Insane private school fees.

lukesmom

earlyevening wrote: »

http://www.rosey.ch/

120,000 US dollars per year.

edit - Here's a list
http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/12/europe-boarding-schools-biz-cx_vr_1212boarding.html

Jolly hockey sticks! The girl to the left of that photo looks preggers

Sir Arthur Daley

lukesmom wrote: »

Jolly hockey sticks! The girl to the left of that photo looks preggers

I say the fella in front of her with the black hair has a hand gone wandering.

Bannasidhe

farmchoice wrote: »

in fairness that post gives the impression that you are the one with the axe to gind

How so?

I spoke of my personal experience in a private school that did not devote valuable time to teaching religion - any religion - and posited that may have been part of the reason for the school's success in State exams.

The response I got was not relevant to anything I had said - comparing JC students to primary school and referencing Catholic schools which I never referred to...
Then I was told what I was capable of understanding aged 9. 9 year olds understand bigotry which is what we were discussing.

Yet I am the one with an axe to grind???

Heroditas

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Don't know if you're comparing like with like. Childcare is a need. Private school isn't.

Of course I'm not comparing like for like. The real scandal is the high cost of childcare.

Pumpkinseeds

What's wrong with a bit of elitism and snobbery if you can afford it? There's a lot of reverse snobbery here.

BeerWolf

I used to go to a community school before heading to Sutton Park School in Howth for my secondary years, costs €12k a year or €25k if you were boarding there.

And the facilities were ****ing sub par, had community schools with infinitely far better facilities... and I found student performance in said community schools far excelled private - kids in private think they're self made already just being in there.

Don't know what it is with this fetish for private schools to retain an old Georgian look to it, the desks and, example, Science apparatus were freaking ancient!

Cienciano

Heroditas wrote: »

Funny how people won't bat an eyelid at spending up to €10k per year to send their child to a grotty creche yet think a couple of grand for a private school is exorbitant.

I don't know anyone who is happy paying creche fees. Anyone I know with kids in them certainly did "bat an eyelid" at the price.
Grotty? Send your kids to a different one.
You have no choice but to send your kids to creche. You have a choice with private school. If there were free public creches how many fee paying ones would be left open?
So not a great comparison

Heroditas

Cienciano wrote: »

You have no choice but to send your kids to creche.

Not really. How many people choose to have dual income households when they could still make ends meet by having one parent stay at home?

As for having a choice regaridng moving a child from one creche to another - it's not always that simple. Demand can regularly outstrip supply in some areas.

denhaagenite

Glock Lesnar wrote: »

The Fettes blazer alone is worth the fee

It looks like a Turkish Delight bar.

Shakespeare's Sister

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

What's wrong with a bit of elitism and snobbery if you can afford it? There's a lot of reverse snobbery here.

One form of snobbery good, the other bad, eh?
It's not reverse snobbery to criticise elitism; it's reverse snobbery to sneer at someone because they come from a middle-class background.
That's what snobbery is - sneering at people because of their background, so that's what's wrong with a bit of elitism and snobbery.

BeerWolf wrote: »

I used to go to a community school before heading to Sutton Park School in Howth for my secondary years, costs €12k a year or €25k if you were boarding there.

And the facilities were ****ing sub par, had community schools with infinitely far better facilities... and I found student performance in said community schools far excelled private - kids in private think they're self made already just being in there.

Don't know what it is with this fetish for private schools to retain an old Georgian look to it, the desks and, example, Science apparatus were freaking ancient!

I know of a private school that's like that too - then there are private schools which are excellent. The money doesn't always mean the school is good.
I don't have an issue with people sending their child to a private school if it's the best school in the area (my parents did same for my two siblings) but I do think it's very silly (to say the least) to send their child to a private school just because it's a private school so the people attending it will be "better". Not a very intelligent outlook.

Heroditas wrote: »

Not really. How many people choose to have dual income households when they could still make ends meet by having one parent stay at home?

As for having a choice regaridng moving a child from one creche to another - it's not always that simple. Demand can regularly outstrip supply in some areas.

Creche is still less of a choice than private school is.

LoonyLovegood

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

That's how much they should cost here too, if it wasn't for the state subsidised elitism. Private schools should be entirely self-funded.

My private school was totally self funded. Eight grand a year. Money well spent considering I'd dropped out of my previous school.

coffee_cake

That rosey place does look awesome in fairness

EyeSight

I don't think it's snobbery. Private schools can afford good teachers & facilities and expel the trouble makers.

