Doing the sums - does a private education add up? (3 Viewers)

[Lolsmith]

yes it is

You subvert an individual if you deny him the right to his own hard work. You say to him, with a gun to his head and your hand in his pocket, "do as you're told because others need this more than you do". When you steal from someone for the sense of a "greater good" you are saying their own worth is less than some vague and unattainable ideal. This is nothing but abrogation of the individual in servitude for something he does not wish to comply with. How can you state otherwise?

"Okay you can like what you want, but you have to have the job we tell you to have, buy the food we want you to buy, comply with only what we want you to and give the majority of what you put effort into to those who don't put effort into anything. You're still an individual though!11!."

is taxation

 

[Annihilist]

You know what? It is highly fucking likely that I am misrepresenting my point by using terms in an improper context. So far I have not seen any evidence that this is the case though. If I am wrong about my definitions of political philosophical ideas, then point it out to me.

Otherwise I see no reason to believe you are right. Regardless, I've made my point. Whether I am using correct terms to define it is another matter. Point out my errors and I will correct them.

 

[Ivorytw]

Yeah I had in mind the time you mentioned that no heavy hitters in the business world aren't an "old boy" of some school

Except if this is the case, I wouldn't put this down to the fault of educational institutions and rather a less attractive reality of executive business

I would definitely put it down to the fault of educational institutions. And I'm not just talking executive business. I would honestly say that there would only be exceptions to this rule and pretty much everybody in a senior position in their given field (and might I mention I am not talking purely executive business) would be privately educated and afforded more opportunities to their intellectual equivalent at a public school.

Your intelligence can only get you so far. It's the other stuff, the networking the excursions the advanced and broadened education in debating/speaking. Back and forth is encouraged and the teachers genuinely want to be there because they have an incentive.

You work at McDonalds, you should know. Your passion isn't in food and hospitality and you're only there because you have to be. The food you serve is average at best but you do what you can because you're just part of a system.

Same thing applies with most public teachers as I am sure you are more than aware.

 

[mirakon]

I dont see what the problem of getting access to gr8 facilities and better paid (i.e. More motivated) teachers if u can afford it comfortably

 

[Annihilist]

is taxation

Not by inherent definition. Taxation can be used to achieve that, yes, through a tightly controlled economy in that way.

I could debate you on this. But we are derailing this thread.

Let me make one last point.I believe that the government's job is to implement welfare and education programs to make life easier for individual people. To provide them with as many opportunities to make decisions for themselves about their life and how they conduct it. Now because of this, I have said that I consider myself closer to socialism (I would like to point out I never labelled myself as a "socialist" - i merely said I was closer to that ideology. And if at some point I did, I now withdraw any such statements). Am I correct in saying so? Probably not. Maybe. From what you are telling me I am having doubts.

But this doesn't change my values. This only changes how I define them. I still believe in the fundamental ideas of anarchism and I believe in what I stated above. I may have incorrectly mislabeled it as being somewhat similar to socialism.

Having said that, I still fail to see any evidence that I am wrong in this. Show me some external evidence and I will be on my merry way.

 

[Ivorytw]

That is not what I'm saying.

Of course you would choose that option had you the opportunity. But what you are doing there is creating a divide between people who have the exact same capabilities but are going to be nurtured in different environments and then stacked up against each other.

And we pretend that that's equality?

You can go to any university and you're all treated the same... however to get to that university you have to go through schooling and who do you think is going to get into those universities. The people who have had a greatly mediocre education or the people who have been had every single opportunity afforded to them.

And I am not saying that all private schools are better than public but that is generally the case.

 

[Lolsmith]

You know what? It is highly fucking likely that I am misrepresenting my point by using terms in an improper context. So far I have not seen any evidence that this is the case though. If I am wrong about my definitions of political philosophical ideas, then point it out to me.

Otherwise I see no reason to believe you are right. Regardless, I've made my point. Whether I am using correct terms to define it is another matter. Point out my errors and I will correct them.

