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”)
Entertaining
Nah. Not prickly at all. I am not in the a/m/j field and if you tell me it is a hotbed of nepotism and old-school tie-ism then who am I to disagree.
The debate was about private schools and @Jonathan said it was solely about the old school tie. I disagreed then and I disagree now. I believe they provide a fantastic education. Or so my nephews tell me.
And apart entry into The Life Guards, and now you tell me arts/media/journalism, I have had no experiences whatsoever of needing to be an OE or public schoolboy to get on in life. I have absolutely accepted that public schoolboys do extremely well in life. So there is a definite advantage to being privately schooled aside from knowing the odd duke. And public schoolgirls. Did I mention my nieces at all?
If anyone is prickly I would contend that it is you who so nearly but didn't after all provide a superior education for your daughter. And were denied one yourself. Not that it has harmed your life too much.
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.
It also depends on what you mean by 'education'. At my old school, the attitude was very much: "If you want to learn, we will support you". If you wanted to learn, the teachers were very available, even outside lesson hours. If you did not want to learn... well, then your parents are wasting their money. They would not force you to work.
A friend works at a good private school (despite being a leftie at uni), and she says her school is the opposite: they make kids work, but there is much less opportunity for extra or outside-lessons work.
I see my old school as being a bit like university: how hard you work is pretty much up to you.
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.
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”)
Entertaining
Nah. Not prickly at all. I am not in the a/m/j field and if you tell me it is a hotbed of nepotism and old-school tie-ism then who am I to disagree.
The debate was about private schools and @Jonathan said it was solely about the old school tie. I disagreed then and I disagree now. I believe they provide a fantastic education. Or so my nephews tell me.
And apart entry into The Life Guards, and now you tell me arts/media/journalism, I have had no experiences whatsoever of needing to be an OE or public schoolboy to get on in life. I have absolutely accepted that public schoolboys do extremely well in life. So there is a definite advantage to being privately schooled aside from knowing the odd duke. And public schoolgirls. Did I mention my nieces at all?
If anyone is prickly I would contend that it is you who so nearly but didn't after all provide a superior education for your daughter. And were denied one yourself. Not that it has harmed your life too much.
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 key problem is the ideology of meritocracy - that we are seeking to arrange society to reward those who deserve rewarding, with the corollary that those who fail deserve to be punished for their failure, and those who are rich have earned their wealth through their merits.
This ideology is problematic because the playing field isn't level - which is why private schooling arouses such ire - and because it's a logical impossibility for everyone to succeed and become doctors or lawyers, and we're always going to have some people at the bottom of the heap, because heaps don't levitate.
If you guarantee for everyone a minimum living standard that allows for living with dignity, security and a degree of comfort and leisure, then the consequences of success/failure in the great meritocratic struggle are less acute. And then it doesn't matter so much if the deck is stacked.
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.
Most outstanding schools haven't been re-assessed in the last decade and a half.
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
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.
I’ve just had a reasonable sized bet on France to win the WC at 6.6.
OMG I’ve just realised we could be about to experience peak France. They could be about to win both the football and rugby world cups, before hosting the Olympics.
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.
She must have forgotten Ash Sarkar and her widespread 'untruths'. Much more important than Donald Trump and his mates, or the Covid deniers, obviously.
Calling people who queried the cost/benefit relationship of lockdown "Covid deniers", as many (especially on the left) did, is certainly an untruth.
My definition of 'Covid deniers' has nothing at all to do with lockdown. I take it to mean those (usually on the far right) who questioned the existence of Covid as an infectious disease and spread fake news on social media, QAnon style, that Covid was just a global conspiracy, Soros, yadda yadda yadda.
There really weren't that many who actually denied Covid existed at all, from memory. Were they there and just didn't break out of their echo chamber? If so, that's another difference with the untruths of the left.
Also the vaccine deniers, who are quite numerous.
What is ‘vaccine denial’?
Denying vaccines exist? That’s pretty lunatic and extremely rare
No, you’re talking about ‘vaccine skepticism’, which is not one single belief but a whole spectrum, from people who were shocked to find vaccines don’t actually prevent infection (= many people), to people who hate vaccine compulsion or vaxports, to people who think the Jews put pork and microchips in each jab
There is a very large movement in the US who hold, against all evidence, that Covid vaccines are both ineffective and dangerous. As a frequenter of Twitter, you'll be well aware of it.
Re Objective Truth from earlier, wouldn't the statement "covid vaccines offer protection against serious illness" qualify? - ie someone who says they don't is not offering an opinion, they are either mistaken or lying. That's how I look at it anyway. And there are plenty of similar examples.
Not all covid vaccines are equal… I wouldn’t be lined up to get Sputnik for example… and don’t get me started on Novavax
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.
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.
It is politics of envy and class war pure and simple. Looks like levelling down will be the hallmark of the Starmer government. Twas ever thus with the left and fortunately, since the essence of this approach is completely at odds with human nature which is very strong wrt to families and children, it will be a short-lived interlude.
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.
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.
So not “social cachet” then 😂
I don't think 'social cachet' applies! In my experience, anyone who either went to private school or is sending their own kids to private school (or even considering it) is very quiet and apologetic about the fact.
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”)
Entertaining
Nah. Not prickly at all. I am not in the a/m/j field and if you tell me it is a hotbed of nepotism and old-school tie-ism then who am I to disagree.
The debate was about private schools and @Jonathan said it was solely about the old school tie. I disagreed then and I disagree now. I believe they provide a fantastic education. Or so my nephews tell me.
And apart entry into The Life Guards, and now you tell me arts/media/journalism, I have had no experiences whatsoever of needing to be an OE or public schoolboy to get on in life. I have absolutely accepted that public schoolboys do extremely well in life. So there is a definite advantage to being privately schooled aside from knowing the odd duke. And public schoolgirls. Did I mention my nieces at all?
If anyone is prickly I would contend that it is you who so nearly but didn't after all provide a superior education for your daughter. And were denied one yourself. Not that it has harmed your life too much.
Is there a PB marine biologists' trust? Saw this creature washed up on Kappad Beach, near Calicut (Vasco da Gama, 1498 and all that). Looks like an isopod crustacean from above, but not sure about the ventral view. Any ideas?
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.
So not “social cachet” then 😂
I don't think 'social cachet' applies! In my experience, anyone who either went to private school or is sending their own kids to private school (or even considering it) is very quiet and apologetic about the fact.
A couple of days ago someone was going on about the social cachet of private schooling to resounding mockery on here
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.
So not “social cachet” then 😂
I don't think 'social cachet' applies! In my experience, anyone who either went to private school or is sending their own kids to private school (or even considering it) is very quiet and apologetic about the fact.
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.
I like the fact that whilst there are two commons in the name, the area is almost completely built over with a water treament works and a little recreational ground. It is in Kwasi Kwarteng's (who he?) constituency.
Sunbury Common and Ashford Common, Surrey County Council - C defence: C, L, LD, REFUK, TUSC
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.
