# Who else went to private school?



## twentythreedom (Jun 1, 2011)

Just thought I'd ask.... 

I went to public school*. Did you?

(*Minor private schools will also be accepted on this thread).


----------



## fogbat (Jun 1, 2011)

Nope.


----------



## Santino (Jun 1, 2011)

Nick Clegg


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 1, 2011)

Nope


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 1, 2011)

Went to private day school when I was small in the states. It's cheaper and more common to do so over there though.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 1, 2011)

No.

Poll?


----------



## binka (Jun 1, 2011)

i went to eton, made me the man i am today


----------



## weepiper (Jun 1, 2011)

lol.


----------



## gavman (Jun 1, 2011)

i did a year


----------



## strung out (Jun 1, 2011)

private when i went to it. turned into a state run academy a few years after i left. banksy went there too (allegedly).


----------



## xenon (Jun 1, 2011)

.


----------



## xenon (Jun 1, 2011)

xenon said:


> No. Is there one called Dragon or something like that, I had a mate who went there. Think it's near Oxford.


 

e2a yeah. JFGI


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 1, 2011)

Someone here must've gone to Eton, or Harrow at a stretch. Own up!!


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 1, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> Someone here must've gone to Eton, or Harrow at a stretch. Own up!!


 
So far just you and Nick Clegg.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 1, 2011)

My Grandfather got a Scholarship to St Paul's. He was one of nearly a dozen kids. His Dad had abandoned them. Posh but poor.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 1, 2011)

No, my sister went to an Independent school as a result of being very fucking bright and getting a scholarship.


----------



## girasol (Jun 1, 2011)

I did, but in a different country...


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 1, 2011)

xenon said:


> No. Is there one called Dragon or something like that, I had a mate who went there. Think it's near Oxford.



We battered them playing Rugger*

(*I would've said 'Rugby' but that would just confuse matters)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

strung out said:


> private when i went to it. turned into a state run academy a few years after i left. banksy went there too (allegedly).


 
Mine was kind of the opposite - fee-paying boarders but local kids on LEA scholarships when I started (I was one of said local kids), completely private by the time I left. Fucking horrible place. My brother deliberately failed the entrance exam because most of his mates were going to the comp. Good move, I think. Ironically, it was founded as a school for the poor.


----------



## moomoo (Jun 1, 2011)

I did.  I went here as a boarder. 

http://www.kesw.surrey.sch.uk/


----------



## Sue (Jun 1, 2011)

Is it not traditional to start going on about assisted places and such like on these type of threads...?


----------



## zenie (Jun 1, 2011)

non

what is a minor private school? Anyway, isn't it called 'public school'??


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

Sue said:


> Is it not traditional to start going on about assisted places and such like on these type of threads...?


 

TBF people get defensive about this subject because they feel that others are judging them for it.


----------



## strung out (Jun 1, 2011)

public and private are pretty much interchangeable terms i think. 'public' is generally reserved for the poshest ones i think, but there isn't a hard and fast rule that distinguishes them


----------



## moomoo (Jun 1, 2011)

Sue said:


> Is it not traditional to start going on about assisted places and such like on these type of threads...?


 
I had an assisted place.


----------



## strung out (Jun 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> TBF people get defensive about this subject because they feel that others are judging them for it.


 
i agree with that. there's no point attempting to come up with excuses tbh (though i actually was on an assisted place  ). parents were (are) tories and used a combination of assisted places and inheritance to send me and my four siblings through private school and uni. 

on the other hand, we pretty much went without on everything else like holidays and trendy clothes, so while i got bullied by the kids on the council estate i lived on for being a posh twat, i also got bullied by the posh twats at school for being poor. brilliant.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 1, 2011)

Sue said:


> Is it not traditional to start going on about assisted places and such like on these type of threads...?


 
"I got a scholarship, it doesn't count"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

strung out said:


> while i got bullied by the kids on the council estate i lived on for being a posh twat, i also got bullied by the posh twats at school for being poor. brilliant.


 
Ha! I know that feeling very well. There was quite a cultural divide at my school between boarders and day-boys. That's probably not there now that it's totally fee-paying, and expensive too.


----------



## Santino (Jun 1, 2011)

Sue said:


> Is it not traditional to start going on about assisted places and such like on these type of threads...?



Yes. Yes it is.



littlebabyjesus said:


> Mine was kind of the opposite - fee-paying boarders but local kids on LEA scholarships when I started (I was one of said local kids)


 


Fedayn said:


> No, my sister went to an Independent school as a result of being very fucking bright and getting a scholarship.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

LEA scholarship's different  Grammar school, in effect...

But as strung-out says, there's no point defending it. My school was poncy as fuck, with enormous pretentions. Its motto was 'Serve and Obey', ffs.


----------



## rubbershoes (Jun 1, 2011)

I didn't  have a second of state education till i went to university.

I went to a prep school and a well known public school. I wasn't on a scholarship or anything.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 1, 2011)

I was at a private christian school of 9 whole pupils untill yr 6. Running the bonkers ACE curriculum and still alowed to tan yer behind. Was transferred to normal peoples school in yr six


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2011)

I didn't go to school.  I had one-on-one tuition from the age of seven.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I was at a private christian school of 9 whole pupils untill yr 6.



That's kind of a category of its own.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> TBF people get defensive about this subject because they feel that others are judging them for it.


 
Is that wrong? Is it wrong for people to be angry/irked/resentful that someone got a better education because their parents could afford it?


----------



## Garek (Jun 1, 2011)

Yep. Expelled from two.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Is that wrong? Is it wrong for people to be angry/irked/resentful that someone got a better education because their parents could afford it?


 
Is it wrong to judge someone for the school they went to? Yes, it is, I think. Whether or not it's a better education is debatable, I think. I went to the grammar school, my brother to the comprehensive. He had a far better time at school than I did. I was miserable most of the time. Maybe I'd have been miserable at the comp too, but I doubt it tbh, or at least it would have been a different kind of miserable.

Thing is, when you point out that in fact, you went there on some kind of scholarship, you're judged even more. Ask your sister. I bet she's experienced it and felt defensive.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is it wrong to judge someone for the school they went to? Yes, it is, I think. Whether or not it's a better education is debatable, I think. I went to the grammar school, my brother to the comprehensive. He had a far better time at school than I did. I was miserable most of the time. Maybe I'd have been miserable at the comp too, but I doubt it tbh, or at least it would have been a different kind of miserable.


 
I never said 'judge', but do I think it entirely justifiable and reasonable that people get angry that rich people can buy a better education for their children and all that flows from that public school whilst those who can't afford it are unable to do so, fucking right I do.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 1, 2011)

My sisters went to Secondary Moderns I went to a Grammar School and I get sneers about that even now, as if an 11 year old controlled their destiny.


----------



## strung out (Jun 1, 2011)

it's wrong to judge someone for something they had no choice in. i know i didn't have a choice at the age of nine, of where i got sent at the end of the year, and even if i had, i wouldn't have been socially aware enough to really give a shit anyway.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I never said 'judge', but do I think it entirely justifiable and reasonable that people get angry that rich people can buy a better education for their children and all that flows from that public school whilst those who can't afford it are unable to do so, fucking right I do.


 
I agree. I can also understand how people who have benefited from said public school may feel defensive and that others are accusing them of something when they say so, especially somewhere like here.


----------



## strung out (Jun 1, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I never said 'judge', but do I think it entirely justifiable and reasonable that people get angry that rich people can buy a better education for their children and all that flows from that public school whilst those who can't afford it are unable to do so, fucking right I do.


 
that's not really related to the comment lbj was making though, that people feel they'll personally be judged for the choices their parents made for them


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 1, 2011)

strung out said:


> it's wrong to judge someone for something they had no choice in. i know i didn't have a choice at the age of nine, of where i got sent at the end of the year, and even if i had, i wouldn't have been socially aware enough to really give a shit anyway.


 
I agree, which is why I said not to judge but be angry about the privilege having money allows.


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 1, 2011)

It's only the done thing to go on about assisted places here because we all like to show how bright we all are on Urban. Not just to get our plebs out for the lads and lasses.


----------



## strung out (Jun 1, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I agree, which is why I said not to judge but be angry about the privilege having money allows.


 
i agree. i'm angry at that too.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 1, 2011)

strung out said:


> that's not really related to the comment lbj was making though, that people feel they'll personally be judged for the choices their parents made for them


 
But it's all wrapped up in there tough. Imho they have to be teased out. I ain't botherd about folk who went to private school, I knoew a handful. But I think their schools should be brought into the state sector.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 1, 2011)

I think the two tier school system is wrong and divisive, but to attack someone for a decision they had no part in, or what family they were born into is wrong. It's about how they conduct themselves, and the decisions they make as adults that counts.


----------



## strung out (Jun 1, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> It's only the done thing to go on about assisted places here because we all like to show how bright we all are on Urban. Not just to get our plebs out for the lads and lasses.


 
IQs of 147 don't ya know


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I never said 'judge', but do I think it entirely justifiable and reasonable that people get angry that rich people can buy a better education for their children and all that flows from that public school whilst those who can't afford it are unable to do so, fucking right I do.


 
Shouldn't the anger be directed at the state for not providing an education system that makes that a pointless act, rather than the parents that are trying to do right by their kids, or even worse, the kids themselves?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> It's only the done thing to go on about assisted places here because we all like to show how bright we all are on Urban. Not just to get our plebs out for the lads and lasses.


 
Nah. It's getting the plebs out mostly, I reckon.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 1, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I think the two tier school system is wrong and divisive, but to attack someone for a decision they had no part in, or what family they were born into is wrong. It's about how they conduct themselves, and the decisions they make as adults that counts.


 
Well yea, but the judging and anger can overlap.....


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 1, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I never said 'judge', but do I think it entirely justifiable and reasonable that people get angry that rich people can buy a better education for their children and all that flows from that public school whilst those who can't afford it are unable to do so, fucking right I do.


 
It's not an educational advantage, it's a social advantage.


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 1, 2011)

strung out said:


> IQs of 147 don't ya know


 
2 points higher 


Actually I did several halves of summer terms at an English boarding school when my family still lived in the US, as my mum was busy studying at the British Library when I was on my US school hols, so yes and not just that but it was extra school when all my mates back home were off for the summer. She thinks I owe her the money back now I'm a grow up too even though she pretty much prevented me from going to uni when I should have and I still don't have a degree.


----------



## strung out (Jun 1, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> 2 points higher


 
not really, i've never had an IQ test in my life


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's not (necessarily) an educational advantage, it's a social advantage.


 
Even that's debatable. Public schools churn out an awful lot of dickheads of various kinds.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 1, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's not (necessarily) an educational advantage, it's a social advantage.


 
Well given the class sizes in such schools as opposed to the crowd control I had in classes of 34/35/ etc, plus the education they 'achieve' it is both imho.


----------



## Santino (Jun 1, 2011)

Corax said:


> Shouldn't the anger be directed at the state for not providing an education system that makes that a pointless act, rather than the parents that are trying to do right by their kids, or even worse, the kids themselves?


 
It's not just about state education being of insufficient quality though, is it? Private education is a club, a tribal initiation.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 1, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> "I got a scholarship, it doesn't count"


 
mine was church funded. Even comrade stalin had a church funded education


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Well given the class sizes in such schools as opposed to the crowd control I had in classes of 34/35/ etc, plus the education they 'achieve' it is both imho.


 
Yep. That can't really be denied, tbf. The bottom line is that more money - often a lot more money - is being spent per pupil in a private school.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Even that's debatable. Public schools churn out an awful lot of dickheads of various kinds.


 
They churn out an awful lot of dickheads who seem to end up in social positions that they would not had they been state-educated dickheads.


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 1, 2011)

US state schools (confusingly called 'public schools' over there) are keen on SATs and IQ testing. I had an IQ test over there when I was maybe 7?

All schools turn out dickheads, only a certain type of school turns out superior feeling ones that actually get superior positions though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> They churn out an awful lot of dickheads who seem to end up in social positions that they would not had they been state-educated dickheads.


 
Yeah, but who wants to be a fucking banker? I certainly don't. As far as I can see, the only places 'attending the right school' matters at all are places I would hate to be in.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 1, 2011)

A teacher from a private school came to our state school to do some science teaching and what shocked him was the lack of money spent on equipment, the amount equipment had to be shared, was a bit old and sometimes faulty, and how we'd wince if glass equipment got broken and the fact not every pupil had a laptop in class (as in none of ours did). I've worked in state schools with far grottier equipment and resources and was shocked that he thought our labs were a bit shit.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 1, 2011)

I went to a CofE, a grammar and was a boarder at a school in France. Not sure where that puts me. Some private and some state. Hated leaving France and returning to England, hated the grammar school, was a complete misfit in the CofE, only non Christian student.


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, but who wants to be a fucking banker? I certainly don't. As far as I can see, the only places 'attending the right school' matters at all are places I would hate to be in.


 
Well just where would the world be if bankers were nice decent people (from whatever background)? Eh?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

Decent people don't become bankers. They _may work in a bank_, but that's different.

I remember someone at school saying he wanted to study maths so that he could become a stockbroker. I found that most odd as an ambition. Truth is he didn't want to be a stockbroker. He wanted to be rich. That's an important distinction, imo. Nobody wants to be a banker. They just want to be rich.


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Decent people don't become bankers. They _may work in a bank_, but that's different.


 
Herein my lie the problem, same re: politics.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 1, 2011)

I haven't got any kids, but if I did, I wouldn't send them to boarding / public school tbh.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, but who wants to be a fucking banker? I certainly don't. As far as I can see, the only places 'attending the right school' matters at all are places I would hate to be in.


 
The media, the arts, academia...?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The media, the arts, academia...?


 
In academia it doesn't matter really. Helps to get into Oxbridge, perhaps, but beyond that nobody is going to care what school you went to. Is there a 'public school bias' in the media, or is it really just an Oxbridge bias?

What I'm talking about is the 'old school tie' idea. Clearly having attended an expensive school gives you other advantages - higher grades at gcse and a-level, mostly.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Jun 1, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> A teacher from a private school came to our state school to do some science teaching and what shocked him was the lack of money spent on equipment, the amount equipment had to be shared, was a bit old and sometimes faulty, and how we'd wince if glass equipment got broken and the fact not every pupil had a laptop in class (as in none of ours did). I've worked in state schools with far grottier equipment and resources and was shocked that he thought our labs were a bit shit.


 
I'm sure that's the case in the majority of places, but I do have a friend who is a science teacher in a private school that shall remain nameless, and he says that they're more concerned with the grounds looking nice than having the correct equipment. Whilst the pupils no doubt get many of the advantages that private schools offer, he thinks that in this instance, a better education is not one of them.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 1, 2011)

Shit poll added to OP..


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 1, 2011)

You need a rich family to be in the arts for sure. And a lot of media. Only the rich can afford unpaid internships for their kids

Of course the Tories are kindly making it a non-issue, in that your 'proof of rich' will now also come at the university level as well.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 1, 2011)

@ A S
The teacher that came in said our teachers were amazing, which they are, and were usually better qualified, which is also true.


----------



## Sue (Jun 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is there a 'public school bias' in the media, or is it really just an Oxbridge bias?


 
Given the disproportionate number of Oxbridge graduates who went to public schools, surely it often amounts to the same thing?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> You need a rich family to be in the arts for sure. And a lot of media. Only the rich can afford unpaid internships for their kids


 
There's an element of truth to that, but only an element. My mate supported his girlfriend through a photography internship through his wages as a hospital porter. It's not cut and dried and there are other ways in. However, the ending of apprenticeships and traineeships in, for instance, local newspapers has had an adverse effect.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

Sue said:


> Given the disproportionate number of Oxbridge graduates who went to public schools, surely it often amounts to the same thing?



Not quite. To get a job at a merchant bank, having gone to Eton etc helps. It opens doors. Having gone to a comprehensive and then Oxbridge doesn't help in the same way.


----------



## strung out (Jun 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In academia it doesn't matter really. Helps to get into Oxbridge, perhaps, but beyond that nobody is going to care what school you went to. Is there a 'public school bias' in the media, or is it really just an Oxbridge bias?
> 
> What I'm talking about is the 'old school tie' idea. Clearly having attended an expensive school gives you other advantages - higher grades at gcse and a-level, mostly.


 
i'm not sure if going to a minor private school is always an advantage in any of those social positions anyway. can't really comment on academia etc, but when it comes to media and the arts, the only famous person who ever went to my school is john fortune (from bremner, bird and fortune fame).

i did have an interview once where the interviewer remarked on me having gone to a good school, but i didn't get the bastard job, so it obviously didn't help me that much.


----------



## kazza007 (Jun 1, 2011)

Private primary for a couple of years (tweed uniform blazer and cap!), then normal grammar.


----------



## Sue (Jun 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not quite. To get a job at a merchant bank, having gone to Eton etc helps. It opens doors. Having gone to a comprehensive and then Oxbridge doesn't help in the same way.


 
I bow to your superior knowledge...


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 1, 2011)

With all of urbans bashing of class this thread makes me smile


----------



## strung out (Jun 1, 2011)

Global Stoner said:


> With all of urbans bashing of class this thread makes me smile


 
because you shouldn't be critical of the class system if you went to a private school, obviously


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

Sue said:


> I bow to your superior knowledge...


 
It's second-hand, but I have been told this. It's absurd really. We had a freelancer a while back who put on his cv that he had attended Eton. It was something of an amusement that someone in his thirties would put his school's name on his cv at all.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 1, 2011)

strung out said:


> because you shouldn't be critical of the class system if you went to a private school, obviously


 
Chip much? 

Nah it's not that...it's more the extremes this place goes to.


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's an element of truth to that, but only an element. My mate supported his girlfriend through a photography internship through his wages as a hospital porter. It's not cut and dried and there are other ways in. However, the ending of apprenticeships and traineeships in, for instance, local newspapers has had an adverse effect.


 
Not everyone is lucky enough to have a partner or a family that can support them though. It's taken me years to find one.

Although I think I probably would have made an excellent journalist, amongst other things, I didn't have family support to go to uni at the 'right age' and still less to do any manner of unpaid work to get a 'good' job. Therefore I crossed it off my list very early on.

I was in the gap between the end of YTS and the beginning of Modern Apprenticeships, so there weren't any other options for me. If I'd have had support from my family (in my case it was because they are all arseholes, not due to finances - I spent my whole childhood and young adulthood wondering why my mates from poorer larger families than mine had all the support and help in the world), but the point still stands - I'd have got ahead with a family in a position (mentally or financially) to support me without having been to a good school. Without that I am still struggling to put myself through a degree at the age of 33. I'd have gotten the tail end of grants as well, so not like it would have cost much.

/rantmode

sorry



So ok, fair point, you *can* be lucky to be in a position where you can do the necessary for various careers, but the better off are usually in a position where they know from the age of 5 that they can pick anything and their family will back them.


----------



## strung out (Jun 1, 2011)

strung out said:


> i'm not sure if going to a minor private school is always an advantage in any of those social positions anyway. can't really comment on academia etc, but when it comes to media and the arts, the only famous person who ever went to my school is john fortune (from bremner, bird and fortune fame).
> 
> i did have an interview once where the interviewer remarked on me having gone to a good school, but i didn't get the bastard job, so it obviously didn't help me that much.


 
actually, i'll revise that. there clearly are certain social advantages to going to a minor private school, but those aren't necessarily the same ones you'd get from going to eton, harrow etc, and are a lot more subtle and harder to recognise.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

Truth is, everyone needs the support of someone at some point. None of us can do it on our own. But yes, if you have a rich family to support you, you are at an advantage, clearly. I got into the job I do now by lying, basically - claiming experience I didn't have. It worked, but I admit that it is not for everyone.


----------



## strung out (Jun 1, 2011)

now i'm unemployed again, i certainly hope to rely on that tactic lbj


----------



## teahead (Jun 1, 2011)

I did but my fees were paid for by a trust and I only ended up fitting in with the druggies... and didn't realise they didn't need to work hard to get a job, in a way. I come from an aspiratonal immigrant family - my great grandparents rode milk carts and sold fish, my grandparents distressed antiques and sold fish, my parents turned good educations into being upwardly mobile and whatever they thought of as being cultured (bourgeois but peeps thought that was alright after the war) and then when my Dad started dying from overwork whatever money was left got spunked on supporting my own and siblings' education. 

I'm wondering what meaning you're getting from these responses, 23. By any standards you're a fucking failure and no mistake


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It was something of an amusement that someone in his thirties would put his school's name on his cv at all.


 
I thought that was the standard format for a CV?


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 1, 2011)

I want to know what school 23 went to.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

Corax said:


> I thought that was the standard format for a CV?


 
In your thirties? Nah. Who cares what you did 20 years ago? Especially on a freelancer's cv, which is a bit different. You list the jobs you've done, primarily. That's what matters. 

(and in my case, when I was starting out, some of those weren't entirely truthful!)


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In your thirties? Nah. Who cares what you did 20 years ago?


 
Unless it's your only qualifications


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In your thirties? Nah. Who cares what you did 20 years ago?


 
It's more to do with listing the places that awarded you whatever qualifications you're claiming (GCSEs, A-levels, degree) so that they can check that you're not lying.

Not that anyone usually does, but it's just the accepted way of presenting a resume.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2011)

Corax said:


> It's more to do with listing the places that awarded you whatever qualifications you're claiming (GCSEs, A-levels, degree) so that they can check that you're not lying.
> 
> Not that anyone usually does, but it's just the accepted way of presenting a resume.



Sorry, just edited. It is a bit different when you're a freelancer in a particular area. Normally you'll have a long list of clients you've worked for. You might put your degree on there, but really, that is all that matters.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 1, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Unless it's your only qualifications


 
Even then it's maths & english and if you present yourself as well as you do on urban, nobody is going to check.


----------



## teahead (Jun 1, 2011)

Blimey can't I go down the CAB for this?


----------



## audiotech (Jun 1, 2011)

Nope.


----------



## teahead (Jun 1, 2011)




----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 1, 2011)

teahead said:


> [video]http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/349791-Who-else-went-to-private-school?p=11814790#post11814790[/video]


----------



## teahead (Jun 1, 2011)

See above. 
Posh s/wine was the problem.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 2, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> I want to know what school 23 went to.



Why?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> Why?


 
I want to know too. For the bloody fucking hell of knowing, for fuck's sake.


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I want to know too. For the bloody fucking hell of knowing, for fuck's sake.


 
This^^^


----------



## strung out (Jun 2, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> Why?


 
so i can bask in having gone to a more spit and sawdust private school than you did


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 2, 2011)

Global Stoner said:


> With all of urbans bashing of class this thread makes me smile



Are you laughing at us or with us?


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 2, 2011)

strung out said:


> so i can bask in having gone to a more spit and sawdust private school than you did


 
I suspect from the OP that nearly everyone went to at the bare minimum a more spit and sawdust private school (if not worse) than twentythree, though I may be wrong.

Of course we have literally no way of knowing unless he spills it.


----------



## teahead (Jun 2, 2011)

Mebe 23 went to a convent school?


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 2, 2011)

teahead said:


> Mebe 23 went to a convent school?


 
Only in his wildest dreams fantasies.


----------



## teahead (Jun 2, 2011)

What's your evidence?


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 2, 2011)

teahead said:


> What's your evidence?


 
He's straight and male?


----------



## teahead (Jun 2, 2011)

Those are assertions. Where's yer evidence? 
Not that I'm honestly bothered...
But maybe she's looking for an eligible batchelor who's "turned on enough to be hard enough" (see http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/349490-Sex?p=11814844#post11814844)


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 2, 2011)

We only had girls in the sixth form


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 2, 2011)

i already had the idea 23 was a bit well-to-do... why did i think that?


anyway, no. But i did go to a posh grammar school, that thought it was a public school in terms of its traditions and culture. 

it occurred to me the other day, that minor school fees are about the same as full-time childcare. so it's not entirely out of the question for some of us, but rather a matter of priorities and what you feel you would do. I couldn't imagine sending a child of mine to public school. the benefits that it would give are simply not valuable enough to me.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu, tell them please


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> anyway, no. But i did go to a posh grammar school, that thought it was a public school in terms of its traditions and culture.


 
TBH I think that's probably even worse.  My school was like that. A try-hard grammar school is the worst of all worlds.


----------



## strung out (Jun 2, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> We only had girls in the sixth form


 
same here. i did manage to get off with two thirds of the girls in the year below me though.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 2, 2011)

@stuff_it

does "more spit and polish" mean "better"?


----------



## strung out (Jun 2, 2011)

spit and sawdust


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 2, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> i already had the idea 23 was a bit well-to-do... why did i think that?



cos you got class, innit  - takes one to know one etc...


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 2, 2011)

I meant spit and sawdust, I got distracted by talk of polish beer and pole dancers in another thread


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 2, 2011)

strung out said:


> spit and sawdust



sorry, habits of a lifetime etc


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 2, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> I meant spit and sawdust, I got distracted by talk of polish beer and pole dancers in another thread



tell me about it!!


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 2, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> cos you got class, innit  - takes one to know one etc...


 
something like that.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 2, 2011)

check out the observatory on my prep school. It was real, and it worked.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 2, 2011)

It was quite cool having an observatory on your (ie my) prep school though.


----------



## teahead (Jun 2, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> cos you got class, innit  - takes one to know one etc...


Dear god. The old school tie, or the 'special handshake' if you went to the 'right kind' of grammer school back 'in the day'. What's wrong with all that crap is how utterly anti-meritocratic it is: who you know not what you know. 

Leaving Eton and Harrow aside (because they are a class of their own and won't be interrupted in their pursuits; not any more anyway), what's at least good about very horribly and callously competitive/achieving private secondary schools - maybe less so these days - is that you wouldn't get respect if you weren't intelligent. Maybe you could make money sure, if you had the connections through family or were considered 'right' - and lots of total fucking idiots make huge wads e.g. stock exchange which is just a feather bed for the aristos without titles/land/tenants, or by scamming e.g. bundling subprime debts - but if you couldn't hold your own with your intellect then it was "fuck off and make your little pile but leave running the world to us". 

Personally I've found that this kind of arrogance has produced the worst types - peeps like Matt Freud (husband of Liz Murdoch), and the person now responsible for Marketting, Communicatons and Audiences at the BBC (who used to do publicity and marketing at MTV behind a gale of coke and serial consensual sex) - for fixing the world so it makes a nest for the super rich. But that's not on the same level of betrayal of the "you're a good chap coz we went to the same old alma mater" bourgeois wannabe bullshit of the also ran private education sector. 

Like someone said, you can't blame someone for choices they didn't make for themselves. But you can blame them for not thinking about how that works in the big wide world. Exclusion without offering anything else that's useful is... well. Well...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 2, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> check out the observatory on my prep school. It was real, and it worked.


Orwell Park School


----------



## Celt (Jun 2, 2011)

wow, a couple of surprises in that list.

No I didn't


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 2, 2011)

teahead said:


> Dear god. The old school tie, or the 'special handshake' if you went to the 'right kind' of grammer school back 'in the day'. What's wrong with all that crap is how utterly anti-meritocratic it is: who you know not what you know.
> 
> Leaving Eton and Harrow aside (because they are a class of their own and won't be interrupted in their pursuits; not any more anyway), what's at least good about very horribly and callously competitive/achieving private secondary schools - maybe less so these days - is that you wouldn't get respect if you weren't intelligent. Maybe you could make money sure, if you had the connections through family or were considered 'right' - and lots of total fucking idiots make huge wads e.g. stock exchange which is just a feather bed for the aristos without titles/land/tenants, or by scamming e.g. bundling subprime debts - but if you couldn't hold your own with your intellect then it was "fuck off and make your little pile but leave running the world to us".
> 
> ...



Spot on. I went to school with a bunch of cunts, being taught by a bunch of cunts (bar the odd honourable exception), but as I said, I would never send any child of mine to a school like I attended. It is shit, but parents just try to do their best I suppose. 

Yes, Orwell Park, Mrs Magpie!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 2, 2011)

I was taking a break from clearing up the kitchen after people round for a meal plus shoddy social housing cupboard collapse  
Wasn't hard to find. I googled preparatory school observatory. Took me two minutes.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> TBH I think that's probably even worse.  My school was like that. A try-hard grammar school is the worst of all worlds.


 
I went to a school that had been a divided Boys/Girls Grammar 1953-1970, and then a comp. There were still several teachers from that era when I got there - and I arrived in the year that the nearby school that took most of the "estate" kids closed, meaning a whole type of kid they'd never had to deal with before descended, en masse, on the place. A lot of the staff had no idea how to cope with this sudden change. Was an interesting mix of the poshest non-public school kids in town and the some of the poorest. One of my mates was a vicar's son who lived in a 6 bedroom house next to the park, and another only went to school 30 days of his last year cos he was doing barrow-jobs, painting, with his dad (he still got 8 O levels though, the twat).

Now it's an Academy, in the bottom three results-wise, in the authority. I wonder if they tell the kids Tommy Turgoose went there, like we were told about Patricia Hodge and Duncan McKenzie...


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 2, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I went to a school that had been a divided Boys/Girls Grammar 1953-1970, and then a comp. There were still several teachers from that era when I got there - and I arrived in the year that the nearby school that took most of the "estate" kids closed, meaning a whole type of kid they'd never had to deal with before descended, en masse, on the place. A lot of the staff had no idea how to cope with this sudden change. Was an interesting mix of the poshest non-public school kids in town and the some of the poorest. One of my mates was a vicar's son who lived in a 6 bedroom house next to the park, and another only went to school 30 days of his last year cos he was doing barrow-jobs, painting, with his dad (he still got 8 O levels though, the twat).
> 
> Now it's an Academy, in the bottom three results-wise, in the authority. I wonder if they tell the kids Tommy Turgoose went there, like we were told about Patricia Hodge and Duncan McKenzie...


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 2, 2011)

I honestly believe that a lot of anarchists who went to public/private schools were really bright kids form poor working class backgrounds, and got there through scholarships.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 2, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Nope.




were you ever a resident?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 2, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I honestly believe that a lot of anarchists who went to public/private schools were really bright kids form poor working class backgrounds, and got there through scholarships.


 
Me too.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 2, 2011)

A "nope" from me - our local "posh" school in Croydon was Trinity School - blazer-wearing well-to-do types who quite often received the flour bomb treatment from us oiks from Shirley High and Edenham High


----------



## love detective (Jun 2, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I honestly believe that a lot of anarchists who went to public/private schools were really bright kids form poor working class backgrounds, and got there through scholarships.


 
I went to a crap sink school, that didn't have a 5th or 6th year (if you wanted/were able to continue there was a nominal transfer arrangement with another school), and was no more than a holding pen for kids until they reached 15/16 and could be taken onto a YTS scheme

There were plenty smart/bright kids there however - who given the chance much much earlier on in life may well have been able to get a scholarship or whatever their called. But given the socio-economic backgrounds of us and the active discouragement of working class kids pursuing education/academic routes by the educational system itself (which in turn leads to an inherent distrust/suspicion of and hostility to education in general) , the idea of things like scholarships and assistance were just never on the agenda - it was an alien thing to even think about let alone pursue. 

Maybe it was just my geographical area, but I've always wondered how all these working class kids who end up in private/public schools actually got themselves into a position in the first place to pursue it - it's always appeared to me that to even go for a scholarship in the first place you need to come from a background that already has a certain element of social/cultural capital to be able to pursue things like that in the first place.


----------



## Thora (Jun 2, 2011)

No.  Though I did go to a Catholic comp and we had to wear blazers which qualified locally as going to the "posh" school 

Everyone I've ever met who went to a private school was on an assisted place - how do these schools continue to run if no-one is paying?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 2, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


>



That's a nice picture. Thank you.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 2, 2011)

love detective said:


> I went to a crap sink school, that didn't have a 5th or 6th year (if you wanted/were able to continue there was a nominal transfer arrangement with another school), and was no more than a holding pen for kids until they reached 15/16 and could be taken onto a YTS scheme
> 
> There were plenty smart/bright kids there however - who given the chance much much earlier on in life may well have been able to get a scholarship or whatever their called. But given the socio-economic backgrounds of us and the active discouragement of working class kids pursuing education/academic routes by the educational system itself (which in turn leads to an inherent distrust/suspicion of and hostility to education in general) , the idea of things like scholarships and assistance were just never on the agenda - it was an alien thing to even think about let alone pursue.
> 
> Maybe it was just my geographical area, but I've always wondered how all these working class kids who end up in private/public schools actually got themselves into a position in the first place to pursue it - it's always appeared to me that to even go for a scholarship in the first place you need to come from a background that already has a certain element of social/cultural capital to be able to pursue things like that in the first place.



Yep, know too well the suspicion, and not entirely unjustified resentment at experience in 'formal' education.  I've never disparaged and discarded learning at all, though.  I dislike crude anti-intellectualism and dislike how others erroneously caricature it as 'working class' culture.

I think what is contained in your post is something middle class people using a radical class analysis in order to redefine themselves as working class, don't understand.  It's not part of their experience, which can sometimes be reflected in their jolly hockey sticks, or sometimes downright bossy approach to life.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

love detective said:


> Maybe it was just my geographical area, but I've always wondered how all these working class kids who end up in private/public schools actually got themselves into a position in the first place to pursue it - it's always appeared to me that to even go for a scholarship in the first place you need to come from a background that already has a certain element of social/cultural capital to be able to pursue things like that in the first place.



Yep. I think that is undoubtedly the case.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I honestly believe that a lot of anarchists who went to public/private schools were really bright kids form poor working class backgrounds, and got there through scholarships.


 
With a caveat that 'poor working class' is stretching it - as love detective rightly points out, the beneficiaries of scholarships don't come from the poorest backgrounds - I could see how this would be the case. Just coming from a 'normal' background might mean you are relatively poor compared to those not on scholarships, and that you may find yourself not really fitting in anywhere: neither at school nor at home, as strung out described. 

Sounds to me like the kind of formation that might lead to an anti-establishment political mindset later in life.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 2, 2011)

love detective said:


> I went to a crap sink school, that didn't have a 5th or 6th year (if you wanted/were able to continue there was a nominal transfer arrangement with another school), and was no more than a holding pen for kids until they reached 15/16 and could be taken onto a YTS scheme
> 
> .


 How can there have been no _fifth _form?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 2, 2011)

Things were different back then. When I started school you could leave at 14


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 2, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Things were different back then. When I started school you could leave at 14


 
Yes but I think LD is about my age. 15 was the youngest age you could leave then.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 2, 2011)

State primary, then public school, yes (as i've said countless times) got one those poor brats scholarships (single parent etc) they had to offer to keep charity status. In fact, i think it was my resentment at the privileged little brats all around me (and knowing I'd never have it as cushy as them in any other respect), that led me to socialist beliefs


----------



## love detective (Jun 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> How can there have been no _fifth _form?


 
this was in scotland in late 1980's - you could leave school at 16 (and in some cases 15 if an employer offered you an apprentice) - by the time you got to the end of 4th year you were 16 and had been moulded/actively encouraged for the previous 4 years or so to leave as soon as you could

anyone who was able and wanted to could transfer to do 5th & 6th year - although it rarely happened


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 2, 2011)

Thora said:


> Everyone I've ever met who went to a private school was on an assisted place - how do these schools continue to run if no-one is paying?


 
Assisted places don't (necessarily) pay the whole fees - there also aren't that many of them available.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 2, 2011)

love detective said:


> this was in scotland in late 1980's - you could leave school at 16 (and in some cases 15 if an employer offered you an apprentice) - by the time you got to the end of 4th year you were 16 and had been moulded/actively encouraged for the previous 4 years or so to leave as soon as you could
> 
> anyone who was able and wanted to could transfer to do 5th & 6th year


 Hang on, you were 16 in the _fourth _year? We would have been 14-15 in that year.


----------



## strung out (Jun 2, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Assisted places don't (necessarily) pay the whole fees - there also aren't that many of them available.


 
they were means tested by the council before they got abolished


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jun 2, 2011)

I wouldn't be here mixing with you plebs if I had been to public school.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> mine was church funded. Even comrade stalin had a church funded education


 
Yeah, but to be fair, that usually happens when the priest has been playing "hide the колбаса" with yer mum.


----------



## love detective (Jun 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Hang on, you were 16 in the _fourth _year? We would have been 14-15 in that year.


 
what age did you start school in england?

was roughly 5 in scotland - 7 years of primary, 4 of secondary - makes you just about 16 or over 16 - in either case you could leave either with an apprentice/YTS in the case of the former or without one in the case of the later


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

So you started secondary aged 12? In England/Wales it's age 11.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

I went to a state comp.  If U75 was typical of the population in Scotland, then the poll would be saying that so did 96% of posters.  If it was typical of the population in England, it would be saying so did 93% of posters.  Seemingly it isn't, and by quite a degree of magnitude.


----------



## love detective (Jun 2, 2011)

so youse start school at 4?


----------



## wtfftw (Jun 2, 2011)

When I was choosing a secondary school I looked round Alleyn's. I recall my parents explaining that people paid for places and I knew they didn't approve.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So you started secondary aged 12? In England/Wales it's age 11.


11-12.  Not everyone's birthday falls in the Summer holidays.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I went to a state comp.  If U75 was typical of the population in Scotland, then the poll would be saying that so did 96% of posters.  If it was typical of the population in England, it would be saying so did 93% of posters.  Seemingly it isn't, and by quite a degree of magnitude.


Unless the young 'uns are so immersed in American culture they think public school means state school.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Unless the young 'uns are so immersed in American culture they think public school means state school.


That is indeed a possibility.  Hadn't thought of that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> were you ever a resident?


 
Of Borstal (unlike Mr. Pursey), or of Hersham (like Mr. Pursey)?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> 11-12.  Not everyone's birthday falls in the Summer holidays.


 
Sounds like it is slightly different, then. Where I was at least, if your birthday was in the summer holidays, you would be one of the youngest in your year.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jun 2, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> i already had the idea 23 was a bit well-to-do... why did i think that?
> 
> 
> *anyway, no. But i did go to a posh grammar school, that thought it was a public school in terms of its traditions and culture. *
> ...



Same with me - all girls grammar which fancied itself as a public school. It did have boarders but they were generally weekly ones as, at that time, there was no public transport into the deepest Dales so the kids from outlaying villages and farms would stay during the week.

It was, and still is along with the boys grammar, considered the posh school, however, it was also a bit of a dichotomy as on the one hand we had classes, up until we left, in cooking and needlework as those were considered skills a girl would need (while I attended there was a campaign to introduce metal and woodwork but that was unsuccesfull as they were not considered suitable subjects for girls) but at the same time were always told that we should challenge for jobs in the male 'arena', especially in science.

