Yes I know that the question should have had more parts to the question but I didn’t want to stretch the character limitation in the title space.

I guess the first, and biggest, is that you know the school hires and fires the teachers.. this should ensure quality teachers in both standard and enthusiasm.

Arts said:

I guess the first, and biggest, is that you know the school hires and fires the teachers.. this should ensure quality teachers in both standard and enthusiasm.

This didn’t stop abusive staff, in my day and the current stats say that though a camel may have a hard time passing through the eye of a needle, many seem to be able.

Arts said:

I guess the first, and biggest, is that you know the school hires and fires the teachers.. this should ensure quality teachers in both standard and enthusiasm.

I think it creates that perception, but with our workplace laws, is still unlikely to actually happen in most cases.

poikilotherm said:

Arts said:

I guess the first, and biggest, is that you know the school hires and fires the teachers.. this should ensure quality teachers in both standard and enthusiasm.

I think it creates that perception, but with our workplace laws, is still unlikely to actually happen in most cases.

Non renewal of annual contracts gets around that rather nicely.

jjjust moi said:

poikilotherm said:

Arts said:

I guess the first, and biggest, is that you know the school hires and fires the teachers.. this should ensure quality teachers in both standard and enthusiasm.

I think it creates that perception, but with our workplace laws, is still unlikely to actually happen in most cases.

Non renewal of annual contracts gets around that rather nicely.

a lot can happen in a year.

Networking – it’s not what you know , it’s who you know.

All the boys of private schools are aware of each other , they build these contacts before adulthood to give themselves ( unwittingly to the mind if the child) the contacts needed to get well paying jobs till retirement.

wookiemeister said:

Networking – it’s not what you know , it’s who you know.

All the boys of private schools are aware of each other , they build these contacts before adulthood to give themselves ( unwittingly to the mind if the child) the contacts needed to get well paying jobs till retirement.

any school has networking. be it public or private.
one of my friends most helping
is a public boy through and through if I need a lawyer mate
his sister for me makes him sing
in all this keeps life from being so rough

oops..

any school has networking. be it public or private.
one of my friends most helping
is a public boy through and through
if I need a lawyer mate
his sister for me makes him sing
in all this keeps life from being so rough

Can I try again?

any school has networking
be it public or private
one of my friends most helping
is a public boy through and through
if I need a lawyer mate
his sister for me makes him sing
in all this keeps life from being so rough

The private school system is more structured in this regard, they understand that parents are sending kids there for a networking ability.

wookiemeister said:

The private school system is more structured in this regard, they understand that parents are sending kids there for a networking ability.

No. Not my experience.

For a start, I’ve attended every one of my public school reunions and not one of my Catholic school reunions. I spent less than two of my school years in a public school

I failed at networking with people (but that’s aspergers)

private ed people usually behave better

they teach them something about emotional awareness and control

and good table manners etc

CrazyNeutrino said:

I failed at networking with people (but that’s aspergers)

private ed people usually behave better

they teach them something about emotional awareness and control

and good table manners etc

Such classes are available to public students.. the only difference may be choice.

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I failed at networking with people (but that’s aspergers)

private ed people usually behave better

they teach them something about emotional awareness and control

and good table manners etc

Such classes are available to public students.. the only difference may be choice.

And time, money and awareness

There are a lot of aspects to this question, which I alluded to in the OP. Some are being discussed and it is early days in such a thread but let us open another aspect.

Truancy.

It didn’t matter if my father drove me to the Catholic school or indeed if he sent me to a Catholic boarding school. I still jumped the fence. It didn’t matter that the public school was only a few minutes walk, I still misspent much of my youth on the canal banks playing cards or fishing or indeed with girls. Then there was the snooker hall.

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I failed at networking with people (but that’s aspergers)

private ed people usually behave better

they teach them something about emotional awareness and control

and good table manners etc

Such classes are available to public students.. the only difference may be choice.

And time, money and awareness

money is indeed the aspect of well spent.. and this we should all pay our most awareness in time towards.

Do private ed students perform better than public

or is it around the same?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Do private ed students perform better than public

or is it around the same?

