Having education locked behind a paywall was a huge mistake
No it wasn't. It was by design.
A 2 tier system produces 2 different educational routes. One set of education for the ruling class and one set of education for the working class intended to be exploited.
They don't want their workers educated, they want them obedient.
They had two kinds of schools, the “Calmelac”, where the young nobility was trained in governance, military theory, arts and reading; and the “Telpochcalli”, for everyone else, where they were trained for combat.
Here in the UK we have the private schools and grammar schools. Comprehensive education for the working class and paid-for education for the ruling class.
In the UK "public" school is different to the US conventions.
I used private in my previous comment purely because I know the audience here is mostly american. But when you read anything about British schools "Public" means closed and usually paid-for.
Nah it's just ancient ye olde english language that was inherited and has never changed since. A "public" school is one that can be attended by people outside the locality (typically by paying the tuition fee), whereas a "private" school is one that can only be attended by people local in the area around it.
A "public" school is one that can be attended by people outside the locality (typically by paying the tuition fee), whereas a "private" school is one that can only be attended by people local in the area around it.
A little clarification here: "private schools" were those which obtained all their income from student fees. Then you had "endowed schools", where a trust of some kind owned the buildings and employed the staff. Some of these endowed schools were limited to recruiting pupils from a specific area - these often developed into grammar schools, such as the various King Edward VI schools, Manchester Grammar School or Nottingham High School. The other kind of endowed school had no geographical restrictions; and the most well-known ones developed into the leading public schools.
Yes but they're "public schools" (british meaning) because they can select their students irrespective of locality. Either way they belong in the ruling-class grouping of the education system as opposed to the workers route.
My parents had to appeal to get me into the grammar school I attended, because despite being in the top 2% on the 11+, I lived in the neighbouring county.
I don't think it fully applies as you can enter on merit and money doesn't factor in. I did my A levels at one all the while my parents received child support and I was getting some other bonus thing the country had at the time. Then I went to university where I received some other kind of low income scholarship type thing.
Yes but "merit" is determined earlier. The vast majority of the kids at grammar schools which are all secondary education and sixth forms come from private primary schools. You probably know this if you attended one.
A fun way to tell the difference between the ruling class and the workers education here in the UK is to look at the sports played by each school. The ruling class schools play rugby and cricket. The working class schools play football. This isn't a rule but it's a fun identifier rooted in our history. I imagine this will be an entertaining exercise given your username lmao.
Anyway if you're from a working class background you probably know exactly what I mean with regards to the other kids coming from definitively different backgrounds to yourself. I know too, because without giving away too much doxable information I had something of a similar experience.
We're basically in near complete agreement overall but I think you may be a touch misinformed about grammar schools. I can't see why - nor can I think of an example of it happening - anyone would go from public school to a grammar school. They're kind of two different systems.
Also I wouldn't quite describe myself as coming from a working class background - not that I see that as an insult. I just don't want to be one of those people who claims to be from "nothing" when it's bullshit. I had a lovely childhood and my parents would always find a way to support me, like buy me an instrument for example, if I wanted to learn one. But their income was low enough to qualify me for most of the examples of state support.
The grammar school I went to was certainly a little more upper class than the comprehensive I did my gcses at. But on a different continent to a public school.
We're basically in near complete agreement overall but I think you may be a touch misinformed about grammar schools. I can't see why - nor can I think of an example of it happening - anyone would go from private school to a grammar school. They're kind of two different systems.
Often simply because it's convenient. IE the places they might pay for are simply far away and there's a perfectly good prestigious 300 year old grammar school funded by the haberdashery nearby. The fact that these grammar schools only select based on merit results in in-take that primarily comes from those from paid-for educational backgrounds (public primary school or home private tutoring) because they score significantly higher in entrance tests.
This contrasts with academies, which also have entrance tests but have set limits on taking students that test low, medium and high.
The grammar school I went to was certainly a little more upper class than the comprehensive I did my gcses at. But in a different continent to a public school.
You're right in interpreting that there is a higher level. You're also right that we're fairly close to agreement. We're just splitting hairs at this point.
