Education

[pete75]

A friend who teaches gives private lessons after his school day to parents' children who are doing everything to ensure their future. I've asked what their parents do for a living and most have average jobs , plumber, council worker, mechanic and self employed gardener, none are earning mega ££'s I'd say.

The reason they pay for additional tuition is so the children get a 'fair' chance in life.

Certainly not all parents paying for private education are rich but neither are they the very poor. Do I condemn them? No, I condemn the system we have where any available cash can buy a child an advantage.

Of course the richer the parent the more advantage that can be bought.

I think the bulk of what you say above matches my own experience of things and certainly doing something to give your child a fair chance in life is something I regard as reasonable.

On the very last point any ‘advantage’ gained often is either in some part short term or very easily lost by the child, well over the years that’s just what I’ve casually observed. Some go on to make the very best of themselves and build on the foundations given to them and others either haven’t the intellect to capitalise on their earlier education or haven’t got the attitudes needed to do so.

Have you heard of the Eton Advent Calendar. It's the same as a normal one except the doors are opened for you by your father's contacts. That's teh true advantage wealthy parents can give their children.

[Freddie]

The social class system works both way. It is a game of snakes and ladders, not just a game of 'very occasional ladders', as some would have it. Plenty of people have fallen from high birth to low within a generation because of their own misbehaviour or ineptitude. People go both up and down the class system.

If you're incompetent, do you think it is possible to maintain any wealth/position gifted to you by your parents? No, you either slowly descend or you come crashing down, depending upon your degree of incompetence.

If a person is born into wealth, it doesn't mean that is where they will stay.

[pete75]

The social class system works both way. It is a game of snakes and ladders, not just a game of 'very occasional ladders', as some would have it. Plenty of people have fallen from high birth to low within a generation because of their own misbehaviour or ineptitude. People go both up and down the class system.

If you're incompetent, do you think it is possible to maintain any wealth/position gifted to you by your parents? No, you either slowly descend or you come crashing down, depending upon your degree of incompetence.

If a person is born into wealth, it doesn't mean that is where they will stay.

Most certainly yes.

[Mike Sales]

The social class system works both way. It is a game of snakes and ladders, not just a game of 'very occasional ladders', as some would have it. Plenty of people have fallen from high birth to low within a generation because of their own misbehaviour or ineptitude. People go both up and down the class system.

If you're incompetent, do you think it is possible to maintain any wealth/position gifted to you by your parents? No, you either slowly descend or you come crashing down, depending upon your degree of incompetence.

If a person is born into wealth, it doesn't mean that is where they will stay.

Trump.

[Cugel]

The social class system works both way. It is a game of snakes and ladders, not just a game of 'very occasional ladders', as some would have it. Plenty of people have fallen from high birth to low within a generation because of their own misbehaviour or ineptitude. People go both up and down the class system.

If you're incompetent, do you think it is possible to maintain any wealth/position gifted to you by your parents? No, you either slowly descend or you come crashing down, depending upon your degree of incompetence.

If a person is born into wealth, it doesn't mean that is where they will stay.

The human world made of winners and losers, eh? And the game isn't fixed?

This individualistic trope about how our fate is entirely within our own hands is a handy thing for the reactionary bigots, mind. Everyone deserves their position in the social (and biological) races. The rich and powerful need not feel any guilt at their luck/genetic inclination to exploit, whilst the poor are all undeserving and may be vilified or persecuted with a feeling of high moral justification. The status quo is right because it exists. It's all a Darwinian social winnowing of the unfit - although what we are supposed to be fit for is often unclear: making everything else extinct and then ourselves?

I wonder if you know where you got these individualistic notions from? The history of individualism is a fascinating thing. Here is one version:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Inventing-Indi ... ks&sr=1-11

Personally I like being an individual, although it has its price and is more or less impossible to achieve in any meaningful sense. Still, we can pretend by, for instance, having an opinion about everything no matter how ill-informed we are about the subject or inept at understanding it. On the other hand, being part of a social order and conforming to a huge amount that is not my own individual choice must be recognised as the de facto and unavoidable condition of being a human - the most cohesive and conformant of herd animals on the planet. Stampeding wildebeests have nothing on us!

Cugel

[Freddie]

The social class system works both way. It is a game of snakes and ladders, not just a game of 'very occasional ladders', as some would have it. Plenty of people have fallen from high birth to low within a generation because of their own misbehaviour or ineptitude. People go both up and down the class system.

If you're incompetent, do you think it is possible to maintain any wealth/position gifted to you by your parents? No, you either slowly descend or you come crashing down, depending upon your degree of incompetence.

If a person is born into wealth, it doesn't mean that is where they will stay.

Most certainly yes.

And do you have evidence of this or just a gut feeling?

