Should there be eqaulity for children in society where possible?

Generally the issue is the parents' attitude rather than money. I'd say any teacher who works in a school that caters to a "rough" area will have a good 95% rate of accuracy in guessing which kids will do anything education-wise over their lives within the first couple of meetings with the parents, whether homework is signed or there's any sign of the kids being helped etc.

steddyeddy

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

So you don't believe people should be allowed to spend their own money how they wish?

No I dont if they can give their child an advantage over another from a disadvanaged background. There are limited places in college so sending one child to a better school than another (unless it's based on the child's intelligence) is wrong and defeats the purpose of the leaving cert.

Are you also against parents who spend more time than average helping their children understand their subjects? Surely "that's not fair".

No it's not fair but there are many who would love to send their kids to better schools but dont have the money. My kids will have an advantage in science over most if they want it. I dont think the state plays a role in parents spending more time with kids though. It's one thing to give a child extra help and another to put that child in an advantage over poorer children (who may still have supportive parents) based on their wealth.

So long as children get a good education it is ridiculous complaining that another child got a better one paid for by their parents.

No you see as I said there is limited college places so one child having a good education and another having one a few orders of magnitude better is another thing.

What's wrong with rich and poor being in the same class?

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

Generally the issue is the parents' attitude rather than money. I'd say any teacher who works in a school that caters to a "rough" area will have a good 95% rate of accuracy in guessing which kids will do anything education-wise over their lives within the first couple of meetings with the parents, whether homework is signed or there's any sign of the kids being helped etc.

Well I would agree to a certain extent but I sometimes give grinds to kids in disadvantaged areas and I find that most of the time the parents are extremely keen to get the kids into college. They want the kids to do better than they did in life. I do find some teachers in rough areas to not give a flying feck about the kids.

Madam_X

I don't understand what a private school has to offer beyond what an equally good non fee paying school has.
My siblings went to fee-paying school so the chip on shoulder derp thing doesn't apply. If I had kids and was absolutely minted I'd avoid sending them to private school. They're bound to have elitist elements no matter what anyone says - and it's naive to think "paying = better education". Even though all teachers have the same training? The reason they give the illusion of being better educational environments is because middle-class and wealthy people go to college as a given, so they're geared to work for it anyway. That and grinds/tuition centres.
Plenty of non paying schools have excellent facilities. Fair enough if a person is deciding where to send their kid and there are two schools nearby, one private and one state, and the private school has better facilities overall and the patent can afford to send their kid there.
But it's just this "Private schools provide better education, end of" attitude that I don't get. There are far too many variables depending on each school for it to be as simple as that.

The logic of "Why should a child be denied a private school education when they were born into privilege through no fault of their own" is the very same as "Why should a child born into a low-income home/disenfranchised area through no fault of their own have less of an educational chance?"

Rodin

tim_sims wrote: »

totally agree , grammar schools are a great idea

didnt sinn fein get rid of them up north in the name of equality :rolleyes:

The shinners have a major chip on their shoulder

A free, excellent education for everyone and they were complaining. Ridiculous.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If education and healthcare provided by the state is satisfactory there is nothing to complain about.

If someone else acquired their wealth legally it is no one else's business if they want to pay for better education for their children.

That is a pretty damn big "if" there.

General point, I also have to take a step back and wonder if grinds are actually educational.

Scanlas The 2nd

steddyeddy wrote: »

No I dont if they can give their child an advantage over another from a disadvanaged background. There are limited places in college so sending one child to a better school than another (unless it's based on the child's intelligence) is wrong and defeats the purpose of the leaving cert.



No it's not fair but there are many who would love to send their kids to better schools but dont have the money. My kids will have an advantage in science over most if they want it. I dont think the state plays a role in parents spending more time with kids though. It's one thing to give a child extra help and another to put that child in an advantage over poorer children (who may still have supportive parents) based on their wealth.




No you see as I said there is limited college places so one child having a good education and another having one a few orders of magnitude better is another thing.

What's wrong with rich and poor being in the same class?

Nothing wrong with rich and poor in the same class, I simply believe if parents want to help their child succeed to should be allowed do that. If a child is smart enough and works hard enough they'll get college places.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Nothing wrong with rich and poor in the same class, I simply believe if parents want to help their child succeed to should be allowed do that. If a child is smart enough and works hard enough they'll get college places.

