NationStates Jolt Archive

It just suddenly crossed my mind about this, how many people on these boards, went to One of the great British public schools, i do myself (shant disclose where) I just feel it really leaves you with a certain mentality and am intrigued to know if anyone else is likewise.

You know Eton, Charterhouse, Winchester, Clifton that kind of thing

nope didn't go to one of those proper posh ones. went to a 450 year old private school though, King Edward VI's, which is a pretty decent one (well, it was... the new headmaster has messed things up apparently).

Thats probally the same thing, im currenlty going to one of the major ones, theres loads ive left off that list mind you, just cant recolect them all at once, probally over 300.
Im sure youd probally agree these intitions really leave you with a mark.

I didn't go to one of the really posh ones, but it was of that type. Oakham school in Rutland.

i really woulnt call it posh, thats a misjudgement of public school really, can be quite the oposite at times (well apart from eton) its really more the involement it has in your life

Thats probally the same thing, im currenlty going to one of the major ones, theres loads ive left off that list mind you, just cant recolect them all at once, probally over 300.
Im sure youd probally agree these intitions really leave you with a mark.
hmm im interested as to which one you're going to now...
i'm not sure about 'leaving a mark', but certainly a sense of community and mild satisfaction for having been there. perhaps i could have fostered a stronger bond with the place, but i was always too lazy to engage in any of the traditions or similar, and really just thought of it as 'just another school'. now i'm gone (left 2 years ago) i feel it was quite special, and miss my time there on occasion.

It just suddenly crossed my mind about this, how many people on these boards, went to One of the great British public schools, i do myself (shant disclose where) I just feel it really leaves you with a certain mentality and am intrigued to know if anyone else is likewise.
My school would say that they're in the top flight of public schools but people generally haven't heard of it. Definitely left me with a certain mentality, kind of like:
"if I ever send my kids to the same kind of materialistic, piece of shit, money-driven hole you have my permission to shoot me".

phtooey *spits in disgust*

Scouserlande:

Why is it that the rich kids, those who parents can afford to send them to public schools, nearly always profess socialism?

A little hypocritical.

(I went to a grammar school in the last years of their existence, 1970s)

My school would say that they're in the top flight of public schools but people generally haven't heard of it. Definitely left me with a certain mentality, kind of like:
"if I ever send my kids to the same kind of materialistic, piece of shit, money-driven hole you have my permission to shoot me".

phtooey *spits in disgust*
ooh wow, ours wasn't as bad as that :eek:
plenty of posh/rich people, but for some reason it was not too posh, and was chilled out enough not to cause any problems like that. most of the student's there were just normal kids with parents who happen to be rich enough to afford the fees - not posh or money-driven bastards at all :) . the school used to be in the times' top 10 or so (but with 2 awful headmasters, its really gone downhill in the last 10 years...since i was there :headbang: )

Scouserlande:

Why is it that the rich kids, those who parents can afford to send them to public schools, nearly always profess socialism?

A little hypocritical.

hmm, me (semi) socialist. went to private school. hmmm.
why? maybe we learn that money or sucess is not the key to happiness or something suitably 'Disney-esque'

I had a mix of British schools overseas, local education authority and public (which people outside of britain call private) schooling. I didn't go to Eton or any of the really famous ones, but I do appreciate the difference it made to my education.

Some of my friends attended Eton etc. ...others were LEA all the way, makes no difference how I see them or deal with them.

Veering dangerously off-topic...

I have no time for Religion, why should I respect something that 200 years ago would have burned me simply for my opinion, and would do today if Religions Iron First was as Strong. Well its Weak and its time to cut it off like a tumour.

200 years ago? Are you living in 1812 or something? The last heretic to be burnt in England was in 1612.

Nope. I'm going to a Grammar school. We do have several schools of that type in the area though.

i got a scholarship to a middling grammar school. hated it.

Scouserlande:

Why is it that the rich kids, those who parents can afford to send them to public schools, nearly always profess socialism?

A little hypocritical.

(I went to a grammar school in the last years of their existence, 1970s)

Why is that hypocritical, what do i have to do to retify this give my stuff out to people in the street drop out and live the life style of a vagrant.
Besides i feel your getting Socalism confused with Communism, socalism is older nothing to do with destruction of private property, thats communism, socalism is simple a running the country in a economic sense to benefit the majority, making severices and major industries public run, bascially so they dont screw over consumers and employies.

Id say these days public schools are mainly churning out apthetic idiots who donts belong there in the first place, Socalists like me are very rare in my generation and even fewer understand the theory, far far far more right wing conservatives too these days, the one im in is a like a breeding ground for the right wing.

+ i was under the impression that the function of grammar schools has changed some what in the last 20 years, apprenlty there no longer means testest, shame i understood they worked quite well before but i hear there still keeping up with what they used to be regardless.

Anywho to more directly adress the question (or jibe) Yes i am what i suppose you would call a rich kid, my family is not extragantly wealthy like some people i feel you would happy group together with me, but i admit i am better off that prehaps as much as 60% of people, i am under no false pretenses, I profess Socalism because i belive and understand it, My familiys money then puts me in a postion to get an education and the following cudos that comes with that allowing me to actually i suppose put my ideas into some form of action, (how noble eh)
Do a bit of looking and ill think youll find both ernesto guavara and vladimir illynonich,(aka che and lenin) where in some what the same position as me.

I detest the fact that so many assume the kids are rich kids (their parents are loaded etc)...

Some of us got to go by winning scholarships and many that I know got to go because their parents decided that the education of their kids was more important than a new car, foreign holidays, fashionable clothes etc. for themelves.

Also, of the rich kids at my school the majority of them were from families who'd started off poor and then made their own money and wanted their kids to have the advantages that they didn't get. What is so wrong with that?

I detest the fact that so many assume the kids are rich kids (their parents are loaded etc)...

Some of us got to go by winning scholarships and many that I know got to go because their parents decided that the education of their kids was more important than a new car, foreign holidays, fashionable clothes etc. for themelves.

Also, of the rich kids at my school the majority of them were from families who'd started off poor and then made their own money and wanted their kids to have the advantages that they didn't get. What is so wrong with that?

Huzzar, i agree both my parents are working class scotish, and a several of my friends in my nice shiney public schools are in fact on busaries and scholarships to which they take great advantage of.

Why is it that the rich kids, those who parents can afford to send them to public schools, nearly always profess socialism?

A little hypocritical.

(I went to a grammar school in the last years of their existence, 1970s)

Because they get to question and rebel against their parents attitudes maybe, or possibly because they actually aren't stigmatized for talking politics, maybe even because they get to see more of the differences in equality...

As for it being hypocritical, check your history. Quite a lot of the socialist leaders of this country had public school educations.

or possibly because they actually aren't stigmatized for talking politics,


I wish, poitics is some thing we shoulnt worry about as long as we have bags of money = the primary view of most of my school mates, well the ones i hate.