It was kind of like a 1950's ethos in a 1980's setting!


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 2, 2011)

love detective said:


> what age did you start school in england?
> 
> was roughly 5 in scotland - 7 years of primary, 4 of secondary - makes you just about 16 or over 16 - in either case you could leave either with an apprentice/YTS in the case of the former or without one in the case of the later


 Um, it all depends on your birthday, but it doesn't have to be until the term after your 5th borthday, altho I was 4. Reception always confuses me because it's optional, but most people go.
I think we had 5 years primary, 4 middle school (they ceased to exist some time ago) and 3 compulsory years high school. That seems to make 12 years, not your 11.

ETA isn't "year eleven" old fifth form.. I guess they don't count the reception year 4-5.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sounds like it is slightly different, then. Where I was at least, if your birthday was in the summer holidays, you would be one of the youngest in your year.


Well, no, don't take that as a measure: I was supposing a system that doesn't exist.

In fact, you have to be a certain age by March the first to start school in August.  But if you're still 4 (because you were born September to February) you can defer until the next year.  People in Scotland therefore start primary school in August, aged 4 or more commonly 5.  By 4th year at high school, they are 15 or 16.


----------



## love detective (Jun 2, 2011)

> Um, it all depends on your birthday, but it doesn't have to be until the term after your 5th borthday, altho I was 4. Reception always confuses me because it's optional, but most people go.
> I think we had 5 years primary, 4 middle school (they ceased to exist some time ago) and 3 compulsory years high school. That seems to make 12 years, not your 11.



we had 7 years primary and between 4 and 6 of secondary 

we also didn't have all this reception, middle and form business

1st year of secondary school was your 1st year of secondary school and so forth


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, no, don't take that as a measure: I was supposing a system that doesn't exist.


 
TBh I don't really know the precise rules when I was growing up, but we had 3 years of infants, 4 years of junior and then entered secondary aged 11. Unless it was your birthday on the first day of term, I suppose, everyone started at secondary aged 11.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 2, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of Borstal (unlike Mr. Pursey), or of Hersham (like Mr. Pursey)?



The former. I read  a fascinating book on the Borstal system a few years ago. It was actually seen as a reform movement that would bring out of the best in youth who had fallen by the way. Only two were closed extablishments at one point, the rest were open.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 2, 2011)

Is Tacks around still ?He was at public school but that didn't prevent him from becoming an anarchist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> The former. I read  a fascinating book on the Borstal system a few years ago. It was actually seen as a reform movement that would bring out of the best in youth who had fallen by the way. Only two were closed extablishments at one point, the rest were open.


 
Yep. It's reflected in the architecture of the original Borstals too. Less like transit camps, more like boarding schools.
Like most rehabilitative experiments, it eventually got subsumed and destroyed by the Prison Service ethos.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jun 2, 2011)

This week urban is brought to you by the number 75 and the subject 'where one was born in the school year'.

I went to an independent school founded by an all-female Roman Catholic order dedicated to promoting the conversion of Jews to Christianity  

Fully paid for _*but*_ I got suspended for misbehaving just before Xmas 1987 and my family were going to move, which fell through, so I left and started at a comp up the road in 1988.



> Senior School
> • Jumper (grey for boys and maroon for girls), now has two thin stripes instead of the broad stripe around the neck
> • Girls games - maroon skort (skirt with shorts attached)
> • Rugby / football shirt has changed
> ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. It's reflected in the architecture of the original Borstals too. Less like transit camps, more like boarding schools.
> Like most rehabilitative experiments, it eventually got subsumed and destroyed by the Prison Service ethos.


 
They've changed now I don't doubt, but boarding schools up to about the 1950s sound like appalling places - not unlike Borstal at all. Strange kind of privilege to have been sent to one of those monstrous places. Likely to leave you emotionally crippled.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> TBh I don't really know the precise rules when I was growing up, but we had 3 years of infants, 4 years of junior and then entered secondary aged 11. Unless it was your birthday on the first day of term, I suppose, everyone started at secondary aged 11.


Sounds complex.  Were those infants and juniors different schools?  We just had primary school (P1-7), then secondary - usually called "high school" - S1-4 (or S5 & 6 if you did Highers, the approximate equivalent to A Levels).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Were those infants and juniors different schools?


 
Yes. Although in my case, they were right next door to each other. The systems do vary from authority to authority, though, so what I'm saying may only count for my area. I didn't know that grammar schools had persisted right through the 80s and 90s in some areas, for instance, until recently. I assumed they had been abolished everywhere when they were abolished where I was.

I had a look at some schools acts from after WW2 and they are very complex, allowing for all kinds of exceptions, including the LEA scholarship system that there was where I was, whereby independent schools were part-coopted into the state system as the de facto grammar schools. School systems have always varied hugely from area to area, it seems.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The systems do vary from authority to authority


I know.  That's what so confusing looking in from the outside; there seems to be no uniformity at all.  Selection, non selection, and so on.


----------



## love detective (Jun 2, 2011)

always wondered where second toughest in the infants came from


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Sounds complex.  Were those infants and juniors different schools?  We just had primary school (P1-7), then secondary - usually called "high school" - S1-4 (or S5 & 6 if you did Highers, the approximate equivalent to A Levels).


 

The standard now in England and wales is this:

start school the year in which you will be five. This is 'Reception'
Then years 1-6 at primary school (age 5-11) 
year 7-11 is compulsory secondary education (age 11-16)
year 12 & 13 are 6th form and may be at your secondary school (age 16-18) or at a specialist college. (whatever age)

there are still a very small number of areas with middle schools but otherwise this is pretty standard.

the date on which it is decided which school year you are in is 1st September. So, if you were born on 31st August you would be the youngest person in your year, and just four when you started reception, whereas if your birthday was 1st september you would go to school on or just after your fifth birthday.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> The standard now in England and wales is this:
> 
> start school the year in which you will be five. This is 'Reception'
> Then years 1-6 at primary school (age 5-11)
> ...


Cheers.  So you number the years basically from P2, but then right through high school, too.

(Why 6th Form, if it's years 12 & 13?   )


----------



## sim667 (Jun 2, 2011)

I went to 2 private schools, because it was felt that state school wouldnt have the correct funding in place to provide support for my specific learning difficulty.

At the private schools they just treated dyslexia like dyspraxia though as they didnt really understand the difference (I was a very very very early diagnosis when they'd just 'discovered' dyspraxia).

I do think the advantage of sending me (only for my circumstance, I'm certainly no advocate for private shools) is they had more leeway when it came to getting me to actually do work, I think at a state school they'd have ended up turning a blind eye.

In 6th form and above I went to standard local colleges and especially in 6th form saw my grades drop a bit, but was told i 'grew up' a lot more than me mum and dad expected..... I dont really have any freinds i see regularly from my private school, they're all from 6th form and afterward.

Oh i went to standard primary school too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

lower 6th and upper 6th. It's entirely logical.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 2, 2011)

re - infants and juniors

it's still the case now that you have key stage one (reception, year 1 and year 2) and key stage two (years 3-6) which parallel the old infants and juniors (and may still be called that). They may be taught in different sets of buildings and have different lunch breaks, playgrounds etc. It's likely that they still use the same school hall and come together for special assemblies etc.

I don't think i've heard of any primary schools, now or then, where infants and juniors were entirely separate schools with different administrations, admissions and selection criteria etc.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> lower 6th and upper 6th. It's entirely logical.


Of course it is.  To a nation that invented the rules of cricket.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> With a caveat that 'poor working class' is stretching it - as love detective rightly points out, the beneficiaries of scholarships don't come from the poorest backgrounds - I could see how this would be the case. Just coming from a 'normal' background might mean you are relatively poor compared to those not on scholarships, and that you may find yourself not really fitting in anywhere: neither at school nor at home, as strung out described.
> 
> Sounds to me like the kind of formation that might lead to an anti-establishment political mindset later in life.



My earlier post was partially a wind-up.   But I'd say that not fitting in 'Jane Eyre-style' turns people into anarchists is stretching it a bit too.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Cheers.  So you number the years basically from P2, but then right through high school, too.
> 
> (Why 6th Form, if it's years 12 & 13?   )


 

Until the early-mid nineties, numbering went like this:

Infants

1st year - 4&5 years old
2nd year - 5&6 years old
3rd - year 6&7 years old

Juniors
1st year - 7&8 years old
2nd year - 8&9 years old
3rd year - 9&10 years old
4th year - 10&11 years old

Secondary 
1st year - 11&12
2nd year - 12&13
3rd year - 13&14
4th year - 14&15
5th year - 15&16

6th form
lower sixth - 16&17
upper sixth - 17&18


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> My earlier post was partially a wind-up.   But I'd say that not fitting in 'Jane Eyre-style' turns people into anarchists is stretching it a bit too.


 
Maybe. I know what it feels like not to fit in anywhere, though. It turned me against the selection system I went through. It's horribly divisive, really, as you know at the end of junior school that you're going to split and some of you will go on to one kind of culture while the rest go on to another. That's the start of the British class system right there, I think.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> Until the early-mid nineties, numbering went like this:
> 
> Infants
> 
> ...


 
Yes. That's what I recognise.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Sounds complex.  Were those infants and juniors different schools?  We just had primary school (P1-7), then secondary - usually called "high school" - S1-4 (or S5 & 6 if you did Highers, the approximate equivalent to A Levels).


 
We call high schools high schools in Leeds, Swarthy's from Bradford and calls them Upper Schools. I think he sounds high faluting and he thinks I sound American but that's what we call them. No infants or junior schools here, though.


----------



## sam/phallocrat (Jun 2, 2011)

www.clsb.org.uk


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> We call high schools high schools in Leeds, Swarthy's from Bradford and calls them Upper Schools. I think he sounds high faluting and he thinks I sound American but that's what we call them. No infants or junior schools here, though.


Upper schools sounds posh to me.  It's what you're used to, I suppose.


----------



## love detective (Jun 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I think he sounds high faluting



what's he like with his fancy ways


----------



## Thora (Jun 2, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> re - infants and juniors
> 
> it's still the case now that you have key stage one (reception, year 1 and year 2) and key stage two (years 3-6) which parallel the old infants and juniors (and may still be called that). They may be taught in different sets of buildings and have different lunch breaks, playgrounds etc. It's likely that they still use the same school hall and come together for special assemblies etc.
> 
> I don't think i've heard of any primary schools, now or then, where infants and juniors were entirely separate schools with different administrations, admissions and selection criteria etc.


 
I know of several separate infant and junior schools, on different sites, different Heads.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 2, 2011)

Thora said:


> I know of several separate infant and junior schools, on different sites, different Heads.


 

I stand entirely corrected.

So do they have to apply for a new school aged seven? must be a bloody nightmare for the parents.

new uniforms?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> I stand entirely corrected.
> 
> So do they have to apply for a new school aged seven? must be a bloody nightmare for the parents.
> 
> new uniforms?


This is something strange to me, too.  Applying for schools.


----------



## Mapped (Jun 2, 2011)

I'll put my hand up. Because my Mum taught at a public school it was dirt cheap to send her kids to other public school as day pupils, so me and my siblings went. 

I got decent grades in exams, public schools seem to be very good at teaching to achieve that. Beyond that there was no massive social advantage and I now work in a Library. 

I don't think I'd send my kids to public school (if I have any) as it's too expensive, I seemed to be surrounded by twats, being there got me into drugs at too early an age, It turned into a war of attrition against petty rules and also Mrs N1 is anti.


----------



## Santino (Jun 2, 2011)

N1 Buoy said:


> I'll put my hand up. Because my Mum taught at a public school it was dirt cheap to send her kids to other public school as day pupils, so me and my siblings went.


 
Is that really how it works?


----------



## Thora (Jun 2, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> I stand entirely corrected.
> 
> So do they have to apply for a new school aged seven? must be a bloody nightmare for the parents.
> 
> new uniforms?


Yes - the one in my home town had different uniforms anyway.  The schools were adjacent to each other on a big site but didn't share buildings.  Their Ofsted reports were very different too, with the Infant school graded Outstanding and the Junior school Satisfactory.

There are a few separate Infant and Junior schools in Bristol too but I don't know about their arrangements in as much detail.


----------



## Mapped (Jun 2, 2011)

Santino said:


> Is that really how it works?


 
Yes. My mum used to teach at a comp and then an exclusion unit, but chose to go to a public school after that to get cheap private education for her kids. Single sex schools have (or had) arrangements with other schools for teachers kids of the opposite gender to go at a massive discount.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

Again, more defensiveness about who paid. It's silly really - whether or not your parents paid the fees, it's still the same school you went to. 

I'm not having a go, btw, but it's always the same on here - people feel the need to justify themselves by explaining that their parents didn't pay the full fees for one reason or another. Who cares? What difference does it make who paid? 

And those who do start judging people for the school they went to need to think again too, I think. It's the systems you should be attacking, not the people who have gone through the systems in their various ways.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

N1 Buoy said:


> Yes. My mum used to teach at a comp and then an exclusion unit, but chose to go to a public school after that to get cheap private education for her kids. Single sex schools have (or had) arrangements with other schools for teachers kids of the opposite gender to go at a massive discount.


Is punctuation high on the agenda in public schools?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

I'm just looking at the poll again.  It says:

_Yes, I went to public school 

Yes, I went to a private school 

No, I did none of the above. 

Other_

5 people have chosen "other".  What do they mean?


----------



## chazegee (Jun 2, 2011)

25 % 
Urban's dirty secret.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

chazegee said:


> 25 %
> Urban's dirty secret.


It always comes to about that.  It's strange that I come across far more people on these boards that went to private school than I ever have in real life.  Why is that?


----------



## Santino (Jun 2, 2011)

This is hardly a scientific poll.


----------



## Mapped (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Again, more defensiveness about who paid. It's silly really - whether or not your parents paid the fees, it's still the same school you went to.
> 
> I'm not having a go, btw, but it's always the same on here - people feel the need to justify themselves by explaining that their parents didn't pay the full fees for one reason or another. Who cares? What difference does it make who paid?



It wasn't really defensiveness. I said it was an employment choice made by my mum, so it was in effect part of her remuneration package for the job she was doing so she paid for it. I said it as to why we went there, we wouldn't have been able to afford to otherwise.

It is the same school, you get the same education, but IME you feel differently about the place and the 'community' when you are there and not loaded.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

Santino said:


> This is hardly a scientific poll.


No, but it does seem to reflect the boards; how accurately I can't say.  But nor can I name 17 people I know in real life who went to public or private school.


----------



## Santino (Jun 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> No, but it does seem to reflect the boards; how accurately I can't say.  But nor can I name 17 people I know in real life who went to public or private school.


 
But if you knew as many people as there are regular posters on here, you probably could.


----------



## strung out (Jun 2, 2011)

it's the adverts editor takes out in private school's yearbooks


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> No, but it does seem to reflect the boards; how accurately I can't say.  But nor can I name 17 people I know in real life who went to public or private school.


 
One of the main demographics of this board is 'people who have moved to Brixton as adults'. I would think that such people are likely to be, on average, from a different socio-economic group from the average population. That might partly explain it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

Santino said:


> But if you knew as many people as there are regular posters on here, you probably could.


I would expect to know 4% of those I know to have gone to private school, with the accuracy rising the more people I know.  

I'd say I know around 250 people I can name.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One of the main demographics of this board is 'people who have moved to Brixton as adults'. I would think that such people are likely to be, on average, from a different socio-economic group from the average population. That might partly explain it.


That's a fair point.  I'm not really aware of the make-up of that demographic.  Is it more likely to have more privately schooled people than the population?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> That's a fair point.  I'm not really aware of the make-up of that demographic.  Is it more likely to have more privately schooled people than the population?


 
I would say that it is more likely to have fewer people from working class backgrounds, as such people are, on average, less likely to move to London from where they grew up.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would say that it is more likely to have fewer people from working class backgrounds, as such people are, on average, less likely to move to London from where they grew up.


That's interesting.  Where I grew up, almost everyone moved.  But you're saying fewer working class people move _to London_?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

Where I grew up almost everyone moved too. I might be wrong about the migrating around the country point, but isn't it something that fewer people from working class backgrounds do? 

It could just be that a fair old number of people on here are wibbling from work, and to do that you need a job that involves being on a computer but without a supervisor on your back all the time.


----------



## Thora (Jun 2, 2011)

The only people who moved away from where I grew up were the ones who went to university.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 2, 2011)

I went to one (e2a, private, not "public") for 2 and a bit years.  it was ok - only real differences I noticed when I moved to the comp was bigger class sizes and (probably related) less "discipline".


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 2, 2011)

Isn't it also the case that a far higher proportion of people who actually grew up in London go to private schools than is the case nationally?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2011)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I'm sure that's the case in the majority of places, but I do have a friend who is a science teacher in a private school that shall remain nameless, and he says that they're more concerned with the grounds looking nice than having the correct equipment. Whilst the pupils no doubt get many of the advantages that private schools offer, he thinks that in this instance, a better education is not one of them.


 
i can believe that. 

i went to two, went to state school when i was 16 which probably saved my life to be honest. and i agree with everything fedayn has said on this thread. my first school almost went bankrupt when i was about 8 because a teacher everyone liked left and everyone then pulled their kids out. i don't think i really learnt anything there  

they should all be nationalised and brought under public ownership though.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where I grew up almost everyone moved too. I might be wrong about the migrating around the country point, but isn't it something that fewer people from working class backgrounds do?


I don't know, actually.  It's an interesting question.  In my experience (which may well not be typical) anyone wanting a job pretty much had to leave the area I grew up in.  The oil rigs is one major draw, or was when I was younger.  



> It could just be that a fair old number of people on here are wibbling from work, and to do that you need a job that involves being on a computer but without a supervisor on your back all the time.


I think is is probably it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Again, more defensiveness about who paid. It's silly really - whether or not your parents paid the fees, it's still the same school you went to.
> 
> I'm not having a go, btw, but it's always the same on here - people feel the need to justify themselves by explaining that their parents didn't pay the full fees for one reason or another. Who cares? What difference does it make who paid?
> 
> And those who do start judging people for the school they went to need to think again too, I think. It's the systems you should be attacking, not the people who have gone through the systems in their various ways.


 
yeah, i do see where they're coming from though, and i do think some people get a bit too defensive about it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Other[/I]
> 
> 5 people have chosen "other".  What do they mean?



Home schooled, or went to school in another country with a different system (or to an international school).


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 2, 2011)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I'm sure that's the case in the majority of places, but I do have a friend who is a science teacher in a private school that shall remain nameless, and he says that they're more concerned with the grounds looking nice than having the correct equipment. Whilst the pupils no doubt get many of the advantages that private schools offer, he thinks that in this instance, a better education is not one of them.


 My Dad did a little bit of part time teaching in a local Jewish private school that is very religious. He was deeply scathing about the level of their teaching academically, saying it was religion obsessed to the detriment of anything else. Seems even my ordinary comp was better!


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 2, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Is Tacks around still ?He was at public school but that didn't prevent him from becoming an anarchist.


 
He's the leader of the AFED Anarchist Federation now.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> That's a fair point.  I'm not really aware of the make-up of that demographic.  Is it more likely to have more privately schooled people than the population?


 
Yes I would say so. Hipsters and wannabe artists.


----------



## nick h. (Jun 2, 2011)

I went to Tonbridge http://www.tonbridge-school.co.uk/


----------



## dennisr (Jun 2, 2011)

binka said:


> i went to eton, made me the man i am today


 
same


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 2, 2011)

Santino said:


> This is hardly a scientific poll.



It wasn't meant to be.


----------



## Santino (Jun 2, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> It wasn't meant to be.


 
But people were drawing conclusions from it about Urban's demograpic profile.


----------



## love detective (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> but it's always the same on here - people feel the need to justify themselves by explaining that their parents didn't pay the full fees for one reason or another. Who cares? What difference does it make who paid?



in light of the above then, why did you feel the need to point out in your post who paid for your private education?



> And those who do start judging people for the school they went to need to think again too, I think. It's the systems you should be attacking, not the people who have gone through the systems in their various ways.


 
I agree in essence, but I think most of the time it doesn't start from a blind apriori judgement based on the type of school they went to.

It's more a retrospective rationalising of someone's behaviour/attributes/approach based on the 'judgers' actual experience of interacting with that person combined with the knowledge that they have been privately educated. Because let's face it, most people who come through the private school system tend to have attributes/approaches that are fairly distinct (i.e. above average confidence in themselves, somewhat arrogant sense of their own ability/views/intellect, tendency never to get embarassed about anything, always keen to speak out and on behalf of others, tendency to take control, tendency to not taken into account views of those who are not as forceful as themselves, sharp elbowed, and most of all a tendency not to actually realise/acknowledge that they have any of these attributes) , and while not exclusively the preserve of those who have been privately educated, and no doubt there are people who have been privately educated who don't have these attributes - there is in general and on average, a certain type

And there's nothing wrong with someone attributing the fact that someone is like this to the fact that they were privately educated. To understand a person we have to a large extent (although not exclusively) to understand the environment that produced them. So it's not really a pre-judge more a post-experience rationalisation


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

Santino said:


> But people were drawing conclusions from it about Urban's demograpic profile.


That together with previous threads and polls.  And while it might just be anecdotal, my impression is that there is a larger number of private school FPs on here than one might expect.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> That together with previous threads and polls.  And while it might just be anecdotal, my impression is that there is a larger number of private school FPs on here than one might expect.


 
There are.


----------



## audiotech (Jun 2, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> were you ever a resident?


 
Worse, a secondary modern shit-hole, with outside bogs.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Again, more defensiveness about who paid. It's silly really - whether or not your parents paid the fees, it's still the same school you went to.
> 
> I'm not having a go, btw, but it's always the same on here - people feel the need to justify themselves by explaining that their parents didn't pay the full fees for one reason or another. Who cares? What difference does it make who paid?


To me it does make an important diffference, and it's not defensiveness either. It's the memory of every day of those 7 years feeling like the poor relation with 600 Old Etonian cousins, and - as I said earlier - such awareness of the gap between haves and have-nots (me as what seemed like the only have-not there), at that formative age, played a critical role in the development of my politics. -


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 2, 2011)

N1 Buoy said:


> but IME you feel differently about the place and the 'community' when you are there and not loaded.


I couldn't agree with you more


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 2, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Is Tacks around still ?He was at public school but that didn't prevent him from becoming an anarchist.


not seen the young feller (online or IRL) for ages, now you mention him


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 2, 2011)

Private Schools are for commoners, imagine you might have to rub shoulders with the likes of a bank managers child or worse a builders spawn.  Having your own private tutor is where it's at...


----------



## Riklet (Jun 2, 2011)

Went to state and private - my parents paid the fees, I wasn't arty, sporty or generally intelligent enough to get scholarship bizniz, ha.

Wouldn't send my future children to private schools (in the U.K. at least), but I am also v. grateful for the positive side I benefited from and all that, but there's also a negative and depressing side i've had to deal with/integrate too.

I think maybe people get a bit defensive (especially when confronted with snide barbed comments etc.), because whilst it seems like bullshit self-pitying at ones' class privilege and whatnot, a fair few people have a pretty difficult time surrounded by the pressure/expectation/money/religion/success/competition weirdness of private schools, and even a proportion of  unhappy, fucked up, unloved kids who don't see their families very often, of both the amiable and the psychopathic sort.  Combined with that, maybe there's maybe an awareness of the sort of privilege one has enjoyed - if you're in about what, 8% of the population, who disproportionately dominate across the socio-economic spectrum - is not fully deserved or justified, and is intensely problematic.  Generally _kids_ aren't aware of this and don't choose to be put in this position, and criticising individuals is pretty different to criticising the institutional structures which have created them through inequality, though...


----------



## love detective (Jun 2, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> not seen the young feller (online or IRL) for ages, now you mention him


 
Did he not go on to be a leading light in Liberty & Solidarity a partial platformist split from the AF


----------



## petee (Jun 2, 2011)

i went to a jesuit school. where does that fit into the scheme?
also, i thought the opposite of (uk) 'public' was 'comprehensive'. what's a 'private' school for yiz?


----------



## isvicthere? (Jun 2, 2011)

Aren't "private" and "public" school the same thing, in the UK at least?


----------



## rubbershoes (Jun 2, 2011)

isvicthere? said:


> Aren't "private" and "public" school the same thing, in the UK at least?


 
at secondary level pretty much yes. but private schools at primary level are not public schools

When I went for an interview in a City firm , one of the interviewers saw my school on my CV and asked which house I'd been in.  Turned out he'd been in the same as me many years before. We never talked about it though when i started work at the firm


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2011)

Riklet said:


> Went to state and private - my parents paid the fees, I wasn't arty, sporty or generally intelligent enough to get scholarship bizniz, ha.
> 
> Wouldn't send my future children to private schools (in the U.K. at least), but I am also v. grateful for the positive side I benefited from and all that, but there's also a negative and depressing side i've had to deal with/integrate too.
> 
> I think maybe people get a bit defensive (especially when confronted with snide barbed comments etc.), because whilst it seems like bullshit self-pitying at ones' class privilege and whatnot, a fair few people have a pretty difficult time surrounded by the pressure/expectation/money/religion/success/competition weirdness of private schools, and even a proportion of  unhappy, fucked up, unloved kids who don't see their families very often, of both the amiable and the psychopathic sort.  Combined with that, maybe there's maybe an awareness of the sort of privilege one has enjoyed - if you're in about what, 8% of the population, who disproportionately dominate across the socio-economic spectrum - is not fully deserved or justified, and is intensely problematic.  Generally _kids_ aren't aware of this and don't choose to be put in this position, and criticising individuals is pretty different to criticising the institutional structures which have created them through inequality, though...


 
good post. i had a horrible time at school (not to be self pitying or anything) and for the first years of my life barely saw my parents. when i was about twelve that changed and my household got increasingly fucked up, but that's another story.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> My Dad did a little bit of part time teaching in a local Jewish private school that is very religious. He was deeply scathing about the level of their teaching academically, saying it was religion obsessed to the detriment of anything else. Seems even my ordinary comp was better!


 
Sounds familiar. I've had friends who said the same thing about the jewish schools they went to.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2011)

love detective said:


> in light of the above then, why did you feel the need to point out in your post who paid for your private education?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
good post


----------



## lizzieloo (Jun 2, 2011)

Why can't we all get over this school thing? I've not been at school for over 20 years it has no bearing at all on who I am now.


----------



## Corax (Jun 2, 2011)

I went to a radical madrasah.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2011)

love detective said:


> in light of the above then, why did you feel the need to point out in your post who paid for your private education?


 
Oh, I include myself among those that get defensive and feel the need to justify themselves!


----------



## southside (Jun 2, 2011)

lizzieloo said:


> Why can't we all get over this school thing? I've not been at school for over 20 years it has no bearing at all on who I am now.



Not true,

it has shaped who you are now, but the person of then is long gone.  I often wonder in which way my life would have turned out different if I had a few more qualifications?  It's pretty much irrelevant now I suppose.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jun 2, 2011)

southside said:


> Not true,
> 
> it has shaped who you are now, but the person of then is long gone.  I often wonder in which way my life would have turned out different if I had a few more qualifications?  It's pretty much irrelevant now I suppose.


 It might have had some bearing on who I was when I was 20 (if very little) but not now, lots and lots has happened in the 22 years since I left a place I spent 4 unremarkable years.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 2, 2011)

Kindergarten and infants in Bahrain in what were basically Caltex company schools. Junior school in a CoE village school. Local comp, and then pretty much the best 6th form college in the country at the time (which made up for all the others being crap).

I was offered a scholarship to a private grammar school in Louth when I did the 11 plus, but I refused to go there. Wisest decision of my life.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

Riklet said:


> criticising individuals is pretty different to criticising the institutional structures which have created them through inequality, though...


Absolutely.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Home schooled, or went to school in another country with a different system (or to an international school).


That'd still be "No, I did none of the above".


----------



## past caring (Jun 2, 2011)

Is this the appropriate thread for tales about how when you used to sit at the front in French lessons, your mate used to think he was being funny by getting his cock out because we had a very attractive student teacher? But how you were even funnier 'cos you knocked something off her desk so she bent down to pick it up, got an eyeful and he got in the shit?


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 2, 2011)

past caring said:


> Is this the appropriate thread for tales about how when you used to sit at the front in French lessons, your mate used to think he was being funny by getting his cock out because we had a very attractive student teacher? But how you were even funnier 'cos you knocked something off her desk so she bent down to pick it up, got an eyeful and he got in the shit?


 
not unless you think sexual harrassment is funny.


----------



## past caring (Jun 2, 2011)

Eh?


----------



## moochedit (Jun 2, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> Until the early-mid nineties, numbering went like this:
> 
> Infants
> 
> ...


 
My secondary school started at age 12/13 in 1984 and confusingly the first year was called "the second year" so we must have had an extra year at primary.  (can't remember the years at primary)
Maybe local councils are different or they were just starting to change it then ?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 2, 2011)

love detective said:


> It's more a retrospective rationalising of someone's behaviour/attributes/approach based on the 'judgers' actual experience of interacting with that person combined with the knowledge that they have been privately educated. Because let's face it, most people who come through the private school system tend to have attributes/approaches that are fairly distinct (i.e. above average confidence in themselves, somewhat arrogant sense of their own ability/views/intellect, tendency never to get embarassed about anything, always keen to speak out and on behalf of others, tendency to take control, tendency to not taken into account views of those who are not as forceful as themselves, sharp elbowed, and most of all a tendency not to actually realise/acknowledge that they have any of these attributes) , and while not exclusively the preserve of those who have been privately educated, and no doubt there are people who have been privately educated who don't have these attributes - there is in general and on average, a certain type
> 
> And there's nothing wrong with someone attributing the fact that someone is like this to the fact that they were privately educated. To understand a person we have to a large extent (although not exclusively) to understand the environment that produced them. So it's not really a pre-judge more a post-experience rationalisation


In general, i'd agree with this


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 2, 2011)

Riklet said:


> Went to  private - my parents paid the fees.



LOL


----------



## Corax (Jun 2, 2011)

past caring said:


> Is this the appropriate thread for tales about how when you used to sit at the front in French lessons, your mate used to think he was being funny by getting his cock out because we had a very attractive student teacher? But how you were even funnier 'cos you knocked something off her desk so she bent down to pick it up, got an eyeful and he got in the shit?


 
If it is, can I mention that I shagged the french assistant?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2011)

Corax said:


> If it is, can I mention that I shagged the french assistant?


You mention that in threads about anything, to be fair.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 2, 2011)

moochedit said:


> My secondary school started at age 12/13 in 1984 and confusingly the first year was called "the second year" so we must have had an extra year at primary.  (can't remember the years at primary)
> Maybe local councils are different or they were just starting to change it then ?


 

i'd say that's regional. i think starting secondary at 11 has been standard for decades. what was your local education authority?


----------



## Corax (Jun 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> You mention that in threads about anything, to be fair.


 
Of course I do.  You would too.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jun 2, 2011)

moochedit said:


> My secondary school started at age 12/13 in 1984 and confusingly the first year was called "the second year" so we must have had an extra year at primary.  (can't remember the years at primary)
> Maybe local councils are different or they were just starting to change it then ?



Same here, North Warwickshire.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 2, 2011)

Same here: four years of middle school, 12+ exam and then second form. Bucks.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 2, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Same here: four years of middle school, 12+ exam and then second form. Bucks.


 
middle school makes the whole situation different, though. 

lizzieloo / moochedit seemed to be saying they were coming straight from primary.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jun 2, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> middle school makes the whole situation different, though.
> 
> lizzieloo / moochedit seemed to be saying they were coming straight from primary.



I went to middle school too, went to secondary at 12.


----------



## teahead (Jun 2, 2011)

Ahem


----------



## Spark (Jun 2, 2011)

I've been following this thread through the day but not had a change to respond yet.  Quite a few things I've been pondering about, so in no particular order,



love detective said:


> Because let's face it, most people who come through the private school system tend to have attributes/approaches that are fairly distinct (i.e. above average confidence in themselves, somewhat arrogant sense of their own ability/views/intellect, tendency never to get embarassed about anything, always keen to speak out and on behalf of others, tendency to take control, tendency to not taken into account views of those who are not as forceful as themselves, sharp elbowed, and most of all a tendency not to actually realise/acknowledge that they have any of these attributes) , and while not exclusively the preserve of those who have been privately educated, and no doubt there are people who have been privately educated who don't have these attributes - there is in general and on average, a certain type



I think this is overly generalising.  There are some privately educated people like you describe, but it's going a bit far to that there is a type.  Maybe it's just the people who more obviously stick out as being privately educated who exhibit those characteristics.  There is also quite a range of private schools - some may churn out people like you describe, but others don't or just a minority are like that.  I went to private school and I don't recognise any of the people i am still friends with from school in that description.  



Riklet said:


> I think maybe people get a bit defensive (especially when confronted with snide barbed comments etc.), because whilst it seems like bullshit self-pitying at ones' class privilege and whatnot, a fair few people have a pretty difficult time surrounded by the pressure/expectation/money/religion/success/competition weirdness of private schools, and even a proportion of  unhappy, fucked up, unloved kids who don't see their families very often, of both the amiable and the psychopathic sort.  Combined with that, maybe there's maybe an awareness of the sort of privilege one has enjoyed - if you're in about what, 8% of the population, who disproportionately dominate across the socio-economic spectrum - is not fully deserved or justified, and is intensely problematic.  Generally _kids_ aren't aware of this and don't choose to be put in this position, and criticising individuals is pretty different to criticising the institutional structures which have created them through inequality, though...


 
I agree with with this, and would go further than saying just some people have a difficult time.  There's probably not many people who don't have a hard time in some form or another during their teenage years, whether in private or state school, whether it's because of family reasons, being bullied, pressures and expectations etc.  

Also when people say they are privately educated but were on a scholarship/assisted place etc. it can be they are trying to demonstrate that they are not from a typically privileged/monied background.  

There are some groups within society who will clearly always educate their children privately, the Osbornes etc. of this world, and it's fair enough that people want to distance themselves from that if it's not their background.  In my experience there are also lots who just had parents who wanted what they perceived was the best for their children.  For various reasons their parents decided at the relevant time and place that wasn't in the state sector.  Some may have been in a financial position to pay anyway and others did what they had to, whether that is assisted places/scholarships or just the parents making sacrifices themselves.

On the contrary, sometimes state school education is worn almost as a badge of honour (I'm generalising here and not referring to anyone in particular or on this thread) by people who actually come from relatively privileged backgrounds.  In my view someone from a pretty privileged middle class background who went to a decent state school will be in a similar position in terms of university/grades/job etc. than someone of a similar background who went to a private school.  Certainly when I went to university there was very little difference between me and my school friends and people I met at university who had a similar backgrounds but went to state schools. Post university there also hasn't a lot of difference based on types of school.

To clarify, I'm not saying that private schools aren't a form of privilege.  I just don't think it's as clear cut as types of school.

anyway, I'll stop now before i start rambling off on tangents.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 2, 2011)

I remember, clearly, being addressed by my surname for the first time in my life, aged 9, first day of prep school 

If there was 2 kids with the same surname (eg brothers, obvs) the oldest was "randomname major" the youngest "randomname minor". If there was more than 2, then it was lower case Latin numerals. I remember there was "Thompson i" to "Thompson iv".

School, eh? What's that all about then?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2011)

I didn't go to private school. I was educated in this deeply unattractive building:


----------



## strung out (Jun 2, 2011)

Spark said:


> I've been following this thread through the day but not had a change to respond yet.  Quite a few things I've been pondering about, so in no particular order,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
good post. a lot of that sounds familiar from my own experiences.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 2, 2011)

love detective said:


> most people who come through the private school system tend to have attributes/approaches that are fairly distinct (i.e. above average confidence in themselves, somewhat arrogant sense of their own ability/views/intellect, tendency never to get embarassed about anything, always keen to speak out and on behalf of others, tendency to take control, tendency to not taken into account views of those who are not as forceful as themselves, sharp elbowed, and most of all a tendency not to actually realise/acknowledge that they have any of these attributes)



That's me, totally! Good work.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 2, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> I remember, clearly, being addressed by my surname for the first time in my life, aged 9, first day of prep school
> 
> If there was 2 kids with the same surname (eg brothers, obvs) the oldest was "randomname major" the youngest "randomname minor". If there was more than 2, then it was lower case Latin numerals. I remember there was "Thompson i" to "Thompson iv".
> 
> School, eh? What's that all about then?


 
you went to school with this chap, didn't you


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 2, 2011)

weepiper said:


> you went to school with this chap, didn't you


 
I was just trying to think of the a name of those books! Could you remind me please?


----------



## weepiper (Jun 2, 2011)

Down With Skool, How To Be Topp and Back In The Jug Agane..


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2011)




----------



## Santino (Jun 2, 2011)

Molesworth, as any fule kno.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2011)

i suppose we've had george orwell already


----------



## southside (Jun 2, 2011)

I know a bloke who is spending 65k on his girls education, There is no way I could ever be in a position to do that for my children.  He told me that his main reason for it was to give her the best possible chance and to allow her to network with a sepcific class of people that could pay dividends in the future.  He might have a point with that?

I don't particularly like this person, he's obsessed with money, both his parents passed and he got the life insurance of over a million squid, but he is desperate for more money and his very existence is driven by it.  He's a bit of a shallow twunt tbh but at least his child could benefit from it.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 2, 2011)

weepiper said:


> Down With Skool, How To Be Topp and Back In The Jug Agane..


Geoffrey Willans, I believe, but the usual brilliant drawings from the peerless Mr Searle


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 2, 2011)

southside said:


> I know a bloke who is spending 65k on his girls education, There is no way I could ever be in a position to do that for my children.  He told me that his main reason for it was to give her the best possible chance and to allow her to network with a sepcific class of people that could pay dividends in the future.  He might have a point with that?
> 
> I don't particularly like this person, he's obsessed with money, both his parents passed and he got the life insurance of over a million squid, but he is desperate for more money and his very existence is driven by it.  He's a bit of a shallow twunt tbh but at least his child could benefit from it.


That man is The Enemy. Full stop.


----------



## Corax (Jun 2, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i suppose we've had george orwell already


 
I have, and he was shit.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jun 2, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> That man is The Enemy. Full stop.



Yep, and his child could benefit from it, unfortunately by probably becoming another one of them.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jun 2, 2011)

weepiper said:


> Down With Skool, How To Be Topp and Back In The Jug Agane..


 


Santino said:


> Molesworth, as any fule kno.


