Public vs Private School funding

[Evolved1]

I refer to your signature, it reminds me of Toxoplasma gondii, which is spread via cat excrement. It is perhaps most famous for some of its claimed effects on human behaviour. Toxoplasmosis infections have been associated with an increase in aggressive and impulsive behaviours, a reduced perception of risk, and an increased probability of developing psychotic symptoms.

This explains you attacking lefties at every opportunity.

Lol. Snowflake.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Lol. Snowflake.

For making an observation?

Were you home schooled?

 

[Gethelred]

Is there any better means of measuring future achievement than scholarships? Most of the scholarships go to 11-12 year olds before crossover from primary to secondary schooling. Thinking back to my schooling years, which is all I have to go from in respect to the topic, a vast majority of those who had scholarships achieved success in VCE.

Insofar as I've seen - and granted, I'm not an education expert or doctor - one of the things we've learned the most about education is that we don't know an awful lot about how people learn. We have theories, and some of those theories seem to work some of the time and some work more than others, but we cannot point to one thing - be it academic achievement, measurable intellect, retention, emotional intelligence - that predicts future success.

As a consequence, we as a society are infinitely better off trying to educate everyone, and trying to ensure the best education for everyone. Giving scholarships to academic kids at 12-14 isn't a great way to achieve this, as it kind of demonstrates the differing educational standards.

You want genius arising from both sides of the tracks, not just the one.

There's opportunities for academically inclined students from the public (and private) systems to gain entry into public selective entry schools, so realistically there's a path for all people if they have the capabilities.

But that's the issue; you and I both know that the selective schools are even more selective than the private schools. You have cases in which kids get sporting scholarships only to get pushed out two years in; you have academic scholarship kids that get shuffled out, because - and I said this before - scholarships at 12-14 are not a good indicator of future performance.

Secondly, what is the point of selective education? If it's meritocratic, then the production of a level playing field across public/private is far more important than providing a few positions at the bottom end.

You view removal of government funding for private schools as an opportunity for the government sector to gain more funding.

Mmmm... not really.

I view educational - indeed, government funding - as finite. You cannot apportion your entire budget to the education sector, and especially not the secondary/primary side of things. As a consequence of not having infinite funds, I look at the thing with the question in mind: if we need to equalize as much of the outcomes between both schooling systems, where can the funds to do it come from?

The answer to that is redundant.

Whether the good intentions of your plan work as intended remain to be seen. If students are forced into the public system because parents can no longer afford private school tuition, government funding for that student has just increased by over 40%.

More, the private schools themselves - set up as profit centres for the various bodies that 'own' them, whether we're talking about catholic private schools or otherwise - which are not viable without governmental funding need to be slowly weaned off it; either they survive through alternative fund avenues, or they close and their students enter the public system as slowly as possible to allow the schools to adapt.

Less religious education is something we can both get behind, I would think.

The other issue I have with your plan is that I can't see it leading to different inequalities because of geography. Public schools from lower socioeconomic areas typically don't provide the same quality of schooling as inner city schools. Take a student that lives in Keysborough or surrounding suburbs for example. Private school options within the vicinity include Haileybury. If that same student is pushed out of the public system and into a public school in Keysborough or Dandenong, their opportunities become far more limited.

Geographic educational inequities are not solved by private schools. Good teachers and principals solve geographic educational inequities.

Frankston high had a shit reputation for decades until a principal came in the late nineties/early 2000's. He completely turned the school around; don't ask me how, it came up when my parents were selecting a high school for my younger siblings.

While I see your goal as worthy, I disagree with the means you wish to use. Until public schooling options are reasonably equal across the board among Melbourne suburbs, private schooling should be subsidised. Most of the differences seem to be cultural, and that's no easy fix. Fix that issue first and I'm with you.

ie, increase funding for the education sector to the point in which you can give essentially double the outcome to public students.

It isn't happening. If such funds became available, governments would funnel those funds to private schools. That's what the system post Gonski has shown.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Is there any better means of measuring future achievement than scholarships? Most of the scholarships go to 11-12 year olds before crossover from primary to secondary schooling. Thinking back to my schooling years, which is all I have to go from in respect to the topic, a vast majority of those who had scholarships achieved success in VCE.

There's opportunities for academically inclined students from the public (and private) systems to gain entry into public selective entry schools, so realistically there's a path for all people if they have the capabilities.

