(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Hey guys my friends and I were having a discussion about public school education vs. private school education. We were mainly talking about education at elementary and high school levels but I guess we can open it up to all kinds of education. So do you guys think public school benefits someones education more and gives them better chances at succeeding in college or later on in life, or do you guys think private school benefits someones education more and gives them better chances at succeeding in college or later in life?

I personally think that it depends on who the student is but I do believe that private schools help create more options for the students and most likely have better sporting teams than public schools (I know this is a whole separate debate but I thought I would throw it out there).

Private school, kids tend to be much more disciplined there. Education and content is generally more enriched, as opposed to public schools where the average intelligence of students are much lower, thus requiring the teacher to slow down the course to ensure that every student understands the content.

But (almost) free is better than paying thousands a year, which is an amount some people just can't afford.

I've always been a fan of privatized policies. Education is no exception. I think that children need to be exposed to situations where they are taught more strictly and disciplined. I think that these children will never experience true failure as most of them think nothing of a failing grade.

I have a few textbooks from private schools. The education they face is steeper and more challenging. I like it. I want children to be disciplined and successful. It seems that public education is just rushing kids to become mediocre workers instead of using their full potential.

And don't get me started of the teachers union.

It can be that expensive but when i went to private school for middle school my mom paid like 200$ a month for me and my brother both. But they did it based of income.

What precisely do you mean by disciplined? I'm hooking for details here.



Two things. Firstly, society requires these average 'drones' who can sit at a desk and do the most mind-numbing of things for dozens of hours per week. Secondly, why should children who have wealthy parents get an unfair head start in life?

I know that society requires them, and there will always be people like that. I'm not in a position to be able to change that and I understand what you mean. Society will always have those types of people doing those jobs and that's okay. Some people enjoy it, others don't. I'm not saying that receiving a public education is bad or anything.

In regards to discipline, I would not like to see my kids walking around with their boxers showing, and talking like an idiot. I wouldn't like to see my child get C's in class if he was a fully capable person and chose not to work hard. That's what I mean by discipline. I know some people are just not that capable mentally, and that's fine.

Also, children who have wealthy parents don't exactly get a head start in life. If the child is not strong academically it is going to be very difficult to change that. If he is just born a C student who does not pay attention in class then there's no money that could make that child intelligent again. The money that they earned is their money. If they want to spend it on their kids then they have every right to do so, however what I'm trying to drive at here is that public education should take things from private schools and implement them into their schools as well.

Realistically a dual system works the best. You can never have a fully private system or a fully public system. Having both works the best if you ask me.

Because there paying for a better education? You expect someone who pays for an education to get the same one has someone who gets it for free? Also, you dont have to be wealthy to go to a private school. A lot of Catholic private schools do it based on income and then the schools make up for it by getting money from the daisies.

What Millz is getting at is that paying for a better education will give kids more knowledge and not necessarily increase their intelligence level, their work habits, etc. Money can't buy grades-- it's ultimately down to the child's willingness to succeed for that to happen.

While it's true that some people are naturally more capable than others (and there may be little one can do to change that), children who have wealthy parents do get a head start in life (although, I suppose that depends on your definition of success). First off, begin with the extremely disadvantaged. Young learners in countries like Iraq, Qatar, Haiti, Sudan, Burundi, or Somalia face a host of challenges.

Take Burundi, for example, which has a GDP per capita of $487 (in America, the GDP per capita is around $48,500) with approximately 80% of the population living in poverty. In terms of educational standards, Burundi only has a 67% adult literacy rate (compared to 99% in the United States). According to the US Department of Labor, the gross primary education enrollment rate was 62% with a net primary enrollment rate of 37% in 1998. According to a report published by Burundi in late 2000, only 47% of school age children attended school. Burundi only supports five universities, only one of which is public, and none are rated highly. Healthcare in Burundi is vastly inadequate, with egregiously high death and infant mortality rates and illnesses (especially HIV/AIDS) run rampant. This has a very clear effect on the outcome of lives in Burundi. Not a single Burundian has won a Nobel Prize nor, according to Forbes, are any of the top 100 richest people in the world citizens of Burundi. While certainly wealth and number of Nobel laureates aren't the only indicators of success (some might go as far as arguing they aren't indicators of success whatsoever), they are popular indicators of success - and I believe that if you were to observe many other measures of success, you'd find that very few list citizens of Burundi (or even people that hail from Burundi).

