stack.
But it’s an entirely natural shot of him at work. Not staged at all
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Not really, parents from all over the world send their children to our private schools, especially the top ones
I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.
Which will rather prove her point...
I’ve just listened to that.
It’s excellent.
I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.
I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.
Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:
Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.
She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).
Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
Whilst that's true, the hard left's 'untruths' don't seem to spread quite as far. The January 6th insurrection being a classic example of how the hard right's untruths seem to have much more impact on politics and society.
Although that could change.
I don't know, the left in this country have been very successful in creating the image of Tories as evil, rather than as people who differ in opinion about how best to allow people to prosper.
The whole Tories are evil thing should be ditched anyway, not because it's not true but because it doesn't work. Labour should attack them over competence, where they're far more vulnerable.
I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.
Which will rather prove her point...
I’ve just listened to that.
It’s excellent.
I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.
I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.
Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:
Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.
She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).
Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
Whilst that's true, the hard left's 'untruths' don't seem to spread quite as far. The January 6th insurrection being a classic example of how the hard right's untruths seem to have much more impact on politics and society.
Although that could change.
I don't know, the left in this country have been very successful in creating the image of Tories as evil, rather than as people who differ in opinion about how best to allow people to prosper.
The whole Tories are evil thing should be ditched anyway, not because it's not true but because it doesn't work. Labour should attack them over competence, where they're far more vulnerable.
I'm willing to bet she will now face a torrent of abuse for being 'a coconut, an apologist for slaving, anti-trans,' etc etc.
Which will rather prove her point...
I’ve just listened to that.
It’s excellent.
I fear it’s futile, though. Reads like a speech from ten years ago. Perhaps rather naive, too. A point which she addresses and unconvincingly encourages us to embrace.
I think the strongest argument is, perhaps, one she doesn’t make strongly enough. It’s to read political history as a battle of powerful elites and their constituencies who inevitably seek to crush dissent from the out groups, until they’re overthrown - often with violence - by a different group who pursue the same strategy - against different out groups.
Free speech for all is our way out of that cycle.
I just posted this at the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition:
Following earlier comments on Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I've just listened to her Reith lecture on freedom of speech, and the Q&A session following it.
She's absolutely brilliant, and does indeed provide a 'liberal' critique of self-censorship that many on the left (e.g. me) can agree with entirely, and I hope some on the right would also accept. Well worth a listen. Without using the 'woke' word, she debunks various aspects of 'cancel culture' such as 'sensitivity readers' in universities. At the same time, she acknowledges that freedom of speech can't be absolutist if, for example, it is used to advocate physical violence. In answering a direct question, she argues that while both the right and the left are to blame for the current malaise, the right should carry the heavier burden. particularly for using social media to spread 'untruths'. (She argues strongly that there is an objective truth, and that the relativist position is liable to end up with subjective opinions).
Okay, I guess she's arguing a case that aligns absolutely with my own views - but she does it so much better than I ever could. Strongly recommended to all those with an open mind.
I don't think the right wins for using the media to spread 'untruths', plenty on the left do too. My favourite is good old 'Luxury communist' herself, Ash Sarkar. One of the funniest moments of the 2015 was Novara Media's broadcast as the exit poll came in.
Whilst that's true, the hard left's 'untruths' don't seem to spread quite as far. The January 6th insurrection being a classic example of how the hard right's untruths seem to have much more impact on politics and society.
Although that could change.
I don't know, the left in this country have been very successful in creating the image of Tories as evil, rather than as people who differ in opinion about how best to allow people to prosper.
The whole Tories are evil thing should be ditched anyway, not because it's not true but because it doesn't work. Labour should attack them over competence, where they're far more vulnerable.
So you are ok with a lie if it works…
I don't think Labour election materials ever actually say "the Tories are evil" but if they do then I think that would be wrong.
I don't know, the left in this country have been very successful in creating the image of Tories as evil, rather than as people who differ in opinion about how best to allow people to prosper.
I don't know anyone who thinks Tories are all evil (and I know a lot of lefties, including people further left than me). The more dangerous judgment that is becoming commonplace is that they're absurd - constant leadership changes, policies reversed on a whim, people like Rees-Mogg, etc. It seems obvious that they aren't in a state to run the country. Naturally that might change, but once people get used to laughing at something, it's hard to get them to take it seriously again.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
Well that is your opinion. I think you need to do a survey of pbers. You might be deluded.
More seriously when are we going to see your article on creating all private schools and the funding thereof. I'm genuinely intrigued as it sounded interesting and because I am conflicted with my desire to see a good and fair education for all versus my dislike of state interference in peoples lives.
That piece is still a work in progress.
I know this will shock PBers, but I was the quiet, shy, and humble type at school, it was university that I turned into the cocksure gobshite with all intellectual confidence you see on display.
The reason I send my kids to a private school is the class sizes, I don't know how state schools are expected to do well with class sizes of 20+ and 30+.
I'm really looking forward to it. I am a firm believer that the state should provide both health and education because I believe they are fundamental right and should not be subject to ones ability to pay. However I am also of the view that the State should butt out of people's lives as much as possible.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Not really, parents from all over the world send their children to our private schools, especially the top ones
A tiny, tiny minority. There is a perception from some in private schools that they are envied by those on the outside. I don't think they are. It's more an oddity.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
Well that is your opinion. I think you need to do a survey of pbers. You might be deluded.
More seriously when are we going to see your article on creating all private schools and the funding thereof. I'm genuinely intrigued as it sounded interesting and because I am conflicted with my desire to see a good and fair education for all versus my dislike of state interference in peoples lives.
That piece is still a work in progress.
I know this will shock PBers, but I was the quiet, shy, and humble type at school, it was university that I turned into the cocksure gobshite with all intellectual confidence you see on display.
The reason I send my kids to a private school is the class sizes, I don't know how state schools are expected to do well with class sizes of 20+ and 30+.
Between the “he’s mates with Corbyn” line, defending the private schools tax breaks and today’s “MPs on the picket line” nonsense, it’s like Number 10 don’t have access to any polls. https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1597941159829061632
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Quite. It's not what you know, it's who you know. The sort of outdated nonsense that actually counts against talent.
Interestingly Alistair Meeks wonders when this Government will announce the U-turn and add VAT onto private school fees
https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1597938542541692931 Alastair Meeks @AlastairMeeks The back-and-forth about private schooling today feels like the back-and-forth about windfall taxes in the spring. The govt will defy public opinion before eventually realising that it's unsustainable to leave a financial privilege for the rich.
So, how long till the uturn?
I suspect he’s right. It’s one on the list of “all in it together” issues.
I’m already paying through the nose for private school fees and increasingly wondering what’s the point. It’s financially ruinous, the educational benefits are marginal and offset by adjustments made by universities, and it leaves me with the feeling of social guilt that I could do without.
It’s the bloody open days that do it, with all the swish facilities.
I think the main attraction - apart from smaller class sizes and fewer virtue signalling teachers - is the absence of the minority of challenging kids who occupy everyone's time in urban state schools. Very different in rural areas - although parental poverty is equally crushing.
Still - out of sight, out of mind.
My children attend inner London state schools and I haven't noticed discipline being a big problem to be honest. The issues I have are with the rapid turnover of teachers. Big class sizes mean it's a bit sink or swim. But so is life, so they might as well learn that lesson now instead of thinking the world owes them a living.
PMQs - snap verdict Keir Starmer won that quite comfortably, but it was a notable victory – one to remember, and possibly a turning point – for two reasons. The main one is that Starmer is now establishing a winning track record in this arena, and he is bedding down two criticisms of Rishi Sunak that are starting to stick: privileged, and “weak”. Another month of this and it will be received wisdom. But, second, this may have been the most successful example of a Labour leader using private education against a Tory PM in recent times.
David Cameron and Boris Johnson were both educated at the most elite private school in the country, and Conservative MPs generally are less likely to be state-educated than Labour MPs, but in the past Labour leaders have been cautious about using this as a line of attack. In part that was because people are not responsible for where their parents send them to school, in part it was because it smacked of class warfare, and in part it was out of fear of being on the wrong side of the aspiration argument. Only a minority of people are rich enough to afford private education, but there are many more who would like to be that wealthy one day, and Tony Blair taught his party that it was best not alarm this group.
Yet Starmer today (with a little help from Michael Gove, whom he quoted) succesfully monstered Sunak over going to Winchester. It is worth looking in detail at why it worked for Starmer so well.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Not really, parents from all over the world send their children to our private schools, especially the top ones
A tiny, tiny minority. There is a perception from some in private schools that they are envied by those on the outside. I don't think they are. It's more an oddity.
57% of parents would send their children to private schools if they had the money
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
Well that is your opinion. I think you need to do a survey of pbers. You might be deluded.
More seriously when are we going to see your article on creating all private schools and the funding thereof. I'm genuinely intrigued as it sounded interesting and because I am conflicted with my desire to see a good and fair education for all versus my dislike of state interference in peoples lives.
That piece is still a work in progress.
I know this will shock PBers, but I was the quiet, shy, and humble type at school, it was university that I turned into the cocksure gobshite with all intellectual confidence you see on display.