I wish, poitics is some thing we shoulnt worry about as long as we have bags of money = the primary view of most of my school mates, well the ones i hate.

Not too far from the ugly truth in some ways, money can help you rise above being affected by politics. What I was trying to get across was that in some schools I attended, talking politics was likely to get you kicked in, as opposed to just being told you're being boring.

I get ignored mainly, rich kids dont like radical millitant socalism, bah ill turn them around eventually. But yeah i see what you mean, there little kicking in for whatever reason , in public schools not none but a lot less.

Why is that hypocritical, what do i have to do to retify this give my stuff out to people in the street drop out and live the life style of a vagrant.
Besides i feel your getting Socalism confused with Communism, socalism is older nothing to do with destruction of private property, thats communism, socalism is simple a running the country in a economic sense to benefit the majority, making severices and major industries public run, bascially so they dont screw over consumers and employies.

I am not getting the two confused at all. Socialism implies the equal provision of the basic social requirements to the populace by the state. Unlike communism which denies the private ownership of property, under socialism you still own your house, your material goods etc. The contradiction with a socialist attending a public (in the quaint British use of the word) school is that education is a social need that is to be provided equally to all under socialism. The public schools are the antithesis of this ideal. They are elitist in the extreme. You say that services should be public, and education is a service. You see the contradiction now?

Id say these days public schools are mainly churning out apthetic idiots who donts belong there in the first place, Socalists like me are very rare in my generation and even fewer understand the theory, far far far more right wing conservatives too these days, the one im in is a like a breeding ground for the right wing.

Fair enough. It is just my experience that the majority (not all) of socialists that I have met come from wealthy families. This does not eliminate the possibility of these families also producing economically right wing or libertarian children as well.

+ i was under the impression that the function of grammar schools has changed some what in the last 20 years, apprenlty there no longer means testest, shame i understood they worked quite well before but i hear there still keeping up with what they used to be regardless.

A generational misunderstanding here. Grammar schools, when I was at school were state schools that had a selected intake from middle schools. No means testing or anything like that, just a streaming exam called the 11+ which supposedly selected the most intelligent kids to go to state grammar schools.

Anywho to more directly adress the question (or jibe) Yes i am what i suppose you would call a rich kid, my family is not extragantly wealthy like some people i feel you would happy group together with me, but i admit i am better off that prehaps as much as 60% of people, i am under no false pretenses, I profess Socalism because i belive and understand it, My familiys money then puts me in a postion to get an education and the following cudos that comes with that allowing me to actually i suppose put my ideas into some form of action, (how noble eh)
Do a bit of looking and ill think youll find both ernesto guavara and vladimir illynonich,(aka che and lenin) where in some what the same position as me.

No jibe, I promise you. It was a serious question. I come from a comfortable middle middle class background. I grew up in the stockbroker belt in West Surrey (Weybridge, Esher, Thames Ditton etc) where the majority were actually better off than we were. There I observed that the kids from very wealthy families were almost all socialists, wheras the kids from my own family income group (one car families) tended to be more free market liberals. Whenever I questioned this I was geeted with the "You don't understand" type response. (Your initial paragraph made me think, "oh no, here we go again.")

I know that you are far from alone in this position, I just wanted to ask someone who might give some kind of sensible reply about it. Thank you.

No jibe, I promise you. It was a serious question. I come from a comfortable middle middle class background. I grew up in the stockbroker belt in West Surrey (Weybridge, Esher, Thames Ditton etc) where the majority were actually better off than we were. There I observed that the kids from very wealthy families were almost all socialists, wheras the kids from my own family income group (one car families) tended to be more free market liberals. Whenever I questioned this I was geeted with the "You don't understand" type response. (Your initial paragraph made me think, "oh no, here we go again.")

I know that you are far from alone in this position, I just wanted to ask someone who might give some kind of sensible reply about it. Thank you.

I'm from a lower middle class / working class background and most of my extended family and most of my friends who are from a similar background are
between socialist and leftist liberal. In the 80s a lot of people i know suffered as a result of thatcherite economics and it didn't incline most of us towards free marketism.

I detest the fact that so many assume the kids are rich kids (their parents are loaded etc)...

Some of us got to go by winning scholarships and many that I know got to go because their parents decided that the education of their kids was more important than a new car, foreign holidays, fashionable clothes etc. for themelves.

I accept that there are a small percentage who win scholarships. I even have a friend who did this. (She hated the school though as she did not fit in socialy)
Do you realise that for the vast majority of the world, the possibility of buying a used car is a pipe dream. To say that parents who choose to send their children to a public school instead of buying a new car, or going on holiday etc are not rich is to show complete and total iognorance of the world outside of the rich middle and upper classes.

Also, of the rich kids at my school the majority of them were from families who'd started off poor and then made their own money and wanted their kids to have the advantages that they didn't get. What is so wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it. It is just that this is completely opposed to socialist thinking. See my reply to Scouserlande above to avoid repeat posting.

nope didn't go to one of those proper posh ones. went to a 450 year old private school though, King Edward VI's, which is a pretty decent one (well, it was... the new headmaster has messed things up apparently).
That's odd - my school was about 450 also. In fact, we had the 450th anniversary while I was there. It was a piece of crap school, that had 'Grammar' in the name and yet was a comprehensive.

I'm from a lower middle class / working class background and most of my extended family and most of my friends who are from a similar background are
between socialist and leftist liberal. In the 80s a lot of people i know suffered as a result of thatcherite economics and it didn't incline most of us towards free marketism.

You got a scholarship as I understand, and you hated the school environment. I find no hypocrisy in you being socialist, or even communist. It is the financially priveledged kids that I have a problem understanding. I do not see how they can depreciate, to such a degree, the advantages that theThatcherite and free market system have given them.
Scouserlande has given me one answer to this. The answer of a moral conscience, a concern for others. They may be other answers.

ahh sorry Alien Born, i had you penned as the angry right wing trying to pick a whole in socialism from the 1000 times.

You have my apologies, I was wrong.

I just believe in fairness and equality, especially due to what i see in my school on a constant basis, some people dear god. deserve to be shot for what they say and think.

Because they get to question and rebel against their parents attitudes maybe, or possibly because they actually aren't stigmatized for talking politics, maybe even because they get to see more of the differences in equality...

As for it being hypocritical, check your history. Quite a lot of the socialist leaders of this country had public school educations.

The points in your first paragraph are good. They almost certainly explain some of the case.

The second paragraph however, shows a lack of understanding of the concept of hypocrisy. I know the history, but this is not relevant to the question.

Socialism implies equal education opportunity for all, provided by the state. Attendidn a British public school is the complete opposite of this.Professing beleif in one thing and doing the opposite is to be hypocritical.