The problem is that parents see throwing money at the child as helping. If they kid isn't bright enough, he's not bright enough. And some parents - espeically rich ones - would be advised to actually spend time rather than money trying to bring a child into the adult world.

Anita Blow

steddyeddy wrote: »

No what I am saying is private schools facilitate the entry of the less intelligence into college and the more intelligent from poorer areas will be less likely to get into college. The fees issue was an unrelated comment which I will edit now.

Explain how. Science in Trinity is 515 points this year.That means the lowest a person got in Science this year was 515 points. Whether they are rich or poor, that is a high score and if a person got it, it's because they worked their ass off to get it. You don't get over 500 just by dossing and if a person gets those points and chooses science, nobody else can tell them that they're not able to take that course. It's their decision whether you agree with it or not.

You seem to have some agenda against people in private schools and you need to face reality that this is a free society where parents will always try to give the best leg-up to their children as much as they can. There is nothing wrong with that.
So what if a middle-class parent pays for a grind a week for their child?
Their child doesn't receive the additional supports that DEIS schools offer to those in disadvantaged areas.
Their child doesn't receive a grant to receive a 3rd level education free of charge.
Their child doesn't get to use the HEAR access route to get into courses with reduced points.

If you want equality start by abolishing these and stop punishing middle-class families in public schools (by far the biggest group of students) just because you have something against the minority of upper class families in the system.

Ziphius wrote: »

Surely the issue here is with the university admissions policy rather than private schooling. If sub-par students are being admitted the universities should change their selection criteria. Interviews, personal statements, matriculation exams, and so on.

Introduce that and you'll introduce an even greater opportunity for discrimination. CAO at the moment is completely objective. Offers an advantage for those from disadvantaged areas through the HEAR scheme, but other than that it doesn't matter how rich you are, who you know or any other discriminatory factors. All that matters is the academics which at the end of the day should be paramount when applying to an academic course.

Ziphius

Anita Blow wrote: »

Introduce that and you'll introduce an even greater opportunity for discrimination. CAO at the moment is completely objective. Offers an advantage for those from disadvantaged areas through the HEAR scheme, but other than that it doesn't matter how rich you are, who you know or any other discriminatory factors. All that matters is the academics which at the end of the day should be paramount when applying to an academic course.

Indeed, it's possible. You often see Oxford and Cambridge, which operate interviews, being accused of racial discrimination. One of the benefits of the CAO is the anonymity of the applicant.

Rodin

What is the 'HEAR' access route?

Absolutely no surprise to see SteddyEddy continuing his crusade against students from private schools in this thread.

Ziphius

Rodin wrote: »

What is the 'HEAR' access route?

A quota of college places are reserved for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. These are offered at lower points than through the CAO.

Here's the link to the Trinity page but other college do it too.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes I'm sick of this chip on shoulder thing. Listen I'm working where I want to be. I have faith in my intelligence and it has got me where I want to be in life but I have come across the following in my undergraduate degree, my masters and now my phd. I as an academic am worrying about who is getting into college and thats all there is too it.

If these people are that intelligent, and the kids from private schools are so unintelligent and such slackers, they should quite comfortably get into college ahead of them.

Scortho

Should their be equality in education for children?
Of course there should.
Private schools should not be getting funding of the state. Instead this money should be redistributed to Deis schools where its badly needed.
If mammy and daddy want to have their little darlings educated privately, then they should have to pay the full whack for the privilege!

When it comes to 3rd level education the points system is fair. Just because your daddy is a doctor doesn't get you a place in medicine! Fees wise, a graduate tax that kicks in when the graduate starts earning over a certain amount (maybe 30000) should also be brought in. Many families in middle Ireland are struggling to pay the registration fee for their kids education. By having a graduate tax instead, the graduate would pay after qualifying and as a result his parents financial situation doesnt hamper his academic studies.

Students from disadvantaged backgrounds certainly deserve more supports. One only has to look at how few go on to 3rd level from these areas, even though we have free education for them.

Vito Corleone

Most people who go to private schools where I'm from are people who are repeating their leaving cert. In many cases they have spent the last 6 years messing and disrupting others. Then when their parents see their poor leaving cert results they send them off to private schools for the year. This attitude is becoming more and more prevalent and not only encourages laziness but rewards it.

