Private Schools vs. Public Schools
- Thread starter Niflmir
- Start date
Sexist too, I see. The point is, cleavage doesn't make somebody into a bimbo. I don't think you understand what real sleaziness is. You are not open minded at all, you see revealing dress and you automatically judge that person to be somehow inferior. Judging a book by its cover is the exact statement of closemindedness.
As for the uniforms, which is not the point of this thread, (although it seems to be going in that direction) you don't really understand the point some of these people are trying to make if you think that they can do it outside of school. The need to express one's self is omnipresent, and is a basic human social need.
"That answer just shows how used to sleeziness our society has become."- I don't disagree, but I think you may have overstated things a bit. What I see with the dress "codes" of today is a lack of pride. When I was young we wouldn't be caught "shot to death in a sh*thouse" looking like some of the kids do today and we weren't prudes, we just believed in being neat, clean and keeping the appropriate parts covered. Not much wrong with that, IS THERE?
Only if she sings ' Hit me baby, one more time' while flaunting her body parts at the camera.
Private schools pride themselves in their success rates. The more graduates that they can claim became successful, important, professionals, the better their school looks to other parents, the more they can charge, and the happier they are. I agree that private schools tend to stream line children into professional positions, but I think one reason is related to their own survival.
The Waldorf and Montessori schools have priorities of teaching children wholesome, down to earth, practical thought processes. They teach children to explore the world, their passions, their strengths, and their beliefs. Perhaps more children with that type of private education would result in a more coherent society.
To be neat, clean and covered is fine for dress. That is how I dress and also how my wife dresses.
There is something wrong with making something of the inverse of it, since it is a formal fallacy. Simply because you are not neat, clean or covered does not imply impropriety. To suggest that it does or to complain when people are not is to be a prude. To complain about women showing their chests but not to complain so about men is to be sexist.
No one seems to have mentioned that uniforms are unnecessary to rectify talloola's complaints if a dress code is in place, as it is in most schools.
Public or separate, my children have always had to dress according to the dress code, which means shoulders and chests must be covered, shorts and skirts must be long enough, etc. As early as kindergarten, parents have gentle reminders given about school dress code.
Public or separate, my children have always had to dress according to the dress code, which means shoulders and chests must be covered, shorts and skirts must be long enough, etc. As early as kindergarten, parents have gentle reminders given about school dress code.
I don't think a parent child relationship is damaged when a child attends an overseas private school. Granted, children have to grow up a little faster, they don't have the opportunity to act out their hormones with tantrums and other antisocial behaviors, they have to learn to budget their funds and plans their travels, and they keep in regular contact with their parents. In fact, some children are probably thankful that their parents give them the opportunity ... so I don't really see how the parent child relationship is compromised.
I reiterate the whole point of this thread for a third time: the real reason is the selection bias latent in the student population.
It is not that they have higher success rates because they are in any way better schools, they have higher success rates because they take their students from a population which is more likely to be successful in school. This is measureable and my opening post has the links to such measurements.
They like to push this because if people think they are better schools then people are more likely to decide to pay for something which should be free. Most people never stop to question the selection bias of the whole process.
Sure, there are IB private schools and the only way to be admitted is to have excellent grades. Those schools carefully select students based on academic success. Other private schools specialize in behavioral problems. Their objective is to graduate students with normal social skills. Different private schools emphasize different aspects of a child's education, and parents will select private schools based on their children's needs.
So you agree that there is selection bias but refuse to acknowledge that this has the largest impact on the success rates of these schools compared with public schools?
No, I don't refuse to acknowledge that the selection process of some private schools is directly related to their success rate. I believe I previously stated that a primary objective of private schools is to produce successful graduates. The more successful graduates they have, the better their ratings, the more preferred they become, the higher their fees can be ... and so on. Most private schools even list the universities their graduates attend if they are prestigious schools. IB schools specifically select students they believe will make their schools proud.
On the other hand, private schools that specialize in troubled children take students with personal issues and pride themselves in their successes.
Not all private schools emphasize academic success, some emphasize well rounded people - like the Waldorf and Montessori schools.
I stand corrected, it is acceptable to be sloppy, dirty and have private body parts exposed. P.S. I have a fair understanding logic.
You clearly have a terrible understanding of both logic and what is acceptable since you negate neat to sloppy, clean to dirty and covered to privates exposed. You really like false dichotomies it seems.
If I accidentally spill some (small amount of) coffee on my pants, my pants are no longer clean. But most people would not describe me as dirty although certainly they would agree my pants are.
If I have the top two buttons of my shirt undone, I am showing the same amount of chest as typical cleavage. Yet only a fool would say that my privates are exposed.
If the edges of my pants are slightly worn, I am not neatly dressed. Nor am I sloppily dressed.
Plus everything depends on context which you seem to have allowed little room for.
I understand all that - I'm not a frickin' moron. (I wasn't referring so much to cleavage, which I don't mind at all, so much as the butt end crack, which I find uncooth and unsavoury.
Could have fooled me, what with your false dichotomies and all.
Sure, I find it uncouth and unsavory as well, that doesn't mean I do not accept it. If somebody wants to dress like that, I won't stop them.
But forcing someone to not dress like this is just unnecessary in all but a few areas of human society. "You are not allowed to dress like that because I don't like to see it," is an absurd reason to take away someone's freedom of expression. You might as well have said "You are not allowed to say those things because I don't like to hear them."