The reason I send my kids to a private school is the class sizes, I don't know how state schools are expected to do well with class sizes of 20+ and 30+.
38 in my Year 11 maths class.
No wonder you ended up at Oxford.
Seriously though I just cannot comprehend class sizes of more than 16.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
You pay for top exam results and outstanding extra curricular facilities and activities.
The old boys network is far less significant than it was
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
From nieces and nephews experience I believe that you pay for the guarantee of an extremely good education. State schools simply can't make that guarantee for a whole bunch of factors including class size, behavioural issues, motivation, etc.
I have a lot of time for the charge that they are unfair. And they are unfair precisely because they confer on their pupils an advantage. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I think smoking does more harm than good both for the individual and society at large but I am not seeking to ban it.
I don't know, the left in this country have been very successful in creating the image of Tories as evil, rather than as people who differ in opinion about how best to allow people to prosper.
I don't know anyone who thinks Tories are all evil (and I know a lot of lefties, including people further left than me). The more dangerous judgment that is becoming commonplace is that they're absurd - constant leadership changes, policies reversed on a whim, people like Rees-Mogg, etc. It seems obvious that they aren't in a state to run the country. Naturally that might change, but once people get used to laughing at something, it's hard to get them to take it seriously again.
So what about the “never kissed a Tory” thing?
Yes, they should change that to "never knowingly kissed a Tory". I haven't checked the political affiliations of all those I've kissed.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Not really, parents from all over the world send their children to our private schools, especially the top ones
A tiny, tiny minority. There is a perception from some in private schools that they are envied by those on the outside. I don't think they are. It's more an oddity.
57% of parents would send their children to private schools if they had the money
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
From nieces and nephews experience I believe that you pay for the guarantee of an extremely good education. State schools simply can't make that guarantee for a whole bunch of factors including class size, behavioural issues, motivation, etc.
I have a lot of time for the charge that they are unfair. And they are unfair precisely because they confer on their pupils an advantage. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I think smoking does more harm than good both for the individual and society at large but I am not seeking to ban it.
No-one is seeking to ban private schools, just not subsidise them through tax breaks. The money is better spent elsewhere.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
Or in other words, "on the one hand this, and on the other hand that, and it's very complicated". What a cop-out.
An elite state school may well not be hugely different in some ways from a lower-division private school. If so, so what?
Leading private English boys'boarding schools are in a different category from both of those. They were studied and visited by German Nazis who admired them and learnt from them in order to shape their own elite schools, called Napola schools.
I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
Did you? Look at how you talk about women. Single mums on Pornhub and hookers at the dockside, isn't it? What do you think the majority of the population who don't find such talk amusing in the slightest think of the emotional maturity of those who think it's hilarious? We're all just po-faced idiots, right?
You might as well say "I had six of the best every day. Didn't do me any harm."
Anyone who went to a school of the type I just referred to and who thinks it was great and is good for forming character is not to be trusted. They're usually "just not there" emotionally.
Most of those who didn't go to such a school haven't got a clue what they are like. This isn't because of stupidity. It's because they are so enormously different from most local schools and outside of most people's "world". Similarly, most of those who went to such a school haven't got a clue what a local dump school is like.
May I recommend the 1993 BBC documentary "The Making of Them", which is on Youtube at that link. (Note the extremely clever title with its dual meaning.)
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
Well that is your opinion. I think you need to do a survey of pbers. You might be deluded.
More seriously when are we going to see your article on creating all private schools and the funding thereof. I'm genuinely intrigued as it sounded interesting and because I am conflicted with my desire to see a good and fair education for all versus my dislike of state interference in peoples lives.
That piece is still a work in progress.
I know this will shock PBers, but I was the quiet, shy, and humble type at school, it was university that I turned into the cocksure gobshite with all intellectual confidence you see on display.
The reason I send my kids to a private school is the class sizes, I don't know how state schools are expected to do well with class sizes of 20+ and 30+.
38 in my Year 11 maths class.
No wonder you ended up at Oxford.
Seriously though I just cannot comprehend class sizes of more than 16.
Mine were generally 24 up to age 14, then between 16 and 24 for GCSE and smaller still for A level.
24 worked reasonably well, it divides neatly into small and medium size groups. Any bigger is surely too big for the teachers to understand what's going on in their class.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
You pay for top exam results and outstanding extra curricular facilities and activities.
The old boys network is far less significant than it was
Not in politics, obviously.
In my bog standard comp, we were taught we didn't need extra help and would succeed based on our own efforts. Obviously, I was the exception - I ended up here - but everyone else did well.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
From nieces and nephews experience I believe that you pay for the guarantee of an extremely good education. State schools simply can't make that guarantee for a whole bunch of factors including class size, behavioural issues, motivation, etc.
I have a lot of time for the charge that they are unfair. And they are unfair precisely because they confer on their pupils an advantage. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I think smoking does more harm than good both for the individual and society at large but I am not seeking to ban it.
No-one is seeking to ban private schools, just not subsidise them through tax breaks. The money is better spent elsewhere.
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries, remove them and they become even more exclusive to the rich
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Not really, parents from all over the world send their children to our private schools, especially the top ones
A tiny, tiny minority. There is a perception from some in private schools that they are envied by those on the outside. I don't think they are. It's more an oddity.
57% of parents would send their children to private schools if they had the money
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
From nieces and nephews experience I believe that you pay for the guarantee of an extremely good education. State schools simply can't make that guarantee for a whole bunch of factors including class size, behavioural issues, motivation, etc.
I have a lot of time for the charge that they are unfair. And they are unfair precisely because they confer on their pupils an advantage. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I think smoking does more harm than good both for the individual and society at large but I am not seeking to ban it.
No-one is seeking to ban private schools, just not subsidise them through tax breaks. The money is better spent elsewhere.
Yes I wouldn't disagree. Turn it from being elite to being super-elite. I see that as a sensible way forward.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
From nieces and nephews experience I believe that you pay for the guarantee of an extremely good education. State schools simply can't make that guarantee for a whole bunch of factors including class size, behavioural issues, motivation, etc.
I have a lot of time for the charge that they are unfair. And they are unfair precisely because they confer on their pupils an advantage. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I think smoking does more harm than good both for the individual and society at large but I am not seeking to ban it.
No-one is seeking to ban private schools, just not subsidise them through tax breaks. The money is better spent elsewhere.
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries, remove them and they become even more exclusive to the rich
That is such a weak argument. Sorry, these are tough times. I am sure they will manage, bless. Let's get on with it.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
From nieces and nephews experience I believe that you pay for the guarantee of an extremely good education. State schools simply can't make that guarantee for a whole bunch of factors including class size, behavioural issues, motivation, etc.
I have a lot of time for the charge that they are unfair. And they are unfair precisely because they confer on their pupils an advantage. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I think smoking does more harm than good both for the individual and society at large but I am not seeking to ban it.
No-one is seeking to ban private schools, just not subsidise them through tax breaks. The money is better spent elsewhere.
What money is spent by the government on private schools?
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
You pay for top exam results and outstanding extra curricular facilities and activities.
The old boys network is far less significant than it was
Not in politics, obviously.
In my bog standard comp, we were taught we didn't need extra help and would succeed based on our own efforts. Obviously, I was the exception - I ended up here - but everyone else did well.
Thing is, bog standard comp, taking it as the average, means that there is a huge proportion of the population which would be destined to send their children to a bog substandard comp.
People are paying for a certainty not so much of outcome, but of effort to achieve that outcome.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Quite. It's not what you know, it's who you know. The sort of outdated nonsense that actually counts against talent.
I have only found that once in my career, but boy was it rampant where I did see it. On leaving Uni in the 70s I went to work for one of the big consultancies. The new hires were almost exclusively from private schools, mainly Eton, Harrow and Whitgift. In the group I was in we had the son of a lord, the son of an ambassador and the son of a bishop. One guy started talking about his security arrangements in his house for his coin collection at one point. I still don't think he got it when I pointed out that his security for his assets cost more than my entire wealth as a 21 year old, let alone owning a house to secure.
From memory I think I was the only Secondary/Grammar school new hire. I think there were 3 Grammar school new hires and dozens of privately educated new hires mainly from the very posh schools.
I'm convinced I was taken on as a comptometer operator.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
From nieces and nephews experience I believe that you pay for the guarantee of an extremely good education. State schools simply can't make that guarantee for a whole bunch of factors including class size, behavioural issues, motivation, etc.
I have a lot of time for the charge that they are unfair. And they are unfair precisely because they confer on their pupils an advantage. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I think smoking does more harm than good both for the individual and society at large but I am not seeking to ban it.
No-one is seeking to ban private schools, just not subsidise them through tax breaks. The money is better spent elsewhere.
Yes I wouldn't disagree. Turn it from being elite to being super-elite. I see that as a sensible way forward.
It's an argument of much wider applicability though.
Any tax break subsidises the recipient at the cost of the general public. It would be much more transpartent and therefore healthier if we eschewed them generally and replaced them with direct grants.