It says on their website that 43% of students in Yeats college get over 500 points. Only 5% of students get over 500 points nationally. The teachers are clearly much better and don't have the job security that teachers in normal schools have and so they perform much better.

Class sizes are much smaller, there's 30+ in a lot of classes in public schools. Private schools have special study skills programmes among other things to help students. Every single one of their teachers has a masters in the subject they are teaching, the same can't be said for public schools unfortunately. 48% of Maths teachers don't have a mathematics teaching qualification.

I don't see how anyone can possibly think this is a fair system.

Btw, I wouldn't consider people going to grinds in one particular subject they are finding difficult or people going to revision courses to be in anyway the same thing as going to a private school.

Ziphius wrote: »

This research suggests the opposite. http://www.voxeu.org/article/competition-private-schools-boosts-performance-system-wide

Using data from the 2003 PISA study the authors found that competition between public and private schools increased achievement in students in both private and public schools.

That really isn't relevant, it's supply and demand. There will only be a certain number of college places available regardless.

Ziphius

Vito Corleone wrote: »

That really isn't relevant, it's supply and demand. There will only be a certain number of college places available regardless.

I think I misread your post as an attack the private sector's effect on educational standards rather than third level access.

Although, I think this is still relevant to the wider discussion, particularly as SteadyEddy's original argument was that private schools facilitate substandard students entering university to the exclusion of more capable students that are disadvantaged, socio-economically.

steddyeddy

AdamD wrote: »

Absolutely no surprise to see SteddyEddy continuing his crusade against students from private schools in this thread.

Again no surprise that a desire to see those from poorer backgrounds to be given an eqaul chance in life is met with "crusade against private school students" and "chip on his shoulder".

Was the abolition of private schools in Finland an "attack" on private school students also or an attempt to fix the system?

steddyeddy

AdamD wrote: »

If these people are that intelligent, and the kids from private schools are so unintelligent and such slackers, they should quite comfortably get into college ahead of them.

People from certain social economic backgrounds do not have a certain level of intelligence Adam.

Private schools make it easier for someone of lesser academic ability (to move away from the possibly more insulting intelligence) to get through the leaving cert and into college. That is not equal to people from private school are stupid. It's actually an attack on the system rather than those who pass through it.

jackofalltrades

Scortho wrote: »

Should their be equality in education for children?
Of course there should.
Private schools should not be getting funding of the state. Instead this money should be redistributed to Deis schools where its badly needed.
If mammy and daddy want to have their little darlings educated privately, then they should have to pay the full whack for the privilege!

As much as you like to portray private students as being the offspring of the super-rich, the simple fact is a lot of them are from middle class backgrounds.
If their parents had to pay the full cost of private education, then the vast majority of parents would send their children to a public school. Which would increase the strain on the already stretched education budget. Meaning DEIS schools could end up with less money.

Students from disadvantaged backgrounds certainly deserve more supports. One only has to look at how few go on to 3rd level from these areas, even though we have free education for them.

When I repeated my Leaving certificate many years ago, I did so in what would probably be classed as a disadvantaged area. There was about 60 of us in total repeating. When it came time to sit the exams there was only about on average 10 local students sitting the exams with us. The drop out rate for the local students was very high. You can bring in all the supports that you want, but they're useless if there aren't the students there to take them up.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

People from certain social economic backgrounds do not have a certain level of intelligence Adam.

Private schools make it easier for someone of lesser academic ability (to move away from the possibly more insulting intelligence) to get through the leaving cert and into college. That is not equal to people from private school are stupid. It's actually an attack on the system rather than those who pass through it.

What about a child with high ability who can easily breeze though their leaving cert in a public school and someone who isn't as strong and needs the extra help afforded by a grind school for instance. Is it not denying the second student the opportunity to succeed in life by preventing them going to a school where they will benefit from the extra help?

There will and should always be private schools for people who want them.

Should private health care and health insurance also be banned as this is the road you are going down.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Natasha Savory Windmill wrote: »

Should private health care and health insurance also be banned as this is the road you are going down.

Has happened in other countries. You'd be amazed how good a national health service becomes when the rich have to use it as well.

Scortho

Case Millions Trek wrote:

Should private health care and health insurance also be banned as this is the road you are going down.