You have your own definition of what you are and what other people are and I have my own.

This is the reason these shit fights can carry on for days, especially when neither are willing to concede to the other.

Socialism is bad, inefficient and does less good than it intends to, often by darker means than necessary. Like you said elsewhere, there are other places where we can piss on each other about this.

I would definitely put it down to the fault of educational institutions. And I'm not just talking executive business. I would honestly say that there would only be exceptions to this rule and pretty much everybody in a senior position in their given field (and might I mention I am not talking purely executive business) would be privately educated and afforded more opportunities to their intellectual equivalent at a public school.

Your intelligence can only get you so far. It's the other stuff, the networking the excursions the advanced and broadened education in debating/speaking. Back and forth is encouraged and the teachers genuinely want to be there because they have an incentive.

I originally had the inclination that you meant they were hired due to their links to private education, not as a result of that private education. I'm not entirely sure I agree with you as I don't see that primary school or high school is the only opportunity for them to develop skills, network, or have an "advanced" education, but I will concede that they do receive better education due to access to superior facilities. If you consider this "wrong", I would disagree. I can't really argue on behalf of or for private schools because I haven't attended one.

Same thing applies with most public teachers as I am sure you are more than aware.

It's not that simple, there are teachers who care about being teachers, regardless of their pay. I have had teachers who are far more than qualified to teach at private schools, but they remained in public schools because they enjoyed their job. I don't think it was an issue of monetary incentive. My school was actually really really awesome, I would say a cut above the rest in its area in terms of teacher quality. But I had access to their higher quality of teaching because I was an intelligent student (when considering my peers) they could cater to. There are bad teachers, I'm not disputing that, but I don't think there is a shortage of driven teachers in the public system.

Not by inherent definition. Taxation can be used to achieve that, yes, through a tightly controlled economy in that way.

I could debate you on this. But we are derailing this thread.

Let me make one last point.I believe that the government's job is to implement welfare and education programs to make life easier for individual people. To provide them with as many opportunities to make decisions for themselves about their life and how they conduct it. Now because of this, I have said that I consider myself closer to socialism (I would like to point out I never labelled myself as a "socialist" - i merely said I was closer to that ideology. And if at some point I did, I now withdraw any such statements). Am I correct in saying so? Probably not. Maybe. From what you are telling me I am having doubts.

But this doesn't change my values. This only changes how I define them. I still believe in the fundamental ideas of anarchism and I believe in what I stated above. I may have incorrectly mislabeled it as being somewhat similar to socialism.

Having said that, I still fail to see any evidence that I am wrong in this. Show me some external evidence and I will be on my merry way.

I don't see how you can attribute yourself to anarchism, but say that the state has a legitimate role. If it has a legitimate role, why do you wish to see it die?

 

[Ivorytw]

Have you spoken to any intelligent/good teachers in the public system talk about the giant gaping hole which is driven teachers in the public sector.

There is a hell of a lot of teachers that start off in the public sector going yes wee hoo we all love public education and the moment that they show that they are making a difference in the teaching quality at that school they are swarmed with offers from all the private schools.

And who are they to say no? And that in it's self is a giant problem/

But Christian you are just sitting there very hard to find that exception that proves the rule.

 

[Annihilist]

I don't see how you can attribute yourself to anarchism, but say that the state has a legitimate role. If it has a legitimate role, why do you wish to see it die?

I've had many conversations with people and they are always confused about my actual stance on this.

I believe in the abstract philosophy of anarchism that no one is above another, and no one should have power over another.

However I understand that it is not a practical system that can actually work. Like what I said with socialism on the other thread, it requires everyone within the system to agree with anarchism. If one person doesn't agree with anarchism, the whole system fails. Certain ideas of anarchism can be implemented, but not the entire system as a whole. Whether that enables me to label myself as an "anarchist" is another issue altogether.

