"The advantage of a private education is that even if you are not that bright, you can get on much better," said a father who sent his three children to private schools.
A study by the Sutton Trust educational charity shows that in 2004 over 66 percent of barristers at top chambers and about 75 percent of judges attended independent, or private, schools.
Nearly a third of the country's lawmakers, including Prime Minister Tony Blair and Cameron, were privately educated."
and, at the end of the article:
"The most affluent, articulate and influential people in society will do what they always do on education -- having made their private arrangements, they will stand aloof," said Walden.
In general, that first line in the first quote really sums up education for me. For the most part, how intelligent you are or the quality of the school are simply not that important; what matters is the little piece of paper with the school's name on it, sort of a membership card into that exclusive club. Is it probable that such a high percentage of kids who went to Eton are actually that much more intelligent than their peers in public school systems? Of course not. It is probable, however, that their parents are richer, have more connections and generally enjoy a higher socio-economic status than the majority of the populace.
I spent a lot of time in private schools myself (of course, Canada doesn't really have anything on Eton's level), and what's actually interesting about my experience was that most of the kids going there were not ultra-rich. Come to think of it, that could be because no-one in Canada is ultra-rich, but whatever. Anyways, most of the kids who went to my school had parents who were successful, yes, but who had worked for that; frequently with both parents working. I can't really say why they (the parents) chose to send their kids to private school; that's not really the sort of thing you ask your friends when you're 16. I can say that my parents believed it would set me up better for life; that the opportunities would be more varied and more beneficial than the public school experience.
I think the good thing about private schools (at least, the one I went to) is that they force a certain level of committment on you. In public schools, I think it's relatively easy to sneak through, to not draw attention, do your time and escape with relatively little pain. Private schools, with smaller enrollments and class sizes, tend to be predicated on the idea of fashioning a "whole" person, forcing academics, extra-curriculars and athletics down your throat whether you want them or not. I think you can get the same quality of education in the public system as you can in the private, you just need to work a bit harder for it; nothing is handed to you, and that also assumes that the resources are the same, since private schools typically have more money to spend on computer labs, sports facilities and whatnot. Perhaps that's a more useful lesson for life.
Come to think of it, the one thing that's stuck with me the most from my schooling is the thing that the school I went to has since abandoned; a knowledge of deportment. When I started going there it was a private school still strongly influenced by the English model; you stood when teachers came in the room, called them "Sir" and "Ma'am," attended morning chapel and generally had all the nasty little habits kids have ground out of you. It's a little loser-y (well, maybe it's a lot loser-y), but I like that about myself, and am sort of thankful that I had that experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment