Biggest chip on shoulder 2004

#1
Just when you thought the nominations had closed:

http://society.guardian.co.uk/charityreform/comment/0,11494,1380957,00.html

Famously, Harrow's students were the cream of England - rich and thick - and that was the problem.
[snip]
This was fine in the world before league tables, when the old tie network would pretty much guarantee a place in the City, at a good university or, for the truly dim, Sandhurst.

msr
 
#3
The journo :roll:
 
#4
Sounds like an average public school to me, apart from wearing boaters and baggies and the price of course. What suprises me is that these places can apply for charitable status. The school I went to was expensive but instead of toffs, we were full of "poor" farmers' kids and overseas expat kids (like me).
Our old school tie counts for naught, but brains and ambition do. I think that if there's a chip, it's with the charitable status, not the thickos.
 
#5
I see.

But there were no pretences as regards whom the school was ultimately there to serve: the narrow slice of society who could afford £18,000 per year.
Isn't it run as a business? So why should it qualify as a charity? Unless such status enables others (the 'skivs' in the article) to benefit from the presumably superb education? If not, channel the tax elsewhere.
 
#6
I see no chips!!

To call Harrow or Eton 'charities' is frankly taking he p*ss.

I speak of course as the owner of a secondary modern education :D
 
#8
Up until New Labour, most Public (major and minor) schools had an Assisted Place scheme where if someone had the nouse for the education but the parents didn't have the money, the government via the school bursar would subsidies the fees. Hence charitable would be a fair call, And then unsurprisingly New Labour withdrew the scheme. The schools now work around it by approaching big businesses to support the scheme. Tax breaks for the companies etc etc.

Having done a bit of recruiting in my past I know that these schools have all manner of students from "Posh Toffs" to "skivs". Father doesn't necessarily own ICI but is a mini cab driver or whatever it takes to get the money. If they want to send their Children to a public school, is it down to the government to stop them doing that by enforcing a rather solid barrier and not allowing a charitable status thus no support to fees?

Does the Government stop you using Bupa or another private medical agency?

Could this be viewed as another attack on the "privledged Classes" with the world famous accuracy of the Sceptics?

Regards,

:D
 
#9
There are genuine arguments both for and against these schools, but the present Govt is never going to eliminate them. (Human Rights laws for example, and the fact that private schools are common and spreading in many other countries).

So if you increase the real cost of sending a child there, there will still be scholarship pupils ( as opposed to the Tory-introduced Assisted Places scheme) but the net effect will be to increase the 'exclusivity' of the schools.

The effect on service families wishing to give their children a stable education also has to be considered, although this is less of a factor then in the days of more accompanied overseas postings.

Incidentally, IMHO the fact that these schools are run in a 'businesslike' manner is not one of the genuine arguments against them. We expect any charity to be run in a 'businesslike' fashion these days. The point is, surely, that they are not run for profit.
 
#10
I would argue that all private schools deserve charitable status.Parents of children attending private schools massively subsidise the Department of Education in that they not only take the financial responsibility for their children's education and for those on bursaries but, through their taxes pay for other children to attend state schools.

I'd love to see the response of the LEAs to being told they had to provide state education for all those currently being educated privately. Or maybe Gordon Brown would dig deep into his pockets and increase the education budget without a murmur.

Private education isn't just about passing exams and until the state sector gets its house in order regarding discipline and respect (concepts unheard of in many, but by no means all, state schools) I don't feel it has room to criticise a system which has, on the whole, worked very well.
 
#11
there allways going to be votes in sticking it to the public schools. but i dont think that jorno had a chip on his shoulder
 
#12
Joker said:
Up until New Labour, most Public (major and minor) schools had an Assisted Place scheme where if someone had the nouse for the education but the parents didn't have the money, the government via the school bursar would subsidies the fees.
Indeed...

I was a beneficiary of the Assisted Places scheme 8) ... which coupled with the Boarding School Allowance covered the cost of me being schooled in England, rather than Germany.

For a Government extolling the virtues of "education, education, education" scrapping AP showed a curious use of logic, IMHO
 
#13
Lots of people have got it in for public schools because of public schoolboys.

Lets face it, they live among us like an occupying army. 6% or so of kids go to these places, but the vast majority of people with hands on any kind of lever of power are public schoolies. 9 times out of 10 they are no brighter than the average, but they still get all the breaks.

This is partly envy (I'd like to have an easier life, I'll admit it) but it's mainly a sense of injustice, and resentment of the arrogant b'stards who so often seem to think they got where they are on merit. Buying privelige sucks. That's what public schools sell - unfair advantage.

(walks off, whistling 'the Red Flag')
 
#14
Steamywindow said:
Lots of people have got it in for public schools because of public schoolboys.

Lets face it, they live among us like an occupying army. 6% or so of kids go to these places, but the vast majority of people with hands on any kind of lever of power are public schoolies. 9 times out of 10 they are no brighter than the average, but they still get all the breaks.

This is partly envy (I'd like to have an easier life, I'll admit it) but it's mainly a sense of injustice, and resentment of the arrogant b'stards who so often seem to think they got where they are on merit. Buying privelige sucks. That's what public schools sell - unfair advantage.

(walks off, whistling 'the Red Flag')
And the fact that their parents have sufficient funds to send them to private/public school has nothing to do with it?