Well, let us take me for an example.. a complete waste of money attempting to get priests, nuns and brothers to gather me into the fold.

I sent my children (who weren’t goats) not to the same. I entrusted them to the public system. Though my mother was a self financed private school trained tutor. My wife an employee of the state education system.
My children both achieved high distinctions in everything clever and were talent scouted.

Note that throughout all of this, I am coming out as the problem student with no velcro attached.

Who else claims having floored a priest with a right hook?

The simple fact is that not all schools (be they public or private) are created equally…

For me the advantage of a private school is often that (typically) they are actively engaged (in that they have staff dedicated to) student advancement – be it through access to scholarship programs, career planning services as well as sports and vocational programs.

IMO, the key to education is recognising what you child needs from a school and where those services are best offered.

There is also a certain elitism associated with some private (usually grammar) schools that does, in itself, come with it’s own advantages – but I think that is probably more ‘social’ than anything else.

wookiemeister said:

Networking – it’s not what you know , it’s who you know.

All the boys of private schools are aware of each other , they build these contacts before adulthood to give themselves ( unwittingly to the mind if the child) the contacts needed to get well paying jobs till retirement.

+1 but only for those boys’ club schools. Not all private schools (especially Catholic schools) encourage this type of networking.

There is also status, especially around here in NW Sydney. I mean, a cashed-up bogan (the one with the SS Commodore and the big boat on the trailer parked on the manicured lawn in front of the McMansion) needs to show that they can afford it. This is a bigger factor than many parents would admit to.

From the reading I have done, it is difficult to compare all public schools to all private schools. Many public schools are now doing better than private schools, but it is best to compare schools within a specific area.

My eldest son will be starting high school in a couple of years and I know that the local public high school ranks very highly in NSW. Acedemically, that is. It seems a no-brainer to send him there, but there are other factors to consider. Student no. is important to me and so is physical environment. This school has over 1200 students and is ugly with few trees and lots of asbestos. I am yet to make a decision.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Do private ed students perform better than public

or is it around the same?

generally speaking (and this is a very general statement) the performance of students from private schools exceeds that of public schools – but there are of course some very high performing public schools and some very poorly performing private schools.

For instance, Brisbane State High is a very high performing high school; but it is also selective entry, so that is to be expected.

Speedy said:

My eldest son will be starting high school in a couple of years and I know that the local public high school ranks very highly in NSW. Acedemically, that is. It seems a no-brainer to send him there, but there are other factors to consider. Student no. is important to me and so is physical environment. This school has over 1200 students and is ugly with few trees and lots of asbestos. I am yet to make a decision.

One of the reasons we chose a private school over a public school was the all boys environment. We see it as a distinct advantage in the classroom as there isn’t the whole boy-girl pressure/distraction.

diddly-squat said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Do private ed students perform better than public

or is it around the same?

generally speaking (and this is a very general statement) the performance of students from private schools exceeds that of public schools – but there are of course some very high performing public schools and some very poorly performing private schools.

For instance, Brisbane State High is a very high performing high school; but it is also selective entry, so that is to be expected.

Private schools do have the ability to cull for academic ability. Government schools take all comers. So private schools should do better in scores for HSC/VCE or whatever. I’m not sure that they do though. When I was at university 30 odd years ago the private school kids had been coached to pass exams and some of them floundered somewhat in the university environment where you had to take responsibility for your own study habits. I hope things have changed.

>>One of the reasons we chose a private school over a public school was the all boys environment. We see it as a distinct advantage in the classroom as there isn’t the whole boy-girl pressure/distraction.<<

I’ve been avoiding commenting on this, but I will. They have to deal with the opposite sex in the real world, and I can’t see any reason to separate them through adolescence. It’s all part of becoming an adult. If you never learn to associate with the opposite sex, you are really behind the rest of them when you go on to tertiary education at 18 or 19 years of age. Do you want to stunt their development as rounded humans?

buffy said:

diddly-squat said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Do private ed students perform better than public

or is it around the same?

generally speaking (and this is a very general statement) the performance of students from private schools exceeds that of public schools – but there are of course some very high performing public schools and some very poorly performing private schools.

