Private education

[Chandrasekhar]

They aren't highly exclusive and unotanable to the normal person, its admirable if someone does enrole their kids in the best school avaiable, but the fact that it's probably a private school isn't, as they will be streaching themseleves too far financially most of the time, and the state should be able to offer a very good education system anyway.

You're saying that everyone can afford a tutor?

And so what if the state can offer a good educational system. The private sector can offer a better one. Why shouldn't parents be able to put their kids in it? It's better for no one to have good education than some people?

 

[Truronian]

First, that statement is ridiculous. Those who have a better education are obviously going to have a better chance at getting a better job. That's self evident. Point is, I don't see what's wrong with it.

People have different potential... Chances are there is a poor kid somewhere that would be doing much better in the rich kid's job if he had recieved the rich kid's education. This would be better for society, no?

 

[amaterasu]

No now people making use of their money to get themselves better things than those who do not have money is a bad thing?

You could have as well said, "I'm against it (private restaurants and clothing malls) because it means rich kids are given better food and clothing, whereas poor kids aren't given as good a quality of food and clothing."



Two things:

First, that statement is ridiculous. Those who have a better education are obviously going to have a better chance at getting a better job. That's self evident. Point is, I don't see what's wrong with it.

Secondly, you seem to have no knowledge whatsoever of the caste system. It's far, far worse than you can imagine. The comparison is way off.



Equality of opportunity is NOT a right. The fundamental human rights which the state is supposed to protect are those to life (meaning that nobody will come and kill you, not that someone will bail you out if you can't live on your own), liberty (you can do anything you want as long as you do not violate the rights of others), and property (ownership). ALL rights can be derived, directly or indirectly, from the right to life. As such, it is the only fundamental right.

Secondly, the onus is on you to prove why the education sector is somehow "above" the rules of the market.

Thirdly, the last statement is totally bogus. Private education in no way quashes anything, maybe except the pretensions of leftists.



Again, you miss the point. The children are nearly irrelevant when discussing things like banning private schooling. I am not judging the children at all! The rights of the parents to do as they wish with their money, their (and their wards') right to free association, and their right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are what are at stake here.

The parent has a right to pave their child's way to success if he can. To try to stop him doing that is wrong. And nobody can ever actually do that - the child is the one ultimately responsible, and if he is not competent enough to handle what he had been given, he will lose it.

As I said, meritocracy may be a good ideal, and in my ideal for society, it is something non-statal societal institutions ensure, but it is not an absolute or fundamental virtue or right, and other fundamental rights cannot be sacrificed to meet its demands.

For instance, democracy is inherently anti-meritocratic.

Education shouldn't be a market in my opinion, because it is something that shouldn't be panwed off to the highest bidder, it should be given to everyone, not the reserve of the rich, and there is an infinite demand for it, so if you let it behave like a market then there would high prices to it.

If god education= good jobs, and rich parents give their kids better education, then the rich kids will get good jobs, right? yet the poor kids, who can't afford private eduucation, cannot get good jobs, therefore there isn't any equality of oppurtunity for the person as it was all decided before they were born.

While the parent can try to pave the way for the kid, that doesnt mean that it should only be rich people who can pave the way, why not make one big road for all hmm? But private education means theres no need for the road, all the executive jobs are filled, and the lower paied jobs are.

You also said you dont care about the kids, its all about the kids! the education goes to them, its not about a parents control needs, its about whether the child can do what they want with life, and by a rich parent giving their child above average education straight off the bat they comprimsing many other kids.

Thats my problem with it, and this fun btw ^^

 

[aneeshm]

Let me ask you this:

Assume that all private schooling is banned. Assume that somebody comes up with a course or a method of tuition which supplements and enhances a child's education, so that his level is raised far above the people who do not take this course. Now this is an expensive course, and only relatively affluent people can afford it (even the lower middle class and below can't, which means only the richest 30% can).

This course is not just a simple tuition, but also a set of psychological and philosophical exercises which enhance a person's ability to think and interact, which enhance their baseline intelligence, and their social skills, so that by the time they come out, they're not only better educated, they're also smarter, more intelligent, and more socially able. Basically, they're in a different league altogether than those who haven't taken such a course. It's a fundamental revolution in education.

This course is also copyrighted, and the state can't simply pinch it and use it in their schooling system.

In effect, this means that everything which private education could do to increase disparity and reduce equality of opportunity, this course can do, and do much more effectively.


Given this scenario, what do you do?

 

[aneeshm]

People have different potential... Chances are there is a poor kid somewhere that would be doing much better in the rich kid's job if he had recieved the rich kid's education. This would be better for society, no?

It would be.

But it is not the job of the state to provide that benefit to society. It is the job of society itself.

People usually draw a three-fold division of human existence as relating to the state:

a) The Individual Sphere
b) The Religious Sphere
c) The State Sphere


I go further. I separate a further chunk. My break-up is

a) The Individual Sphere
b) The Religious Sphere
c) The Social Sphere
d) The State Sphere


The job of the state is to allow freedom to the above three spheres. The same way that the state is separated from the sphere of individual liberty, and religious liberty, it should also separate itself from the sphere of social liberty.