No but their should be no provision of tax relief! Is johnny isn't happy with the state provided health system and wants to go private, the state shouldn't subsidise it!

I'm not against private schools. Im against the tax payer subsidising them. Just like im against the tax payer subsidising health insurance through tax relief

Scortho

jackofalltrades wrote: »

As much as you like to portray private students as being the offspring of the super-rich, the simple fact is a lot of them are from middle class backgrounds.
If their parents had to pay the full cost of private education, then the vast majority of parents would send their children to a public school. Which would increase the strain on the already stretched education budget. Meaning DEIS schools could end up with less money.
When I repeated my Leaving certificate many years ago, I did so in what would probably be classed as a disadvantaged area. There was about 60 of us in total repeating. When it came time to sit the exams there was only about on average 10 local students sitting the exams with us. The drop out rate for the local students was very high. You can bring in all the supports that you want, but they're useless if there aren't the students there to take them up.

What's wrong with the public system that parents who are middle class think/believe that their children need to be educated in private schools?

Blisterman

It's extremely difficult to achieve equality in education, sadly. There's always going to be factors outside of kids' control which give some an advantage over others, and wealth is just one of them.

For example, the involvement of your parents in your education, your ability to memorise things, the quality of teachers you end up with etc.

One possible advantage of removing private schools would be that it would encourage greater mixing between people of different backgrounds, and hopefully a greater understanding.

They're a little obsessed with the background of their politicians in England, but I can see their point. If you've gone private schools - Oxbridge - Prestigious firm, you're probably not going to know much about the lives of the majority of the people you're representing.

Scortho

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Not really relevant to the point I was making. Those countries that have a single tier health system, generally havea very good one.

Sorry I meant to quote the post above yours:o
Original post edited to rectify my mistake

Scortho

Scortho wrote: »

No but their should be no provision of tax relief! Is johnny isn't happy with the state provided health system and wants to go private, the state shouldn't subsidise it!

Why not, not only are they not using the state health care so why should they pay towards it but they are saving the state the cost of their procedures which would be a lot more than the tax relief. It also creates jobs for the people in the private health care facilities who pay income tax and with a lot of theses being highly paid doctors who would normally be paid by the state its like a double gain for the government as not only are they not paying them but they are gaining large sums in income tax from them.

They should be encouraging people to avail of the private health care rather than discouraging it.

Scortho wrote: »

I'm not against private schools. Im against the tax payer subsidising them. Just like im against the tax payer subsidising health insurance through tax relief

With schools in the country already at bursting point with numbers it would be crazy to remove funding for private schools. Lots of people in private schools are not rolling in money and if the fees increase significantly these children will flood back into the public system putting it under even more pressure.

CruelCoin

steddyeddy wrote: »

When I talk about eqaulity I mean specifically eqaulity in education provided by state bodies. I know this is going to be called socilist by those who dont understand it but I am a capitalist at heart and believe that people have the right to earn a better life for themselves and those who do are entitled to keep it that way.

The other side of that is those who are born into situations out of their control eg poverty, hunger, abuse or an area ran by drug dealers. In life they have been punished for being born and children of better off are rewarded for being born.

The above will never change and I accept this. It is a fact of life but what I wont accept that people who already are born into a situation that should already be conducive to doing well in life are put into better shcools and health care because of their parents wealth. As regards education giving people a better chance of getting into college because of wealth removes makes it less likely that college is going to be exclusively comprised of the most intelligent. Look at Finland they dont have private schools in effect. Education is equal for all children and they have one of the best education systems in the world.

Remove private schools or in my opinion we should increase university fees for those who can afford it. Two of the most intelligent people in an undergraduate class that I sometimes tutor might have to drop out and some of those with a lot more money who are frankly "fcucking idiots" are still there (a lecturers description not mine).


So should education be equal to all? In my view yes in terms of wealth but not in terms of intelligence. More intelligent people should be in college.

There is a marked difference between being book smart and being able to apply knowledge in the world outside academia. Intelligence as a sole criteria is foolish.

Education should be free and provided to all at a basic state funded level, with people then being able to top this up through private spending.

jackofalltrades

Scortho wrote: »

What's wrong with the public system that parents who are middle class think/believe that their children need to be educated in private schools?