You got a scholarship as I understand, and you hated the school environment. I find no hypocrisy in you being socialist, or even communist. It is the financially priveledged kids that I have a problem understanding. I do not see how they can depreciate, to such a degree, the advantages that theThatcherite and free market system have given them.
Scouserlande has given me one answer to this. The answer of a moral conscience, a concern for others. They may be other answers.

Not everyone is driven entirely by self-interest. People can be unhappy with the advantages they've been given if they understand that their advantage is based on the disadvantage of thousands of others. The thousands that got rich under Thatcher got their money from the hundreds of thousands who got very poor.

Socialism implies equal education opportunity for all, provided by the state. Attendidn a British public school is the complete opposite of this.Professing beleif in one thing and doing the opposite is to be hypocritical.

So you would say, if i where to get into power, which would be nice, to not betray all my belifes i would have to close down all the public schools.

not a public school, a grammar school

The points in your first paragraph are good. They almost certainly explain some of the case.

The second paragraph however, shows a lack of understanding of the concept of hypocrisy. I know the history, but this is not relevant to the question.

Socialism implies equal education opportunity for all, provided by the state. Attendidn a British public school is the complete opposite of this.Professing beleif in one thing and doing the opposite is to be hypocritical.

Kids don't always choose their own school, they often go to the school their folks want them to go to.

ahh sorry Alien Born, i had you penned as the angry right wing trying to pick a whole in socialism from the 1000 times.

You have my apologies, I was wrong.

I just believe in fairness and equality, especially due to what i see in my school on a constant basis, some people dear god. deserve to be shot for what they say and think.

Apologies were unnecesary as it was highly probable that I was a rectionary nut, given my question.

How do you reconcile internally attending a public school whilst believing in equality. Do you really not have the choice of demanding that you change school? Or are you looking to change the system from within? If the latter, how do you avoid the risk of being "converted" by the environment?

Kids don't always choose their own school, they often go to the school their folks want them to go to.

But they do have a choice as to the beliefs they express. I can also assure you, from personal experience, that kids can have a say if they put up enough of a fight. Kids also have a legal right in the UK to have their opinion taken into account when it comes to placement in schools.

If the kid blindly accepts being sent to a public school, then it is difficult to see their belief in socialism as being deeply roted. It comes over to the less priveledged as being a "fashion" belief. One that is appropriate for the teenage rebel and will be dropped when the child enters the real world.
I am not saying that this is always the case. I am saying that this is the impression that is created.

Do you realise that for the vast majority of the world, the possibility of buying a used car is a pipe dream. To say that parents who choose to send their children to a public school instead of buying a new car, or going on holiday etc are not rich is to show complete and total iognorance of the world outside of the rich middle and upper classes.


Yes, I realise that it's is outside of the possibilities for much of the worlds population, but we're discussing British public schools.

In Britain, buying a car is not outside of most peoples capabilities, if they put their minds to it and apply themselves. It doesn't matter too much what background or social class you're from over here, people of all classes drive cars in Britain and go on holiday.

What you're trying to make an issue of is whether they might be considered rich in the rest of the world, which is another point altogether.

Apologies were unnecesary as it was highly probable that I was a rectionary nut, given my question.

How do you reconcile internally attending a public school whilst believing in equality. Do you really not have the choice of demanding that you change school? Or are you looking to change the system from within? If the latter, how do you avoid the risk of being "converted" by the environment?

Well for one i coulnt change now if i wanted to really, my a lvl corse would go down th shitter and i was not really given the option of leaving at GCSE, and i was basically condintioned to go there in the first place.
As for chaging the system from within, i suppose thats my goal yes, unsucessful at the current time mind you, no one would join a student union or go on strike whenever the administration shits on us, like ive said out side my smallish social group its a bunch of spinless future lawyers and CEO ect. As for being converted by my enviroment, It made me the 'man' i am today it engraved the ideals i now hold into my being to the point i would happily die for, its also started my formulation of several ideas i will one day with luck get published, in fact this is certainly down to the teachers being a mixutre of atheist and socalists, and it must be said prehaps primarliy in public school that one of the bigest formers of your opinions and belifes are good teachers.

The second paragraph however, shows a lack of understanding of the concept of hypocrisy. I know the history, but this is not relevant to the question.

Socialism implies equal education opportunity for all, provided by the state. Attendidn a British public school is the complete opposite of this.Professing beleif in one thing and doing the opposite is to be hypocritical.

I agree with the socialist principles that all should be able to have a guaranteed standard of education no matter what their class/background/whatever. I see nothing wrong with being able to then choose to pay to send your children to another school, your taxes are still paying for the schooling of the rest of the population. That is not hypocrisy, that is just having a choice.

The second paragraph however, shows a lack of understanding of the concept of hypocrisy. I know the history, but this is not relevant to the question.

Socialism implies equal education opportunity for all, provided by the state. Attendidn a British public school is the complete opposite of this.Professing beleif in one thing and doing the opposite is to be hypocritical.

Sorry to be going back over the same stuff again , but I think there is a point here...

The history is ever so relevant, especially when backed up with your own comments regarding the socialists that you've met:

It is just my experience that the majority (not all) of socialists that I have met come from wealthy families. This does not eliminate the possibility of these families also producing economically right wing or libertarian children as well.

These leaders of the socialist movement were able to reconcile their own educations with their political beliefs and the movements that they founded/led.

Maybe you need to look at whether the socialist movement was ever anything more than a middle class apologists movement then. If it takes a private education to make them see what they have in the way of advantages and privileges and to then try to make a difference because of it, maybe it's not a bad thing.

In my experience there was far more in the way of openly expressed right wing opinion in the comprehensives that I went to. So, socialism, the luxury of the middle classes?

That's odd - my school was about 450 also. In fact, we had the 450th anniversary while I was there. It was a piece of crap school, that had 'Grammar' in the name and yet was a comprehensive.
didn't we go to the same school? i remember someone here went to my school... think it was you... i hate my memory. :headbang:

Why is that hypocritical, what do i have to do to retify this give my stuff out to people in the street drop out and live the life style of a vagrant.
Anywho to more directly adress the question (or jibe) Yes i am what i suppose you would call a rich kid, my family is not extragantly wealthy like some people i feel you would happy group together with me, but i admit i am better off that prehaps as much as 60% of people, i am under no false pretenses, I profess Socalism because i belive and understand it, My familiys money then puts me in a postion to get an education and the following cudos that comes with that allowing me to actually i suppose put my ideas into some form of action, (how noble eh)
Do a bit of looking and ill think youll find both ernesto guavara and vladimir illynonich,(aka che and lenin) where in some what the same position as me.

what do you want, a medal?