It is politics of envy and class war pure and simple. Looks like levelling down will be the hallmark of the Starmer government. Twas ever thus with the left and fortunately, since the essence of this approach is completely at odds with human nature which is very strong wrt to families and children, it will be a short-lived interlude.
A truly class-breaking solution would of course to be for the Government to pay for children who could pass the entrance exams to go to private schools.
That well known egalitarian Margaret Thatcher introduced such a scheme in 1982 but the Blair government - true enemies of aspiration - scrapped it. For that alone he was unfit to be Prime Minister, never mind Ecclestone, selling peerage, Iraq, etc. etc. etc.
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.
Not everyone does agree with you about that.
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge that take undergraduates are similar to versions of private boarding schools. Both places nurture woodenheaded creatures of the system.
(That isn't stereotyping. Some successfully resist the conditioning. Those who think that criticising institutions necessarily implies stereotyping those who have attended such institutions should get out some more. Such a belief is common of course among squareheads - those who were successfully conditioned there. Cf. guys who've spent a long time in prison and who have it written all over them for many years afterwards.)
Every college at Cambridge that takes undergraduates (which is the vast majority of colleges) also has a high table in the dining hall. Every single f***ing one of them! Wow, what a good "education", lol.
It's not all about education. The conditioning has several strands, and often the association between them is sick.
The college system at both Oxford and Cambridge should be got rid of. The patrician attitude of those who run the colleges is utterly revolting and one day someone will shine a light on it.
That it's the colleges that control admission to those two universities is completely unjustifiable. Beancounters may also note that it's a waste of resources, but so are many things at Oxford and Cambridge. Is it good for charities to waste resources?
I wonder what proportion of the population of Britain who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge or had close family members who went there are even aware that it's the colleges that control admission and that an applicant for an undergraduate place can't normally even apply to more than a single college?
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.
So not “social cachet” then 😂
I don't think 'social cachet' applies! In my experience, anyone who either went to private school or is sending their own kids to private school (or even considering it) is very quiet and apologetic about the fact.
A couple of days ago someone was going on about the social cachet of private schooling to resounding mockery on here
Bugger off. Someone asked Why do people send their children to private schools and I said that was one reason, which seemed to wind up some chippy fucker. Not saying it's a good thing, not saying where I or my children went to 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
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.
When we moved from Newark to rural Lincolnshire (about 15 miles from where we previously lived) my daughter still had 2 years left at her state junior school where she was very happy so we kept her there and just drove her back and forth each day. At the time my son was 2 and, perhaps foolishly, we had not even begun to think about schooling for him. When we came to look at starting him at school the local village school was in special measures and had mixed age classes so with him only having just turned 4 by a month he would have been in with kids of 7 and 8 in the same class. This was the only offer from the local authority so we made the decision to send him to a private infant/junior school in Grantham. Once he turned 11 he came back into the state school sector.
Looking back this was exactly the right move and I would do the same again. He is much like me in that he will never be a high flyer in terms of education but he enjoys school very much and loves learning so I have no regrets about our choices and certainly don't feel any guilt 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.
Not everyone does agree with you about that.
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge that take undergraduates are similar to versions of private boarding schools. Both places nurture woodenheaded creatures of the system.
(That isn't stereotyping. Some successfully resist the conditioning. Those who think that criticising institutions necessarily implies stereotyping those who have attended such institutions should get out some more. Such a belief is common of course among squareheads - those who were successfully conditioned there. Cf. guys who've spent a long time in prison and who have it written all over them for many years afterwards.)
Every college at Cambridge that takes undergraduates (which is the vast majority of colleges) also has a high table in the dining hall. Every single f***ing one of them! Wow, what a good "education", lol.
It's not all about education. The conditioning has several strands, and often the association between them is sick.
The college system at both Oxford and Cambridge should be got rid of. The patrician attitude of those who run the colleges is utterly revolting and one day someone will shine a light on it.
That it's the colleges that control admission to those two universities is completely unjustifiable. Beancounters may also note that it's a waste of resources, but so are many things at Oxford and Cambridge. Is it good for charities to waste resources?
I wonder what proportion of the population of Britain who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge or had close family members who went there are even aware that it's the colleges that control admission and that an applicant for an undergraduate place can't normally even apply to more than a single college?
Oxford and Cambridge both rate *very* highly, internationally.
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.
So not “social cachet” then 😂
I don't think 'social cachet' applies! In my experience, anyone who either went to private school or is sending their own kids to private school (or even considering it) is very quiet and apologetic about the fact.
A couple of days ago someone was going on about the social cachet of private schooling to resounding mockery on here
Bugger off. Someone asked Why do people send their children to private schools and I said that was one reason, which seemed to wind up some chippy fucker. Not saying it's a good thing, not saying where I or my children went to school.
I just did a laughing emoji because I thought it was a funny thing to say. I didn't mean to wind you up.
I’ve just had a reasonable sized bet on France to win the WC at 6.6.
OMG I’ve just realised we could be about to experience peak France. They could be about to win both the football and rugby world cups, before hosting the Olympics.
The 2020s just keep getting worse.
I realised that some time ago. They will be insufferable
It's why I've got £15 on France to win the soccer WC at 6/1. I want some consolation if it begins to happen
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.
Not everyone does agree with you about that.
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge that take undergraduates are similar to versions of private boarding schools. Both places nurture woodenheaded creatures of the system.
(That isn't stereotyping. Some successfully resist the conditioning. Those who think that criticising institutions necessarily implies stereotyping those who have attended such institutions should get out some more. Such a belief is common of course among squareheads - those who were successfully conditioned there. Cf. guys who've spent a long time in prison and who have it written all over them for many years afterwards.)
Every college at Cambridge that takes undergraduates (which is the vast majority of colleges) also has a high table in the dining hall. Every single f***ing one of them! Wow, what a good "education", lol.
It's not all about education. The conditioning has several strands, and often the association between them is sick.
The college system at both Oxford and Cambridge should be got rid of. The patrician attitude of those who run the colleges is utterly revolting and one day someone will shine a light on it.
That it's the colleges that control admission to those two universities is completely unjustifiable. Beancounters may also note that it's a waste of resources, but so are many things at Oxford and Cambridge. Is it good for charities to waste resources?
I wonder what proportion of the population of Britain who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge or had close family members who went there are even aware that it's the colleges that control admission and that an applicant for an undergraduate place can't normally even apply to more than a single college?
Oxford and Cambridge both rate *very* highly, internationally.
Most people in St Petersburg think they are full of woodenheaded creatures of the system.
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
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.
Not everyone does agree with you about that.
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge that take undergraduates are similar to versions of private boarding schools. Both places nurture woodenheaded creatures of the system.
(That isn't stereotyping. Some successfully resist the conditioning. Those who think that criticising institutions necessarily implies stereotyping those who have attended such institutions should get out some more. Such a belief is common of course among squareheads - those who were successfully conditioned there. Cf. guys who've spent a long time in prison and who have it written all over them for many years afterwards.)
Every college at Cambridge that takes undergraduates (which is the vast majority of colleges) also has a high table in the dining hall. Every single f***ing one of them! Wow, what a good "education", lol.