 


Nice one


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 2, 2011)

southside said:


> I know a bloke who is spending 65k on his girls education, There is no way I could ever be in a position to do that for my children.  He told me that his main reason for it was to give her the best possible chance and to allow her to network with a sepcific class of people that could pay dividends in the future.  He might have a point with that?
> 
> I don't particularly like this person, he's obsessed with money, both his parents passed and he got the life insurance of over a million squid, but he is desperate for more money and his very existence is driven by it.  He's a bit of a shallow twunt tbh but at least his child could benefit from it.


 
over how many years?

as i said, if it's around £10k / year that's not far away from the costs of full-time childcare for a preschooler. Lots of people do manage to spend that kind of money because they have no choice. few of the same people place sufficiently high value on what a private education can give to lay out that kind of money once they no longer have to. i know i wouldn't.


----------



## southside (Jun 2, 2011)

lizzieloo said:


> Yep, and his child could benefit from it, unfortunately by probably becoming another one of them.



One of who?

He tried to give me the third degree and said that I was another Michael Carrol???? I told him to go fuck himself, he's deluded. I said HDYTYA Cunt, your mother was a cleaner and your father was a carpet fitter.

See how some people are, there must be a technical name for this kind of behaviour? The act of social mobility done the cunts way?


----------



## southside (Jun 2, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> over how many years?
> 
> as i said, if it's around £10k / year that's not far away from the costs of full-time childcare for a preschooler. Lots of people do manage to spend that kind of money because they have no choice. few of the same people place sufficiently high value on what a private education can give to lay out that kind of money once they no longer have to. i know i wouldn't.


 
That would be from 11-16.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jun 2, 2011)

southside said:


> One of who?


 A capitalist materialistic cunt?


----------



## southside (Jun 2, 2011)

lizzieloo said:


> A capitalist materialistic cunt?


 
Thats what the govt want all of us to be, sad isn't it.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jun 2, 2011)

nope. my school was semi private though and catholic.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 2, 2011)

Semi-private? How can that be? It's like saying semi-pregnant. It's either private or state-funded.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Semi-private? How can that be? It's like saying semi-pregnant. It's either private or state-funded.


 
either that or people looked through some windows but not others


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jun 3, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Semi-private? How can that be? It's like saying semi-pregnant. It's either private or state-funded.



in ireland it was that way. i dont know how, i will ask my mam and come back to thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2011)

Cheesypoof said:


> i will ask my mam


 
not at this time of night you won't.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jun 3, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> not at this time of night you won't.



no. i will ask though!


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2011)

Cheesypoof said:


> no. i will ask though!


i'd be interested in that answer.
genuinely.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Semi-private? How can that be? It's like saying semi-pregnant. It's either private or state-funded.


 
My school was like that. Privately owned but with LEA-funded places so that it could double up as the grammar school.


----------



## rubbershoes (Jun 3, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> If there was 2 kids with the same surname (eg brothers, obvs) the oldest was "randomname major" the youngest "randomname minor". If there was more than 2, then it was lower case Latin numerals. I remember there was "Thompson i" to "Thompson iv".



the third sibling should be Thompson tert... which wouldnt be  a good start to anyone's school career


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 3, 2011)

Over a quarter of this website's users went to a posh school.

Doesn't that say it all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> I didn't go to private school. I was educated in this deeply unattractive building:


 
The Burtons Jammy Dodgers factory?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Burtons Jammy Dodgers factory?


----------



## Santino (Jun 3, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> Over a quarter of this website's users went to a posh school.
> 
> Doesn't that say it all.


 
Over a quarter of people who have voted on a self-selecting survey said they went to a posh school. Not the same at all.


----------



## love detective (Jun 3, 2011)

> I think this is overly generalising. There are some privately educated people like you describe, but it's going a bit far to that there is a type.



Of course it's a generalisation, there are always exceptions each way, but I don't think it's over generalising to say as I did, that, on average there is a type.

If the whole population was able to be surveyed to determine what proportion of the total population demonstrated each of the character traits that I referred to - are you saying that we wouldn't see a considerably higher proportion than this when doing the same thing for the subset of the population who were privately educated?

And thinking about the motivations as to why rich parents send their kids to private school in the first place - isn't one of the main implicit reasons precisely because it imbues them with these charactersitics (which they see as completely positive). If the private school experience wasn't delivering the goods on this front, rich parents would be up in arms surely, or would refrain from sending their kids to these places in the first place - but they're not and they don't. 



> Maybe it's just the people who more obviously stick out as being privately educated who exhibit those characteristics.


Possibly, although maybe it's just that those who were privately educated stick out more in general due to exhibiting those characterstics more than people who weren't?



> I went to private school and I don't recognise any of the people i am still friends with from school in that description.



Ah - but one of the charactersitics I stated was a tendency not to realise/aknowledge that they portray the other characteristics mentioned (i.e. a lack of self awareness which means they never get embarassed about anything). So my definition is watertight. If you don't acknowledge that you or your friends who were privately educuated fit that description then by definition you fit the description through that denial. While if you do acknowledge you or your friends fit the description then, erm… you/they fit the description. So it's pretty much a when did you stop beating your wife predicament I'm afraid.

Also you said you don't recognise that description in any of the people you are still friends with - perhaps you've done the sensible thing and cut off all contact with those who fit the 'type' more than others


----------



## past caring (Jun 3, 2011)




----------



## sam/phallocrat (Jun 3, 2011)

love detective said:


> Did he not go on to be a leading light in Liberty & Solidarity a partial platformist split from the AF


 
something like that


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

love detective said:


> And thinking about the motivations as to why rich parents send their kids to private school in the first place - isn't one of the main implicit reasons precisely because it imbues them with these charactersitics (which they see as completely positive). If the private school experience wasn't delivering the goods on this front, rich parents would be up in arms surely, or would refrain from sending their kids to these places in the first place - but they're not and they don't.


 

I don't know about the properly rich, but I would say that this isn't true in general of middle class parents who send their kids private. I think the kind of people who move to a particular place to be in the right catchment area for a good state school, pretend to be religious to get into a faith school that they perceive to be good, or who work the system to get scholarships/assisted places, etc, and perhaps skrimp and save to send their kids private (I'd put all these in the same broad social category) first and foremost are interested in exam results.


----------



## Random (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't know about the properly rich, but I would say that this isn't true in general of middle class parents who send their kids private (...) first and foremost are interested in exam results.


 That's largely because they like believeing that they're climbing to the top of a meritocracy, rather than admitting the grubby truth about contacts and cultural capital - which is a largely left wing analysis anyway.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

Random said:


> That's largely because they like believeing that they're climbing to the top of a meritocracy, rather than admitting the grubby truth about contacts and cultural capital - which is a largely left wing analysis anyway.


 
'Contacts and cultural capital' only really applies to the likes of Eton, Winchester, etc, I would say. So-called 'minor' public schools tend to produce accountants or people who go into the various 'professions'. You don't really make contacts at such places.

Getting the exam results to get the kid into a good university is the aim, really.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Contacts and cultural capital' only really applies to the likes of Eton, Winchester, etc, I would say. So-called 'minor' public schools tend to produce accountants or people who go into the various 'professions'. You don't really make contacts at such places.
> 
> Getting the exam results to get the kid into a good university is the aim, really.


 
Yes you do. Cultural capital and habitus etc is a mass thing not an elite thing. The elite dominance of the tops jobs and institutions extends down to the minor schools as well, it rests on the mass existence of small versions of its own dominance. 

and btw how many people do you think go into the professions? None i've _ever_ known.


----------



## Random (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Contacts and cultural capital' only really applies to the likes of Eton, Winchester, etc, I would say. So-called 'minor' public schools tend to produce accountants or people who go into the various 'professions'.


 The fact that you think that becoming a doctor or a lawyer is no big deal speaks volumes about teh view of the world that private schools give you.

Cultural capital and contacts are a big part of how the whole of the middle class operates, eton and the like are just the extreme example of this. I saw it happen before my eyes at university, and I didn't go to an elite one.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2011)

love detective said:


> Ah - but one of the charactersitics I stated was a tendency not to realise/aknowledge that they portray the other characteristics mentioned (i.e. a lack of self awareness which means they never get embarassed about anything). So my definition is watertight. If you don't acknowledge that you or your friends who were privately educuated fit that description then by definition you fit the description through that denial. While if you do acknowledge you or your friends fit the description then, erm… you/they fit the description. So it's pretty much a when did you stop beating your wife predicament I'm afraid.


OK - devil's advocate time. You've met me. You know me.Not well, I grant you,  but enough for this purpose. 
So - do _I_ exhibit those characteristics you outlined? Because, just as fee-paying schools come in different shapes and sizes, so IMO do the young adults they turn out. And I'm not so sure that your argument holds water, for that reason.
e2a; given that far too many posters here have had the dubious pleasure of meeting me in the flesh, I throw this question open to any who have


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

Random said:


> The fact that you think that becoming a doctor or a lawyer is no big deal speaks volumes about teh view of the world that private schools give you.


 
I didn't say they were no big deal, but yes, clearly, those are the kinds of expectations, and I  would say that they come from the parents as much as the school. Plenty of m/c parents who send their kids to the state system have the same expectations.

You don't need contacts to become a doctor. You need good exam results. That was the point I was making. You are the one saying it is 'no big deal'. It clearly isn't no big deal if it is the aspiration of parents for their kids and they are prepared to pay for private education to achieve it.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2011)

I would add to my previous post that some posters seem unaware that a lot of grammar schools went private as recently as the 60s, when Crosland basically gave them the choice of that or going comprehensive.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

Expectations and long existing networks that actually help you achieve the aims/expectations are very different things. Why else are private schools disproportionately represented in the professions? Can you think of any serious reason other than the effective operation of the private school network?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I would add to my previous post that some posters seem unaware that a lot of grammar schools went private as recently as the 60s, when Crosland basically gave them the choice of that or going comprehensive.


 
One of labours biggest ever mistakes.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't know about the properly rich, but I would say that this isn't true in general of middle class parents who send their kids private. I think the kind of people who move to a particular place to be in the right catchment area for a good state school, pretend to be religious to get into a faith school that they perceive to be good, or who work the system to get scholarships/assisted places, etc, and perhaps skrimp and save to send their kids private (I'd put all these in the same broad social category) first and foremost are interested in exam results.


 
Parents IME are perfectly well aware of the social benefits of a "good" school, that it helps their offspring associate with a crowd who are likely to do well, and make contacts that will be beneficial to them in the future. Schools don't just make a fuss of successful pupils because they show what _your_ kid might do - they also show _who your kid might know_. They're also aware that exam results are basically there to get you to a "good" university which also has that benefit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Contacts and cultural capital' only really applies to the likes of Eton, Winchester, etc, I would say. So-called 'minor' public schools tend to produce accountants or people who go into the various 'professions'. You don't really make contacts at such places.



Not true, "contacts" and "cultural capital" are pervasive throughout society. The degree to which they're useful in terms of power and influence in wider society is what varies.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> One of labours biggest ever mistakes.


very much so - those schools and their undoubted academic merits should be in the state system, it's a tragedy they're not


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Expectations and long existing networks that actually help you achieve the aims/expectations are very different things. Why else are private schools disproportionately represented in the professions? Can you think of any serious reason other than the effective operation of the private school network?


 
That's a reasonable question. I don't have first hand experience of it, but perhaps a doctor, for instance, might be able to elaborate. Is 'what school you went to' itself really a significant factor in the career of a doctor?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a reasonable question. I don't have first hand experience of it, but perhaps a doctor, for instance, might be able to elaborate. Is 'what school you went to' itself really a significant factor in the career of a doctor?


 
That's reducing a social question to individual experience. We're talking broad obvious patterns here, undeniable ones though - even against individual counter-examples. You're asking the question the wrong way round.

I'm not having a pop but your thing that joining one of the professions is not that big a deal has knocked me back a bit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not true, "contacts" and "cultural capital" are pervasive throughout society. The degree to which they're useful in terms of power and influence in wider society is what varies.


 
It's no more useful than attending a good state school, I would say. Your 'contacts' are only useful to you to the extent to which they go on to the same kind of universities as you, and that comes back to exam results.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not having a pop but your thing that joining one of the professions is not that big a deal has knocked me back a bit.


 
Where did I say it is not a big deal? I specifically said that it is the aspiration of many of those who send kids private.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's no more useful than attending a good state school, I would say. Your 'contacts' are only useful to you to the extent to which they go on to the same kind of universities as you, and that comes back to exam results.


 
How come you're a editor/ writer/whatever and i'm an unskilled manual worker?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2011)

Random said:


> The fact that you think that becoming a doctor or a lawyer is no big deal speaks volumes about teh view of the world that private schools give you.
> 
> Cultural capital and contacts are a big part of how the whole of the middle class operates, eton and the like are just the extreme example of this. I saw it happen before my eyes at university, and I didn't go to an elite one.


 
Although, to be scrupulously fair, the working classes have their own networks. They're not particularly good for self- or familial promotion, but can be handy for borrowing a few bob on short notice. 

I think that the problem with attempting to analyse "networking", "cultural capital", "contacts" etc is that although they exist pervasively throughout society, the access they give you to influence your "lot" diminishes the further you stand from "the means of production".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> How come you're a editor/ writer/whatever and i'm an unskilled manual worker?


 
Not through contacts made at school. I'm not denying the advantages private schools give people, not at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where did I say it is not a big deal? I specifically said that it is the aspiration of many of those who send kids private.


 
Post #308 But that you don't think that it happens at the same time - there's no contacts to be made or networks to connect to in private schooling that helps these aims. You're a bit all over the shop on this to be honest.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not through contacts made at school.



How 100% sure of you are this? Not ness direct contacts. And also remembering we're talking about broad social trends here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Post #308


 
Well all I can say is that this post has been taken the wrong way.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> How 100% sure of you are this? Not ness direct contacts. And also remembering we're talking about broad social trends here.


 
100%. I can't think of a single job I've done where the person employing me has even known what school I went to.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a reasonable question. I don't have first hand experience of it, but perhaps a doctor, for instance, might be able to elaborate. Is 'what school you went to' itself really a significant factor in the career of a doctor?


 
I don't know.. but I know/ bumped into two doctors who went to my old middle school - state but very academic. I hardly think that's a coincidence it's gone on to produce doctors etc.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Expectations and long existing networks that actually help you achieve the aims/expectations are very different things. Why else are private schools disproportionately represented in the professions? Can you think of any serious reason other than the effective operation of the private school network?


surely the fact they tend to turn out a higher proportion of the pupils who get the requisitely stiff grades required by law schools, medical schools etc, is at least a factor, however hard it is to determine how big/small a factor?


----------



## Santino (Jun 3, 2011)

What is revealing to me is how many state-educated people with a middle class background and good degrees from top-end universities have ended up getting very mediocre jobs, mostly through temping or blind chance.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well all I can say is that this post has been taken the wrong way.


 
If it has been it has been - no worries. Nevertheless the clear bit is that you don't think contacts and networks and other stuff operate via the private school system below the elite level. So we're back at me asking why private schools dominate from the elite down the middle - not just high court judges but the everyday stuff - solicitors, doctors and so on. Why does this exist given that it's not because of contacts and networks and other stuff like that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's no more useful than attending a good state school, I would say.



Based on what? 



> Your 'contacts' are only useful to you to the extent to which they go on to the same kind of universities as you, and that comes back to exam results.


 
And if the admissions policy is based on interview?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not through contacts made at school. I'm not denying the advantages private schools give people, not at all.


 
You're minimising them, whether you realise it or not.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 100%. I can't think of a single job I've done where the person employing me has even known what school I went to.


 
Fair enough - i'm not sure anyone is crude enough to reduce the effects of private schools education down to contacts alone. Maybe you're just more hard working than me? The really important point there being how others are not taught to view their life opportunities being tied up with how you are taught about what your life opportunities are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 100%. I can't think of a single job I've done where the person employing me has even known what school I went to.


 
It's not particularly sensible to extrapolate that it can't happen merely because it's never happened to you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> surely the fact they tend to turn out ahigher proportion of the pupils who get the requisitely stiff grades required by law schools, medical schools etc, is at least a factor, however hard it is to determine how big/small a factor?


 
The honcho at St. George's med school had a moan a couple of years ago about the number of high-scoring ex-private/public schoolboys they took on who turned out to have no aptitude for medicine, or for self-directed learning at all. They were great at learning enough to pass the exams, but not at pushing themselves/ motivating themselves. He reckoned it kept his drop-out rate high.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The honcho at St. George's med school had a moan a couple of years ago about the number of high-scoring ex-private/public schoolboys they took on who turned out to have no aptitude for medicine, or for self-directed learning at all. They were great at learning enough to pass the exams, but not at pushing themselves/ motivating themselves. He reckoned it kept his drop-out rate high.


 I can imagine being spoon fed and told when to do your homework, having people on hand to make sure you get the best grades possible is a bit of a problem when at university, you are basically left to manage your own time.


----------



## past caring (Jun 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> OK - devil's advocate time. You've met me. You know me.Not well, I grant you,  but enough for this purpose.
> So - do _I_ exhibit those characteristics you outlined? Because, just as fee-paying schools come in different shapes and sizes, so IMO do the young adults they turn out. And I'm not so sure that your argument holds water, for that reason.
> e2a; given that far too many posters here have had the dubious pleasure of meeting me in the flesh, I throw this question open to any who have











> Hello birds, hello sky.



Well, you did ask.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Fair enough - i'm not sure anyone is crude enough to reduce the effects of private schools education down to contacts alone. Maybe you're just more hard working than me?


 
I don't know. I'm going to withdraw on this point. I did unskilled work until I was 30, which was when I decided to give editing a go. How much of my success in getting work after that is due to my schooling? Who knows? You can also ask how much of what happened to me in my 20s was due to my schooling - I was quite a fucked up young man. I left school with good exam results and little else, tbh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not particularly sensible to extrapolate that it can't happen merely because it's never happened to you.


 
I didn't. That was a direct answer to a direct question.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2011)

past caring said:


> Well, you did ask.


oh sod off!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't know. I'm going to withdraw on this point. I did unskilled work until I was 30, which was when I decided to give editing a go. How much of my success in getting work after that is due to my schooling? Who knows? You can also ask how much of what happened to me in my 20s was due to my schooling - I was quite a fucked up young man. I left school with good exam results and little else, tbh.


 See this line "I decided to give editing a go" sums it up. Again, trying to steer clear of making it an individual thing - how can people a) even get the idea to "give editing a go" (how did you?), or that sort of job - it's just not in the universe most people inhabit or b) there be enough jobs for them to do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> See this line "I decided to give editing a go" sums it up. Again, trying to steer clear of making it an individual thing - how can people a) even get the idea to "give editing a go" (how did you?), or that sort of job - it's just not in the universe most people inhabit or b) there be enough jobs for them to do.


 
That's not entirely fair, I don't think. I did a correspondence proofreading course and then started advertising on the internet, and combined this with my job in a bookshop until I was confident enough of the work to ditch the day job. But yes, I decided to give it a go. Why not? I thought it was something I would be good at.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The honcho at St. George's med school had a moan a couple of years ago about the number of high-scoring ex-private/public schoolboys they took on who turned out to have no aptitude for medicine, or for self-directed learning at all. They were great at learning enough to pass the exams, but not at pushing themselves/ motivating themselves. He reckoned it kept his drop-out rate high.


I can believe that, totally. If my experience is any guide, private schools - ESPECIALLY the non-elite but heavily 'academic' type  - are brilliant at getting pupils through the exams and with good grades. The drive to make this happen is ferocious, plus the culture surounding the kids is so completely about academic excellence (read: "you WILL pass your exams!") that the pupils don't develop their own 'erngine'. There's simply no need, at that age.


----------



## Random (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is 'what school you went to' itself really a significant factor in the career of a doctor?


 I don't know many doctors and lawyers but I've come into contact with enough of them in the UK to see that their professions are deeply class ridden. Top surgeons and the like are very often upper class, or part of an upper class-defined culture. Even more so with law, where results are far more about how well you can socially navigate a system. Being good at arguing in public, for example. It's no coincidence that so manh barrisers exhibit the kind of posh over-confidence that Love detective talks about.


----------



## love detective (Jun 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> OK - devil's advocate time. You've met me. You know me.Not well, I grant you,  but enough for this purpose.
> So - do _I_ exhibit those characteristics you outlined? Because, just as fee-paying schools come in different shapes and sizes, so IMO do the young adults they turn out. And I'm not so sure that your argument holds water, for that reason.



well the few times i've met you, you looked like you'd been living in a bin for a week, so was quite difficult to see beyond that!

but i would say that to an extent you do exhibit some of those characteristics - not all, and not to the same degree that I would class as a typical type. But regardless of that, even if you didn't it doesn't affect my basic argument, i.e. the fact that on average the percentage of privately educated people who do have those characteristics is likely to be far higher than the equivalent measure on the overall population. I can't prove this of course, but if it wasn't then i'd say that the private school system wasn't doing one of the key things that it's meant to do (in the eyes of those who use it) - and if it wasn't doing what it's meant to do I'm sure there would be some action to make sure it did.

(by the way, a few pages ago you said you'd agreed in general with what I'd said!)


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I can believe that, totally. If my experience is any guide, private schools - ESPECIALLY the non-elite but heavily 'academic' type  - are brilliant at getting pupils through the exams and with good grades. The drive to make this happen is ferocious, plus the culture surounding the kids is so completely about academic excellence (read: "you WILL pass your exams!") that the pupils don't develop their own 'erngine'. There's simply no need, at that age.


  Compare that with the "encouragement" shown by my sixth form teacher as I was going into an exam (one that I was doing alright in) asking me "what will you do if you fail". And that was in the sixth form, god knows how bad it was for someone in bottom sets.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I can believe that, totally. If my experience is any guide, private schools - ESPECIALLY the non-elite but heavily 'academic' type  - are brilliant at getting pupils through the exams and with good grades. The drive to make this happen is ferocious, plus the culture surounding the kids is so completely about academic excellence (read: "you WILL pass your exams!") that the pupils don't develop their own 'erngine'. There's simply no need, at that age.


 
It's a well-known phenomenon that university lecturers find public school kids to be less good at university-level study than their exam results suggest they should be.


----------



## Random (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I thought it was something I would be good at.


 This is all getting a bit personal but - can't you see how your expectations about something like this are shaped by your background?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not entirely fair, I don't think. I did a correspondence proofreading course and then started advertising on the internet, and combined this with my job in a bookshop until I was confident enough of the work to ditch the day job. But yes, I decided to give it a go. Why not?



It's entirely fair - i was asking a factual question as to how you did it. As to _why_ you did it, different question - i was told leave school get a job, that's what you are. There were no other expectations. But that's just two individual examples, we're not talking about individuals. We're talking about broad social trends - stubborn social trends in terms of elite to middling dominance of pretty much everything by the privately educated. That's what this is about.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jun 3, 2011)

2/3 of a term in another country before being kicked out


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's entirely fair - i was asking a factual question as to how you did it. As to _why_ you did it, different question - i was told leave school get a job, that's what you are. There were no other expectations. But that's just two individual examples, we're not talking about individuals. We're talking about broad social trends - stubborn social trends in terms of elite to middling dominance of pretty much everything by the privately educated. That's what this is about.


 
I accept that. But I would say that parents' expectations are at least as important as or more important than the school you went to - and if you are sent to a private school, clearly that is a direct reflection of those expectations. As I said earlier, the kind of parent who works the state system by moving to catchment areas, etc, is giving their child the same kind of expectation. 

My parents are in fact pretty much the archetypal example of such people. They moved to the town they moved to precisely because of the schools and the fact that they offered LEA scholarships for local kids to go there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I accept that. But I would say that parents' expectations are at least as important as or more important than the school you went to - and if you are sent to a private school, clearly that is a direct reflection of those expectations. As I said earlier, the kind of parent who works the state system by moving to catchment areas, etc, is giving their child the same kind of expectation.



Expectation minus established network doesn't seem to be so powerful. I'm really not sure why you're making this point. I may have missed something earlier though.


----------



## Random (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Expectation minus established network doesn't seem to be so powerful.


 I'm trying to think of an example of that case. Maybe the Asian immigrants who've pushed their children to be doctors and lawyers? Expectations but no backing from the UK existing elite network.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

Relevant:



> Getting a Job
> 
> This study is about the flow of information within social networks as it pertains to job mobility (i.e, finding a new job).
> 
> ...



That's a summary of Mark Granovetter's classic "Getting a job".


----------



## past caring (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is 'what school you went to' itself really a significant factor in the career of a doctor?



I am hesitant to contribute further to the personal turn the thread is taking but fwiw.....

My sister studied medicine at Cambridge with a view to becoming some sort of doctor. I know that in order to do so she had to forego virtually any social life from the age of 15 onwards in order to concentrate on passing the necessary exams. That those studies did not in any way equip her with any knowledge of the arts, politics or history meant - together with the fact that she did not come from a background where those things made up any part of everyday life - that when she did go to Cambridge she felt entirely unable to socialise with her (generally public school educated) peers who felt entirely at ease talking about those things. Now of course, what was key here was not their actual degree of knowledge as opposed to hers - I'm quite certain that for many, if not the majority, of said peers any knowledge would have been entirely superficial - but the fact that they felt comfortable and able to pontificate _regardless_ of the depth of their knowledge. And that comfort I think is directly attributable to their public school education and the sense of self and self worth that it tries to instill. I used to fucking cry for her, every holiday trying to read potted histories/primers of the subjects she felt she ought to be able to talk about in order to hold her own. All to no avail, of course.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Compare that with the "encouragement" shown by my sixth form teacher as I was going into an exam (one that I was doing alright in) asking me "what will you do if you fail". And that was in the sixth form, god knows how bad it was for someone in bottom sets.


That is utterly outrageous


----------



## Random (Jun 3, 2011)

past caring said:


> they felt comfortable and able to pontificate _regardless_ of the depth of their knowledge. And that comfort I think is directly attributable to their public school education and the sense of self and self worth that it tries to instill.



One of my A level teachers warned me that if I went to an elite university I'd find that the students there had a 'wider frame of reference' than me. I think this is what it was really all about.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

Random said:


> This is all getting a bit personal but - can't you see how your expectations about something like this are shaped by your background?


 

Just to come back to this, yes of course I can. But I do think this is a separate discussion from the state/private issue. In my particular case, I'm not a good example in many ways as I went to university in my mid-20s after leaving my past as far behind as I could because I had hated it so much. 

But anyway, this is far too personal now. My experience proves nothing either way.


----------



## Random (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But anyway, this is far too personal now. My experience proves nothing either way.


 Let's look at the contacts/cultural capital issue instead. As truxta's post shows, contacts are vital. And school - and shared attitudes created by schools -are vital in creating contacts.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

Random said:


> One of my A level teachers warned me that if I went to an elite university I'd find that the students there had a 'wider frame of reference' than me. I think this is what it was really all about.


 
And by wider they mean more narrow. Or narrower.


----------



## past caring (Jun 3, 2011)

Random said:


> One of my A level teachers warned me that if I went to an elite university I'd find that the students there had a 'wider frame of reference' than me. I think this is what it was really all about.



Indeed - I met a number of them when I went up on one occasion to be her "date" or whatever they fucking called it at one of their May Balls - talk about anything, most of them, so long as you didn't expect a conversation that went beyond the fatuous. I only went the once, mind - the embarrassment I caused her in front of her "friends" by paying no real attention to any of the women in the group and tapping off with one of the waitresses from the town ensured I never got another invite.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

Random said:


> Let's look at the contacts/cultural capital issue instead. As truxta's post shows, contacts are vital. And school - and shared attitudes created by schools -are vital in creating contacts.


 
You know what, you're probably right. On reflection, I probably have been playing this down too much, but it can be exaggerated in the sense that 'minor' public schools and state grammar schools are very close to each other in this respect.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

Random said:


> Let's look at the contacts/cultural capital issue instead. As truxta's post shows, contacts are vital. And school - and shared attitudes created by schools -are vital in creating contacts.


 
One point tho is that "school" in this context can mean very different things. I had zero contacts after doing my undergrad, so got nothing that I really wanted. I then went to LSE, did a master degree and bingo! landed a good research job very much through contacts/nepotism. My next job will again have come through personal contacts.

My point being that early life contacts aren't be all end all, and that neither social nor cultural capital is a given from an early age. FWIW I come from a upper wc/lower mc background, and was the first for 20 odd years in my extended family to go to uni.


----------



## love detective (Jun 3, 2011)

past caring said:


> Indeed - I met a number of them when I went up on one occasion to be her "date" or whatever they fucking called it at one of their May Balls - talk about anything, most of them, so long as you didn't expect a conversation that went beyond the fatuous. I only went the once, mind - the embarrassment I caused her in front of her "friends" by paying no real attention to any of the women in the group and tapping off with one of the waitresses from the town ensured I never got another invite.


 
being out on a date with your sister, i'd have thought you'd have fitted right in


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

TruXta said:


> One point tho is that "school" in this context can mean very different things. I had zero contacts after doing my undergrad, so got nothing that I really wanted. I then went to LSE, did a master degree and bingo! landed a good research job very much through contacts/nepotism. My next job will again have come through personal contacts.
> 
> My point being that early life contacts aren't be all end all, and that neither social nor cultural capital is a given from an early age. FWIW I come from a upper wc/lower mc background, and was the first for 20 odd years in my extended family to go to uni.



Cultural capital like all capital needs to be reproduced and produced - that's what all manner of institutions do. In the cycle of accumulation in this country private schools play a part, a large part.


----------



## moochedit (Jun 3, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> middle school makes the whole situation different, though.
> 
> lizzieloo / moochedit seemed to be saying they were coming straight from primary.


 
yes, at same primary school from about age 4 or 5 until i was 12. I think it had "infants" and "juniors" but it was in same building and i can't remember at what age the split between "infants" and "juniors" was.

Definately 4 years at secondary though, called 2nd,3rd,4th and 5th (i.e. no 1st). There was "lower 6th" and "upper 6th" as well but i went to an F.E. college instead.

(edit - both primary and secondary were state schools)



lizzieloo said:


> Same here, North Warwickshire.


 
yep, i was in warwickshire too at the time.



spanglechick said:


> i'd say that's regional. i think starting secondary at 11 has been standard for decades. what was your local education authority?



see awnser above


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Cultural capital like all capital needs to be reproduced and produced - that's what all manner of institutions do. In the cycle of accumulation in this country private schools play a part, a large part.


 
True, but I think social capital is much more important on a trans-national scale. I knew fuck all about this country, really, when I moved here, and still miss _a lot_ of references to pop and high culture. That hasn't stopped me from having a career here.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

TruXta said:


> True, but I think social capital is much more important on a trans-national scale. I knew fuck all about this country, really, when I moved here, and still miss _a lot_ of references to pop and high culture. That hasn't stopped me from having a career here.


 
No, it's at least as important on an internal scale - otherwise you're reducing the concept to applying to a few ten thousand people. It doesn't. 

edit: also reducing it to specific cultural knowledge - which it most def isn't


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, it's at least as important on an internal scale - otherwise you're reducing the concept to applying to a few ten thousand people. It doesn't.


 
In lieu of any hard cold evidence I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Makes for an interesting research question at least. TBH I'm not even sure how useful it is to separate out those two forms of capital - isn't the social ineluctably cultural and vice versa?


----------



## Random (Jun 3, 2011)

TruXta said:


> True, but I think social capital is much more important on a trans-national scale. I knew fuck all about this country, really, when I moved here, and still miss _a lot_ of references to pop and high culture. That hasn't stopped me from having a career here.


 One thing I've noticed since coming to Sweden is that the nuances of class don't immigrate with you. I'm educated and from a high-status country (UK) and so I get treated well even by upper class people here. Likewise Norway is a high-status country and you're educated.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

TruXta said:


> In lieu of any hard cold evidence I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Makes for an interesting research question at least. TBH I'm not even sure how useful it is to separate out those two forms of capital - isn't the social ineluctably cultural and vice versa?


 
There is cold hard evidence - it's been churned out by Pierre Bourdieu (RIP) and his school for 3 decades now.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There is cold hard evidence - it's been churned out by Pierre Bourdieu (RIP) and his school for 3 decades now.


 
It's not like his is the last word on that topic. In fact I find his/their definitions on the woolly side.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

TruXta said:


> It's not like his is the last word on that topic. In fact I find his/their definitions on the woolly side.


 
Proceed.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

No, it's 5 pm on a Friday and I honestly cannot be arsed right now. I'll get back to it.

For those who haven't the cultural capital to know what the heck me and BA is on about have a looksie here (PDF) - http://bbs.knue.ac.kr/~edupolicy/lib._.brd/_1.116_/education.pdf


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2011)

Random said:


> I don't know many doctors and lawyers but I've come into contact with enough of them in the UK to see that their professions are deeply class ridden. Top surgeons and the like are very often upper class, or part of an upper class-defined culture. Even more so with law, where results are far more about how well you can socially navigate a system. Being good at arguing in public, for example. It's no coincidence that so manh barrisers exhibit the kind of posh over-confidence that Love detective talks about.


 
From what I can make out from a couple of state-educated folk I know (one a relative by marriage, one an acquaintance) who did law at decent unis and got good results, getting a pupillage if you want to be a barrister means that you have to be either top of your student year, or have pre-existing connections. Being a barrister is still very much about who, rather than what you know (or, perhaps more accurately, who knows *you* and your family).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> From what I can make out from a couple of state-educated folk I know (one a relative by marriage, one an acquaintance) who did law at decent unis and got good results, getting a pupillage if you want to be a barrister means that you have to be either top of your student year, or have pre-existing connections. Being a barrister is still very much about who, rather than what you know (or, perhaps more accurately, who knows *you* and your family).



That sounds right. It was what I was clumsily trying to get at earlier. Attending the 'right' school means a bit more than just going to a private school. It means going to the kind of school that barristers send their kids to. Many private schools are the kinds of places _solicitors_ send their kids to. There are many layers to it.

But I seem to be putting my foot in it and upsetting people unintentionally on this thread, so I think I should probably shut up.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 3, 2011)

past caring said:


> the embarrassment I caused her in front of her "friends" by paying no real attention to any of the women in the group and tapping off with one of the waitresses from the town ensured I never got another invite.


 
Or maybe lustily throwing a local serving wench over your shoulder, beating your chest and shouting 'Who wants to fackin know you stack app baancha caaaaaaants' had something to do with it?


----------



## past caring (Jun 3, 2011)

You were there?


----------



## LiamO (Jun 3, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I knew fuck all about this country, really, when I moved here, and still miss _a lot_ of references to pop and high culture.


 
Indeed, you boundah. You once accused me of homophobia when I referred to someone as a public schoolboy's 'fag' - even though Tom Brown's schooldays was name checked at the same time.

Really. There should be exams for this kind of thing before they let you educated Johnny Foreigners into the country. If you are not prepared to work in McDonald's you should know your literature by god!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 3, 2011)

love detective said:


> Did he not go on to be a leading light in Liberty & Solidarity a partial platformist split from the AF


 
Yes, he is now a special advisor to a Libdem minister.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It means going to the kind of school that barristers send their kids to. Many private schools are the kinds of places _solicitors_ send their kids to.


 
Please name and shame these so-called private schools where only junior low-life's like solicitors (uuurgh, sorry had to hold my nose there) send their offspring so I can avoid them. It's Barrister/Judge/Cabinet Minister?Captain of Industry peer groups for my Cedric and Orphelia, or I'll be damned.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

LiamO said:


> Please name and shame these so-called private schools where only junior low-life's like solicitors (uuurgh, sorry had to hold my nose there) send their offspring so I can avoid them. It's Barrister/Judge/Cabinet Minister?Captain of Industry peer groups for my Cedric and Orphelia, or I'll be damned.


 
Was that post really worth the calories expended on it?


----------



## LiamO (Jun 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Was that post really worth the calories expended on it?


 
I'm a fat cunt - any calories expended is a good thing, so jog on... there's a good chap. 

Listen, Fauntleroy, it is sufficient that it amused _me_ - just as I know it will elicit a snigger from some of _my _contemporaries on here. _Your_ views on it are, frankly, as important to me as the cream I apply to my pile-ridden, fat, proletarian arse. 

Not for the first time on this thread you demonstrate a complete lack of awareness of how your words might be read by others who don't share your background... thus making love-detective's description of public schoolboys bang on the money IMO.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2011)

love detective said:


> Because let's face it, most people who come through the private school system tend to have attributes/approaches that are fairly distinct (i.e. above average confidence in themselves, somewhat arrogant sense of their own ability/views/intellect, tendency never to get embarassed about anything, always keen to speak out and on behalf of others, tendency to take control, tendency to not taken into account views of those who are not as forceful as themselves, sharp elbowed, and most of all a tendency not to actually realise/acknowledge that they have any of these attributes) , and while not exclusively the preserve of those who have been privately educated, and no doubt there are people who have been privately educated who don't have these attributes - there is in general and on average, a certain type


Been thinking about this, and I'm now not entirely sure you've got the right end of the stick. Aren't these the attributes of Upper class and upper-middle-class people in general? Aren't they also the product of that wider culture of those two classes? Which, truth be told, provide roughly 90% of the intake of all but the least 'elite' public schools?In other words, it's not so much the schools which do this, but that wider class sytem cultural element which in turn provides this for those schools.


----------



## past caring (Jun 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Been thinking about this



But not too hard.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2011)

past caring said:


> But not too hard.


please elucidate, tho' I was hoping for comment from LD


----------



## past caring (Jun 3, 2011)

I'm away out to the pub mate, so will have to be tomorrow.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2011)

LiamO said:


> Not for the first time on this thread you demonstrate a complete lack of awareness of how your words might be read by others who don't share your background... thus making love-detective's description of public schoolboys bang on the money IMO.


 
My words were taken the wrong way, yes, not as intended. That happens a lot on here, hence the bunfights. It's a limit of the medium as much as anything. It doesn't happen in the same way irl. Are you aware of how you come across?

This is a difficult subject to talk about on here. It always ends badly.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

LiamO said:


> Indeed, you boundah. You once accused me of homophobia when I referred to someone as a public schoolboy's 'fag' - even though Tom Brown's schooldays was name checked at the same time.
> 
> Really. There should be exams for this kind of thing before they let you educated Johnny Foreigners into the country. If you are not prepared to work in McDonald's you should know your literature by god!


 
Ah, but I know European stuff, in front of which you all go _whoosh_.