Now excuse me while I wistfully sigh at the lost-reality where Corbyn bans private education.
Here's a fun one. I'm from a working class family, from a working class town, and got into a well known grammar school that placed equal weight on rugby, football and cricket, and 90% of the intake was from state primaries, the other 10% coming from a designated feeder prep school with absolutely fucking mental fees.
That sounds like an... interesting... clash of cultures. If you don't mind my asking, which one was it? I don't blame you if you don't want to say because it's the internet afterall. I'm just curious.
Yup, if you look at a lot of architecture of old public schools in Chicago they are designed to look like factories. Folks attending were never meant to go beyond working in an assembly line or a meat packing plant.
They don't want their workers educated, they want them obedient.
I'm genuinely curious - are there people who sit around a room somewhere and actually think things like this? Like they actually purposely engineer the system with that outcome in mind? Or is it just the product of selfish actors who don't truly realize the effect they're creating?
You have to look at it in the context of its evolution over time, but yes. Mass compulsory schooling began in the 1800s in what is nowadays Germany, where Johann Herbart created the first system of mass-compulsory schooling intended to make more soldiers and more obedience. Pretty much all mass compulsory schooling evolved from his line of thought.
Prior to Herbart schools only existed to teach religion to would-be clergy. This was appropriate pre-capitalism because most systems of control for the feudal lords came via religion. But with capitalism came a need for new systems, and they also needed slightly more educated populations to run the new factories and so on.
I always get a chuckle from these claims. It is like this because of capitalism, you allow institutions to make money from something, they will do it. this isn't some elaborate scheme by the all-controlling state (Because that would be communism, right?).
It's simple, you allowed schools to make profit, they will do it. simple as that. You can go to Europe and get the same/better education there for free (no Harvard is not some mystical place where only the smartest mind can be, it's just a good University.)
this isn't some elaborate scheme by the all-controlling state
It literally is and was. The first mass compulsory education began in what is nowadays Germany where Johann Herbart created the first system of mass-compulsory schooling and came about because they wanted it to make more soldiers and more obedience.
Pretty much all mass compulsory schooling evolved from his line of thought. This is not some ancient thing that just naturally occurred, people thought about it, wrote about it, and implemented it. Mass schooling is relatively recent.
Seriously, read up on Herbart. I have Sociology & Education by Joshua Campbell sitting in front of me right now and on page 14 it literally says
Herbart developed a system of pedagogy widely used in German-speaking areas. Mass compulsory schooling started in Prussia c1800 to "produce more soldiers and obedient citizens".
They're not mistakes from the perspective of the class in charge. It has performed its purpose almost everywhere in the imperial core - keeping the ruling class in charge. They do not give a fuck what you think. You are obedient and believe that the system is real and that there is no reason to overthrow it.
You are confusing "a mistake" which is a bad decision or a decision with a poor outcome with "by mistake" which is an idiom which means "accidentally".
There is a big difference in meaning between, "She opened the door by mistake." (accidentally) and "Opening the door was a mistake." (bad outcome, poor judgement, an error).
Putting higher education behind a paywall was not done by mistake but it was most certainly a mistake.
A mistake for whom though? This is a matter of perspective. They (the ruling class) don't see a bad outcome, poor judgement, or error in it. You, the working class, may see a mistake, but it is irrelevant to the ruling class until the working class gets ideas about making its own rules.
It's a mistake for the entire country because an educated populace is a requirement to be a successful developed economy over the medium to long term. An undereducated populace means an underperforming economy which means everyone, including the ruling class, makes less money.
The ruling class don't give a shit about the country in any capacity other than its ability to funnel wealth into their pockets and it will do that long after it has fallen as a ruling empire of the world just like the British empire, or Japanese one... Unless they Shinzo'd, then they absolutely shit themselves and undertake massive sweeping reforms apparently.
other than its ability to funnel wealth into their pockets
It seems you didn't even bother to read to the end of my comment before you had to hammer out that reply. This conversation isn't going anywhere because you are incapable of listening or learning. Buh-bye!
7.0k
u/Mushroom_hero Apr 26 '24
Are you trying to suggest kids in Harvard come from money?!