This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
If that was the desired outcome, it would be entrance criteria based on academic performance, not who has rich parents. As the state entrance now is and that is meritocracy.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by cryrst
As the state entrance now is and that is meritocracy. Do I think the vast majority of privately educated kids are of average intelligence..? Yes, I do.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Not fact. Your opinion. Do you also think that private health care is a luxury? What about private housing? It is a rubbish argument. Private does not mean luxury. It is simply paying for a better standard than the state currently provides. Americans have to pay for health care. Is that luxury? Since you claim that the amount of revenue raised will go nowhere near paying for improved state education, then what is the point? Why pick on private education? Answer. Because people who pay for private education probably don't vote Labour. Also because Labour have always had a bee in their bonnet about elitism, despite most of those hypocrites sending their kids to private schools.
Vote Reform. It's absolute fact. You don't need to pay for private school. You can find a good quality state school and send your kids there. It's a luxury item, a lifestyle choice. 'Luxury – a state of great comfort or elegance, especially when involving great expense.' Bang on the money. No pun intended. Also 'lefties'... 'probably don't vote labour' etc. then goes on to say Labourites send their kids to private schools. Well the first part is observably wrong, the second is right – A large swathe of the left wing set send their kids to private school. Pretty much the entirety of the middle class Guardian set you so despise either send them there or aspire to do so. I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken if you think only right wingers and Tories send their kids to private schools. Perhaps Eton, Westminster and the elite schools, but the private system is extensive, diverse and more than just about the stereotypes that stem from the big names. Private healthcare in the UK is a luxury expense, yes. As is private education. Americans don't have a choice. We do. As already pointed out, I don't think the way the policy is being implemented will make as much difference as Labour are claiming (shock horror). However I think that it will make some difference, and that's better than no difference at all. A lot of private schools should also not be charities, and it's about time someone closed this loophole.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Do I think the vast majority of privately educated kids are of average intelligence..? Yes, I do. So are the state funded ones but that’s DEI for you.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by JRW2
I fear that you have completely misunderstood my post - perhaps that was my fault. I was making the point that parents of children at fee-paying schools not only pay those fees but through their taxes pay towards (i.e., subsidise) the education of other people's children. VAT has nothing to do with my point. Many years ago I was chatting (sorry for name-dropping) with Lord Adonis, at that time a Labour junior minister in the Education Department, and he said that he would have no problem with a system under which governement would provide parents not using the state system with a cash voucher equivalent to the cost of a state education. Seems unbelievable now. OK, but the title of this thread is... And you are actually indirectly making the point that charging VAT would be in effect charging these parents twice. There is some logic in the voucher approach... but only as one of those classic 'That sounds like it makes sense' sort of thought experiments. I had similar thoughts years ago to private vs. NHS. But when you actually start working it through it makes less and less sense. The fact you are not sending your kid to state school, or not choosing to use the NHS is already saving both institutions that cost. And as both systems are critically underfunded, paying that money saved out as some sort of dividend would be counterproductive – there would be no difference between you using the NHS or not using it, as it costs it the same amount regardless. If we lived in a utopia and both systems were funded appropriately, and the amount of funding was precisely aligned to the amount of qualifying children and adults in the population, then sure, you might have a point. Money that had been allocated to an individual based on the assumption they would use the service in question would be surplus and could be returned. Although even then, your taxes as an individual pay for a diverse range of services. You'd have to somehow make it proportionate... it gets hideously complex, fast, and falls on it's arse. And actually returning to the point of this thread, if the view is that the VAT add is purely ideological rather than rational, I'd suggest that advocating for returning money to wealthy people from the state coffers without proper thought is similarly ideological and a vote buying strategy. Edited by SW19 CPFC (17 Jun 2024 6.58pm)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by cryrst
So are the state funded ones but that’s DEI for you. This isn't really true. The bursary and scholarship system is widely deployed across the private system for exactly this purpose. Kids from less privileged backgrounds that are identified as exceptionally bright are often actively encouraged to sit entrance exams by private schools. It's also not all about high intelligence... kids that are clever enough to pass the entrance exams but don't excel academically are often contributing to the school in other ways, such as sport, the arts etc. So yes not every child is elite level intelligent, but they're clever enough to get in. And trust me it doesn't matter how much you're paying in fees, if your kid is dragging the table averages down they'll get booted fast enough. An average private school kid would be identified as above average or higher in average state schools. Not just academically but from an all round perspective. Edited by SW19 CPFC (17 Jun 2024 7.18pm)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
This isn't really true. The bursary and scholarship system is widely deployed across the private system for exactly this purpose. Kids from less privileged backgrounds that are identified as exceptionally bright are often actively encouraged to sit entrance exams by private schools. It's also not all about high intelligence... kids that are clever enough to pass the entrance exams but don't excel academically are often contributing to the school in other ways, such as sport, the arts etc. So yes not every child is elite level intelligent, but they're clever enough to get in. And trust me it doesn't matter how much you're paying in fees, if your kid is dragging the table averages down they'll get booted fast enough. An average private school kid would be identified as above average or higher in state schools. Not just academically but from an all round perspective. ‘Less privileged’ is the key. This indicates that the brightest whose parents earn but can’t afford 6k a year are penalised because they aren’t on the breadline. If it genuinely was the brightest a few ‘less privileged’ would get bursaries but kids from working families would as well. It’s not about academia, it’s about quotas sadly. Oh and labour are going to put vat on their own outlay, don’t you think that’s stupid or virtue signalling with some of my money ?
