private schools are quite expensive

Move to a country where you don't need to go to a private school to succeed in life...

Chavs

If you have to consider selling your flat to afford private school, you can't afford private school.

I read that article though, and it seems they are in trouble already even without considering private school. They have 'a few hundred pounds' in their savings account, 8000 pounds of credit card debt, and are living paycheck to paycheck.

So, to summarise, a wealthy couple with poor financial management skills recognise their weakness and ask for advice. Advice is given, and all is well.

Jamie is clearly trying to make a point here, but I can't for the life of me work out what it is. Why is this interesting?

Jamie probably thinks it preposterous that they are asking for such bourgeoisie luxuries as Private Schools.

Ok, sure, I'll comment on what prompted me to post this.

What you're looking at here is a very wealthy couple - in the top 1% of UK households. Both privately educated and keen for their children to have the same expensive elitist education.

They are facing a "dilemma", apparently. Their "dilemma" being how best to manage their huge wealth to pay the private school fees without "sacrificing" their posh lifestyle.

My advice to them is that they can go and fuck themseles. They are wealthier than 99% of UK households. They've got money. They've got a substantial income. They've got a second property they could sell if they need to raise some cash. They are not struggling.

To see these privileged, entitled snobs whinging about how to pay private school fees when, in the last year, over one million people in the UK needed to rely on a food bank to feed their family, is frankly stomach-turning. They need a sense of fucking perspective and so do the publishers of the Daily Telegraph.

And since Gobbledygook asked the question, yes, I think it is preposterous that such things as private fee-paying schools exists and I strongly support the abolition of such socially-divisive institutions. If I were in Government I would abolish private schools and private hospitals.

You demand that the state carries the burden of providing education and healthcare to the wealthy? Interesting idea. Do you also demand the abolition of private tutors, and forbid talent relatives from helping with the education of their family's children, as this gives them a clear advantage over children from less talented or caring families?

Out of interest, how wealthy does someone have to be before you feel obliged to hate them?

Have you ever thought about maybe containing your bile in one thread instead of spamming the forum with a different one every few days?

I demand that society is freed from the burden of privilege, and the harmful social division this creates. The wealthy place a burden on state education precisely by withdrawing their children from it.

@ Fairfax:

1. Email the mods if you think I am abusing the forum or breaking any rules.
2. Mute me if you don't want to see my threads.
3. If you disagree with my perspective, make your case, have a discussion.

4. If you don't want to do 1,2 or 3, go fuck yourself.

Octavious makes some good points. Overnight abolition of private schools will add to the government's liability and if the budget isn't increased then it will be spread more thinly possibly resulting in a poorer education for some. Abolishing private tutors or family is obviously unattainable.

However, we should look closely at how private schools are financed. Their charity status should be removed and school fees should attract VAT.

More importantly we need to look at increasing the educational attainment of the vast majority of people who do not attain private schools. That's the real issue to be addressed.

Indeed equality is not to be obtained by dragging down those who are fortunate, but by elevating everyone to the standard that the fortunate enjoy. This is the only moral way to achieve a more equal society.

So everyone should attend a good quality fee-paying school?

I quite agree with you.

I propose a fee model known as "taxation".

Fundamentally I dispute Gobbledygook's claim that supporting good quality state education for all is "dragging down" anyone at all.

"If I were in Government I would abolish private schools and private hospitals."

"Fundamentally I dispute Gobbledygook's claim that supporting good quality state education for all is "dragging down" anyone at all."

You have something to add, KingCyrus?

If you are able to offer a private education to your children, there's nothing wrong with that and everything right about it. There are good quality public schools, just not enough of them.

@Jamiet, if you are unhappy living in your capitalist country, and are looking for more equal distribution of wealth, I think your smart enough to find that place and move there.

@ ssorenn:

"If you are able to offer a private education to your children, there's nothing wrong with that"

I fundamentally disagree. It's socially divisive.

I went to a state school and got a good education there. I even know the difference between "your" and "you're". I then went to a very good University (the University of St. Andrews) where I encountered quite a lot of people who had been to private schools. Many of them were very poorly socially adjusted. Whilst it was clear they had been educated by good teachers supported by the best resources, many of them were lazy and lacked the work ethic that the more ambitious of my state-educated peers had - partly because they'd been raised in a world of wealth where there was no risk of failure. If they were too profligate and spent all their allowance, daddy would give them some more money. If they failed their courses because they were out drinking every night, it didn't matter because one of daddy's friends would find them a job anyway.

In my first year of university I shared a room with a posh boy called David who didn't know how to make his own bed, operate a washing machine, or iron a shirt. I had to help him learn how to do these things and for a moment - just a moment - there was a tension between us because he assumed I might just do these menial things for him, because I was of a lower class.

I actually felt quite sorry for him. He would have been much better off, in the round, as a human being, if he'd had slightly fewer of the "advantages" of his wealthy up-bringing.

"Jamiet, if you are unhappy living in your capitalist country, and are looking for more equal distribution of wealth, I think your [sic] smart enough to find that place and move there."

I like living in the UK. I simply think there are many things that could be done better here, and with more fairness. I would rather stay here and work alongside my fellow humans in pursuit of those outcomes.

I don't understand why everyone's attacking the guy.

The couple are a bunch of greedy bastards. Can anyone disagree?

Of course since the "fortunate" largely got that way through a system that drags everyone else down, it is more complicated than that

In the UK the buggest celebrations after the abolishment of the grammar schools came from private schoolchildren and their parents - it was known as reducing the competition. They were nervous, their nervousness provoked by the first inklings of a meritocracy. From what i can see it is very similar in the USA- money buys you privilage.

