Making sacrifices to fund private education to avoid state school crowd control - a good thing?

[Ridgley]

I have mixed view about this, I believe in choice if you can afford to send your child to a private school that is your choice as a parent at the time of choosing a good school for my daughter it was very difficult I found that the state school was not very good at that particular time. When looking at schools you were given 6 choices and this was not grantee that your child would get in to the school choices you made.

I was very lucky my daughter got in The City of London which it not state run but funded by the City of London Corporation a lot of state schools are now turning into Academy?s which is not a bad thing.

[tog_in_sox]

DaveR,

The thinking is not muddled at all. DJKQ seemed to be suggesting that the entire student intake of private schools be high capability individuals. This is not necessary and the socialisation of students with peers of different capabilities is an opportunity within a supportive and encouraging environment to become as understanding, accepting and collaborative as possible. Any capable school can cope with students of different ability in the same class provided the class size isn't too large. I did fine in a mixed ability school with class sizes of 26.

Your point about med schools (or any undergrad/apprentice facility) is flawed because there are plenty of washout doctors, etc and others who pass but are unfit to practice. Besides the point about schools being as plural as possible is not necessary in higher/further education because by that time the emphasis is on the specialism of ability to further ones interests and propects. Students are supposedly well capable, nay hormonally inclined, to mix as widely as possible within and across subject boundaries.

DJKQ,

The aspect of elitism is something that can't be avoided, it can be mitigated and given proper context through education to minimise the prejudice that comes with the status. That's down to the schools being motivated by moral and legal imperative to produce humane alumni rather than exploitative, selfish, egomaniacal "bankers". The elite schools will make the best of their pupils abilities and enable them to shine as brightly as they can but being from such a school does not mean that you have to be an elitist bigot. Being part of the elite can be good given the presence of good moral and temperamental fibre.

Sadly very few schools if any are capable of providing a guarantee of this. Many succeed with most of their students but perhaps not enough.

The points we all concur on about ensuring that all children are catered for is the Holy Grail that has eluded all governments for so long now, primarily because we've too many parents and too many children incapable of exercising their responsibilities through neglect, naivety and willful ignorance. This isn't just about the alienated underclass but also the consumerist, wealthy fools who fail to exercise and exert restraint or enforce discipline and respect in their priviledged offspring.

[DJKillaQueen]

There's no easy answer.....and there's no cheap answer either.

Southwark council did today annouce annual scholarships that will pay the tuition fees of a certain number of students wanting to go to university, but put off by the fees. I'm happy the support that initiative with my taxes.

[Marmora Man]

T-i-S

This

This is not necessary and the socialisation of students with peers of different capabilities is an opportunity within a supportive and encouraging environment to become as understanding, accepting and collaborative as possible.

just makes me want to vomit. it's almost meaningless specialist jargon, it describes a theory of perfection but ignores the practical problem that the system it proposes doesn't work. DaveR's examples - grounded in practical observations are both simpler to understand and instinctively more attractive. Your words are an example of the political / educational orthodoxy that my earlier post deplored.

Take a group of ten year olds - use your descriptive style to describe the best way to educate them from the age of 11 and use DaveR's style. I'll bet my house that they'll understand DaveR's argument immediately but look on in blank wonderment as your phrases are trotted out.

[Loz]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Southwark council did today annouce annual scholarships that will pay the tuition fees of a

> certain number of students wanting to go to university, but put off by the fees. I'm happy the

> support that initiative with my taxes.

The tuition fees? If I understand the system correctly, I'm not. Surely the students will only pay tuition fees if a) they pass and b) start earning over ?21K.

I'd rather the scholarships paid immediate costs like books/housing/etc.

[binary_star]

As I understand it Loz, the university always gets the current year's tuition fee either before or at enrolment. This may differ slightly from uni to uni but tuition fees are normally paid in full at the beginning of the academic year. Students can pay it themselves (or more likely via the bank of mummy and daddy), get a loan (repayments deducted from student's wages after they earn 21k+) or find another funding source (e.g. a grant from Southwark and make no repayments).

If students get a loan from the Student Loans Company to pay their fees, they will always owe that money to SLC whether they ever earn over 21k or not, or whether they pass their degree or not. Interest will also be linked to the retail price index (similar to the current system) so if they never earn over 21k, they can expect to see their total debt rise year on year too.

[Loz]

From the Beeb:

The threshold at which graduates have to start paying their loans back will rise from ?15,000 to ?21,000. This will rise annually with inflation.

Each month graduates will pay back 9% of their income above that threshold.

The subsidised interest rate at which the repayments are made - currently 1.5% - will be raised. Under a "progressive tapering" system, the interest rate will rise from 0 for incomes of ?21,000, to 3% plus inflation (RPI) for incomes above ?41,000.

If the debt is not cleared 30 years after graduation, it will be wiped out.

[DJKillaQueen]

21k is hardly a huge wage is it (and most have to work for less). Afters taxes it amounts to ?269 per week. Take out of that, rent, travel to work, basic living expenses etc - any disposable income isn't going to amount to much. forget ever getting a mortgage.

I got my University education for free, but that was at a time where only aorund a quarter of people went to university or polytechnics. I think if I had been facing the prospect of a mountain of debt before I'd even got going in life, I would have thought twice about going.

[Loz]

I'm not arguing that DJKQ - but is a scholarship more worthy in covering the costs of getting people into university today, or covering future costs when they may not be earning ?21K, but 40K, 50K or more. What more useful and supportive - helping them with rent, food and costs while they are at Uni (and probably jobless or part time), or saving them about ?25 a week when they graduate?

[DaveR]

"I think if I had been facing the prospect of a mountain of debt before I'd even got going in life, I would have thought twice about going."

I suspect a lot of people feel that way, but the stats suggest that for the vast majority of them it's still a good choice overall, financially.

This article and the underlying research (pretty heavy going for non-economists, like me) is pretty persuasive.

[Loz]

It's arguably a danger of the tuition fees protests in that it will needlessly scare people off from higher education.

[binary_star]

Loz, if the grant went towards living costs, who would pay the fees that would be due at the beginning of each academic year?

[Senor Chevalier]

Student Loans Company

[binary_star]

Exactly. So that would require a loan AND a grant, so they would still be (if we take Loz's example) ?25 worse off every week once they graduated.

[tog_in_sox]

MM,

Vomit away man. The language I chose was for the benefit of an intelligent adult forum to specify my opinion on the situation, any resemblance to specialist language, whether living or dead, is wholly coincidental. How one determines to teach the kids these concepts was not part of my proposition. Personally slapping, withholding, curfew and hugging in whatever combination worked for me.

?30k debt for fees vs prospect of c?200k for first mortgage on a pokey studio/1-bed tends to make the argument that there's a lot of bleating going on about something not so significant as they'd have us believe. What's the average credit card balance in the UK? The cost of an average car?

Various studies still suggest that the advantage of a degree is some ?100+k in today's money over the average career.

The greater concern is (the inability to) generating an economy that can provide the high value jobs that ever larger numbers of graduates feel they're entitled to. Just as we're failing the kids in juvenile education we're also failing to set working age adults' immediate expectations for careers and employment and how they might want to consider deferring their higher education until they're older and more self-sufficient.

Since we're off topic, I find this much more woeful CC Debt for 55+ - The Independent and this CreditAction report - June 2011

[reggie]

oops