Money = better education?

spiderman1885

From experience Fee paying schools i.e. Blackrock college are very proud that they are in fee paying schools they probably should be, they're bound to get better teachers. Whilst playing them in a football match they told me "our fees roysh are worth more then loike ur house" They live in their own world. I go to a community school on the northside, this made them think they were far better then me. They didn't have a clue where on the northside we were from as it happens.... We're in a fairly well off area so paying yearly fees of over €700,000 they don't get much of a worldly education do they, when they think everywhere across the Liffey is poor! Also just thought I'd mention that my community school was ranked higher then alot of fee paying school in %'s going on to 3rd level education.

SamHamilton

And if people going to private schools are going to college to pursue

bcomm('s) in UCD

so that they can be

f.ucking loaded with little or no efford

I'm glad I went to a public school. At least I have been able to find fulfillment in Steinbeck, Wilde, Frost, Hemingway etc. that I don't think a person can be truly complete without.

It's not jealousy. I am an extremely capable student who would excel if I chose to study economics and other soul destroying subjects in college that meant I'd be filthy rich. I've learnt that money cannot buy a mind. It can cloud the fact that one doesn't have one, but what's the point in that?

JC 2K3

eZe^ wrote:

From my experience, all my friends who go to public school would have benefitted much much more than the community schools they attend. They will openly admit that. Although the schools in question are Rochestown College and St. Peters . But all jokes aside, I personally feel that you get a better education in a private school. Therefore for me it is worth the money (not that I pay), so Im sure alot of other parents believe it is worth sending there children to private schools.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, you think that public schools are just as good as private schools, fair enough. But its unfair to say people who send there children to private schools only do so for prestige, they do so because they believe its a better education, and for alot of people it GENUINELY is a better education. Not an illusion.


Unfair, most definitely, but the world is an unfair place man. Im sorry if I offended anyone, but everyone has their own opinion and we are all entitled to that!

Just because parents "believe it is worth it" doesn't mean it is worth it, and quite frankly, saying "life is unfair" písses me off so much. Why is life unfair? Why should life be unfair when it could be made fairer? It's a total cop out to say something idiotic like that.

I should probably give some background here. I live in a "posh" area, my parents are well off and could afford to send me to a private school. Although my parents do not agree with private schools, had I not gotten into my current school, I might well have ended up in a private school due to the way these schools are hyped up.

Now the school I'm in is different to a lot of schools for the simple fact that it's an Irish speaking school. In general, due to this profound difference, a lot of students would have parents behind them wanting them to go to college and taking a particular interest in their child's education, regardless of how rich or poor they are. There are also a few who don't wish to go to college, although less than in the average public school.

I also am lucky in the fact that although there were essentially no facilities in the school during my first two years, from third year onwards we've had a fantastic new sports hall and new classroom block with all up to date technology. This was as a result of government grants and years of fundraising.

As you can see, I'm in a very privilaged position and am very thankful for it. I think that it has taught me a few things:

-Parents are VERY influential on a child's path in life and the attitude they have towards education. I firmly believe that parents' expectations of a child are the most fundamental and influential factor in whether they decide to go to college or not.

-From what I can remember of my friends in primary school, most of whom would be well off, their parents always seemed to be intelligent and taking an interest in their child's education and the development of their child in general.

-Most of these went to private schools, however, most of those who didn't are doing fine in public schools and I wouldn't be exaggerating when I say that 90% of the people from my class in primary school will be going to college.

-Due to my experience in a public school that happened to have a lot of students with parents taking an active interest in their child and encouraging them to go to college, and due to the fact that not all of these parents were well off, I conclude that parents do not need to be well off to take an active interest in their child's education.

-Since my school is public and has state of the art facilities, this shows that a school need not be private to be able to have such facilities.

Now what does this this all show?

-Children of parents who take an active interest in their education and encourage them to go to college are far more likely to go to college.

-The majority of well off parents will take an active interest in their child's education.

-Private schools consist almost entirely of students who's parents take an active interest in their education.

-A parent need not be well off, however, to take an active interest in their child's education.

-Public schools consist of a mix of students with different types of parents.


Therefore, it is safe to say that before even considering facilities, teachers or anything about the school itself, private schools will have higher percentages attending college than public schools.