There's lots of good and brilliant state schools. Sunak and others are very fond of citing Ofsted: 87% are good or outstanding. Tories can't have it both ways. Meanwhile, there are a minority of dreadful private schools.
I'm not sure that the 7% of each cohort who are privately educated, or the Independent Schools Council, are reliable witnesses on the education of the other 93% of us.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
Well that is your opinion. I think you need to do a survey of pbers. You might be deluded.
More seriously when are we going to see your article on creating all private schools and the funding thereof. I'm genuinely intrigued as it sounded interesting and because I am conflicted with my desire to see a good and fair education for all versus my dislike of state interference in peoples lives.
That piece is still a work in progress.
I know this will shock PBers, but I was the quiet, shy, and humble type at school, it was university that I turned into the cocksure gobshite with all intellectual confidence you see on display.
The reason I send my kids to a private school is the class sizes, I don't know how state schools are expected to do well with class sizes of 20+ and 30+.
38 in my Year 11 maths class.
The main point of private schools is to give a head start to children who are mostly already privileged. (And who wouldn't want to give their own children a head start if they can afford it). In my personal experience the bigger class sizes get (or the worse whatever other problems state schools are reported as having get), the happier the parents who are paying for private education are.
Another thought: with fees being VAT exempt then presumably the schools can't claim back their input tax on what they buy? My understanding is this is the difference between exempt and zero rated - or have I misunderstood?
If someone wants a handle on what the culture at Britain's elite schools says about the country, consider what Christopher Soames, the Old Etonian British ambassador to France said about the film "If...", made in 1968. Calling it "an insult to the nation", he tried to get it pulled from the 1969 Cannes film festival, where it won the Palme d'Or.
What was his problem? It's a film set in a single fictional school, right? Lol.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
From nieces and nephews experience I believe that you pay for the guarantee of an extremely good education. State schools simply can't make that guarantee for a whole bunch of factors including class size, behavioural issues, motivation, etc.
I have a lot of time for the charge that they are unfair. And they are unfair precisely because they confer on their pupils an advantage. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I think smoking does more harm than good both for the individual and society at large but I am not seeking to ban it.
No-one is seeking to ban private schools, just not subsidise them through tax breaks. The money is better spent elsewhere.
Yes I wouldn't disagree. Turn it from being elite to being super-elite. I see that as a sensible way forward.
It's an argument of much wider applicability though.
Any tax break subsidises the recipient at the cost of the general public. It would be much more transpartent and therefore healthier if we eschewed them generally and replaced them with direct grants.
When you say tax break. AIUI educational establishments are exempt VAT. I have a very vague understanding of it all so there may be more details.
I would be wary of tinkering with such legislation as unintended consequences are never far behind when policy is directed at a particular issue (private schools being the domain of the privileged) using whatever legislation is to hand.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Re private schools; I have a similarly visceral reaction to it that many others do, but whenever you have an instinctive response to an issue it's always worth examining why.
The baseline here is that it is unfair that some people born into wealthier circumstances will get the benefit of a better education (and crucially, connections and aspirations) than others born into humbler circs. Perpetuating this privilege can lead to certain professions being (or at least feeling like) a 'closed shop'. Of course there are always counterexamples, but like the captain of industry who pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, their story is engaging but misleading.
On the other hand to my mind there is no ethical difference between private schooling and moving to an area with better schools - they are effectively the same thing, using your wealth and means to improve your children's education chances (though without necessarily quite the same connections and privileges). The best performing school in the country at GCSE, last time I looked ,was a state school (Altrincham Girl's, a grammar). You could say the same for intensive tutoring.
So what to do? The root cause is inequality, and really the way we school our children is a symptom - albeit a symptom which entrenches and perpetuates the root cause. To be honest though - I don't see a huge problem with taking the charitable status away from these businesses, and it's actually a fairly smart bit of politics from Starmer - it differentiates the parties on an issue that realistically won't have a huge real-life impact, but says to regular folk 'we're with you, not the privileged few'.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
If Leon and I are in agreement then it must be true.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
I was going to say, @OnlyLivingBoy using a small sample size to support what seems to be his political viewpoint.
I know about 25 OEs, and must have met, lunched, played cricket with hundreds. I often encounter them whilst occupied by some voluntary activity or another. The most accomplished of those I know are more dedicated to public service than most of the paid public servants I have encountered. Not a one of them has ever come across as entitled.
I do wish people would stop stereotyping by education.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
You only have to look at recent Tory cabinets to see in practice how the old boy's network works to promote people far beyond their competence.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
Or in other words, "on the one hand this, and on the other hand that, and it's very complicated". What a cop-out.
An elite state school may well not be hugely different in some ways from a lower-division private school. If so, so what?
Leading private English boys'boarding schools are in a different category from both of those. They were studied and visited by German Nazis who admired them and learnt from them in order to shape their own elite schools, called Napola schools.
(Snip)
It takes quite a skill to take a topic like private schools and get Nazis into it. Sadly, it's a rather crap skill, and point.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Yes you are right. If you go to a private school you will meet people whose parents send their children to private schools and the fancier the private school the fancier the pupils.
And you are likely to spend much of your life with such people.
But if you go to a bog standard local comp you will likely meet a bunch of local people who again you will likely spend much of your life with.
You are placing a value (= very high) judgement on ex-public schoolboys. And girls. That is on you.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Indeed. Your paying for that, plus the indoctrinated confidence you get from being told you are are special and are entitled to the best life has to offer.
The downside is that it can go to the heads of the more arrogant types and can tie up the more conscientious souls with a lifetime of guilt.
Couple that with boarding and you get some seriously troubled people.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Indeed. Your paying for that, plus the indoctrinated confidence you get from being told you are are special and are entitled to the best life has to offer.
The downside is that it can go to the heads of the more arrogant types and can tie up the more conscientious souls with a lifetime of guilt.
Couple that with boarding and you get some seriously troubled people.
Because no troubled person has ever gone to a terrible comp, right?
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
From nieces and nephews experience I believe that you pay for the guarantee of an extremely good education. State schools simply can't make that guarantee for a whole bunch of factors including class size, behavioural issues, motivation, etc.
I have a lot of time for the charge that they are unfair. And they are unfair precisely because they confer on their pupils an advantage. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I think smoking does more harm than good both for the individual and society at large but I am not seeking to ban it.
No-one is seeking to ban private schools, just not subsidise them through tax breaks. The money is better spent elsewhere.
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries, remove them and they become even more exclusive to the rich
That is such a weak argument. Sorry, these are tough times. I am sure they will manage, bless. Let's get on with it.
It's very weak and also standard. The top private schools have been doing PR work including for example supporting prole boys' clubs in disadvantaged areas for at least a century. About 15 years ago, most of them got registered as charities. Before then, they were already charities - they were simply unregistered, nudge-and-a-wink ones. Guess what - the change didn't bother them one bit. They were ahead of the game, and most probably they were in on it right from when the legislative project began to be considered, or before. Nobody in Whitehall is going to f*** with Eton or Winchester.
They also take the occasional prole boy, or middle class dentist's son with social ambitions, teach him how to hold a knife and fork the same way they do, laugh at the same jokes, nurture huge ignorance and prejudice about the same things, and who knows, he may even get to work in the City or be prime minister. (Most of them don't, though. Most don't get any encouragement and are just taken in to make the schools look good.)
So the f*** what? That doesn't change their nature. They know their class needs new blood sometimes. That doesn't stop it being a class. It doesn't stop it being the ruling class either. Cf. the civil service exams in China or the competitive entry to the grandes écoles in France.
Re private schools; I have a similarly visceral reaction to it that many others do, but whenever you have an instinctive response to an issue it's always worth examining why.
The baseline here is that it is unfair that some people born into wealthier circumstances will get the benefit of a better education (and crucially, connections and aspirations) than others born into humbler circs. Perpetuating this privilege can lead to certain professions being (or at least feeling like) a 'closed shop'. Of course there are always counterexamples, but like the captain of industry who pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, their story is engaging but misleading.
On the other hand to my mind there is no ethical difference between private schooling and moving to an area with better schools - they are effectively the same thing, using your wealth and means to improve your children's education chances (though without necessarily quite the same connections and privileges). The best performing school in the country at GCSE, last time I looked ,was a state school (Altrincham Girl's, a grammar). You could say the same for intensive tutoring.
So what to do? The root cause is inequality, and really the way we school our children is a symptom - albeit a symptom which entrenches and perpetuates the root cause. To be honest though - I don't see a huge problem with taking the charitable status away from these businesses, and it's actually a fairly smart bit of politics from Starmer - it differentiates the parties on an issue that realistically won't have a huge real-life impact, but says to regular folk 'we're with you, not the privileged few'.
Absolutely.
I am the product of a private school so I understand the visceral reaction. And your point about the equivalence between 5yrs of £40k/year and paying an extra £200k to live near a great school is well made (ignoring the time value of money, obvs), and one usually made by the "other side".
I don't think any consumer of private schools would object to paying VAT on their school fees albeit it would further shrink the number of people who could afford to send their children there.