Problem of education begins at home I'm afraid.....the will or desire to learn can be killed off very early on.....if you don't want to learn you won't learn, no matter what school you go to!

So you would say, if i where to get into power, which would be nice, to not betray all my belifes i would have to close down all the public schools.

If you claim to be a socialist, yes, I would. (sorry about the delay RL got in the way)

what do you want, a medal?

Problem of education begins at home I'm afraid.....the will or desire to learn can be killed off very early on.....if you don't want to learn you won't learn, no matter what school you go to!

Whoa Hostility there, i have the 'desire' to learn methinks, not in the brilliant iron bar regulated a level way mind you thats a pile of mind piss, just regulated think in the box crap really. Just GCSE with more compilcated concepts and over all a hostile attitude from your tutors, as you are to learn on your own now.
/rant off
I dont understand your hostility, i hope to one day use my education in philosopy to better man kind, or a mass ethnic cleansing, what ever tickels me fancy on the day.

If you claim to be a socialist, yes, I would.
Hmm yes true i suppose id be nice for eveyone to get eveyone to the same level of education, well some people coulnt give an arse, thats why id definelty bring back the 11+, so smarter people could maximise their pontential without being kicked in evey time they tried to learn. Also disipline in (all)schools is shit i would have to fix that too.
Then again rember evey person in a public school is one less person the goverment has to pay for, a rather good arguement for privitasion that, dont nessisarly belive it but heh being objective arnt I?
Also i fear it would destroy boarding lifestyle which i think teaches a lot, i know it has me.

Sorry to be going back over the same stuff again , but I think there is a point here...
The history is ever so relevant, especially when backed up with your own comments regarding the socialists that you've met:

These leaders of the socialist movement were able to reconcile their own educations with their political beliefs and the movements that they founded/led.

Maybe you need to look at whether the socialist movement was ever anything more than a middle class apologists movement then. If it takes a private education to make them see what they have in the way of advantages and privileges and to then try to make a difference because of it, maybe it's not a bad thing.

In my experience there was far more in the way of openly expressed right wing opinion in the comprehensives that I went to. So, socialism, the luxury of the middle classes?

I did not mean that the history is irrelevant to socialism, I meant that it is irrelevant to the hypocrisy or not of being a socialist in a "public" school. (This name does make this kind of discussion confusing for the foreigners.)

Nor have I said or implied at any time that a social conscience is a bad thing.
What I do believe though is that socialism, or conservatism or anythingism is a luxury of the semi-skilled labourer and up. The unskilled labourer is too busy trying to feed and house himself and his family to worry about it. This is much more obvious where I am now living (Brazil) than it was under the welfare state in the UK.
The leaders of the socialist movements may have reconciled their inner beliefs, but only at the cost of diluting their socialism. If they had held to a true socialist line, then when they came to power they would have made state schooling compulsory. There would have been no private, nor public shools left running. The principle, as I keep repeating is one of equal opportunity. Private and public schools infringe upon this principle.
The existence of openly expressed right wing views does not preclude the public schools from being the source of socialist politics. The vast majority of people play no active part in politics whatsoever, and those that follow the economic principles of their family or school tend not to become politically active. In this sense it may be that for socialism to thrive in the UK there should be public schools. But there still remains an aura of hypocrisy.

In this sense it may be that for socialism to thrive in the UK there should be public schools.
How delightfully ironic eh?

You haven’t read 1984 by any chance have you Alien Born, one of your frist points there was the undertone of the entire book.

Hmm yes true i suppose id be nice for eveyone to get eveyone to the same level of education, well some people coulnt give an arse, thats why id definelty bring back the 11+, so smarter people could maximise their pontential without being kicked in evey time they tried to learn. Also disipline in (all)schools is shit i would have to fix that too.
Then again rember evey person in a public school is one less person the goverment has to pay for, a rather good arguement for privitasion that, dont nessisarly belive it but heh being objective arnt I?
Also i fear it would destroy boarding lifestyle which i think teaches a lot, i know it has me.

The 11+ stunk. It was based on the concept that if you were amongst the best at doing logic problems at the age of 11, you would be amongst the best critics of Shakespeare at 16. No way buster. If you want streaming then have it as a continuous system. i.e. streams within the same school. This allows for those that are good at french but crap at geography to develop their french skills to the maximum whilst at least being helped to get off the floor geographically speaking.

Discipline is a perennial problem. Not to be discussed here and now I think, but maybe a good subject for a different thread.

Privitisation. No need, simply remove the schools charters. Close them. Convert them into yet more Universities, or Management colleges, or Buddhist meditation centres. ;)

The argument that you are one less person the government has to pay for, also implies that there are schools that can pay more, and so they get the best teachers, that have better infrastucture and equipment, etc. All because you can pay for it. Where is the socialism in that. One less to pay for is against the socialist principle of equal opportunity.

How delightfully ironic eh?

You haven’t read 1984 by any chance have you Alien Born, one of your frist points there was the undertone of the entire book.

About 25 years ago. I preferred Brave New World.

whoa youve got some time on me, i liked brave new world too, cant rember how it ended movies fecking great though, if you like lycra suits....

didn't we go to the same school? i remember someone here went to my school... think it was you... i hate my memory. :headbang:
Nope, wasn't me. Unless King Edward the whatever is actually the real name of Hutton Grammar School.

BTW, where is King Teds? I know ther is one near me.

Whoa Hostility there, i have the 'desire' to learn methinks, not in the brilliant iron bar regulated a level way mind you thats a pile of mind piss, just regulated think in the box crap really. Just GCSE with more compilcated concepts and over all a hostile attitude from your tutors, as you are to learn on your own now.
/rant off
I dont understand your hostility, i hope to one day use my education in philosopy to better man kind, or a mass ethnic cleansing, what ever tickels me fancy on the day.

wasn't saying you don't have the desire to learn honey, I was simply saying that patting yourself on the back for being a socialist is self-defeating. There are many, many problems with the fundamental doctrines of socialism, not forgetting of course the problem of human nature.....don't assume you're going to change the world!

(I went to a grammar school in the last years of their existence, 1970s)

I went to a grammar school....and left last year.

I went to a grammar school....and left last year.

Different thing. I went to a state Grammar school. You went to a private one. The final year of intake for state grammar schools was 1974. I entered in 1973. It was rather strange having the school get emptier and emptier. I always felt sorry for the kids in the year below me, particularly for the youngest one, as he was going to always be the youngest kid in his school.
The school became a VIth Form College. What it is now I have no idea.
Anyone live in or around Thames Ditton. If so, what happened to Esher VIth form college in Weston Green?

