Private schools are indefensible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people really care about what the truly elite do and have? My life is happy, fulfilling, and meaningful. I’m not struggling and have everything I could want. I could care less that families at these schools have more than I do. It just doesn’t impact me or my kids. Let them live their life. You live your life.

You should care about it because these are the folks who in many ways end up running the country on so many levels and make decisions that will directly affect you and your family

Exactly!!! A lot of people responding to this article are not as bright as they think they are.

Once again, are you (and I assume you think that you are bright) under the impression that these schools PRODUCE the elite members of our society? You’re sure that the schools aren’t considered elite because of WHO SENDS THEIR KIDS THERE?

NP. Maybe I’m not very bright, because I don’t know what the meaningful difference is. Would it be better to say that these schools MAINTAIN the elite members of our society?

Ultimately I am asking what do people on this thread think is the POINT of this (poorly written) article?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people really care about what the truly elite do and have? My life is happy, fulfilling, and meaningful. I’m not struggling and have everything I could want. I could care less that families at these schools have more than I do. It just doesn’t impact me or my kids. Let them live their life. You live your life.

You should care about it because these are the folks who in many ways end up running the country on so many levels and make decisions that will directly affect you and your family

Exactly!!! A lot of people responding to this article are not as bright as they think they are.

Once again, are you (and I assume you think that you are bright) under the impression that these schools PRODUCE the elite members of our society? You’re sure that the schools aren’t considered elite because of WHO SENDS THEIR KIDS THERE?

NP. Maybe I’m not very bright, because I don’t know what the meaningful difference is. Would it be better to say that these schools MAINTAIN the elite members of our society?

Ultimately I am asking what do people on this thread think is the POINT of this (poorly written) article?

The point is to make money for the author and the website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Rich people continue to consume luxury goods while claiming to care about equity and diversity and social justice.”

It’s ridiculous.

It's not. Only the poor/minorities/oppressed can do it? I get that it's harder/less common for the rich to care, but it's hardly impossible.

Because, at a school that charges +$40k/yr tuition with minimal true diversity, it’s no more than lip service. The school and the families can say they care all day long. But what are they actually doing about it? Better to skip the rhetoric all together. At least, in that, there would be a measure of integrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Rich people continue to consume luxury goods while claiming to care about equity and diversity and social justice.”

It’s ridiculous.

It's not. Only the poor/minorities/oppressed can do it? I get that it's harder/less common for the rich to care, but it's hardly impossible.

Because, at a school that charges +$40k/yr tuition with minimal true diversity, it’s no more than lip service. The school and the families can say they care all day long. But what are they actually doing about it? Better to skip the rhetoric all together. At least, in that, there would be a measure of integrity.

Oh, FFS. If no effort were made you’d be complaining about that. Because efforts aren’t perfect, you’re complaining about that. This is thinly disguised animosity towards a few elite schools, as if the schools were the engine of inequality and not a symptom. If all of the private schools disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn’t come close to solving our educational equity problem, or our social and economic inequity problems, for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Rich people continue to consume luxury goods while claiming to care about equity and diversity and social justice.”

It’s ridiculous.

It's not. Only the poor/minorities/oppressed can do it? I get that it's harder/less common for the rich to care, but it's hardly impossible.

Because, at a school that charges +$40k/yr tuition with minimal true diversity, it’s no more than lip service. The school and the families can say they care all day long. But what are they actually doing about it? Better to skip the rhetoric all together. At least, in that, there would be a measure of integrity.

Oh, FFS. If no effort were made you’d be complaining about that. Because efforts aren’t perfect, you’re complaining about that. This is thinly disguised animosity towards a few elite schools, as if the schools were the engine of inequality and not a symptom. If all of the private schools disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn’t come close to solving our educational equity problem, or our social and economic inequity problems, for that matter.

No, because they are not the engine of inequality, but they are an engine of inequality. It’s complex, no one is denying that. But are you really surprised that people want to talk about this and that articles like this resonate right now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The author is Caitlin Flanagan which makes every single word suspect. She is not remotely a trustworthy journalist.