You'd have to ask middle class parents who send their children to private schools that question.

CruelCoin

Scortho wrote: »

What's wrong with the public system that parents who are middle class think/believe that their children need to be educated in private schools?

You need only look at the national league tables for taht answer.

9 times out of ten, the private schools outperform public schools in terms of average points, average % going on to college, etc.

Why wouldn't a parent want their child to go somewhere where the education is better?

seanhalpin

steddyeddy wrote: »

...............Look at Finland they dont have private schools in effect. Education is equal for all children and they have one of the best education systems in the world. ........

Finland and Sweden are also countries that have been absolutely poisoned by socialism, presumably by being historically being very closely linked to Communist USSR.

I destest the notion that everyone is equal. In reality they most certainly aren't.
When I was in college there was many people there who really weren't university material and shouldn't have been there.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

seanhalpin wrote: »

Finland and Sweden are also countries that have been absolutely poisoned by socialism, presumably by being historically being very closely linked to Communist USSR.

I destest the notion that everyone is equal. In reality they most certainly aren't.
When I was in college there was many people there who really weren't university material and shouldn't have been there.

In what way were Sweden and Finland "poisoned"? Dying to hear this, considering they routinely place in the best-places-to-live charts.

Also interested to know when you went to college, how others who werent university material go there and ultimately, how you think money would solve the problem.

EDIT - or are you trolling again??

steddyeddy

CruelCoin wrote: »

You need only look at the national league tables for taht answer.

9 times out of ten, the private schools outperform public schools in terms of average points, average % going on to college, etc.

Why wouldn't a parent want their child to go somewhere where the education is better?

Indeed and I am not blaming the parent for wanting to do that nor am I blaming the student who passes through the system. I am taking issue with the fact that entry into college is more likely for those who have money to pay into the top ten schools. If ability to pay is linked with access to college then that's not a stiuation an academic can be happy with. Hence my position.

Money gives certain children an advantage over other students, many of whom are from less fortunate backgrounds.

steddyeddy

Natasha Savory Windmill wrote: »

Why not, not only are they not using the state health care so why should they pay towards it but they are saving the state the cost of their procedures which would be a lot more than the tax relief. It also creates jobs for the people in the private health care facilities who pay income tax and with a lot of theses being highly paid doctors who would normally be paid by the state its like a double gain for the government as not only are they not paying them but they are gaining large sums in income tax from them.

They should be encouraging people to avail of the private health care rather than discouraging it.





With schools in the country already at bursting point with numbers it would be crazy to remove funding for private schools. Lots of people in private schools are not rolling in money and if the fees increase significantly these children will flood back into the public system putting it under even more pressure.

The amount of people in schools is not an issue compared to the fairness in the system which currently doesnt exist. You cannot have a functioning test like the leaving cert if you give one pupil far more help than another.

steddyeddy

Anita Blow wrote: »

Explain how. Science in Trinity is 515 points this year.That means the lowest a person got in Science this year was 515 points. Whether they are rich or poor, that is a high score and if a person got it, it's because they worked their ass off to get it. You don't get over 500 just by dossing and if a person gets those points and chooses science, nobody else can tell them that they're not able to take that course. It's their decision whether you agree with it or not.

Two people from rich or poor are sitting the same test, very true. Two people have rich and poor often have far better help for the six years or so prior to the test. What you'r saying is that since both students sit the same test private schools make little or no difference?

You seem to have some agenda against people in private schools and you need to face reality that this is a free society where parents will always try to give the best leg-up to their children as much as they can. There is nothing wrong with that.
So what if a middle-class parent pays for a grind a week for their child?
Their child doesn't receive the additional supports that DEIS schools offer to those in disadvantaged areas.
Their child doesn't receive a grant to receive a 3rd level education free of charge.
Their child doesn't get to use the HEAR access route to get into courses with reduced points.

If you want equality start by abolishing these and stop punishing middle-class families in public schools (by far the biggest group of students) just because you have something against the minority of upper class families in the system.

And you seem to have an agenda based on anyone but the middle class entering education. A charge with as much validty as the charge you and others keep throwing at me. You constantly link education with money and that's what sickens me.