Jamiet, I send two kids to private school. I am fortunate enough to be able to do so. People ask me all the time "why I spend the money to do this", and my answer is:
Any child can learn in any given learning environment, but this institution goes above and beyond teaching scholastics and they teach about giving back and helping those in need. To graduate this school, you are required 200 hours of community service and things like that. It's about teaching kids to be good human beings, before they are let go into the world.....it's the best thing I can offer my kids, and I'm happy to do so.

I agree with Jamiet99uk that private schools should be abolished. This would force wealthy people to become invested in the quality of public schools. And as a result they would be more likely to support adequate funding and proper administration of public schools.

Good luck with that. That's a laugh

Everyone saying that abolishing private schools is a good idea doesn't understand the mind of college applicants and high schoolers who work their asses off to try and do well enough for scholarships and how elite private colleges are incredibly appealing. Source: I'm a high school senior.

Abolishing private schools will mean the rich will move into an area where home prices will allow them to keep the poor out of their public school district. You will have a publicly funded school with the same student population. Depending upon the government funding laws, the rich will pay less than they did for a private school education and get the same result by controlling the local school board.

@ssorenn

"Good luck with that. That's a laugh"

We abolished private hospitals didn't we?

@TrPrado

"Everyone saying that abolishing private schools is a good idea doesn't understand the mind of college applicants and high schoolers who work their asses off to try and do well enough for scholarships and how elite private colleges are incredibly appealing. Source: I'm a high school senior."

Universities would still be exclusive and would only let in students who perform well.

"Abolishing private schools will mean the rich will move into an area where home prices will allow them to keep the poor out of their public school district."

This already happens.

"Depending upon the government funding laws, the rich will pay less than they did for a private school education and get the same result by controlling the local school board"

Ideally we would set up the system such that rich people can't pump money directly into their child's school.

"Universities would still be exclusive and would only let in students who perform well."
Whoosh, right over his head.

You'll have to explain it to me then because I am not sure what you were getting at.

You can't stop the rich from paying for a better edcuation. You can't ban students from taking their school-leaving exams outside public schools, and even if you did there are other exams such as the IB that aren't regulated by the UK government. So forget about it.

And suppose you somehow forced every university and every employer in Britain to only accept people from public schools, you can't ban private tutoring either, and the rich will always have more money to spend on additional help for their children.

Besides, a big reason why children with successful parents generally do better than those with poor parents is that their richer, more educated parents can afford to, and understand the importance, of pushing their children in the right direction. Even if you made everyone go to public schools, you wouldn't change the fact that Kensington parents will generally be able to afford a better experience for their children than Tower Hamlets parents.

College tuitions encourage students to push themselves to be more successful so they can go to the schools that are the best of the best, and so that the students can distinguish themselves from the common rabble. Higher success means more and bigger scholarships, means attendance at elite schools. If college is free, the only real encouragement for students to push themselves is if you make university acceptance standards much higher, which makes it inherently more elitist. Private institutions will compete against each other and let the issue sort itself out. For example, Ivy Leagues are trying to open up with more financial aid that makes college available for poorer students, so that they can strive on.

@Gobbledydook:

I acknowledge that rich children would still be better off than poor children even if private schools were abolished. However it would still be helpful step towards dealing with systematic inequality.

@TrPrado

"If college is free, the only real encouragement for students to push themselves is if you make university acceptance standards much higher, which makes it inherently more elitist."

I don't see what is wrong with this. We want the best students at these schools regardless of their parent's social class. And I realize scholarships help with that somewhat but not as much as eliminating the tuition issue all together.

Maybe eliminating tuitions will make some students lazier because there is no financial obstacle to getting in to university. However, these students wouldn't be getting into the the top schools anyway if they had that kind of attitude.

In Canada we passed a law that makes the government provide universal coverage for a specific set of health services. Anything covered by the act could not be privately offered by a corporation.

I am suggesting something similar for education.

Obviously rich people can get alternative health services that aren't covered in the act. Or they can go to another country to pay for their healthcare.

Likewise people could pay for education services not covered.

However I believe that overall doing this would still result in a high-quality and universal service. Just like it did for healthcare.

Healthcare and education are completely different. A degree is a commodity, a heart surgery is a necessity. While I see the argument for de-marketizing necessities, I don't see it for doing the same with commodities such as degrees.

i don't feel that taking away people's choices is a good way to achieve any lasting change. In order for reforms to stick there has to be something in it for everyone.

Besides pouring money into education does not lead to better results. What we need is competition and oversight so bad schools change or close. The charter school system in the UK is a good start but I think jamiet would disagree.

Wisdom from a high school senior:
"A degree is a commodity..."

No, degrees are not commodities. Not all degrees are the same. Your arguments above contradict your later position. A Bachelors in Poli Sci from Harvard is worth quite a lot more than a Bachelors in Poli Sci from "State U."

There are significant societal and economic benefits to having a well-educated citizenry, such as reduced crime, better health outcomes, higher-paying careers, and family stability. While it is true the world will always need ditch-diggers, providing better opportunities (i.e. lower costs) for higher education for everyone will pay off handsomely in the long run.

Those who have ambition to learn, and later contribute with their ultimate degree, will be able to hone their talents irrespective of ability to pay. Those who don't have the mettle to make it through college will do what they always have done and join the economy at a "lower" starting point. At least though the barrier then was their own talents, not their ability to pay.

For the record, I don't like private education in general because it does foster an elitist attitude toward wealth (many private schools are *NOT* meritocracies), but they shouldn't be abolished. But I think fulhamish hit it right on the head. Private institutions worry most about increased competition, so they try to cut down public education any way they can. That's the real crime.