Of course, in first world countries, when we think of "poor" we think of "first world poor." We don't consider what it means to live in a war-torn, poverty-stricken, disease-ridden land - where everybody is poor (and vastly more poor than the "poor" of America). Yet, the poor of first world countries are still hit with many academic disadvantages. To begin with, generally, wealthier parents choose to send their children to schools offering a particularly high quality of education, while poorer parents (assuming a child has parents, or parents of any quality whatsoever) might send their child to a public school, perhaps even a poor, city school (or even a particularly rural school) with inadequate funding, supplies, and facilities. Obviously, kids who attend better schools with better facilities, better teachers, and more supplies will have a greater advantage (as learning will be made easier). Furthermore, consider who they'll meet at those schools. Kids who attend expensive private schools will meet other kids who also have parents that are likely wealthy and in positions of power. Even though kids, especially very young kids, may not fully intuit the necessity and importance of networking, they're doing it anyways (and they're making all the right contacts); at the same time, kids who attend poorer schools are much more likely to make the wrong contacts (for example, gang activity is much more prevalent in poor areas, so obviously more gang members - or future gang members - will attend poor schools or generally be in the area of poor schools). Even generally innocent, but not wealthy contacts are less useful as they generally won't get you that top job or other opportunity.

Finally, just consider overall safety. People from wealth are generally much less likely to live in dangerous areas (places with high rates of crime, war, disease, etc.) for the simple fact that they are wealthy and as such, can choose to live in safer places. Living in a safe environment alone provides you with a great advantage in life.




That may have been the intent of what he said, but he did also quite clearly state "children who have wealthy parents don't exactly get a head start in life." While I agree that money cannot buy grades, it can make good grades much more attainable. While it does come down to one's willingness to succeed, there are other factors that may increase or decrease (sometimes quite drastically) one's chance to succeed (and as such, in some circumstances, even with all the willingness in the world, one may ultimately fail).


In summation, while the wealth of one's family does not guarantee success and that success must be achieved through one's own volition, it does give one greater chance at success. To say otherwise is simply foolish.

Yeah, I don't understand people who enjoy it. It consumes them. It becomes their #1 priority and they just forget to live. That's besides the point though, moving on.



To be entirely fair, I fit (almost) directly into what you just described. I'm not disciplined, my education is completely f*cked and I am for the most part for whatever reason incapable of applying myself. That's sadly just who I've become. Having said that, I talk more like an 'adult should' than my own mother and I don't have my boxers showing(heh). I dress somewhat similarly to that, but that's more down to my own lack of fashion sense than anything else. The point is though, which school kids go to won't make that much of a difference - it's 'hardwired' into them. The primary school I went to was average and I excelled, yet once I went to a grammar school I passed exams to get into everything went to *.



Average student < average student with expensive tutor(s). Student with tough life at home < student with a life of ease and luxury at home.

More than that though, I've read numerous articles that state those who get into certain 'high-up' jobs always come from certain private schools. Sorry for the lack of sources here, I haven't any at hand, but that has influenced my opinion a little so I thought it was worth mentioning.



As I said above, a tutor would make a difference. In my experience(more-so those of my friends) it can excel them, at least enough that they'll poke their head out from the rest so to speak.

Telling me that people can do as they please with their money doesn't bode well with me; firstly, there are limits to how far this statement can morally and legally go. Secondly, that's my problem precisely. Children get a head start ahead of others due merely to the fact that they happened to be born unto parents who did well for themselves. Those kids themselves did nothing to deserve that head start. And this is coming from someone who has an above average inheritance to look forward to(or dread, circumstances etc).

What exactly do private schools do that public schools don't but should? Give me a list.



Fully private would be a mess, but why not fully public? Maybe it's obvious, I'm not too knowledgeable here. Answer away.