Different thing. I went to a state Grammar school. You went to a private one. The final year of intake for state grammar schools was 1974. I entered in 1973. It was rather strange having the school get emptier and emptier. I always felt sorry for the kids in the year below me, particularly for the youngest one, as he was going to always be the youngest kid in his school.
The school became a VIth Form College. What it is now I have no idea.
Anyone live in or around Thames Ditton. If so, what happened to Esher VIth form college in Weston Green?
*raises eyebrow* I'm pretty sure it wasnt private. In fact, 100% sure it wasnt private. We're a bit backwards up here it seems.

*raises eyebrow* I'm pretty sure it wasnt private. In fact, 100% sure it wasnt private. We're a bit backwards up here it seems.

Did you have to take an entrance exam?

Did you have to take an entrance exam?
I took the 11+ exam like everyone else in my area, thats it.

Did you have to take an entrance exam?
there are state grammar schools here, 11+ and all

the government havent fucked up our education system on us yet

there are state grammar schools here, 11+ and all

the government havent fucked up our education system on us yet

They reintroduced them then at some point, while I wasn't looking. Sneaky politicians. Either that or when they phased them out it was not nationwide.

I am not sure, as I said earlier, that the 11+ is a good idea.

They reintroduced them then at some point, while I wasn't looking. Sneaky politicians. Either that or when they phased them out it was not nationwide.

I am not sure, as I said earlier, that the 11+ is a good idea.
its the second, they never ended them in NI

personally, i see no problem with the 11+ its a fair way of judging academic ability...if it was combined with some aspect of continious assessment i would think it would do just fine

They reintroduced them then at some point, while I wasn't looking. Sneaky politicians. Either that or when they phased them out it was not nationwide.

I am not sure, as I said earlier, that the 11+ is a good idea.

It depends on the county. Certain counties have and others don't.

I passed my 11+ and went to a grammar school. Left last year to go to college instead of staying for 6th form.

Lincolnshire has it, as that's where I live. But I know Leicestershire doesn't,where most of my family live.

The 11+ stunk. It was based on the concept that if you were amongst the best at doing logic problems at the age of 11, you would be amongst the best critics of Shakespeare at 16. No way buster. If you want streaming then have it as a continuous system. i.e. streams within the same school. This allows for those that are good at french but crap at geography to develop their french skills to the maximum whilst at least being helped to get off the floor geographically speaking.


The problem with the 11+, from my point of view of course.

The problem with the 11+, from my point of view of course.

Yeah. I found that. I was useless in French and English at GCSE.
But my school was not actually as well funded as others in my town. They just sat on the fact that the students got good scores. Though I hear it's gotten better this year, which would be typical.

It depends on the county. Certain counties have and others don't.

I passed my 11+ and went to a grammar school. Left last year to go to college instead of staying for 6th form.

Lincolnshire has it, as that's where I live. But I know Leicestershire doesn't,where most of my family live.

What surprises me then is that I lived in that hotbed of conservativism, Surrey. How is it that school streaming and elitist education got eliminated there, but not in Lincolnshire, Manchester or NI?

(This is not a criticism of streaming by the way, it is just that the grammar school system is intellectually elitist however you look at it.)

What surprises me then is that I lived in that hotbed of conservativism, Surrey. How is it that school streaming and elitist education got eliminated there, but not in Lincolnshire, Manchester or NI?

(This is not a criticism of streaming by the way, it is just that the grammar school system is intellectually elitist however you look at it.)
NI has a different government system (Judicial, Executive and Legislative are all essentially seperate from the rest of the UK)...so we have the 11+ for the same reason we still allow hunting with dogs

because nobody bothered to pass the law again for NI

and anyhow..surveys all say than a decent majority of NI want to keep the 11+...

What surprises me then is that I lived in that hotbed of conservativism, Surrey. How is it that school streaming and elitist education got eliminated there, but not in Lincolnshire, Manchester or NI?

(This is not a criticism of streaming by the way, it is just that the grammar school system is intellectually elitist however you look at it.)

Lincolnshire always lags behind everyone else.

Nope, wasn't me. Unless King Edward the whatever is actually the real name of Hutton Grammar School.

BTW, where is King Teds? I know ther is one near me.
bah sorry, somebody on here went to my school - but found it out months ago & i forget things so very easily...

and (my) Ted's school is in southampton (hampshire)

Way too many schools are King Edward the something.

Mine was King Edward the VI school. Just called it Kings though.

And turns out snake eaters goes to the school I was at 'til last year. Sometimes y'never know.

What surprises me then is that I lived in that hotbed of conservativism, Surrey. How is it that school streaming and elitist education got eliminated there, but not in Lincolnshire, Manchester or NI?

(This is not a criticism of streaming by the way, it is just that the grammar school system is intellectually elitist however you look at it.)

The whole point of the grammar school system was to make available a more elite education to those who would be stifled and held back in a normal school. If the children are capable and willing, let them have it, who are you to say they should not get an education which would suit them better?

What I do believe though is that socialism, or conservatism or anythingism is a luxury of the semi-skilled labourer and up. The unskilled labourer is too busy trying to feed and house himself and his family to worry about it. This is much more obvious where I am now living (Brazil) than it was under the welfare state in the UK.
The leaders of the socialist movements may have reconciled their inner beliefs, but only at the cost of diluting their socialism. If they had held to a true socialist line, then when they came to power they would have made state schooling compulsory. There would have been no private, nor public shools left running. The principle, as I keep repeating is one of equal opportunity. Private and public schools infringe upon this principle.
The existence of openly expressed right wing views does not preclude the public schools from being the source of socialist politics. The vast majority of people play no active part in politics whatsoever, and those that follow the economic principles of their family or school tend not to become politically active. In this sense it may be that for socialism to thrive in the UK there should be public schools. But there still remains an aura of hypocrisy.

To you there remains an aura of hypocrisy, not to me, where we differ is on our adherence to dogma.

We both agree with the idea that all children must be provided with a good standard of education, by the state, for free. You seem hung up on this idea that it should be the only education available though, I don't see why if everybody is provided with the opportunity of it that they should then have to take it.

You talk about taking the true socialist line (dogma rather than spirit I fear), but I don't see that it ever was like that. The way I see it was that socialism was about providing the big safety net and the guarantees that all would be looked after and given the same basic opportunities, if they needed them, no matter what their background/class. It wasn't about restricting people to just the one system, it was about making sure that everybody got something and nobody would be left without.

The idea that if everybody can't have it, then nobody should is just rubbish. The close them all down mentality reeks of communism to me, not socialism.

In my own life, since leaving university, I've taken lots of educational courses for work, some of which I've paid for myself and some of which companies I worked for paid for. Should I not have been allowed to take those courses, because I paid for them myself? They are as much of a private education as any other, let's face it they gave me chances to get work I wouldn't have had otherwise, they gave me an advantage and I took it. Why should I, as an adult, be allowed to pay for further or better education and not as a child, when I'm most receptive to it?