In my ideal world, the state's only role in society is to organise education, welfare, and other such systems to increase the quality of life, available opportunities, and the ability for individuals to make decisions about their lives. For example, schools to teach people how to make educated decisions and to think freely and critically. And laws have almost no place, really, in my ideal world.

Contrary to what I have implied, I don't identify with socialism. Nor do I identify with capitalism or free market. I see both sides of the spectrum as equally (and inversely) good and bad for different reasons. So I don't really have an opinion on economic political philosophies. I'm apathetic in that regard.

 

[Ivorytw]

I would also group in connections with education.

I think once you get into the work force you will be a little less accommodating to the privileges bestowed upon your peers as a result of their educational facility rather than their ability.

 

[Lolsmith]

Have you spoken to any intelligent/good teachers in the public system talk about the giant gaping hole which is driven teachers in the public sector.

There was only one, actually. She was my head maths teacher and she complained about her staff nearly daily because they were pretty bad.

There is a hell of a lot of teachers that start off in the public sector going yes wee hoo we all love public education and the moment that they show that they are making a difference in the teaching quality at that school they are swarmed with offers from all the private schools.

And who are they to say no? And that in it's self is a giant problem/

Public teachers do say no. I've had mediocre teachers get offered positions at private schools before and they have declined it. I can only imagine what other teachers, who are several degrees of quality better, have been offered.

But Christian you are just sitting there very hard to find that exception that proves the rule.

oh damn

 

[Lolsmith]

I would also group in connections with education.

I think once you get into the work force you will be a little less accommodating to the privileges bestowed upon your peers as a result of their educational facility rather than their ability.

I guess we'll have to wait and see

I don't really have an opinion on economic political philosophies. I'm apathetic in that regard.

You should fix that

 

[Annihilist]

You should fix that

I am not compelled to either side, and I find both sides fairly reprehensible for different reasons.

 

[soloooooo]

as lolsmith said, how did they become this breed you call "australian asian"? where did they come from?

Australian Chinese hold Australian values. They put Australia first before China.

 

[soloooooo]

so what you're saying is that you DO have a problem with asians in that they would have a bad influence on your children?

I think diversity is important although if the school is 95% Asian or 95% Indian or whatever background, then that is not a good diversity and I wouldn't send my children there.

 

[mirakon]

I am not compelled to either side, and I find both sides fairly reprehensible for different reasons.

Finding something reprehensible isn't really being apathetic lol

 

[Blastus]

Education is a product like anything else

sending your kids to a public school is just careless

old school tie = worth it for connections and networking

the class system works, stop trying to subvert it

 

[LoveHateSchool]

Eeesh, was that article meant to be a balanced view or some sensationalist piece for the lifestyle pages? Did a public school even get a word in?

No, I don't think private education would ever be worth 25000-30000 a year. That is ludicrous and you could get better mileage for your money through travel and other extracurriculars. Which would also give your kid a wider circle of friendships etc. But a cheaper independent where the local public school is not so good for your child's individual needs, reluctant to say it, but perhaps.

Some of the statements were absolutely absurd. Firstly, at public schools, private or comprehensive there is a wide range of extracurriculars. Many teachers give up their time to organise these. These aren't something that are exclusive to private schools. Maybe it's only at private schools they have ridiculous extra costs attached to the school fees for revenue.

The ethnic ghettos comment was like whoaaa. To me, people are people. When I send my kids to a school, the ethnicity make up does not matter to me. And also the socio economic make up. To me, a public comprehensive is the most real life depiction of the world, with a mixture of ethnicities and a full range of socio economic incomes(Also gender when it's comprehensive). I find it hard to believe one may not be a little sheltered and disconnected if they spent their entire education in a K-12 private boys school where the only income spread was whether you had one Audi or two.