I went to a community school and it was rough. The type of place with 5 people in the higher level LC classes, parents of kids in mount joy etc. Some of the teachers were ok, but most were just there to do the minimum and collect their salary. The scumbags were the worst, it was like being in prison - just keep your head down and hope nobody starts anything. Classes were constantly interrupted and it was near impossible to expel anyone. The place was falling apart too
If i had the money i'd send my future kids to private school. Frankly I wouldn't give a damn if what anyone else thought

Shakespeare's Sister

EyeSight wrote: »

I don't think it's snobbery. Private schools can afford good teachers & facilities and expel the trouble makers.

Teachers are teachers in fairness. There's nothing extra required to teach at a private school.
It isn't always snobbery for sure, but it'd be a bit mad to suggest it's never snobbery.
My school was let down by a rough element also, so if I had kids there's no way I'd send them there, or to a similar school, but I'd only send them to a private school if it was the best in the area and didn't have a reputation for having stuck-up pupils.

Minjor

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

That's how much they should cost here too, if it wasn't for the state subsidised elitism. Private schools should be entirely self-funded.

When the parents who send the kids there are often the ones paying the most tax into the system?

You're saying their tax shouldn't be allowed fund the schools they send their children to?

Most of them wouldn't be able to afford Eton level fees anyway.

EyeSight

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Teachers are teachers in fairness. There's nothing extra required to teach at a private school.
It isn't always snobbery for sure, but it'd be a bit mad to suggest it's never snobbery.
My school was let down by a rough element also, so if I had kids there's no way I'd send them there, or to a similar school, but I'd only send them to a private school if it was the best in the area and didn't have a reputation for having stuck-up pupils.

But higher wages and less trouble makers usually attract the best.
obviously there are exceptions and a responsible parent should check out all their options before sending their kids to a certain school.

I just think the blanket "private school is just for snobs. They're no different to public ones." statement is a little crass

AndonHandon

Minjor wrote: »

When the parents who send the kids there are often the ones paying the most tax into the system?

You're saying their tax shouldn't be allowed fund the schools they send their children to?

Most of them wouldn't be able to afford Eton level fees anyway.

+1

The parents also pay tax but have made a decision to supplement their tax with fees.

Grayson

Glock Lesnar wrote: »

You could have 9 year olds reading Proust too but it wouldn't make any sense or have the same impact as it would if they read it when they were ready. Earlier =\= better

Outliers as in societal outliers who for some reason think the Catholic church has any real influence in the running of schools outside a few empty words in the schools mission statement

I had lessons in dogma and doctrine. Youth defence also paid us a visit. That's before they prayers every day, confession on fridays and the 2-3 retreats each year.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Plenty of mischief making and high jinks (as opposed to scumbaggery) occur in these schools also, they're not all well mannered little angels.

In every class of people you'll find assholes.

EyeSight

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Plenty of mischief making and high jinks (as opposed to scumbaggery) occur in these schools also, they're not all well mannered little angels.

In every class of people you'll find assholes.

but it's easier to expel troublesome students in private schools. Their parents also will be pissed at their kids for getting expelled with no refund
If they see someone applying has been expelled previously from another school, they are able to reject them

kowloon

I went to a private school, which surprises people because I look like someone who grew up in a sheet metal shack in a landfill.

jank

Private education gives people a choice that they would otherwise not have it they have to go into the state school system which is basically a one size fits all.

A friend of mine teaches in a private school in Germany. The options when you are going into your senior years are a type of grammar school where University is the goal or a tech school where a trade/semiskilled work/unskilled/dole is the aim. Nothing really in-between. For kids who are neither academically good enough for the latter nor tough enough to go into the tech schools then the state system could end up destroying the self esteem of the kid. Hence why his school exists as many of the kids in that school who fall between two stools end up going.
His school has a big emphasis on the liberal arts and drama.

The state school system destroyed a close family member of mine simply of the fact that he was bored because the work was too simple for him. In Ireland unlike in other country you must complete 5 years of secondary school to do a leaving cert. Some people out there could do it in less. In Ireland we look after the middle and the bottom, yet do feck all for the top.

Pumpkinseeds

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

One form of snobbery good, the other bad, eh?
It's not reverse snobbery to criticise elitism; it's reverse snobbery to sneer at someone because they come from a middle-class background.
That's what snobbery is - sneering at people because of their background, so that's what's wrong with a bit of elitism and snobbery.

I know of a private school that's like that too - then there are private schools which are excellent. The money doesn't always mean the school is good.
I don't have an issue with people sending their child to a private school if it's the best school in the area (my parents did same for my two siblings) but I do think it's very silly (to say the least) to send their child to a private school just because it's a private school so the people attending it will be "better". Not a very intelligent outlook.

Creche is still less of a choice than private school is.