So we would have 5% of the population, rather than 7% ruling over us and in all the top jobs.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Indeed. Your paying for that, plus the indoctrinated confidence you get from being told you are are special and are entitled to the best life has to offer.
The downside is that it can go to the heads of the more arrogant types and can tie up the more conscientious souls with a lifetime of guilt.
Couple that with boarding and you get some seriously troubled people.
Because no troubled person has ever gone to a terrible comp, right?
Of course they have, but that doesn't mean that private education cannot screw your kids up for a hefty price tag. It is not something to aspire to.
I have to say it's much worse in Germany. There are a whole load of private schools called "Ersatzschulen", which not only have charitable status, but also get government funding (around 87% funding per pupil that state schools get). Although it is illegal to charge more than around 200 euros per month per pupil to parents at these government-funded private schools, the schools get around this by charging high fees (eg around 15000+ euros a year), and pretending that parents are just giving the money voluntarily, and that it is just a strange coincidence that the places at the school go to children whose parents have generously decided to give the same high fees to the school. Of course this is actually illegal, but this being Germany, the people with the right connections can get away with it. It is a scandal, stealing from the poor to give to the rich - but nobody in Germany seems to know or care about it.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Indeed. Your paying for that, plus the indoctrinated confidence you get from being told you are are special and are entitled to the best life has to offer.
The downside is that it can go to the heads of the more arrogant types and can tie up the more conscientious souls with a lifetime of guilt.
Couple that with boarding and you get some seriously troubled people.
I have friends who wear their OE tie at every available fucking opportunity; and also those who, when asked about their schooling, reply that they went "somewhere in the home counties".
It takes all sorts.
Paying to have your children become confident and able (I would stop short of entitled) is I imagine a price worth paying to many parents. And it is those parents who are likely to have as much an input on their childrens' character as any school. It is a chicken and egg situation.
lol. The other problem being how many of those newly elected MPs will see the writing on the wall and throw in the towel, and with it forego any incumbency bonus.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
You only have to look at recent Tory cabinets to see in practice how the old boy's network works to promote people far beyond their competence.
Whereas those paragons of high ability Richard Burgon and
*struggles to think of a Lab politician who didn't go to a private school*
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
If Leon and I are in agreement then it must be true.
Either that or it's the end of the world .
On a smaller, provincial scale, the same thing happens in the nicer comprehensives. It's inevitable, but not a good thing, and we probably shouldn't be subsidising it.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Indeed. Your paying for that, plus the indoctrinated confidence you get from being told you are are special and are entitled to the best life has to offer.
The downside is that it can go to the heads of the more arrogant types and can tie up the more conscientious souls with a lifetime of guilt.
Couple that with boarding and you get some seriously troubled people.
Because no troubled person has ever gone to a terrible comp, right?
Of course they have, but that doesn't mean that private education cannot screw your kids up for a hefty price tag. It is not something to aspire to.
First the left came for the grammar schools, then they came for the private schools. Soon the outstanding state comprehensives and academies and free schools too will find there is nobody left to speak for them and the left will try and end their admissions policies too.
Nobody can get any education better than average after all
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Yes you are right. If you go to a private school you will meet people whose parents send their children to private schools and the fancier the private school the fancier the pupils.
And you are likely to spend much of your life with such people.
But if you go to a bog standard local comp you will likely meet a bunch of local people who again you will likely spend much of your life with.
You are placing a value (= very high) judgement on ex-public schoolboys. And girls. That is on you.
Er, what?
I’m saying that if you want to advance in the most desirable careers - media, arts, politics, journalism, innovative biz, etc - then it really really helps if you went to a great public school
And these are the jobs people actively WANT to do
Sure, if “all” you want to do is stay in your hometown and run a shop or be a municipal civil servant or teacher or whatever, then it doesn’t matter what school you go to, indeed a local comp might be better
But when kids dream of their ultimate job, these jobs tend to be the ones dominated by private schools
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Indeed. Your paying for that, plus the indoctrinated confidence you get from being told you are are special and are entitled to the best life has to offer.
The downside is that it can go to the heads of the more arrogant types and can tie up the more conscientious souls with a lifetime of guilt.
Couple that with boarding and you get some seriously troubled people.
I have friends who wear their OE tie at every available fucking opportunity; and also those who, when asked about their schooling, reply that they went "somewhere in the home counties".
It takes all sorts.
Paying to have your children become confident and able (I would stop short of entitled) is I imagine a price worth paying to many parents. And it is those parents who are likely to have as much an input on their childrens' character as any school. It is a chicken and egg situation.
I took the loving home and stability route for my children's confidence. High risk! In academic terms so far so good in the school 5mins down the road. First child did well. Second has mocks next week.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Indeed. Your paying for that, plus the indoctrinated confidence you get from being told you are are special and are entitled to the best life has to offer.
The downside is that it can go to the heads of the more arrogant types and can tie up the more conscientious souls with a lifetime of guilt.
Couple that with boarding and you get some seriously troubled people.
Because no troubled person has ever gone to a terrible comp, right?
Of course they have, but that doesn't mean that private education cannot screw your kids up for a hefty price tag. It is not something to aspire to.
First the left came for the grammar schools, then they came for the private schools. Soon the outstanding state comprehensives and academies and free schools too will find there is nobody left to speak for them and the left will try and end their admissions policies too.
Nobody can get any education better than average after all
Didn't Thatcher close the grammars? I don't think she was a lefty. This is classic project fear. Nothing more.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Indeed. Your paying for that, plus the indoctrinated confidence you get from being told you are are special and are entitled to the best life has to offer.
The downside is that it can go to the heads of the more arrogant types and can tie up the more conscientious souls with a lifetime of guilt.
Couple that with boarding and you get some seriously troubled people.
I have friends who wear their OE tie at every available fucking opportunity; and also those who, when asked about their schooling, reply that they went "somewhere in the home counties".
It takes all sorts.
Paying to have your children become confident and able (I would stop short of entitled) is I imagine a price worth paying to many parents. And it is those parents who are likely to have as much an input on their childrens' character as any school. It is a chicken and egg situation.
I took the loving home and stability route for my children's confidence. High risk! In academic terms so far so good in the school 5mins down the road. First child did well. Second has mocks next week.
I presume it's a good school.
What if it was a really awful school, with very poor results? Would you consider moving to an area with a better school? Home tutoring? Or would you let your kids sink?
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Indeed. Your paying for that, plus the indoctrinated confidence you get from being told you are are special and are entitled to the best life has to offer.
The downside is that it can go to the heads of the more arrogant types and can tie up the more conscientious souls with a lifetime of guilt.
Couple that with boarding and you get some seriously troubled people.
I have friends who wear their OE tie at every available fucking opportunity; and also those who, when asked about their schooling, reply that they went "somewhere in the home counties".
It takes all sorts.
Paying to have your children become confident and able (I would stop short of entitled) is I imagine a price worth paying to many parents. And it is those parents who are likely to have as much an input on their childrens' character as any school. It is a chicken and egg situation.
Most of those parents let the schools get on with it, i.e. their main influence is exerted through the decision to chuck them to a boarding school. In some cases we're talking about e.g. a father who himself went to boarding school and a mother whose father and brothers did, and basically "that is what you do". And if their seven-year-old shows some emotion for a few days at the beginning of his first term, well, he'll soon be toughened up. The scum ought to have their children taken into care if they don't want to live with them for most of the year, preferring to throw them to live a barracks-style life with strangers who don't love them. That's what probably would happen if they were proles.
A father who went to boarding school who sends his own son there should be [*** self-censored because doing this to the father would be unlawful ***]. The mother who lets him should too.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Indeed. Your paying for that, plus the indoctrinated confidence you get from being told you are are special and are entitled to the best life has to offer.
The downside is that it can go to the heads of the more arrogant types and can tie up the more conscientious souls with a lifetime of guilt.
Couple that with boarding and you get some seriously troubled people.
I have friends who wear their OE tie at every available fucking opportunity; and also those who, when asked about their schooling, reply that they went "somewhere in the home counties".
It takes all sorts.
Paying to have your children become confident and able (I would stop short of entitled) is I imagine a price worth paying to many parents. And it is those parents who are likely to have as much an input on their childrens' character as any school. It is a chicken and egg situation.
I took the loving home and stability route for my children's confidence. High risk! In academic terms so far so good in the school 5mins down the road. First child did well. Second has mocks next week.
I presume it's a good school.
What if it was a really awful school, with very poor results? Would you consider moving to an area with a better school? Home tutoring? Or would you let your kids sink?
I would stop paying the fees and go to the local comp.
Stuart reminds me of some of the Manchester City supporting children I knew at school whose loathing for Manchester United was such they couldn't even bring themselves to use the term "Manchester United" and referred to them as Trafford Rangers or some such.
A friend of mine won't say the word that begins Tot and ends ham.
In the excellent series Elementary (modern day Sherlock Holmes in New York), when he meets Sebastian Moran, he discovers that he is an Arsenal supporter. Which noticeably deepens his loathing. Mass murdering contract killer is one thing, but....
Elementary is an underrated show. I hope it will attract the millions of John Major fans who have now discovered Johnny Lee Miller.
