It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Privately Educated People Are Responsible For Most Of The UK's Problems

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

I don't agree with standing armies and following orders. The potential for misuse is too great.

As we found in a previous thread this is the way to get responsible civilian firearms training and experience. www.shootingclubdirectory.com... I'd prefer to see every willing and patriotic individual capable of defending our land.




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester

I certainly can't dismiss all you say but not all private schools are snobbery markets. I sent my kids to both State and Private schools in order for them to get an idea of the different kinds of education and people at them.

I also sent them to a Steiner School which I would still recommend because it does one specific thing neither of the other two types of schools do and that is to think for themselves. A bit thing I hate is multiple choice questions because whiter education expert/twerp decided to give the kids the answer rather than let them think for themselves deserved a real telling off. It was the start of the best dumbing down process ever in our education system.

However I think your real shaper and shifter of people is university and that is where I think part of the problem lies al beit a combination. Were you to put Eton with examples of Boris and Cameron Bullington's contributions to our country you would be absolutely right - but I think you will find that the majority of privately educated kids go to smaller private schools where the only idea is to get them through the 11 plus and A levels with stars shining everywhere.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: TrueBrit

This I agree with. I'm ashamed for those who think manual labour is demeaning. It's how you learn sense.


Finding manual labour demeaning is crass, stating (as in the post you replied to) it should be mandatory is pompous and inverted snobbery. My first real job was as a labourer in a concrete plant for a year and wouldn't wish it on anyone. You may as well call for the return of national service - at least that way there is more of a chance to actually learn something,



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:42 AM
link   
They need to bring back grammar schools.

Sure they were far from perfect but better than this libral nampy pampy one size fits all state education of mediocrity.

Least the high achievers from poor backgrounds had some prospects.

Libral education has FAILED. The UK has gone from among the best education system in the world to the worst in Europe!

Soon the USA will be makeing dumb British jokes! We will be the retards of the world!
edit on 24-2-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kester

Most state schools have to follow the national curriculum. Brainwashing for the workers.

Private schools don't have to follow the national curriculum. This is a major difference. Privately educated pupils can be given a more accurate overview enabling them to feel superior. Unfortunately this feeling of superiority isn't automatically accompanied by common sense. Frequently privately educated people insist their impractical ideas have an inflated value. This leads to various types of harm and chaos.



Sorry Kester but that just isn't true. Private Schools do have to follow the National Curriculum - they face the same exams as State School pupils face. The difference though is that as class sizes are smaller, more time can be devoted to each individual topic, meaning a (generally but not exclusively) more in depth knowledge / understanding of said topic.

I also found this to be true when i was teaching. By this i mean that in State Schools, we were encouraged to teach pupls to pass exams. In Private Schools, the emphasis is on understanding the topic (and obviously, therefore, better exam results follow). This is actually one of the reasons that turned me off teaching. If we want to improve education, we need to teach the topic, not how to pass the exam. I will add that this wasn't any major conspiracy to dumb down education either, it was more a reflection of time available to teach each individual pupil.

Heads certainly don't like it pointing out to them though!



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Grammar schools are massively popular in my region, the difference it made to my son's life compared to his former primary school mates was dramatic.

Two of his year are now at Cambridge, one the son of a postman.
Councils which ditched grammar schools made a grave mistake in my opinion. One of my mates daughters has just become a diplomat in the foreign office after grammar and Oxford...my mate is a minimum wage worker, grammar school was his daughter's ticket.

I will never support any calls for my local grammar schools to change a thing, except expand and offer more places.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand
Exactly.

I had freinds from poor backgrounds who got into places here in medway and they all have got good careers and left there poor backgrounds.

They are excellent springboards of social mobility.

Problem is they take only the top 20% which leaves a jelouse entitled 80% that want to wreck it for all.

edit on 24-2-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

It's such a shame seeing the bright ones miss out and go down hill in the comprehensive system.

Everything is better, discipline, learning methods, even the exam boards, and employers know it as well.
My son was shocked at the lack of deep subject knowledge with friends who got A* results through modular courses at comprehensive.

Tragically university admissions tutors know it as well.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: crazyewok

It's such a shame seeing the bright ones miss out and go down hill in the comprehensive system.

Everything is better, discipline, learning methods, even the exam boards, and employers know it as well.
My son was shocked at the lack of deep subject knowledge with friends who got A* results through modular courses at comprehensive.

Tragically university admissions tutors know it as well.


Exactly, which is down to teaching to pass rather than teaching the subject. Teaching to pass came in when league tables were introduced..........