You view removal of government funding for private schools as an opportunity for the government sector to gain more funding. Whether the good intentions of your plan work as intended remain to be seen. If students are forced into the public system because parents can no longer afford private school tuition, government funding for that student has just increased by over 40%.

The other issue I have with your plan is that I can't see it leading to different inequalities because of geography. Public schools from lower socioeconomic areas typically don't provide the same quality of schooling as inner city schools. Take a student that lives in Keysborough or surrounding suburbs for example. Private school options within the vicinity include Haileybury. If that same student is pushed out of the public system and into a public school in Keysborough or Dandenong, their opportunities become far more limited.

While I see your goal as worthy, I disagree with the means you wish to use. Until public schooling options are reasonably equal across the board among Melbourne suburbs, private schooling should be subsidised. Most of the differences seem to be cultural, and that's no easy fix. Fix that issue first and I'm with you.

the number of scholarships is quite small however (we are not like the USA)

fwiw i wouldnt be against significant funding for private schools being tied to scholarship requirements (and some decent handcuffs on their use)

 

[Gralin]

How many private school scholarships currently are tied to whether you can sport good?

 

[Proper Gander]

everyone i knew who did one did them for one for one of two reasons:

1) to be a politician

2) to pick up women by saying "hey, I studied law at Monash" (seriously not kidding)

Then maybe expand your social circle a bit? I did Master of Laws JD at Monash a couple of years back. While working full time. I did it for neither of those reasons. Nor did anyone I encountered there.

 

[Sttew]

How many private school scholarships currently are tied to whether you can sport good?

Not as many as you think. Most private schools have means based scholarships, academic scholarships, choir scholarships, and general scholarships / discounts just to make up numbers. Scholarships are a form of celebrating excellence in all its forms which include sport.

Dylan Alcott was at an elite boy’s private school on a disability scholarship. He started there in primary school

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Then maybe expand your social circle a bit? I did Master of Laws JD at Monash a couple of years back. While working full time. I did it for neither of those reasons. Nor did anyone I encountered there.

Mature age students are a very different beast (been one of them too)

 

[Sttew]

Mature age students are a very different beast (been one of them too)

So you’re still claiming male Law students enrolled in Law to go into politics and pick up women? You’re a disgrace as are your friends who did that

 

[Ned_Flanders]

So you’re still claiming male Law students enrolled in Law to go into politics and pick up women? You’re a disgrace as are your friends who did that

I'm claiming most who did the double law degree had zero intention of studying law or going into any profession that a legal knowledge would be required

All my mates who did them went into either banking or merchant banking.

Its an ego degree

 

[Sttew]

I'm claiming most who did the double law degree had zero intention of studying law or going into any profession that a legal knowledge would be required

All my mates who did them went into either banking or merchant banking.

Its an ego degree

An ego degree? ‘Most’ did it for the ego trip? Exactly how many mates do you have who did Law?

You do realise that at Monash you had no choice than to do a double degree to study Law? Can you be any more ignorant?

 

[Proper Gander]

I'm claiming most who did the double law degree had zero intention of studying law or going into any profession that a legal knowledge would be required

All my mates who did them went into either banking or merchant banking.

Its an ego degree

Bullshit.

Find better mates

 

[Seeds]

Took this discussion out of the Dan Andrew's thread where Deliverance said

And the religious propoganda most private schools push as well as the seperation of boys and girls.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

An ego degree? ‘Most’ did it for the ego trip? Exactly how many mates do you have who did Law?

You do realise that at Monash you had no choice than to do a double degree to study Law? Can you be any more ignorant?

Not when I went to uni (double degrees only started around the time I did my Bach)

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Bullshit.

Find better mates

Don't disagree on the mates, they were the core of the Monash liberal club back in the day

 

[Sttew]

Not when I went to uni (double degrees only started around the time I did my Bach)

When did you go to uni? I started in 1978 and it was a double degree then. Again, you’re making it up as you go and extrapolating the experiences of your w***er mates

 

[Proper Gander]

Don't disagree on the mates, they were the core of the Monash liberal club back in the day

And on the basis of a few ****heads that you hung out with once, you dismiss law and arts degrees as ‘ego degrees’ for politicians, perverts and merchant bankers?

By all means jump on the LNP bandwagon that seeks to undermine this kind of study by raising fees while making it easier to study in areas they regard as vocationally relevant like “commerce”.

If you think that study in the arts and law with its focus on researched conclusions and critical thinking has no place, and provides no skills for professions outside of law and politics, then you’re an idiot and extremely narrow minded.