The quality of teachers comment is interesting. I think there is a mixture of teachers at all schools. Some teacher are just amazing full stop. Some try hard are okay. And then there's that minority, that kinda just teach cause it's a chore to get money. But the thing is, if your child seeks extra work and help, most will pick up their game to provide that extra support. And if not them, another teacher in the faculty will make the other step up their game or help themselves. I feel I've had some of the most amazing teachers because they were so passionate in their belief in public education that they were not swayed by private incentive.I found the quote from the article laughable about the mother hovering the schoolgates to talk to the teachers/ Helicopter parent much? Why would you need to ongoing speak with your kid's teacher? It's their education not yours.

With those test results from the OECD, I know it's meant to be random. But I know most private schools will coach the group to take it, probably not even random selecting them. Point is, many spoon feed their kids for NAPLAN and other testing. At public schools, they just let the kids take it cause the natural results are indicative of what areas the school should focus on.

The facilities, yep private schools will have pristine lawns and $8 million netball and basketball courts. But does that help the students? Is it not just an exorbitant waste of money when there are public courts 10 minutes down the road. Facilities are important, but giving someone $1000 runners does not make them Usian Bolt.
And the bullying not happening in private schools? Lawl bullying happens everywhere, most people experience bullying in their lives.

I think the problem was these comparisons is that we can never have a comprehensive index of how well rounded an individuals education is. ANd what's more important, the "value" that a school has added to a student. In my mind, not everyone is destined for a 90+ ATAR, not everyone can be on top. It's about achieving the best for each student's individual capacity. The teacher that coaches a very intelligent and driven student to a 99 ATAR will receive praise and kudos, but what about the teacher that gets a kid from a shaky home background with learning difficulties to get a band 4 they never thought possible? We can't conclusively measure this, all statistics are limited. And we can't measure success of every school's alumni or the value of the environment or extra curriculars definitely. This is why performance introduced pay makes me worried, many public young teachers worry about this shift and may be fiscally forced to teach at privates. And John Howard's reforms made me so angry with the private school funding.

A child will do well at any school if they have thirst for knowledge and takes opportunities. This kids will most likely do better in the real world by anyone that was coached and prodded by their parents all the way (which occurs in all the the three strands of school discussed, but mainly private and selectives).

So my perspective? I am a 100% for public education, it aligns with my ideological beliefs. I don't believe in the enterprise of public education and don't believe in the mixing of religion and education. So that rules out private and religious schools. At my regional public comprehensive, I've had so much opportunity afforded unto me that is absolutely insane. I've immensely enjoyed my time at school for the most part. I am lucky because I know not all public schools have the same facilities and opportunity, as the focus is Sydney centric. But I could rattle off a list of so many extracurriculars I have done with my school, trips and excursions. From being on TV to charity to academic comps, I've really experience it all. I could rattle off a list of twenty dedicated teachers. Sure, we don't have the newest facilities or top the HSC rankings, but the opportunity for student to achieve THEIR best is there. Whether it's a band 4 or a band 6. And on top of going to a public school, my parents have had the extra money for me to particpate in even more out of school curriculars, meeting many more people and networking.

I will definitely send my children to public school. I don't believe in the privatisation of education, it should be free for all because it is a priceless asset. Public schools are more encompassing of their respective communities, and they are what I vehemently believe in. I had the choice at the end of Yr6 where to go, and have not regretted it for a single second.

 

[SylviaB]

Eeesh, was that article meant to be a balanced view or some sensationalist piece for the lifestyle pages? Did a public school even get a word in?

No, I don't think private education would ever be worth 25000-30000 a year. That is ludicrous and you could get better mileage for your money through travel and other extracurriculars. Which would also give your kid a wider circle of friendships etc. But a cheaper independent where the local public school is not so good for your child's individual needs, reluctant to say it, but perhaps.

Some of the statements were absolutely absurd. Firstly, at public schools, private or comprehensive there is a wide range of extracurriculars. Many teachers give up their time to organise these. These aren't something that are exclusive to private schools. Maybe it's only at private schools they have ridiculous extra costs attached to the school fees for revenue.