I haven’t read the article yet, but I like Caitlin Flanagan. I’ve listened to her on a few podcasts and I don’t agree with her on everything, but I think she’s far from untrustworthy. She was also a teacher and counselor at Harvard-Westlake in LA, so I always enjoy her views on elite private vs. public education.

Yup -- I don't agree with her on a lot of things, but she's a good writer and I've never seen any evidence that her reporting is shoddy in any way. As a parent with two Sidwell grads and a current student, I'd say that her account of SFS culture, especially with respect to college counseling, is right on the money (so to speak).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Query: If you can afford to purchase a luxury car with all the bells and whistles, why shouldn’t you if you so choose, or should you allow society to shame you into purchasing a more modest vehicle? So if an elite private school offers a superior educational experience, and you can afford to send your child to one, why wouldn’t you? Why should society shame the parents who send their kids to such schools or the kids who attend? Perhaps society should a examine how the public schools have failed our kids and misspent all the public funds allocated toward public education.

The only problem is that the choice increasingly seems to be between the luxury car, and taking Metrobus. The latter is crowded, inconvenient, and sporadically doesn't show up. We don't need to shame the people with cars but we do need the bus to function much much better than it does. We need it to be safe, reliable, accessible, and even pleasant and enriching to ride. Unfortunately there are people who feel that if the bus is nice to ride, that makes their luxury car less special.

This is a really great analogy.

Agree, and just to carry it a bit further, don't forget that a luxury car owner may make a donations to the dealership, entitling the owner to a tax deduction and deluxe service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Query: If you can afford to purchase a luxury car with all the bells and whistles, why shouldn’t you if you so choose, or should you allow society to shame you into purchasing a more modest vehicle? So if an elite private school offers a superior educational experience, and you can afford to send your child to one, why wouldn’t you? Why should society shame the parents who send their kids to such schools or the kids who attend? Perhaps society should a examine how the public schools have failed our kids and misspent all the public funds allocated toward public education.

The only problem is that the choice increasingly seems to be between the luxury car, and taking Metrobus. The latter is crowded, inconvenient, and sporadically doesn't show up. We don't need to shame the people with cars but we do need the bus to function much much better than it does. We need it to be safe, reliable, accessible, and even pleasant and enriching to ride. Unfortunately there are people who feel that if the bus is nice to ride, that makes their luxury car less special.

This is a really great analogy.

Agree, and just to carry it a bit further, don't forget that a luxury car owner may make a donations to the dealership, entitling the owner to a tax deduction and deluxe service.

Wait, are you all implying that the elite deliberately keep (some of) the public schools crappy just so they can feel more special? The elite DO NOT NOTICE OR CARE ABOUT YOU. They don’t have to. This thread is bananas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there needs to be a place for giving the "intellectual elite" an advanced education at the same time we push for equity. Do we not want a vaccine developed quickly during the next pandemic? Do you not want the technology that is going to replace oil and coal? I don't know if it is this system we have now, but we do need a place to develop those future leaders if our society is going to be able to sustain this push for equity. Poor and suffering societies are not kind or equitable.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but after 15 years as a parent at an elite school, I must tell you that:

1) these schools are not filled only with students who might be described as the "intellectual elite";

and

2) very, very few of the graduates of these schools will devote their lives to "sustain(ing) the push for equity."

[Anonymous]

I hate to break it to you, but very, very few public school graduates are sustaining the push for equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Part of how deeply stupid this conversation is is that “private schools” are not monolithic and most don’t look like Sidwell or Dalton. There are many smaller schools, parochial and independent, where per pupil funding looks a lot more like public schools. DC spends just shy of $22k per pupil. Lots of Catholic schools cost half that, and have better educational outcomes. Does that make you real mad, too? Or is it just the few Sidwells and Daltons that get ya steamed?

+ 1

This is why the article is ridiculous. So few privates are like the one the author is referring to.

For goodness sake, read, people. This article is specifically focused on a handful of elite schools. She’s not talking about your little Catholic school, much as you want to be relevant to this conversation.