Last point, most people (in my experience) who call themselves socialists nowadays aren't straight down the line socialists, socialist views and principles are combined with other outlooks too. This is what happens as political ideas evolve and change, if they don't, they become stagnant and ultimately useless other than as history notes.

And turns out snake eaters goes to the school I was at 'til last year. Sometimes y'never know.
Snake eating? Is that like an alternative sports option to rugby?
(oh, SE's another NS member, gotcha)(what? it's been a hard day)

Fortunately my parents, tho they had the money to send me, decided i'd benefit more from going to a state school.

The whole point of the grammar school system was to make available a more elite education to those who would be stifled and held back in a normal school. If the children are capable and willing, let them have it, who are you to say they should not get an education which would suit them better?

Lets use a case study: me. I had the ability at a young age to go to a more "elite [sic]" school, but my parents decided against it. Instead i spent my time at a state school and am now at University, looking towards doing a PhD and lecturing (at the moment, at least). How exactly could i be doing better than that if i'd gone to a public school?
Oh, perhaps i dont have any rich mates who's daddies can get me a job, guess i'll have to work for it instead - that's going to be a terrible experience...
What i do have is exposure to a vast cross-section of society, far greater than what i'd have got from an exclusionary school. And such social experience is an invaluable part of life; without it for context no amount of 'learning' form books will be of use.

While there are defiantely people at public schools who are there on merit and there to learn, there is also a large majority of 'rich kids' there because their family can afford it, and there to socialise with the rest of the rich - making contacts so that in the name of 'brotherhood' they can perpetuate a social elite based on who has money and who knows who.

We need to keep the bright students in state classrooms so other people can benefit from their ability. The focus should be on improving the state education, not detracting from it. And if snobs don't want to be seen mixing with the rest of society, we should make them pay a hell of a lot more for it.

The whole point of the grammar school system was to make available a more elite education to those who would be stifled and held back in a normal school. If the children are capable and willing, let them have it, who are you to say they should not get an education which would suit them better?

I went to a grammar school, I had many friends who did not. All I can say on this is that the system of deciding who got to go to a grammar school was seriously flawed. Many of my friends, who were in secondary modern schools, were clearly more intelligent ands harder working than I was. I was just better at doing IQ style tests than they were.
Also, in the grammar school there were kids who, to put it bluntly, were plain stupid. They got there by passing the 11+, then it appears that their mental development stopped. They had the critical abilities of a 12 year old when they were 16.
I argue for continuous streaming to be carried out within a comprehensive school, not for no streaming. Let the assessment be term by term. This does various things.
1. Allows correctly for varied developmental rates.
2. Provides continued motivation for effort.
3. Allows for streaming by ability according to subject.

The kid who is ahead of the rest in everything is very very rare indeed. It is much more common for a kid to be exceptional at some two or three things and average at the rest, maybe even being well below average at one or two other subjects.
I am not suggesting that elites should not be formed, but a member of the elite at math at 12 is not always
a) a memeber of the elite at English at 12
or
b) a member of the elite at math at 15

That is my problem with the 11+ and grammar school system.

To you there remains an aura of hypocrisy, not to me, where we differ is on our adherence to dogma.

Firstly, I am not even a socialist. I am a libertarian if you want to classify me in this sense. My adherence to the socialist dogma is just about zero.

We both agree with the idea that all children must be provided with a good standard of education, by the state, for free. You seem hung up on this idea that it should be the only education available though, I don't see why if everybody is provided with the opportunity of it that they should then have to take it.

I have never said that the opportunity should be compulsory. I have said that anyone with strong socialist opinions should be concerned with equalizing oportunity. Now in education this can be done by either: eliminating the heirarchical structure of public, private and state education, or by equalizing the financial resources of families so that the opportunity of the poor is the same as that of the rich. The difference here is that you are looking at it from the point of view of the haves, those that can. I am looking at it from the point of view of the have nots, those who can not pay for private eduction. Where, from their point of view, is the equality of opportunity if public and private schools still exist?


You talk about taking the true socialist line (dogma rather than spirit I fear), but I don't see that it ever was like that. The way I see it was that socialism was about providing the big safety net and the guarantees that all would be looked after and given the same basic opportunities, if they needed them, no matter what their background/class. It wasn't about restricting people to just the one system, it was about making sure that everybody got something and nobody would be left without.

I agree with most of your points, but see my reply to the previous paragraph.
Socialism is not just about making sure that everybody got something. In education that has been true in the UK since Victorian times. It is about the quality of what you get, about not discriminating against someone just because they are from a different social class.

The idea that if everybody can't have it, then nobody should is just rubbish. The close them all down mentality reeks of communism to me, not socialism.
Suggest an alternative means of providing equality of opportunity.

In my own life, since leaving university, I've taken lots of educational courses for work, some of which I've paid for myself and some of which companies I worked for paid for. Should I not have been allowed to take those courses, because I paid for them myself? They are as much of a private education as any other, let's face it they gave me chances to get work I wouldn't have had otherwise, they gave me an advantage and I took it. Why should I, as an adult, be allowed to pay for further or better education and not as a child, when I'm most receptive to it?
Was it really you, through your personal effort, blood sweat and tears that paid for your private/public school. No. You went to one due to an accident of birth, nothing more, nothing less.
Paid adult education provide equality of opportunity, as it does not depend upon which family you were born into. It depends upon your own effort in the world. Anyone could have made the effort you did, obtained the jobs you obtained etc.
There is the difference. The fact that you benefit more from it as a child is simply another arguent for providing equal opportunity for school age education.

Last point, most people (in my experience) who call themselves socialists nowadays aren't straight down the line socialists, socialist views and principles are combined with other outlooks too. This is what happens as political ideas evolve and change, if they don't, they become stagnant and ultimately useless other than as history notes.

Fair comment. It is just difficult to see what they mean by being a socialist if the foundation of socialism, the provision of the basic needs through the state, is dropped. There are of course, variations in how this provision should be achieved, some of these may include paid education, but paid by all, at a price level that all can afford.

Fortunately my parents, tho they had the money to send me, decided i'd benefit more from going to a state school.

Lets use a case study: me. I had the ability at a young age to go to a more "elite [sic]" school, but my parents decided against it. Instead i spent my time at a state school and am now at University, looking towards doing a PhD and lecturing (at the moment, at least). How exactly could i be doing better than that if i'd gone to a public school?


Did anybody say you'd be doing better? What was mentioned earlier was that some of us feel it made a difference to us. For me, that was getting educated to a better standard than was possible at the local state schools and not being singled out for wanting to learn, the fact that I didn't have to fight every day made a difference to me, for some it's about confidence etc... Personally, I'm glad the state school system was good for you, in some places it was for me too.


What i do have is exposure to a vast cross-section of society, far greater than what i'd have got from an exclusionary school. And such social experience is an invaluable part of life; without it for context no amount of 'learning' form books will be of use.