For instance, Brisbane State High is a very high performing high school; but it is also selective entry, so that is to be expected.

Private schools do have the ability to cull for academic ability. Government schools take all comers. So private schools should do better in scores for HSC/VCE or whatever. I’m not sure that they do though. When I was at university 30 odd years ago the private school kids had been coached to pass exams and some of them floundered somewhat in the university environment where you had to take responsibility for your own study habits. I hope things have changed.

That’s not true at all…

There are public schools that are selective entry only and as a result do very well academically, on the sports field and culturally. Equally there are private schools that do not require entrance examinations and where the only prerequisite is that your parents can pay the bill and as such have very poorly performing individuals.

Coaching happens at virtually all schools now days – like I said much of the difference is related to aspects of student advancement

buffy said:

>>One of the reasons we chose a private school over a public school was the all boys environment. We see it as a distinct advantage in the classroom as there isn’t the whole boy-girl pressure/distraction.<<

I’ve been avoiding commenting on this, but I will. They have to deal with the opposite sex in the real world, and I can’t see any reason to separate them through adolescence. It’s all part of becoming an adult. If you never learn to associate with the opposite sex, you are really behind the rest of them when you go on to tertiary education at 18 or 19 years of age. Do you want to stunt their development as rounded humans?

It’s not about avoiding interaction with the opposite sex – let me tell you there is no wall high enough to stop that – what it’s about is removing a certain pressure from the learning environment. A pressure to impress that is innate to boy-girl interactions – this being said it certainly doesn’t remove the pressure to impress peers.

What you find is that boys tend to perform better in single sex situations, especially in the arts.

I’m not sure how this could be considered ‘stunting their development’.

>>That’s not true at all… <<

I disagree. There are indeed a few selective High Schools. In Melbourne there is Melbourne High, University High and MacRobertson Girls High School that I know of. I don’t know if there are any others, but three is not many in the scheme of all of Victoria. They would fit into a Special Case category. I agree that the Catholic schools tend not to cull, but the more expensive schools are not averse to ‘suggesting’ if a student would be ‘better served’ by moving to another school.

buffy said:

>>One of the reasons we chose a private school over a public school was the all boys environment. We see it as a distinct advantage in the classroom as there isn’t the whole boy-girl pressure/distraction.<<

I’ve been avoiding commenting on this, but I will. They have to deal with the opposite sex in the real world, and I can’t see any reason to separate them through adolescence. It’s all part of becoming an adult. If you never learn to associate with the opposite sex, you are really behind the rest of them when you go on to tertiary education at 18 or 19 years of age. Do you want to stunt their development as rounded humans?

Our boys catch public transport to and from school, during that time, as well as on weekends, they are in almost continuous contact with members of the opposite sex. 6 hours a day in an all boys school is hardly denying them access to anyone.

>>What you find is that boys tend to perform better in single sex situations, especially in the arts.

I’m not sure how this could be considered ‘stunting their development’.<<

Refs please? I am aware of some research that says girls do better in single sex classrooms because teachers concentrate on the boys and boys talk over girls and they let them. And I consider it a pretty poor person who cannot learn in a room with people of all races, creeds and sexual orientations. If they mix with everyone from the beginning it becomes their normal. Separating them means they have a distorted normal in my opinion.

buffy said:

>>That’s not true at all… <<

I disagree. There are indeed a few selective High Schools. In Melbourne there is Melbourne High, University High and MacRobertson Girls High School that I know of. I don’t know if there are any others, but three is not many in the scheme of all of Victoria. They would fit into a Special Case category. I agree that the Catholic schools tend not to cull, but the more expensive schools are not averse to ‘suggesting’ if a student would be ‘better served’ by moving to another school.

I agree that there are far fewer selective entry public schools than there are general admission (or more typically catchment admission) but there are at least half a dozen in the greater Brisbane area that I know of.

Of the top tier private schools in Brisbane, only the two grammar schools do proper admissions testing and even then it’s more about ‘mainstream’ than it is about entry. The simple fact with many private schools academic performance is not one of the key admission criteria.

buffy said:

>>What you find is that boys tend to perform better in single sex situations, especially in the arts.