Here’s the essence in three sentences:

“The numbers are even more astonishing when you consider that they’re not distributed evenly across the country’s more than 1,600 independent schools but are concentrated in the most exclusive ones—and these are our focus here.” [she goes on to list the schools by name]

“However unintentionally, these schools pass on the values of our ruling class—chiefly, that a certain cutthroat approach to life is rewarded.”

“But what makes these schools truly ludicrous is their recent insistence that they are engines of equity and even ‘inclusivity.’”

Well given that the clickbaity title is “pRiVaTe sChOoLs aRe iNdEfEnSiBlE” not “a handful of elite institutions are, duh, populated by the elite” I think PP can be excused.

The fact that a few private schools have vastly more resources than all other schools (public and private) is incredibly obvious. Are the objections really any different than objections to the existence of the Ivy League?

It’s a dumb article that conveys nothing except “omg, rich people continue to consume luxury goods!!!!”

I guess you’re old and just now learning how the internet works? I hope your kids are being taught to be more discerning consumers of digital media with those price tags.

NP -- Ageism -- we don't need it, and it's not a good look for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Query: If you can afford to purchase a luxury car with all the bells and whistles, why shouldn’t you if you so choose, or should you allow society to shame you into purchasing a more modest vehicle? So if an elite private school offers a superior educational experience, and you can afford to send your child to one, why wouldn’t you? Why should society shame the parents who send their kids to such schools or the kids who attend? Perhaps society should a examine how the public schools have failed our kids and misspent all the public funds allocated toward public education.

The only problem is that the choice increasingly seems to be between the luxury car, and taking Metrobus. The latter is crowded, inconvenient, and sporadically doesn't show up. We don't need to shame the people with cars but we do need the bus to function much much better than it does. We need it to be safe, reliable, accessible, and even pleasant and enriching to ride. Unfortunately there are people who feel that if the bus is nice to ride, that makes their luxury car less special.

This is a really great analogy.

Agree, and just to carry it a bit further, don't forget that a luxury car owner may make a donations to the dealership, entitling the owner to a tax deduction and deluxe service.

Wait, are you all implying that the elite deliberately keep (some of) the public schools crappy just so they can feel more special? The elite DO NOT NOTICE OR CARE ABOUT YOU. They don’t have to. This thread is bananas.

Yeah, it’s a fiction born of pure class resentment. We’re FA at a VERY rich school. I have never heard anyone be anything but supportive of initiatives to improve the local public schools. The school also regularly donates considerable resources to programs for city kids. But that doesn’t fit into the “eat the rich” narrative where rich is defined as literally anyone who has more than you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Part of how deeply stupid this conversation is is that “private schools” are not monolithic and most don’t look like Sidwell or Dalton. There are many smaller schools, parochial and independent, where per pupil funding looks a lot more like public schools. DC spends just shy of $22k per pupil. Lots of Catholic schools cost half that, and have better educational outcomes. Does that make you real mad, too? Or is it just the few Sidwells and Daltons that get ya steamed?

+ 1

This is why the article is ridiculous. So few privates are like the one the author is referring to.

For goodness sake, read, people. This article is specifically focused on a handful of elite schools. She’s not talking about your little Catholic school, much as you want to be relevant to this conversation.

Here’s the essence in three sentences:

“The numbers are even more astonishing when you consider that they’re not distributed evenly across the country’s more than 1,600 independent schools but are concentrated in the most exclusive ones—and these are our focus here.” [she goes on to list the schools by name]

“However unintentionally, these schools pass on the values of our ruling class—chiefly, that a certain cutthroat approach to life is rewarded.”

“But what makes these schools truly ludicrous is their recent insistence that they are engines of equity and even ‘inclusivity.’”

Well given that the clickbaity title is “pRiVaTe sChOoLs aRe iNdEfEnSiBlE” not “a handful of elite institutions are, duh, populated by the elite” I think PP can be excused.

The fact that a few private schools have vastly more resources than all other schools (public and private) is incredibly obvious. Are the objections really any different than objections to the existence of the Ivy League?

