The disadvantages of an elite education

[camaleon]

A bit old but still interesting (my view).
here

"Private education is not fair........And those who receive it know it, or should. And if their education ends without it dawning on them, then that education has been wasted."

Dear God, I can't believe I actually made it through that article! I have what the author terms "an elite American education" and I recognise a slice of that sector behaving as he describes. However, IME

"Private education is not fair"
I doubt they are regularly told this by their teachers or their parents but many know that at certain schools they've been given a unique opportunity.
I for one have never said it was fair but then nothing in life is fair.

"Private education is not fair........And those who receive it know it, or should. And if their education ends without it dawning on them, then that education has been wasted."

I'd swap 'fair' for 'Priviledge', far more meaningful, fairness doesn't come into.

Private education is the same as owning a house, having a car or going on holidays that are more expensive than other can afford.

They are all a function of society accepting two things:

• individual liberty
• private property

Few people argue against those things, but as soon as they exist there will be wealthy people who are free to spend money on education (or anything else) that others can't.

I don't see how that's a privilege if society accepts liberty and property since it's "available" to all.

I do see how it's not "fair" as an outcome, but again you have to challenge liberty and property with a redistribution of wealth - that's what taxes and free education do, in the UK more than many countries.

The real problem is not the existence of wealth, private property, private education or expensive houses but is the lack of widespread equal quality state education.

MarriedDadOneSonOneDaughter I fundamentally agree with what you have said. However, where private education becomes an unfair advantage for those who can pay is where state schools are bound by rules which private schools aren't e.g. state schools have to follow the NC whereas private schools don't. State schools are not allowed to prepare pupils for the 11 plus or CE exams, private schools are.

I'm not sure that the examples you have given demonstrate where exemptions imposed on various companies presents a potential disadvantage to those who can only afford to buy their products.

But if you don't want the NC and cannot afford to pay you are allowed to home educate in the UK so that choice still remains.

Differences between people are in all kinds of areas including whether your parents read to you or love you and are not principally about money. We do not seek to make all our children clones in Mao suits with dustbin men paid what doctors are. With freedom comes differences. 50% of those at Oxbridge went to state schools and plenty of parents move to counties like Bucks for state grammars if that is what floats their boat.

The plumber couldn't talk to What's-his face either, or maybe he didn't want to.

I often feel awkward talking to people I don't know, especially if they are are not friendly, are about to see what's wrong with my house, (and charge me a massive callout fee).

I am an American, living in the UK, and I have not been overwhelmed by the open friendliness of the British, nor do I consider you folks to be world leaders when it comes to not making assumptions about people based on education and accent.

Greengrow But if you don't want the NC and cannot afford to pay you are allowed to home educate in the UK so that choice still remains. For some I'm sure it does. However, for those in regular full time employment I'm not so sure it presents a viable option.

Greengrow 50% of those at Oxbridge went to state schools Yes, well there are state schools and there are the state schools that politicians choose.

50% sounds like an excellent intake balance if you are suggesting that 50% of all children in the country are educated in state schools.

Bingo! On every thread of this type someone mentions Oxbridge, as if this is the trump card.
As it happens, top indies are less interested in Oxbridge as now that fees are charged (rising soon to 16k), better value and better learning experience can be obtained elsewhere. In my DC school, top performing indie, this year the balance has tipped and Oxbridge seen as less desirable - several have turned down offers there for other unis with more interesting courses/better lecturers or apprenticeships with companies.
In any case, if you are looking at stats, would be more useful to lump indies, grammars, and church schools together, as they are all selective - hardly a 'state/indie divide, more a selective /the rest divide.

I did see in the Times or Telegraph today statistics about 5 schools including I think two state schools one of which was Hills Road Cambridge sending large numbers of Oxbridge.

That's interesting Greengrow, have you seen this article:

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10928169/Private-school-pupils-five-times-as-likely-to-go-to-Oxbridge.html

I wonder what the left want to do about those comprehensives which get too many pupils into Oxbridge. Should we ensure only those who have low A level grades and aren't very bright get in? Should we penalise those who work hard because one of their parents went to a university and try to ensure entrants are mostly people whose parents did not go?

Green grow-what are you burbling on about?

... Which raises the question - why do we (employers) value university so much? It really isn't that important for success and for most careers an appretenciship would be more effective, economically productive and affordable.

If employers looked at people not grades then university and schooling would not be the "ticket to the good life" that it currently is.

The problem is the huge number of applicants for jobs. There mightbe 2000 applicants for 100 vacancies. If you have hundreds or even thousands of applicants you have to have some criteria to sift them. So you start with paper or an on line test and only take the few who pass those criteria.

Hills Rd 6th form college contains about large proportion children of academics- do you think that might have an effect on their educational attainment?

Married dad, some of us are more interested in the rights of the child to equality of opportunity than of the rights of adults to do what they like with their money.

I want to live in a meritocracy and I would hope other people would to. We can't have a meritocracy without equality of opportunity, and this will never exist while 10% of the child population are have two or three times as much spent on their education as all the others.

I don't have an answer to this problem by the way. I just want to say that it IS a problem - it's bad for society, bad for children. I would like to see governments working towards lessening this inequality.

I love the way MarriedDad sticks private property and individual liberty together as though the two are entirely compatible. The freedom to tell other people to get off your land.

We all rather like public parks, too. The freedom to walk on land you don't own is rather nice.

We all walk a fine line between competing interests and ideals, rights and responsibilities. Sometimes, society gets the balance wrong, particularly when it pretends that there is no conflict between the concepts of individual liberty and private property.

Equality of opportunity? You will only achieve that when children are taken away at birth from neglectful parents - who would ever advocate that? The state has to decide at what point to intervene, and people's views on that vary. every aspect of a child's environment impacts on their opportunities. Lazy thinkers jump on the education bandwagon as an easy target, and because it saves them having to consider uncomfortable realities.

I agree that every aspect of a child's environment impacts on their opportunities. What's more, school is only one aspect of our children's education, and a pretty narrow one at that, even in the most expensive boarding schools. Or do we really want to have a society where school is responsible for everything we learn - how to behave, how to think, what to know, what to do?...

TheLateMrsLizCromwell Lazy thinkers jump on the education bandwagon as an easy target, and because it saves them having to consider uncomfortable realities. Given the amount of time that children spend in school, I think it has a huge impact on their learning and learning potential hence the level of consideration and reaction it gaines from many parents. I don't think it is because it is an easy target but more because it is a personal and emotional issue to those particular people.

Personally I'm inclined to say that simply accepting that there are inequalities in education, without exploring ways in which the inequalities can be reduced is Lazy thinking. That said, the pursuit of equality should not be restricted to just education unless, of course, you are on an Education forum like this.