BTW, I have to ask Pete, do you have children? You are part of the 1% as per what you've told us regarding your income and more power to you, but where would this place any children you might have? Would you not be able to provide things for them for far beyond the ability of the typical working class person on a 'working class' income.

You are a working class person 'done good' and that is great, but aren't any children you may have unduly privileged because of this? Are they still working class, what about any grandchildren?

How far do working class credentials extend, when your parent is part of the top 1% of earners?

You may not have Eton connections, but why disparage others for taking advantage of their resources to do the best by their children, when in the same situation you'd do precisely the same. Have you not taken advantage of your wealth and whatever connections/influence you have to do better for your children than somebody living on minimum wage, it would be rather unusual if you hadn't.

A friend who teaches gives private lessons after his school day to parents' children who are doing everything to ensure their future. I've asked what their parents do for a living and most have average jobs , plumber, council worker, mechanic and self employed gardener, none are earning mega ££'s I'd say.

The reason they pay for additional tuition is so the children get a 'fair' chance in life.

But they aren't paying for a 'fair' chance are they, they are paying for an advantage for their children. If they wanted fairness, the children would do without tutors and just go the whatever non-selective school was nearest.

Look, I will believe that people truly want equality when someone decides instead of furnishing their own genetic offspring with time/money/attention and such, they decide to give that to little Johnny down the road instead.

I can imagine the conversation now. 'Sorry, Timothy, you know Daddy loves you very much, but little Johnny down the road, his parents don't have the means to afford a private tutor, so I am giving notice to your tutor and I'm going to be spending money on a tutor for Johnny instead. Oh, and by the way, Johnny will be accompanying us on all trips or activities we used to do, just the two of us. It is only fair and you know how keen Daddy is on fairness'

....and pigs might fly!

[Tangled Metal]

There was a saying about wealth and generations. Something about one generation to make it, one to manage it and one to squander it. Put better than that but you understand the implications.

One person makes the fortune and the first generation after is close enough to see the work ethic to get the fortune so still has it and as a result is good enough to manage the wealth. Then the second generation grew up completely in this wealth so sees none of the effort to get it or keep it. That generation only sees money so spends without managing it.

Not sure how true it is but one branch of my family has its mythology of massive wealth being made and then lost. Vast swathes of land was owned in America at various times in my family's past. All lost well before any got to be.

I always think there's ability and opportunity. To be successful you get both in some measure. It's also possible to score highly in just one of those. High opportunity without the ability, well you probably won't see the opportunity coming or cannot take advantage of it. High ability can easily be scuppered by lack of ability too.

[Tangled Metal]

What rubbish! By paying for a tutor for poor kid down the road you're giving him the advantage instead. Equality would be both getting tutored privately surely.

Fairness? By that phrase I took it that by paying for private tutors the fairness comes from trying to match the privilege of richer parents who can afford private school fees. The cheaper, private tuition gets the same academic effect / success as a private school. Our tries to. After that other benefits of privilege probably takes over and you can't really buy that if you're a plumber.

[pwa]

One thing I have noticed over the years is that there isn't as good a match as one might imagine between the clever people and the people with good qualifications. The two are not entirely the same. I know a few people who are very clever but have no interest in educational qualifications or career development. You could call them "underachievers" but that would be based on somebody else's notion of achievement.

Conversely I know a few averagely intelligent people who manage to get good educational qualifications through hard work rather than raw ability, then succeed in their chosen profession in spite of not being all that clever. That is creditable, but it does show that being clever does not automatically equate to getting the qualifications and making some dosh.

[Freddie]

What rubbish! By paying for a tutor for poor kid down the road you're giving him the advantage instead. Equality would be both getting tutored privately surely.

I wouldn't say it was rubbish, per se. What are the metrics used for equality? If your child is ahead of the one down the road academically, then it would be equal to suspend your child's tutor until the other child could be tutored to the same standard. If your child was more intelligent than the child down the road, you must tutor him less frequently or find ways to stifle him so that equality is achieved.

What is fairness and what is equality? I don't think they are synonymous.

Fairness? By that phrase I took it that by paying for private tutors the fairness comes from trying to match the privilege of richer parents who can afford private school fees. The cheaper, private tuition gets the same academic effect / success as a private school. Our tries to. After that other benefits of privilege probably takes over and you can't really buy that if you're a plumber.

How is it fair to attempt to match your child with the very richest top 3 or 4% of the population? Wouldn't it be fair that he had an education no worse, but no better than the average child?

Again, what is fairness, to attempt to equal the standards and attainments of an elite? That seems to me to be advantage more so than fairness, because there is no hope of bringing all up to that level. Therein lies the problem of equality, it can only be reached by cutting down those at the top, by whatever metric you choose (intellect/wealth/sporting prowess and so on).