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by cryrst
‘Less privileged’ is the key. This indicates that the brightest whose parents earn but can’t afford 6k a year are penalised because they aren’t on the breadline. If it genuinely was the brightest a few ‘less privileged’ would get bursaries but kids from working families would as well. It’s not about academia, it’s about quotas sadly. Oh and labour are going to put vat on their own outlay, don’t you think that’s stupid or virtue signalling with some of my money ? 'Less privileged' encompasses anyone who can't afford to pay fees. Are you suggesting that kids from 'working families' don't go to private school? Because they absolutely do, along with the 'less privileged'. Obviously not in vast numbers - yes quotas - private schools can only afford a certain number of full or part bursary kids each year, otherwise they'd go under. Family straightforward. This is the point of the bursary system – to encourage households that earn under a certain level with bright kids to apply. Above that level you need to get scholarships to get discounts. Further, if a child demonstrates scholarship level aptitude at the higher end schools will often make fee concessions to ensure they get them in. Why? Competition. Also it's helpful to think broader than just intelligence when considering if a kid is a good fit to a private school. There's behavioural, cultural and other areas that need considering. Not everyone is right for it, wealthy, working or otherwise. Finally... 6k a year? You mean 6k a term. Minimum. Try 20k a year at the cheaper end for the private secondary system.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
It's absolute fact. You don't need to pay for private school. You can find a good quality state school and send your kids there. It's a luxury item, a lifestyle choice. 'Luxury – a state of great comfort or elegance, especially when involving great expense.' Bang on the money. No pun intended. Also 'lefties'... 'probably don't vote labour' etc. then goes on to say Labourites send their kids to private schools. Well the first part is observably wrong, the second is right – A large swathe of the left wing set send their kids to private school. Pretty much the entirety of the middle class Guardian set you so despise either send them there or aspire to do so. I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken if you think only right wingers and Tories send their kids to private schools. Perhaps Eton, Westminster and the elite schools, but the private system is extensive, diverse and more than just about the stereotypes that stem from the big names. Private healthcare in the UK is a luxury expense, yes. As is private education. Americans don't have a choice. We do. As already pointed out, I don't think the way the policy is being implemented will make as much difference as Labour are claiming (shock horror). However I think that it will make some difference, and that's better than no difference at all. A lot of private schools should also not be charities, and it's about time someone closed this loophole. You need to look up 'fact' while you are at it. But you might be right about some Labour types sending their kids to private schools. After this, they might vote Reform. Luxury is not defined by having a choice. People have private health care provided or subsidised by their employers. It is a question of availability or being able to afford it. The latter is a big factor in private schooling. Are you suggesting that luxury is defined by what one can afford and another can't? In that case, it is all relative. Fact my arse.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
'Less privileged' encompasses anyone who can't afford to pay fees. Are you suggesting that kids from 'working families' don't go to private school? Because they absolutely do, along with the 'less privileged'. Obviously not in vast numbers - yes quotas - private schools can only afford a certain number of full or part bursary kids each year, otherwise they'd go under. Family straightforward. This is the point of the bursary system – to encourage households that earn under a certain level with bright kids to apply. Above that level you need to get scholarships to get discounts. Further, if a child demonstrates scholarship level aptitude at the higher end schools will often make fee concessions to ensure they get them in. Why? Competition. Also it's helpful to think broader than just intelligence when considering if a kid is a good fit to a private school. There's behavioural, cultural and other areas that need considering. Not everyone is right for it, wealthy, working or otherwise. Finally... 6k a year? You mean 6k a term. Minimum. Try 20k a year at the cheaper end for the private secondary system. You cannot defend that line about earning under a certain amount alongside 20 k a year for private education. What % of kids fit this bursary choice and what is the cut off on earnings to qualify? From my pov 1000s of bright kids miss out because mum and dad earn a few quid. The irony is that it isn’t the brightest who get the chance is it ?
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
You need to look up 'fact' while you are at it. But you might be right about some Labour types sending their kids to private schools. After this, they might vote Reform. Luxury is not defined by having a choice. People have private health care provided or subsidised by their employers. It is a question of availability or being able to afford it. The latter is a big factor in private schooling. Are you suggesting that luxury is defined by what one can afford and another can't? In that case, it is all relative. Fact my arse. It is not a necessity, it is not an essential, it is not a requirement. Not everyone that has private healthcare gets it via employment - and also, it is classed as a benefit. A nice to have. A little pearl to entice you to join said company. A luxury item. You can have free healthcare via the NHS, and free education via the state system. To a good level if you’re actually bothered about where you send your kids or if you care about your health. You do not need private education or healthcare, much like you don’t need all manner of ‘life’s little luxuries’. I’m not sure how well you know the private system, if at all beyond cliches and stereotypes, but believe me in a lot of cases the word luxury is a perfect description for what you get for the money. ‘Luxury item’
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by cryrst
You cannot defend that line about earning under a certain amount alongside 20 k a year for private education. What % of kids fit this bursary choice and what is the cut off on earnings to qualify? From my pov 1000s of bright kids miss out because mum and dad earn a few quid. The irony is that it isn’t the brightest who get the chance is it ? Hang on. Before I get further into this, was your 6k per year figure your estimate of cost post bursary, or a typo that meant to say per term. The way it’s written it comes across as 6k per year no bursary, which obviously is 14k short of reality. Edited by SW19 CPFC (17 Jun 2024 8.45pm)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.