It's not all about education. The conditioning has several strands, and often the association between them is sick.
The college system at both Oxford and Cambridge should be got rid of. The patrician attitude of those who run the colleges is utterly revolting and one day someone will shine a light on it.
That it's the colleges that control admission to those two universities is completely unjustifiable. Beancounters may also note that it's a waste of resources, but so are many things at Oxford and Cambridge. Is it good for charities to waste resources?
I wonder what proportion of the population of Britain who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge or had close family members who went there are even aware that it's the colleges that control admission and that an applicant for an undergraduate place can't normally even apply to more than a single college?
Oxford and Cambridge both rate *very* highly, internationally.
Most people in St Petersburg think they are full of woodenheaded creatures of the system.
Touched a nerve ?
Just kidding; they are posting the usual bollocks.
Odesa’s council has voted today to remove the city’s giant statue of Russian empress Catherine The Great - viewed by many as the city’s founder - and to move it to a park dedicated to the “Soviet past” https://mobile.twitter.com/markmackinnon/status/1597925590551642113
Slightly odd history there, but good piece of trolling.
Is there a PB marine biologists' trust? Saw this creature washed up on Kappad Beach, near Calicut (Vasco da Gama, 1498 and all that). Looks like an isopod crustacean from above, but not sure about the ventral view. Any ideas?
How big is it? Wanting for scale here.
I'd say not an isopod, as the exoskeleton isn't segmented enough and it doesn't look like it has enough legs.
Is there a PB marine biologists' trust? Saw this creature washed up on Kappad Beach, near Calicut (Vasco da Gama, 1498 and all that). Looks like an isopod crustacean from above, but not sure about the ventral view. Any ideas?
How big is it? Wanting for scale here.
I'd say not an isopod, as the exoskeleton isn't segmented enough and it doesn't look like it has enough legs.
Is there a PB marine biologists' trust? Saw this creature washed up on Kappad Beach, near Calicut (Vasco da Gama, 1498 and all that). Looks like an isopod crustacean from above, but not sure about the ventral view. Any ideas?
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
I’ve just had a reasonable sized bet on France to win the WC at 6.6.
OMG I’ve just realised we could be about to experience peak France. They could be about to win both the football and rugby world cups, before hosting the Olympics.
The 2020s just keep getting worse.
I realised that some time ago. They will be insufferable
It's why I've got £15 on France to win the soccer WC at 6/1. I want some consolation if it begins to happen
I find my French pals are actually very gracious and modest about how brilliant their world champion football team are.
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.
That's right. Election is tomorrow rather than today, of course. The LibDems are pretty confident, partly as the Greens came second last time but have endorsed the LDs this time. Labour got 7% last time and should do better this time.
The King's Lynn case sounds interesting and unusual - what was so special about the former councillor that the other parties are not contesting the seat?
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.
Not everyone does agree with you about that.
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge that take undergraduates are similar to versions of private boarding schools. Both places nurture woodenheaded creatures of the system.
(That isn't stereotyping. Some successfully resist the conditioning. Those who think that criticising institutions necessarily implies stereotyping those who have attended such institutions should get out some more. Such a belief is common of course among squareheads - those who were successfully conditioned there. Cf. guys who've spent a long time in prison and who have it written all over them for many years afterwards.)
Every college at Cambridge that takes undergraduates (which is the vast majority of colleges) also has a high table in the dining hall. Every single f***ing one of them! Wow, what a good "education", lol.
It's not all about education. The conditioning has several strands, and often the association between them is sick.
The college system at both Oxford and Cambridge should be got rid of. The patrician attitude of those who run the colleges is utterly revolting and one day someone will shine a light on it.
That it's the colleges that control admission to those two universities is completely unjustifiable. Beancounters may also note that it's a waste of resources, but so are many things at Oxford and Cambridge. Is it good for charities to waste resources?
I wonder what proportion of the population of Britain who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge or had close family members who went there are even aware that it's the colleges that control admission and that an applicant for an undergraduate place can't normally even apply to more than a single college?
Oxford and Cambridge both rate *very* highly, internationally.
Reminds me of that episode of Blackadder goes forth in which Blackadder nabs a 'German spy'* by listing Oxford, Cambridge and Hull as the great educational institutions of Britain, which the 'spy' agrees with. Melchett agrees this is genius, as any Brit would know Oxford (or it may have been Cambridge) is a shit hole.
*turns out there was no intentional 'spy', just George writing detailed letters to a German uncle
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.
Not everyone does agree with you about that.
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge that take undergraduates are similar to versions of private boarding schools. Both places nurture woodenheaded creatures of the system.
(That isn't stereotyping. Some successfully resist the conditioning. Those who think that criticising institutions necessarily implies stereotyping those who have attended such institutions should get out some more. Such a belief is common of course among squareheads - those who were successfully conditioned there. Cf. guys who've spent a long time in prison and who have it written all over them for many years afterwards.)
Every college at Cambridge that takes undergraduates (which is the vast majority of colleges) also has a high table in the dining hall. Every single f***ing one of them! Wow, what a good "education", lol.
It's not all about education. The conditioning has several strands, and often the association between them is sick.
The college system at both Oxford and Cambridge should be got rid of. The patrician attitude of those who run the colleges is utterly revolting and one day someone will shine a light on it.
That it's the colleges that control admission to those two universities is completely unjustifiable. Beancounters may also note that it's a waste of resources, but so are many things at Oxford and Cambridge. Is it good for charities to waste resources?
I wonder what proportion of the population of Britain who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge or had close family members who went there are even aware that it's the colleges that control admission and that an applicant for an undergraduate place can't normally even apply to more than a single college?
I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make but, regarding your last paragraph, there is at least some cooperation between the Oxford colleges. My lad, for example, ended up being offered a place at a different college to the one that he applied to.
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.
You make a mistake, my friend. Some of us aren't.
So the mask slips. It isn't just VAT. It's a class war tankie 'tear down the lot of them' view. Understood.
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
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.
Not everyone does agree with you about that.
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge that take undergraduates are similar to versions of private boarding schools. Both places nurture woodenheaded creatures of the system.
(That isn't stereotyping. Some successfully resist the conditioning. Those who think that criticising institutions necessarily implies stereotyping those who have attended such institutions should get out some more. Such a belief is common of course among squareheads - those who were successfully conditioned there. Cf. guys who've spent a long time in prison and who have it written all over them for many years afterwards.)
Every college at Cambridge that takes undergraduates (which is the vast majority of colleges) also has a high table in the dining hall. Every single f***ing one of them! Wow, what a good "education", lol.
It's not all about education. The conditioning has several strands, and often the association between them is sick.
The college system at both Oxford and Cambridge should be got rid of. The patrician attitude of those who run the colleges is utterly revolting and one day someone will shine a light on it.
That it's the colleges that control admission to those two universities is completely unjustifiable. Beancounters may also note that it's a waste of resources, but so are many things at Oxford and Cambridge. Is it good for charities to waste resources?
