Krueger's Korner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

Music is good too

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree FLT. To me, if a choice isn't available to everyone, it's not a choice. That isn't envy, it's just plain justice. And while I agree 100% that it's a good thing to have to work hard for what you want, sadly the fact is that not everyone gets what they deserve. The chances of your kids getting to Oxford or Cambridge, or a top medical or law school, no matter how well they do at A Level, are a lot less than someone who goes to a private school.

 

[video=youtube;s_HuFuKiq8U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_HuFuKiq8U[/video]

 

Absolutely spot on Chilco. If only that was an option.

 

Tell that to University admission officers, and prospective employers in this day and age then. I wish it were true.

 

one of the best scenes in the history of television

 

There isn't the choice so sign European internationals for 90% of football clubs. Ergo, it's not a choice?

Yeah well Oxford and Cambridge are elitist, pretentious knob ends. Most reasonable universities would not base their decision on whether someone went to a private school or not. A large proportion of my classmates were state educated for example.

Depends on the university in question. It may matter to pretentious knob universities, but you wouldn't want to go there anyway.

 

Well it's never stopped me. I'm 44 by the way, not 94, so I think I still count for this day and age.

 

What about those students who for particular reasons, such as medical, would only thrive in a private sector school with the advantages that brings (smaller class sizes, specialist tuition, greater one-to-one interaction etc)? Should they be denied their opportunities?

 

The idea is that the state should provide enough educational facilities that smaller class sizes would be the norm, because they should be working towards an educational ideal.

 

They tend to be the 'top' ones though, so you would want to go there, if you want a decent job of course.

 

See TSS's reply below your post for answer.

 

Plenty of people have gone on to have great careers without having to gone to Oxford or Cambridge.

That's a bit idealistic. I'd love state schools to have small class sizes and be the same as private schools, but realistically even if there aren't private schools, the same issues would still be apparent. The reason private schools can have smaller class sizes is because there's a lot smaller demand for places due to the fact that they're fee-based and not everyone can afford them. Conversely, 90% of a place's youth population will be taken up by state schools. In fact, without the private sector, there'd be even more overcrowding and even larger classes.

 

Most school children would thrive in smaller classes and with specialist tuition. Only those whose parents can afford, or choose to make massive sacrifices in order to send them to private schools actually get the opportunity. In a more egalitarian society that opportunity would be there for all, because more resources would be put into making class sizes smaller in all schools. Yes, I'm an idealist, but I find it sad that people just accept the inherent inequalities in our country, as though they were the result of natural laws and not down to a system which has always favoured those that have over those that don't.

Anyway, it's been great debating with you guys but I really have to go to bed. Nighty-night all.

 

Is justice another word for fair?

My Dad said to me once, "Make the most of what you have. Don't waste time bemoaning life isn't fair, because it just isn't sometimes."

I can just accept that there are different types of people in life and for all of time it would appear that there has always been different forms of wealth/status, or whatever is the best phrase here. I don't know if it would ever be possible for it to be any other way; I don't know if that's right or wrong, it is the way it is.

 

I dunno about that. I got into Loughborough Uni despite being from one of the biggest pikey towns in Northern Ireland. I remember being at my interview day, and all these posh kids were showing up in like shirts, ties, blazers, hair slicked back etc and I was just there in a smartish coat, shirt and slightly tacky trousers, and still got in.

I dunno what the more impressive Unis are like, such as Cambridge or Oxford, but Loughborough certainly doesn't seem like that.

 

Those inherent inequalities are not just set in our country, they are global and have been with us since man started on this planet. How many idealists would give up what they have to even out the inequalities to people with less next door to them or somewhere else across the world?

Lets assume we start again today, completely afresh. How do you maintain any equality? Someone somewhere will push ahead of someone else and then you have inequality.

 

They thought you'd bring some Bushmills over with you!

 

I thought they sold that stuff over here in England anyway

 

Also, is it fair that because not everyone has the same opportunities, not one person should have those opportunities?

Realistically, not every League 1 club has the same opportunity to reach the Premier League (can you imagine Tranmere reaching the Premier League? I can't), therefore should no League 1 club be able to reach the Premier League?

Also, people seem to be forgetting scholarships! Work had and you can get your tuition paid for, huzzah!

I honestly don't think the state would have the financial resources to create a system where every state school has small class size and brilliant facilities and so on and so forth. Also, it's not like it's an either or situation. I'm not sure how much money the government spends on private education, I imagine it's some but not much. So it's not like by the existence of private schools somehow impacts that existence of the the state sector. I know there's the theory that if politicians send their kids to state schools, they would give greater focus to the state sector which is possible, but the extent which they focus on the state education sector reflects the personal characteristics and motivation of the politician in question (e.g. the value they place on education). Which is also why I don't buy this whole "Going to Eton makes one completely unaware of other ethnic groups" but while Eton might lack ethnic diversity, someone may still gain an insight into other ethnic groups at university or in their job or in volunteering, there are plenty of opportunities to if someone looks for them but again that boils down to the personal characteristics of the politician in general and the extent to which they actively seek to broaden their experience.

I'm not sure any of politicians have these characteristics as they're far too self-serving.