SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a recent study, we investigated how many of the wealthiest and most influential people graduated college. We studied 11,745 U.S. leaders, including CEOs, federal judges, politicians, multi-millionaires and billionaires, business leaders and the most globally powerful men and women.
We found about 94 percent of these U.S. leaders attended college, and about 50 percent attended an elite school. Though almost everyone went to college, elite school attendance varied widely. For instance, only 20.6 percent of House members and 33.8 percent of 30-millionaires attended an elite school, but over 80 percent of Forbes' most powerful people did. For whatever reason, about twice as many senators – 41 percent – as House members went to elite schools.
For comparison, based on census and college data, we estimate that only about 2 to 5 percent of all U.S. undergraduates went to one of the elite schools in our study. The people from our study attended elite schools at rates well above typical expectations.
Why waste $150,000 on an education you could get for $1.50 in late fees at the public library?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 21 2017, @10:31AM (4 children)
So parents that considers it a virtue to study diligently and a no bullshit teaching environment is the key?
I'll guess that no child left behind test schooling is not prioritized at those places..
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday April 21 2017, @02:13PM (1 child)
My godmother's children went to a state school, but in a prosperous middle class area and had quite a similar experience. Their school wasn't quite as well funded, but whenever they organised a fundraising event to make up the shortfall in government funding they'd have parents helping out and lots of cash flowing in. In contrast, state schools in poorer areas often have parents working such long hours that they can't support the students and with no disposable income to support the students.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 21 2017, @02:36PM
Isn't parental involvement actually exactly that. The virtue to study?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Friday April 21 2017, @05:28PM (1 child)
If you commute your teaching down to the average, your school will perform in the averages.
Yes, pretty much, high demands are made of everyone. There are learning support (what used to be called "special needs") procedures and departments but they don't generally deal with anything near what a state SEN department would.
And that's the problem. Although putting SEN kids (real ones) into a school makes them feel "normal" and maybe even raise their results (the science is very mixed on this, I'm not convinced that it helps them except socially, personally), it does slow down the other non-SEN kids to a certain extent, whether by taking away staff, time or resources that could be used elsewhere, or just on the impact in the classroom on behaviour, etc.
Years ago, we would separate out children by ability (grammar schools, etc.) and then again by behaviour ("special" schools). We don't do that any more. While that might be good for the averages, for the expense and for the kids suffering, it can actually have a negative overall effect on the normal school intake.
Part of the reason that "Academies" in the UK are able to produce temporary (1-2 years) results improvements is because they are outside regulations on who they can kick out and who they have to accept (i.e. all the kids kicked out of other schools). So after conversion from a normal state to an academy, results skyrocket. Until they are then forced to take back normal intakes - including SEN and others - when it all returns to normal.
Private schools are literally taking those who want to learn. Same as highly-religious schools (where nonsense isn't tolerated), and well-funded schools (e.g. new Academies, those associated to particular charities or organisations, etc.).
The question of whether this is "right" is a moral one. But before we jump into the "he became prime minister only because he has a rich daddy and all his friends are already there", we have to consider whether there's a reason behind that that's more than just "jobs for the boys". From what I see, there is quite clearly an advantage to a selective, attentive, well-funded and parent-backed education. And that correlates more highly to such positions than "who my father was", except indirectly.
Celebrity children, for instance, are often pains in the arses to deal with. The rich celebrity thinks that no matter how stupid their child is, paying more money should see them through the school with A grades. That's not how it works. In fact, if anything, private schools aren't swayed by "new money" people, because their reputation and results are worth a lot more to them for ongoing business than saying that they have a reality show millionaire's son in the house.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 21 2017, @11:41PM
It seems that self control, self determination and a calm environment is really important key issues. So the question becomes really what would one need to break free from school and that is really money. If the state gets to steal them, then it will undermine this (on purpose?).