I wonder what proportion of the population of Britain who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge or had close family members who went there are even aware that it's the colleges that control admission and that an applicant for an undergraduate place can't normally even apply to more than a single college?
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.
Not everyone does agree with you about that.
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge that take undergraduates are similar to versions of private boarding schools. Both places nurture woodenheaded creatures of the system.
(That isn't stereotyping. Some successfully resist the conditioning. Those who think that criticising institutions necessarily implies stereotyping those who have attended such institutions should get out some more. Such a belief is common of course among squareheads - those who were successfully conditioned there. Cf. guys who've spent a long time in prison and who have it written all over them for many years afterwards.)
Every college at Cambridge that takes undergraduates (which is the vast majority of colleges) also has a high table in the dining hall. Every single f***ing one of them! Wow, what a good "education", lol.
It's not all about education. The conditioning has several strands, and often the association between them is sick.
The college system at both Oxford and Cambridge should be got rid of. The patrician attitude of those who run the colleges is utterly revolting and one day someone will shine a light on it.
That it's the colleges that control admission to those two universities is completely unjustifiable. Beancounters may also note that it's a waste of resources, but so are many things at Oxford and Cambridge. Is it good for charities to waste resources?
I wonder what proportion of the population of Britain who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge or had close family members who went there are even aware that it's the colleges that control admission and that an applicant for an undergraduate place can't normally even apply to more than a single college?
I don't see your point about colleges handling admissions. It's not like they are posh frat houses. Like saying that it's bourgeois inefficiency that individual households cook their own meals instead of meals all coming from a central commisariat
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.
Not everyone does agree with you about that.
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge that take undergraduates are similar to versions of private boarding schools. Both places nurture woodenheaded creatures of the system.
(That isn't stereotyping. Some successfully resist the conditioning. Those who think that criticising institutions necessarily implies stereotyping those who have attended such institutions should get out some more. Such a belief is common of course among squareheads - those who were successfully conditioned there. Cf. guys who've spent a long time in prison and who have it written all over them for many years afterwards.)
Every college at Cambridge that takes undergraduates (which is the vast majority of colleges) also has a high table in the dining hall. Every single f***ing one of them! Wow, what a good "education", lol.
It's not all about education. The conditioning has several strands, and often the association between them is sick.
The college system at both Oxford and Cambridge should be got rid of. The patrician attitude of those who run the colleges is utterly revolting and one day someone will shine a light on it.
That it's the colleges that control admission to those two universities is completely unjustifiable. Beancounters may also note that it's a waste of resources, but so are many things at Oxford and Cambridge. Is it good for charities to waste resources?
I wonder what proportion of the population of Britain who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge or had close family members who went there are even aware that it's the colleges that control admission and that an applicant for an undergraduate place can't normally even apply to more than a single college?
I don't see your point about colleges handling admissions. It's not like they are posh frat houses. Like saying that it's bourgeois inefficiency that individual households cook their own meals instead of meals all coming from a central commisariat
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.
Not everyone does agree with you about that.
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge that take undergraduates are similar to versions of private boarding schools. Both places nurture woodenheaded creatures of the system.
(That isn't stereotyping. Some successfully resist the conditioning. Those who think that criticising institutions necessarily implies stereotyping those who have attended such institutions should get out some more. Such a belief is common of course among squareheads - those who were successfully conditioned there. Cf. guys who've spent a long time in prison and who have it written all over them for many years afterwards.)
Every college at Cambridge that takes undergraduates (which is the vast majority of colleges) also has a high table in the dining hall. Every single f***ing one of them! Wow, what a good "education", lol.
It's not all about education. The conditioning has several strands, and often the association between them is sick.
The college system at both Oxford and Cambridge should be got rid of. The patrician attitude of those who run the colleges is utterly revolting and one day someone will shine a light on it.
That it's the colleges that control admission to those two universities is completely unjustifiable. Beancounters may also note that it's a waste of resources, but so are many things at Oxford and Cambridge. Is it good for charities to waste resources?
I wonder what proportion of the population of Britain who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge or had close family members who went there are even aware that it's the colleges that control admission and that an applicant for an undergraduate place can't normally even apply to more than a single college?
I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make but, regarding your last paragraph, there is at least some cooperation between the Oxford colleges. My lad, for example, ended up being offered a place at a different college to the one that he applied to.
Yep: the pool.
It's fairly common for kids who apply to Trinity or Christ's to end up at Fitzwilliam or Girton.
(It's called the pool at Cambridge, it may have a different name at Oxford.)
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
Is there a PB marine biologists' trust? Saw this creature washed up on Kappad Beach, near Calicut (Vasco da Gama, 1498 and all that). Looks like an isopod crustacean from above, but not sure about the ventral view. Any ideas?
How big is it? Wanting for scale here.
I'd say not an isopod, as the exoskeleton isn't segmented enough and it doesn't look like it has enough legs.
Many Oxford and Cambridge graduates will jump to defend the college system even though they have never previously heard anybody criticise it in their entire lives. They just "know" it's good. It must be good, innit? As for the charity status of elite private schools, it's only from a patrician point of view that it makes sense to believe that institutions for the training of an elite are charitably serving the public interest.
A famous Bursar of King's College Cambridge called John Maynard Keynes wrote in his "General Theory" that there are dangerous human proclivities that can be made to flow into comparatively harmless channels by the existence of opportunities for amassing private wealth, proclivities that would otherwise find their outlet in cruelty and the reckless pursuit of personal power and authority.
It's the same old idea - the white man's burden - it's in the best interest of the ruled to be ruled over by those who rule over them. Because if the rulers can't rule the way they want, then they'll get really nasty, and you wouldn't want that.
Odesa’s council has voted today to remove the city’s giant statue of Russian empress Catherine The Great - viewed by many as the city’s founder - and to move it to a park dedicated to the “Soviet past” https://mobile.twitter.com/markmackinnon/status/1597925590551642113
Slightly odd history there, but good piece of trolling.
Is there a PB marine biologists' trust? Saw this creature washed up on Kappad Beach, near Calicut (Vasco da Gama, 1498 and all that). Looks like an isopod crustacean from above, but not sure about the ventral view. Any ideas?
How big is it? Wanting for scale here.
I'd say not an isopod, as the exoskeleton isn't segmented enough and it doesn't look like it has enough legs.
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
Absolutely. My view is that the number 1 thing that sharp-elbowed parents want from a secondary school is a lack of bottom feeders. Whether their solution to that is private, grammar, posh suburb or church is largely secondary. If they can find a school where their offspring's classes won't be disrupted by bottom feeders and where getting smacked around the head will happen at worst irregularly, job done.
Many Oxford and Cambridge graduates will jump to defend the college system even though they have never previously heard anybody criticise it in their entire lives. They just "know" it's good. It must be good, innit? As for the charity status of elite private schools, it's only from a patrician point of view that it makes sense to believe that institutions for the training of an elite are charitably serving the public interest.
A famous Bursar of King's College Cambridge called John Maynard Keynes wrote in his "General Theory" that there are dangerous human proclivities that can be made to flow into comparatively harmless channels by the existence of opportunities for amassing private wealth, proclivities that would otherwise find their outlet in cruelty and the reckless pursuit of personal power and authority.