I really don't see why you are so annoyed. It really doesn't matter if people who can afford it send their kids to private schools. My point was that a lot of posters are criticising those who do send their kids to private school and accusing them of being snobs, insisting that they wouldn't send their kids to a private school and condemning others for not sending their kids to state schools. That attitude is snobbery. It is total bollo*ks for people to claim that they wouldn't privately educate their kids if they could afford it.

cloud493

Id private educate them sure. Not to the tune of 30 grand a year :P

jobbridge4life

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

It is total bollo*ks for people to claim that they wouldn't privately educate their kids if they could afford it.

Is it you can see into everyone's soul and know exactly what they will do? What a fantastic talent, one wonders why given your skill you are wasting your time here...

Meanwhile there are a variety of reasons any individual of the requisite means might still forgo sending their offspring to a private school. Maybe they just don't think it is worth it. Maybe they think the child would benefit from the broader social exposure that a public school might offer. And so on and so forth.

Pumpkinseeds

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Is it you can see into everyone's soul and know exactly what they will do? What a fantastic talent, one wonders why given your skill you are wasting your time here...

Meanwhile there are a variety of reasons any individual of the requisite means might still forgo sending their offspring to a private school. Maybe they just don't think it is worth it. Maybe they think the child would benefit from the broader social exposure that a public school might offer. And so on and so forth.

A lot of maybes there. Maybe you've no idea what you're talking about.

jobbridge4life

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

A lot of maybes there. Maybe you've no idea what you're talking about.

And with such a convincing rebuttal as that I guess I have no choice to concede. LOLGASM.

Shakespeare's Sister

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I really don't see why you are so annoyed.

You asked what's wrong with snobbery/elitism if you can afford it, while at the same time objecting to another form of snobbery - I answered your question; any annoyance is in your imagination.

It really doesn't matter if people who can afford it send their kids to private schools.

Of course it doesn't. My parents did it. Friends' parents did it.

My point was that a lot of posters are criticising those who do send their kids to private school and accusing them of being snobs, insisting that they wouldn't send their kids to a private school and condemning others for not sending their kids to state schools.

All I'm seeing is people criticising those who send their children to private schools for snobbish reasons rather than educational ones. Sending your kid to a private school only because the people there are "better" is utterly ****ing thick.

It is total bollo*ks for people to claim that they wouldn't privately educate their kids if they could afford it.

Well that's just you projecting what you'd do.
If I had children and there was an excellent state school that was convenient to get to, I'd send them there, even if I could afford a private school.
If the best school was private, I'd send them there - although I'd prefer them to go to a co-ed school and any private schools I've heard of in this country are single-sex.

I boarded in a school in Kent for my secondary years. The teachers were the best of the best, they were well paid and worked in ideal conditions and each vacancy had applicants in the 100's, so only the highest calibre applicants got the jobs. I can't fault my education, and even though I complain a bit when I look back on my school days, I have to say I was really lucky. The range of extra curricular activities was fantastic, and we were encouraged to try everything so we could discover what we had a talent for or a passion for. Sports, music, crafts, art, all kinds of hobbies were offered.

We went on regular trips outside the school to museums, lectures and exhibitions and the staff took a great interest in our personal development. We weren't allowed spend hours in front of the tv and outdoor sports were really encouraged, regardless of how talented or otherwise you might have been at it. Class sizes were around 20 and misbehaviour didn't last so there were few interruptions. If anyone showed a particular talent in a subject, they were taught at the level they were at, not what the class was at.

In my class of 20 - 25, I don't know of any who didn't go to Uni, and a large majority continued to at least Masters level. There was some snobbery, and it was leapt on by the faculty and discouraged within the school culture. Girls at my school were lucky to be there, and they were reminded of that constantly.

Most of the boarders were like me, they had parents who's careers took them away from home for long periods and boarding was a good solution to that problem. If I was in a similar position to my parents at that time, I would consider the option without hesitation. If I wasn't and there was a good state school nearby, then I'd consider that option too. It's all about choices.

failinis

Tarzana wrote: »

I wouldn't go private, but if I had kids in the UK, I'd be hoping they get into a grammar school!

So I can understand it more in the UK, especially if one of the bad comps is in your catchment area.

I went to a grammar school in the UK - compared to experience of my friends in the comprehensives, I would say the grammar was less disruptive and that certainly helped my learning.
I found they pushed maths/sciences and neglected all the other subjects.

Once I left I was so happy, it had an air of snobbery which I hated, but I did get a good start from there - I would consider sending any kids of a grammar.

Public schools, I don't know what I think on them - is it worth the money if the teachers don't give a damn?