----------



## Spark (Jun 4, 2011)

love detective said:


> Ah - but one of the charactersitics I stated was a tendency not to realise/aknowledge that they portray the other characteristics mentioned (i.e. a lack of self awareness which means they never get embarassed about anything). So my definition is watertight. If you don't acknowledge that you or your friends who were privately educuated fit that description then by definition you fit the description through that denial. While if you do acknowledge you or your friends fit the description then, erm… you/they fit the description. So it's pretty much a when did you stop beating your wife predicament I'm afraid.
> 
> Also you said you don't recognise that description in any of the people you are still friends with - perhaps you've done the sensible thing and cut off all contact with those who fit the 'type' more than others



I can't remember from previous posts whether you were privately educated, but my impression from this post and your own description of a privately educated person was that you are, ie. arrogant and not accepting of other views. Certainly your arguments fit very well with the personality type you describe - I'll define something but in such a way it cleverly seems that no one can argue against it.  It seems that your description of private school educated people was just describing yourself and then perhaps you were tryng to argue that everyone from a similar background is the same.  

This doesn't mean what you describe is partly right, accurately describes what you have observed.  But it is still a sweeping generalisation.  But maybe I'm just being argumentative and assuming I'm right because that's who I must be becauase I'm privately educated


----------



## Spark (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Cultural capital like all capital needs to be reproduced and produced - that's what all manner of institutions do. In the cycle of accumulation in this country private schools play a part, a large part.



I'm not specifially responding to this quote - just picked this one slightly randomly as it related tot the point that's being discussed today that I wanted to respond to in general about the way privlige is passed down etc.

There's been some discussion about contacts - my view is that these days referring to contacts/nepotism etc distorts or distracts from what happens.  In the past it may have been the case that the "old school tie" effect existed.  These days if it does happen it is pretty rare.

I'm not familiar with the academic notions of "cultural capital" but I think I can see what it means, particularly in this context.  What private shools basically do is focus on placing children in a position where they're in the best place possible to take advantage of any opportunites, and ensure they have opportunities, to succeed in a conventional way, ie. good grades, good degree from a good univeristy enabling them to get a well paid, secure job, potentially in one of the professions.  They are focussed on good academic results.  They are also focussed on getting students into university and the "right ones" doing the "right" subjects, ie. oxbridge or redbrick and traditional subjects.  By doing that the students are already on the path to get better jobs, including if they choose to go that way, law/accountancy/medicine etc.  Having done that they will meet people on the same path.  It's all gradual stepping stones.  

It's not a case about meeting people at school who personally will help you in later life.  It is about putting in place the structure to get you on the next step relatively easily, and from that you carry on in the same way.  You meet more people gradually, who the majority have a similar background, you move to the next step.  3 steps down the line you meet the person who in 5 years time gets you the great job.  That person isn't in any way connected to your school, but all the steps to get there are that much easier having come from a more priviliged background.

For me though the question is about the extent to which a private school adds privilige overall in addtion to the child/parents background.    From what I understand (unfortunately this is vague recollection and I can't remember anything that gives details) there have been studies that show ultimately the school doesn't matter and it is a child's socio-economic background that determines how well they do.  

Anyway, it's late and I'm rambling again having read lots of stuff all day and not been able to respond so I'll stop now.  Sleep well one and all.


----------



## Edie (Jun 4, 2011)

I didn't. Obviously 

Other half is pretty determined we're gonna send the lads in a few years. I'm in two minds, on the one hand my school was shit and I want better for my kids and it just seems crazy not to if you got the money. What could be more important than your kids? And I want them to have that confidence I don't and my husband don't even though he's stupidly successful he feels like a fraud, like were winging it. On the other hand I worry they might get bullied cos they've got Leeds accents, we live in an ex council house etc. And I do think it's unfair on the kids that have to go to City of Leeds or Lawnswood cos there shit (both special measures). But that's life, it's dog eat dog, may as well give your kids what you can.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

Pathetic.


----------



## Edie (Jun 4, 2011)

Hardly


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

You did  a thread about this a few years back and decided against - today you're reduced to "But that's life, it's dog eat dog, may as well give your kids what you can.". You know that doesn't stand up.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 4, 2011)

Is Lawnswood that bad? I can't imagine it being worse than my old high school...? (Which wasn't brilliant but not the worst either).


----------



## Edie (Jun 4, 2011)

It's in special measures so ofsted obviously thinks so.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Pathetic.


 
I don't think it's pathetic at all, Butch.

I do think it exposes exactly the kind of dilemna that many working class people, who have now made a few bob, find themselves in. Also Edie has clearly identified the 'advantages' in terms of confidence etc that lead her to her thinking. I would not criticise any parent for 'wanting whats best' for their kids. The question would appear to be 'what_ is_ best? and how can I identify this and act upon my conclusions in a way that is not imposing my beliefs on my kids, without compromising my own integrity?' For me that is not a black & white issue.

I would however, as an alternative to condemning or judging their position, suggest that Edie and her other half would perhaps do well to address _their own_ issues of confidence, self-confidence, self-worth etc. Not  for _their_ sakes but for the benefit of their kids. More congruence = less dilemna or defensiveness. We all wish our kids would copy us when we are at our best - but the harsh fact is that they are far more likely to mimic what we consistently do.

I hope this reads the right way and is not taken as a dig at either BA or Edie, or indeed read as patronisng. If it needs clarifying I will be happyto attempt to do so later.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

Sorry Liam, but you've just listed the whole panoply of excuses that people like edie who choose to send their kids to private school use to justify what is at base "that's life, it's dog eat dog, may as well give your kids what you can."  I don't see why having money and coming from a w/c background means that this becomes an issue you can act like an anti-social cunt on, why it allows you an extra level of _caring_.


----------



## N_igma (Jun 4, 2011)

I went to Eton.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 4, 2011)

@BA

1. I don't believe that being torn on what todo on this issue necessarily makes anybody an 'anti-social cunt'.

2. Perhaps her dilemna is an indication of the failure of the left to win the ideological battle -  and of the shortcomings of the curret system. If it is, perhaps we should look at the failings of the left rather than condemn Edie et al.

3. I don't see condemnation as an effective strategy if you are trying to win a battle of hearts and minds. Circumstances alters cases. 

4. I will happily discuss this in more nuanced terms, maybe next week. In the meantime I would say this. I know how I would like things to be ie. a good, feee (and comprehensive) Comprehensive education for all. I also accept that things are _not_ as I would like them to be. Ritual condemnation of people who find themselves conflicted on this issue just drives them into the arms of the political Right.

5. What school are you gonna send your cats to?


----------



## LiamO (Jun 4, 2011)

N_igma said:


> I went to Eton.


 
No you didn't. You went to a poncy Grammar school   and have defended the Grammar school system on here in the past.


----------



## N_igma (Jun 4, 2011)

LiamO said:


> No you didn't. You went to a poncy Grammar school   and have defended the Grammar school system on here in the past.


 
Yeh I do defend the grammar school system. Nothing wrong with that imho.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

Liam, i've already had this argument with edie - i did the stuff you wanted 'us' to do - she agreed at the end that private school is bad and she wouldn't send her kids there. Short of setting up the system you want there's not much more i can do other than carry on pointing out why it's wrong, how it functions and to whose benefit. The problem is that this is _also the selling point_ for fuck you i'm all right jack types - as nakedly admitted by edie above. At some point you have to stop the waffle and look at what people do and why - and, if justified, _condemn_.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 4, 2011)

Instead of just throwing up your hands and saying 'well, it's dog eats dog, what can you do' and then using your acquired capital to basically get out of it and leave others behind, you could instead become part of a movement in order to improve issues such as education, health provision for all? All that happens is that the more people that acquire capital and then decide to opt out of the local comp system contributes to a worsening of that state education system. Same with health.

If everyone in Edie's position/dilemma organised together to improve what is happening with say state/comp education in their local area (as well as nationally), rather than instead using their capital to leave it behind to rot, then this situation can be reversed. Everyone has a responsibility and a degree of choice whether they want things to improve - trying to just put it down to 'the failure of the left' doesn't really cut it IMO.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

Spark said:


> I'm not specifially responding to this quote - just picked this one slightly randomly as it related tot the point that's being discussed today that I wanted to respond to in general about the way privlige is passed down etc.
> 
> There's been some discussion about contacts - my view is that these days referring to contacts/nepotism etc distorts or distracts from what happens.  In the past it may have been the case that the "old school tie" effect existed.  These days if it does happen it is pretty rare.
> 
> ...


 
This is very well put, I think. It explains what I was trying to explain earlier but much more clearly.


----------



## Edie (Jun 4, 2011)

Thing is life ain't fair and never will be. Like someone said rich people would just buy tutoring if private schools got closed down. There is no alternative, just do the best you can.

Can't believe you've not done better for yourself tbh butchers.


----------



## Sue (Jun 4, 2011)

Spark said:


> I can't remember from previous posts whether you were privately educated, but my impression from this post and your own description of a privately educated person was that you are, ie. arrogant and not accepting of other views. Certainly your arguments fit very well with the personality type you describe...


 
Love detective made it very clear in his posts that not only did he go to a comprehensive but a shit one at that, where the kids were seen as 'factory fodder' and there was no encouragement at all to stay on and do exams at 16 and no expectations anyone could/would do anything else.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 4, 2011)

Sue said:


> Love detective made it very clear in his posts that not only did he go to a comprehensive but a shit one at that, where the kids were seen as 'factory fodder' and there was no encouragement at all to stay on and do exams at 16 and no expectations anyone could/would do anything else.


 
I went to a school that divided those that would do "well" and those that wouldn't (in the teachers eyes) who were all allowed to, in fact expected to fail. They didn't even make such a great job of encouraging the ones they thought would do "well". I would hope the attitudes have changed, seems to be their GCSE results are massively better than when I was there.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 4, 2011)

I accept all the arguments, but is there a successful, working  model (we can learn from or take guidance from) of a_ capitalist _society without elitist education?

Or is the advent of a more egalatarian education system dependent on . . . a fundamentally different socio-economic model?


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 4, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I went to a school that divided those that would do "well" and those that wouldn't (in the teachers eyes) who were all allowed to, in fact expected to fail. They didn't even make such a great job of encouraging the ones they thought would do "well". I would hope the attitudes have changed, seems to be their GCSE results are massively better than when I was there.


 
even at my grammar school, things were like that in the eighties.  i went in very bright, was a lazy little turd, and nobody picked it up so I netted a singularly unedifying bunch of qualifications.

teaching was something which, by and large, happened 'at' you. it was almost all 'chalk and talk' and you sank or swam.  These days schools can't do that. Kids are constantly assessed and their progress tracked. Teaching is interactive and the emphasis is on getting kids to learn things for themselves, rather than consume and regurgitate lists of facts (that's why you get all these shocked headlines when kids can't point to Rome on the map or whatever - no... but they can analyse data, evaluate their own progress and identify how to improve). Which means the line between the able and the less able is more blurred.


----------



## alien nation (Jun 4, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> even at my grammar school, things were like that in the eighties.  i went in very bright, was a lazy little turd, and nobody picked it up so I netted a singularly unedifying bunch of qualifications.
> 
> teaching was something which, by and large, happened 'at' you. it was almost all 'chalk and talk' and you sank or swam.  These days schools can't do that. Kids are constantly assessed and their progress tracked. Teaching is interactive and the emphasis is on getting kids to learn things for themselves, rather than consume and regurgitate lists of facts (that's why you get all these shocked headlines when kids can't point to Rome on the map or whatever - no... but they can analyse data, evaluate their own progress and identify how to improve). Which means the line between the able and the less able is more blurred.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 4, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I accept all the arguments, but is there a successful, working  model (we can learn from or take guidance from) of a_ capitalist _society without elitist education?
> 
> Or is the advent of a more egalatarian education system dependent on . . . a fundamentally different socio-economic model?



as i understand it the Finnish education model is hugely successful, but they do still have a (tiny) number of private schools.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 4, 2011)

I went through the comp system. Initially in inner London, then part way through my teens moved to another in a semi-rural area. The difference even between two comp schools was pretty substantial. The London comp I went to was just happy that we'd come out with a few qualifications and get a job/'a living'. Then I moved to a grant-maintained comp where there was huge belief and encouragement for us to aim for university, talk of career paths, etc.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 4, 2011)

10-20 years ago I associated inner London education with an awful lot of supply teachers from the former colonies unsuccessfully practicing crowd-management. Hopefully that has changed.



spanglechick said:


> as i understand it the Finnish education model is hugely successful, but they do still have a (tiny) number of private schools.


 
That's interesting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Been thinking about this, and I'm now not entirely sure you've got the right end of the stick. Aren't these the attributes of Upper class and upper-middle-class people in general? Aren't they also the product of that wider culture of those two classes? Which, truth be told, provide roughly 90% of the intake of all but the least 'elite' public schools?In other words, it's not so much the schools which do this, but that wider class sytem cultural element which in turn provides this for those schools.


 
It's part and parcel of a "system" of privilege, and while I'm sure that "the ruling classes" and "the professions" could perpetuate themselves without the existence of private/public schools, the reality of private/public schools makes the transmission (and the retention-in-class) of privilege easier. Many of the well-known private/public schools have an ethos rooted in the perpetuation of privilege, and were founded with the ideal in mind: Not merely to educate, but to "produce" "gentlemen", fit to serve the empire and rule their small corners of imperial bureaucracy. Only the master they serve has changed. It was once empire, now it's Capital.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 4, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> as i understand it the Finnish education model is hugely successful, but they do still have a (tiny) number of private schools.


 
As do the other Scando school systems. The private schools in the Nordic countries are much less about "academic excellence", rather they're either religious or adherents of alternative educational models such as Montessori and similar. Either way they have to comply with national standards for curriculums and such. In sum, they're nothing like the frankly insane system you have in the UK.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2011)

Edie said:


> I didn't. Obviously
> 
> Other half is pretty determined we're gonna send the lads in a few years. I'm in two minds, on the one hand my school was shit and I want better for my kids and it just seems crazy not to if you got the money. What could be more important than your kids? And I want them to have that confidence I don't and my husband don't even though he's stupidly successful he feels like a fraud, like were winging it. On the other hand I worry they might get bullied cos they've got Leeds accents, we live in an ex council house etc. And I do think it's unfair on the kids that have to go to City of Leeds or Lawnswood cos there shit (both special measures). But that's life, it's dog eat dog, may as well give your kids what you can.


 
"Private" doesn't mean they'll get a decently-rounded education, though. As someone earlier commented, private school-educated kids tend to very opinionated, but no brighter/knowledgeable than their state counterparts. Less so, in some ways, as the confidence to voice opinions doesn't equate to actually informing oneself as to whether your opinions are any cop.

And do you and your husband really want your boys looking down their noses at you in 10-15 years time, feeling ashamed of their "working class" parents, possibly feeling as big a pair of frauds as your husband (foolishly, IMO) does? 

I admit, I'm prejudiced against private schools, but I'm prejudiced because many of them don't *educate*, or *teach*, they indoctrinate you with just enough knowledge to pass exams and know which set of cutlery to use, and call THAT "education.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2011)

Edie said:


> It's in special measures so ofsted obviously thinks so.


 
And here is something that really fucks me off: This ridiculous reliance on arbitrary (and from what I've heard and read, the supposedly-solid OFSTED inspection criteria *DO* get applied arbitrarily) inspection results to quantify whether a school educates, and the "league tables" it produces.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> As do the other Scando school systems. The private schools in the Nordic countries are much less about "academic excellence", rather they're either religious or adherents of alternative educational models such as Montessori and similar. Either way they have to comply with national standards for curriculums and such. In sum, they're nothing like the frankly insane system you have in the UK.


 
yes - also, International (English-speaking) schools.


The thing that infuriates me is that where you have movers and shakers in educational theory / academy sponsors etc, no one seems to be looking to the Scandinavian system.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2011)

N_igma said:


> I went to Eton.


 
To work as a porter.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> And here is something that really fucks me off: This ridiculous reliance on arbitrary (and from what I've heard and read, the supposedly-solid OFSTED inspection criteria *DO* get applied arbitrarily) inspection results to quantify whether a school educates, and the "league tables" it produces.


 
I wouldn't say there's masses of difference between 'satisfactory' and 'good' and 'good' and 'outstanding'... but special measures does mean something has not only gone wrong, but even after having been given 'notice to improve' and various lifelines of support offered to do that, has failed to turn itself around.

I'd happily send my kid to a satisfactory school, but special measures is a very different proposition. EDIT - not least because all the staff will be rushing to leave and they won't be able to recruit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> I wouldn't say there's masses of difference between 'satisfactory' and 'good' and 'good' and 'outstanding'... but special measures does mean something has not only gone wrong, but even after having been given 'notice to improve' and various lifelines of support offered to do that, has failed to turn itself around.
> 
> I'd happily send my kid to a satisfactory school, but special measures is a very different proposition. EDIT - not least because all the staff will be rushing to leave and they won't be able to recruit.


 
Fair point, but in my experience as a school governor (a while back now, but still in the OFSTED era) there are often very real "cart and horse" situations in play, where a school might move into special measures because, quantified against previous results, achievement has slipped, but (as happened at another school in the LEA) this has occurred because of issues such as staff turnover/retention that aren't related to the school's performance, but merely to a demographic "kink" at that point in time. That, of course, can start the whole "man the lifeboats, abandon ship!" chain of events you mention, and the "failure" of the school becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I preferred the "good old days", where the LEA decided whether a school was worth saving, and managed things more quickly and efficiently, with minimal fucking-over of either the kids or the teachers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> as i understand it the Finnish education model is hugely successful, but they do still have a (tiny) number of private schools.


 
As I understand it, France is not too dissimilar. Quite a lot of kids are sent private in France, but overwhelmingly because religion is banned from the state sector and they want their kids to be taught at a religious school, not because that's seen as the way to 'get on'. 

TBH I don't see how you can possibly have a successful education system when the richest 5% of the population consistently boycotts it.

I agree with VP more or less about the quality of the education at most private schools. They don't educate, they get exam results. They then sell themselves to new parents on the back of those exam results. They're like exam result factories. Maybe the teaching's improved since the 80s - you'd hope so - but it seems to me that the kinds of very welcome changes that spanglechick describes have very much been state-sector driven, and you don't have the same kinds of quality control safeguards in the private sector. If schooling were left entirely to the private sector, kids would still be sat at desks scribbling down dictations all lesson all day. It's reactionary in a very negative way: this is the system and here is how to produce results in this system, but no critique of the system or ideas about how to change it for the better; quite the reverse, as changes to the system mean you're going to have to rethink how you get the best results from it.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I admit, I'm prejudiced against private schools, but I'm prejudiced because many of them don't *educate*, or *teach*, they indoctrinate you with just enough knowledge to pass exams and know which set of cutlery to use, and call THAT "education.


 The funny thing is when state schools do the same (teaching to the test, not the cutlery bit) everyone starts whinging because the pass rate etc is "too high" and must have got easier. (Maybe it has a bit, I don't know, only got my mums marking GCSE maths papers to go on). What some people seem to want is a system where 70%+ kids are designed to fail, it seems.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As I understand it, France is not too dissimilar. Quite a lot of kids are sent private in France, but overwhelmingly because religion is banned from the state sector and they want their kids to be taught at a religious school, not because that's seen as the way to 'get on'.



Although the existence of a quasi-aristocratic Catholic "elite" that the French _bourgeoisie_ are eager to associate themselves with isn't really open to question



> TBH I don't see how you can possibly have a successful education system when the richest 5% of the population consistently boycotts it.


 
That's always going to depend on your criteria for "success".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> The funny thing is when state schools do the same (teaching to the test, not the cutlery bit) everyone starts whinging because the pass rate etc is "too high" and must have got easier. (Maybe it has a bit, I don't know, only got my mums marking GCSE maths papers to go on). What some people seem to want is a system where 70%+ kids are designed to fail, it seems.


 
Bottom line is that kids are getting smarter. There are lots of reasons for it - increased prosperity, better nutrition, better access to information, using technology from an early age, improvements in education - but it's been going on now for many years. Your kid is likely to be taller than you and smarter than you!


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Bottom line is that kids are getting smarter. There are lots of reasons for it - increased prosperity, better nutrition, better access to information, using technology from an early age - but it's been going on now for many years. Your kid is likely to be taller than you and smarter than you!


 
You say that, I think they're getting taught better and can access far more information, more easily than in our day, this does not equate "smarter". I mean languages would have been a doddle if I could have had the internet for example.
They're getting taller, though, definitely. (Except for my youngest who is going to be a titch surrounded by giants unless a miracle occurs)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

It equates to smarter in the sense that a brain will develop better the more stimulation there is. If you grow up with better access to information, you'll develop with a brain that is better at processing increased amounts of information.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It equates to smarter in the sense that a brain will develop better the more stimulation there is. If you grow up with better access to information, you'll develop with a brain that is better at processing increased amounts of information.


 
It's swings and roundabouts, they will also be less likely to have to learn on the basis of memorising, as it'll be taken as given that the information will be at hand. I mean, it's like saying we're more intelligent than stone age people, we're not, it's all about applying that intelligence to your needs/ environment.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

It is swings and roundabouts, yes, but to take IQ tests as a (very) crude example - in that the tests are a very crude measure - because a score of 100 always has to be the median of the given group you're testing, they have to recallibrate it upwards every few years because, on average, kids keep doing better and better at them. And this has been the case ever since the 1930s.

I think the main motivation for people to say that they think exams are getting easier and easier is to make them feel better about themselves, tbh.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It equates to smarter in the sense that a brain will develop better the more stimulation there is. If you grow up with better access to information, you'll develop with a brain that is better at processing increased amounts of information.



quite so. it's understandable that society values (for example) knowing where Rome is on a map, because they knew it at a young age, and when they were young it was the kind of knowledge that was valued. But knowing how to use a computer to find any city, town or village in the world in a couple of moments is far, far 'smarter'. It's more useful, it has more applications, it's relevant.  Of course, there's no harm knowing both things... but kids today are learning *processes* - academic or not - and that's always valuable.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is swings and roundabouts, yes, but to take IQ tests as a (very) crude example - in that the tests are a very crude measure - because a score of 100 always has to be the median of the given group you're testing, they have to recallibrate it upwards every few years because, on average, kids keep doing better and better at them. And this has been the case ever since the 1930s.


Better nutrition probably plays a part in that, but also so will increased literacy/ better education. It's one reason I don't really trust IQ tests, you can practice for them just the same as anything else really. Also, they don't test critical thinking.


> I think the main motivation for people to say that they think exams are getting easier and easier is to make them feel better about themselves, tbh.


I think there's a lot of that, altho my mum thought the Maths GCSE might be ever so slightly easier than when I did it (one of the first ones). I know they've tinkered around with what grades you can get, I think you can get a B by taking the middle paper, that wasn't the case when we did them. I might be wrong.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

And in deference to your profession, teachers are getting much better too. It's not surprising really given that universal secondary education has only existed for a century or so. We're still on a pretty steep learning curve.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I don't really trust IQ tests, you can practice for them just the same as anything else really.


 
This is certainly true. I don't think anyone should set much stall in IQ tests as something that tells you anything particularly deep about an individual kid's abilities. That kids keep getting better and better at them does show _something_, though.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is certainly true. I don't think anyone should set much stall in IQ tests as something that tells you anything particularly deep about an individual kid's abilities. That kids keep getting better and better at them does show _something_, though.


 
It shows two things, one is that better health equals better processing capabilities, the other is that our societies have placed more and more stress on IQ testing as a sorting and ranking tool.


----------



## Spark (Jun 4, 2011)

Anyone else listening to the R4 play at the moment?


----------



## LiamO (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Liam, i've already had this argument with edie - i did the stuff you wanted 'us' to do - she agreed at the end that private school is bad and she wouldn't send her kids there. Short of setting up the system you want there's not much more i can do other than carry on pointing out why it's wrong, how it functions and to whose benefit. The problem is that this is _also the selling point_ for fuck you i'm all right jack types - as nakedly admitted by edie above. At some point you have to stop the waffle and look at what people do and why - and, if justified, _condemn_.



I have every sympathy for Edie's predicament. Her head says one thing, her fears - and her other half - another. You speak as though people make all or most decisions based on rational thought. This, quite frankly, is wishful thinking. The fact is most people don't and they are particularly susceptible to emotional hijack when it is decisions around their kids.

Our eldest is going to 'big school' in September. We had no 'Private school' dilemna but we were faced with a 'Grammar school or not' decision. Fortunately my wife and I were and are of one mind on this so there was no conflict in ourhouse. Even better was the fact that our daughter did not _want_ to go to a Grammar school. This  made us proud of her tbh.

Cos we both went to comps (in england) and have no family tradition of Grammar schools it was easier for us than many local parents. I actually felt sorry for some of the as the went through mental gymnastics and stress over the 'Transfer Test', which our girl did not sit. I saw at first hand that what was being played out were the parent's issues, not the kids ones.

But to be perfectly honest, if our wee girl _had_ wanted to go to Grammar school - cos her mates were going or whatever - we would have had to accept that our 'principles' of supporting Comprehensive schools are exactly that... OUR principles... not hers.  It is not for us to impose our beliefs on her. We would not have stood in her way. 

That does not make me unprincipled. That just makes me a daddy.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 4, 2011)

I very much doubt there's going to be any decision making possible, there seems to be only one high school for the whole of Bramley - it's where Mel B went, and David Platt from Corrie, also, two of my friends went there, one of whom went to Cambridge (altho he was the only one to!) Lets hope being an academy now doesn't totally fuck it up.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I very much doubt there's going to be any decision making possible, there seems to be only one high school for the whole of Bramley - it's where Mel B went, and David Platt from Corrie, also, two of my friends went there, one of whom went to Cambridge (altho he was the only one to!) Lets hope being an academy now doesn't totally fuck it up.


 
They've got rid of the tanning salon.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

LiamO said:


> I have every sympathy for Edie's predicament. Her head says one thing, her fears - and her other half - another. You speak as though people make all or most decisions based on rational thought. This, quite frankly, is wishful thinking. The fact is most people don't and they are particularly susceptible to emotional hijack when it is decisions around their kids.
> 
> Our eldest is going to 'big school' in September. We had no 'Private school' dilemna but we were faced with a 'Grammar school or not' decision. Fortunately my wife and I were and are of one mind on this so there was no conflict in ourhouse. Even better was the fact that our daughter did not _want_ to go to a Grammar school. This  made us proud of her tbh.
> 
> ...



You've just done it again. And yes, it does make you unprincipled.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 4, 2011)

I'm just shocked the Liam was schooled in England


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

Oh god, don't make this thread another one of the ones about you.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god, don't make this thread another one of the ones about you.


 
I'm just shocked the Liam was schooled in England


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is certainly true. I don't think anyone should set much stall in IQ tests as something that tells you anything particularly deep about an individual kid's abilities. That kids keep getting better and better at them does show _something_, though.


That they're getting better at IQ tests.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> That they're getting better at IQ tests.


 
Bingo!


----------



## yardbird (Jun 4, 2011)

I went here http://www.emanuel.org.uk/.

Not my choice and it made me so 'left'.
Loads of it was shit, but both my older brothers went there so I knew how to keep my head down and duck and dive.

Bullying went on - nasty.
Prefects were able to slipper - nasty.
I never mixed socially with anyone there, whilst they used to go to the local Locarno on a Saturday night to pull, I discovered the Stones


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 4, 2011)

yardbird said:


> I went here http://www.emanuel.org.uk/.


"_www.emanuel.org.uk is pending on this server. Please allow up to two minutes for www.emanuel.org.uk to become fully active_."

I've never seen that message before.  So I've learned something.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> That they're getting better at IQ tests.


 
In the main I would agree that you shouldn't read too much into IQ test results. However, the pattern that over the years and decades kids are getting progressively better at them deserves explanation. If it isn't to do with what I rather crudely described as 'kids getting smarter' (at least in terms of the 'smartness' that IQ tests deal with), it has to be to do with kids being ever better prepared for them. Perhaps the latter is true, but I doubt it, not over the long time period that the scores have been rising. 

It doesn't seem surprising to me that kids are getting smarter. In fact, it would be more surprising if they weren't.


----------



## yardbird (Jun 4, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> "_www.emanuel.org.uk is pending on this server. Please allow up to two minutes for www.emanuel.org.uk to become fully active_."
> 
> I've never seen that message before.  So I've learned something.


 
It's coming up for me.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 4, 2011)

yardbird said:


> It's coming up for me.


You probably sang the school song to the server.  How does it go?


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 4, 2011)

I've got to say I'm glad I don't live in South Leeds though.


----------



## yardbird (Jun 4, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> You probably sang the school song to the server.  How does it go?


----------



## LiamO (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You've just done it again. And yes, it does make you unprincipled.


 
What, _specifically_, have I just done again?


----------



## LiamO (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You've just done it again. And yes, it does make you unprincipled.


 
Can you explain why my not wishing to impose MY dogma on our kids is unprincipled? 

Prolonged (and unsuccessful) attempts by teachers etc to impose _their_ (catholic, conservative) dogma on me left angry and frustrated and them probably the same. Why the fuck would I inflict that on my kids... in the name of lefty dogma dressed up as 'principle'?

And you never answered my question... which school you intend to send you cats to? I hope they are annakissed cats btw. If not, you should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

LiamO said:


> What, _specifically_, have I just done again?


Given a raft of excuses as a justification for some elses actions.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 4, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm just shocked the Liam was schooled in England


 
Why would that be, you clown.

I stated this quite clearly, very soon after my arrival on Urban - on a thread that you were part of... you fuckin amadán.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

LiamO said:


> Can you explain why my not wishing to impose MY dogma on our kids is unprincipled?
> 
> Prolonged (and unsuccessful) attempts by teachers etc to impose _their_ (catholic, conservative) dogma on me left angry and frustrated and them probably the same. Why the fuck would I inflict that on my kids... in the name of lefty dogma dressed up as 'principle'?
> 
> And you never answered my question... which school you intend to send you cats to? I hope they are annakissed cats btw. If not, you should be ashamed of yourself.



Are you serious? Are you really serious? You think sending kids to private school puts them in a neutral environment? Of course you don't. so why argue such tripe?

You are a socialist - don't send your kids to private school. It's simple. It doesn't matter that you're not a believer - the fact is that the fucking system operates regardless.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Given a raft of excuses as a justification for some elses actions.


 
I gave no excuses. Not one.

I simply explained that a more nuanced view might be more illuminating.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 4, 2011)

Have you got kids, butchers?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

LiamO said:


> I gave no excuses. Not one.
> 
> I simply explained that a more nuanced view might be more illuminating.



Bit without giving that more nuanced view. All you said was that it's justifiable. As you're big on alternatives being offered, what have you got that's not justifying sending kids to private school?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Have you got kids, butchers?


 
No. And i if i did do you think i'd support private schools?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No. And i if i did do you think i'd support private schools?


 
I haven't a clue how or if that would affect you. Just curious. I've no kids either FWIW.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Have you got kids, butchers?


What prompted that query?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 4, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> What prompted that query?


 
I've a hunch that when people get kids and push comes to shove that principles go out the window. We all want "what is best" for our kids don't we?


----------



## LiamO (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Are you serious? Are you really serious? You think sending kids to private school puts them in a neutral environment? Of course you don't. so why argue such tripe?
> 
> You are a socialist - don't send your kids to private school. It's simple. It doesn't matter that you're not a believer - the fact is that the fucking system operates regardless.



1. "You think sending kids to private school puts them in a neutral environment? Of course you don't." No I do not. Nor have I made any such argument.

2. My post was in reference the  Grammar school system where we live. (The 11+ was only abandoned 2 years ago and the system is currently in chaos)

3. I asked you to be more _specific_, not more vague.

4. I have not/would not send our kids to private school. I have never indicated that I would. THAT would be unprincipled and the antithetical  to both mine and my wife's beliefs. Our 'predicament' was over grammar schools.

5. I have stated that I empathise with Edie's position.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I've a hunch that when people get kids and push comes to shove that principles go out the window. We all want "what is best" for our kids don't we?


Ah, I see.

I have kids, and they both go to state schools.  The younger one leaves primary this summer, and joins the teen at the local state comp.  I think that's best for them, the community, and the wider society.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

Oh ffs , does anyone have my post in their cache? Just go back and copy the text and paste in a new one.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 4, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Ah, I see.
> 
> I have kids, and they both go to state schools.  The younger one leaves primary this summer, and joins the teen at the local state comp.  I think that's best for them, the community, and the wider society.


 
Kudos to you. TBH, coming from a country with no tradition of private schools I'm slightly perplexed and worried what will happen to my head and heart should we spawn sprogs and stay in the country long enough to have to make that choice. Every instinct in my body screams that in no way shape or form would I pay to educate my kids.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

I agree with butchers on this, with one small proviso. If your kid is, say, autistic, and the state fails to provide a suitable school for him/her, but the private sector does, I do think it is justifiable to go private on the basis that the state has let you down and your kid's wellbeing is your paramount concern. I certainly don't think you should condemn such a decision. I would compare that situation to one in which a potentially life-saving treatment is denied you on the NHS. If I were ill and had the money, I would not hesitate to go private if I thought it might save my life. 

But beyond that, I do think that you really have to support the state system if you call yourself a socialist. For better or worse, your kids don't make decisions for themselves at age 11, so even if they were in a position where they wanted to go to the private school their mate is going to, it's justifiable to say no, and explain why. Then you turn your attention to making the school you do send them to as good as it possibly can be.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I haven't a clue how or if that would affect you. Just curious. I've no kids either FWIW.


If people did find that the best for their kids was sending to private schools it only proves my point.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Every instinct in my body screams that in no way shape or form would I pay to educate my kids.


Then you have instincts of a decent human being.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 4, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Then you have instincts of a decent human being.


 
Thanks, I guess. As I said, I do worry that I might change tack if/when becoming a parent.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

**


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

> LiamO said:
> 
> 
> > 1. "You think sending kids to private school puts them in a neutral environment? Of course you don't." No I do not. Nor have I made any such argument.
> ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Thanks, I guess. As I said, I do worry that I might change tack if/when becoming a parent.


In my experience, becoming a parent tends to make you less selfish, not more so.  But of course, everyone's different.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> > This?
> 
> 
> 
> Ta, no the reply to that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

Ah ok. No, sorry, not got it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

> Originally Posted by LiamO
> 1. "You think sending kids to private school puts them in a neutral environment? Of course you don't." No I do not. Nor have I made any such argument.
> 
> 2. My post was in reference the Grammar school system where we live. (The 11+ was only abandoned 2 years ago and the system is currently in chaos)
> ...




Got it 
Why the frig then are you talking about grammer schools? Fair enough, i did misread what you wrote, but why are you using your thoughts to defrend edie's pro-private school position?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Thanks, I guess. As I said, I do worry that I might change tack if/when becoming a parent.


 
This is going to sound odd to a lot of people, I think, but hopefully it will be taken the right way - I genuinely don't think you are doing your kids any favours by trying to give them a privileged advantage over other kids, which is what most people sending kids private are in effect doing. In a strange way you are loading them with a burden if they grow up to be decent people.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 4, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> In my experience, becoming a parent tends to make you less selfish, not more so.  But of course, everyone's different.


 
I've seen people go both ways. Some turn into the sort of people who feel the need to make sure their kids _become something_. TBH if I do have kids I think I wouldn't care what became of them as long as they were to do something that made them happy, whether that'd be banking or doing plumbing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is going to sound odd to a lot of people, I think, but hopefully it will be taken the right way - I genuinely don't think you are doing your kids any favours by trying to give them a privileged advantage over other kids, which is what most people sending kids private are in effect doing. In a strange way you are loading them with a burden if they grow up to be decent people.


 It's obv not that damaging a social burden - broad trends. You know all this scientific statistical  stuff yet you keep using your own experience as a model for what happens. Why?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's obv not that damaging a social burden


 
Depends what you mean by a social burden.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Bit without giving that more nuanced view. All you said was that it's justifiable. As you're big on alternatives being offered, what have you got that's not justifying sending kids to private school?


 
I don't understand this post.

Can you please clarify _exactly_ what you mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Depends what you mean by a social burden.


In individual terms maybe.  I said social for a reason.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

LiamO said:


> I don't understand this post.
> 
> Can you please clarify _exactly_ what you mean?





> Bit without giving that more nuanced view. All you said was that it's justifiable. As you're big on alternatives being offered, what have you got that's not justifying sending kids to private school?


 

What is your problem with this? What _exactly_ is your problem with this? Challenge what it says - i'm sure that you can do this.


----------



## Riklet (Jun 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I've a hunch that when people get kids and push comes to shove that principles go out the window. We all want "what is best" for our kids don't we?


 
That's the test of principles then really isn't it - do you ditch them when it comes down to making real tough choices, especially in regards to giving your children what is 'best' at the expense of other peoples' children in your community.

I don't believe if you 'want what's best for your children' then you would automatically cough up for private school.  If you have the capital to do so, it's obviously an option, but what it surely perpetuates is a system whereby success comes at the expense of others.  Another option would instead be to use the money/influence you have to improve the social resources available to more than you and your family.  Why would someone have principles against private education? Because of the inequalities they perpetuate, through advantages maintained for a relative few, through 'cultural capital' and whatever else.  

What's 'best' for your kids is surely to try and change a society that is structured like that, if you genuinely think that is unjust -- if you're thinking in pure, naked self-interest for you and your children, no matter what _chances_ people get (public school etc), there are always those who will end up at the bottom in such a system.  It's never quite _apres moi la déluge_, because your kids end up living in the cycle you might regard as unjust, but have also helped to perpetuate.  I guess what i'm getting at is what's '_best for your kid_' doesn't occur in some vacuum individualised bubble, its in the context of the wider society your child will grow into.

I guess i'm only talking for myself now, but what's best for possible future children is to help shape that wider society into one you honestly think is better for all to live in, yourself n family included.  Best for them in every sense, that is, not just in terms of access.  Tbh, I just really hope in 20 years I wont be some hilariously un-principled hypocrite with ungrateful spawn Annunziata receiving the 'best' that money can buy.  Because that's really not good enough for any future sprog of mine...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> IN individual terms maybe.  I said social for a reason.


 
The facts speak for themselves in terms of the financial success that those who have private education can go on to enjoy. But at what cost? There is a cost, I think, to the individual. 

If every instinct in Truxta says that he shouldn't go private but he then did anyway, he's likely to want that kid to grow up also having those good instincts. If the kid does grow up with those instincts, then that 'burden' (psychological, I grant you) will be there. That's the only point I was trying to make. 

I'm not asking for some boohoo sympathy. That would be ridiculous.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Fair enough, i did misread what you wrote, but why are you using your thoughts to defrend edie's pro-private school position?


 
I am NOT. 