I’m doing my research PHD in the same field. I should toss it in really since you’ve proved that it is worthless and an ego trip.

For the record Ned, you’ve got just about the biggest ego on here. But I must be wrong about that yeah? Because of course you’re always right.

 

[Proper Gander]

When did you go to uni? I started in 1978 and it was a double degree then. Again, you’re making it up as you go and extrapolating the experiences of your w***er mates

He makes things up. It’s his thing

 

[Sttew]

He makes things up. It’s his thing

And exaggerates

 

[Roylion]

If you think that study in the arts and law with its focus on researched conclusions and critical thinking has no place, and provides no skills for professions outside of law and politics,

Agree completely. Arts may not be a specific vocational degree, but it does provide valuable skills in a variety of workplaces including social justice, sustainability, education, marketing, media, entertainment or fine arts. The study of disciplines such as history, anthropology, archaeology, literature, economics, pyschology, philosophy contained within them are valuable in themselves.

 

[tandino]

just imo (and i havent deep dived into this, so its off the top of my head only)

1) care factor. voters dont give two shits about povo kids going to povo schools, because they are sh*t students - so why teach them properly. even in my day it was seen as a holding bay until you could quit to go work at 15 (we had half the students in my year 12 year level that we did at year 7, and the size of the school increased from 600 to 800 in that time)

2) fundraising. reality is you get a lot more coin from parents in wealthy areas than in poorer ones. I cant speak for high school, but i remember my folks were in the school council for my primary school, and anything outside the minimum (ie a new library, repaving the basketball courts, a school bus) were paid nearly solely from local fundraising like the school fete

I think that's true on both counts. Which probably means regardless of how much or how little private schools are funded, the Frankston kids will always be Frankston kids and the Balwyn kids will always be Balwyn kids.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

I think that's true on both counts. Which probably means regardless of how much or how little private schools are funded, the Frankston kids will always be Frankston kids and the Balwyn kids will always be Balwyn kids.

You realise that many of the Frankston kids parents have more coin than the Balwyn kids parents.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

When did you go to uni? I started in 1978 and it was a double degree then. Again, you’re making it up as you go and extrapolating the experiences of your w***er mates

90's

had the mates who did the double (comm/law or arts/law) and had 2 who did the straight law (the initial law degree followed by the second one you need to actually do it as a gig)

I know things changed at Melbourne since my day, no idea about monash or the others

 

[Ned_Flanders]

You realise that many of the Frankston kids parents have more coin than the Balwyn kids parents.

depends where they are from. the frankston north vs south divide is massive

 

[Ned_Flanders]

And on the basis of a few fu**heads that you hung out with once, you dismiss law and arts degrees as ‘ego degrees’ for politicians, perverts and merchant bankers?

By all means jump on the LNP bandwagon that seeks to undermine this kind of study by raising fees while making it easier to study in areas they regard as vocationally relevant like “commerce”.

If you think that study in the arts and law with its focus on researched conclusions and critical thinking has no place, and provides no skills for professions outside of law and politics, then you’re an idiot and extremely narrow minded.

I’m doing my research PHD in the same field. I should toss it in really since you’ve proved that it is worthless and an ego trip.

For the record Ned, you’ve got just about the biggest ego on here. But I must be wrong about that yeah? Because of course you’re always right.

firstly you can absolutely hate me, thats your personal right and privilege, and i welcome you not to break if you ever see me cross the road. most people on this blue ball who know me loath me, thats something i came to terms with a long time ago, and i have no issues with it

and for my position, how is my view any different from the decades of people here who rip into the humanities? we have had conservatives want to shut down arts degrees for years, but im the cancer because i think most double degrees are bullshit?

my issue is with degrees that are constructed not for research or development or gaining a skill, but gaining a piece of paper.

look at the MBA program (which i studied). When i started out with my career, it was a genuine opportunity to do something that could enhance your skills for the corp world. Then uni's realized that it was a brilliant way to make money, and now they are the ultimate pump and dump course. I got some value going through it, but no where near as much as i was hoping (and i still regret agreeing to do an mba over an m.comm at my works insistence)

too often now uni's are about generating revenue, and the bells and whistles they apply to some arrangements sickens me (although not as much as the fall in standards thats happened for full fee paying students).

on the cost changes, i 100% oppose them. the sciences should be more subsidized than any degree we offer simply because thats what will build our future. classroom courses like arts and commerce is cheaper to deliver yes, but it doesnt benefit us as a nation in the same way. that said, we also neutered the CSIRO, so its just another step on that path.