How do you know if you never went to one. In my case I went to public and state schools (my case study = me too ;) ), what makes you think that you don't get a vast cross section of the community there? People from all walks of life get it together enough to want to make sure their kids get every chance going.

While there are defiantely people at public schools who are there on merit and there to learn, there is also a large majority of 'rich kids' there because their family can afford it, and there to socialise with the rest of the rich - making contacts so that in the name of 'brotherhood' they can perpetuate a social elite based on who has money and who knows who.

The vast majority of people with a high enough income to be able to afford to send their kids to public schools are what some would call nouveaux riche and therefore not even an accepted part of the social circles that you seem so pissed off by. My school had sons and daughters of electricians, plumbers, corner shop owners, farmers, nurses, bakers, florists, brickies, as well as company directors, lawyers, doctors, civil servants, hardly the social elite you're on about. Yes, there are a few schools which really do have a top heavy mix of social backgrounds, but that is a tiny proportion of the public schools (something like 6 out of 350 seems about right).

We need to keep the bright students in state classrooms so other people can benefit from their ability.
No, they should benefit from their ability.
The focus should be on improving the state education, not detracting from it.[?QUOTE]
Yes, state education should be improved, that's a no-brainer. How does letting people have an extra choice detract from it?
[QUOTE=Toujours-Rouge]
And if snobs don't want to be seen mixing with the rest of society, we should make them pay a hell of a lot more for it.
They already do! :headbang: Taxes plus private fees.

And after all that you never did even answer the question...

But you did carry on with your misguided toffs and snobs comments.

Did anybody say you'd be doing better? What was mentioned earlier was that some of us feel it made a difference to us. For me, that was getting educated to a better standard than was possible at the local state schools and not being singled out for wanting to learn, the fact that I didn't have to fight every day made a difference to me, for some it's about confidence etc... Personally, I'm glad the state school system was good for you, in some places it was for me too.

Obviously everyone's different and me and you seem to differ quite a lot; i was occationally picked on and feel as a result i'm quicker to stand up for myself and fight back now, for example. But i see the solution to your problem lies in improving the education system, not in removing people from it.

How do you know if you never went to one. In my case I went to public and state schools (my case study = me too ;) ), what makes you think that you don't get a vast cross section of the community there? People from all walks of life get it together enough to want to make sure their kids get every chance going.

There's a large number of people from public schools at my current Uni, i have a couple of friends who went to public schools and i've hung around with their friends a bit, etc. I don't pretend to have an indepth knowledge and i was careful not to be absolute in my post, but it's a general impression from the people i've talked to.
Secondly they can't possibly have such a range of people because by their very nature they're exclusionist! You can't get in if you're not either a) rich or b) intelligent and motivated (and, altho this is perhaps too much conjecture, i guess it helps to have right-wing background)

The vast majority of people with a high enough income to be able to afford to send their kids to public schools are what some would call nouveaux riche and therefore not even an accepted part of the social circles that you seem so pissed off by. My school had sons and daughters of electricians, plumbers, corner shop owners, farmers, nurses, bakers, florists, brickies, as well as company directors, lawyers, doctors, civil servants, hardly the social elite you're on about. Yes, there are a few schools which really do have a top heavy mix of social backgrounds, but that is a tiny proportion of the public schools (something like 6 out of 350 seems about right).

True, i'm aware there is this divide altho admittedly i'd have placed the proportion higher than you suggest. My problem is that there is a mentality being fostered: richer = better

No, they should benefit from their ability

Yes, state education should be improved, that's a no-brainer. How does letting people have an extra choice detract from it?

They already do! :headbang: Taxes plus private fees.

And after all that you never did even answer the question...

But you did carry on with your misguided toffs and snobs comments.

Sorry, i answered the question obliquely rather than directly. I'll rephrase with reference to your other points:
The problem is that by removing the top students from state schools you're intrincsically working against improving state education. Obviously i don't want to create a situation where people suffer because their needs are not being attended to, but i dont think that's the necessary conclusion of vastly restricting private schools. By increasing spending on Education, encouraging inteligent students to stay in state schools, reducing class sizes and better educating teachers etc we should aim towards creating an enviroment where everyone can have the opportunity to achieve, the less able helped on their way by those who are brighter (and i strongly believe i learnt more from helping other students, both socially and educationally from reviewing the material from other's pespectives,than i would have done had the time been spent doing another 'hard' exercise or two). Reading your other posts it seems you believe that everyone should be entitled to a 'minimum' level of education and the rich (or the occasional scholarship student) should be alowed far superior education. You're completely entitled to your own opinion, but i disagree.

Quick final question: you rightly point out that while i benefitted from my schooling people with different attitudes may not. But why should only those who are rich or exceedingly clever get an escape route? Why not give everyone the option to thrive?

All these structured arguments. I dont like it.

Firstly, I am not even a socialist. I am a libertarian if you want to classify me in this sense. My adherence to the socialist dogma is just about zero.

Me too, you've been arguing dogmatic socialist theory all this time though so it's a fair assumption to have gone with, I think.

I have never said that the opportunity should be compulsory. I have said that anyone with strong socialist opinions should be concerned with equalizing oportunity. Now in education this can be done by either: eliminating the heirarchical structure of public, private and state education, or by equalizing the financial resources of families so that the opportunity of the poor is the same as that of the rich. The difference here is that you are looking at it from the point of view of the haves, those that can. I am looking at it from the point of view of the have nots, those who can not pay for private eduction. Where, from their point of view, is the equality of opportunity if public and private schools still exist?


Everybody gets an equal chance to get a basic standard of education (note I make no attempt to say that all education recieved will be equal). Some can then go for more, that's what happens in a market place. It's about the basics, not total equality right the way up and down the scale.

I agree with most of your points, but see my reply to the previous paragraph.
Socialism is not just about making sure that everybody got something. In education that has been true in the UK since Victorian times. It is about the quality of what you get, about not discriminating against someone just because they are from a different social class.

Suggest an alternative means of providing equality of opportunity.
Our views on what constitutes socialism differ then, however it's nice to see we agree on some things.

I'm not suggesting an alternative means of providing equality of opportunity, I think everybody already gets an equal chance to get a state education if they want it.

Was it really you, through your personal effort, blood sweat and tears that paid for your private/public school. No. You went to one due to an accident of birth, nothing more, nothing less.

Whoah! I went to one because I found my school work standards slipping badly and applied to do the entrance tests at 6 different public schools, by myself, at the age of 13 1/2 - 14. I was lucky enough to win a full scholarship to one and therefore didn't have to turn to my parents for the money, which they didn't have anyway. The blood and tears were things that I wanted to avoid, hence being desperate to change schools...
Now if the accident of my birth was that I was born intelligient enough to pass those tests, then sure it was a lucky accident, but then lots of other people could probably take advantage of it too.