I thought it was great. Vastly better than Sherlock, and plenty of episodes to tell a narrative arc.
Recent British writers of TV shows seem to have a tendency to turn the protagonist of their work into a Worshipped Hero. See Dr Who, Sherlock etc.
Elementary avoided that, kept the actual detection via minutiae and Millers performance as hyper energetic and very quirky seemed somehow very Holmesian.
The was only one true representation of Holmes on the screen, of course. Jeremy Brett in the early episodes (the quality fell off) - accompanied by the definitive Dr Watson.
I agree on Brett. For me, along with Joan Hickson as Miss Marple and David Suchet as Poirot, they are the definitive portrayals on the great detectives.
Unarguable.
As brilliant an actor as Ken Branagh is, he should have waited 10-15 years before taking on Poirot.
If he'd watched the final moments of Murder on the Orient Express to see Suchet's silent portrayal of Poirot's inner turmoil even Branagh would have to concede he is not worthy.
The KB films are awful. They must be making some money though, or they wouldn't keep being made.
Agatha Christie is shit anyway, and when you have to cook down her quite complicated plots to a 2 hour time frame and the intelligence of the average movie goer, you have a situation where it doesn't matter which washed up old mime is going through the motions, it's all predictable shit from the opening credits to the denouement in ze ow you say, librareeee.
If that were true, the Ustinov and Finney adaptations would be terrible films, and they aren't. They're just telling the story without making it into a an overwrought scenery chewing competition.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
You only have to look at recent Tory cabinets to see in practice how the old boy's network works to promote people far beyond their competence.
That doesn't explain Dominac Rabb. Same Grammar school as me - and that year's surprise Oxbridge entrant (because he wasn't rated at School either).
There's lots of good and brilliant state schools. Sunak and others are very fond of citing Ofsted: 87% are good or outstanding. Tories can't have it both ways. Meanwhile, there are a minority of dreadful private schools.
I'm not sure that the 7% of each cohort who are privately educated, or the Independent Schools Council, are reliable witnesses on the education of the other 93% of us.
87% is such a bogus number, the school my mum works for is rated outstanding and it most certainly isn't.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Indeed. Your paying for that, plus the indoctrinated confidence you get from being told you are are special and are entitled to the best life has to offer.
The downside is that it can go to the heads of the more arrogant types and can tie up the more conscientious souls with a lifetime of guilt.
Couple that with boarding and you get some seriously troubled people.
I have friends who wear their OE tie at every available fucking opportunity; and also those who, when asked about their schooling, reply that they went "somewhere in the home counties".
It takes all sorts.
Paying to have your children become confident and able (I would stop short of entitled) is I imagine a price worth paying to many parents. And it is those parents who are likely to have as much an input on their childrens' character as any school. It is a chicken and egg situation.
I took the loving home and stability route for my children's confidence. High risk! In academic terms so far so good in the school 5mins down the road. First child did well. Second has mocks next week.
I presume it's a good school.
What if it was a really awful school, with very poor results? Would you consider moving to an area with a better school? Home tutoring? Or would you let your kids sink?
I would stop paying the fees and go to the local comp.
Sorry, I assumed you were sending them to a state school. If you think a private school is failing our kids, then you have a lot more options.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Yes you are right. If you go to a private school you will meet people whose parents send their children to private schools and the fancier the private school the fancier the pupils.
And you are likely to spend much of your life with such people.
But if you go to a bog standard local comp you will likely meet a bunch of local people who again you will likely spend much of your life with.
You are placing a value (= very high) judgement on ex-public schoolboys. And girls. That is on you.
Er, what?
I’m saying that if you want to advance in the most desirable careers - media, arts, politics, journalism, innovative biz, etc - then it really really helps if you went to a great public school
And these are the jobs people actively WANT to do
Sure, if “all” you want to do is stay in your hometown and run a shop or be a municipal civil servant or teacher or whatever, then it doesn’t matter what school you go to, indeed a local comp might be better
But when kids dream of their ultimate job, these jobs tend to be the ones dominated by private schools
Yes it does but it doesn't help because your mate went there.
It helps because just about every public school has a theatre that doubles as the local main arts centre; a design and technology wing that would make the Wellcome Foundation go green; and a funnel (at least they did) to a PPE course at Oxford.
Of course it helps. That is what the whole argument is about. It helps and is unfair because many people can't afford to go to public schools.
The discussion is whether they, and therefore the parents, should be taxed more.
Going to a public school helps but because they provide a fantastic education, not because Buffy went there also and he happens to be a casting director on the new Netflix drama.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
I was going to say, @OnlyLivingBoy using a small sample size to support what seems to be his political viewpoint.
I know about 25 OEs, and must have met, lunched, played cricket with hundreds. I often encounter them whilst occupied by some voluntary activity or another. The most accomplished of those I know are more dedicated to public service than most of the paid public servants I have encountered. Not a one of them has ever come across as entitled.
I do wish people would stop stereotyping by education.
How's their emotional intelligence?
You sound as though you think those who want to put an end to places like Eton are simply ignorant of what places like Eton are all about.
How much extra would the VAT increase raise vs the money required to educate the kids who then go to the state sector? If the number requires the state to spend more money then it's purely ideological and that's how the Tories need to hit back. This move takes money out of the education budget.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
You only have to look at recent Tory cabinets to see in practice how the old boy's network works to promote people far beyond their competence.
That doesn't explain Dominac Rabb. Same Grammar school as me - and that year's surprise Oxbridge entrant (because he wasn't rated at School either).
Dominic Raab, whether as a man, a concept or a cultural phenomenon, is entirely inexplicable.
As I mentioned earlier I'm on the borderline as to whether private school is a net benefit or not to children who attend (and their parents). I expect a lot of others are too. Many parents would nowadays probably prefer to send their children to state schools but for whatever reason (often the facilities and extra-curricular activities, sometimes the fear of a child losing their way in large classes) they opt to go private.
Private schools exist in all other European countries and I know some colleagues in countries like Denmark and France who either went or send their children to private schools there. But the reasons tend to be different. Usually based on specific skills the kids have - for example they wat to get into elite sport, or are gifted musicians - or say religion. The fees are a lot cheaper too.
I think private schools in the UK are a symptom rather than a cause of our social differences. The state-private gulf in Britain is also a symptom of the globalisation of elite consumption. Many of the top ones are essentially export industries and are able to charge vast fees to international students with the quid pro quo being massive investment in physical facilities which didn't exit years ago. There is then a knock-on impact on the lesser private schools whose customer base is often dominated by rich first generation immigrant families with international levels of expectation.
This puts us in a bind. Like Oxbridge or the City of London, we have a very powerful and valuable global brand in our top public schools. But that brand doesn't really benefit (trickle down to) most of the country. It's the famous elephant chart expressed in education.
I regret not sending my eldest to a good private school. I can afford it and we offered it to her, but she refused so we acceded to her wishes
She went to a good state school, and has academically done well, but I think she would have benefited from the sheen of confidence a private education can bestow
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Indeed. Your paying for that, plus the indoctrinated confidence you get from being told you are are special and are entitled to the best life has to offer.
The downside is that it can go to the heads of the more arrogant types and can tie up the more conscientious souls with a lifetime of guilt.
Couple that with boarding and you get some seriously troubled people.
I have friends who wear their OE tie at every available fucking opportunity; and also those who, when asked about their schooling, reply that they went "somewhere in the home counties".
It takes all sorts.
Paying to have your children become confident and able (I would stop short of entitled) is I imagine a price worth paying to many parents. And it is those parents who are likely to have as much an input on their childrens' character as any school. It is a chicken and egg situation.
I took the loving home and stability route for my children's confidence. High risk! In academic terms so far so good in the school 5mins down the road. First child did well. Second has mocks next week.
Yeah and no offence but that is down to you. 78.8674% of a child's attainment is down to their parents' attitude and approach.
Or, as it has been put in shorthand, does your home have books in it?
Proves nothing aside from the fact that you are a supportive, intelligent, not saying pushy, obvs, parent.
Not 100% sure every other state school parent is the same. That is the point. Without you, or with you acting against your childrens' educational interests, would they have achieved the same.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
You only have to look at recent Tory cabinets to see in practice how the old boy's network works to promote people far beyond their competence.
Whereas those paragons of high ability Richard Burgon and
*struggles to think of a Lab politician who didn't go to a private school*
er, Richard Burgon are supremely competent.
Starmer, Rayner and Cooper from the top of my head.
There's lots of good and brilliant state schools. Sunak and others are very fond of citing Ofsted: 87% are good or outstanding. Tories can't have it both ways. Meanwhile, there are a minority of dreadful private schools.
I'm not sure that the 7% of each cohort who are privately educated, or the Independent Schools Council, are reliable witnesses on the education of the other 93% of us.
87% is such a bogus number, the school my mum works for is rated outstanding and it most certainly isn't.
Ofsted downgrades hundreds of outstanding schools in England 22 November Most of the outstanding schools in England inspected last year have been downgraded, according to a report from the schools watchdog. Some of them had not been looked at for 15 years...