It's the same old idea - the white man's burden - it's in the best interest of the ruled to be ruled over by those who rule over them. Because if the rulers can't rule the way they want, then they'll get really nasty, and you wouldn't want that.
Hundreds of thousands of Communist officials proving his point wave hello
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
Can't state schools exclude such pupils?
Local authorities have a legal obligation to educate children.
In large prosperous authorities (or very dense urban areas like London) there are ways and means. But in a medium sized town with three secondary schools... well even if a disruptive kid is excluded from one, he'll just go the the next.
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
They did at my school. Two kids got excluded in first form and then another one in third form.
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
They did at my school. Two kids got excluded in first form and then another one in third form.
Sure: but the next secondary school along will have to take them. Now, if you were in one of the local authorities with specialist facilities for kids what don't mix well with other kids, that's great. But that's not most local authorities, because those are expensive.
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
They did at my school. Two kids got excluded in first form and then another one in third form.
I think it was easier back in the day. A group got kicked out in my fifth form in 1990.
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
Can't state schools exclude such pupils?
Local authorities have a legal obligation to educate children.
In large prosperous authorities (or very dense urban areas like London) there are ways and means. But in a medium sized town with three secondary schools... well even if a disruptive kid is excluded from one, he'll just go the the next.
Local authorities only have an obligation if a child's parents choose to delegate their own legal responsibility. Parents can remove a child from the school system with immediate effect under s8(1)(d) of the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006.
"Ways and means" include the "education" of children by local authorities at home rather than at school. These children probably outnumber those who are electively educated at home by parents.
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
Can't state schools exclude such pupils?
Where do you think they would go - straight into chimney-sweeping, as in the good old days?
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
The problem isn't that private schools can, it's that state schools can't.
Many Oxford and Cambridge graduates will jump to defend the college system even though they have never previously heard anybody criticise it in their entire lives. They just "know" it's good. It must be good, innit? As for the charity status of elite private schools, it's only from a patrician point of view that it makes sense to believe that institutions for the training of an elite are charitably serving the public interest.
A famous Bursar of King's College Cambridge called John Maynard Keynes wrote in his "General Theory" that there are dangerous human proclivities that can be made to flow into comparatively harmless channels by the existence of opportunities for amassing private wealth, proclivities that would otherwise find their outlet in cruelty and the reckless pursuit of personal power and authority.
It's the same old idea - the white man's burden - it's in the best interest of the ruled to be ruled over by those who rule over them. Because if the rulers can't rule the way they want, then they'll get really nasty, and you wouldn't want that.
Hundreds of thousands of Communist officials proving his point wave hello
Either posh rule or North Korea? Great breadth of imagination there.
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
Absolutely. My view is that the number 1 thing that sharp-elbowed parents want from a secondary school is a lack of bottom feeders. Whether their solution to that is private, grammar, posh suburb or church is largely secondary. If they can find a school where their offspring's classes won't be disrupted by bottom feeders and where getting smacked around the head will happen at worst irregularly, job done.
As a slightly left of centre (or maybe centrist) woke member of the academic metropolitan large village liberal elite, I endorse this view.
One of the geographically plausible infant schools when we were looking for our eldest last year - in fact possibly the closest as the crow flies, although not closest by route - is in the middle of what might be called a 'challenging' estate. We didn't even view it. Among the other schools, there was little to choose; all pleasant, if needing a bit of money on buildings, with parents and kids who have at least some interest in learning.
(But, importantly, also a socioeconomically diverse mix of people an backgrounds - I'm an academic, my son goes to school with the children of cement mixer drivers, electrical engineers, publicans, joiners, the local vicar, builders and high flyers in big insurance companies. Geographically, we'd probably have struggled to get him into the primary next to my university, where every other parent is an academic - but I wouldn't have wanted that for him anyway. The only thing I'd change is that it's very white and also CofE, but there weren't many options ot avoid either of those around here.)
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.
Not everyone does agree with you about that.
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge that take undergraduates are similar to versions of private boarding schools. Both places nurture woodenheaded creatures of the system.
(That isn't stereotyping. Some successfully resist the conditioning. Those who think that criticising institutions necessarily implies stereotyping those who have attended such institutions should get out some more. Such a belief is common of course among squareheads - those who were successfully conditioned there. Cf. guys who've spent a long time in prison and who have it written all over them for many years afterwards.)
Every college at Cambridge that takes undergraduates (which is the vast majority of colleges) also has a high table in the dining hall. Every single f***ing one of them! Wow, what a good "education", lol.
It's not all about education. The conditioning has several strands, and often the association between them is sick.
The college system at both Oxford and Cambridge should be got rid of. The patrician attitude of those who run the colleges is utterly revolting and one day someone will shine a light on it.
That it's the colleges that control admission to those two universities is completely unjustifiable. Beancounters may also note that it's a waste of resources, but so are many things at Oxford and Cambridge. Is it good for charities to waste resources?
I wonder what proportion of the population of Britain who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge or had close family members who went there are even aware that it's the colleges that control admission and that an applicant for an undergraduate place can't normally even apply to more than a single college?
Oxford and Cambridge both rate *very* highly, internationally.
Reminds me of that episode of Blackadder goes
forth in which Blackadder nabs a 'German spy'* by listing Oxford, Cambridge and Hull as the
great educational institutions of Britain, which the 'spy' agrees with. Melchett agrees this is genius, as any Brit would know Oxford (or it may have been Cambridge) is a shit hole.
*turns out there was no intentional 'spy', just George writing detailed letters to a German uncle
Funny … but I fear we are just moments away from Fen Poly / Cowley Tech humble brag japes
There are, again from memory, two other differences that may be important. Japanese teachers have preparation time, which they spend -- with other teachers -- in a joint office. I think that could be very helpful, especially for beginning teachers.
Second, this is a delicate subject in the US, but our teachers now tend to be near the bottom academically in our colleges and universities, which is, as I understand it, not true in Japan. (There is one interesting exception: our physical education teachers are usually good athletes.)
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
They did at my school. Two kids got excluded in first form and then another one in third form.
It can happen, but the process is much harder. And said children still have to go somewhere, which is a bit of a bugger if your school consistently has spare places.
(What really should be happening is acknowledging that, at some level, those kids need some hefty intervention to cope better with their lives, and that's cheaper and more effective while they are young than if we just let them turn into screwed up adults.
But that's expensive and so always massively oversubscribed.)
Many Oxford and Cambridge graduates will jump to defend the college system even though they have never previously heard anybody criticise it in their entire lives. They just "know" it's good. It must be good, innit? As for the charity status of elite private schools, it's only from a patrician point of view that it makes sense to believe that institutions for the training of an elite are charitably serving the public interest.
A famous Bursar of King's College Cambridge called John Maynard Keynes wrote in his "General Theory" that there are dangerous human proclivities that can be made to flow into comparatively harmless channels by the existence of opportunities for amassing private wealth, proclivities that would otherwise find their outlet in cruelty and the reckless pursuit of personal power and authority.