Introduce that and you'll introduce an even greater opportunity for discrimination. CAO at the moment is completely objective. Offers an advantage for those from disadvantaged areas through the HEAR scheme, but other than that it doesn't matter how rich you are, who you know or any other discriminatory factors. All that matters is the academics which at the end of the day should be paramount when applying to an academic course.

So mature students are discriminated against because they go through interviews? I can tell you for a fact as far as science lecturers go most of them dont link academic ability to parental wealth. Most see the private school dominance as a problem.

Ziphius

steddyeddy wrote: »

So mature students are discriminated against because they go through interviews? I can tell you for a fact as far as science lecturers go most of them dont link academic ability to parental wealth. Most see the private school dominance as a problem.

It's possible. If people can be discriminated against for job interviews why not college interviews?

And discrimination can be based on more than just parental wealth. Skin colour, sex, ethnicity could all be used. Universities that do use interviews as part of the admissions process are frequently accused of being discriminatory. For example this headline from the Guardian a few years back

"Twenty-one Oxbridge colleges took no black students last year"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/06/oxford-colleges-no-black-students

Now, I'm not saying interviews will necessarily lead to an increase in discrimination and I suspect there are factors other than racists dons which account for Oxford's skewed intake.

Blisterman

That's a vicious cycle in all of this. A university gets a reputation for racism, so minorities don't want to go there. So the reputation gets reinforced.

Same goes for snobbery. Oxford and Cambridge get reputations for being snobby, so snobby people go there.

It's interesting to look at this table of universities in the UK by number of applicants. It's a little out of date, but I can't imagine there's been much change. While you'd think the most prestigious universities would have the most applicants, that's far from the case. Oxford, Cambridge and LSE are way down the list.

http://www.studentinfor.bizland.com/popularuni.chtml

So the arguably more troubling issue is that people from poorer or minority backgrounds are being scared away from even applying to these places.

allibastor

It should be equal but in reality it never will in Ireland where we have estates builti up for the people who themselves are un educated or take the life of the government artist. People with money will move to a nice area with Big houses and such, and then schools will build near by, and either from local funding in an affluent area, or else alumni donations the school can continue to privide better services and a general better education, whicl also having a better class of people who tend to be better educated by way of having better educated parents who will knwo more about issues or specific topics etc.

it is unfortunate, but unless our lowest classes of people decide to try and improve themselves and get on the band wagon, it is hard for the situation to change and it cant be fixed by the governemtn alone, in places like finland they dont have the drink, drug and welfare culture we have here which tends to lead to these inequalities.

steddyeddy

Natasha Savory Windmill wrote: »

What about a child with high ability who can easily breeze though their leaving cert in a public school and someone who isn't as strong and needs the extra help afforded by a grind school for instance..

I dont have a problem with grinds. I know plenty of people on feck all money who break their backs working to send their kids for extra grinds. I'm talking about year round education that makes gives some students an advantage over others.

Is it not denying the second student the opportunity to succeed in life by

preventing them going to a school where they will benefit from the extra
help?

Surely the brighter child should be sent to the school that helps him/her maximise their potential?

There will and should always be private schools for people who want them.





Should private health care and health insurance also be banned as this is
the
road you are going down

More academics than you think aren't happy with the way private schools have the monopoly on college placement. Trinty's patick Geoghegan was behind bringing in the new admissions system in Trinity which reflects on the background and context of the student applying. In his own words:

"Having a student from a disadvantaged school get 450 points in the Leaving,
Geoghegan suggested, may be “more of an achievement than a student who gets 550
points from an elite fee-paying school”.

If you can pay your way to an academic advantage (I didn't say college place by the way I said academic advantage) then you nullify the ability of the leaving cert to objectively ascertain pure academic ability. (my words)

I wrote previously about another professor I worked with who would not take post grads on from certain private colleges having come from a pretty rough background himself. I also wrote previously that this was wrong and he was discrimnating against them as much as he was discrimnated against by the two tier Irish education system. He was wrong and it's a good thing he was reitred but If you treat one section of society as less deserving of the same education as the well of then there is going to be backlash.

From a fairness point fo view two teir education is wrong and from academic point of view it is utterly bizarre to say two tier education is ok because the parents have a right to choose. Well the parents can go to hell over the rights of a child in my opinion.

Rodin

Ziphius wrote: »

A quota of college places are reserved for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. These are offered at lower points than through the CAO.