Was it really the "high standard of education" that got them there?

ZorbaTehZ

cson wrote:

(snip) ... Grind Schools - Institute, Yeats etc ...

Saw a Maserati Quattroporte pull up outside that place, and then this guy gets out clad in Celtic jersey + tracksuit + Burberry cap, and goes inside. I lol'ed.

Agri_trust

A private school isnt going to make some one thick smart.

So why do we have private schools in the first place?

Is it to keep the bourgeois away from us proletarian scum?

fuinneamh

Personally i think the true sign of how educated you are is how many books are in your house. Books develop an interest and curiosity in the world, which will more often than not make you succeed in school. This is passed on from your parents and its completely random what sort of parents you have.

Another aspect is that you have to consider the differant types of education. Social skills, street smarts etc. again most of these are passed on from your parents. So it all depends how much interest your parents have in you and how much time they'll devote to you. So you can say that education is not dependant on money.

On the other hand, the very wealthy parents can afford to hire others to fill their role as their too busy. So the question is , is hired parents better substitue than real parents??

spudington16

cabla wrote:

TBH unless you have been to both a non-paying school and a fee paying school you cannot comment. Fee paying = less pupils which = more time spent on each student...non-paying = perhaps better facilities and wider choice of subjects.

Well, the combined student population of the Institute of Education in Dublin is well over one and a half thousand. And they offer extra-curricular activities to 5th Formers only.

Where does this fit into your blunt little model?

JackKelly

First of all, the Leaving Cert is a stepping stone to college. We all know this, and we all know its pros and cons. Like it or not, you don't need to be intelligent to achieve a good mark in the LC. You need to be good at retaining information. It certainly doesn't reflect a persons "Education". Two of the smartest people I know did average in their Leaving Certs.

I went to the Institute and throughout my two years there , I met many different types of people. There were students who worked hard and did well, and there were students there who did nothing, and didn't do well.
In each of these groups were people from well off backgrounds who could easily afford to pay the 5000 euro and people whose parents would have made sacrifices to get their kids through school.

Money doesn't make you smart. You can have access to all of the best teachers and all of the best materials and come out of school the same way you entered. On the other hand, If you are a capable student, than a teacher shouldn't hold you back in a topic of interest. 90% of leaning is down to the individual. Infact, If we want to get into a debate about education, the first place to start would be at home, not in school.

I think it's completely petty and childish to accuse all those attending a private school/grind school of buying their grades. It's simply not true. That's not to say I entirely agree with private schooling. I left a private school to go to a grind school, because I didn't like the whole Southside Rugby scene, which so many in my school were obcessed with. This is probably beside the point in any order.

europerson

I think a lot of posters on the thread are missing the point. The fundamental reason that middle-class kids do better at school is not because they go to better schools: choice of school has very little to do with it in fact. The main reason, as far as I see, is that middle-class students do better, because they've had more opportunities: they've travelled; they've grown up with parents, who were probably educated; they've probably had more exposure to books, newspapers, etc.; and they've probably experienced more cultural events and all that. I think that accounts for the difference, rather than money per se.

xha1r

spudington16 wrote:

Well, the combined student population of the Institute of Education in Dublin is well over one and a half thousand. And they offer extra-curricular activities to 5th Formers only.

Where does this fit into your blunt little model?

Yes, let's use the most extreme and unusual example possible to try and make a point.

The Institute is a completely unique in the aspect of student numbers.

themont85

cson wrote:

Wait a minute......you're saying there is a gap between the standard of public and private education? That my community school education is inferior to your fee paid private education?

Yes of course there is a gap, Institute and other grind school teachers are paid better than Government paid teachers. This is not reflected in fee paying schools such as Blackrock, Michaels, CBC Monkstown ect. I said this gap would widen further because like it or not private education is impossible to stop because some parents would see it more important to get better teachers than the whole normal school experience.

cson wrote:

All the more reason to abolish fee paying education and have everyone educated on an equal basis where class or wealth cannot affect it. Then its down to the person themselves you see. Money can't save you then.