I’m not sure how this could be considered ‘stunting their development’.<<

Refs please? I am aware of some research that says girls do better in single sex classrooms because teachers concentrate on the boys and boys talk over girls and they let them. And I consider it a pretty poor person who cannot learn in a room with people of all races, creeds and sexual orientations. If they mix with everyone from the beginning it becomes their normal. Separating them means they have a distorted normal in my opinion.

I’m with buffy on this.

I’m actually very impressed with the teenagers I have contact with at archery. They go to the local secondary college, the local Catholic college and the local expensive college. And they mix girls and boys as if there is no great difference. In my generation there was a distinct boy/girl divide. I’m please that the barriers we worked to remove do indeed seem to be breaking down. Boys are not superior to girls and girls are not superior to boys. They seem to be really accepting everyone as a human being.

diddly-squat said:

buffy said:

>>That’s not true at all… <<

I disagree. There are indeed a few selective High Schools. In Melbourne there is Melbourne High, University High and MacRobertson Girls High School that I know of. I don’t know if there are any others, but three is not many in the scheme of all of Victoria. They would fit into a Special Case category. I agree that the Catholic schools tend not to cull, but the more expensive schools are not averse to ‘suggesting’ if a student would be ‘better served’ by moving to another school.

I agree that there are far fewer selective entry public schools than there are general admission (or more typically catchment admission) but there are at least half a dozen in the greater Brisbane area that I know of.

Of the top tier private schools in Brisbane, only the two grammar schools do proper admissions testing and even then it’s more about ‘mainstream’ than it is about entry. The simple fact with many private schools academic performance is not one of the key admission criteria.

well, why was it that they instructed me by my academic performance?

buffy said:

I’m actually very impressed with the teenagers I have contact with at archery. They go to the local secondary college, the local Catholic college and the local expensive college. And they mix girls and boys as if there is no great difference. In my generation there was a distinct boy/girl divide. I’m please that the barriers we worked to remove do indeed seem to be breaking down. Boys are not superior to girls and girls are not superior to boys. They seem to be really accepting everyone as a human being.

I was actually in the first class of the integration, in my area. The Catholic girls of years, 11 and 12 came to live with us at what was previously a boys own.
I was quite surprised at how well we interacted, though at the time the two schools were still separate for most of the day, on the same grounds.

buffy said:

>>What you find is that boys tend to perform better in single sex situations, especially in the arts.

I’m not sure how this could be considered ‘stunting their development’.<<

Refs please? I am aware of some research that says girls do better in single sex classrooms because teachers concentrate on the boys and boys talk over girls and they let them. And I consider it a pretty poor person who cannot learn in a room with people of all races, creeds and sexual orientations. If they mix with everyone from the beginning it becomes their normal. Separating them means they have a distorted normal in my opinion.

ROFL… you don’t spend much time with teenagers do you…

BTW, I’m not saying that this has anything to do with different races, creeds and sexual orientations (I’m not sure where that came from). All I’m saying is that the teenage brain will often place ‘impressing a potential mate’ above ‘learning’ – especially when certain academic pursuits are seen as classically ‘non-masculine’.

I’ll find you some references fro the all boys performance thing…

diddly-squat said:

buffy said:

>>What you find is that boys tend to perform better in single sex situations, especially in the arts.

I’m not sure how this could be considered ‘stunting their development’.<<

Refs please? I am aware of some research that says girls do better in single sex classrooms because teachers concentrate on the boys and boys talk over girls and they let them. And I consider it a pretty poor person who cannot learn in a room with people of all races, creeds and sexual orientations. If they mix with everyone from the beginning it becomes their normal. Separating them means they have a distorted normal in my opinion.

ROFL… you don’t spend much time with teenagers do you…

BTW, I’m not saying that this has anything to do with different races, creeds and sexual orientations (I’m not sure where that came from). All I’m saying is that the teenage brain will often place ‘impressing a potential mate’ above ‘learning’ – especially when certain academic pursuits are seen as classically ‘non-masculine’.

I’ll find you some references fro the all boys performance thing…

heh. It is a broad spectrum, the whole of the life of a child’s education. By the time they get to where you are speaking of, all potential could easily have been lost.