Paid adult education provide equality of opportunity, as it does not depend upon which family you were born into.
If I was born into a rich family I could have paid for those courses straight away without any effort. As it was, I had to save for years, in some cases...
It depends upon your own effort in the world. Anyone could have made the effort you did, obtained the jobs you obtained etc.
OK, so I made personal choices and sacrifices for my education and furtherance, what is wrong wth an adult making those choices for their child?


There is the difference. The fact that you benefit more from it as a child is simply another arguent for providing equal opportunity for school age education.
It's because of this fact that there will always be private schools, you have no right to stop me trying to make sure my child gets the best education it can get. If a kids parents have applied themselves through their lives so that they can give their kids a better break than they had, so be it.


Fair comment. It is just difficult to see what they mean by being a socialist if the foundation of socialism, the provision of the basic needs through the state, is dropped. There are of course, variations in how this provision should be achieved, some of these may include paid education, but paid by all, at a price level that all can afford.
Who said anything about dropping state education for all? The basic needs are being met... (how well they're doing it is another argument)

I'm fed up of arguing the toss over dogma that neither of us even believes in wholeheartedly. I answered in this thread because it asked who'd been to a public school, as per usual the moment anybody says yes, it turns to a "public schools are for toffs and snobs" or "why do we allow this, it's not fair" barrage of rubbish.

At the end of the day I believe that it is the right of a parent to choose the best possible education for their child that they can. Restricting the options to just one choice does not allow for this.

Our views on what constitutes socialism differ then, however it's nice to see we agree on some things.


Whoah! I went to one because I found my school work standards slipping badly and applied to do the entrance tests at 6 different public schools, by myself, at the age of 13 1/2 - 14. I was lucky enough to win a full scholarship to one and therefore didn't have to turn to my parents for the money, which they didn't have anyway.

I'm fed up of arguing the toss over dogma that neither of us even believes in wholeheartedly. I answered in this thread because it asked who'd been to a public school, as per usual the moment anybody says yes, it turns to a "public schools are for toffs and snobs" or "why do we allow this, it's not fair" barrage of rubbish.

At the end of the day I believe that it is the right of a parent to choose the best possible education for their child that they can. Restricting the options to just one choice does not allow for this.

OK two or thre final arguments/comments from me on this, then I'll leave you in peace.

In post no 23 on this thread I noted:
I accept that there are a small percentage who win scholarships. I even have a friend who did this.

This small percentage I have no problem with if they are socialist in their views.

As you state you are not a socialist, why are you defending so vehemently the right of a kid that benefitted from a non socialist system to be one. They have the right, I have never denied that, they can beleive what they like. I just find their beliefs to be incompatible with their actions.

I did not think that the arguments that I presented were in anyway insulting or ad hominem. I have not used, nor would I use these tactics unless severely provoked.

You may consider my position a load of rubbish, but I believe that my points have some validity. I do not know if in this part of your post you were referring specifically to me or to some other poster, that shall remain nameless

Best possible is subjective. Best for the child is also subjective. Best for society as a whole is a factor that you are discarding, reasonably so not being a socialist. It is here that the arguments against private/public schools meet the pro socialist position.

Thank you for the discussion.

All these structured arguments. I dont like it.

What do you expect from well educated people:
"nah you're wrong yer stoopid git"?

too many (& too long) structured arguements mean i can't be bothered to enter the debate. i mean, i'd have to read all those posts...

I go to a state school, do perfectly well, top of my year in fact. My best friend's go to a private school because their grandad left them money for it.

I am inclined to agree with more intelligent people going to a more advanced school. Not great system but I can tolerate it. Going to the same school but having streamed classes is better. When it's just money though, I really dislike it that people are getting better educations and more oppurtunities just because of their background. It just divides the poor and the rich right from the start. Yes, people can go to state schools and still get high powered jobs etc but they have to work a hell of a lot harder without it being handed to them on a plate.

I also dislike the fact that public/private schools support elitism, are generally based around academic competition, seperate social classes and in most cases gender. It isn't realistic, creates prejuduces and doesn't help anything.

OK two or thre final arguments/comments from me on this, then I'll leave you in peace.



I'll get round to answering in a little bit, bit busy at work right now...

Then maybe we should go to one line posts for a bit, just to keep everybody happy. ;)

All these structured arguments. I dont like it.

You're wrong, wrong wrong!
I'm right, right right!

Better? :p

In post no 23 on this thread I noted:

That's a cool number! Hail Eris!

This small percentage I have no problem with if they are socialist in their views.

As you state you are not a socialist, why are you defending so vehemently the right of a kid that benefitted from a non socialist system to be one. They have the right, I have never denied that, they can beleive what they like. I just find their beliefs to be incompatible with their actions.

So everybody must stick entirely to the structure laid out by their dominant political beliefs? No, we're more complex than that, people change their minds, like parts of some things and not others. Have you never noticed how people quite often start their lives at one end of the political spectrum and later move towards another? Plus we're talking about politics here, which is essentially the art of saying one thing and meaning another.

I defend it, because I think it is important to and it's a subject reasonably close to home.

Time after time humans profess one thing then behave differently, it's in our nature. Maybe face up to it and stop getting so hung up on perceived hypocrisy.

I did not think that the arguments that I presented were in anyway insulting or ad hominem. I have not used, nor would I use these tactics unless severely provoked.

You may consider my position a load of rubbish, but I believe that my points have some validity. I do not know if in this part of your post you were referring specifically to me or to some other poster, that shall remain nameless

Yours weren't per se (insulting), it's the assumptions that I have problems with, that and the standard knee-jerk reactions which came out from some. Once I start seeing posh and snob it's hard not to react in the same way as when somebody uses Nazi in a usenet group, I find it just displays ignorance.


Best possible is subjective. Best for the child is also subjective. Best for society as a whole is a factor that you are discarding, reasonably so not being a socialist. It is here that the arguments against private/public schools meet the pro socialist position.

Thank you for the discussion.
Agreed and thanks too :cool:

Some of us got to go by winning scholarships and many that I know got to go because their parents decided that the education of their kids was more important than a new car, foreign holidays, fashionable clothes etc. for themelves.



Why didn't they go to a comprehensive school and have both, or go to a comprehensive school and put the money up for their children, instead of wasting it on paying for private schools.

Originally Posted by Whinging Trancers

Some of us got to go by winning scholarships and many that I know got to go because their parents decided that the education of their kids was more important than a new car, foreign holidays, fashionable clothes etc. for themelves.

Why didn't they go to a comprehensive school and have both, or go to a comprehensive school and put the money up for their children, instead of wasting it on paying for private schools.

Because their parents decided that the education of their kids was more important and they didn't consider it a waste.