Impossible as I said in a previous response. The Government cannot stop private education, it is impossibe for the Government to provide an eduction/facilities that all parents would want. Your utopian/socialist ideals are unatainable no matter how hard you try.

cson wrote:

No need to apologise. But you're failing to understand that you do not reflect the majority of people. Most students in this country go to public schools because they simply don't have the choice. Like me for instance, my parents can't afford to send me to a private school. I wouldn't want to go anyway. You get a better education in a public school imo.

No, you are failing to understand parents who send their children to these schools. My sister went to a public school, not because they couldn't afford private education for her and not me but because it was a better choice of school which I never disagreed with just your view of paying these teachers. I realise not every parent cannot afford private education but that is life. I simply think that private schools save the taxpayer money in the cost of school facilites which the Government avoid paying the cost for each of these children who do not attend free education.

cson wrote:

And if the costs were to become too much you know you could actually go a public school. Believe or not, they don't charge money and they accept everyone.

Have no problem with that but do you not see that this would cost more money. I understand you have an idealogical dislike to private education but we live in a captalist soceity where money rules.

cson wrote:

Increased from what?

Teachers salarys for fee paying schools, i.e. your original argument.

cson wrote:

Hmmm, if paying for education doesn't guarantee results or furthermore as you say yourself the standard is the same, why do you do it? Are you under some sort of delusion that it's better?

No the school happens to be a better option for me, better facilities in the sporting area, i.e. not the education you get which I believe is a two way thing where your input outweighs that of the teacher.

cson wrote:

The original argument was about the Govt paying private school teachers wages: Its a nonsense and a disgrace.

See Above but to sum up I think your argument sound in principal deeply flawed in the soceity we live in, not a Socialist state but a realistic one.

JC 2K3

You have to realise that saying "that is life" is not good enough.

Accepting a class divide is bollocks IMO

Also, capitalism doesn't equate to a system where money rules and socialism is not equal to communism. It is possible to have socialist elements in a capitalist state.

Attractive Nun

JC 2K3 wrote:

You have to realise that saying "that is life" is not good enough.

Accepting a class divide is bollocks IMO

Also, capitalism doesn't equate to a system where money rules and socialism is not equal to communism. It is possible to have socialist elements in a capitalist state.

Saying "That is life", to a certain extent, is good enough. The principles of individualism, personal liberty and personal choice are the fundamental cornerstones of our society. It is difficult, if not impossible, to justify the abolition of private schools if you accept these values. At its core, private education is nothing more than one person freely exchanging money with another in return for a service. That I might have more money and better services than another person doesn't really affect that person, and likewise that others may have more money and better services than me doesn't affect me greatly either. There is nothing unjust about it - that's life.

spiderman1885 wrote:

From experience Fee paying schools i.e. Blackrock college are very proud that they are in fee paying schools they probably should be, they're bound to get better teachers. Whilst playing them in a football match they told me "our fees roysh are worth more then loike ur house" They live in their own world. I go to a community school on the northside, this made them think they were far better then me.

I'm not going to say that this didn't happen, because I have no way of knowing, but I really doubt that this happened. A huge amount of my friends in college, probably a majority, went to private school and this attitide just isn't there in my experience (I went to a community school). In fact, I don't even know whether or not most of the people I know in college went to private or public school.

JC 2K3

Attractive Nun wrote:

At its core, private education is nothing more than one person freely exchanging money with another in return for a service.

No, it's parents exchanging money with another for a fundamental service for their child that should be available to everyone.

The child didn't earn the money to pay for their school, so it's not as simple as a normal capitalist transaction.

themont85

JC 2K3 wrote:

No, it's parents exchanging money with another for a fundamental service for their child that should be available to everyone.

The child didn't earn the money to pay for their school, so it's not as simple as a normal capitalist transaction.

You simply cannot stop these transactions. We our a democratic State not a dictatorship. If the Government banned fee paying schools(which I doubt is possible) those parents would put their money into other things for their child. Yes, the child didn't earn the money but that is irrelevant a arent can spend their money on what they wish and if some of the socialist principals expressed came true the money would be spent elsewhere on their child giving that an advantage in life, like it or not.