It’s a dumb article that conveys nothing except “omg, rich people continue to consume luxury goods!!!!”

I guess you’re old and just now learning how the internet works? I hope your kids are being taught to be more discerning consumers of digital media with those price tags.

NP -- Ageism -- we don't need it, and it's not a good look for you.

Oh my god, stop. I’m old, too. Stay on topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Part of how deeply stupid this conversation is is that “private schools” are not monolithic and most don’t look like Sidwell or Dalton. There are many smaller schools, parochial and independent, where per pupil funding looks a lot more like public schools. DC spends just shy of $22k per pupil. Lots of Catholic schools cost half that, and have better educational outcomes. Does that make you real mad, too? Or is it just the few Sidwells and Daltons that get ya steamed?

+ 1

This is why the article is ridiculous. So few privates are like the one the author is referring to.

For goodness sake, read, people. This article is specifically focused on a handful of elite schools. She’s not talking about your little Catholic school, much as you want to be relevant to this conversation.

Here’s the essence in three sentences:

“The numbers are even more astonishing when you consider that they’re not distributed evenly across the country’s more than 1,600 independent schools but are concentrated in the most exclusive ones—and these are our focus here.” [she goes on to list the schools by name]

“However unintentionally, these schools pass on the values of our ruling class—chiefly, that a certain cutthroat approach to life is rewarded.”

“But what makes these schools truly ludicrous is their recent insistence that they are engines of equity and even ‘inclusivity.’”

Well given that the clickbaity title is “pRiVaTe sChOoLs aRe iNdEfEnSiBlE” not “a handful of elite institutions are, duh, populated by the elite” I think PP can be excused.

The fact that a few private schools have vastly more resources than all other schools (public and private) is incredibly obvious. Are the objections really any different than objections to the existence of the Ivy League?

It’s a dumb article that conveys nothing except “omg, rich people continue to consume luxury goods!!!!”

I guess you’re old and just now learning how the internet works? I hope your kids are being taught to be more discerning consumers of digital media with those price tags.

NP -- Ageism -- we don't need it, and it's not a good look for you.

Oh my god, stop. I’m old, too. Stay on topic.

Would you say the same thing about a racist or anti-Semitic comment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Part of how deeply stupid this conversation is is that “private schools” are not monolithic and most don’t look like Sidwell or Dalton. There are many smaller schools, parochial and independent, where per pupil funding looks a lot more like public schools. DC spends just shy of $22k per pupil. Lots of Catholic schools cost half that, and have better educational outcomes. Does that make you real mad, too? Or is it just the few Sidwells and Daltons that get ya steamed?

+ 1

This is why the article is ridiculous. So few privates are like the one the author is referring to.

For goodness sake, read, people. This article is specifically focused on a handful of elite schools. She’s not talking about your little Catholic school, much as you want to be relevant to this conversation.

Here’s the essence in three sentences:

“The numbers are even more astonishing when you consider that they’re not distributed evenly across the country’s more than 1,600 independent schools but are concentrated in the most exclusive ones—and these are our focus here.” [she goes on to list the schools by name]

“However unintentionally, these schools pass on the values of our ruling class—chiefly, that a certain cutthroat approach to life is rewarded.”

“But what makes these schools truly ludicrous is their recent insistence that they are engines of equity and even ‘inclusivity.’”

Well given that the clickbaity title is “pRiVaTe sChOoLs aRe iNdEfEnSiBlE” not “a handful of elite institutions are, duh, populated by the elite” I think PP can be excused.

The fact that a few private schools have vastly more resources than all other schools (public and private) is incredibly obvious. Are the objections really any different than objections to the existence of the Ivy League?

It’s a dumb article that conveys nothing except “omg, rich people continue to consume luxury goods!!!!”

I guess you’re old and just now learning how the internet works? I hope your kids are being taught to be more discerning consumers of digital media with those price tags.

NP -- Ageism -- we don't need it, and it's not a good look for you.

Oh my god, stop. I’m old, too. Stay on topic.

DP. Hilarious that you are a jerk to someone in and then when called on it, you scold them for being off topic. You have issues.