If you come from a rich, stable background you're always going to have an advantage whether you go to private of state school. And many people who can afford it do privately educate their children which, inevitably, squiffs the figures.
 
#15
dear oh dear,

another go at Public Schools.

so who wouldn't send their kids if they could afford it?

well, anyone on the front bench of the government certainly would!
 
#16
The fact that the parents choose to buy their kids privelige is what counts. You are right, a good family is an advantage in itself, but what rankles is the anti social attitude some parents have, where it's OK to get little Jimmy a leg up to a position he wouldn't get on his own, thus depriving (a) a more deserving person of that position (b) society of the best person for the job.

(if it's a job that matters)

Educational attainment should be on merit, not price. That means equally good schools for everyone.

I am very clever indeed but I would have done a lot better if I'd gone to public school like my best mate did - he's a bit less clever than me, but is now streets ahead financially and in his career. Mind, I wouldn't swap though- he's got all posh mates and his bird is dead snooty. And he wears blazers.
 
#17
Steamywindow said:
The fact that the parents choose to buy their kids privelige is what counts.
As opposed to spending their money on themselves, would rather spend it on an enhanced future for their offspring?

Steamywindow said:
Educational attainment should be on merit, not price. That means equally good schools for everyone.
But there are not equally good schools. There are very good grammar schools and very good super selective schools, but these are few and far between and you have to be within a catchment area. Public schools you do not have catchment areas.

Steamywindow said:
I am very clever indeed but I would have done a lot better if I'd gone to public school like my best mate did - he's a bit less clever than me, but is now streets ahead financially and in his career. Mind, I wouldn't swap though- he's got all posh mates and his bird is dead snooty. And he wears blazers.
Surely this isn't to do with who is more clever, but who applies their education better.

I'm not trying to bait you SW, just interested in your views.

:D
 
#18
Steamywindow said:
The fact that the parents choose to buy their kids privelige is what counts. You are right, a good family is an advantage in itself, but what rankles is the anti social attitude some parents have, where it's OK to get little Jimmy a leg up to a position he wouldn't get on his own, thus depriving (a) a more deserving person of that position (b) society of the best person for the job.

(if it's a job that matters)

Educational attainment should be on merit, not price. That means equally good schools for everyone.

I am very clever indeed but I would have done a lot better if I'd gone to public school like my best mate did - he's a bit less clever than me, but is now streets ahead financially and in his career. Mind, I wouldn't swap though- he's got all posh mates and his bird is dead snooty. And he wears blazers.
Intriguing.

So, it is "anti-social" to try to get the best for one's children by paying to put them in an environment which has an ethos of trying To Be The Best? :lol:

Last time I looked day school fees were around the £2,500 per term mark, but that was a while ago. My LEA funds its schools less than that in a year. Fat chance of being able to equal the facilities provided in the private sector. Equally good schools for everyone is an unlikely option unless you'd like to see equality with the lowest common denominator.

High intelligence plays a small part in success. Hard work, self-belief and a fair bit of luck, in my experience, count for far more.

Perhaps your inverted snobbery has hindered your progress? :wink:
 
#19
fair enough.

1. The current system allows for wealthier people to sidestep the question of poor quality schools by buying their way out. I think this is wrong and divisive.

2. There is a huge variation in school standards. This is down to lack of spending (mainly), by a government that can find money for all sorts of foolery. I think it is a Good Idea to make a good, even an excellent, education available to every kid, and indeed adult. If everyone could get educated to the level they can cope with surely the country would be a better place?

3. No, the reason my mate is doing well is a combination of 'old boyism' (which he freely admits) and the attitude engendered by his school, one of basically taking advantage of other people. He and I have talked this over a lot. His education is really no better than mine but he was encouraged to think of the world of work as competitive and ruthless. He went into business, I went into public service (Army then civil service). He is now really quite wealthy, but treats his staff like machines. I am a bit more skint, and can't treat people like that. This is doubtless partly down to temperament, but I think we are classic examples of the 2 types of educational philosophy in the UK.
 
#20
Steamywindow said:
2. There is a huge variation in school standards. This is down to lack of spending (mainly), by a government that can find money for all sorts of foolery. I think it is a Good Idea to make a good, even an excellent, education available to every kid, and indeed adult. If everyone could get educated to the level they can cope with surely the country would be a better place?
Of course it's a good idea but it's Utopian. Unfortunately we have to play with the cards we, as a society, are dealt.

3. No, the reason my mate is doing well is a combination of 'old boyism'
You can get rid of public schools but, unless you forcibly prevent people from working with and socialising with others with the same background and interests you are unlikely to get rid of networking or as you put it "old boyism"

and the attitude engendered by his school, one of basically taking advantage of other people. He and I have talked this over a lot. His education is really no better than mine but he was encouraged to think of the world of work as competitive and ruthless.
The world is a competitive and ruthless place. One has to take advantage of the opportunities presented to one. If, however, he is taking unfair advantage of others' weaknesses then that rather goes against the public school ethos of duty and responsibility.

Is he a first generation public school and nouveau riche? I've always found they treat their servants and employees worse than anyone as they feel they have to constantly remind everyone that they've left their impoverished pasts behind them.

If he's such a sh*t why do you count him amongst your friends?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Little Jack H The NAAFI Bar 90
Two_Princes Army Reserve 1
madmax Aviation 12

Similar threads

New Posts

Top