Ofsted said 80% of outstanding schools it had revisited last year had been downgraded - 308 primary and secondary schools. Most were bumped down to good - but 17% were told they needed improvement and 4% were inadequate.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Indeed. Your paying for that, plus the indoctrinated confidence you get from being told you are are special and are entitled to the best life has to offer.
The downside is that it can go to the heads of the more arrogant types and can tie up the more conscientious souls with a lifetime of guilt.
Couple that with boarding and you get some seriously troubled people.
I have friends who wear their OE tie at every available fucking opportunity; and also those who, when asked about their schooling, reply that they went "somewhere in the home counties".
It takes all sorts.
Paying to have your children become confident and able (I would stop short of entitled) is I imagine a price worth paying to many parents. And it is those parents who are likely to have as much an input on their childrens' character as any school. It is a chicken and egg situation.
I took the loving home and stability route for my children's confidence. High risk! In academic terms so far so good in the school 5mins down the road. First child did well. Second has mocks next week.
I presume it's a good school.
What if it was a really awful school, with very poor results? Would you consider moving to an area with a better school? Home tutoring? Or would you let your kids sink?
I would stop paying the fees and go to the local comp.
Sorry, I assumed you were sending them to a state school. If you think a private school is failing our kids, then you have a lot more options.
I went to what the media would have called a failing comp. It went into special measures, just after I left. Ground out decent A-Levels despite a few teaching screwups (found out they had taught the wrong syllabus after 12 months) and did well afterwards. My kids comp is genuinely outstanding. In either case, parental support is important. Education is not something that happens exclusively at school.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Yes you are right. If you go to a private school you will meet people whose parents send their children to private schools and the fancier the private school the fancier the pupils.
And you are likely to spend much of your life with such people.
But if you go to a bog standard local comp you will likely meet a bunch of local people who again you will likely spend much of your life with.
You are placing a value (= very high) judgement on ex-public schoolboys. And girls. That is on you.
Er, what?
I’m saying that if you want to advance in the most desirable careers - media, arts, politics, journalism, innovative biz, etc - then it really really helps if you went to a great public school
And these are the jobs people actively WANT to do
Sure, if “all” you want to do is stay in your hometown and run a shop or be a municipal civil servant or teacher or whatever, then it doesn’t matter what school you go to, indeed a local comp might be better
But when kids dream of their ultimate job, these jobs tend to be the ones dominated by private schools
Yes it does but it doesn't help because your mate went there.
It helps because just about every public school has a theatre that doubles as the local main arts centre; a design and technology wing that would make the Wellcome Foundation go green; and a funnel (at least they did) to a PPE course at Oxford.
Of course it helps. That is what the whole argument is about. It helps and is unfair because many people can't afford to go to public schools.
The discussion is whether they, and therefore the parents, should be taxed more.
Going to a public school helps but because they provide a fantastic education, not because Buffy went there also and he happens to be a casting director on the new Netflix drama.
You don’t understand how the arts/media/journalism work. It’s fine. Whatever
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Indeed. Your paying for that, plus the indoctrinated confidence you get from being told you are are special and are entitled to the best life has to offer.
The downside is that it can go to the heads of the more arrogant types and can tie up the more conscientious souls with a lifetime of guilt.
Couple that with boarding and you get some seriously troubled people.
I have friends who wear their OE tie at every available fucking opportunity; and also those who, when asked about their schooling, reply that they went "somewhere in the home counties".
It takes all sorts.
Paying to have your children become confident and able (I would stop short of entitled) is I imagine a price worth paying to many parents. And it is those parents who are likely to have as much an input on their childrens' character as any school. It is a chicken and egg situation.
I took the loving home and stability route for my children's confidence. High risk! In academic terms so far so good in the school 5mins down the road. First child did well. Second has mocks next week.
Yeah and no offence but that is down to you. 78.8674% of a child's attainment is down to their parents' attitude and approach.
Or, as it has been put in shorthand, does your home have books in it?
Proves nothing aside from the fact that you are a supportive, intelligent, not saying pushy, obvs, parent.
Not 100% sure every other state school parent is the same. That is the point. Without you, or with you acting against your childrens' educational interests, would they have achieved the same.
"78.8674% of a child's attainment is down to their parents' attitude and approach."
So much this.
My son is 8 (year 4), and one of his best friends is struggling. He has no dad at home, and a much older sister. His mum seems to be struggling somewhat in various ways, and so is her son. The friends comes around for playdates every so often, and from my interactions this lovely little boy is missing something at home. For instance, last week his mum said that she "did not believe in homework."
As if 'homework' was some form of theistic entity.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
You only have to look at recent Tory cabinets to see in practice how the old boy's network works to promote people far beyond their competence.
Whereas those paragons of high ability Richard Burgon and
*struggles to think of a Lab politician who didn't go to a private school*
er, Richard Burgon are supremely competent.
Starmer, Rayner and Cooper from the top of my head.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Yes you are right. If you go to a private school you will meet people whose parents send their children to private schools and the fancier the private school the fancier the pupils.
And you are likely to spend much of your life with such people.
But if you go to a bog standard local comp you will likely meet a bunch of local people who again you will likely spend much of your life with.
You are placing a value (= very high) judgement on ex-public schoolboys. And girls. That is on you.
Er, what?
I’m saying that if you want to advance in the most desirable careers - media, arts, politics, journalism, innovative biz, etc - then it really really helps if you went to a great public school
And these are the jobs people actively WANT to do
Sure, if “all” you want to do is stay in your hometown and run a shop or be a municipal civil servant or teacher or whatever, then it doesn’t matter what school you go to, indeed a local comp might be better
But when kids dream of their ultimate job, these jobs tend to be the ones dominated by private schools
Yes it does but it doesn't help because your mate went there.
It helps because just about every public school has a theatre that doubles as the local main arts centre; a design and technology wing that would make the Wellcome Foundation go green; and a funnel (at least they did) to a PPE course at Oxford.
Of course it helps. That is what the whole argument is about. It helps and is unfair because many people can't afford to go to public schools.
The discussion is whether they, and therefore the parents, should be taxed more.
Going to a public school helps but because they provide a fantastic education, not because Buffy went there also and he happens to be a casting director on the new Netflix drama.
You don’t understand how the arts/media/journalism work. It’s fine. Whatever
arts/media/journalism if you have your own rules and it helps to be an OE then you have yourselves to blame.
Is you saying that people only get on in a/m/j if they are the products of public schools the same as people on national television saying that they are being cancelled.
An interesting local by-election in Surrey today. It is a Con defence but the party has suspended their candidate. Tomorrow we have Con defences in Norfolk, Southampton, and Waverley. There is also a Lab defence in West Lothian and a Green defence in Arun. To complete the picture Lab are unopposed in Kings Lynn in honour of the former councillor.
An interesting local by-election in Surrey today. It is a Con defence but the party has suspended their candidate. Tomorrow we have Con defences in Norfolk, Southampton, and Waverley. There is also a Lab defence in West Lothian and a Green defence in Arun. To complete the picture Lab are unopposed in Kings Lynn in honour of the former councillor.
There IS a by-election today for Surrey County Council, but the candidate has most definitely not been suspended. You’re thinking of the one tomorrow for Waverley Borough Council.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
Privat education *can* screw people up for life. For others, it gives them a better education and a very fulfilling childhood.
But state schools can also screw people up for life. Bullying in particular can ruin lives.
I went to both private and state schools. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it can be a meaningless comparison anyway, as there are some very poor private schools and some brilliant state schools, and vice versa.
The idea that private schools are an aspiration or are envied is wrong.
Parents generally seem to want the best for their children and private schools are perceived to provide a "better" education than state schools, on average.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
My observation is that they do more harm than good both for the individual and society at large.
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I know one old Etonian. He works for another old Etonian. If you want to benefit from that kind of thing that's why you send your child there. I don't.
Your sample size is letting you down there.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
That is nonsense. I went to a state school but many of my friends went private
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
Yes you are right. If you go to a private school you will meet people whose parents send their children to private schools and the fancier the private school the fancier the pupils.
And you are likely to spend much of your life with such people.
But if you go to a bog standard local comp you will likely meet a bunch of local people who again you will likely spend much of your life with.
You are placing a value (= very high) judgement on ex-public schoolboys. And girls. That is on you.
Er, what?
I’m saying that if you want to advance in the most desirable careers - media, arts, politics, journalism, innovative biz, etc - then it really really helps if you went to a great public school
And these are the jobs people actively WANT to do
Sure, if “all” you want to do is stay in your hometown and run a shop or be a municipal civil servant or teacher or whatever, then it doesn’t matter what school you go to, indeed a local comp might be better
But when kids dream of their ultimate job, these jobs tend to be the ones dominated by private schools
Yes it does but it doesn't help because your mate went there.
It helps because just about every public school has a theatre that doubles as the local main arts centre; a design and technology wing that would make the Wellcome Foundation go green; and a funnel (at least they did) to a PPE course at Oxford.
Of course it helps. That is what the whole argument is about. It helps and is unfair because many people can't afford to go to public schools.
