General Great British Politics Thread!

[stokes234]

1) I don't care in the slightest and don't have a clue why anybody else would. Private schools are nothing new, and what they charge their students or pay their teachers is entirely their business. If anything I daresay Dawkins could probably get a better rate of pay doing other things.

Allowing elite education courses handed out based on how rich your parents are is a step away from equality of opportunity. There is a reasonable amount of evidence to say that equality itself provides benefits across the whole of society.

2) Haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Article here.

 

[angrysoba]

As I understand it all universities are currently public unis. Am I right?

Is this New College allowed to give out degrees? If so will these degrees be respected or will they be treated as loo paper by employees?

Anyway, Spiked has a typically "contrarian" view:

How Dare You Set Up a New University?

 

[Lothian]

As I understand it all universities are currently public unis. Am I right?

No, the University of Buckingham is private

Is this New College allowed to give out degrees?

I don't think so, that is why they appear to be looking to piggyback the University of London. New college students will sit University of London exams.

If so will these degrees be respected or will they be treated as loo paper by employees?

If they are University of London they should be fine.



Note: There is not really a University of London - it is a colelction of colleges. I don't know if the degrees say 'Kings' or 'University of London'

 

[andyandy]

So whats the downside? There have been a considerable bloating in the university sector in recent years. A concentration of resources on fewer universities is something that really should have been done some time ago.

well you could make that argument (and i think you could make it quite well....)
however, you would do it as part of a planned reshifting away from university and a little back towards vocational training - that would make sense. What this is is an unintended consequence of a balls up over financing which will mean monumental student debts, and quite a few universities risking going bust with students still enrolled, and with no transition plans in place re vocational training.....

 

[Lothian]

...however, you would do it as part of a planned reshifting away from university and a little back towards vocational training - that would make sense...

I like that idea but we should distinguish the more vocational FE establishments from the Universities by calling them something different.
Perhaps there is a French engineering school founded 1794, from which we can derive an appropriate name.

 

[andyandy]

I like that idea but we should distinguish the more vocational FE establishments from the Universities by calling them something different.
Perhaps there is a French engineering school founded 1794, from which we can derive an appropriate name.

plus ça change....

 

[angrysoba]

I like that idea but we should distinguish the more vocational FE establishments from the Universities by calling them something different.
Perhaps there is a French engineering school founded 1794, from which we can derive an appropriate name.

I suggest we add another word such as "Brookes", "Trent", "Metropolitan", "Hallam" or "John Moores". Do you think it would work?

 

[Seismosaurus]

Allowing elite education courses handed out based on how rich your parents are is a step away from equality of opportunity.

So is "allowing" rich people to buy anything else that's of very high quality and therefore expensive. So what?

There is a reasonable amount of evidence to say that equality itself provides benefits across the whole of society.

If anything, I'd say that that's an argument that government provision should be as good as the best the private sector can offer. The fact that it's impractical to empower the worse off to equality with the better off is not an argument for disempowering the off to bring them down with the rest.

Article here.

Thanks.

 

[angrysoba]

No, the University of Buckingham is private

I don't think so, that is why they appear to be looking to piggyback the University of London. New college students will sit University of London exams.

If they are University of London they should be fine.



Note: There is not really a University of London - it is a colelction of colleges. I don't know if the degrees say 'Kings' or 'University of London'

Hmmm...if a private university is nothing new and they don't even hand out degrees I'm not sure what the problem is. Dawkins, Grayling and Ferguson can well say, "It'll be the very best education in the world" but unfortunately that's pretty much what most higher education institutions say about their courses. It seems that many of those who are against the school buy too readily into the school's marketing. Which, ironically, can only be good for the school.

 

[richardm]

Hmmm...if a private university is nothing new and they don't even hand out degrees I'm not sure what the problem is.

I think the main problem is that at the moment everyone is arguing about universities proposing to charge £9000 a year; launching one that will cost twice that seems to have rubbed people up the wrong way.

 

[angrysoba]

I think the main problem is that at the moment everyone is arguing about universities proposing to charge £9000 a year; launching one that will cost twice that seems to have rubbed people up the wrong way.

Fair enough. I see Terry Eagleton is chiming in. I think personally he's just jealous and yet his jealous rage can conveniently be put to use in bolstering his false reputation as an honest salt-of-the-Earth Marxist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/06/ac-graylings-new-private-univerity-is-odious

Now, I heard somewhere he often turns up at private American Catholic universities for fistfuls of luh-vuh-ley dosh to give boring, droning, petulant, jealous, self-pitying, whiney attacks on new atheists. Is this true?

 

[stokes234]

So is "allowing" rich people to buy anything else that's of very high quality and therefore expensive. So what?

No, there's a difference. Allowing rich people to buy consumer goods doesn't hugely affect their chances in life. Allowing the children of rich people to be bought a superior education gives them a serious boost. I'm opposed to private schools as well, in case that wasn't obvious.

If anything, I'd say that that's an argument that government provision should be as good as the best the private sector can offer. The fact that it's impractical to empower the worse off to equality with the better off is not an argument for disempowering the off to bring them down with the rest.