It's the same old idea - the white man's burden - it's in the best interest of the ruled to be ruled over by those who rule over them. Because if the rulers can't rule the way they want, then they'll get really nasty, and you wouldn't want that.
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.
Not everyone does agree with you about that.
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge that take undergraduates are similar to versions of private boarding schools. Both places nurture woodenheaded creatures of the system.
(That isn't stereotyping. Some successfully resist the conditioning. Those who think that criticising institutions necessarily implies stereotyping those who have attended such institutions should get out some more. Such a belief is common of course among squareheads - those who were successfully conditioned there. Cf. guys who've spent a long time in prison and who have it written all over them for many years afterwards.)
Every college at Cambridge that takes undergraduates (which is the vast majority of colleges) also has a high table in the dining hall. Every single f***ing one of them! Wow, what a good "education", lol.
It's not all about education. The conditioning has several strands, and often the association between them is sick.
The college system at both Oxford and Cambridge should be got rid of. The patrician attitude of those who run the colleges is utterly revolting and one day someone will shine a light on it.
That it's the colleges that control admission to those two universities is completely unjustifiable. Beancounters may also note that it's a waste of resources, but so are many things at Oxford and Cambridge. Is it good for charities to waste resources?
I wonder what proportion of the population of Britain who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge or had close family members who went there are even aware that it's the colleges that control admission and that an applicant for an undergraduate place can't normally even apply to more than a single college?
Oxford and Cambridge both rate *very* highly, internationally.
Reminds me of that episode of Blackadder goes forth in which Blackadder nabs a 'German spy'* by listing Oxford, Cambridge and Hull as the great educational institutions of Britain, which the 'spy' agrees with. Melchett agrees this is genius, as any Brit would know Oxford (or it may have been Cambridge) is a shit hole.
*turns out there was no intentional 'spy', just George writing detailed letters to a German uncle
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.
Not everyone does agree with you about that.
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge that take undergraduates are similar to versions of private boarding schools. Both places nurture woodenheaded creatures of the system.
(That isn't stereotyping. Some successfully resist the conditioning. Those who think that criticising institutions necessarily implies stereotyping those who have attended such institutions should get out some more. Such a belief is common of course among squareheads - those who were successfully conditioned there. Cf. guys who've spent a long time in prison and who have it written all over them for many years afterwards.)
Every college at Cambridge that takes undergraduates (which is the vast majority of colleges) also has a high table in the dining hall. Every single f***ing one of them! Wow, what a good "education", lol.
It's not all about education. The conditioning has several strands, and often the association between them is sick.
The college system at both Oxford and Cambridge should be got rid of. The patrician attitude of those who run the colleges is utterly revolting and one day someone will shine a light on it.
That it's the colleges that control admission to those two universities is completely unjustifiable. Beancounters may also note that it's a waste of resources, but so are many things at Oxford and Cambridge. Is it good for charities to waste resources?
I wonder what proportion of the population of Britain who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge or had close family members who went there are even aware that it's the colleges that control admission and that an applicant for an undergraduate place can't normally even apply to more than a single college?
Oxford and Cambridge both rate *very* highly, internationally.
Reminds me of that episode of Blackadder goes
forth in which Blackadder nabs a 'German spy'* by listing Oxford, Cambridge and Hull as the
great educational institutions of Britain, which the 'spy' agrees with. Melchett agrees this is genius, as any Brit would know Oxford (or it may have been Cambridge) is a shit hole.
*turns out there was no intentional 'spy', just George writing detailed letters to a German uncle
Funny … but I fear we are just moments away from Fen Poly / Cowley Tech humble brag japes
I have only (brief) experience of Cowley Tech* where I interviewed, but decided to go elsewhere (to a uni that is in a different town to the one it is named for)
*that being Oxford, I take it, in reference to the old car plant?
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
Absolutely. My view is that the number 1 thing that sharp-elbowed parents want from a secondary school is a lack of bottom feeders. Whether their solution to that is private, grammar, posh suburb or church is largely secondary. If they can find a school where their offspring's classes won't be disrupted by bottom feeders and where getting smacked around the head will happen at worst irregularly, job done.
As a slightly left of centre (or maybe centrist) woke member of the academic metropolitan large village liberal elite, I endorse this view.
One of the geographically plausible infant schools when we were looking for our eldest last year - in fact possibly the closest as the crow flies, although not closest by route - is in the middle of what might be called a 'challenging' estate. We didn't even view it. Among the other schools, there was little to choose; all pleasant, if needing a bit of money on buildings, with parents and kids who have at least some interest in learning.
(But, importantly, also a socioeconomically diverse mix of people an backgrounds - I'm an academic, my son goes to school with the children of cement mixer drivers, electrical engineers, publicans, joiners, the local vicar, builders and high flyers in big insurance companies. Geographically, we'd probably have struggled to get him into the primary next to my university, where every other parent is an academic - but I wouldn't have wanted that for him anyway. The only thing I'd change is that it's very white and also CofE, but there weren't many options ot avoid either of those around here.)
Slightly surprised you get a choice. In Trafford, every school is full: everyone is in the catchment for exactly one primary school, and if you want to go to a school aside from the one you are in catchment for, you have to put yourself on a waiting list and hope a space comes up. And uness you pass the 11+ it's lthllll the sae at secndary.
Sometimes scandals can be revealing, generally. When the news of the Varsity Blues broke in the United States, I was astounded by the sums some parents had spent to get the their kids into the "right" universities. It couldn't be for the learning I thought, since the amounts spent could have hired private tutors with PhDs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal
It seemed to me that there were two things going on: first, that parents were competing with other parents, second that parents were trying to make sure their kids met the right people, for business contacts, and for marriage.
(I don't know whether those thoughts apply to schools in he UK.)
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
Absolutely. My view is that the number 1 thing that sharp-elbowed parents want from a secondary school is a lack of bottom feeders. Whether their solution to that is private, grammar, posh suburb or church is largely secondary. If they can find a school where their offspring's classes won't be disrupted by bottom feeders and where getting smacked around the head will happen at worst irregularly, job done.
As a slightly left of centre (or maybe centrist) woke member of the academic metropolitan large village liberal elite, I endorse this view.
One of the geographically plausible infant schools when we were looking for our eldest last year - in fact possibly the closest as the crow flies, although not closest by route - is in the middle of what might be called a 'challenging' estate. We didn't even view it. Among the other schools, there was little to choose; all pleasant, if needing a bit of money on buildings, with parents and kids who have at least some interest in learning.
(But, importantly, also a socioeconomically diverse mix of people an backgrounds - I'm an academic, my son goes to school with the children of cement mixer drivers, electrical engineers, publicans, joiners, the local vicar, builders and high flyers in big insurance companies. Geographically, we'd probably have struggled to get him into the primary next to my university, where every other parent is an academic - but I wouldn't have wanted that for him anyway. The only thing I'd change is that it's very white and also CofE, but there weren't many options ot avoid either of those around here.)