The discussion is whether they, and therefore the parents, should be taxed more.
Going to a public school helps but because they provide a fantastic education, not because Buffy went there also and he happens to be a casting director on the new Netflix drama.
You don’t understand how the arts/media/journalism work. It’s fine. Whatever
arts/media/journalism if you have your own rules and it helps to be an OE then you have yourselves to blame.
Is you saying that people only get on in a/m/j if they are the products of public schools the same as people on national television saying that they are being cancelled.
You are weirdly prickly and defensive on this question. I suspect it’s coz you are torn between your mildly woke centrist tendencies (= private schools bad) and your half-buried desire to socially boast of your poshness (“nephews at Eton”)
"Then of course we had the disastrous call Kwartang budget"
Perhaps worth remembering that if politicians remain in office for too short a time for political commentators to learn how to spell their names, it's a bad sign.
The politics of envy over private education from Stamer is a disgrace.
But I suspect in the country people will agree with Starmer.
The intrinsic bias of Sunak is deep. Private education is not something to which anyone sensible would aspire. It screws up people for life.
I was privately educated and I turned out alright.
Well that is your opinion. I think you need to do a survey of pbers. You might be deluded.
More seriously when are we going to see your article on creating all private schools and the funding thereof. I'm genuinely intrigued as it sounded interesting and because I am conflicted with my desire to see a good and fair education for all versus my dislike of state interference in peoples lives.
That piece is still a work in progress.
I know this will shock PBers, but I was the quiet, shy, and humble type at school, it was university that I turned into the cocksure gobshite with all intellectual confidence you see on display.
The reason I send my kids to a private school is the class sizes, I don't know how state schools are expected to do well with class sizes of 20+ and 30+.
I'm really looking forward to it. I am a firm believer that the state should provide both health and education because I believe they are fundamental right and should not be subject to ones ability to pay. However I am also of the view that the State should butt out of people's lives as much as possible.
I am also a hypocrite on both fronts.
Fine to have them but it is a joke that they are classed as charities.
As I mentioned earlier I'm on the borderline as to whether private school is a net benefit or not to children who attend (and their parents). I expect a lot of others are too. Many parents would nowadays probably prefer to send their children to state schools but for whatever reason (often the facilities and extra-curricular activities, sometimes the fear of a child losing their way in large classes) they opt to go private.
Private schools exist in all other European countries and I know some colleagues in countries like Denmark and France who either went or send their children to private schools there. But the reasons tend to be different. Usually based on specific skills the kids have - for example they wat to get into elite sport, or are gifted musicians - or say religion. The fees are a lot cheaper too.
I think private schools in the UK are a symptom rather than a cause of our social differences. The state-private gulf in Britain is also a symptom of the globalisation of elite consumption. Many of the top ones are essentially export industries and are able to charge vast fees to international students with the quid pro quo being massive investment in physical facilities which didn't exit years ago. There is then a knock-on impact on the lesser private schools whose customer base is often dominated by rich first generation immigrant families with international levels of expectation.
This puts us in a bind. Like Oxbridge or the City of London, we have a very powerful and valuable global brand in our top public schools. But that brand doesn't really benefit (trickle down to) most of the country. It's the famous elephant chart expressed in education.
Interestingly, in Finland's much-lauded education system there is no meaningful private sector.
How much extra would the VAT increase raise vs the money required to educate the kids who then go to the state sector? If the number requires the state to spend more money then it's purely ideological and that's how the Tories need to hit back. This move takes money out of the education budget.
I regret not sending my eldest to a good private school. I can afford it and we offered it to her, but she refused so we acceded to her wishes
She went to a good state school, and has academically done well, but I think she would have benefited from the sheen of confidence a private education can bestow
🤷♂️
And that is the problem. The education at private schools is not necessarily better than at a state school, but the environment, the social connections, the extra curricular activities and the entitlement is worth every penny to the parents.
Comments
More seriously when are we going to see your article on creating all private schools and the funding thereof. I'm genuinely intrigued as it sounded interesting and because I am conflicted with my desire to see a good and fair education for all versus my dislike of state interference in peoples lives.
One is that, over the last year, the Conservative Party has shown its very worst face, again and again. Johnson gave us Paterson, Parties and Pincher. Conservative MPs put up with all that for far longer than was really conscionable- including leaving BoJo in place over the summer, when he should have been drummed out in disgrace.
The party then gave us Truss- who turned out to be unhinged, and whose mini-budget is seen (fairly or not) as having thrown billions of pounds down the toilet. And whilst Sunak is an improvement on his predecessors, he is still a Conservative cleaning up a Conservative mess. Which is going to be a tricky sell.
Besides, real terms pay have been drifting down since summer 2021, certainly well before Ukraine. Governments that leave people poorer tend not to do well, and then Starmer picks up popuarity by defualt.
As for public sector workers, they've been a fairly barren field for the blue team for a while. But I do sense a change in the mood- a souring from "this isn't good is it" to "right, that's enough". Maybe it's the increasing pay gap over the last year- private sector pay has fallen behind inflation, but public sector pay has fallen even more behind. The government banging on about increased pay as a Brexit win can't have helped. Also, everyone working in the public sector just seems tired all the time, partly Covid, partly a longer period of austerity, now the hassle of papering over the gaps appearing in staffing everywhere.
The government understandably doesn't want to pay public sector workers more. Tough. That option looks like it has been squeezed as far as it can go. Either stump up the cash, or go without.
Still - out of sight, out of mind.
But I do think they are an aspiration for many, particularly if the local state schools are failing.
Look at the stats on over-representation of various professions and private school composition. Not to say that you couldn't be happy and fulfilled as a shelf-stacker, or flint knapper. But people perceive that their children might be happier as Kings Counsels.
I know this will shock PBers, but I was the quiet, shy, and humble type at school, it was university that I turned into the cocksure gobshite with all intellectual confidence you see on display.
The reason I send my kids to a private school is the class sizes, I don't know how state schools are expected to do well with class sizes of 20+ and 30+.
But it’s an entirely natural shot of him at work. Not staged at all
They do have a role for people who would like a different style of education for their kids, but beyond that the academic benefits are illusory.
At best you pay for the old boys network, which is not a good thing.
I am also a hypocrite on both fronts.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1597941159829061632
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/honestly-with-bari-weiss/id1570872415
One of the best podcast series out there, imo.
Keir Starmer won that quite comfortably, but it was a notable victory – one to remember, and possibly a turning point – for two reasons. The main one is that Starmer is now establishing a winning track record in this arena, and he is bedding down two criticisms of Rishi Sunak that are starting to stick: privileged, and “weak”. Another month of this and it will be received wisdom. But, second, this may have been the most successful example of a Labour leader using private education against a Tory PM in recent times.
David Cameron and Boris Johnson were both educated at the most elite private school in the country, and Conservative MPs generally are less likely to be state-educated than Labour MPs, but in the past Labour leaders have been cautious about using this as a line of attack. In part that was because people are not responsible for where their parents send them to school, in part it was because it smacked of class warfare, and in part it was out of fear of being on the wrong side of the aspiration argument. Only a minority of people are rich enough to afford private education, but there are many more who would like to be that wealthy one day, and Tony Blair taught his party that it was best not alarm this group.
Yet Starmer today (with a little help from Michael Gove, whom he quoted) succesfully monstered Sunak over going to Winchester. It is worth looking in detail at why it worked for Starmer so well.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/30/rishi-sunak-keir-starmer-pmqs-latest-live-news-uk-politics?page=with:block-63874d448f08ec68b6015133#block-63874d448f08ec68b6015133
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/half-of-parents-would-send-children-to-private-school-if-they-had-the-money-8306120.html?amp=
Seriously though I just cannot comprehend class sizes of more than 16.
The old boys network is far less significant than it was
I have a lot of time for the charge that they are unfair. And they are unfair precisely because they confer on their pupils an advantage. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I think smoking does more harm than good both for the individual and society at large but I am not seeking to ban it.
I haven't checked the political affiliations of all those I've kissed.
An elite state school may well not be hugely different in some ways from a lower-division private school. If so, so what?
Leading private English boys' boarding schools are in a different category from both of those. They were studied and visited by German Nazis who admired them and learnt from them in order to shape their own elite schools, called Napola schools. Did you? Look at how you talk about women. Single mums on Pornhub and hookers at the dockside, isn't it? What do you think the majority of the population who don't find such talk amusing in the slightest think of the emotional maturity of those who think it's hilarious? We're all just po-faced idiots, right?
You might as well say "I had six of the best every day. Didn't do me any harm."
Anyone who went to a school of the type I just referred to and who thinks it was great and is good for forming character is not to be trusted. They're usually "just not there" emotionally.
Most of those who didn't go to such a school haven't got a clue what they are like. This isn't because of stupidity. It's because they are so enormously different from most local schools and outside of most people's "world". Similarly, most of those who went to such a school haven't got a clue what a local dump school is like.
May I recommend the 1993 BBC documentary "The Making of Them", which is on Youtube at that link. (Note the extremely clever title with its dual meaning.)