It is impossible to make all equal, even upon attempting to do so.

Have you read the short story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

Long, boring discussion <snip>

I think the phrase R2 wanted read everyone should be treated as equals not equally. You can't really treat people equally and expect the best out of them. Some will always need more help, others less.

You can treat people as equals in that they are of equal worth and deserve equal chance at achieving their best. All very much idealistic though that is.

Thanks,that's exactly what I meant,and I don't see any wrong in idealic aims especially in education.

And what do you do with lazy people?
The lazy exist in all classes and all walks of life. modern living has done this, being paid beyond your worth breeds lazy.

[Tangled Metal]

If you want to go hypothetical then if your child has more ability then they would be ahead through the same teaching. Whether that's just state school or topped up privately. Giving the same schooling or rather the extra lessons will probably be tailored to both kids so not identical makes it equal in opportunity.

The benefits of that opportunity does not have to equate to identical ability. The kids aren't identical and their life isn't identical. Other factors do play into it. Such as whether the teaching both kids get suit them. Some might suit tutoring or the state school better. I suited pressure exams better than regular coursework. Give me one I'll perform higher than the other.

The important thing is equal opportunity not result of that.

[reohn2]

The social class system works both way. It is a game of snakes and ladders, not just a game of 'very occasional ladders', as some would have it. Plenty of people have fallen from high birth to low within a generation because of their own misbehaviour or ineptitude. People go both up and down the class system.

If you're incompetent, do you think it is possible to maintain any wealth/position gifted to you by your parents? No, you either slowly descend or you come crashing down, depending upon your degree of incompetence.

If a person is born into wealth, it doesn't mean that is where they will stay.

Most certainly yes.

And do you have evidence of this or just a gut feeling?

BTW, I have to ask Pete, do you have children? You are part of the 1% as per what you've told us regarding your income and more power to you, but where would this place any children you might have? Would you not be able to provide things for them for far beyond the ability of the typical working class person on a 'working class' income.

You are a working class person 'done good' and that is great, but aren't any children you may have unduly privileged because of this? Are they still working class, what about any grandchildren?

How far do working class credentials extend, when your parent is part of the top 1% of earners?

You may not have Eton connections, but why disparage others for taking advantage of their resources to do the best by their children, when in the same situation you'd do precisely the same. Have you not taken advantage of your wealth and whatever connections/influence you have to do better for your children than somebody living on minimum wage, it would be rather unusual if you hadn't.

A friend who teaches gives private lessons after his school day to parents' children who are doing everything to ensure their future. I've asked what their parents do for a living and most have average jobs , plumber, council worker, mechanic and self employed gardener, none are earning mega ££'s I'd say.

The reason they pay for additional tuition is so the children get a 'fair' chance in life.

But they aren't paying for a 'fair' chance are they, they are paying for an advantage for their children. If they wanted fairness, the children would do without tutors and just go the whatever non-selective school was nearest.

Look, I will believe that people truly want equality when someone decides instead of furnishing their own genetic offspring with time/money/attention and such, they decide to give that to little Johnny down the road instead.

I can imagine the conversation now. 'Sorry, Timothy, you know Daddy loves you very much, but little Johnny down the road, his parents don't have the means to afford a private tutor, so I am giving notice to your tutor and I'm going to be spending money on a tutor for Johnny instead. Oh, and by the way, Johnny will be accompanying us on all trips or activities we used to do, just the two of us. It is only fair and you know how keen Daddy is on fairness'

....and pigs might fly!

In a properly funded national education system there'd be less eed for private tutors or private schools,nor wouldnthere be a post code school system where parents move house because of a better school down the road,it would bring schools upto a higher level across the board.
But as you say pigs might fly

[Tangled Metal]

How many properly funded public services can be paid for by the pot of money brought in by the government? At what point do you compromise and cut this proper funding? For what services do you cut?

It always comes as the solution. Proper funding if this service or that service. Then a new thread comes up about a different service and the solution is proper funding. And so it goes. The truth is that's an ideal not a solution. The government's always come up with their solutions. It's different every government. The one thing they have never managed so far is to properly fund any service.

[reohn2]

What rubbish! By paying for a tutor for poor kid down the road you're giving him the advantage instead. Equality would be both getting tutored privately surely.....

In a decently funded education system both wouldn't need private tutoring.
There's a good system to provide that,it's called taxation,though the present government has seen fit to cut the taxes of the rich far more than it has the poor to buy their votes and consequentially that reduction can be used to buy in tutors to help their children up the ladder.

It's far easier to pedal on the flat than uphill especially when you're overgeared to begin with,OTOH climbing uphill is much easier when you have the right gearing installed .