You also said that it is possible for an education system which is equal for all. How would you go about doing this then?

analyse this

It depends really on what you interpret better education as. For me, a good education should not only incompass academic development in the student, but also personal and social development (without which the former would be completely pointless!!). I believe that public institutions provide appropriate education in this sense. Actually, if we interpret education based on the beliefs above, it could be argued that, overall, public schools offer a better education. Private school students are, for the most part, confined to the school they are attending and therefore only interact with a very limited number of people, with limited access to different cultures. It is my belief that this lack of social development is a downside to private schools and hinders educational development.

In my personal opinion, the belief that private institutions offer better education is not based on the belief that "money=better education", but based on the different ethos of the different institutions and the different images that are attached to these institutions. Public schools are not only driven by academic achievement, but, also, social, personal and sporting achievements, as well as the development of other talents. Private institutions are driven by a differnet ethos. I think everyone will agree that the main aim of students attending private institutions (particularly grind schools) is to study at third level. I doubt a person seeking to get an apprenticeship will pay to go to private school. Hence, the school is driven by a single aim: to attain a place in your course and maximize your points. Hence, there is more of a reliance on academic development and achievement in private schools which creates an image of diligent, hard-working, studious students (in the academic sense).

JC 2K3

themont85 wrote:

if some of the socialist principals expressed came true the money would be spent elsewhere on their child giving that an advantage in life.

Exactly, and that is perfectly fine.

However, education should be viewed as a fundamental right, as is equality.

themont85 wrote:

You also said that it is possible for an education system which is equal for all. How would you go about doing this then?

Make all schools public and in ex-private schools where more funds are needed to run the school's extra curricuar activities etc. make the students who wish to partake in these activities pay for them.

timmywex

well, not bothered reading everything so,.

with money you can get grinds which are better than classes any day
you can get support things like laptops etc
you have encouragment to work so you can live like your parents do


however, you do not learn mor ewith money, you have to put in the effort still...

Agri_trust

europerson wrote:

I think a lot of posters on the thread are missing the point. The fundamental reason that middle-class kids do better at school is not because they go to better schools: choice of school has very little to do with it in fact. The main reason, as far as I see, is that middle-class students do better, because they've had more opportunities: they've travelled; they've grown up with parents, who were probably educated; they've probably had more exposure to books, newspapers, etc.; and they've probably experienced more cultural events and all that. I think that accounts for the difference, rather than money per se.

Thats an awful and disgusting point of view. You dont have to be middle class to be cultured. Id be considered working class because Im able to get the grant for next year, my parents are farmers. I grew up with books, politics and newspapers in my house. My brothers are engineers and one is studing for a PHD.



Money does not equal culture or good grades, its what you want to do with your life. If you want to do well in school you will, if you dont you dont have to. I know people who have dropped out of both private and public schools. Its your mind that matters.

genericgoon

I agree completly with Agri. There are plenty of educated individuals from working class backgrounds and many more will come from the 'lower' classes.

microbiek

genericgoon wrote:

I agree completly with Agri. There are plenty of educated individuals from working class backgrounds and many more will come from the 'lower' classes.

einsein dropped out of primary school!

JC 2K3

Agri_trust wrote:

Thats an awful and disgusting point of view. You dont have to be middle class to be cultured. Id be considered working class because Im able to get the grant for next year, my parents are farmers. I grew up with books, politics and newspapers in my house. My brothers are engineers and one is studing for a PHD.

Don't be so quick to attack them. It actually supports the view that private schools don't necessarily offer a better academic education.

You don't have to be middle class to be cultured or have parents who take an interest in you(and the poster did not say this or even imply it), but if you are indeed middle class, your parents are likely to take an active interest in your education. Since private schools group together a lot of people who have parents taking such an interest, it gives the illusion that the school somehow offers a better academic education.

If you are lower class, your parents could well be great and take an interest in you, but you won't be able to afford to go to a private school and your good results will be grouped in with the statistics of a public school which will include weaker students that private schools are less likely to have.

SamHamilton

Don't be so quick to attack them. It actually supports the view that private schools don't necessarily offer a better academic education.

