Back on topic, I’d describe myself as a Classical Liberal (somewhat similar to Stoaty). That means in the UK I’m politically homeless, and in the US I’d be more or less a Republican (with some reservations).
Bladensburg…What I posted is a simple story, what does being communist have to do with that? Answer one… question do you want to share your grade point average with the student who does not study hard like you? Me I dont… :)[/quote]
The redistribution of wealth is a communist/socialist fantasy - the “equality of result” philosophy. This is not to be confused with the liberal concept of “equality of opportunity”. My point is that in modern America “liberal” is used (mainly by republicans) as synonymous with “communist” which it is not.
We don’t have “grade point averages”, we have classifications (first, upper second, lower second, third). I got the same classification as people who worked much harder than I did.
I dont understand this system but I now understand why you feel the way you do towards certian things.
There are provisions in the United States…Its called public school and its FREE TO ALL even kids who are not legal here. The only thing we cannot figure out is we cannot make people want to learn. 
Im a product of public school’s and have little college but with hard work I have a nice home and make a good living wage.
Im all for helping people out when they need a hand but in the US welfare goes from generation to generation to generation…But then again…The democrats have to get the votes from somwhere… 
Erwin…your just a waco!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
We have state schools, our public schools are actually private!!!
What should happen is that the brightest students regardless of background should be able to compete for the better schooling/grades on a playing field devoid of social or similar obstacles.
Edit to add.
It’s not about the redistribution of wealth, just the chances to achieve. Many people are held down by systems of education that just don’t do this.
Rudolf Stiener schools for example benefit some children, but you have to pay to go there.
If you have little money, then state school is all you get.
There are however some excellent state schools. Im not an advocate of wealth re–distribution per se, more, re-allocation to where it is needed, so that the under-developed can be ancouraged to develop, not sit around on their arses all day sucking up my taxes, but not abandoned either.
Erwin…your just a waco!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:[/quote]
thankyou
:lol:
Omg… THAT WAS SO PRICELESS ROFL
and this is priceless too
Firefly, 100yd I was recently reading about Christ’s Hospital and how the majority of it’s pupils don’t pay fees yet it still manages to provide one of the best educations in the country.
It got me thinking about the whole State School/Public School debate, I was once told (by a Bryanstone worker) that if you took out all the expensive extras like boarding, CCF, riding school etc the actual education of a pupil there was not enormously more expensive than the total budget for a state pupil from Blandford Comprehensive (or what ever it’s called). The difference is that while Bryanstone has the Headmaster, bursar and a few assorted assistants and secretaries to run it there are several times as many people involved in running the Comprehensive when you factor in all the school secretaries, local council/LEA workers and Civil servants.
The Left wingers want to strip the Public schools of their charitable status out of pure spite because they provide a better quality education for about the same actual cost. I just wish the Tories would go the whole hog and either reinstate the Assisted Places scheme or give any parent that wants it a voucher to be spent on any school (with a few basic provisos) regardless of what the fees are. Unti this sort of radical action is taken to allow people to vote with their (children’s) feet State education will continue to get worse because all the useless minions know that they have acaptive audience.
I have heard that yes, but that only applies to the local kids that attend. They add the bills on as the year progresses.
My Mrs was educated in a paid for school, although paid for by her dads company, and it was £18,000 a year all in (board, riding, etc.)
Agree, what we need to do is give a school £X and let the school and Headmaster decide how to spend it. All these wishy washer do gooder jobs need to go where ever they may be.
(Oh by the way use real nappies, they are better for everyone!!!)
I myself am a product of one of Britian’s excellent public (independent/private) schools. Some of my friends there were on assisted places, I was horrified to learn that these were stopped by the current shower of bastards. IMHO the government has a duty to make up where it fails to provide, e.g. exceptionally bright children should be sent to the top schools. If this isn’t done the government are robbing the nation of some very fine minds.
I was educated on the assisted places scheme, which I have benefited from enormously. My younger brother did too, because the school was prepared to offer him a bursary (like the assisted places, but paid for by the school, not the taxpayer). The bursary existed because the school recognised that many parents couldn’t afford to pay for two children to be privately educated and so offered various bursaries to make sure that the younger child didn’t miss out through being born second.
I’m very much in favour of a voucher scheme, where the government pays up to the cost of state education and parents are then free to pay more for private education if the voucher doesn’t cover the cost. It will benefit those rich enough to afford private education outright, but it will also benefit those who can’t afford it at the moment. Unfortunately, the present government is very much in favour of spiting the upper classes, regardless of how much a policy would benefit others.
I think the important thing is to break the state monopoly on mass education in such a way as to shock the useless time-servers of the NUT etc out of their complacency. It’s telling that teachers call themselves a “profession” and yet have unions rather than a professional body (like a Royal College/Charter) and that those unions are some of the most radical and strident - look how much an NUT conference is like a class full of the most obnoxious brats.
Interesting points, I wasnt a product of the English system and dont really understand it. Up here our education is vocationally based and does not bear direct comparison. Mind you we still have our fair share of Shite schools too. But it does appear to be a bit worse down south, still as I say, Im not really qualified to judge it.
Crab, I agree with you 100% on this, I wish they would do this where I live. We also have scholarships where the tuition is paid for gifted students that may not have the cash to pay themselves. BUT you have to earn it. :shock:
IM not sure if I understand you here. I think the athletic scholarship should go to the best players.
Are you saying an athlete who is not as good as someone else because he didn’t have the same opportunities should also get a scholarship??
The other issue…we have that in the USA…its called scholarships…
You pretty much answer it yourself Mike.
They should go to the best player but how do you define the “best”?
Think about the montage in Rocky when he fights the Russian. The Ruski gets all the breaks Rocky punches frozen meat.
All right in this particular thing the underdog wins but this is the sort of thing I’m getting at.
Someone in a crap school/establishment may have to work a dam sight harder than someone in in a better establishment to get to a similar standard.
It’s all about the means rather than the end.
Remember when schools/universities are selecting people they’re looking for the ones who will be best when they leave, not who are best when they arrive. Two of my friends at university were I suspect selected on that principle - one did fantastically well, another did very badly.