24 worked reasonably well, it divides neatly into small and medium size groups. Any bigger is surely too big for the teachers to understand what's going on in their class.
In my bog standard comp, we were taught we didn't need extra help and would succeed based on our own efforts. Obviously, I was the exception - I ended up here - but everyone else did well.
Eton provides a super demanding, comprehensive (small 'c'), and I believe fantastic education. Not having been there but knowing plenty of Etonians including aforementioned nephews.
The "old school tie" just doesn't exist. Look at Oxbridge entry for example. If you are an Etonian you are disadvantaged vs state school or even non-Etonian candidates (the school puts up only one candidate per college for this reason). And I think we can say that Oxbridge provides a fantastic education.
By all means rail against private schools for the unfair advantage it gives but accept that it does this because of the quality of education.
Bring on the voucher system.
People are paying for a certainty not so much of outcome, but of effort to achieve that outcome.
From memory I think I was the only Secondary/Grammar school new hire. I think there were 3 Grammar school new hires and dozens of privately educated new hires mainly from the very posh schools.
I'm convinced I was taken on as a comptometer operator.
Once I moved on I never came across it again.
Any tax break subsidises the recipient at the cost of the general public. It would be much more transpartent and therefore healthier if we eschewed them generally and replaced them with direct grants.
I'm not sure that the 7% of each cohort who are privately educated, or the Independent Schools Council, are reliable witnesses on the education of the other 93% of us.
What was his problem? It's a film set in a single fictional school, right? Lol.
I would be wary of tinkering with such legislation as unintended consequences are never far behind when policy is directed at a particular issue (private schools being the domain of the privileged) using whatever legislation is to hand.
Quite a few went to elite schools. Particularly Westminster (one of my first serious girlfriends was ex-Westminster and I met more through her)
Going to a great school like Westminster gives you positive networking opportunities for the rest of your life. I’ve seen it in operation. It’s highly effective. And as a comp lad myself I note the contrast
This is the unspoken deal with top private schools. It costs a bomb and the education isn’t THAT much better than a good state school. But the friends and acquaintances you accrue? Priceless
The baseline here is that it is unfair that some people born into wealthier circumstances will get the benefit of a better education (and crucially, connections and aspirations) than others born into humbler circs. Perpetuating this privilege can lead to certain professions being (or at least feeling like) a 'closed shop'. Of course there are always counterexamples, but like the captain of industry who pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, their story is engaging but misleading.
On the other hand to my mind there is no ethical difference between private schooling and moving to an area with better schools - they are effectively the same thing, using your wealth and means to improve your children's education chances (though without necessarily quite the same connections and privileges). The best performing school in the country at GCSE, last time I looked ,was a state school (Altrincham Girl's, a grammar). You could say the same for intensive tutoring.
So what to do? The root cause is inequality, and really the way we school our children is a symptom - albeit a symptom which entrenches and perpetuates the root cause. To be honest though - I don't see a huge problem with taking the charitable status away from these businesses, and it's actually a fairly smart bit of politics from Starmer - it differentiates the parties on an issue that realistically won't have a huge real-life impact, but says to regular folk 'we're with you, not the privileged few'.
I know about 25 OEs, and must have met, lunched, played cricket with hundreds. I often encounter them whilst occupied by some voluntary activity or another. The most accomplished of those I know are more dedicated to public service than most of the paid public servants I have encountered. Not a one of them has ever come across as entitled.
I do wish people would stop stereotyping by education.
And you are likely to spend much of your life with such people.
But if you go to a bog standard local comp you will likely meet a bunch of local people who again you will likely spend much of your life with.
You are placing a value (= very high) judgement on ex-public schoolboys. And girls. That is on you.
The downside is that it can go to the heads of the more arrogant types and can tie up the more conscientious souls with a lifetime of guilt.
Couple that with boarding and you get some seriously troubled people.
They also take the occasional prole boy, or middle class dentist's son with social ambitions, teach him how to hold a knife and fork the same way they do, laugh at the same jokes, nurture huge ignorance and prejudice about the same things, and who knows, he may even get to work in the City or be prime minister. (Most of them don't, though. Most don't get any encouragement and are just taken in to make the schools look good.)
So the f*** what? That doesn't change their nature. They know their class needs new blood sometimes. That doesn't stop it being a class. It doesn't stop it being the ruling class either. Cf. the civil service exams in China or the competitive entry to the grandes écoles in France.
I am the product of a private school so I understand the visceral reaction. And your point about the equivalence between 5yrs of £40k/year and paying an extra £200k to live near a great school is well made (ignoring the time value of money, obvs), and one usually made by the "other side".
I don't think any consumer of private schools would object to paying VAT on their school fees albeit it would further shrink the number of people who could afford to send their children there.
So we would have 5% of the population, rather than 7% ruling over us and in all the top jobs.
Not something I would go to the barricades over.
It takes all sorts.
Paying to have your children become confident and able (I would stop short of entitled) is I imagine a price worth paying to many parents. And it is those parents who are likely to have as much an input on their childrens' character as any school. It is a chicken and egg situation.
*struggles to think of a Lab politician who didn't go to a private school*
er, Richard Burgon are supremely competent.
On a smaller, provincial scale, the same thing happens in the nicer comprehensives. It's inevitable, but not a good thing, and we probably shouldn't be subsidising it.
Nobody can get any education better than average after all
I’m saying that if you want to advance in the most desirable careers - media, arts, politics, journalism, innovative biz, etc - then it really really helps if you went to a great public school
And these are the jobs people actively WANT to do
Sure, if “all” you want to do is stay in your hometown and run a shop or be a municipal civil servant or teacher or whatever, then it doesn’t matter what school you go to, indeed a local comp might be better
But when kids dream of their ultimate job, these jobs tend to be the ones dominated by private schools
What if it was a really awful school, with very poor results? Would you consider moving to an area with a better school? Home tutoring? Or would you let your kids sink?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-63807748
A father who went to boarding school who sends his own son there should be [*** self-censored because doing this to the father would be unlawful ***]. The mother who lets him should too.
It helps because just about every public school has a theatre that doubles as the local main arts centre; a design and technology wing that would make the Wellcome Foundation go green; and a funnel (at least they did) to a PPE course at Oxford.
Of course it helps. That is what the whole argument is about. It helps and is unfair because many people can't afford to go to public schools.
The discussion is whether they, and therefore the parents, should be taxed more.
Going to a public school helps but because they provide a fantastic education, not because Buffy went there also and he happens to be a casting director on the new Netflix drama.
You sound as though you think those who want to put an end to places like Eton are simply ignorant of what places like Eton are all about.
You make a mistake, my friend. Some of us aren't.
Private schools exist in all other European countries and I know some colleagues in countries like Denmark and France who either went or send their children to private schools there. But the reasons tend to be different. Usually based on specific skills the kids have - for example they wat to get into elite sport, or are gifted musicians - or say religion. The fees are a lot cheaper too.
I think private schools in the UK are a symptom rather than a cause of our social differences. The state-private gulf in Britain is also a symptom of the globalisation of elite consumption. Many of the top ones are essentially export industries and are able to charge vast fees to international students with the quid pro quo being massive investment in physical facilities which didn't exit years ago. There is then a knock-on impact on the lesser private schools whose customer base is often dominated by rich first generation immigrant families with international levels of expectation.
This puts us in a bind. Like Oxbridge or the City of London, we have a very powerful and valuable global brand in our top public schools. But that brand doesn't really benefit (trickle down to) most of the country. It's the famous elephant chart expressed in education.
She went to a good state school, and has academically done well, but I think she would have benefited from the sheen of confidence a private education can bestow
🤷♂️
Or, as it has been put in shorthand, does your home have books in it?
Proves nothing aside from the fact that you are a supportive, intelligent, not saying pushy, obvs, parent.
Not 100% sure every other state school parent is the same. That is the point. Without you, or with you acting against your childrens' educational interests, would they have achieved the same.
Ofsted downgrades hundreds of outstanding schools in England
22 November
Most of the outstanding schools in England inspected last year have been downgraded, according to a report from the schools watchdog. Some of them had not been looked at for 15 years...
Ofsted said 80% of outstanding schools it had revisited last year had been downgraded - 308 primary and secondary schools. Most were bumped down to good - but 17% were told they needed improvement and 4% were inadequate.
So much this.
My son is 8 (year 4), and one of his best friends is struggling. He has no dad at home, and a much older sister. His mum seems to be struggling somewhat in various ways, and so is her son. The friends comes around for playdates every so often, and from my interactions this lovely little boy is missing something at home. For instance, last week his mum said that she "did not believe in homework."
As if 'homework' was some form of theistic entity.
Is you saying that people only get on in a/m/j if they are the products of public schools the same as people on national television saying that they are being cancelled.
Entertaining
Perhaps worth remembering that if politicians remain in office for too short a time for political commentators to learn how to spell their names, it's a bad sign.
No remorse. Most of them are just like him, missing that bit of the brain does empathy and contrition. It’s “educated” out of them.
Tax these schools out of existence, I say.
Unfortunately, it won’t raise enough to make up for the all harm they’ve caused.