I am merely empathising, at a _human_ level, with her dilemna. just because I disagree with Private schools on a political/philosophical level does not mean I cannot empathise with people on a personal one.

Her OH is 'determined' to send their kids to a private school. This would appear to be based on his own life experience and fears, not on political doctrine. On the other hand he too is conflicted, cos he doesn't want them to be the odd ones out (at a posh school) cause they don't talk posh. 

I'm not arguing that old 'wait til you have kids of your own, you'll soon change your tune' bollocks. 

I am saying, hopefully quite clearly, that people without kids have the luxury of approaching this purely from a rational point of view. People with kids will find it infinitely more difficult to remain detached and rational. People get erratic when they feel pressured.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The facts speak for themselves in terms of the financial success that those who have private education can go on to enjoy. But at what cost? There is a cost, I think, to the individual.
> 
> If every instinct in Truxta says that he shouldn't go private but he then did anyway, he's likely to want that kid to grow up also having those good instincts. If the kid does grow up with those instincts, then that 'burden' (psychological, I grant you) will be there. That's the only point I was trying to make.
> 
> I'm not asking for some boohoo sympathy. That would be ridiculous.



Stop weeping then - because you are arguing that we cry at your plight. You never seem to realise what you posts means.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Stop weeping then - because you are arguing that we cry at your plight.


 
I don't think I am. I really don't.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think I am. I really don't.


 
Exactly, you don't. 

And you're not as well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

I can't win this one, can I, but I stand by that last post. 

I'm asking, effectively, whether you would want your kid to grow up thanking you for sending them private, thinking it was great and is great and is what they will do with their kids. Or would you want them to grow up thinking you made the wrong decision? Because that has everything to do with the kind of person they will be.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree with butchers on this, with one small proviso. If your kid is, say, autistic, and the state fails to provide a suitable school for him/her, but the private sector does, I do think it is justifiable to go private on the basis that the state has let you down and your kid's wellbeing is your paramount concern. I certainly don't think you should condemn such a decision. I would compare that situation to one in which a potentially life-saving treatment is denied you on the NHS. If I were ill and had the money, I would not hesitate to go private if I thought it might save my life.
> 
> But beyond that, I do think that you really have to support the state system if you call yourself a socialist. For better or worse, your kids don't make decisions for themselves at age 11, so even if they were in a position where they wanted to go to the private school their mate is going to, it's justifiable to say no, and explain why. Then you turn your attention to making the school you do send them to as good as it possibly can be.


 
Some LEAs duck out of their responsibility awfully re: special needs. I've heard cases of schools simply not being provided at all by them for some cases. But in that instance, them funding the special school private places ought to be what happens. Of course, a lot of them will lie through their teeth and pretend the provision is "adequate", but in some instances, like autism it's not even about ensuring your child gets an education, it's more about preserving their physical safety (ie not running off, or being abused/ bullied) in an unsuitable-even dangerous- environment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2011)

yardbird said:


> I went here http://www.emanuel.org.uk/.
> 
> Not my choice and it made me so 'left'.
> Loads of it was shit, but both my older brothers went there so I knew how to keep my head down and duck and dive.
> ...


 
Did you have to wear the cap, Yardie?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can't win this one, can I, but I stand by that last post.
> 
> I'm asking, effectively, whether you would want your kid to grow up thanking you for sending them private, thinking it was great and is great and is what they will do with their kids. Or would you want them to grow up thinking you made the wrong decision? Because that has everything to do with the kind of person they will be.



Very few people get to make that decision.  It's not about you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> "_www.emanuel.org.uk is pending on this server. Please allow up to two minutes for www.emanuel.org.uk to become fully active_."
> 
> I've never seen that message before.  So I've learned something.


 
Back when I was a nipper, Emanuel used to sell itself on it's "information technology" dept (they had a punch-card computer ). Looks like they've not kept up with technical innovations if they can't even get their website to run consistently.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Very few people get to make that decision.  It's not about you.


 
How about you read the post I was responding to and think about why I responded as I did? Just a thought.

As to 'very few people get to make that decision', isn't the whole point that far too many do? 7% of parents make that decision in one particular way. I don't know how many others are in the position to decide and decide otherwise. Up to double that number, I would have thought, looking at the income distribution.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How about you read the post I was responding to and think about why I responded as I did? Just a thought.


 
I did and responded abovely. What's the problem?


----------



## Edie (Jun 4, 2011)

Bet you live in a nice middle class area danny la rouge


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I've a hunch that when people get kids and push comes to shove that principles go out the window. We all want "what is best" for our kids don't we?


 
I was really lucky.

I won a place (they had entrance exams) at Yardie's _alma mater_ but didn't want to go there. My parents didn't force me to (even though *they* wanted me to go there), and let me choose where I went.

I'm well aware, though, that some parents might ignore their principles in pursuit of "a better life" for their kids. Just a pity that some people quantify "a better life" as going to a school that'll give you cultural capital rather than educating you in the round.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I did and responded abovely. What's the problem?


 
Could you explain how 'very few people get to make that decision' is relevant to what I was saying?


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 4, 2011)

Edie said:


> Bet you live in a nice middle class area danny la rouge


 
C'mon he lives in Scotland!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How about you read the post I was responding to and think about why I responded as I did? Just a thought.
> 
> As to 'very few people get to make that decision', isn't the whole point that far too many do? 7% of parents make that decision in one particular way. I don't know how many others are in the position to decide and decide otherwise. Up to double that number, I would have thought, looking at the income distribution.



I have done ans now what?

And no, you made it about the decision whilst ignoring all around it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I was really lucky.
> 
> I won a place (they had entrance exams) at Yardie's _alma mater_ but didn't want to go there. My parents didn't force me to (even though *they* wanted me to go there), and let me choose where I went.
> 
> I'm well aware, though, that some parents might ignore their principles in pursuit of "a better life" for their kids. Just a pity that some people quantify "a better life" as going to a school that'll give you cultural capital rather than educating you in the round.


 
Butchers, this is pretty much what I'm saying. I think VP was lucky. I won a place and went. I don't remember whether I had an opinion about it either way, really. I was made to feel at the time that it was a good thing that I had won a place, that it was an achievement. I do remember feeling proud of doing so well. 

I was only 11 ffs. 

So yes, this post was about me. But it can be extended to others and I think perhaps points can be learned from it.

And I had a fucking miserable time at school. You can fuck off, frankly, if you think it's ok to dismiss that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Could you explain how 'very few people get to make that decision' is relevant to what I was saying?



 Could i explain about how 7& of the country goes to private school And how that is reproduced with the same people attending the same schools over and over. You bottle out of it each time.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Butchers, this is pretty much what I'm saying. I think VP was lucky. I won a place and went. I don't remember whether I had an opinion about it either way, really. I was made to feel at the time that it was a good thing that I had won a place, that it was an achievement. I do remember feeling proud of doing so well.
> 
> I was only 11 ffs.
> 
> So yes, this post was about me. But it can be extended to others and I think perhaps points can be learned from it.


 

In the sense that broad social trends are overturned? Stop.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

Won a place  - how?  How? 

Stop talking abut yourself ffs.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Won a place  - how?  How?
> 
> Stop talking abut yourself ffs.


 
By having m/c parents who pushed me to study, mostly. 

I'm going to leave you here now because you're not engaging at all with the points I'm trying to make. I hope the view's nice from up there on your high ground.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 4, 2011)

Edie said:


> Bet you live in a nice middle class area danny la rouge


 
Hang on, if you've got the money for private education, isn't that going to work out about as expensive or more as moving to somewhere where (you feel) has a "good" school?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Hang on, if you've got the money for private education, isn't that going to work out about as expensive or more as moving to somewhere where (you feel) has a "good" school?


 
The so-called 'sharp-elbowed middle classes'. There is more than one way to do it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 4, 2011)

yardbird said:


> I went here http://www.emanuel.org.uk/.
> 
> Not my choice and it made me so 'left'.
> Loads of it was shit, but both my older brothers went there so I knew how to keep my head down and duck and dive.
> ...



Peter Hain's alma mater.  I know a couple of people who went there as it happens. 

As for me, I didn't go to public (or independent) school.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> By having m/c parents who pushed me to study, mostly.
> 
> I'm going to leave you here now because you're not engaging at all with the points I'm trying to make. I hope the view's nice from up there on your high ground.


 

No, you're mistaking your case for a social trend and you're pumping your experience up. I've argued over and over that it's not about the individual - you're insisting that it is .That's it is about you. It's not.


----------



## rorymac (Jun 4, 2011)

Jesuit comprehensive .. name of my class was Canisius 
Other class names were Archer, Doyle, Campion
In hindsight it was obvious where you were expected to end up in the social scheme of things tbf


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, you're mistaking your case for a social trend and you're pumping your experience up. I've argued over and over that it's not about the individual - you're insisting that it is .That's it is about you. It's not.


 
Just talking about my response to truXta, that was a response that was about the individual - as in the effect on individuals of the choices that are made for them. There is also a wider case that is not about the individual, but about the wider social good. Two separate points, I would suggest, although they are of course linked and affect each other. But as far as I can see, these are two fairly separate reasons to be opposed to private education - basically, don't send your kid to a private school because it is harmful to society and it is also very likely to fuck them up!

When I describe a particular way in which you might fuck them up, 'it's all about me'. When others do it, as in love detective's 'public school type', it isn't. How does that work?


----------



## yardbird (Jun 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Did you have to wear the cap, Yardie?


Don't think I had to in the 6th form. 
It was a bizarre education - they tried to teach us Latin and we left without knowing how to fill in a fucking tax return!
I've had one or two idiots approach me on facebook, there is/was no way that I wanted any contact!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Just talking about my response to truXta, that was a response that was about the individual - as in the effect on individuals of the choices that are made for them. There is also a wider case that is not about the individual, but about the wider social good. Two separate points, I would suggest, although they are of course linked and affect each other. But as far as I can see, these are two fairly separate reasons to be opposed to private education - basically, don't send your kid to a private school because it is harmful to society and it is also very likely to fuck them up!
> 
> When I describe a particular way in which you might fuck them up, 'it's all about me'. When others do it, as in love detective's 'public school type', it isn't. How does that work?


 
One accords with broad social trends/experience, one doesn't See the difference?

The way you put things is not good.


----------



## rorymac (Jun 4, 2011)

Latin was an excellent language .. told it like it was !!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> One accords with broad social trends/experience, one doesn't See the difference?



Which is which? I'm suggesting that the one I'm talking about does. You disagree. Fine. Say so. Don't attack me personally for saying it. 



butchersapron said:


> The way you put things is not good.


 
I'm sorry you feel that. Genuinely. It is probably my failing. It is a hard thing to talk about on here and easy to get it wrong.


----------



## yardbird (Jun 4, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Latin was an excellent language .. told it like it was !!


 
tbf the little that I took in has served me well.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 4, 2011)

One thing about cultural and social capital that gets ignored in this debate is that it's not static, and that it does in fact not determine anything a priori. If it was the case that the accumulation of social and cultural capital got you up the ladder, why is it that so many young-sih middle and working class people are now worse off than their parents?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 4, 2011)

LiamO said:


> Why would that be, you clown.
> 
> I stated this quite clearly, very soon after my arrival on Urban - on a thread that you were part of... you fuckin amadán.


 
And did mr butchers take you to task for talking about yerself, hmm?

Sorry, can't remember your every utterance. I just don't know many _English_ Irish Republicans, old bean.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Which is which? I'm suggesting that the one I'm talking about does. You disagree. Fine. Say so. Don't attack me personally for saying it.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you feel that. Genuinely. It is probably my failing. It is a hard thing to talk about on here and easy to get it wrong.


 
Don't apologise to him. He has a pathological dislike of people bringing their own experiences into a thread. Butch is bereft of experience, you see


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Don't apologise to him. He has a pathological dislike of people bringing their own experiences into a thread. Butch is bereft of experience, you see


 
It's hard to please everyone on here. I've been commended for explaining things clearly and berated for being obtuse, sometimes for the same post. But given that the aim is communication, it is always a failure when you feel like you haven't communicated what you wanted to get across.


----------



## Edie (Jun 4, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Hang on, if you've got the money for private education, isn't that going to work out about as expensive or more as moving to somewhere where (you feel) has a "good" school?


That's just a dishonest way of doing the same thing. Don't like people like that, lefty cunts.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 4, 2011)

We bought a house to be in a catchment area. 

Worked out ok but there is a problem now... 

But then I would send my kid to a private school if it was necessary and if I could afford it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 4, 2011)

People use their wealth to give their kids the best chance of themselves having wealth. That's at the heart of all of this, and I'm not at all sure that it is really anything much more than that. People do that in a variety of ways. In the end, the inequality of wealth is the real evil. 

That mechanisms spring up so that such inequality is self-perpetuating is virtually inevitable. It needs to be attacked full-on, imo, directly - by taking money from the richest, as much money as necessary, to pay for high-class universal provision that everyone will want. It works, more or less, with the NHS. There's no reason why it couldn't work with education, but it very very clearly doesn't at the moment.

On another thread I argued that there was a case for giving private not-for-profit educational establishments charity status. I've changed my mind on that. It is absurd for organisations for the rich to be charities. Fee-charging and selection by 'ability' just need to be prohibited, pure and simple. I don't see any other way to end the iniquity.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 4, 2011)

I think education should be free & that all schools should have the highest of standards; that way everyone has a chance in life.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 4, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Sorry, can't remember your every utterance. I just don't know many _English_ Irish Republicans, old bean.


 
Liam Mellowes (Co. Manchester)
Tom Clarke  (Co. Isle of Wight)
James Connolly (Co. Edinburgh)
Sean Mac Stiofáin (Co. London)

Frankie Black RIP (Co. London)
Diarmuid O'Neill RIP (Co. London)
Ed O'Brien RIP (Co. London) 

Do you even know who these last three are, you trolling, tory, toady? 

Artur Wellesley, (Co Dublin)
Ian Paisley (Co. Antrim) 
Edward Carson (Co. Dublin) 
Conor Cruise O'Brien (Co. Dublin)
Lenny Murphy (Co. Antrim)
Jer cry-baby/Krtek a Houby (Kill All Huns)... (Co. Dublin)


I know which company I would prefer.

I know you hate these summer evenings... how it takes forever for darkness to fall... so you can your shift... stealing old ladies knickers from clothes lines... but...


... forgive me for asking a rhetorical question... but do you actually have _any_... have you EVER actually had _any_...  _on-topic point _to make... or is your self-hate so acute that you cannot resist trolling... again... in order to receive... (yet)... another public slap (again), amadán mhor?


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I do think that you really have to support the state system if you call yourself a socialist. For better or worse, your kids don't make decisions for themselves at age 11, so even if they were in a position where they wanted to go to the private school their mate is going to, it's justifiable to say no, and explain why. Then you turn your attention to making the school you do send them to as good as it possibly can be.



I have no kids. But I can understand that _if_ you could afford it, and _if_ it meant your kid got a "good education" (and all the inherent benefits), wouldn't you be tempted? I think helping a school to 'be the best' is admirable, but takes years, and is unlikely to drastically affect the experience of a child such as the one you hypothesise about. Fuck socialism, is what it amounts to for many people, I suspect! I would never send any kid of mine to boarding / traditional private / public school. But if paying a few quid will give your kid the best start in life, it becomes understandable while the private school system is so successful in this country.

Or something.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 5, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> I have no kids. But I can understand that _if_ you could afford it, and _if_ it meant your kid got a "good education" (and all the inherent benefits), wouldn't you be tempted?


 
No. A good education means going to school with your neighbours. Why would you not believe in where you live and who you live with? If believing in building communities and a better society can mean anything, it has to mean being prepared to be in that community and that society and to bring up your family in it. That's the best start in life you can give a child, I think, a statement of faith in the future. 

As for your last point, you say that the private school system is successful. That depends how you define success. I personally don't think a private school system can be successful, not by my terms. A divided world like that is not one I would want to support, and I would want my child to grow up not wanting to support a divided world like that either. 

I think selection for schools by academic ability is wrong. Selection by wealth is even worse - far, far worse, in fact. Also, it's not 'a few quid', is it? If it were, it wouldn't be such a divisive and damaging problem.


----------



## Edie (Jun 5, 2011)

Lbj fwiw your contributions to this thread have been totally honest and touching. I know butchers doesn't reckon people should bring personal shit into politics, but hearing stuff from you, about what it were like for you, that says a lot imo.

I think I agree with you, that I don't want my kids to grow up in a divided world. I just think it's inevitable though. I'm with lletsa. Fuck all is changing anytime soon, and even if it did it would be same as it ever was with some better off than others. I want my kids to have easy jobs where they are in control of what they do, and that's middle class. It's the ability to be in fuckin charge of your life, work the hours you chose, keep the money you make. No ones the boss of us, I just want my kids to have the same chance and not end up down the dole office or feeling grateful for a McJob. Trade is sound, and they know that, there grandad Nan and the wider family have talked to them about getting a trade, but again you are your own boss.

I ain't got the time or inclination to try and turn round a local school which is failing due to the fuckin mess our society is in. It ain't lack of money, it's kids from homes with no fuckin structure or aspiration at all, it's a lack of discipline and pride from the teachers, it's a lack of freedom to let them teachers run the school how they see fit. I want my kids to understand how damn lucky they are to get an education, be in a school where there is discipline and kids want to learn, and get good grades so they can be what they want not what society wants.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 5, 2011)

I've never said that 'personal shit' shouldn't be brought into it - the exact opposite is the case. I know damn well that because of the way the system is set up and maintained that i'm going to die before other people whilst living in much worst conditions and having much less opportunities and so on. It's _all about personal experience_. What i've said is that to see why this is the case you have to look at the _social conditions_ that have produced this situation - that one _individual_ arguing that private schooling helped them in no way whatsoever means very little unless they can come up with a bloody god reason for the private school dominance of all the countries elite to middling institutions.

You're right. lbj has been very open and honest on this thread, in that he's laid his confusion on the issue bare


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> That's just a dishonest way of doing the same thing. Don't like people like that, lefty cunts.


 
I don't think it's particularly "lefty". According to Leeds there is no such thing as "catchment areas" (ha!) You could always just choose a school that you prefer anyway. Like I said, we in Bramley seem to only get one choice so I hope it's ok. If it was really that bad I just wouldn't send him there.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 5, 2011)

TruXta said:


> One thing about cultural and social capital that gets ignored in this debate is that it's not static, and that it does in fact not determine anything a priori. If it was the case that the accumulation of social and cultural capital got you up the ladder, why is it that so many young-sih middle and working class people are now worse off than their parents?


 
They definitely didn't go to private schools though! Yes, this generation(s) are being told "we can't afford it" when somehow, after world war two, when the country was in more debt than ever, we set up the NHS, council housing etc.


----------



## Edie (Jun 5, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I don't think it's particularly "lefty". According to Leeds there is no such thing as "catchment areas" (ha!) You could always just choose a school that you prefer anyway. Like I said, we in Bramley seem to only get one choice so I hope it's ok. If it was really that bad I just wouldn't send him there.


 But it's just bollocks innit. Yer we could put Abbey Grange or Horsforth but we'd never get and allocated City of Leeds cos that's nearest. It is a left middle class thing moving to a posh area to get a good comp. This Mum the other day give me a dirty look when I told her we were thinking of sending them to private school. She got her son into Prince Henry in Otley (10 miles!!) by going to appeal. They live in a fkn massive house in Headingley, but the local schools not good enough. So she feels superior cos they're 'socialist' but it's all just wank.

If you got the money you either pay directly or you move or if your really lucky like her you swing the system. IMO them options amount to the same thing, it's just the first is at least honest.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 5, 2011)

I want to know what you'd class as "acceptable" though. We went to an average school, even though my parents are middle class. If they'd really wanted to be pushy I'm sure they could have wrangled another school nearby that was classed as "excellent". By the way, I do have a friend whose parents got sent to our school as it was still better than her local one (and she sent her son there too). You can get a place at other schools, just not necessarily Roundhay High, maybe. 
Can't actually think of a high school in Headingley atm so not sure which one you mean.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2011)

yardbird said:


> Don't think I had to in the 6th form.
> It was a bizarre education - they tried to teach us Latin and we left without knowing how to fill in a fucking tax return!
> I've had one or two idiots approach me on facebook, there is/was no way that I wanted any contact!


 
They still have to wear the cap. Only 1st to 3rd years, though. Great way of marking the kids out for a kicking.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> That's just a dishonest way of doing the same thing. Don't like people like that, lefty cunts.


 
Yeah, because people prepared to abrogate their principles so easily are clearly members of the left, aren't they?


----------



## Edie (Jun 5, 2011)

Was classing CoL and Lawnswood as Headingley. We're gonna look at Ralph Thoresby. That's satisfactory apparently. Probably end up paying for better than that though, but will feel guilty. To the people who went to private school, would two lads get bullied with local accents etc?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> I have no kids. But I can understand that _if_ you could afford it, and _if_ it meant your kid got a "good education" (and all the inherent benefits), wouldn't you be tempted? I think helping a school to 'be the best' is admirable, but takes years, and is unlikely to drastically affect the experience of a child such as the one you hypothesise about. Fuck socialism, is what it amounts to for many people, I suspect! I would never send any kid of mine to boarding / traditional private / public school. But if paying a few quid will give your kid the best start in life, it becomes understandable while the private school system is so successful in this country.
> 
> Or something.


 
Kind of depends on how you quantify "best start in life". I reckon I got "the best start in life": I could read and write etc by the time I went to primary school, and I loved, and was loved by, my family.
Which makes me wonder "just how instrumental does your view of life have to be to believe that 'the best start in life' for your kid is to send them to a private school?".


----------



## Thora (Jun 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> Was classing CoL and Lawnswood as Headingley. We're gonna look at Ralph Thoresby. That's satisfactory apparently. Probably end up paying for better than that though, but will feel guilty. To the people who went to private school, would two lads get bullied with local accents etc?


 
My uncle went to a private school (some programme they had to give scholarships to local boys from the village the school was in) and was bullied for being poor, having an accent, living on a council estate etc.  Left school at 16 no qualifications.  My mum and aunts went to the local comp, all of them finished their A-Levels and two went on to get degrees.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> Lbj fwiw your contributions to this thread have been totally honest and touching. I know butchers doesn't reckon people should bring personal shit into politics, but hearing stuff from you, about what it were like for you, that says a lot imo.
> 
> I think I agree with you, that I don't want my kids to grow up in a divided world. I just think it's inevitable though. I'm with lletsa. Fuck all is changing anytime soon, and even if it did it would be same as it ever was with some better off than others. I want my kids to have easy jobs where they are in control of what they do, and that's middle class.



No it isn't, it's universal. It's how you make it happen/what methods you use that indicate class. 



> It's the ability to be in fuckin charge of your life, work the hours you chose, keep the money you make. No ones the boss of us, I just want my kids to have the same chance and not end up down the dole office or feeling grateful for a McJob. Trade is sound, and they know that, there grandad Nan and the wider family have talked to them about getting a trade, but again you are your own boss.



At the end of the day, very few people are "in charge of their life" in any meaningful way, and whatever trade you follow, you're still at the whim of the economy. Those of the middle class that are least affected by the economy tend to by doctors, lawyers and mid to upper-level bureaucrats.



> I ain't got the time or inclination to try and turn round a local school which is failing due to the fuckin mess our society is in. It ain't lack of money, it's kids from homes with no fuckin structure or aspiration at all, it's a lack of discipline and pride from the teachers, it's a lack of freedom to let them teachers run the school how they see fit. I want my kids to understand how damn lucky they are to get an education, be in a school where there is discipline and kids want to learn, and get good grades so they can be what they want not what society wants.


 
Nice media headline, but doesn't reflect reality. Those "kids from homes with no fuckin structure or aspiration at all" are a minority, even in the worst schools; the lack of discipline of teachers is legislated, if you're talking about the inability of teachers to discipline unruly students; the "lack of freedom" is also legislated - if you introduce a National Curriculum and make the enforcement of it one of the main standards by which a school is measured, the school has very little room to manouvre in it's running.


----------



## teahead (Jun 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> At the end of the day, very few people are "in charge of their life" in any meaningful way, and whatever trade you follow, you're still at the whim of the economy. Those of the middle class that are least affected by the economy tend to by doctors, lawyers and mid to upper-level bureaucrats.


Even if a person were entirely outside the influence of the economy, they'd still be subject to their personal biology and their capacity to cope with external environmental factors like climate, resources associated with geographical location etc. 

Isn't it more a matter of having the capacity to be adaptive, than being 'in control'? Sure capacities of adaptiveness tend to be stronger and more developed under good conditions. One reason why wealthier people - *one *reason, others will include yeah the old school tie, to what extent you can show you belong amongst those with higher social status and access to resources, but these can be faked by some, if they're motivated - survive better and hold on to more is because of being nurtured physically and psychologically in the first place. 

But I wouldn't equate having the strength to 'succeed' as being the same as being 'in control'. It's a privilege, not a property.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> Was classing CoL and Lawnswood as Headingley. We're gonna look at Ralph Thoresby. That's satisfactory apparently. Probably end up paying for better than that though, but will feel guilty. To the people who went to private school, would two lads get bullied with local accents etc?


 
You've not been persuaded not to, then? 

Spanglechick said earlier that she would have no problem sending a kid to a school that scored 'satisfactory'. That means that it is probably a perfectly decent school. Send your kids to a decent state school and do your best to make them feel that they can achieve whatever they set their minds to (they may not, but if you don't make them feel like it's possible, they almost certainly won't - I think this aspect of parental expectation has been underplayed on this thread). That's the best start you can give them. Far better than making them feel different from people around them and possibly sending them somewhere where they won't fit in. 

Would they be bullied for having local accents? Probably not. They won't be the only ones. They will be given a sense of apartness, though. Send them to the comp. Go on. Be honest - would you be sending them private out of a sense of fear? If so, that's not a great example to be setting, is it?


----------



## rover07 (Jun 5, 2011)

Yeah send them to a 'good' school. 

Prepare them for a life of sitting behind a desk pushing papers and worrying about keeping up with their grades/work assessments. 

Come on Timmy, Do as your told, Dont step out of line, Keep you head down, Dont want to fall behind, keep working, working, working.... LOL


----------



## teahead (Jun 5, 2011)

rover07 said:


> Yeah send them to a 'good' school.
> 
> Prepare them for a life of sitting behind a desk pushing papers and worrying about keeping up with their grades/work assessments.
> 
> Come on Timmy, Do as your told, Dont step out of line, Keep you head down, Dont want to fall behind, keep working, working, working.... LOL


But remember the (some very dubious, some not so dubious) rewards - better outcomes in terms of health, lower incidence of depression, that (eurgh) sense of belonging...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 5, 2011)

You have better outcomes in terms of health, physical and mental, if you are sent to a private school? I think that is mixing private education with broader socio-economic indicators. It's similar to the gloriously pointless study that found that men who shave every day live longer on average than men who don't. Does that mean that men who want to live a long time should start shaving every day? No. It does not.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Kind of depends on how you quantify "best start in life". I reckon I got "the best start in life": I could read and write etc by the time I went to primary school, and I loved, and was loved by, my family.
> Which makes me wonder "just how instrumental does your view of life have to be to believe that 'the best start in life' for your kid is to send them to a private school?".


 
Spot on.

I went to very ordinary primary schools, and what would these days be described as a failing comp. However I started school able to read, and went through the whole thing with parents who would take time to make sure my questions were answered, and who let me explore a house full of books. So by the time I was 16 I was easily able to compete with the best students in one of the best 6th form colleges in the country, get 5 A levels, and turn down the chance to go to Cambridge in order to go on the best physics degree course in the country.

Furthermore I reached adulthood with at least some understanding of how to deal with a complete range of people, as opposed to quite a lot of people I met at uni who had no conception of what it was to be anything but upper middle class surrounded by people from near identical backgrounds.

However I suppose that isn't an option if you have lazy or stupid parents.


----------



## teahead (Jun 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have better outcomes in terms of health, physical and mental, if you are sent to a private school? I think that is mixing private education with broader socio-economic indicators. It's similar to the gloriously pointless study that found that men who shave every day live longer on average than men who don't. Does that mean that men who want to live a long time should start shaving every day? No. It does not.


Sorry - by 'good' school I didn't realise you were only referring to fee paying schools. There's plenty of state schools that enforce similar kinds of compliance. Schools that actively discourge pupils from poorer backgrounds and who get good results because the parents can afford heaps of extra private tuition.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 5, 2011)

teahead said:


> Sorry - by 'good' school I didn't realise you were only referring to fee paying schools. There's plenty of state schools that enforce similar kinds of compliance. Schools that actively discourge pupils from poorer backgrounds and who get good results because the parents can afford heaps of extra private tuition.


 
Me? Wires crossed here, I think. I said to edie that I thought she should send her kid to a 'decent' state school. Now how you define 'decent' is of course a far wider question. I was bored shitless at school for long periods and hated the regimentation and pointless discipline. This is an issue whichever school you send your kid to. In an ideal world, I'd want my kid to go to a school that is very different from the average state or private school. But failing anything more enlightened, a non-religious, non-selecting comprehensive has to be the best option.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 5, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Spot on.
> 
> I went to very ordinary primary schools, and what would these days be described as a failing comp. However I started school able to read, and went through the whole thing with parents who would take time to make sure my questions were answered, and who let me explore a house full of books. So by the time I was 16 I was easily able to compete with the best students in one of the best 6th form colleges in the country, get 5 A levels, and turn down the chance to go to Cambridge in order to go on the best physics degree course in the country.


 
It strikes me that sixth form colleges are a very good idea. 16 is old enough to leave school and be treated like a young adult who is in education out of choice. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they went to a shit sixth form college and wish they hadn't gone to one.


----------



## teahead (Jun 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Me? Wires crossed here, I think. I said to edie that I thought she should send her kid to a 'decent' state school. Now how you define 'decent' is of course a far wider question. I was bored shitless at school for long periods and hated the regimentation and pointless discipline. This is an issue whichever school you send your kid to. In an ideal world, I'd want my kid to go to a school that is very different from the average state or private school. But failing anything more enlightened, a non-religious, non-selecting comprehensive has to be the best option.


Oh. Well I agree with you completely then. 

As a Dad of one child myself, who's not been able to afford (or wanted to) access to the knid of school I went to, the biggest issue for me (and his Mum, in our different ways) has been to find ways for him to find and enjoy being the person he is, plus develloping an awareness about others life (similar and otherwise) in a way that means he has a sense of freedom while respecting others around him. Which certainly doens't fit into any kind of private school ideology I can think of, or really any aspirational market capitalist perspective either. We've recognised that the world can be discriminatory in all sorts of ways and mainly want to ensure he doesn't contribute to his own experience this in every way possible, and that he focusses on what's productive for him. Given the kind of family we are that's not produced a particular interest in money but I can see how in other families that can, and that doens't seem in itself to be a bad thing.

To me, good education is about discovering and maintaining access to the resources that are there in the world and in other people. If I said that the education I picked up in the private school I went to didn't contribute to that I'd be lying. It was a very liberal school and offered privileges to people like me who otherwise wouldn't have had access to them.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 5, 2011)

I'd be more worrying about stuff like is there a bullying problem/ drugs etc rather than the academic side. You should be able to help out with that side of things.


----------



## teahead (Jun 5, 2011)

Well the drugs at my private school were tremendous. 
And if clique-yness bears any resemblence to bullying, there was plenty of that.

On the other hand neither of these things were necessarily so important because there was a lot of other things to be involved in.


----------



## teahead (Jun 5, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I suppose that isn't an option if you have lazy or stupid parents.


Gosh that seems a little harsh. There are lots of reasons why parents don't provide adequate care. What if one parent dies and the other doesn't cope well with the greiving process. What if there's some other disaster that changes the way a family looks after its children? What if the parents haven't had the privilege of their own good experiences of being parented?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 5, 2011)

teahead said:


> Gosh that seems a little harsh. There are lots of reasons why parents don't provide adequate care. What if one parent dies and the other doesn't cope well with the greiving process. What if there's some other disaster that changes the way a family looks after its children? What if the parents haven't had the privilege of their own good experiences of being parented?


 
I agree that this does seem harsh. Edie can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a large part of the reason she is considering private education is because she feels it would give her kids things she and her husband can't give them. 

It's all too easy in many ways for the likes of me to sit here and pontificate when I know I could provide my kids with an intellectually stimulating environment at home that would offset any deficiencies at school.


----------



## teahead (Jun 5, 2011)

Yeah. HEY EDIE!. Is that right? How come you don't feel/think that as parents you can provide the right kind of environment for your kids? Are there ways in which you don't imagine you're 'good enough'? Are these feelings you just have about yourselves, or that you both comment on in your partner? Do your kids think that way? Do you imagine they might think that way unless you go out of your way to spend cash in sending them to a school where (perhaps) there will be lots of parents who are different from you? And with families that are very unlike yours?

Seems to me it'd be worth thinking about what's not working at home, before sending the kids off to somewhere 'better'.


----------



## Edie (Jun 5, 2011)

teahead said:


> Yeah. HEY EDIE!. Is that right? How come you don't feel/think that as parents you can provide the right kind of environment for your kids? Are there ways in which you don't imagine you're 'good enough'? Are these feelings you just have about yourselves, or that you both comment on in your partner? Do your kids think that way? Do you imagine they might think that way unless you go out of your way to spend cash in sending them to a school where (perhaps) there will be lots of parents who are different from you? And with families that are very unlike yours?
> 
> Seems to me it'd be worth thinking about what's not working at home, before sending the kids off to somewhere 'better'.


Fuck off.

This is the reason it's a problem:


> *From the latest ofsted communication about the local school*: For several years students’ achievement, even when set against their low starting
> points and compared with their peers in similar schools has been inadequate. The
> standards they attain have been significantly below national averages. This is true
> particularly among _White British_ and Pakistani students who are the two largest
> ...


from here

It seems to me you have two choices. Send your kids to the local school, or pay to get a better one. There are two half arsed options of moving or appealing to get your kids into a middle class comprehensive. But I think that is as unprincipled as paying for private. It has the *same* effect, it leaves the poor kids with shit schools, it's just socially acceptible to the middle class left. Basically cos they are spineless.

What would you do?

And VP if you think poor discipline in classrooms is some kind of media headline then you are not living in inner city Leeds. My friends son goes to City of Leeds, and she goes in as a volunteer (she's Japenese and does special Japenese culture lessons). She tells me what it's like. It's 10 minutes per lesson to get them settled, it's kids shouting, fighting, getting up walking out. This isn't a Daily Mail headline, it's what it's like.

teahead, I dunno what your on about tbh. Yer, if I'm totally honest me and the other half aren't the best parents in the world. God knows that. But we love our boys and we are doing our best by them but yer it is hard and I admit I quite often have no fuckin idea if we are doing the right thing, we just wing it. I don't think you have to be shit parents not to want your kids going to to a shit school. It's the opposite. Maybe it is a bit compensatory. Does that matter?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 5, 2011)

I can understand the concern. Really I can. And you do have a point that richer parents who work the system to get their kids to the better state schools are in many ways no better than those that pay to go private. From a purely selfish point of view, fwiw I would say that doing that - trying to work the state system - would be better for your kids than sending them private. 

Does City of Leeds have setting? If so, it could be a better story in the higher sets. I'm dead against schools selecting on ability, but I do think you have to set by ability.


----------



## Edie (Jun 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> fwiw I would say that doing that - trying to work the state system - *would be better for your kids than sending them private*.


Why?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 5, 2011)

Because sending them private may give them a feeling of being different. In a bad way. And sending them private is not a good way of allowing them to mix with a wider range of people. As I said earlier, most private schools are little more than exam results factories. There's more to life than exam results.

I actually think your worry that they would be picked on for having Leeds accents is probably unfounded (or maybe not - strung out posted earlier that he was teased at his private school for living on a council estate - the snobbery at elitist schools is definitely there), but doesn't the fact that you have that worry itself worry you?


----------



## Edie (Jun 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Because sending them private may give them a feeling of being different. In a bad way. And sending them private is not a good way of allowing them to mix with a wider range of people. As I said earlier, most private schools are little more than exam results factories. There's more to life than exam results.


Exactly my concerns. Tbh at the end of the day, I'm not in a position to say no. I just don't think I'd have a leg to stand on.

Anyway, aside from this specific situation, what is the answer if you are faced with the situation we are in? What would other people do? Just suck it up and send their own kids to a school like that or move or appeal and hope for the best or private?

I think it's the middle class that have fucked this up really anyway. It's not the 7% at the top sending their kids to private school that's the problem. It's the big group in the middle that play the system and feel smug. I saw it happen to a local primary. A few of the "good parents" left when a new head started, then there were a few issues, then there was a mass exodus of the middle class to other local primaries.


----------



## Santino (Jun 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> It's not the 7% at the top sending their kids to private school that's the problem.


 
Of course not. Ignore that man behind the curtain.


----------



## teahead (Jun 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> Fuck off.




Right enough. A little different from 





> ...a large part of the reason she is considering private education is because she feels it would give her kids things she and her husband can't give them.



My son's Secondary school had some nightmare classes that were out of control. He used to complain about not being able to learn (although it has to be said he wasn't supermotivated then). Continuing to pour in the encouragement (which, believe me, included plenty of patience at times) seems to have paid off more recently. He was hell between 13 and 16, then suddenly started taking himself more seriously. Partly, perhaps, because he developed an interest in photography. From what I can see, he's taken his cues from me and his Mum - she's into painting (art therapist then OT manager for a hospital), I've had a media background and then a 2nd string career that includes therapeutic work with families (sorry to bludgeon you with all those questions  I was coming from information that deceived me). And he's picked up the skills he needs to pursue that, with all the energy that goes with believing what he's up to his important. He's overcome (dubious label, for me) dyslexia. He's beginning to grow out of friends that are less motivated than he is. 

'The poor' get an amazingly terrible deal these days. Imo much much worse than the so called middle classes (or as I prefer to think about it, the relatively solvent and eloquent). Again in my experience, family culture really counts for a lot. There have been times when my son's Mum and I have had very serious concerns - bunking off and bringing other kids home to sit around smoking weed, a shoplifting incident, pathetic responses of the school to things such as the bogs smelling like a skunk factory, no homework, no evident interest. One thing that's probably helped a lot was having one teacher who knew the situation and was steady in her sometimes quite firm brand of support to our kid. 

Overall, what I'd say is - while it isn't ideal because of what gets missed, and for all those days and weeks and months and years when your child lacks confidence because they're a bit lost - that time seems to heal a lot of deficits in education. As long as there's a basic belief a child has that what they do and who they are are important things. And as long as they've got a view on what they'd like that they can follow. All the kids I work with are turned off, or have the potential for being turned off, because of lack of care and interest if not because of outright persecution. 