Slightly surprised you get a choice. In Trafford, every school is full: everyone is in the catchment for exactly one primary school, and if you want to go to a school aside from the one you are in catchment for, you have to put yourself on a waiting list and hope a space comes up. And uness you pass the 11+ it's lthllll the sae at secndary.
Well, who knows? Might be we'd have ended up with the one we 'chose' whatever we'd put as first choice
The chosen school is in the fortunate position (for us, at least) of having far too many for one class per year, but some capacity within two, so I don't think many get turned away.
"lthllll the sae" sounds like a school founded by Rabbie Burns
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
They did at my school. Two kids got excluded in first form and then another one in third form.
I think it was easier back in the day. A group got kicked out in my fifth form in 1990.
One of my son's classmates got excluded from their grammar school. He wasn't a bad lad, but always doing stupid things and being generally disruptive. In the end it was flashing a knife around that got him the push. He was just trying to be big with some stupid little penknife, but it gave the school the excuse it needed.
All's well that ends well though. He ended up doing much better at the local (very good) comp where he was one of the smart ones rather than one of the stragglers, and he even ended up getting some decent A-level grades. Some kids are just a better fit at a different 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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
Absolutely. My view is that the number 1 thing that sharp-elbowed parents want from a secondary school is a lack of bottom feeders. Whether their solution to that is private, grammar, posh suburb or church is largely secondary. If they can find a school where their offspring's classes won't be disrupted by bottom feeders and where getting smacked around the head will happen at worst irregularly, job done.
As a slightly left of centre (or maybe centrist) woke member of the academic metropolitan large village liberal elite, I endorse this view.
One of the geographically plausible infant schools when we were looking for our eldest last year - in fact possibly the closest as the crow flies, although not closest by route - is in the middle of what might be called a 'challenging' estate. We didn't even view it. Among the other schools, there was little to choose; all pleasant, if needing a bit of money on buildings, with parents and kids who have at least some interest in learning.
(But, importantly, also a socioeconomically diverse mix of people an backgrounds - I'm an academic, my son goes to school with the children of cement mixer drivers, electrical engineers, publicans, joiners, the local vicar, builders and high flyers in big insurance companies. Geographically, we'd probably have struggled to get him into the primary next to my university, where every other parent is an academic - but I wouldn't have wanted that for him anyway. The only thing I'd change is that it's very white and also CofE, but there weren't many options ot avoid either of those around here.)
Slightly surprised you get a choice. In Trafford, every school is full: everyone is in the catchment for exactly one primary school, and if you want to go to a school aside from the one you are in catchment for, you have to put yourself on a waiting list and hope a space comes up. And uness you pass the 11+ it's lthllll the sae at secndary.
Well, who knows? Might be we'd have ended up with the one we 'chose' whatever we'd put as first choice
The chosen school is in the fortunate position (for us, at least) of having far too many for one class per year, but some capacity within two, so I don't think many get turned away.
"lthllll the sae" sounds like a school founded by Rabbie Burns
Haha - Sorry - using phone keypad on four year old phone and backspace only works sporadically!
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.
There were several old Etonians in my year at Trinity.
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Which it should be noted is also a private school.
That is true.
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
Can't state schools exclude such pupils?
Where do you think they would go - straight into chimney-sweeping, as in the good old days?
I bloody well hope so. It's murder trying to get your chimneys swept right now. Not sure how long the training programme is so probably not as useful as I would like.
I make no comment on whether they should or shouldn't be excluded, just to say that state schools have the ability to exclude pupils (as well as public schools).
Whether they are then placed at other schools or home school I have no idea. The latter is of course fulfilling the state's obligation to educate children albeit I've no idea about the likely home schooling quality of an excluded pupil, given as we have noted the likely parental role in their being excluded in the first place.
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.
Not everyone does agree with you about that.
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge that take undergraduates are similar to versions of private boarding schools. Both places nurture woodenheaded creatures of the system.
(That isn't stereotyping. Some successfully resist the conditioning. Those who think that criticising institutions necessarily implies stereotyping those who have attended such institutions should get out some more. Such a belief is common of course among squareheads - those who were successfully conditioned there. Cf. guys who've spent a long time in prison and who have it written all over them for many years afterwards.)
Every college at Cambridge that takes undergraduates (which is the vast majority of colleges) also has a high table in the dining hall. Every single f***ing one of them! Wow, what a good "education", lol.
It's not all about education. The conditioning has several strands, and often the association between them is sick.
The college system at both Oxford and Cambridge should be got rid of. The patrician attitude of those who run the colleges is utterly revolting and one day someone will shine a light on it.
That it's the colleges that control admission to those two universities is completely unjustifiable. Beancounters may also note that it's a waste of resources, but so are many things at Oxford and Cambridge. Is it good for charities to waste resources?
I wonder what proportion of the population of Britain who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge or had close family members who went there are even aware that it's the colleges that control admission and that an applicant for an undergraduate place can't normally even apply to more than a single college?
Oxford and Cambridge both rate *very* highly, internationally.
Reminds me of that episode of Blackadder goes
forth in which Blackadder nabs a 'German spy'* by listing Oxford, Cambridge and Hull as the
great educational institutions of Britain, which the 'spy' agrees with. Melchett agrees this is genius, as any Brit would know Oxford (or it may have been Cambridge) is a shit hole.
*turns out there was no intentional 'spy', just George writing detailed letters to a German uncle
Funny … but I fear we are just moments away from Fen Poly / Cowley Tech humble brag japes
I have only (brief) experience of Cowley Tech* where I interviewed, but decided to go elsewhere (to a uni that is in a different town to the one it is named for)
*that being Oxford, I take it, in reference to the old car plant?
Comments
The debate was about private schools and @Jonathan said it was solely about the old school tie. I disagreed then and I disagree now. I believe they provide a fantastic education. Or so my nephews tell me.
And apart entry into The Life Guards, and now you tell me arts/media/journalism, I have had no experiences whatsoever of needing to be an OE or public schoolboy to get on in life. I have absolutely accepted that public schoolboys do extremely well in life. So there is a definite advantage to being privately schooled aside from knowing the odd duke. And public schoolgirls. Did I mention my nieces at all?
If anyone is prickly I would contend that it is you who so nearly but didn't after all provide a superior education for your daughter. And were denied one yourself. Not that it has harmed your life too much.
A friend works at a good private school (despite being a leftie at uni), and she says her school is the opposite: they make kids work, but there is much less opportunity for extra or outside-lessons work.
I see my old school as being a bit like university: how hard you work is pretty much up to you.
This ideology is problematic because the playing field isn't level - which is why private schooling arouses such ire - and because it's a logical impossibility for everyone to succeed and become doctors or lawyers, and we're always going to have some people at the bottom of the heap, because heaps don't levitate.
If you guarantee for everyone a minimum living standard that allows for living with dignity, security and a degree of comfort and leisure, then the consequences of success/failure in the great meritocratic struggle are less acute. And then it doesn't matter so much if the deck is stacked.
The 2020s just keep getting worse.