It is the job of non-statal, non-coercive societal institutions to provide a basic minimum of opportunity to its residents, NOT of a coercive state.

 

[amaterasu]

Let me ask you this:

Assume that all private schooling is banned. Assume that somebody comes up with a course or a method of tuition which supplements and enhances a child's education, so that his level is raised far above the people who do not take this course. Now this is an expensive course, and only relatively affluent people can afford it (even the lower middle class and below can't, which means only the richest 30% can).

This course is not just a simple tuition, but also a set of psychological and philosophical exercises which enhance a person's ability to thin and interact, which enhance their baseline intelligence, and their social skills, so that by the time they come out, they're not only better educated, they're also smarter, more intelligent, and more socially able. Basically, they're in a different league altogether than those who haven't taken such a course. It's a fundamental revolution in education.

This course is also copyrighted, and the state can't simply pinch it and use it in their schooling system.

In effect, this means that everything which private education could do to increase disparity and reduce equality of opportunity, this course can do, and do much more effectively.


Given this scenario, what do you do?

hmm, ideally i would make it open to all, but if that isn't financialy possible I would water down the course until it was.

Or of you want ban it or not answer, then yes, it gives them an unfair advantage.

But then I do see your point, and recognise its a good one.

If I ban it, then what's to stop the parenst teaching it themselves? they can afford to skip work a bit, so I would place all education under the state, equal oppurtunity to do better for everyone, they can make what they want of the system. A tad extreme, but otherwise there are double standards.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer

 

[azzaman333]

hmm, ideally i would make it open to all, but if that isn't financialy possible I would water down the course until it was.

Or of you want ban it or not answer, then yes, it gives them an unfair advantage.

But then I do see your point, and recognise its a good one.

If I ban it, then what's to stop the parenst teaching it themselves? they can afford to skip work a bit, so I would place all education under the state, equal oppurtunity to do better for everyone, they can make what they want of the system. A tad extreme, but otherwise there are double standards.

What about the students who simply don't want to be there and simply disturb everyone who wants to learn? They are normally all gone by the last couple of years of schooling at private schools, but I assume that at public school there are quite a few students who don't really want to be there. This forces the teachers to focus on the disruptive child rather than teaching the class, causing the more gifted students to miss out on an education without gaping holes thanks to kids who think its funny to annoy all the teachers. How would you fix such a problem?

 

[Chandrasekhar]

hmm, ideally i would make it open to all, but if that isn't financialy possible I would water down the course until it was.

Or of you want ban it or not answer, then yes, it gives them an unfair advantage.

But then I do see your point, and recognise its a good one.

If I ban it, then what's to stop the parenst teaching it themselves? they can afford to skip work a bit, so I would place all education under the state, equal oppurtunity to do better for everyone, they can make what they want of the system. A tad extreme, but otherwise there are double standards.

Why do you think education is different from any other thing you can purchase?

 

[amaterasu]

What about the students who simply don't want to be there and simply disturb everyone who wants to learn? They are normally all gone by the last couple of years of schooling at private schools, but I assume that at public school there are quite a few students who don't really want to be there. This forces the teachers to focus on the disruptive child rather than teaching the class, causing the more gifted students to miss out on an education without gaping holes thanks to kids who think its funny to annoy all the teachers. How would you fix such a problem?

You make sets of classes, and deal with the trouble makers. Education is ultimatly a priviledge, and if someone abuses it too much then they can just not be in the school they caused trouble at.

Have sets based on ability, so gifted students can be pushed, and slightly less able ones helped out more, you will also make it easier for the teachers as theyonly have to teach at the one level with a class.

EDIT: Chand, yes i do think education is different to a market like the gold market.

 

[ParkCungHee]

View Post
What about the students who simply don't want to be there and simply disturb everyone who wants to learn? They are normally all gone by the last couple of years of schooling at private schools, but I assume that at public school there are quite a few students who don't really want to be there. This forces the teachers to focus on the disruptive child rather than teaching the class, causing the more gifted students to miss out on an education without gaping holes thanks to kids who think its funny to annoy all the teachers. How would you fix such a problem?

Expell them, the world has ditches to dig.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

EDIT: Chand, yes i do think education is different to a market like the gold market.

How about buying a Bowflex? Should that be banned?

 

[azzaman333]

You make sets of classes, and deal with the trouble makers. Education is ultimatly a priviledge, and if someone abuses it too much then they can just not be in the school they caused trouble at.

Have sets based on ability, so gifted students can be pushed, and slightly less able ones helped out more, you will also make it easier for the teachers as theyonly have to teach at the one level with a class.

But then they are not recieving an equal education. Isn't the point of removing private eduactaion to even the playing field for everyone?

Expell them, the world has ditches to dig.

So, if a student disrupts the class for 5 minutes a week with a comment which annoys the teacher, but other than that does most of the work, mostly on time with decent marks should we expell them?