If The Spirit Level is correct, and it certainly makes a strong case, then it is actually an argument for both. Not allowing the rich to become even richer while the poor stand still could quite easily be the better choice for society overall if equality itself gives benefits. Of course it would also be nice if every single school in the country were Eton clones (in terms of education quality), but does that seem like a particularly achievable goal to you in the short term? Because preventing private universities seems reasonably achievable to me.

 

[richardm]

Allowing the children of rich people to be bought a superior education gives them a serious boost...Of course it would also be nice if every single school in the country were Eton clones (in terms of education quality), but does that seem like a particularly achievable goal to you in the short term?

Doesn't this make your position "All pupils should be dragged down to the same level"? Surely that's the reverse of what we ought to be aiming for. I don't think it's especially fair that people can't buy a better education for their children if the state schools aren't cutting it. Yes, it would be nicer if the state schools were improved instead, but as you reasonably point out, it doesn't seem particularly achievable in the short term.

Edit: Mind you you're not alone in thinking that - wasn't it Prescott who said that the trouble with setting up good schools was that everyone would want to send their kids to them?

 

[stokes234]

Doesn't this make your position "All pupils should be dragged down to the same level"? Surely that's the reverse of what we ought to be aiming for. I don't think it's especially fair that people can't buy a better education for their children if the state schools aren't cutting it. Yes, it would be nicer if the state schools were improved instead, but as you reasonably point out, it doesn't seem particularly achievable in the short term.

I would argue that if state schools aren't cutting it, then the money that would otherwise be paid in fees to private schools should be taken as taxes by the government and used to improve state schools for everyone, rather than used to improve the education of a select few.

 

[angrysoba]

I remember a student friend of mine who insisted that all primary and secondary education should be played on tapes to the students. I asked why they had to be on tapes. To make all education equal, she explained. Yes, but what if teacher can teach better than the tapes? It would be unfair, she said. The fairest thing is that everyone listen to the tapes.

 

[richardm]

I would argue that if state schools aren't cutting it, then the money that would otherwise be paid in fees to private schools should be taken as taxes by the government and used to improve state schools for everyone, rather than used to improve the education of a select few.

That would be even more unfair. The really rich ones would send their kids overseas or hire private tutors like in ye olden days because they'd have enough money to pay the extra taxes and for whatever else was necessary to keep Little Tarquin out of the clutches of the local secondary school; it's the people who scrimp and save and struggle to pay the fees who'd get it in the shorts.

I fully agree that secondary schools need improvement, despite the fact that everyone appears to leave with fifteen A* GCSEs these days. And I don't mind raising taxes to help pay for it. But I can't agree that closing private schools would be a particularly helpful way to achieve this.

 

[stokes234]

I remember a student friend of mine who insisted that all primary and secondary education should be played on tapes to the students. I asked why they had to be on tapes. To make all education equal, she explained. Yes, but what if teacher can teach better than the tapes? It would be unfair, she said. The fairest thing is that everyone listen to the tapes.

Hey don't throw that at me. I'm arguing that if there is money available to improve education standards, it would be better and more fairly spent distributed by the government to all children regardless of the wealth of their parents, than used to give large boosts to children who just happen to have been fortunate enough to have been born into a rich family. And I also think it highly likely that the resulting lower inequality in society would bring other benefits.

I'm not opposed to giving higher standards of education to pupils who work harder or show more promise, at least at a-level and university levels, but i'm opposed to being able to buy superior education.

 

[richardm]

I'm not opposed to giving higher standards of education to pupils who work harder or show more promise, at least at a-level and university levels, but i'm opposed to being able to buy superior education.

Perhaps we should bring back grammar schools, eh?

 

[stokes234]

That would be even more unfair. The really rich ones would send their kids overseas or hire private tutors like in ye olden days because they'd have enough money to pay the extra taxes and for whatever else was necessary to keep Little Tarquin out of the clutches of the local secondary school; it's the people who scrimp and save and struggle to pay the fees who'd get it in the shorts.

I can't see how this would be more unfair. I'd like to point out that I wouldn't just implement a flat tax of £6000 or whatever on people who send their kids to private schools, i'd focus it on corporate avoidance and the superrich, while some increases on the £100k-£500k/y brackets, and use this to improve education standards, so it would hit the super rich harder than the people you describe. And as to people being sent overseas - it's a small minority who are willing to send their kids to boarding school, especially abroad, and this minority is certainly much smaller than the number currently going to private schools, so the number of kids recieving special treatment would be reduced. That's not more unfair, that's less unfair.

I'd get rid of private tutoring and home schooling as well. I've never seen a good argument that they're needed for anyone who isn't disabled in some way, and that's a separate matter with it's own exceptions to be applied.

 

[stokes234]

Perhaps we should bring back grammar schools, eh?

Nah, not separate schools. I was more meaning that at a-level, if you want to do something like german, or advanced maths, then you should already have to have a level of competence. I wasn't suggesting that better teachers would be assigned to better pupils, or that different schools would be established. I didn't make that clear at all though.