And of course there are reasons why adults behave in ways that persecute kids. To me, the education system that persecutes poor kids is part of a wider remit to leave the poor to figure things out for themselves. When did the UK have a government that wasn't right wing. Callaghan maybe, and he was a nonce. Wilson? But then it was a different world. Unlike pretty much every other western European country (but in common with America), the UK hasn't had a government looking at the whole social picture from the point of view of limiting harms by any other means than oppression and undercutting the agency of poor people for maybe 30 years. A generation. No wonder, when I used to rant about how things are, my kid tends to say "Dad it's just normal life. I don't know what you're talking about really." 

So fwiw it seems to me that yes it matters, but also that education establishments don't offer the whole answer. And as far as state schools go these days (without the add-ons of extra tuition which turns kids on to whole areas the curriculum doesn't cover), maybe less and less. Aren't Secondary schools more about social conditioning than anything else these days? Both public and private sector. 

The other stuff - the enthusiasm for life, the belief that its interesting (instead of just profitable from a financial point of view) to take a part in it - ... well it seems to me that's something adults have sort of lost a skill in. I just heard some pathetic R4 play while I was puttingn dinner together (maybe no big surprise, a pathetic R4 drama). A kid's enthusiasm for his team was being used by some fictional father as a way of talking about his struggles with a more successful peer. Maybe its because of the work I do these days (I used to make money for media shareholders) but my impression is that the Big Society has no problem with making use of children for its own ends. Victorian. Except that happily there's plenty of stuff out there that doesn't require access through some authoritative figure. If you show them they're OK, and that you're OK enough so that they can respect that opinion, then it seems to me it tends to work out fairly well in the end. Kids are smart. And they depend on adults for so many things, really. If you're dependable and decent with them, they tend to shine after a while.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> And VP if you think poor discipline in classrooms is some kind of media headline then you are not living in inner city Leeds. My friends son goes to City of Leeds, and she goes in as a volunteer (she's Japenese and does special Japenese culture lessons). She tells me what it's like. It's 10 minutes per lesson to get them settled, it's kids shouting, fighting, getting up walking out. This isn't a Daily Mail headline, it's what it's like.



It's what it's like in one school, because that's all your friend's anecdote applies to.
Taking that anecdote and extrapolating that because one inner-city school has a discipline problem then obviously all state schools (or even all failing schools) have a disciplinary problem is media-hype nonsense.
If it were widespread, you might have a point, but it isn't, and given the new disciplinary powers being planned for teachers, it's entirely possible that where it does happen, it'll reduce (mostly because the kids will be booted out into a support unit a lot quicker than currently).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> Why?


 
You made a comment earlier about worrying that your kids might get bullied and/or ridiculed at a private school because of having a provincial accent. Well, there's one reason for trying to work with the state system right there.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> It's _all about personal experience_. What i've said is that to see why this is the case you have to look at the _social conditions_ that have produced this situation - that one _individual_ arguing that private schooling helped them in no way whatsoever means very little unless they can come up with a bloody god reason for the private school dominance of all the countries elite to middling institutions.2855
> 
> You're right. lbj has been very open and honest on this thread, in that he's laid his confusion on the issue bare


 
Yup. this is the essential point i think. And it's also why grammar schools etc aren't really that wonderful either.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 5, 2011)

I don't blame people for working the system in ways that they think are best for their kids, even if I might not agree with their judgement as to what is best for their kids. My own parents are a good example of this - they did what they did because that was what they thought was for the best. Doesn't make them cunts, even if they may not have got it right. 

It's the system that's the problem. The reintroduction of selection in the state sector, establishment of more and more religious schools, and many of the other initiatives that have moved away from the comprehensive system have been really damaging, I think.


----------



## Edie (Jun 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's what it's like in one school, because that's all your friend's anecdote applies to.
> Taking that anecdote and extrapolating that because one inner-city school has a discipline problem then obviously all state schools (or even all failing schools) have a disciplinary problem is media-hype nonsense.
> If it were widespread, you might have a point, but it isn't, and given the new disciplinary powers being planned for teachers, it's entirely possible that where it does happen, it'll reduce (mostly because the kids will be booted out into a support unit a lot quicker than currently).


Yes. You are right. At the end of the day, if we make a decision to send the kids to private school we will be doing that cos we prioritise our kids welfare over our (well my) principles. I just think I find those 'principles' if you can call them that, easier to rationalise dismissing them cos I think we're all fucked anyway. If there is gonna be a ruling elite and a group in society that has it easy you may as well join em if you can. Rather than stay bitter and moaning at the bottom.

Edit to say: prioritise our kids over poorer kids is what I meant to say above. Although isn't that arrogant? Doesn't it assume our kids (and us) will make some kind of net positive contribution to the school?  I don't need convincing that private schools are wrong. I agree. Husband agrees. But since they aint going anywhere, you gotta play the hand your given.


----------



## teahead (Jun 5, 2011)

Except that it's even shitter being a toerag follower in the comfortable class than it ever was. Unless you can also learn how to be ignorant (ie bourgeois compliant arselicking without any hope whatsoever of joining the actual 'elite') and not see what a stooge you are. In my parental/sbiling family, amongst all the cousins my son is the only one that went to a State school. And he's the only one that's liked by everybody else. He's also the least likely to start dissing his other cousins, or other family members (and he's lots of good reasons for doing that). 

It depends how you measure success maybe. But I'm happier in the knowledge that he's likely to make a good life for himself if he can get over some of his confidence issues, than if he was gearing up to be a lawyer with no social skills and a view on other people that's more or less like being a wolf. Obviously its not so black and white. But there are plenty of reasons for not liking private educations besides principles and ideology. Like the fact that a large majority of private school product are _cunts_, one way or another. Or at least seem to have some serious blind spots. Another might be how they come to view the home they came from - they could see it as having been given an opportunity. But they could see it as something to blame if they don't like what you've tried to do. Or have contempt for you if it's done its work 'properly'.


----------



## Edie (Jun 5, 2011)

Damn, stop scaring me


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 5, 2011)

Edie said:


> I don't need convincing that private schools are wrong. I agree. Husband agrees.



Don't do it then. Teahead is right about the fact that private schools have a tendency to produce arseholes. And then those that aren't arseholes, like teahead, it sounds like, don't enjoy the experience. It's more important that your kids should be happy than 'successful', isn't it?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's more important that your kids should be happy than 'successful', isn't it?



There's the issue about supporting one in one's old age, of course.


----------



## treelover (Jun 5, 2011)

'most people who come through the private school system tend to have attributes/approaches that are fairly distinct (i.e. above average confidence in themselves, somewhat arrogant sense of their own ability/views/intellect, tendency never to get embarassed about anything, always keen to speak out and on behalf of others, tendency to take control, tendency to not taken into account views of those who are not as forceful as themselves, sharp elbowed, and most of all a tendency not to actually realise/acknowledge that they have any of these attributes)'

Blimey, you have so accurately described many of the 'leading' leftists and activists I came across in my time in politics, etc..


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 5, 2011)

Poor little rich kids


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 5, 2011)

Bossy cunts.


----------



## teahead (Jun 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> those that aren't arseholes, like teahead, it sounds like


BJ I may need to quote you on this. At times it can be a bit of a contentious issue. Especially among the rowdier, more um 'convinced' types hereabouts. *Are you hearing that?*... oh youknowwhoyouare


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 5, 2011)

I lied in the poll, I've just remembered I _did_ go to a public school in Brighton when I was 15 back in the early 70s. I lasted just two days. In that time I had the piss taken out of me because I had a Jewish sounding name, I was measured up for an army uniform (you were expected to join one of the services) and homework was to learn the nicknames of all the prefects and be tested on them the next morning. Thankfully I managed to convince my mum of the error of her ways and I was immediately despatched back to my old sec mod.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 5, 2011)

Of course you went to a public school Andrew. You reek of public school.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 5, 2011)

I've not read the whole thread but has Edie admitted to being a shit and lazy parent yet?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 5, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Of course you went to a public school Andrew. You reek of public school.



WHAT?! 

I may have to ask you to step outside!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 5, 2011)

Fisticuffs what what. Dear old Tony wouldn't approve. We should do this proper, in the ring.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 5, 2011)

Queensbury rules. I'll meet you in the gym tomorrow after prep.


...and who's "Dear old Tony"?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 5, 2011)

Mr Benn of course.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 5, 2011)

Ah, of course. Dear Dear Tony.


----------



## Edie (Jun 6, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I've not read the whole thread but has Edie admitted to being a shit and lazy parent yet?


The _fuck_ does that mean? What do you know about parenting, fuck all I bet cos your about 16.

I bet you went to private school n all with a name like "spanky longhorn".

In fact, the problem with the left is that loads of you did go to private school. _So_ many of you! Fact is, you ask the majority of wc (and mc) parents if they could send their kids private and they'd bite your arm off to do it.

Socialists want change precisely cos wc people get a shit deal, but in the final analysis they don't want wc people to become middle class  You can't just sit about waiting for the revolution before trying to make a better life for yourself.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 6, 2011)

You might want to save the money cos university fees are going to be about £100,000 by then, just a thought.


----------



## teahead (Jun 6, 2011)

Edie any intelligent person makes use of whatever resources they can find or make available. That's not a class thing is it? What public schoolies do often have is access and the manner that keep them in touch with the wealthy world and all its useful parts. Because they don't know much outside of that quite often they can often come across as foolish and a bit ignorant. Their usual answer? Keep the other fuckers pinned and pushed down! Don't let in the pretenders and find out we're just emperors with no clothes and servants that have contempt for us.

On the other hand some great and impressive things are actually done from time to time by people who come out of those environments. Even some that are soaked in privilege. Question of character innit. And maybe keeping control on how often you guive up and start spanking your horn


----------



## sim667 (Jun 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't do it then.* Teahead is right about the fact that private schools have a tendency to produce arseholes*. And then those that aren't arseholes, like teahead, it sounds like, don't enjoy the experience. It's more important that your kids should be happy than 'successful', isn't it?


 
Nothing like making an unfounded swathing stereotype


----------



## strung out (Jun 6, 2011)

you should read the thread.


----------



## grit (Jun 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't do it then. Teahead is right about the fact that private schools have a tendency to produce arseholes. And then those that aren't arseholes, like teahead, it sounds like, don't enjoy the experience. It's more important that your kids should be happy than 'successful', isn't it?


 
While in school its more important that they are educated, than happy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 6, 2011)

grit said:


> While in school its more important that they are educated, than happy.


 
I completely disagree with that. By far the most valuable gift any parent can give to their child is a happy childhood. You can't go back and change an unhappy one - and you will be marked for life by it.


----------



## sim667 (Jun 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> you should read the thread.


 
All 24 pages? Is it all generalisations stating that people from affluent backgrounds are arseholes across the board?


----------



## Santino (Jun 6, 2011)

sim667 said:


> All 24 pages? Is it all generalisations stating that people from affluent backgrounds are arseholes across the board?


 
That's how it started, but then someone posted some excellent proof of that generalisation and the argument was won.


----------



## strung out (Jun 6, 2011)

sim667 said:


> All 24 pages? Is it all generalisations stating that people from affluent backgrounds are arseholes across the board?


 
well LBJ was arguing that as he himself went to a private school, it isn't helpful to put forward sweeping generalisations of those who attended them. at the same time, he is correct that private schools do have a *tendency* to produce arseholes.


----------



## grit (Jun 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I completely disagree with that. By far the most valuable gift any parent can give to their child is a happy childhood. You can't go back and change an unhappy one - and you will be marked for life by it.


 
How unhappy is the child going to be if they are uneducated? School isn't supposed to be a source of joy (either is work) its important to be able to deal with things you dont like but have to be done.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 6, 2011)

Learning shouldn't be drudgery. It should, wherever possible, be fun. Regimented schools with their rules and timetables put these structures in place partly for the convenience of the school itself, partly to condition kids for an adulthood of drudgery, but that isn't the only - or best - way to learn.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 6, 2011)

grit said:


> How unhappy is the child going to be if they are uneducated? School isn't supposed to be a source of joy (either is work) its important to be able to deal with things you dont like but have to be done.


 
Did you have a happy time at school?

BTW, I can't believe almost 25% of people went to private school. I don't know anyone who did, let alone a quarter. Why is Urban75 so disproportionate in it's make-up?


----------



## grit (Jun 6, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Did you have a happy time at school?
> 
> BTW, I can't believe almost 25% of people went to private school. I don't know anyone who did, let alone a quarter. Why is Urban75 so disproportionate in it's make-up?


 
Mixed bag really, I liked some subjects and didnt others. I don't believe education has to be a drudgery, and current systems are quite outdated. However when speaking about the priorities of a child's education, fun is not above effective learning, its an added bonus.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 6, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Did you have a happy time at school?
> 
> BTW, I can't believe almost 25% of people went to private school. I don't know anyone who did, let alone a quarter. Why is Urban75 so disproportionate in it's make-up?


 
The national average is 7%. Are you sure you don't know anyone who did? Do you know what school all your friends went to? I don't.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The national average is 7%. Are you sure you don't know anyone who did? Do you know what school all your friends went to? I don't.


 
I guess it's possible, there are one or two that I don't know what school they went. The majority of my friends are people I kept in contact with since my own school days though. Maybe I'm just not a man of the world.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 6, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The majority of my friends are people I kept in contact with since my own school days though.


 
In which case, it's not surprising, then!


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Jun 6, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Did you have a happy time at school?
> 
> BTW, I can't believe almost 25% of people went to private school. I don't know anyone who did, let alone a quarter. Why is Urban75 so disproportionate in it's make-up?


 
I think U75 is probably disproproportionate in the percentage who've done degrees / further education as well (it feels like it anyway) and private schools are over-represented there.

Not sure how old you are, but during my 20s I assumed most of the people I knew (work / uni) hadn't been to private schools as people either didn't mention it at all, or said something vague like "I went to school in Bolton".

Looking back now, & filling in the gaps, it's really obvious that quite a lot more than I'd thought, had been to private schools or selective grammars. I can count on the fingers of (er... one or two fingers ) the people I know who've been to an actual public school.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 6, 2011)

has anyone defined the difference between private school and public school yet, because I thought they were the same thing (schools that charge fees to attend)?


----------



## strung out (Jun 6, 2011)

they are the same thing i think. the poshest ones are often called public schools, but there's not actually any empirical difference.


----------



## Edie (Jun 6, 2011)

weepiper said:


> has anyone defined the difference between private school and public school yet, because I thought they were the same thing (schools that charge fees to attend)?


I think earlier in the thread someone said it was that public schools are the oldest and were originally charities and now are the most prestigious.


----------



## strung out (Jun 6, 2011)

Edie said:


> I think earlier in the thread someone said it was that public schools are the oldest and were originally charities and now are the most prestigious.


 
private schools still are charities! my old school is technically older than eton, but was still always seen as the cheapo option for son's of estate agents etc


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2011)

This historical difference is that public schools were not tied to only admitting pupils from certain areas - a lot of the original private schools had funding clauses that restricted them to only allowing people from a certain town or from a certain trade being allowed in - the public schools allowed anyone to apply - hence public. But, in line with the oddities of use uk use in this area, what are now seen as the great public schools were actually originally those private schools, just converted by legalised theft into public schools - see this article for how/why


----------



## weepiper (Jun 6, 2011)

ah that's helpful, thanks butchers.


----------



## teahead (Jun 6, 2011)

But what is a 'happy' childhood?
And what about a complicated childhood that a person survives, with all the richness and consideration that can come out of seeing shit and then finding you can deal with it?
What about finding, later, that things other people are able to give you - friends, teachers, work colleagues, hell even therapists - can provide you with the resources that allow you to get good stuff out of whatever you've been through?

'Happy childhood' seems simplistic to me. And potentially prejudicial. Who's to say what is or was 'happy'?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2011)

Edie said:


> Yes. You are right. At the end of the day, if we make a decision to send the kids to private school we will be doing that cos we prioritise our kids welfare over our (well my) principles. I just think I find those 'principles' if you can call them that, easier to rationalise dismissing them cos I think we're all fucked anyway. If there is gonna be a ruling elite and a group in society that has it easy you may as well join em if you can. Rather than stay bitter and moaning at the bottom.



And (excuse my bluntness) that's exactly the kind of fucked up attitude our system thrives on; people saying to themselves "fuck it, everyone is out for what they can get, so I might as well join in. at least I can fill me boots".
The system convinces people to play along, and when it succeeds, you're neutralised. You're no longer going to pose a threat of any sort to the system  because you share it's values.

As for "bitter and moaning", I hear a lot more pissing and bitching from the people in the middle than from the people at the bottom, and not because we're too thick to appreciate how crappy our lives are, but because we know there's no point - no-one in power is listening to us. They're too busy spreading lies and pretending that because a tiny minority of the poor are gits (just like a minority of any social class), that we all are.



> Edit to say: prioritise our kids over poorer kids is what I meant to say above. Although isn't that arrogant? Doesn't it assume our kids (and us) will make some kind of net positive contribution to the school?  I don't need convincing that private schools are wrong. I agree. Husband agrees. But since they aint going anywhere, you gotta play the hand your given.


 
Which is really just a way of excusing what you already know is anti-social behaviour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2011)

grit said:


> While in school its more important that they are educated, than happy.


 
I don't agree. There needs to be a balance. Either one without the other isn't going to produce a well-rounded individual.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 6, 2011)

Edie said:


> The _fuck_ does that mean? What do you know about parenting, fuck all I bet cos your about 16.
> 
> I bet you went to private school n all with a name like "spanky longhorn".
> 
> ...


Really? Only my parents are middle class and don't and never wanted to send me to a private school. I can also safely say that about my best friend who, incidentally had her parents wanted to put her in for a scholarship I'm sure she would have walked it, being the cleverest girl in the school. But they didn't. Don't generalise about things people want. I think most people just want a decent school in their area.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 6, 2011)

Happy? Who needs happiness? What children need is empty, dissappointing, unfulfilled, miserable lives to prepare themselves for adulthood. See a smiling child; make sure you give them something to frown about...they'll thank you in the end.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 6, 2011)

LiamO said:


> Liam Mellowes (Co. Manchester)
> Tom Clarke  (Co. Isle of Wight)
> James Connolly (Co. Edinburgh)
> Sean Mac Stiofáin (Co. London)
> ...


 
No wonder you're so angry and always bang on about identity crisis! Now, I understand. My commiserations "a chara".

Look fwd to getting to understand your fascination with old ladies undergarments - probably some kind of residual grammar school hangover???


----------



## love detective (Jun 6, 2011)

> Happy? Who needs happiness? What children need is empty, disapointing, unfulfilled, miserable lives to prepare themselves for adulthood. See a smiling child; make sure you give them something to frown about...they'll thank you in the end.



absolutely Mr Gradgrind!


----------



## grit (Jun 6, 2011)

..


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 6, 2011)

grit said:


> Yeah without an education they are destined to be all those things.


 
Absolutely. Knowledge is power.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 6, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> There needs to be a balance. Either one without the other isn't going to produce a well-rounded individual.


 
Yep.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 6, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Absolutely. Knowledge is power.


 
And education cannot and should not be a pleasure.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## TruXta (Jun 6, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> And education cannot and should not be a pleasure.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Seriously?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 6, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> And education cannot and should not be a pleasure.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
So, when you read books to further educate yourself - you do so with a weary scowl and a general air of misery?


----------



## Santino (Jun 6, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> So, when you read books to further educate yourself - you do so with a weary scowl and a general air of misery?


 
I sense that that's how Louis does most things.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This historical difference is that public schools were not tied to only admitting pupils from certain areas - a lot of the original private schools had funding clauses that restricted them to only allowing people from a certain town or from a certain trade being allowed in - the public schools allowed anyone to apply - hence public. But, in line with the oddities of use uk use in this area, what are now seen as the great public schools were actually originally those private schools, just converted by legalised theft into public schools - see this article for how/why


 
That's a good article. Sums up the position pretty well, I think. This 



> most parents who send their children to private schools were themselves educated in the state sector



is quite revealing to me, though. It is a comment that follows a statement that private education had expanded under Thatcher, but it is still an indication that a very significant proportion of those educated privately (around 50% at least) don't go on to send their kids private. Many of these won't go private simply because they can't afford to, but that figure must include a fair proportion who reject private schooling out of choice. It's not just a case of a self-replicating upper-class, in other words.


----------



## rorymac (Jun 6, 2011)

Edie said:


> Lbj fwiw your contributions to this thread have been totally honest and touching. I know butchers doesn't reckon people should bring personal shit into politics, but hearing stuff from you, about what it were like for you, that says a lot imo.
> 
> I think I agree with you, that I don't want my kids to grow up in a divided world. I just think it's inevitable though. I'm with lletsa. Fuck all is changing anytime soon, and even if it did it would be same as it ever was with some better off than others. I want my kids to have easy jobs where they are in control of what they do, and that's middle class. It's the ability to be in fuckin charge of your life, work the hours you chose, keep the money you make. No ones the boss of us, I just want my kids to have the same chance and not end up down the dole office or feeling grateful for a McJob. Trade is sound, and they know that, there grandad Nan and the wider family have talked to them about getting a trade, but again you are your own boss.
> 
> I ain't got the time or inclination to try and turn round a local school which is failing due to the fuckin mess our society is in. It ain't lack of money, it's kids from homes with no fuckin structure or aspiration at all, it's a lack of discipline and pride from the teachers, it's a lack of freedom to let them teachers run the school how they see fit. I want my kids to understand how damn lucky they are to get an education, be in a school where there is discipline and kids want to learn, and get good grades so they can be what they want not what society wants.



Totally understand this .. although I have to say that universities aint plain sailing no matter what the discipline either. 
Half the lecturers are a fackin disgrace !!


----------



## rorymac (Jun 6, 2011)

ps .. Edie .. I wouldn't worry about your kids being bullied even if it did occur (briefly and shortlived would be my bet .. see below ) for two reasons I think ..  

(1) It's a lesson in life for your kids .. unpleasant and painful as it is and hurtful to you and their dad .. it'll tug on your heartstrings but make you all stronger imo

(2) They come from your loins !!!! 

<scarpers>


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 6, 2011)

rorymac said:


> ps .. Edie .. I wouldn't worry about your kids being bullied even if it did occur (briefly and shortlived would be my bet .. see below ) for two reasons I think ..
> 
> (1) It's a lesson in life for your kids .. unpleasant and painful as it is and hurtful to you and their dad .. it'll tug on your heartstrings but make you all stronger imo
> 
> ...


 
This is a joke right?


----------



## rorymac (Jun 6, 2011)

It was about the furthest thing from my mind to make a joke .. apart from the scarpers bit 
You know I used to be the funniest poster there ever was ?
Fack sakes


----------



## sim667 (Jun 6, 2011)

Santino said:


> That's how it started, but then someone posted some excellent proof of that generalisation and the argument was won.


 


strung out said:


> well LBJ was arguing that as he himself went to a private school, it isn't helpful to put forward sweeping generalisations of those who attended them. at the same time, he is correct that private schools do have a *tendency* to produce arseholes.


 
I also went to private school, and am quite offended by the fact you'd quite happily brand me an arsehole on the circumstance that my parents chose a private school for me (with good reasons imo), when i did have the choice I left and went to state 6th form. Whilst we did have some really well off kids, we also had a lot of parents who really were working hard to pay for their childs education because they genuinely believed that it was a better quality of education (the quality of education is a whole different kettle of fish, which i wouldnt care to comment on).

Even then it would be unfair to say all private pupils turn into arseholes, although I would allow that the top end private schools may breed a higher proportion of arseholes, but I think thats more general affluence thing rather than the school thing. I find it odd that a forum that represents a very large cross section of public is so quick to make unfounded claims that attending a school that is paid for automatically makes you an arsehole, seems a bit childish no?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2011)

The forum has made no claims, posters on the forum have.

Looks like your private education was wasted, old son.


----------



## sim667 (Jun 6, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The forum has made no claims, posters on the forum have.
> 
> *Looks like your private education was wasted, old son.*



Or its enabled me to take an objective view where as others have made it clear they're no better than indulging in reverse snobbery (i.e. holding prejudices, just in the same way a racist or a homophobe has, essentially making them no better than an EDL member).

P.S. Dont call me 'old son'. It makes me feel like im living in 1960.


----------



## sim667 (Jun 6, 2011)

Im still not saying a private school education is better btw. IME its more formulaic, and taught me how to re-gurgitate answers to useless questions.


----------



## Santino (Jun 6, 2011)

Did you even look at the proof?


----------



## sim667 (Jun 6, 2011)

Santino said:


> Did you even look at the proof?



No 

Mainly what I'm taking issue with is the way your grouping any 'paid for' school into one big thing and calling everyone with any involvement names. 

As far as I can tell aswell no-one seems to be differentiating between private shools that use their cash to invest in teaching facilities to improve their reputation, or the ones that are old fashioned, steeped in tradition and rely on connections in order to get their students into the right uni's etc.

There is a massive difference.

The ironic thing is if a bunch of private school educated people came online and started saying 'we're better than those who went to state school' for whatever reasons, everyone would be up in arms, but realistically people in this thread are doing nothing different.

anyway thats my bit..... grow up is all im asaying


----------



## rorymac (Jun 6, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The forum has made no claims, posters on the forum have.
> 
> Looks like your private education was wasted, old son.



You can be intellectual as you like VP but you don't half waffle on a load of ol shite 
I still love you mind tbf


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2011)

sim667 said:


> No
> 
> Mainly what I'm taking issue with is the way your grouping any 'paid for' school into one big thing and calling everyone with any involvement names.
> 
> ...



Apart from where we explicitly discussed (at great length) private schools who use charitable status to subsidise their profits which they then plough back into providing those exceptional resources which help their pupils to go onto dominate all areas of life - and that is the latter group that you mention as well. In fact the two groups are pretty much the same as the for-profit private schools do not tend to put their profits back into the school but into the pockets of their shareholders - see the recent criticisms of the way that Chris Woodhead's Cognita has been milking profits.


----------



## love detective (Jun 6, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The forum has made no claims, posters on the forum have.
> 
> Looks like your private education was wasted, old son.



posters on this forum haven't even made the claim claimed


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Jun 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> but it is still an indication that a very significant proportion of those educated privately (around 50% at least) don't go on to send their kids private. Many of these won't go private simply because they can't afford to, but that figure must include a fair proportion who reject private schooling out of choice. It's not just a case of a self-replicating upper-class, in other words.


 
They won't all reject privileged schooling though - some of them will just find different ways of buying it: expensive houses near good state schools, private tutoring for grammar school entrance, maybe even private prep schools before grammar school entrance (if that 50% was just for schooling at secondary school level).

I think privately-educated parents are likely to be over-represented there, partly because they are more likely to have money & property, & partly because they are just more used to the idea that a good education is something to be bought.


----------



## sim667 (Jun 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Apart from where we explicitly discussed (at great length) private schools who use charitable status to subsidise their profits which they then plough back into providing those exceptional resources which help their pupils to go onto dominate all areas of life - and that is the latter group that you mention as well. In fact the two groups are pretty much the same as the for-profit private schools do not tend to put their profits back into the school but into the pockets of their shareholders - see the recent criticisms of the way that Chris Woodhead's Cognita has been milking profits.



But what everyone else is talking about is the quality of 'person' that the schools output at the end. Thats what im mainly trying to differentiate between, some schools may live up to the stereotype thats been suggested, some may not. From experience I can say that some private schools actually adhere to the argument that is being made, and my comment is that I dont think thats linked to the type of school they attend, I think its more to do with the level of affluence that the school attracts.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 6, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Happy? Who needs happiness? What children need is empty, dissappointing, unfulfilled, miserable lives to prepare themselves for adulthood. See a smiling child; make sure you give them something to frown about...they'll thank you in the end.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


jesus, louis, bet you're a right barrel of laffs at a party!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 6, 2011)

Ms Ordinary said:


> They won't all reject privileged schooling though - some of them will just find different ways of buying it: expensive houses near good state schools, private tutoring for grammar school entrance, maybe even private prep schools before grammar school entrance (if that 50% was just for schooling at secondary school level).


 
Very true. All sharp-elbow practices. 

I'm still reluctant to condemn such practices at the level of the individual, though, even though I do think they are damaging and in many ways antisocial. It's the _systems_ that are wrong and need fixing.


----------



## Santino (Jun 6, 2011)

But what is The Left doing about it? *wrings hands*




Sorry, no one had said that for a while.


----------



## sim667 (Jun 6, 2011)

love detective said:


> posters on this forum haven't even made the claim claimed


 
Yes they have, see post 633. I've quoted the two generalisations that irritated me.

Of course no-ones actually challenged the point what I really tried to make in the thread, they've just sidestepped around it with snide comments about my education.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 6, 2011)

@ Louis.


----------



## love detective (Jun 6, 2011)

sim667 said:


> Yes they have, see post 633. I've quoted the two generalisations that irritated me.



thick cunt


----------



## strung out (Jun 6, 2011)

sim667 said:


> I also went to private school, and am quite offended by the fact you'd quite happily brand me an arsehole on the circumstance that my parents chose a private school for me (with good reasons imo), when i did have the choice I left and went to state 6th form. Whilst we did have some really well off kids, we also had a lot of parents who really were working hard to pay for their childs education because they genuinely believed that it was a better quality of education (the quality of education is a whole different kettle of fish, which i wouldnt care to comment on).
> 
> Even then it would be unfair to say all private pupils turn into arseholes, although I would allow that the top end private schools may breed a higher proportion of arseholes, but I think thats more general affluence thing rather than the school thing. I find it odd that a forum that represents a very large cross section of public is so quick to make unfounded claims that attending a school that is paid for automatically makes you an arsehole, seems a bit childish no?


 
i haven't branded anyone an arsehole. i went to private school and i hope i don't come across as an arsehole, but i still agree with the statement that private schools have a _tendency_ to produce arseholes. note the phrase 'tendency to produce arseholes' rather than 'automatically produces arseholes'


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2011)

sim667 said:


> But what everyone else is talking about is the quality of 'person' that the schools output at the end. Thats what im mainly trying to differentiate between, some schools may live up to the stereotype thats been suggested, some may not. From experience I can say that some private schools actually adhere to the argument that is being made, and my comment is that I dont think thats linked to the type of school they attend, I think its more to do with the level of affluence that the school attracts.


 
Some people have this morning and this afternoon (sort of anyway). Some people have talked about other things. You, for example, have offered a model of two different types of private school without realising that they're both largely operating on the same principles and that what you identified as being a good part of one version  of private schools (profits used on the schools resources) is precisely one of the things that underpins what you simultaneously identified as one of thew bad things about them (the resultant elite dominance and networks of power and privilege). 

To be honest, you seem a little muddled - maybe that's because you've not read the thread, i don't know. But, if you haven't, then you really should before you start trying to tell people what they've been arguing or saying for the last week or so - because you're missing the point(s) being made here by some distance.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> . .  it is still an indication that a very significant proportion of those educated privately (around 50% at least) don't go on to send their kids private. Many of these won't go private simply because they can't afford to, but that figure must include a fair proportion who reject private schooling out of choice. It's not just a case of a self-replicating upper-class, in other words.


 
I don't know what a "fair proportion" might amount to but I've never met any of them, though I have met very, very many who would do just about anything in order to continue to pay the fees - as if they're letting down generations of forefathers if they don't. Not to mention their own children because they know themselves the huge, life-defining advantages it offers.

For example, the motive for half of todays political books by journalists are about exactly that: paying fees. Middle class career choices are often defined by fees.

Also, having the grandparents meet the fees is a great way to have the family wealth trickle down, and avoid inheritance tax.


----------



## Edie (Jun 6, 2011)

butchers you have suddenly become weirdly polite and rational


----------



## rorymac (Jun 6, 2011)




----------



## London_Calling (Jun 6, 2011)

Wiat 'til the second bottle kicks in; that's usually when the sneering and bullying begins.


----------



## rorymac (Jun 6, 2011)

lol
<embraces butchers>


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2011)

sim667 said:


> Or its enabled me to take an objective view where as others have made it clear they're no better than indulging in reverse snobbery (i.e. holding prejudices, just in the same way a racist or a homophobe has, essentially making them no better than an EDL member).



Well yes, but you remarked on "the forum" making claims, not the individual posters, which indicates that objectivity and rationality weren't at the forefront of your thoughts when posting. 



> P.S. Dont call me 'old son'. It makes me feel like im living in 1960.



Fair enough, sunshine!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2011)

sim667 said:


> Im still not saying a private school education is better btw. IME its more formulaic, and taught me how to re-gurgitate answers to useless questions.


 
Which is precisely the point that many of the people who've posted on this thread, on both sides of the "education divide" have already made.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2011)

rorymac said:


> You can be intellectual as you like VP but you don't half waffle on a load of ol shite



I merely try to follow in the wake of the master, rory!



> I still love you mind tbf


 
You're just saying that 'cos I've got those photos of Mrs Danaher in the nip, aren't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> i haven't branded anyone an arsehole. i went to private school and i hope i don't come across as an arsehole, but i still agree with the statement that private schools have a _tendency_ to produce arseholes. note the phrase 'tendency to produce arseholes' rather than 'automatically produces arseholes'


 
You dirty fucking arsehole! 


Sorry, couldn't resist!


----------



## strung out (Jun 6, 2011)

i probably am tbf


----------



## rorymac (Jun 6, 2011)

grit said:


> ..



Sort it out grit .. you know you care !
Dust yerself down son 

<makes thumbs up gesture and winks at imaginary chick>


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 6, 2011)

Edie said:


> The _fuck_ does that mean? What do you know about parenting, fuck all I bet cos your about 16.
> 
> I bet you went to private school n all with a name like "spanky longhorn".
> 
> ...


 
I'm working class and I wouldn't send my kids to posh school cos I wouldn't want them to be blazer-wearing violin-playing social inadequates with a fear of women and a visceral hatred of poor people. No kid of mine is going to like fucking rugby.

But I don't actually have kids so my objections are academic.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 6, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why is Urban75 so disproportionate in it's make-up?


 
Posh liberals going through an anarchist phase, mostly.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 6, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Posh liberals going through an anarchist phase, mostly.


 
Rather that than posh anarchists going through a liberal phase.... HANG ON...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 6, 2011)

sim667 said:


> I also went to private school, and am quite offended by the fact you'd quite happily brand me an arsehole on the circumstance that my parents chose a private school for me


 
Arsehole


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 6, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Rather that than posh anarchists going through a liberal phase.... HANG ON...


 
No, defo posh liberals.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 6, 2011)

sim667 said:


> No
> 
> Mainly what I'm taking issue with is the way your grouping any 'paid for' school into one big thing and calling everyone with any involvement names.
> 
> ...


 
Poor little rich kid


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 6, 2011)

grit said:


> Mixed bag really, I liked some subjects and didnt others. I don't believe education has to be a drudgery, and current systems are quite outdated. However when speaking about the priorities of a child's education, fun is not above effective learning, its an added bonus.


 
I'd argue the opposite. Teaching children that learning is drudgery is not a good thing. It produces a society full of people who will prefer ignorance to knowledge. In my view the MOST important thing a school should teach is that learning new shit is fucking shiny (to put it formally).

No pupil will enjoy all lessons, but they should learn that at least some are fun, and that they have the capability of enjoying learning some things.

Unfortunately I'm one of the tiny minority in this country who believe the primary objective of a school is to educate. I'm quite aware that for most people the real purpose is to produce tables of exam results and a list of ticked boxes that enable each child to be given a convenient label for the rest of their lives.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 6, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I'd argue the opposite. Teaching children that learning is drudgery is not a good thing. It produces a society full of people who will prefer ignorance to knowledge. In my view the MOST important thing a school should teach is that learning new shit is fucking shiny (to put it formally)..



Totally agree. Kids love learning - they call it 'play' - until they are taught to hate it.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 6, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Happy? Who needs happiness? What children need is empty, dissappointing, unfulfilled, miserable lives to prepare themselves for adulthood. See a smiling child; make sure you give them something to frown about...they'll thank you in the end.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
You've been looking at the original proposals for the national curriculum, haven't you?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 6, 2011)

There seems to be some confusion. I was ironically thumbing my nose at the small minority of posters who came across as being anti-childhood-happiness and anti-pleasurable-education. 

As someone who didn't like secondary school but a decade later loved university (to the extent that I'm still very happily working for one), and who's partner is a dedicated, imaginative and skilful primary school teacher (she's even persuaded me to dress as a pirate and help the kids to cook on an open fire), I think that:


it is better that children have happy childhoods than unhappy ones and as grown ups we should take some responsibility to make sure that happens;
education can and should be enjoyable just as it should be at times difficult and reassuring.

I hope that makes my position clear.

Oh and by the way, private education is wasteful and socially divisive; the post war Labour government should have made it illegal along with private health care. Our schools, colleges, universities and our health service would be in better shape if they had.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## weepiper (Jun 6, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm working class and I wouldn't send my kids to posh school cos I wouldn't want them to be blazer-wearing violin-playing social inadequates with a fear of women and a visceral hatred of poor people. No kid of mine is going to like fucking rugby.
> 
> But I don't actually have kids so my objections are academic.


 
This pretty much. And I do have kids. They go to a 'good' primary school in a middle class area and a large number of their classmates will peel off as they grow up to go to the nearest big private school. Some of them already have, we occasionally see them in the park and they already look down their little noses


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 6, 2011)

If there was no private education, Cameron would be doing his best to bring it in right now. 

Or would he, given that Eton would not exist in its current state?

Is private education socially divisive because of who gets it or how the curriculum is taught?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 6, 2011)

The answer is quite obvious. Because it allows a selective few to obtain (mainly social rather than academic) privileges not available to the rest of us. Haves/have-nots.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 6, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> The answer is quite obvious. Because it allows a selective few to obtain (mainly social rather than academic) privileges not available to the rest of us. Haves/have-nots.


 
What if students from non silver spoon backgrounds could attend, gratis?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 6, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> If there was no private education, Cameron would be doing his best to bring it in right now.
> 
> Or would he, given that Eton would not exist in its current state?


 
No, he wouldn't. It's one of those entirely illogical systems that nobody would ever design if they were coming up with a system from scratch. Butchers' article touches on why, and the tory George Walden gives a good explanation of how the parallel private system in the UK is both unique and uniquely crap. He did nothing to rectify anything in his time in office, mind you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 6, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> What if students from non silver spoon backgrounds could attend, gratis?