The ethnic ghettos comment was like whoaaa. To me, people are people. When I send my kids to a school, the ethnicity make up does not matter to me. And also the socio economic make up. To me, a public comprehensive is the most real life depiction of the world, with a mixture of ethnicities and a full range of socio economic incomes(Also gender when it's comprehensive). I find it hard to believe one may not be a little sheltered and disconnected if they spent their entire education in a K-12 private boys school where the only income spread was whether you had one Audi or two.

The quality of teachers comment is interesting. I think there is a mixture of teachers at all schools. Some teacher are just amazing full stop. Some try hard are okay. And then there's that minority, that kinda just teach cause it's a chore to get money. But the thing is, if your child seeks extra work and help, most will pick up their game to provide that extra support. And if not them, another teacher in the faculty will make the other step up their game or help themselves. I feel I've had some of the most amazing teachers because they were so passionate in their belief in public education that they were not swayed by private incentive.I found the quote from the article laughable about the mother hovering the schoolgates to talk to the teachers/ Helicopter parent much? Why would you need to ongoing speak with your kid's teacher? It's their education not yours.

With those test results from the OECD, I know it's meant to be random. But I know most private schools will coach the group to take it, probably not even random selecting them. Point is, many spoon feed their kids for NAPLAN and other testing. At public schools, they just let the kids take it cause the natural results are indicative of what areas the school should focus on.

The facilities, yep private schools will have pristine lawns and $8 million netball and basketball courts. But does that help the students? Is it not just an exorbitant waste of money when there are public courts 10 minutes down the road. Facilities are important, but giving someone $1000 runners does not make them Usian Bolt.
And the bullying not happening in private schools? Lawl bullying happens everywhere, most people experience bullying in their lives.

I think the problem was these comparisons is that we can never have a comprehensive index of how well rounded an individuals education is. ANd what's more important, the "value" that a school has added to a student. In my mind, not everyone is destined for a 90+ ATAR, not everyone can be on top. It's about achieving the best for each student's individual capacity. The teacher that coaches a very intelligent and driven student to a 99 ATAR will receive praise and kudos, but what about the teacher that gets a kid from a shaky home background with learning difficulties to get a band 4 they never thought possible? We can't conclusively measure this, all statistics are limited. And we can't measure success of every school's alumni or the value of the environment or extra curriculars definitely. This is why performance introduced pay makes me worried, many public young teachers worry about this shift and may be fiscally forced to teach at privates. And John Howard's reforms made me so angry with the private school funding.

A child will do well at any school if they have thirst for knowledge and takes opportunities. This kids will most likely do better in the real world by anyone that was coached and prodded by their parents all the way (which occurs in all the the three strands of school discussed, but mainly private and selectives).

So my perspective? I am a 100% for public education, it aligns with my ideological beliefs. I don't believe in the enterprise of public education and don't believe in the mixing of religion and education. So that rules out private and religious schools. At my regional public comprehensive, I've had so much opportunity afforded unto me that is absolutely insane. I've immensely enjoyed my time at school for the most part. I am lucky because I know not all public schools have the same facilities and opportunity, as the focus is Sydney centric. But I could rattle off a list of so many extracurriculars I have done with my school, trips and excursions. From being on TV to charity to academic comps, I've really experience it all. I could rattle off a list of twenty dedicated teachers. Sure, we don't have the newest facilities or top the HSC rankings, but the opportunity for student to achieve THEIR best is there. Whether it's a band 4 or a band 6. And on top of going to a public school, my parents have had the extra money for me to particpate in even more out of school curriculars, meeting many more people and networking.

I will definitely send my children to public school. I don't believe in the privatisation of education, it should be free for all because it is a priceless asset. Public schools are more encompassing of their respective communities, and they are what I vehemently believe in. I had the choice at the end of Yr6 where to go, and have not regretted it for a single second.

This kind of nonsense expesses the absolute necessity of going to a private school better than I ever could.

 

[soloooooo]

I thought it was an excellent post actually.