Just because it supports the view that you believe in doesn't believe it's right! You seem to have made your mind up about this issue at the beginning and while I personally don't feel it's fair for different people to have different educations based on the amount of money they have, I'm willing to have my view changed.

themont85

[/QUOTE]Make all schools public and in ex-private schools where more funds are needed to run the school's extra curricuar activities etc. make the students who wish to partake in these activities pay for them.[/QUOTE]

Then you are left in a fairly similar situation aren't you. The haves can afford the extra funds and the have nots can't leading to jelousy ect. Wealthier parents could still pay for extra tuition outside of school and we are back at square one aren't we?

Agri_trust

themont85 wrote:

Then you are left in a fairly similar situation aren't you. The haves can afford the extra funds and the have nots can't leading to jelousy ect. Wealthier parents could still pay for extra tuition outside of school and we are back at square one aren't we?

Make sure all teachers are up to the standard thats needed. Much smaller classes. (the sacking of all teachers that make a bit of back handed money.:D)

Thats all I can think of. If "the best education system in the world" was done right people wouldnt need after school grinds.

(Off topic, but at least one good thing happened today, Bernard Manning, racist irish hating bigot is dead!!)

europerson

JC 2K3 wrote:

You don't have to be middle class to be cultured or have parents who take an interest in you(and the poster did not say this or even imply it), but if you are indeed middle class, your parents are likely to take an active interest in your education.

Thanks for understanding my post. Agri_trust, you've misinterpreted me completely.

Tomlowe

commies

let's have the government control farming, the internet, and everything else too in case people with no money get pissed off about the fact that they have no money.

Everyone should be dragged down to the same level where teachers can only be paid one wage so that no one has an opportunity to be taught by the people who are so good at what they do that they could easily make more money doing something else, but in the current system are attracted by high wages. Hopefully with this we might be able to make people a bit less educated and stop the grade inflation that everyone's so angry about.

We should also get rid of expensive cars, because that's not fair, if Anto the pillhead can only afford to run a cinquecento, then by god we should force everyone else to. thats only fair.

This constant search for the lowest common denominator, this petty-minded jealousy of people's ability to do well for themselves, disguised as "fairness" is the only way to restore equality.

*slams door*

*opens slightly again*

Oh by the way i was being sarcastic

JC 2K3

You're missing the point. How has the child done well for themselves? How has the child earned the right to go to a private school over another child whose parents can't afford it?

Now you can say that the parents have the right to spend their money however they like on their children, which is true. However education is a fundamental need in today's society. Education at its most basic level should be equal. Otherwise, children are mere commodities owned by parents and can only do as well as the parents wish/can afford to.

Unfortunately, children are not a commodity owned by parents, they are people. I dunno about you, but I believe in equal oppertunity and I believe in viewing all children as equal and not seperating them based on class while they are still in compulsory education.

Once they are out in the working world all the capitalist principles apply, sure. They're adults then. Their life is in their own hands. But until then, what parents they have should not determine who they are and who they mix with.

JC 2K3

You're missing the point. How has the child done well for themselves? How has the child earned the right to go to a private school over another child whose parents can't afford it?

Now you can say that the parents have the right to spend their money however they like on their children, which is true. However education is a fundamental need in today's society. Education at its most basic level should be equal. Otherwise, children are mere commodities owned by parents and can only do as well as the parents wish/can afford to.

Unfortunately, children are not a commodity owned by parents, they are people. I dunno about you, but I believe in equal oppertunity and I believe in viewing all children as equal and not seperating them based on class while they are still in compulsory education.

Once they are out in the working world all the capitalist principles apply, sure. They're adults then. Their life is in their own hands. But until then, what parents they have should not determine who they are and who they mix with.

jaydigity

Tomlowe wrote:

commies

let's have the government control farming, the internet, and everything else too in case people with no money get pissed off about the fact that they have no money.

Tomlowe,I suspect some people are going to react badly to that post, but me being level-headed and all (!) I'll say this in a non-aggressive way.

As already said elsewhere, socialist policies do not equate to communism. I'm sure that you agree with medical cards, pensions etc.

Education and health are two basic human rights and, in this country, there's huge disparity between the service provided to those with money and those without.

It makes me sick that someone can pay to receive better healthcare and education (if you do believe that "money=better education").
Do you agree that its fundamentally wrong to determine the course of some one's entire life based on wealth (yes, education is that important IMO)?