 
All of them?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 6, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> What if students from non silver spoon backgrounds could attend, gratis?


 
That would still only be a tiny number, wouldn't it? And why should some kids be given advantages that other kids are denied?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 6, 2011)

given that my school made me neither happy nor particularly educated (mates of mine who went to state comps got a better education, better overall gcse results in the school, less suspennsions/teen pregnancies (not that thats necc ALWAYS a bad thing but about half the kids in the year above me got pregnant by the time i left) /behaviour/expulsions etc) and gave me a whole bunch of complexes it's taken me fucking years to get over, to be honest im not sure how much "better" of an education they are, to be honest, a lot of the time we didn't have the proper equipment, we had a school swimming pool which was constantly dirty and over-filled with chlorine so much so that people refused to go in it, i think that they are all shit and need to be nationalised, even the "good" ones. the good ones are there to entrench the privileges of the elite and the "sub-elite" and the shit ones like the one i went to are basically sharks out to get people's money like any other business. 

many of the kids who went to my school were not well off at all but somehow managed to scrape enough together to go, and i agree with you that - not all, but a lot of people would like to send their kids there despite the fact that in many cases they're not only getting a worse education than a state school. i can't blame people for that, i can't blame people for wanting what they percieve would be a better education for their kids. however, i do agree with everything fedayn and butchers have said on this thread, with the additional point that at least some of the time they aren't offering a better education at all and are able to get away with a hell of a lot more in regards to, say, racism and homophboia than a state school would, in the same way that many private healthcare companies and care homes do not offer a "better" service of care but actually a worse one, they are simply sharks, and unfortunately this is what happens when a public service is left to people wanting to make profit.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 6, 2011)

Wall of text, edit pls.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 6, 2011)

and re: laziness, was a little harsh on Spankys part but i've a mate who went to a school in London that is one of the shittest (state) schools in the country. very working class background. she got pregnant six years ago (I remember this becuase at that time we had a bit of an arguement and didn't talk for many years). During that time she hung out with people who were on the periphery of gangs and a few of her mates ended up going to prison or young offenders institutions. She has since managed to get a degree in psychology and is in an R and B band which is starting to become well known and imo will end up be signed by a major record lable. I think she turned it around because of her son and also because of the support of her family (two of her brothers also ended up going to University). 

So no matter what school you went to it doesn't mean you are condemning your kid to a shit life. I went to a school that imo should be turned in to a fucking parking lot and i've turned out more or less OK anyway


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 6, 2011)

done


----------



## TruXta (Jun 6, 2011)

Cheers!


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 6, 2011)

When me and my sister started to go to state schools we were both a hell of a lot happier. Fuck that shit. I almost ended up killing myself because of that fucking place.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 6, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Cheers!


 
no prob


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 6, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm working class and I wouldn't send my kids to posh school cos I wouldn't want them to be blazer-wearing violin-playing social inadequates with a fear of women and a visceral hatred of poor people. *No kid of mine is going to like fucking rugby.
> *
> But I don't actually have kids so my objections are academic.



I thought you were welsh?
Bramley/Stanningley is quite famous for it's rugby players!


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 6, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> What if students from non silver spoon backgrounds could attend, gratis?


 
Well , I live in buckinghamshire and there are already a few state schools that basically think they're private here. It won't do anything to level up the playing field and in many cases these schools do better than the local private schools and attract people who are just as rich as most of the people going to them, if not richer in many cases. for example, there is a grammar school in marlow that started charging kids £50 after 6th form around the time i left school - i didn't go to that school btw. a lot of them would jump at the chance of going private, and i would say that edie does have a point in that this sort of stuff is potentially just as damaging. 

meanwhile bucks also has some of the worst performing schools in the Country, so go figure. 


I've got a mate who'se brother got a scholarship to Eton and she won't hear an word said against it and says similar stuff, if more w/c people could go etc. I would say nationalise it and then as many people from whatever background could go as the wanted. I don't think the small possiiblity of someone getting a scholarship really changes anything and it actually serves to disguise the massive class privileges going on.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 6, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I thought you were welsh?
> Bramley/Stanningley is quite famous for it's rugby players!


 
I'm proper Welsh and we like football.


----------



## strung out (Jun 6, 2011)

most people in wales prefer football to rugby


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> most people in wales prefer football to rugby


 
Yes, I think that is probably true, with the exception of certain parts of the valleys, perhaps. And Rugby's pretty big in Llanelli.


----------



## Edie (Jun 6, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm working class and I wouldn't send my kids to posh school cos I wouldn't want them to be blazer-wearing violin-playing social inadequates with a fear of women and a visceral hatred of poor people. No kid of mine is going to like fucking rugby.
> 
> But I don't actually have kids so my objections are academic.


 Rugby is working class oop north.


----------



## strung out (Jun 6, 2011)

it's shit whatever area of the country you're in though


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 6, 2011)

Only in some weird bits of it. We've a rugby league side here now and it has become a beacon for the middle classes of North Wales to flock to.

Tbf, the parts of Wales that are genuine rugby heartlands are working class, although all the middle class types like to put on their replica Wales rugby shirts and invade my fucking pubs when the six nations is on.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> it's shit whatever area of the country you're in though


 
Precisely.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 6, 2011)

Edie said:


> Rugby is working class oop north.


 
Rugy League is, not Union. Editor has posted up some interesting stuff about the history of rugby. It has pretty upper-class origins everywhere, even in Wales. Then again, so does football!


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> All of them?


 
Sure, why not? Have to build a few more silver spoon schools, I guess.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 6, 2011)

Can you not see the contradiction here?


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 7, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm proper Welsh and we like football.


 
I hate all sport, but singling out rugby is stupid.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 7, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I hate all sport, but singling out rugby is stupid.


 
...whereas, in comparison, coming out with 'I hate all sport' is soooooo incisive, intelligent and grown-up?


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 7, 2011)

LiamO said:


> ...whereas, in comparison, coming out with 'I hate all sport' is soooooo incisive, intelligent and grown-up?


 find someone else to have a ruck with


----------



## treelover (Jun 7, 2011)

'You know I used to be the funniest poster there ever was ?'


aye, you were, the Paul Merton of Urban...


----------



## LiamO (Jun 7, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> find someone else to have a ruck with


 
Not looking for a ruck, but that _was_ quite an 'expert' contradiction


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jun 7, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm working class and I wouldn't send my kids to posh school cos I wouldn't want them to be blazer-wearing violin-playing social inadequates with a fear of women and a visceral hatred of poor people. No kid of mine is going to like fucking rugby.
> 
> But I don't actually have kids so my objections are academic.


 
My son's school brought blazers BACK the year he started - they had perfectly nice sweatshirts till then  - they *have* to take their blazers in, too - even if it's boiling hot and they're not going to wear them. 

He lost his tie after about five minutes and so his teacher gave him one he'd found....and then he lost that one, too and his teacher gave him another one (clip-on! BONUS!) and then he lost that one as well so his teacher gave him the tattiest tie I've ever seen - the stitching's come undone all down the back so the lining falls out. He's kept that one for months now  I keep telling him to tell his teacher he's lost it again so he can get a better second hand one, but he won't. 

He plays the violin, too (although possibly not for much longer - I found out he'd been bunking most of the lessons  so he's just doing it till the end of term now and then I've said he doesn't have to do it any more if he doesn't want).

He's shit at Rugby mind you - and all the girls love him (he buys them garlic bread with his leftover free school dinner money - clever boy).


----------



## grit (Jun 7, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> although all the middle class types like to put on their replica Wales rugby shirts and invade my fucking pubs when the six nations is on.


 
How dare they! Supporting their country in sport and having the fucking cheek to drink in the same establishment as you, fucking rotten cunts....

In some way thats probably a similar attitude that they have in private schools 

You fucking toff


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 7, 2011)

There's one thing that doesn't seem to be part of the discussion, perhaps because it is something that's very rarely overtly admitted to. A hell of a lot of people choose a school for their children not on the basis of the education it will provide, but primarily in order to prevent their children mixing with the "wrong sort of kids". Hence a lot of popular schools, and a lot of private schools, are not actually very good academically. What they are good at is excluding working class children.

I'm not saying that ANY urbanz would think that way. However there was a Tory education spokesman a few years ago who claimed he had to send his children to private schools because the local Lambeth schools were useless, when in fact he was in the catchment area for one of the best performing comprehensives in London (just a very good school with predominantly black and almost entirely working class pupils).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 7, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> There's one thing that doesn't seem to be part of the discussion, perhaps because it is something that's very rarely overtly admitted to. A hell of a lot of people choose a school for their children not on the basis of the education it will provide, but primarily in order to prevent their children mixing with the "wrong sort of kids". Hence a lot of popular schools, and a lot of private schools, are not actually very good academically. What they are good at is excluding working class children.
> 
> I'm not saying that ANY urbanz would think that way. However there was a Tory education spokesman a few years ago who claimed he had to send his children to private schools because the local Lambeth schools were useless, when in fact he was in the catchment area for one of the best performing comprehensives in London (just a very good school with predominantly black and almost entirely working class pupils).


 
I think that the issue of preventing your little darlings mixing with "the wrong sort of kids" is *inherent* to private schooling. It's a decision to remove your child from "natural" social circulation and place them in an environment that is, in comparison to state schools, "socially unnatural" (in that all the students will be of a similarly "middle class" aspirational background.

BTW, in context to the high-performing Lambeth school, it's entirely within the realms of possibility that for the Tory spokesman, a school that was/is majority black would be "useless" for what the Tory intended for his children - it might have taught them something about the perniciousness of class, for a start!


----------



## Superdupastupor (Jun 7, 2011)

From my experience the private school kids had all the best drugs. lol so its a bit of a lost cause sending your kids to school to avoid that..  ..... or does "wrong sort of kids" just mean poor


----------



## Santino (Jun 7, 2011)

Superdupastupor said:


> From my experience the private school kids had all the best drugs. lol so its a bit of a lost cause sending your kids to school to avoid that..  ..... or does "wrong sort of kids" just mean poor


 
Or black.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 7, 2011)

Superdupastupor said:


> From my experience the private school kids had all the best drugs. lol so its a bit of a lost cause sending your kids to school to avoid that..  ..... or does "wrong sort of kids" just mean poor


 
From my experience it's the Uppingham and Charterhouse kids who had the best drugs with nobody else even close.


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think that the issue of preventing your little darlings mixing with "the wrong sort of kids" is *inherent* to private schooling. It's a decision to remove your child from "natural" social circulation and place them in an environment that is, in comparison to state schools, "socially unnatural" (in that all the students will be of a similarly "middle class" aspirational background.



As is getting your children mixing with the "right sort of kids". i.e. networking or the old school tie thing.

A big big selling point for the schools to prospective customers.

After all these connections are one of the main results of this kind of schooling that will be used in adult life.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 7, 2011)

Superdupastupor said:


> From my experience the private school kids had all the best drugs. lol so its a bit of a lost cause sending your kids to school to avoid that..  ..... or does "wrong sort of kids" just mean poor


 
Poor, non-white or "eastern European", because there's an assumption by some people that if you're any of the above, you're obviously deficient.


----------



## Edie (Jun 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Poor, non-white or "eastern European", because there's an assumption by some people that if you're any of the above, you're obviously deficient.


I think this is a load of shit to be honest. There are loads of Asian kids in private school around Leeds. It's not like there aren't Asian and Black middle class families is there


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Poor, non-white or "eastern European", because there's an assumption by some people that if you're any of the above, you're obviously deficient.


yes, and most of those 'some people' tend to be the types historically most committed to sending little tarquin to private school


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 7, 2011)

Edie said:


> I think this is a load of shit to be honest. There are loads of Asian kids in private school around Leeds. It's not like there aren't Asian and Black middle class families is there


sure, but that's very much a recent development, and more likely at the lower end of private education


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 7, 2011)

grit said:


> How dare they! Supporting their country in sport and having the fucking cheek to drink in the same establishment as you, fucking rotten cunts....


 
They've only started following rugby in the last ten years, since that grand slam with Henson etc, whenever that was. 2005ish I think. None of these cunts follow a club side. Fuck 'em.


----------



## grit (Jun 7, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> They've only started following rugby in the last ten years,


 
Jesus they are proper cunts, not like good honest souls like yourself who were born with a passion for rugby


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 7, 2011)

grit said:


> Jesus they are proper cunts, not like good honest souls like yourself who were born with a passion for rugby


 
You're one of them aren't you?


----------



## grit (Jun 7, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're one of them aren't you?


 
Nah dont like sports, I'm a computer nerd.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 7, 2011)

Edie said:


> I think this is a load of shit to be honest. There are loads of Asian kids in private school around Leeds. It's not like there aren't Asian and Black middle class families is there


 
They're a minority in a minority population. What the fuck does "loads" even mean? More than you can count on your fingers and toes, several hundred, what?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're a minority in a minority population. What the fuck does "loads" even mean? More than you can count on your fingers and toes, several hundred, what?


 
The private school nearest me - in Chester but I get the same bus in the mornings as the school kids do - appears to have a much higher proportion of Indian and Chinese pupils than would be representative of the area. I'm not convinced of the argument that public school is about isolating the kids of the rich from ethnic minority kids. It is just about separating them from working class kids. In some areas, class can become quite racialised, in others, it isn't.


----------



## Edie (Jun 7, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> The private school nearest me - in Chester but I get the same bus in the mornings as the school kids do - appears to have a much higher proportion of Indian and Chinese pupils than would be representative of the area. I'm not convinced of the argument that public school is about isolating the kids of the rich from ethnic minority kids. It is just about separating them from working class kids. In some areas, class can become quite racialised, in others, it isn't.


Yep, this.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 8, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> sure, but that's very much a recent development, and more likely at the lower end of private education


 
Not entirely. Many years ago I lived with an Old Roedeanian. She was at school with a genuine Indian princess and one of Haile Selassie's daughters. There's always been a place in the "best" schools for people of any race provided they have insane amounts of money and a catchy title. Incidentally my ex-gf was the ONLY one in her year to be accepted by a university straight from 6th form without having to do an extra year "cramming" with a private tutor. You get what you pay for at these places, but what you pay for isn't educational excellence.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> In fact, the problem with the left is that loads of you did go to private school. _So_ many of you! Fact is, you ask the majority of wc (and mc) parents if they could send their kids private and they'd bite your arm off to do it.
> 
> Socialists want change precisely cos wc people get a shit deal, but in the final analysis they don't want wc people to become middle class  You can't just sit about waiting for the revolution before trying to make a better life for yourself.



My dad's a staunch socialist, he lived in poverty as a child, he's working class, he wouldn't have ever sent us to a fee paying school, not in a million years. Not even if someone else had paid for it.

Sending your kids to fee paying schools doesn't mean they'll necessarily come out of it with all the advantages you think they will, FWIW my o/h went to a really "good" public school, he got bullied to fuck, ended up being expelled and still can't spell. He then got a job as an lacky.


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

Course they won't necessarily come out with anything. Nothing is guaranteed in life, it's a probability game.


----------



## grit (Jun 8, 2011)

lizzieloo said:


> Sending your kids to fee paying schools doesn't mean they'll necessarily come out of it with all the advantages you think they will,


 
No it just dramatically increases their chances to


----------



## lizzieloo (Jun 8, 2011)

grit said:


> No it just dramatically increases their chances to



Fuck off with the roll eyes shit, I said it doesn't _necessarily_ mean they'll do well.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 8, 2011)

lizzieloo said:


> My dad's a staunch socialist, he lived in poverty as a child, he's working class, he wouldn't have ever sent us to a fee paying school, not in a million years. Not even if someone else had paid for it.
> 
> Sending your kids to fee paying schools doesn't mean they'll necessarily come out of it with all the advantages you think they will, FWIW my o/h went to a really "good" public school, he got bullied to fuck, ended up being expelled and still can't spell. He then got a job as an lacky.



I agree, There's little advantage in sending your kids to a private school that I can see, there is nothing _better_ about the education they'd receive there in comparison to a state school. In most cases the so called advantages that people educated at private schools appear to have will already have been put in place from birth.

I don't think that most working or middle class parents would "bite your arm off" as Edie said, to get their kids privately educated, most parents understand that turning children into happy and educated adults has far more to do with the environment they grow up in at home than the environment they experience at school.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 8, 2011)

I went to a private school in Ipswich. For a variety of reasons, even in the unlikely event that I reach that income bracket, I wouldn't send any child of mine to one. Even the smaller ones tend to produce elitist mindsets, arrogant pupils, a sense of entitlement and an isolation from the rest of the world. Good grades aren't worth turning your kid into that. 

(oh, and if you don't buy into that mainstream you end up being surrounded by people you despise, and having virtual no sense of personal achivement about anything IMO)


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> I went to a private school in Ipswich. For a variety of reasons, even in the unlikely event that I reach that income bracket, I wouldn't send any child of mine to one. Even the smaller ones tend to produce elitist mindsets, arrogant pupils,* a sense of entitlement* and an isolation from the rest of the world. Good grades aren't worth turning your kid into that.
> 
> (oh, and if you don't buy into that mainstream you end up being surrounded by people you despise, and having virtual no sense of personal achivement about anything IMO)



This is something that all of my friends and colleagues over the years from private school backgrounds have had. 

In some it merely manifests itself as a greater sense of self-confidence, but in others it come out as naked arrogance and a sense that certain privileges (jobs, promotions, exam grades etc etc.) are now theirs by "right". 

Some of them hate it, really really hate it if someone from a state school background gets ahead of them. 

It has entertained me on the rare occasion when that someone has been me...


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 8, 2011)

chilango said:


> This is something that all of my friends and colleagues over the years from private school backgrounds have had.
> 
> In some it merely manifests itself as a greater sense of self-confidence, but in others it come out as naked arrogance and a sense that certain privileges (jobs, promotions, exam grades etc etc.) are now theirs by "right".
> 
> ...


 
If all you want for your kid is "success" in life, it's an advantage. If you want them to turn out as a decent person with morality and values, not so much.


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> If all you want for your kid is "success" in life, it's an advantage. If you want them to turn out as a decent person with morality and values, not so much.


 
Yup.

Though let's be honest, the NC as taught in state schools doesn't exactly foster "morality and values", it has the same definition of "success" but is just shitter at delivering the tools to achieve it.

It's also funny to note that of the fair few privately educated people I've known and worked with over the years, quite a number get VERY defensive about it.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 8, 2011)

chilango said:


> This is something that all of my friends and colleagues over the years from private school backgrounds have had.
> 
> In some it merely manifests itself as a greater sense of self-confidence, but in others it come out as naked arrogance and a sense that certain privileges (jobs, promotions, exam grades etc etc.) are now theirs by "right".
> 
> ...



That sense of entitlement will come primarily from the parents, the home background. I've known kids in state schools with it too. But yes, a private school environment will certainly encourage it.


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That sense of entitlement will come primarily from the parents, the home background. I've known kids in state schools with it too. But yes, a private school environment will certainly encourage it.


 
Private schools (often) create (or increase) that sense of entitlement. After all it's their selling point to the customers. I've known people with perfectly nice, "humble" (iykwm) parents act like spoilt brats when the issue of schooling comes up.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Yes, it's that creative aspect that's often very attractive to the upwardly mobile w/c who _choose_ to send their kids to these places. It's not necessarily pre-existing at all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I agree, There's little advantage in sending your kids to a private school that I can see, there is nothing _better_ about the education they'd receive there in comparison to a state school. In most cases the so called advantages that people educated at private schools appear to have will already have been put in place from birth.



Please quantify your claims. Like Edie earlier, you're just chucking words like "little" and "most" as if they have some meaning. They don't until you quantify them.



> I don't think that most working or middle class parents would "bite your arm off" as Edie said, to get their kids privately educated, most parents understand that turning children into happy and educated adults has far more to do with the environment they grow up in at home than the environment they experience at school.


 
Again with the blithe claims of most.

Reality, of course, points up something entirely different from your claims. Reality shows that the non-state primary and secondary education sector in England and Wales has consistently expanded at a greater rate than the youth population has since the late 1940s, even if you leave aside the layer of state-turned-private schools during the Major years.
Have a dig around the annual figures in _Social Trends_. It's fascinating how provision has undergone a constant expansion. I only wish that the private schools had to submit figures for the number of pupils they can't/don't accommodate, then we'd be able to gauge how greatly demand exceeds supply, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2011)

chilango said:


> Private schools (often) create (or increase) that sense of entitlement. After all it's their selling point to the customers. I've known people with perfectly nice, "humble" (iykwm) parents act like spoilt brats when the issue of schooling comes up.


 
If you ponder the matter, it's very much in the school's interest to create that attitude, because it's a route to perpetuating the existence of such schools.


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you ponder the matter, it's very much in the school's interest to create that attitude, because it's a route to perpetuating the existence of such schools.


 
Absolutely.

Market forces and all that.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Please quantify your claims. Like Edie earlier, you're just chucking words like "little" and "most" as if they have some meaning. They don't until you quantify them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I said 'most' because that's an accurate description. If I'd said 'in _all_ cases the advantages will have been in place from birth', or that _'all_ parents recognise that the home environment is more important than the school one', then that wouldn't be true.


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> If all you want for your kid is "success" in life, it's an advantage. If you want them to turn out as a decent person with morality and values, not so much.


Don't be daft. Morality and values are largely taught at home, not school. I don't want a school to teach my kids that stuff, I want it to educate them in academic subjects in an environment that has good resources and no discipline problem. I want them to feel at the end that they have both the qualifications and the confidence to use them. Not just that they've lucked out, fluked the system, escaped the job/role that was meant for them and somehow blagged there way to a better life.

It's not a sense of arrogance I want for them. It's not a sense that they are better than me, their Dad, their Nan and Grandad (or anyone else). It's simply a sense that it is both possible and likely that they will be able to get a good job and have some economic and social power. Cos that is what me and the other half lack. We've both done well for ourselves, and we find ourselves in situations where we are often with people from this background. And fuck me, try as you might, you cannot fake that shit.

My kids are entitled to feel that they can have professional job or a trade or whatever job they like as they choose. That there is no _reason_ why that choice isn't theirs and they wont be battling against the system trying to prove themselves, the system will work for them. I understand this isn't a dead cert. I fucking know they may go to private school, get shit grades, fuck up and all the other possibilities that there are (esp with us for parents ), but it's a boost in the right direction.

I just can't imagine how my own kids are gonna turn there noses up at the family they were raised in cos they will follow me and their Dads lead in that we love and respect good people who work hard and give something back to society. Whether thats being a chippie like their Uncle Joe or a secretary like their Nan or owning a business like their Dad. Those values come from home. The only thing that worries me is that the conflict between values of home and school may lead to them feeling outcasts at school. But that has been discussed at length on this thread.

IMO a predominately middle class comprehensive is probably the best option. But we don't wanna move, and I dunno, it makes me feel like a cunt doing that, moreso than the other options although perhaps I'm just wrong about that and all the people who game the system by moving close to a good state school have seen the light and aren't just massive hypocrits. Fuck knows.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

> Morality and values are largely taught at home, not school.



That, unfortunately, is increasingly a position that is challenged by research. It's not so much that schools per se teach values to kids - it's their peers, which they interact with largely at school. So to the extent that kids at private schools are growing up with a more or less articulated sense of entitlement, that's what your kids will imbibe. Not that parents don't have anything at all to do with how their kids turn out - but the impact is much less than most are willing to admit.

Mind you I'm talking about values and norms now, not socioeconomics.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 8, 2011)

chilango said:


> It's also funny to note that of the fair few privately educated people I've known and worked with over the years, quite a number get VERY defensive about it.


 
Yes, why _is_ that?


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That, unfortunately, is increasingly a position that is challenged by research. It's not so much that schools per se teach values to kids - it's their peers, which they interact with largely at school. So to the extent that kids at private schools are growing up with a more or less articulated sense of entitlement, that's what your kids will imbibe. Not that parents don't have anything at all to do with how their kids turn out - but the impact is much less than most are willing to admit.
> 
> Mind you I'm talking about values and norms now, not socioeconomics.


I WANT them to have a sense of entitlement! They *are* entitled to be doctors, lawyers, MDs or whatever if they fuckin choose. Just as any kid from the state school system is. We ARE entitled to be, not just people who come from long middle and upper class family lines.


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

It's just a head fuck though, that by sending them we will perpetuate the system that tells other working class kids they are NOT entitled.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Not entirely. Many years ago I lived with an Old Roedeanian. She was at school with a genuine Indian princess and one of Haile Selassie's daughters. There's always been a place in the "best" schools for people of any race provided they have insane amounts of money and a catchy title.


agreed with all of that, but such people are hardly thick on the ground!


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> I WANT them to have a sense of entitlement! They *are* entitled to be doctors, lawyers, MDs or whatever if they fuckin choose. Just as any kid from the state school system is. We ARE entitled to be, not just people who come from long middle and upper class family lines.


 
Sure, and I'd want my (future) kids to have the same sense of egalitarian entitlement inasmuch as their and my background shouldn't stop them from doing whatever the fuck they wanted. That's not the kind of sense of entitlement most of us are going on about in this thread tho, is it?


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Sure, and I'd want my (future) kids to have the same sense of egalitarian entitlement inasmuch as their and my background shouldn't stop them from doing whatever the fuck they wanted. That's not the kind of sense of entitlement most of us are going on about in this thread tho, is it?


Well that's what I want for them. Not the entitlement that says 'your better than other people and you should therefore be the ruling class'.

Edit to say: tbh I think it's only the top private/ public schools who give the 'ruling class' entitlement, not the smaller local private schools.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> Well that's what I want for them. Not the entitlement that says 'your better than other people and you should therefore be the ruling class'.


 
But isn't that what many people with own and indirect experience with privately educated bods is saying - that they turn out just the smug wankers you don't want your kids to turn into?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> ...
> I'm just wrong about that and all the people who game the system by moving close to a good state school have seen the light and aren't just massive hypocrits. Fuck knows.



When we moved house to a new area, we had a choice, we could have just bought a house anywhere and hoped for the best, or we could have checked out the local schools and decided on where to buy a house based on that. 

We checked out the local schools and then bought a house in the catchment area for the one that we liked. 

It just seemed like a good idea.


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That, unfortunately, is increasingly a position that is challenged by research. It's not so much that schools per se teach values to kids - it's their peers, which they interact with largely at school. So to the extent that kids at private schools are growing up with a more or less articulated sense of entitlement, that's what your kids will imbibe. Not that parents don't have anything at all to do with how their kids turn out - but the impact is much less than most are willing to admit.
> 
> Mind you I'm talking about values and norms now, not socioeconomics.


 
True enough.

But schools increasing are trying teach "values". 

Schools often (well every school I've worked at) have a set of what they call "core values" or "school ethos" or whatever that teachers have to reference in their planning, that is reinforced daily through school organised activities and so on. 

These values tend to be part of the school's "brand identity" and one of the USPs that the school promotes as a business to its customers (the parents).

These values are thus usually very closely tied to the idea of entitlement and privilege described above.


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> When we moved house to a new area, we had a choice, we could have just bought a house anywhere and hoped for the best, or we could have checked out the local schools and decided on where to buy a house based on that.
> 
> We checked out the local schools and then bought a house in the catchment area for the one that we liked.
> 
> It just seemed like a good idea.


 
A depressingly common conversation I'm forced to listen to when visiting friends in the UK is the amount that being in the catchment are of a good school will add to a house's value.


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> I WANT them to have a sense of entitlement! They *are* entitled to be doctors, lawyers, MDs or whatever if they fuckin choose. Just as any kid from the state school system is. We ARE entitled to be, not just people who come from long middle and upper class family lines.


 
It would be lovely if that was (economically speaking) true. It's not though is it?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

chilango said:


> True enough.
> 
> But schools increasing are trying teach "values".
> 
> ...


 
They do, and they always have done AFAIK. That doesn't meant that they're very successful at it.


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> They do, and they always have done AFAIK. That doesn't meant that they're very successful at it.



Especially when the teachers don't try very hard to teach these values...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I said 'most' because that's an accurate description. If I'd said 'in _all_ cases the advantages will have been in place from birth', or that _'all_ parents recognise that the home environment is more important than the school one', then that wouldn't be true.


 
You're dissembling. 

Now, you've just stated that "most" is an accurate description, so prove it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> Don't be daft. Morality and values are largely taught at home, not school. I don't want a school to teach my kids that stuff, I want it to educate them in academic subjects in an environment that has good resources and no discipline problem.



You may "teach" morality and values at home, but those values will only really have a context when your kids experience "the outside world" at school, which is where they'll end up measuring the morality and values you've taught them, and where they'll experience both complementary and contradictory values and morality to what you've taught them.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 8, 2011)

chilango said:


> A depressingly common conversation I'm forced to listen to when visiting friends in the UK is the amount that being in the catchment are of a good school will add to a house's value.


 
We worried that we might not be able to afford a house near the school we liked but in the event houses in that catchment area did not seem to be any more expensive than in other areas. 

So, while it sometimes is true, it isn't always so.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 8, 2011)

@ VP: So are you saying that the kind of 'advantages' we're talking about in respect of privileged children only comes about through their schooling and not through their family backgrounds? Or that most parents _don't_ recognise that the home environment is a bigger factor in how their children turn out than what school they send them too? Sounds like it's you that needs to do a bit of proving. Reporting the fact that private school places are on the increase is news to no one and doesn't disprove either.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> @ VP: So are you saying that the kind of 'advantages' we're talking about in respect of privileged children only comes about through their schooling and not through their family backgrounds?


 
You already know that he's not.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 8, 2011)

chilango said:


> It would be lovely if that was (economically speaking) true. It's not though is it?


 
Sometimes the glass ceiling is there just so you can break through it. 

It's as much down to culture, expectancy, psychological resilience, motivation etc etc as it is to finances. Of course it's hrder for w/c kids to become doctors and lawyers but the financial barriers are not the only ones.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 8, 2011)

dp


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Opra, i thought you're retired!



> Sometimes the glass ceiling is there just so you can break through it.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie you don't need a "predominately middle class" comp for your kids to do ok. Ideally you want somewhere that's got a mix of different backgrounds.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

> Sometimes the glass ceiling is there just so you can break through it.



Channelling Lord Sugar are we, Liam?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Or an adequately resourced one -one that if you gave a shit about might function as you like.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

The fucking drivel people write then they get kids.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 8, 2011)

She hasn't gone away you know!


http://www.oprah.com/own

Besides, I think my platitudes and sound-bytes sit well amongst the political posturing and platitudes of this thread


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Or an adequately resourced one -one that if you gave a shit about might function as you like.



It's not even about resources though. It's about having happy. well motivated kids being taught by happy, well motivated teachers...all the interactive whiteboards and wifi access and learning platforms in the world won't make as anywhere near as much difference as that.


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The fucking drivel people write then they get kids.


lol easy to have principles that remain untested.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Channelling Lord Sugar are we, Liam?


 
and having big ideas and the vision, courage and psychological resilience to pursue them should be the preserve of the Right, I suppose?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> lol easy to have principles that remain untested.


 
Untested - you not having any is not untested. You really think that you are normal - you're not. The % of w/c kids going to private school is a % of 7%. It's not normal, widespread or accepted. 90% of people say that you're not normal.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

LiamO said:


> and having big ideas and the vision, courage and psychological resilience to pursue them should be the preserve of the Right, I suppose?


 
Now we're onto the apprentice.


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Untested - you not having any is not untested. You really think that you are normal - you're not. The % of kids going to private school is a % of 7%. It's not normal. widespread or accepted. 90% of people say that you're not normal.


You are absolutely obsessed with normality. God forbid anyone not to be just fucking normal in your world. Socialist wank. Better to be all the same at the bottom, than for anyone not to be normal.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

LiamO said:


> and having big ideas and the vision, courage and psychological resilience to pursue them should be the preserve of the Right, I suppose?


 
Most certainly!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> You are absolutely obsessed with normality. God forbid anyone not to be just fucking normal in your world. Socialist wank. Better to be all the same at the bottom, than for anyone not to be normal.


 
wtf are you on about? What does normal mean? What does the bottom mean? Some nasty shit lurks here.


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> wtf are you on about? What does normal mean? What does the bottom mean? Some nasty shit lurks here.


Carry on.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> Carry on.


 
With what?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Untested - you not having any is not untested. You really think that you are normal - you're not. The % of w/c kids going to private school is a % of 7%. It's not normal, widespread or accepted. 90% of people say that you're not normal.


 
Bit of a funny definition of normal. Widespread does not equal normal, except in a trivial statistical sense. It's normal for cricketers to play cricket. It's not normal for most of the world, or even most of the UK's population.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You already know that he's not.



His reply to Edie might suggest that. I'd still like a clarification on my other point though.


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

Explain your comment.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Untested - you not having any is not untested. You really think that you are normal - you're not. The % of w/c kids going to private school is a % of 7%. It's not normal, widespread or accepted. 90% of people say that you're not normal.



It's mid afternoon, let the sneering and bullying commence!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Bit of a funny definition of normal. Widespread does not equal normal, except in a trivial statistical sense. It's normal for cricketers to play cricket. It's not normal for most of the world, or even most of the UK's population.


 
Odd that you didn't say fuck all when  edie was offering her i speak for all w/c people (with a business) bit earlier.  It's rigorous enough to hold my argument - don't you agree?


----------



## LiamO (Jun 8, 2011)

LiamO said:


> and having big ideas and the vision, courage and psychological resilience to pursue them should be the preserve of the Right, I suppose?


 


TruXta said:


> Most certainly!


 
most certainly not.

















or some more mainstream/reformist ones if you'd prefer...


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

You're a dick butchers. Everytime we get into any kind of argument, the first thing you come out with is 'you're not normal'.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Odd that you didn't say fuck all when  edie was offering her i speak for all w/c people (with a business) bit earlier.  I think it seems rigorous to hold my argument - don't you?


 
I think I missed that, but even so, am I legally bound to comment on everything anyone says in this thread? Anyway, I'll look back and see what it was about. That last sentence of yours I'm having trouble parsing, care to simplify/explain using other words?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie argued that what is normal is what she does/thinks/can only be met through one way. It isn't.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

LiamO said:


> most certainly not.



Whatevs, it was more about the particular terms you were using than the actual content.


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Edie argued that what is normal is what she does./thinks/ It isn't.


Who gives a fuck what is normal? You arguing that given the oppertunity most parents would turn down a private education?


----------



## LiamO (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The fucking drivel people write then they get kids.


 


butchersapron said:


> 90% of people say that you're not normal.


 
Apart from sounding like something an outraged tory might throw at a lefty... when did you start the family, Butch?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> You're a dick butchers. Everytime we get into any kind of argument, the first thing you come out with is 'you're not normal'.


 
I've *never* once said that or made any argument like that you - at least on social issues.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Whatevs, it was more about the particular terms you were using than the actual content.


 
That last sentence of yours I'm having trouble parsing, care to simplify/explain using other words?


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I've *never* once said that or made any argument like that you - at least on social issues.


What? Your pissed


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> Who gives a fuck what is normal? You arguing that given the oppertunity most parents would turn down a private education?



What relavance does this have to universal social provision of education? Those others that you're missing out.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> You arguing that given the oppertunity most parents would turn down a private education?


 
I would turn it down, every time. My wife would too. Our kids _certainly_ would. _None_ of us would thank you for a private education

I am not saying that makes us any better than you, just that that's how we feel.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Edie argued that what is normal is what she does/thinks/can only be met through one way. It isn't.


 
The problem/miscommunication stems from you using normal in a purely numerical sense. It's normal, as in it's accepted and in line with the broad values of a society like the UK/England to send kids to private schools. Whether you like it or not.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> What? Your pissed


 
I haven't. You're wrong.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

LiamO said:


> That last sentence of yours I'm having trouble parsing, care to simplify/explain using other words?


 
Sure. I meant that the particular words you used echo the "pull yourself together" discourse that is often directed at poorer and less educated peeps.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> The problem/miscommunication stems from you using normal in a purely numerical sense. It's normal, as in it's accepted and in line with the broad values of a society like the UK/England to send kids to private schools. Whether you like it or not.


 
Exactly - and exactly why i'm right. Because it's not.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Exactly - and exactly why i'm right. Because it's not.


 
It's not accepted? Please post photos of private/public schools mobbed by angry parents of kids going to state schools then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> It's not accepted? Please post photos of private/public schools mobbed by angry parents of kids going to state schools then.



Or i could show the operation of the 93% of society saying yeah i love that shit. That's great.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> It's not accepted? Please post photos of private/public schools mobbed by angry parents of kids going to state schools then.



You don't know the massive historical debates over this in this country do you? You think this shit just happened? Of course you don't. So ask why it has happened in this way and so on - don't tell the rest of us that can do fuck all what we think about it. That it's part of our psyche.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Or i could show the operation of the 93% of society saying yeah i love that shit. That's great.


 
How many of them think like Edie does? I bet a lot more than you care to admit.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You don't know the massive historical debates over his kin this country do you?


 
I'm talking about the present day and age. For the purposes of this particular thread I don't care what happened in the 50s or whenever.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> How many of them think like Edie does? I bet a lot more than you care to admit.



How does edie think?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I'm talking about the present day and age. For the purposes of this particular thread I don't care what happened in the 50s or whenever.



Well you should because it's entirely relevant.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> How does edie think?


 
Oh do me a favour. She's stated her position plenty of times.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Sure. I meant that the particular words you used echo the "pull yourself together" discourse that is often directed at poorer and less educated peeps.


 
Yes I thought that's what you meant.

My point is that it's about time we took them back - because they do _not_ belong to those cunts! 

Between the tories trying to slam the door of opportunity firmly behind them and my peers/family/community trying to nail the Donkey Jacket to my back... it's a wonder I went on to be a Brain Surgeon at all.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well you should because it's entirely relevant.


 
OK, what was the upshot of those debates/conflicts? AFAIK private schools are still here, and still fairly sought after.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

LiamO said:


> Yes I thought that's what you meant.
> 
> My point is that it's about time we took them back - because they do _not_ belong to those cunts!
> 
> Between the tories trying to slam the door of opportunity firmly behind them and my peers/family/community trying to nail the Donkey Jacket to my back... it's a wonder I went on to be a Brain Surgeon at all.


 
Aren't we doing well? Not a "cunt" or "asshole" in sight.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Oh do me a favour. She's stated her position plenty of times.


 
Well sum it up for me._ Fuck you, I'm all right jack _seems right to me. What would you change?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> The problem/miscommunication stems from you using normal in a purely numerical sense. It's normal, as in it's accepted and in line with the broad values of a society like the UK/England to send kids to private schools. Whether you like it or not.