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester

Also, regarding the Military, most Private Schools offer seriously discounted rates to Military children (can be as low as a 1/4 of normal rates). So lots of Officer class send their kids Private. If those kids chose to enter the military in later life, they then generally do it with much better grades / education so enter at a much higher rank, via Sandhurst, etc.

It's very easy to knock Private Schools but frankly, if i could afford it, my kids would be going.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

Sounds like that decision of modular teaching with coursework was as bad a decision as ditching grammar schools by some councils.

My son was jealous of having to learn deeply for final exams when his mates in comprehensive had easy coursework which they could forget about after.
Looking back now he is pleased...that grammar school opened, and continues to open doors for him, from education to presentation/communication skills and networking.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Not sure where i stand on coursework, to be honest. On the one hand, it certainly helps to "dumb down" subject knowledge, so i am very much anti.

On the other hand, some pupils are just slow at writing (or rubbish at exams). So a pupil that has a very clear subject knowledge can get a rubbish mark because they simply do not have time to complete exams - this is especially the case the higher up the school system they go. Coursework for these pupils clearly gives them the ability to demonstrate in depth knowledge of whatever they are discussing, so can be very relevent as a teaching aid for assessment.

What is really needed is a lot more schools and a lot more teachers. This brings class sizes down and gives teachers more time with individual pupils to properly teach a subject.

However, if this is not possible (financial constraints, etc) then we have to get rid of the PC nonsense infecting classrooms. In other words, those disruptive types simply tossed aside (as of old). Harsh? Yes, but if the cash isn't there for more schools then we really need to concentrate on those that want to learn.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

I did a lot of building, gardening, farm work, and repairing/converting stone farm buildings. The cement dust I inhaled then was more than enough. Concrete plant sounds grim.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: SprocketUK

I don't agree with standing armies and following orders. The potential for misuse is too great.

As we found in a previous thread this is the way to get responsible civilian firearms training and experience. www.shootingclubdirectory.com... I'd prefer to see every willing and patriotic individual capable of defending our land.


If Britain did not have a standing army/navy/airforce in 1939, can you hazard a guess as to what would have happened?
How long did it take for America to get its ass in gear for two world wars?
Yes Russia had a huge army, very poorly led by officers frightened of their own shadow.
The french army was traumatised by WW 1, and their communications were still WW 1.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

I'm going on what these .gov.uk people are telling me.

Private schools (also known as ‘independent schools’) charge fees to attend instead of being funded by the government. Pupils don’t have to follow the national curriculum.
www.gov.uk...

Most state schools have to follow the national curriculum.


Excellent point on understanding vs passing exams.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

I'm not intending to knock private schools. More to present my view of the almost total manipulation of society. Differences in schooling used to propagate divisions in society, then carried on through political loyalty and media outlets aimed at promoting conflicting political viewpoints.
edit on 24 2 2016 by Kester because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester

Independent Schools still have to do GCSE's or A Levels though, unless they choose to pursue the International Baccalaureates. If they don't offer those, parents don't send their kids and the schools then have to close. As they are businesses (as well as schools), this means not offering to follow the curriculum is a non starter, despite the legal wording.

The reason some independent schools are offering the bacalaureates is that they recognise GCSE's, etc, as detiorating in worth (understanding vs passing again). As the bacalaureates offer a higher standard and rely on understanding, these are becoming more attractive.

And from a Uni point of view, pupils will the bacalaureates will receive more first choice offers because they have a better subject understanding.

I had Private education for 4 - 16, state from 16-18 and then Uni (several times over). From my own experience, there was absolutely no comparison between Private and State - at times it was like comparing Premier League to non league.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester

As a side note my local grammar school outperforms the local day and boarding private schools by results year after year.

My son's mates at grammar had architects, consultant surgeons, airline pilots and military officers as dad's, why pay private when the state grammar is superior?

Me, I'm a humble plasterer lol
edit on 24.2.2016 by grainofsand because: Typo



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

Thank you for clarifying.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

I was seen a disruptive because I never did what I was told. I didn't see myself as disruptive since I never made a scene, but the example to other pupils was disruptive. The teachers were pleased when I started playing truant 90% of the time.

I have never wavered from the belief that my life would have been far different and more 'successful' if I'd gone into full time work in woodland management at thirteen. With no possibility of continuing education, and no adult prepared to help me enter the working world at that age, delinquency seemed the only choice.

Disruptive pupils put straight into work that appeals to them will do far better in their lives.




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join