 

[amaterasu]

But then they are not recieving an equal education. Isn't the point of removing private eduactaion to even the playing field for everyone?



So, if a student disrupts the class for 5 minutes a week with a comment which annoys the teacher, but other than that does most of the work, mostly on time with decent marks should we expell them?

Thye have been given the chance and that is the important thing, they can muck the chances up if they want and then they pay for it.

Also the sets idea just helps puplis push on, the slightly less intelligent pupils need more help with thebasics then the gifted students, with the sets the giftd ones can learn higher things, and the less so pupils are given more help, without slowing other pupils down.

The private education just eradicated an level playing field as the rich kids stay there if they can pay, and get however much help they need as they have the money, with all education free/state run everyone has equal chance to improve their results and grades, and just because you were born rich it doesn't give automonactically give you better education, and therefore job chances.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

How about buying a Bowflex? Should that be banned?

You've not yet responded to this, Okku.

 

[Stylesjl]

In Australia Public Schools do better then private ones on average

So private education isn't all that great

 

[amaterasu]

You've not yet responded to this, Okku.

oops sorry, missed it.

Isn't a bowflex a workout kit thingy? You cna have a great body if you want, fine, and anyways, you still have to work for it and there ae alternatives that are just as good. Also by having one how are you stopping others like private education does.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

oops sorry, missed it.

Isn't a bowflex a workout kit thingy? You cna have a great body if you want, fine, and anyways, you still have to work for it and there ae alternatives that are just as good.

Yeah... there are also alternative ways to improve your mind.

If you strengthen your body with some excercise machine, then you have an advantage over others when you want to get a job in, say, construction. Only those with money to spare can afford strength training machines. Thus, it's promoting inequality by your logic. Right?

Also by having one how are you stopping others like private education does.

Hold on a moment. How are you stopping others like private education does with private education?

 

[aneeshm]

Education shouldn't be a market in my opinion, because it is something that shouldn't be panwed off to the highest bidder, it should be given to everyone, not the reserve of the rich, and there is an infinite demand for it, so if you let it behave like a market then there would high prices to it.

You've stated your opinion, and I recognise that your intentions are noble, but you still haven't substantiated it.

If god education= good jobs, and rich parents give their kids better education, then the rich kids will get good jobs, right?

Not really. Rich kids (or rather, kids of rich parents) would have a better probability of getting better jobs.

yet the poor kids, who can't afford private eduucation, cannot get good jobs, therefore there isn't any equality of oppurtunity for the person as it was all decided before they were born.

To some extent, yes. But as I said, equality of opportunity is by no means a fundamental right. If you think it is, please prove that it is.

Of course, it is desirable, but that does not mean it is a right.

While the parent can try to pave the way for the kid, that doesnt mean that it should only be rich people who can pave the way, why not make one big road for all hmm?

The idea of one big road is a good one, but you are proposing two other things which I disagree with:

a) That slave labour and money extorted from the rich should be used to construct such a road, and that
b) The construction of a better, shorter road by people who can construct it is banned

But private education means theres no need for the road, all the executive jobs are filled, and the lower paied jobs are.

I'd take issue with that.

Private education is no ticket to success. You still have to work hard, and the free market ensures that a more deserving person from the non-private system will do better than a less deserving or competent one from the private one.

You also said you dont care about the kids, its all about the kids!

I do care about the kids, but in this particular debate (To ban or not to ban), they are mostly irrelevant.

the education goes to them, its not about a parents control needs, its about whether the child can do what they want with life, and by a rich parent giving their child above average education straight off the bat they comprimsing many other kids.

How? How does a person giving his child a better education somehow "harm" others who don't receive it? I consider that an average parent can do X amount of good, while the rich parent can do k*X amount of good (k is a real greater than one). Nobody is being harmed.

 

[aneeshm]

hmm, ideally i would make it open to all, but if that isn't financialy possible I would water down the course until it was.

Or of you want ban it or not answer, then yes, it gives them an unfair advantage.

But then I do see your point, and recognise its a good one.

Precisely.

What you're suggesting amounts to telling people that they can't try to better themselves if they can't better everyone else, too.

This equates to a condemnation of the competitive process. You seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that there are going to be winners and losers.

I'll give an example. Suppose we make one big road. Now, the rich parents will be the ones who will drive their kids harder to move along it, to run if necessary, but to be one of the first few. People from a culture of hard work will have an advantage - and this is an advantage of birth, because that culture is transmitted from generation to generation - over those who do not. As you seem to be against inherited advantage, how do you offset this? By making the state responsible for the rearing of children, and by taking parental control away from parents?

If I ban it, then what's to stop the parenst teaching it themselves? they can afford to skip work a bit, so I would place all education under the state, equal oppurtunity to do better for everyone, they can make what they want of the system. A tad extreme, but otherwise there are double standards.

OK. So this course/tuition isn't even educational, it's simply a set of psycho-philosophical exercises to make you more intelligent, moral, socially able, and emotionally and spiritually mature. The advantage it confers is still big enough that it's much more of a disparity-creator than private education. What then?