 
No it isn't.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well sum it up for me._ Fuck you, I'm all right jack _seems right to me. What would you change?


 
_Fuck you, butchersapron, don't tell me what to do you slaaag, I'm all right?_


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> No it isn't.


 
Again, where are the large-scale pickets, bomb-threats, or even any kind of large-scale organised political resistance to private education? There is none.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> OK, what was the upshot of those debates/conflicts? AFAIK private schools are still here, and still fairly sought after.


Debates about the ay that power and influence has historically established itself are shit if they don't get rid of that power.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Debates about the ay that power and influence has historically established itself are shit if they don't get rid of that power.


 
If you say so, b.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Again, where are the large-scale pickets, bomb-threats, or even any kind of large-scale organised political resistance to private education? There is none.


 
What?


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

You're assuming people don't send there kids out of principle rather than cos they can't afford it.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> What?


 
Show me this great UK repulsion against private education. Better yet, show me numbers that the per capita proportion of students in private education has gone down over the years.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> You're assuming people don't send there kids out of principle rather than cos they can't afford it.


 
The 2 things aren't linked?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> You're assuming people don't send there kids out of principle rather than cos they can't afford it.


 
WTF?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Show me this great UK repulsion against private education. Better yet, show me numbers that the per capita proportion of students in private education has gone down over the years.


 Are you drunk?


----------



## Santino (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Again, where are the large-scale pickets, bomb-threats, or even any kind of large-scale organised political resistance to private education? There is none.


 
Always the acid test of normality.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Are you drunk?


 
It would've been nice, but alas. What exactly don't you get about my post?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> You're assuming people don't send there kids out of principle rather than cos they can't afford it.


 
Why have all polls ever shown support for comprehensive education?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> Always the acid test of normality.


 
So a little hyperbole is clearly a no-go...


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why have all polls ever shown support for comprehensive education?


 
Links, pls. I don't distrust you, would like to see numbers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> Always the acid test of normality.


 
Thank you, i did miss  this own goal earlier.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> You're assuming people don't send there kids out of principle rather than cos they can't afford it.


 
_You're_ assuming people don't send their kids to private schools because they can't afford it rather than because they genuinely would not want to.

I know _very_ few people who would send their kids to private schools.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> It would've been nice, but alas. What exactly don't you get about my post?


 
Any of it. It's bonkers. It's clearly not normal for kids to go to private school. I don't know anyone who has sent their kids to private school.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Links, pls. I don't distrust you, would like to see numbers.



None at hand - will look for some. Unless i've misread 40 years of of responses, i know i'm on very safe ground.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Two-thirds of voters are against private education, poll reveals



> Only 29 per cent of people believe parents should have the right to send their children to fee-paying schools, according to a new YouGov poll given to The Independent on the eve of the Labour Party conference debate on education. And even among Conservative voters, just 51 per cent of those polled were in favour of private education.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> I don't know anyone who has sent their kids to private school.


 
I have known a few over the years.

In fairness, they were all cunts... which is exactly what their kids turned out to be... bigger cunts. Deeply conflicted, bigger  cunts, actually... who thought their parents were embarrassing cunts. 

Don't do it Edie!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Show me this great UK repulsion against private education. Better yet, show me numbers that the per capita proportion of students in private education has gone down over the years.


 
There is revulsion against private education in general and public schools and their ethos in particular in the same way that there is revulsion against, for instance, Thatcher and the tories. And that revulsion has long existed. 

There are also tories - upper, middle and working class tories - who support such structures.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> @ VP: So are you saying that the kind of 'advantages' we're talking about in respect of privileged children only comes about through their schooling and not through their family backgrounds? Or that most parents _don't_ recognise that the home environment is a bigger factor in how their children turn out than what school they send them too?



I'm operating on the presumption that you can read and have the ability to understand what you're reading, so why are you asking whether I'm saying things that I haven't said? 

Someone more cynical than me might think you were making a further attempt at dissembling.



> Sounds like it's you that needs to do a bit of proving.



Why would I need to prove things I haven't said?



> Reporting the fact that private school places are on the increase is news to no one and doesn't disprove either.


 
I didn't claim that it disproved anything, I mentioned it to illustrate that, contrary to your assertion that "there's little advantage that I can see" to private education, obviously a *growing number* of parents see differently to you (regardless of whether you or they are at all accurate in your perceptions).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You already know that he's not.


 
Everyone but AH seems to have noticed that.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Two-thirds of voters are against private education, poll reveals


 
Cheers for that. Don't you think it's interesting that while only 7% of kids are privately educated, almost a third in that poll thinks it's OK to send kids to private schools? Makes it pretty normative in my book.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Or an adequately resourced one -one that if you gave a shit about might function as you like.


 
Back when I was a school governor, it was (unsurprisingly, IMO) the working-class parents who were always happier to muck in and get involved in fund-raising-type stuff than the m/c parents, who mostly seemed to have a view that they'd fulfilled their obligation by paying their taxes.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> Who gives a fuck what is normal? You arguing that given the oppertunity most parents would turn down a private education?


 
Not everyone wants to send their kids private, of course for most of us it's not even an option.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

Here's another poll - http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/education-poll-schools-fees

Headline fact: 



> Asked if they would choose to send their child to private school if it were financially viable, 49 per cent of respondents said yes and 51 per cent said no. The number of privately educated pupils has fallen since the recession, although by fewer than many expected.



Only goes to show that attitudes aren't always a good guide to intentions.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Cheers for that. Don't you think it's interesting that while only 7% of kids are privately educated, almost a third in that poll thinks it's OK to send kids to private schools? Makes it pretty normative in my book.


 
Is it a Disney book?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Cheers for that. Don't you think it's interesting that while only 7% of kids are privately educated, almost a third in that poll thinks it's OK to send kids to private schools? Makes it pretty normative in my book.


 
Only if you a) cut out the other 70% and assume b) that all within the other 30% would do so, rather than supporting the right to do so. Looks pretty minoritarian to me.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Only if you a) cut out the other 70% and assume b) that all within the other 30% would do so, rather than supporting the right to do so. Looks pretty minoritarian to me.


 
Then see the NS poll I just quoted.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Is it a Disney book?


 
Oh, that really made me think that did. Cheers. No, really.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Then see the NS poll I just quoted.


 
What is it? Where the tables? Still on safe gound.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What is it? Where the tables? Still on safe gound.


 
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/education-poll-schools-fees

Doesn't look like safe ground to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/education-poll-schools-fees


 
Yes, but where are the tables?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, but where are the tables?


 
Tables? What you on about?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Tables? What you on about?


 The tables in which they show their results.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The tables in which they show their results.


 
You'll have to ask NS about that. Didn't see any tables in the Indy poll you quoted for that matter.

ed: why - don't trust the numbers? tut-tut, confirmation bias biting your ass, butchers?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

So are they both shit?


----------



## kittyP (Jun 8, 2011)

LiamO said:


> I have known a few over the years.
> 
> In fairness, they were all cunts... which is exactly what their kids turned out to be... bigger cunts. Deeply conflicted, bigger  cunts, actually... who thought their parents were embarrassing cunts.
> 
> Don't do it Edie!



But in contrast, the very few people I have known who have sent their kids to private school were lovely. 
Not involved in the politics of it all,  just could afford it and wanted to give their kids (in their eyes) the best they could. 

I would never want my kid to go to private school but am also not keen on the idea of them in current state education.

It's not as simple as would you  or wouldn't you.
Another one of the reasons why I don't have kids


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So are they both shit?


 
I dunno, without looking at the methods in depth it's hard to tell. Surveys can only take you so far, and beside, attitudes are lousy predictors of behaviour in most cases.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

> not keen on the idea of them in current state education



Here it is essence. Not good enough for us. dangerous people.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I dunno, without looking at the methods in depth it's hard to tell. Surveys can only take you so far, and beside, attitudes are lousy predictors of behaviour in most cases.


 
Well, historical figures that tell you that private school education has been 6-8% for 60 years might...


----------



## weltweit (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Here it is essence. Not good enough for us. dangerous people.


 
When I last lived in Essex, the local secondary school had a pass rate of 25% - twenty five percent!! 

That is not just not good enough for "us" it is not good enough for anyone!


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well, historical figures that tell you that private school education has been 6-8% for 60 years might...


 
And why has that number remained stable? Is it because of attitudes and values or is it to do with wc/mc parents not having the means/otherwise being blocked from sending their kids to private schools? Funny how you got all "where are the tables" when I found a poll that went against you.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Here it is essence. Not good enough for us. dangerous people.


 
I think you misunderstand me. 
I work in state education and I work damn hard fro very little money.
I don't think its good enough for anyone with the way things are, not just me and mine, especially in inner city areas. 

And for the record again, I would not send my child to private school.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> When I last lived in Essex, the local secondary school had a pass rate of 25% - twenty five percent!!
> 
> That is not just not good enough for "us" it is not good enough for anyone!



So what do you? You imagine some money to go to private school? The options for you to work to change that school were there.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> When I last lived in Essex, the local secondary school had a pass rate of 25% - twenty five percent!!
> 
> That is not just not good enough for "us" it is not good enough for anyone!


 
This^


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Here it is essence. Not good enough for us. dangerous people.


 
I'm not nec sure everything they do in state schools is 100% what I agree with. However, they seem to get most of their bad ideas from the private/ public system (obsession over uniforms and other unnecessary bossiness).


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> And why has that number remained stable? Is it because of attitudes and values or is it to do with wc/mc parents not having the means/otherwise being blocked from sending their kids to private schools? Funny how you got all "where are the tables" when I found a poll that went against you.


 
That number has remained stable because it's functional.

If i did then sorry, i don't think your poll finding reflects reality - why i wanted to the see the tables.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

kittyP said:


> I think you misunderstand me.
> I work in state education and I work damn hard fro very little money.
> I don't think its good enough for anyone with the way things are, not just me and mine, especially in inner city areas.
> 
> And for the record again, I would not send my child to private school.



I did sorry. My mistake.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So what do you? You imagine some money to go to private school? The options for you to work to change that school were there.


 
I don't hear anyone from the education sector looking to help me out when I am failing in my job. 

State education has to be fit for purpose.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I did sorry. My mistake.


 
Bloody ell


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That number has remained stable because it's functional.
> 
> If i did then sorry, i don't think your poll finding reflects reality - why i wanted to the see the tables.


 
Could you unpack "functional", please? No need to apologise, FWIW I think polls are mostly meaningless, as on most issues people just make shit up on the spot anyway, UNLESS they've particularly strong/well thought out opinions on the matter at hand. 

I've got colleagues at work researching stuff like this (attitudinal blindness, choice blindness), it's amazing what contradictions people can stay oblivious to.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 8, 2011)

kittyP said:


> I would never want my kid to go to private school but am also not keen on the idea of them in current state education.
> 
> It's not as simple as would you  or wouldn't you.



In fairness kitty, I posted several times earlier in this thread (and incurred the wrath of BA and others in doing so) that I had every personal sympathy for parents trying to 'do their best' by and for their kids. 

I also pointed out that it is silly to assume that people make all decisions based on analysis - and that people are particularly prone to emotionally driven choices when it comes to their kids.

But the fact remains that in my personal experience the people I knew (mainly Irish Subbies, publicans etc) who sent their kids to Private schools were stuck-up cunts... and their kids turned out to be either further stuck-up cunts or (funnily enough) gangsters.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> When I last lived in Essex, the local secondary school had a pass rate of 25% - twenty five percent!!
> 
> That is not just not good enough for "us" it is not good enough for anyone!


If I was a parent in Essex I would be bloody _rioting_ over that


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Could you unpack "functional", please? No need to apologise, FWIW I think polls are mostly meaningless, as on most issues people just make shit up on the spot anyway, UNLESS they've particularly strong/well thought out opinions on the matter at hand.
> 
> I've got colleagues at work researching stuff like this (attitudinal blindness, choice blindness), it's amazing what contradictions people can stay oblivious to.



6% is the reload rate for the things they own and run- it's the top of that 6-7% that count.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I don't hear anyone from the education sector looking to help me out when I am failing in my job.



When my father was out of work in the 30's... oh shut up Mr Tebbit.

That is a pathetic argument,


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 6% is the reload rate for the things they own and run- it's the top of that 6-7% that count. The rest that can bum p away to the BFBC


 
Sorry for all the questions, but what is the BFBC? Google isn't helping.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 8, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> If I was a parent in Essex I would be bloody _rioting_ over that


 
Yes, that is a good point. 

I didn't riot 

But the school went into special measures and came out the other side. 

Quite a few of our friends ended up moving, but some did not resigned to their fate, some even said they could not see the difference which shocked me if I am honest. 

One couple said they had not gotten anything from school and they were not expecting their boy to get anything either. That made me feel quite sad.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm operating on the presumption that you can read and have the ability to understand what you're reading, so why are you asking whether I'm saying things that I haven't said?
> 
> Someone more cynical than me might think you were making a further attempt at dissembling.
> 
> ...



So what _ are_ you saying FFS? Regardless of "A growing number of parents seeing it differently," do you agree with the points I made or not?


----------



## kittyP (Jun 8, 2011)

LiamO said:


> In fairness kitty, I posted several times earlier in this thread (and incurred the wrath of BA and others in doing so) that I had every personal sympathy for parents trying to 'do their best' by and for their kids.
> 
> I also pointed out that it is silly to assume that people make all decisions based on analysis - and that people are particularly prone to emotionally driven choices when it comes to their kids.
> 
> But the fact remains that in my personal experience the people I knew (mainly Irish Subbies, publicans etc) who sent their kids to Private schools were stuck-up cunts... and their kids turned out to be either further stuck-up cunts or (funnily enough) gangsters.


 
Yeah sorry there was far too much to read properly the whole thread. 

I just wanted to show (again as it seems) that its not all black and white when it comes to kids. 
Also that people discussing here are not a fair representation of the population. 
Most people are not very politicised and just do what they think is best.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Yes, that is a good point.
> 
> I didn't riot
> 
> ...


 
I hear this so often and it is sad but I can see why.

Sometimes (sad again) it is actually best for schools to go into special measures and then build up from the bottom again.
It's IMHO often the permanently satisfactory schools that are the shittiest in the long run.

Sorry that's probably derailing a bit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Sorry for all the questions, but what is the BFBC? Google isn't helping.


 
BFBC is where a) the elite put their idiots and tell us what we may watch.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

Oh, the *BB*FC, you old cock.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 8, 2011)

Possible coz its suppose to be BBFC


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Freemasonry shit


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Freemasonry shit


 
Wut, masons run the BBFC? Have you ingested some jazzz capsules lately, butchers?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Wut, masons run the BBFC? Have you ingested some jazzz capsules lately, butchers?


 
Nah, got to get on train shortly.


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

So between 30-50% of parents would send there kids if they could. Hardly widespread popular disapproval.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Nah, got to get on train shortly.


 
Well then do that instead of posting Mystic Meg shit on here, you big twat!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> So between 30-50% of parents would send there kids if they could. Hardly widespread popular disapproval.


 
Where?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Well then do that instead of posting Mystic Meg shit on here, you big twat!


 
I've not done that today.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Where?


 
Presumably referring to the NS poll I posted above. Edie?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I've not done that today.


 
OK, it was an honest mistake wrt the BBFC (not the BFBC), but that "freemasonry shit" means diddly-squat.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 8, 2011)

LiamO said:


> When my father was out of work in the 30's... oh shut up Mr Tebbit.
> 
> That is a pathetic argument,


 
I don't think it is. 

I have zero knowledge of the education sector and have never been involved in it. My ability to contribute to turn-round a failing school is negligable. 

A parent I know, was a teacher, she also worked for the LEA, and she also worked for Ofsted. Now she had a chance of becoming a govenor and making a difference. She is a govenor, but even she gave up on one school.


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

30% by your own poll butch, which is high! 50% according to the NS.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It's mid afternoon, let the sneering and bullying commence!


 
Here we go. You ask someone to elucidate their point, and you don't do it in an oleaginous enough manner, and someone starts farting off about bullying.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> 30% by your own poll butch, which is high! 50% according to the NS.


 
You think this is a victory? Or anything other that support for the *right* to be anti-social cunt?

It's a victory for what people like you have done. Dine well.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Cheers for that. Don't you think it's interesting that while only 7% of kids are privately educated, almost a third in that poll thinks it's OK to send kids to private schools? Makes it pretty normative in my book.


aren't you just being pedantic over 'normal' here?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> You're a dick butchers. Everytime we get into any kind of argument, the first thing you come out with is 'you're not normal'.


 
No one is normal. "Normal" is a concept that illustrates an average. It doesn't define individuals.


----------



## Edie (Jun 8, 2011)

Oleaginous! Crazy word!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2011)

LiamO said:


>



Vicious little eye-gouging bastard, he was.


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2011)

Edie said:


> So between 30-50% of parents would send there kids if they could. Hardly widespread popular disapproval.



What do you think would happen if they could, and did?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Here we go. You ask someone to elucidate their point, and you don't do it in an oleaginous enough manner, and someone starts farting off about bullying.



That was aimed at butch when he started laying into Edie for no good reason. I wouldn't ever accuse you of sneering or bullying VP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> How many of them think like Edie does? I bet a lot more than you care to admit.


 
Well we know that however many (or few) think like Edie does, it's not (as AH states) "most people".

How do we know?

Because although the supply/demand equation for private education has changed, it has only changed slightly. If "most people" thought as Edie does, the demand on the supply would be higher, and via the "miracle" of market forces, many more private schools would exist than is currently the case.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> aren't you just being pedantic over 'normal' here?


 
Could be, but I think it's important to separate out the two meanings of normal. One is to do with statistics - a normal (AKA "bell") curve, the other is normal as normative, relating to values and goals.


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well we know that however many (or few) think like Edie does, it's not (as AH states) "most people".
> 
> How do we know?
> 
> Because although the supply/demand equation for private education has changed, it has only changed slightly. If "most people" thought as Edie does, the demand on the supply would be higher, and via the "miracle" of market forces, many more private schools would exist than is currently the case.



Except that, as I was hinting above, if suddenly a much larger prop0rtion of parents were able to by some miracle find the money to send their kids to private school - say the 30 to 50% that Edie mentions above - the entire _raison d'etre_ of these schools would collapse. They are intended for use by a minority that's the whole feckin' point of them!


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well we know that however many (or few) think like Edie does, it's not (as AH states) "most people".
> 
> How do we know?
> 
> Because although the supply/demand equation for private education has changed, it has only changed slightly. If "most people" thought as Edie does, the demand on the supply would be higher, and via the "miracle" of market forces, many more private schools would exist than is currently the case.


 
Good point, but there's reason to think that even if non-toffs wanted to send sprogs to private schools in the past they faced both a financial barrier and a cultural one.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Oh, that really made me think that did. Cheers. No, really.


 
No problem


----------



## TruXta (Jun 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> No problem


----------



## Santino (Jun 8, 2011)

chilango said:


> Except that, as I was hinting above, if suddenly a much larger prop0rtion of parents were able to by some miracle find the money to send their kids to private school - say the 30 to 50% that Edie mentions above - the entire _raison d'etre_ of these schools would collapse. They are intended for use by a minority that's the whole feckin' point of them!


 
There's plenty of space for a more structured market place, with national chains of private schools for anyone who aspires to a white-collar job, leaving the more renowned schools for the better paid professions, and the even more poorly funded state sector for churning out unskilled workers.


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> There's plenty of space for a more structured market place, with national chains of private schools for anyone who aspires to a white-collar job, leaving the more renowned schools for the better paid professions, and the even more poorly funded state sector for churning out unskilled workers.


 
Yay! Isn't this how things used to be?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2011)

chilango said:


> Except that, as I was hinting above, if suddenly a much larger prop0rtion of parents were able to by some miracle find the money to send their kids to private school - say the 30 to 50% that Edie mentions above - the entire _raison d'etre_ of these schools would collapse. They are intended for use by a minority that's the whole feckin' point of them!


 
True, but that's what your "independent" and "grant-maintained" schools have been/are about: Expanding the principles of "elite" education through only compromising the exclusivity of the "proper" private/public schools gradually.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


>


 
Mum?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Mum?


 
You shouldn't have asked her what she thinks of Birmingham, mate.


----------



## Edie (Jun 10, 2011)

Bloody hell. Just dropped our eldest at cub camp (first time he's been away from home on his own!). It was full of fucking twats, a lot of them from the local private primary (?prep) school. It said we had to 'bring a cake', but I can't really make cakes plus I haven't got time to make cakes, so I took a packet of oreos (I mean, what's the bloody difference? ) and Arkela gave me a _look_  and _gave them back to us to take home_!! Then my boy was crying when it came time for us to go (he's just about the youngest there he's not soft but it's quite a big deal), and this _fucking_ woman was in front of us in the "Arkela queue" going on and *on* about how she had to take her son early on Sunday so he could play in a tennis tornament on Sunday, never even thought we might need to make a quick exit or even checked the kid was ok like any normal Mum would  

I just wanted to kill them all in the face, so instead I had a massive row in the car home with the husband about private schooling instead 


Edit: am also now regretting sending him with a pack of haribos. It said in BIG LETTERS no sweets, but I thought WTF how fun is camp without eating sweets late at night??! Arkela is fucking scary though, hope he doesn't get into shit!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 10, 2011)

If you don't know the difference between a cake and a biscuit, you're not fit to arbitrate between McVities and HMRC over Jaffa Cakes, never mind being a mum.


----------



## Edie (Jun 10, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> If you don't know the difference between a cake and a biscuit, you're not fit to arbitrate between McVities and HMRC over Jaffa Cakes, never mind being a mum.


Dude, I know the difference, I just didn't until today think it _mattered_.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 10, 2011)

Edie said:


> Dude, I know the difference, I just didn't until today think it _mattered_.


 
Good lord, young lady. 

You'll be telling us next your offspring don't know the difference between a soup spoon and a dessert spoon. What has the world come to?


----------



## Gavin Bl (Jun 10, 2011)

When I was 16-17, i really wanted to be an Army officer in the Blues and Royals (this is 83-84) and they sent a recruitment guy to see me - and he asked what I wanted to do, and I said something like 

"I'm really interested in working in an armoured unit like the Blues and Royals"

He looked at me awkwardly, and told me that wouldn't be possible as I needed to go to a different type of school - i.e. not a comp in South Wales. I went to Sandhurst on a visit anyway, and as we sat down to eat at a table of about 10, the cadet looking after us, asked the guy next to me "How are things at Eton these days?". 

Decided against it after that.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 10, 2011)

What are the factors that make (many) successful? - other than the children obviously come from highly resourced backgrounds. And I mean successful in the most narrow of meanings. The extra tuition? The general level the education is pitched at, the insistence on classics? Selection?

I would like my son to have the confidence many of those kids have, without the snottiness, though tbf he is pretty confident already. (He's never going to pay school for the avoidance of doubt). 

They seem to do a shedload of art at his school though. Should they be doing something a bit more proper to avoid Eton Rifles style drubbings in later life?


----------



## LiamO (Jun 11, 2011)

Mr Moose said:


> They seem to do a shedload of art at his school though. Should they be doing something a bit more proper to avoid Eton Rifles style drubbings in later life?


 
My first reaction to this is to shout Noooo! But can you expand on exactly what you mean Mr Moose?

Anything 'creative' should surely be encouraged - particularly if it can be taught alongside some psychological resilience and the importance of practice/repetition/drilling.



shorter version


----------



## LiamO (Jun 11, 2011)

Edie said:


> I just wanted to kill them all in the face, so instead I had a massive row in the car home with the husband about private schooling instead


 
I know this was a pain in the hole but exactly how much, how many, of these types of incidents will it take for your OH to see that sending your kids (who come from a house with working-class values, accents and chippy attitudes) to a posh, private school (full of posh, snotty little fuckers with whom they share very little bar money - and the kids can be challenging too) might lead to a lifetime of such incidents and misery.

Are you both really prepared for the times they might come home crying cos they have been called the Clampits/Hardacres/Chavs/whatever-the-fuck-the-next-word-will-be? Are you ready for the anger YOU will feel if they get teased by the snobby cunts (or indeed for when your fellas are in trouble for knocking out some posh twat)? Will the kids feel conflicted? Who will they reject, the w/c home or the m/c school?

Or are you both prepared to make massive changes to _your_ behaviour, manner and manners, accent, etc so the kids _can_ be like you and _still_ fit in with their peers at school?

On the other hand they might take to it like ducks to water and never have a conflicted moment.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 11, 2011)

Edie and her bloke don't care because it's not really about the kids, it's about the status of it all.


----------



## teahead (Jun 11, 2011)

Edie said:


> Bloody hell. Just dropped our eldest at cub camp (first time he's been away from home on his own!). It was full of fucking twats, a lot of them from the local private primary (?prep) school. It said we had to 'bring a cake', but I can't really make cakes plus I haven't got time to make cakes, so I took a packet of oreos (I mean, what's the bloody difference? ) and Arkela gave me a _look_  and _gave them back to us to take home_!! Then my boy was crying when it came time for us to go (he's just about the youngest there he's not soft but it's quite a big deal), and this _fucking_ woman was in front of us in the "Arkela queue" going on and *on* about how she had to take her son early on Sunday so he could play in a tennis tornament on Sunday, never even thought we might need to make a quick exit or even checked the kid was ok like any normal Mum would
> 
> I just wanted to kill them all in the face, so instead I had a massive row in the car home with the husband about private schooling instead
> 
> ...


Yep sounds about the size of it. When they want you to bring cake there's a subtext on privilege: do you have the time (other half working), skills (shown how to be a good Mum by your own mum - or do you maybe have an au pair that could do it - and come from that kind of a stable home yourself), and above all are you happy to _give_ your time, energy and money as a gift to show you've really got more than you need. They would have been very complimentary about your cake, you know. 

Check this Simpsons episode - Marge joins the local country club...

http://smotri.com/video/view/?id=v9563894a8e

Edit: class is different in America though, and maybe in big UK cities too. Conspicuous consuption used to be 'nouveay riche' i.e. if you made your money from work you weren't as classy as if you had old inherited money. Especially outside London though, there's something about conservative family values that means buying foods instead of making them yourself suggests you're in a rush and maybe rush your parenting too. So _not_ the kind of child a posh mum wants her own child to mix with.


----------



## teahead (Jun 11, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Edie and her bloke don't care because it's not really about the kids, it's about the status of it all.


Spanky what issues do you have that are leading you to make that assumption? What's your evidence? And anyway if people want status (I've no idea if that's what Edie and her man want - I thought they weren't happy with education at their local Primary) maybe that means they're not sure about what's best so want to feel more confident about their decision making on their kids. 

What _is_ your problem, Spanky?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 11, 2011)

teahead said:


> Spanky what issues do you have that are leading you to make that assumption? What's your evidence? And anyway if people want status (I've no idea if that's what Edie and her man want - I thought they weren't happy with education at their local Primary) maybe that means they're not sure about what's best so want to feel more confident about their decision making on their kids.
> 
> What _is_ your problem, Spanky?



It's obvious from her post that it's all about her, how it made her feel etc, I don't have a problem, just pointing it out.


----------



## teahead (Jun 11, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's obvious from her post that it's all about her, how it made her feel etc, I don't have a problem, just pointing it out.


But so then why point a finger, if that's what you think. She did come here for advice/help, afaik.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 11, 2011)

Edie said:


> Bloody hell. Just dropped our eldest at cub camp (first time he's been away from home on his own!). It was full of fucking twats, a lot of them from the local private primary (?prep) school. It said we had to 'bring a cake', but I can't really make cakes plus I haven't got time to make cakes, so I took a packet of oreos (I mean, what's the bloody difference? ) and Arkela gave me a _look_  and _gave them back to us to take home_!! Then my boy was crying when it came time for us to go (he's just about the youngest there he's not soft but it's quite a big deal), and this _fucking_ woman was in front of us in the "Arkela queue" going on and *on* about how she had to take her son early on Sunday so he could play in a tennis tornament on Sunday, never even thought we might need to make a quick exit or even checked the kid was ok like any normal Mum would
> 
> I just wanted to kill them all in the face, so instead I had a massive row in the car home with the husband about private schooling instead
> 
> ...


 
Funny thing was, local nursery wouldn't take home made cake, they're paranoid it might contain things the other kids are allergic to and wanted a shop bought one with a list of ingredients. What would Jamie Oliver say?


----------



## teahead (Jun 11, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Funny thing was, local nursery wouldn't take home made cake, they're paranoid it might contain things the other kids are allergic to and wanted a shop bought one with a list of ingredients. What would Jamie Oliver say?


And there's another difference between the 'posh' and the others - it'd (ime) not be suprising for a private school parent to ignore what the Legislation says. Or want to be seen doing that anyhow. Whole point of having all that money is you don't get managed by any goddam govt. 

Same maybe goes for posh cub camp, although I'd be surprised because organisations like that usually depend on funding from government so tend to tick the health and safety boxes. Though of course you might sit around the table talking about efforts being made by 'David' or certainly in the past 'Tony' to er sort out how the country's run. Eugh.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 11, 2011)

LiamO said:


> My first reaction to this is to shout Noooo! But can you expand on exactly what you mean Mr Moose?
> 
> Anything 'creative' should surely be encouraged - particularly if it can be taught alongside some psychological resilience and the importance of practice/repetition/drilling.
> 
> ...




i love this video - it got emailed round at work a few weeks ago. it's hypnotic.


----------



## teahead (Jun 11, 2011)

That's brilliant.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 11, 2011)

LiamO said:


> My first reaction to this is to shout Noooo! But can you expand on exactly what you mean Mr Moose?
> 
> Anything 'creative' should surely be encouraged - particularly if it can be taught alongside some psychological resilience and the importance of practice/repetition/drilling.



I'm being a bit flip - I've got no problem with art, no problem with learning that goes a bit free-form and no problem with a wide curriculum that gives an understanding of the world and its peoples.

He does, however, seem to spend an extraordinary amount of time gluing stuff and I've noticed that he's very bored by it. But it's a good school, I'm pleased he's there.

It's a hard line to draw and I don't think state schools should ape pay ones. But state education should be challenging otherwise it's advantage all-round to the pay schools. Life expects you to be good at things and have skills. Creativity is only one part of the equation.


----------



## rover07 (Jun 12, 2011)

Oreos are shit biscuits to be fair.

You could have splashed out on some proper custard creams.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 12, 2011)

rover07 said:


> Oreos are shit biscuits to be fair.
> 
> You could have splashed out on some proper custard creams.


 
Behave yourself.

Oreos are Barca compared to your 'Custard Cream' Doncaster Rovers. Bourbons would be a fair direct comparison for custard creams. FACT.


----------



## rorymac (Jun 12, 2011)

Basic english + another language (not German), algebra, trigonometry, ridiculously simple calculus, all the Arts (paint any ol thing you fancy), extremely basic science, extra curricular activities during school hours optional (no debating) .. end of Uncle rory's secondary school curriculum. 
You want to learn anything else do it in yer own time .. revision will be a piece of piss so there's no excuse !!


----------



## Edie (Jun 12, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Edie and her bloke don't care because it's not really about the kids, it's about the status of it all.


 
Do you mean status for the kids or for me and him? Maybe you're right, I dunno. I tend to associate status with big houses and nice motors, which we wouldn't be having if we did the private school thing. In fact, relatively we'd feel lower status wouldn't we, cos we'd be surrounded by richer and more sucessful people. So I think you might be talking shit Mr Longhorn.

You never said if you were private schooled btw


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 12, 2011)

rover07 said:


> Oreos are shit biscuits to be fair.



If the biscuits are shit, what's the creamy centre?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 14, 2011)

LiamO said:


> Behave yourself.
> 
> Oreos are Barca compared to your 'Custard Cream' Doncaster Rovers. Bourbons would be a fair direct comparison for custard creams. FACT.


 
Oreo's are horrible american shite. Almost as revolting as their "chocolate"


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 14, 2011)

I went to a state / church school comp which was pretty diverse for class, ethnicity and stuff. But loads of people think I went to a posh school cos of my accent. It's a bit infuriating really.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 14, 2011)

Edie said:


> Do you mean status for the kids or for me and him? Maybe you're right, I dunno.
> 
> You never said if you were private schooled btw



Yep, I'm right and no I never went to private school.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 14, 2011)

So, as it stands, a shade under a quarter of urbanz (that voted) admit to being privately educated. Discuss!


----------



## Dr Jon (Jun 16, 2011)

I went to a good school. It was approved.


----------



## sunshine1 (Jun 16, 2011)

Can't remember much about it, it was that bad!"


----------



## tastebud (Jun 16, 2011)

Surely a more interesting  question is 'do you send your kids / will you send your kids to private/public school?' and 'please outline your reasons below.'


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

we've had that and it ended up in a fight too.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 16, 2011)

tastebud said:


> Surely a more interesting  question is 'do you send your kids / will you send your kids to private/public school?' and 'please outline your reasons below.'


 
I would prefer my child to succeed in the state sector because I want my child to be as normal a person as possible. 

But if for some reason my child failed to progress within the state system then I would consider sending them to a private school or college to catch up and pass some exams. So I would send my kid private, if 1) it was necessary and if 2) I could afford it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2011)

What is necessary?


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 16, 2011)

tastebud said:


> Surely a more interesting  question is 'do you send your kids / will you send your kids to private/public school?' and 'please outline your reasons below.'


 
I would not send my kids (if I had any) to a private/public school because I see no evidence that they would get a better education from it than they would in a halfway decent state school. In the event of having a child in a state school that is not halfway decent I would do my level best to ensure that heads rolled and butts got kicked until the school was at the very least adequate.

This is because all you produce by isolating your children from most of their peers are kids who know fuck all about how most people live. I would not pay to have my children made ignorant.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 16, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> What is necessary?


 
If my kid failed in the sate sector and I wanted to give them another chance, it might be necessary to send them to a private crammars or something similar.


----------



## N_igma (Jun 16, 2011)

weltweit said:


> If my kid failed in the sate sector and I wanted to give them another chance, it might be necessary to send them to a private crammars or something similar.


 
Why not be a real hero and teach them yourself?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 16, 2011)

N_igma said:


> Why not be a real hero and teach them yourself?


 
I suppose that is possible, though I am not sure I would be very good


----------



## LiamO (Jun 16, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I would not pay to have my children made ignorant.


 
    ^^^   this   ^^^


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 16, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I would prefer my child to succeed in the state sector because I want my child to be as normal a person as possible.


 
Success is not normal, though. 

I think your criteria for "would you... etc" are spot on.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> Success is not normal, though.


That's a good point.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> That's a good point.



My points always are!


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 16, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I suppose that is possible, though I am not sure I would be very good


 
If you teach your kids to enjoy learning new stuff, how to use a library, and basic computer literacy, then you'll be precisely as good a teacher as they choose to be a learner. Give them the tools and leave them to do the work, because in the end they'll have to anyway.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 17, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> If you teach your kids to enjoy learning new stuff, how to use a library, and basic computer literacy, then you'll be precisely as good a teacher as they choose to be a learner. Give them the tools and leave them to do the work, because in the end they'll have to anyway.


 
As a normal parent I already try to achieve that. 

But parents are not teachers, they don't have the subject knowledge, or the knowledge of how to get kids to pass exams, hence parents parent and teachers teach. 

ericjarvis you did say you don't have kids, I think you might change your tune if you get some.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 17, 2011)

weltweit said:


> As a normal parent I already try to achieve that.
> 
> But parents are not teachers, they don't have the subject knowledge, or the knowledge of how to get kids to pass exams, hence parents parent and teachers teach.
> 
> ericjarvis you did say you don't have kids, I think you might change your tune if you get some.


 
No no no, not that old chesnut. There are parents on this thread that don't want private education anyway. The only circumstances that I cold see (and I couldn't do this anyway) would be if there were no special schools anywhere near you suitable. But really, I'd still prefer holding the LEA to account on that one.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2011)

I'd never met anyone from private school until I went to university.  When I did, I was absolutely gobsmacked.  I couldn't believe such wankers existed in real life.  I'd assumed they were horrific fantasy creatures dreamed up by Enid Blyton.

Actually I still have my suspicions.


----------



## yardbird (Jun 17, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> Success is not normal, though.


 
And when achieved, it can be fleeting.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 17, 2011)

weltweit said:


> ericjarvis you did say you don't have kids, I think you might change your tune if you get some.


 
Certainly wouldn't. I was given the choice myself and I've never regretted turning down a scholarship to a public school. I wouldn't give my kids a worse education than I had myself simply in order to make sure they were surrounded only by the "right sort" of schoolmates. Academically there's no advantage to public schools over state schools when you look at it in terms of "added value". 

The only advantage is that from most public schools it's easier to get into most of the Oxbridge colleges. As it happens that's also something I turned down, because for Physics, as for a lot of subjects, there are better places to study.

So I see no advantage. The ONLY reason I would send a child to a public school would be if I was a single parent working abroad a lot of the time. In which case a boarding school would give the kid a more consistent education.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 17, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Certainly wouldn't. I was given the choice myself and I've never regretted turning down a scholarship to a public school. I wouldn't give my kids a worse education than I had myself simply in order to make sure they were surrounded only by the "right sort" of schoolmates. Academically there's no advantage to public schools over state schools when you look at it in terms of "added value".
> 
> The only advantage is that from most public schools it's easier to get into most of the Oxbridge colleges. As it happens that's also something I turned down, because for Physics, as for a lot of subjects, there are better places to study.
> 
> So I see no advantage. The ONLY reason I would send a child to a public school would be if I was a single parent working abroad a lot of the time. In which case a boarding school would give the kid a more consistent education.


 
I meant I think you might change your tune about home schooling, not about public schooling.


----------



## tastebud (Jun 17, 2011)

yay - i successfully changed the direction of the thread. my work here is done.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 18, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I meant I think you might change your tune about home schooling, not about public schooling.


 
I didn't realise I had a tune about home schooling. Just a tune about parents being a more important factor in their childrens education than many seem to realise.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I didn't realise I had a tune about home schooling. Just a tune about parents being a more important factor in their childrens education than many seem to realise.


 
Well, when I mentioned a private crammars you said why not home school so I assumed you thought it at least a possibility. 

Yes parents are a very influential in their kids education. 
You will get no argument from me on that.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 18, 2011)

tastebud said:


> yay - i successfully changed the direction of the thread. my work here is done.


 
Not yet it isn't, we want a two thousand word essay on precisely how and why you changed the direction of the thread, by next Friday.


----------



## platinumsage (May 8, 2022)

Just noticed that Urban75 is now officially more privately educated than the Oxbridge intake.

Perhaps new posters should be disbarred if they can’t prove their state school credentials.


----------