I like the fact that whilst there are two commons in the name, the area is almost completely built over with a water treament works and a little recreational ground. It is in Kwasi Kwarteng's (who he?) constituency.
Sunbury Common and Ashford Common, Surrey County Council - C defence: C, L, LD, REFUK, TUSC
That well known egalitarian Margaret Thatcher introduced such a scheme in 1982 but the Blair government - true enemies of aspiration - scrapped it. For that alone he was unfit to be Prime Minister, never mind Ecclestone, selling peerage, Iraq, etc. etc. etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/30/more-than-70-per-cent-english-water-industry-foreign-ownership
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge that take undergraduates are similar to versions of private boarding schools. Both places nurture woodenheaded creatures of the system.
(That isn't stereotyping. Some successfully resist the conditioning. Those who think that criticising institutions necessarily implies stereotyping those who have attended such institutions should get out some more. Such a belief is common of course among squareheads - those who were successfully conditioned there. Cf. guys who've spent a long time in prison and who have it written all over them for many years afterwards.)
Every college at Cambridge that takes undergraduates (which is the vast majority of colleges) also has a high table in the dining hall. Every single f***ing one of them! Wow, what a good "education", lol.
It's not all about education. The conditioning has several strands, and often the association between them is sick.
The college system at both Oxford and Cambridge should be got rid of. The patrician attitude of those who run the colleges is utterly revolting and one day someone will shine a light on it.
That it's the colleges that control admission to those two universities is completely unjustifiable. Beancounters may also note that it's a waste of resources, but so are many things at Oxford and Cambridge. Is it good for charities to waste resources?
I wonder what proportion of the population of Britain who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge or had close family members who went there are even aware that it's the colleges that control admission and that an applicant for an undergraduate place can't normally even apply to more than a single college?
Looking back this was exactly the right move and I would do the same again. He is much like me in that he will never be a high flyer in terms of education but he enjoys school very much and loves learning so I have no regrets about our choices and certainly don't feel any guilt about it.
But why, oh why, do the Aussies have to use the tune to 'Good Bless the Prince of Wales' for their National Anthem? They are already out.
It's why I've got £15 on France to win the soccer WC at 6/1. I want some consolation if it begins to happen
There were more people from Manchester Grammar School, mind.
Just kidding; they are posting the usual bollocks.
Odesa’s council has voted today to remove the city’s giant statue of Russian empress Catherine The Great - viewed by many as the city’s founder - and to move it to a park dedicated to the “Soviet past”
https://mobile.twitter.com/markmackinnon/status/1597925590551642113
Slightly odd history there, but good piece of trolling.
I'd say not an isopod, as the exoskeleton isn't segmented enough and it doesn't look like it has enough legs.
Which makes it worse.
The King's Lynn case sounds interesting and unusual - what was so special about the former councillor that the other parties are not contesting the seat?
*turns out there was no intentional 'spy', just George writing detailed letters to a German uncle
I would suggest that most private schools offer one really important thing: they can get rid of disruptive students. If Joe Bloggs is making it harder for others to learn, then most private schools will say "Goodbye Joe!"
State schools don't have that freedom to let troublesome students go. And that's a drag on all the non-troublesome students.
It's fairly common for kids who apply to Trinity or Christ's to end up at Fitzwilliam or Girton.
(It's called the pool at Cambridge, it may have a different name at Oxford.)
This clip explains the point well:
"I serve the nation. You haven't the slightest idea what it means, have you?"
A famous Bursar of King's College Cambridge called John Maynard Keynes wrote in his "General Theory" that there are dangerous human proclivities that can be made to flow into comparatively harmless channels by the existence of opportunities for amassing private wealth, proclivities that would otherwise find their outlet in cruelty and the reckless pursuit of personal power and authority.
It's the same old idea - the white man's burden - it's in the best interest of the ruled to be ruled over by those who rule over them. Because if the rulers can't rule the way they want, then they'll get really nasty, and you wouldn't want that.
My view is that the number 1 thing that sharp-elbowed parents want from a secondary school is a lack of bottom feeders. Whether their solution to that is private, grammar, posh suburb or church is largely secondary. If they can find a school where their offspring's classes won't be disrupted by bottom feeders and where getting smacked around the head will happen at worst irregularly, job done.
In large prosperous authorities (or very dense urban areas like London) there are ways and means. But in a medium sized town with three secondary schools... well even if a disruptive kid is excluded from one, he'll just go the the next.
France is not unbeatable.
But actually this is their reserves.
"Ways and means" include the "education" of children by local authorities at home rather than at school. These children probably outnumber those who are electively educated at home by parents.
One of the geographically plausible infant schools when we were looking for our eldest last year - in fact possibly the closest as the crow flies, although not closest by route - is in the middle of what might be called a 'challenging' estate. We didn't even view it. Among the other schools, there was little to choose; all pleasant, if needing a bit of money on buildings, with parents and kids who have at least some interest in learning.
(But, importantly, also a socioeconomically diverse mix of people an backgrounds - I'm an academic, my son goes to school with the children of cement mixer drivers, electrical engineers, publicans, joiners, the local vicar, builders and high flyers in big insurance companies. Geographically, we'd probably have struggled to get him into the primary next to my university, where every other parent is an academic - but I wouldn't have wanted that for him anyway. The only thing I'd change is that it's very white and also CofE, but there weren't many options ot avoid either of those around here.)
Here's one source: https://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/EDIF 2012--N9 FINAL.pdf
There are, again from memory, two other differences that may be important. Japanese teachers have preparation time, which they spend -- with other teachers -- in a joint office. I think that could be very helpful, especially for beginning teachers.
Second, this is a delicate subject in the US, but our teachers now tend to be near the bottom academically in our colleges and universities, which is, as I understand it, not true in Japan. (There is one interesting exception: our physical education teachers are usually good athletes.)
(What really should be happening is acknowledging that, at some level, those kids need some hefty intervention to cope better with their lives, and that's cheaper and more effective while they are young than if we just let them turn into screwed up adults.
But that's expensive and so always massively oversubscribed.)
*that being Oxford, I take it, in reference to the old car plant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal
It seemed to me that there were two things going on: first, that parents were competing with other parents, second that parents were trying to make sure their kids met the right people, for business contacts, and for marriage.
(I don't know whether those thoughts apply to schools in he UK.)
The chosen school is in the fortunate position (for us, at least) of having far too many for one class per year, but some capacity within two, so I don't think many get turned away.
"lthllll the sae" sounds like a school founded by Rabbie Burns
All's well that ends well though. He ended up doing much better at the local (very good) comp where he was one of the smart ones rather than one of the stragglers, and he even ended up getting some decent A-level grades. Some kids are just a better fit at a different school.
New thread.
I make no comment on whether they should or shouldn't be excluded, just to say that state schools have the ability to exclude pupils (as well as public schools).
Whether they are then placed at other schools or home school I have no idea. The latter is of course fulfilling the state's obligation to educate children albeit I've no idea about the likely home schooling quality of an excluded pupil, given as we have noted the likely parental role in their being excluded in the first place.
NEW THREAD
Probably the only one, but one nonetheless.