Here's the link to the Trinity page but other college do it too.

Can't say I agree with that whatsoever

steddyeddy

Rodin wrote: »

Can't say I agree with that whatsoever

I agree it actually prevents the change that's needed within the system.

Rodin

:rolleyes:

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree it actually prevents the change that's needed within the system.

Where is the fairness in a kid not getting into college because a kid who did worse than him/her in the leaving got the place? That's ridiculous

steddyeddy

Rodin wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Where is the fairness in a kid not getting into college because a kid who did worse than him/her in the leaving got the place? That's ridiculous

As is a system where kids from disadvanteged schools and advantaged schools doing the same test with two completely different state funded variables.

steddyeddy

Rodin wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Where is the fairness in a kid not getting into college because a kid who did worse than him/her in the leaving got the place? That's ridiculous

Again though this still holds true:

"Having a student from a disadvantaged school get 450 points in the Leaving,
Geoghegan suggested, may be “more of an achievement than a student who gets 550
points from an elite fee-paying school”.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Again though this still holds true:

"Having a student from a disadvantaged school get 450 points in the Leaving,
Geoghegan suggested, may be “more of an achievement than a student who gets 550
points from an elite fee-paying school”.

That's not necessarily true at all though, completely subjective.

Rodin

steddyeddy wrote: »

Again though this still holds true:

"Having a student from a disadvantaged school get 450 points in the Leaving,
Geoghegan suggested, may be “more of an achievement than a student who gets 550
points from an elite fee-paying school”.

And what about a student who got 550 in a non-fee paying school?
Does the 450 point student only take the place of the private school student?

steddyeddy

AdamD wrote: »

That's not necessarily true at all though, completely subjective.

Not always no but a lot of the time it is. The fact it isnt clear who does better is also a sign that we need to remove the variables.

Anita Blow

steddyeddy wrote: »

So mature students are discriminated against because they go through interviews? I can tell you for a fact as far as science lecturers go most of them dont link academic ability to parental wealth. Most see the private school dominance as a problem.

Who's to say it doesn't happen?
When you introduce an interview process, you introduce bias and in a country as small as Ireland that's not going to work.
Will Trinity be more likely to accept a Fiachra from Ballsbridge or a Deco from Finglas if they get the chance to interview them in person?
If it comes down to interviews, it will create a whole new pressure on students to get work experience in areas and once again that will introduce an even bigger "It's who you know" element, where those with connections relevant to their course will get the best work experience etc. to pad their application with.

You don't want equality in education, you want a system that punishes the middle and upper class. It's understandable that you're coming at this from point of view as someone who has come from a disadvantaged background, but it's just not workable because it's completely unfair. People from disadvantaged backgrounds get:
Additional support at 2nd level through the DEIS scheme
Free 3rd level fees
Reduced points for whatever course they want
Alternative, college-specific programmes such as TAP that gives them a completely separate route from the LC to whatever course they want that those in Middle-class and upper class don't have.

None of these are available to middle-class students. How is that equality? If college-attendance from disadvantage groups hasn't increased with all those supports in place then it's due to the piss-poor attitude a lot of them have towards education and discipline. The state and colleges have done all they can do to get disadvantaged students to go to college.
I have experienced first hand multiple times how unfair some of these supports that disadvantaged people get that the rest of us don't and it makes me livid. I'm fully supportive of people like yourself who have persevered and have gone on to do well, but those people already have the above supports to help them progress. The ones who are as intelligent and determined as you say will make it through the system.

Blisterman

I think the fee paying thing is mostly a red herring. I think parent's attitudes towards education is the far bigger influence, and that's an advantage that starts at a very young age.

A lot of the confusions I think is caused because, as a whole, I think people who send their kids to private schools are more likely to have a strong interest in their child's education, whether that's making sacrifices to pay for them, or because their own education has enabled them to afford the schools. But that does necessarily mean that private schools offer that much influence in themselves.

Personally I'd like to see more things like mentoring introduced.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not always no but a lot of the time it is. The fact it isnt clear who does better is also a sign that we need to remove the variables.

That's just not true. You're making it out as if people who get 550 points have gotten it simply because they turned up at their private school, ridiculous. The difference between 450 and 550 is huge.

It is clear who did better. 550 > 450 by such a large margin that you can't simply put it down to their background.