Sure not everyone can be a boss or doctor, but that does not prevent them from doing well. I am neither, and I am doing well for myself. All it means is the route is different.
Right, but you are not everybody, there is a fairly large group of people are best suited for jobs which do, sadly, not pay very well. It is necessarily not at all a question of not trying, having a friend who suffers from severe chronic headaches and is struggling just to pass high school, it is hardly fair saying she "isn't trying hard enough". It is in fact, not true.
Now it's true some parents will be advantageous over others, but I feel you can give similar benefits to all kids,
Similar to what we have now - it's called the public education system, with optional private education.
The bolded part is what you are missing, not all kids can have that optional private education, that is what it's all about (for me at least).
By medium I meant the school itself. Individual teachers matter quite a bit. And those will vary from school to school, regardless of public or private. Which was the original thing here anyway.
However the quote
Children that don't want to learn don't learn any differently in a private school than they do in a public school. Children that do want to learn will learn well everywhere.
Implies something which I consider very false. Thing is there can be made no sweeping generalizations that public (in educational quality) > Private or vice versa, however, there are most certainly some private schools that are better at teaching kids than the public options. Saying that the kids will learn as well at either is untrue, as it seems we both agree on, different schools are of different quality.
All kids should have equal access to education.
Private schools do not consent to that.
I've said before private schools are businesses but in fact I believe all schools are businesses and economics shows us that privately owned businesses are more efficient then state owned businesses because they have to be competitive.
I Disagree, not all school re businesses. Sure it's true that they have "income", "expenses", and some sort of "business plan" but public schools are not driven for profit, and they should not, as any public organisation, be about economic gain, as previously mentioned, your social status should not affect your service.
The bad thing ABOUT private schools is that they are businesses, and having a public sector working for profit is very scary indeed, simply because the poorest will then be completely abandoned, why should you spend extra resources trying to help the "troubled kids" or the handicapped etc etc? They are not financially viable!
See in some areas competition can be good, but ONLY competition is insane, places where workers have no right usually end up very ugly indeed. At least for the workers.
Ok so it's still not a fair system, I'm not trying to say it is but what I'm trying to show is that the economy benefits from private schools because there is a higher level of education in the country. A better economy benefits the entire nation.
I definitely agree that a higher level of education benefits the country, however again I do not think that Private schools as a whole are better than Public schools, on average. The problem lies that some are.
It might help to use my stereotypes types of private schools
The "orthodox" (montisory for example)
And the "ultra snob"
The Religious and orthodox schools will probably be about as good as public education, religious serves no real purpose while orthodox ones do, however I do not think that is necessarily limited to private schools, you can have those advantages in public schools as well.
However the "ultra snob schools" that cost a fortune to get into and that only accept the really rich and/or (usually or) the really smart will have better results, simply because they have so much more resources. I am however doubtful that spending so much money on a select few is really more financially viable that spreading that money across a larger group of people, which is also, the right thing to do.
One way that private schooling used to be fair was the assisted places scheme run by the conservative government in the UK. If you were bright enough then the government would help fund you through private school. (However, this was stopped when the labour government came into power, making me wonder how much they really meant their education, education, education)
So if you were smarter than chummy rich dude, but not as smart as brilliant poor dude, you got worse education than both. Ah Conservatives, why not take us straight back to the Middle Ages already!
Is it better that we have an unequal and unfair but, on average, *better* education, or....
..a society where everyone is educated equally poorly?
I personally would prefer a more intelligent society, given the options.
Of course a better educated society is always better, and portraying is at "equally poorly" is a pretty good way of making it seem worse, however I do not see that such would be the case, I would however, as always, support spending more money on schools because education is that important. The education quality for the elite few might drop, but I do not think that would have a profound effect on society at large.
You have to earn your keep somehow. If you're not able to show your competence, you have to use your own cash. You can't give away everything.
So the smart kids earn it by .. being smart? Or at least potentially smart, IQ tests being the way they are.
And give everything away? That sounds a bit harsh, what you are saying is "you can't give everyone
a good education!"
I say you can and should.
The parents are just giving the kids a hand. Otherwise they are hoarding their money for themself. Using it for the kids is much more productive for the overall society.
But it is most likely even more socially productive to educate a larger group, i.e. pay taxes!
A right to education doesnâ€™t mean everyone should have the same quality education. It means everyone should be provided with a certain education for free.
Well really you can say it means what you want it to mean, just as I do, you can say the right to free speech means you are allowed to speak what you want to as long as it is not THAT upsetting. I can say it's ANYTHING AT ANY TIME!
Either way, I have stated my opinion; just pointing out that it is not some "this is a factual inaccuracy" but "I disagree" point.
The reasoning behind banning private schools is similar to the reasoning behind left-winged ideologies. Basically it says is "Take from the rich give to the poor".
Okey, seriously, it is apparent you do not know what "left wing" means. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is a LEFT ideology, see it's also about equality, that some people shouldn't earn fifty billion while others earn five dollars. Then there's a scale up to about "We must rise up against the establishment and form a Proletariat dictatorship" That would be left wing.
Except if you take private education away from the rich, the poor wont benefit from it... you end up just "taking from the rich" but not "giving to the poor" so it becomes more of a "I donâ€™t have this opportunity, so no one else should either" reasoning. Besides in the "take from the rich, give to the poor" way of thinking (when talking about money) the idea is to take away the EXCESS money from the rich... to take away what they donâ€™t need, and give it to those who need it more... but in education, there is no such thing as EXCESS knowledge...
The poor will benefit in that the rich won't have an advantage in education over them, if the rich has access to information and education that the poor do not this will obviously be an advantage, which is, as said many times, unfair. I am however not saying you should go "WORSE EDUCATION FOR ALL!" but "better education for all", with the rare exception of those who go to the oh so fabled "super snob schools" since their budgets are, for an entire population, completely unsustainable.
I think it's important that we also draw a distinction between fairness and equality. Fairness means the rules apply the same way to everyone, which I think is a reasonable approximation of the way things are currently. Nobody is saying to poor families that they are not allowed to send their children to expensive universities; they simply don't have the ability to pay for it. Which brings us to equality, meaning that for some particular metric, everybody scores the same. For the purposes of the discussion at hand, that metric is financial.
Well everybody could vote in Greece, you just needed to be a free man who owned land.
Everybody can attend any school they want
They just need to have wealthy parents!
True, it's not entirely the same, but it largely applies, just as you cannot "become" free (well, actually you could, but really it was not up to you as much as it was luck of getting a nice 'master') you cannot "become" the child of a wealthy family.
Really I see no case where fairness doesn't apply
"To be in the military you cannot be gay"
See that applies to everybody.
Problem is, some people are gay.
There is no real distinction
Unfortunately, that is not spread over the entire world. But I think that in this day and age, people have a lot more personal freedoms than ever before. Particularly in western civilization.
OT, but the last ten years, in western society, we have lost some as well, due to a retarded F'in fight on terrorism, which I addressed in that topic, and I fight it incredibly frustrating.
This is a very long post
though to be honest mostly quotes