Are private schools better than public schools?

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is excellent data from the UK that private schools result in higher earnings later in life. I imagine some small rural schools would be also very good too. According to this data bad apple pupils do a lot of damage to the rest of the class. to It's not just because you have richer parents in private schools.
 
There is 60 years of research and tens of thousands of papers and nothing vaguely conclusive on any of this.

It's very hard to disentangle the effects of what happens at school, at home, and in the wider world.


I would prioritise where your child fits in best. I went to a low-achieving community school and it really was the best for me as a kid as it had a great set of teachers and very little bullying.
 
RobFer said:
That isn't the dominant view.
Click to expand...
That's true, it isn't the common view. It's the factually correct view though.
Doctors children are more likely to become doctors.
Business owners children are more likely to own that (or another) business.
Plumbers children are more likely to become plumbers.

Saying that children who go to private schools do better financially in life because of the school is assigning causality for an entire outcome to a single factor. It is without merit.
 
Purple said:
Saying that children who go to private schools do better financially in life because of the school is assigning causality for an entire outcome to a single factor. It is without merit.
Click to expand...
Your statement is without merit (a logical car crash really), unless people are saying that children who go to private schools do better financially in life solely because of the school.
 
time to plan said:
No it isn't. The word 'solely' is important. That's why I emboldened it.
Click to expand...
I said;
Purple said:
Saying that children who go to private schools do better financially in life because of the school is assigning causality for an entire outcome to a single factor. It is without merit.
Click to expand...

I must be stupid. Can you explain the difference between "single" and "sole" in this context?
 
Purple said:
I said;


I must be stupid. Can you explain the difference between "single" and "sole" in this context?
Click to expand...
'Single factor' is on the cause clause of the sentence. You omitted to put 'solely' in the effect clause of the sentence, so the logic falls down.
 
time to plan said:
'Single factor' is on the cause clause of the sentence. You omitted to put 'solely' in the effect clause of the sentence, so the logic falls down.
Click to expand...
Now you're being silly.
You misread what I said or you have trouble with comprehension. There is no need to put solely in the effect clause of the sentence for the meaning to be accurate and clear.
 
Purple said:
Now you're being silly.
You misread what I said or you have trouble with comprehension. There is no need to put solely in the effect clause of the sentence for the meaning to be accurate and clear.
Click to expand...

Now you're being daft.
You tried to pull someone else up, and made a mess of things. I'm guessing it's not for the first time on this forum.
 
time to plan said:
Now you're being daft.
You tried to pull someone else up, and made a mess of things. I'm guessing it's not for the first time on this forum.
Click to expand...
I really have no idea what you are talking about.
If you can't understand what I said and everyone else can that's on you.
 
time to plan said:
Now you're being daft.
You tried to pull someone else up, and made a mess of things. I'm guessing it's not for the first time on this forum.
Click to expand...
What a charming post from a relative newcomer. I think you'll find that Purple's posts never do that.
 
dereko1969 said:
What a charming post from a relative newcomer. I think you'll find that Purple's posts never do that.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I have, on occasion, made a mess of posts but I acknowledge it when I do.
I'm far from the most highly educated or intelligent person posting here but upon rereading the above posts I still don't understand how my meaning was unclear.
Maybe it's just me... or maybe it's just me and everyone else except TtoP.
 
It’s oversimplistic to say that they’re better.

There are a whole myriad of factors.

The parents have more cash, which is probably a function of their own success, work-ethic, and/or intelligence. So the home environment is probably more conducive to achievement.

The people are more like-minded and have a view on what “success” looks like.

There’s more spare resources to do broader extracurricular stuff.

But are they better? Yes, they probably are in the main, but for many reasons, mostly linked to other factors.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
But are they better? Yes, they probably are in the main, but for many reasons, mostly linked to other factors.
Click to expand...

There is also the issue of value. Suppose you have €30k to spend on your child's education. You can of course spend it on school fees.

But in pure bang-for-buck terms that €30k would be much better spent on subsidising a taught masters, qualification or other professional training in a high-paid industry,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register