Here is a reference from “Science” in 2011:

http://www.educ.ethz.ch/halpern-09-23-11_1_.pdf

>>ROFL… you don’t spend much time with teenagers do you… <<

No. But I am an observer. I don’t really understand why you think it is amusing that I would like people of whatever age to be able to mix and communicate with people of any age. I’ve never been enclaved, perhaps I don’t understand. I’ve always had to communicate with people older and younger and of different orientations from the time I was a child. We didn’t ‘do’ babytalk and childtalk in my family. We were expected to form opinions, and express them and to then be able to defend them. Against whoever. Male, female, older, younger etc. I have not had a big inter-racial experience as I grew up in a white European part of Melbourne. We had Greek and Italian immigrants at the time I was at school. What I see in the teenagers at archery is a very welcome acceptance of pretty much everyone regardless.

I think this is what I am trying to get to. Children need to be guided, but they need breadth of experience. And that includes both sexes and plenty of variety.

buffy said:

>>ROFL… you don’t spend much time with teenagers do you… <<

No. But I am an observer. I don’t really understand why you think it is amusing that I would like people of whatever age to be able to mix and communicate with people of any age. I’ve never been enclaved, perhaps I don’t understand. I’ve always had to communicate with people older and younger and of different orientations from the time I was a child. We didn’t ‘do’ babytalk and childtalk in my family. We were expected to form opinions, and express them and to then be able to defend them. Against whoever. Male, female, older, younger etc. I have not had a big inter-racial experience as I grew up in a white European part of Melbourne. We had Greek and Italian immigrants at the time I was at school. What I see in the teenagers at archery is a very welcome acceptance of pretty much everyone regardless.

I think this is what I am trying to get to. Children need to be guided, but they need breadth of experience. And that includes both sexes and plenty of variety.

You misunderstand me… I didn’t suggest that you couldn’t interact with teenagers, only that it’s obvious that you don’t regularly interact with teenagers.

diddly-squat said:

buffy said:

>>ROFL… you don’t spend much time with teenagers do you… <<

No. But I am an observer. I don’t really understand why you think it is amusing that I would like people of whatever age to be able to mix and communicate with people of any age. I’ve never been enclaved, perhaps I don’t understand. I’ve always had to communicate with people older and younger and of different orientations from the time I was a child. We didn’t ‘do’ babytalk and childtalk in my family. We were expected to form opinions, and express them and to then be able to defend them. Against whoever. Male, female, older, younger etc. I have not had a big inter-racial experience as I grew up in a white European part of Melbourne. We had Greek and Italian immigrants at the time I was at school. What I see in the teenagers at archery is a very welcome acceptance of pretty much everyone regardless.

I think this is what I am trying to get to. Children need to be guided, but they need breadth of experience. And that includes both sexes and plenty of variety.

You misunderstand me… I didn’t suggest that you couldn’t interact with teenagers, only that it’s obvious that you don’t regularly interact with teenagers.

I know that it feels different as a parent but now try to imagine what is like; the interaction between a non-parent and a rambunctious teenager?

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

buffy said:

>>ROFL… you don’t spend much time with teenagers do you… <<

No. But I am an observer. I don’t really understand why you think it is amusing that I would like people of whatever age to be able to mix and communicate with people of any age. I’ve never been enclaved, perhaps I don’t understand. I’ve always had to communicate with people older and younger and of different orientations from the time I was a child. We didn’t ‘do’ babytalk and childtalk in my family. We were expected to form opinions, and express them and to then be able to defend them. Against whoever. Male, female, older, younger etc. I have not had a big inter-racial experience as I grew up in a white European part of Melbourne. We had Greek and Italian immigrants at the time I was at school. What I see in the teenagers at archery is a very welcome acceptance of pretty much everyone regardless.

I think this is what I am trying to get to. Children need to be guided, but they need breadth of experience. And that includes both sexes and plenty of variety.

You misunderstand me… I didn’t suggest that you couldn’t interact with teenagers, only that it’s obvious that you don’t regularly interact with teenagers.

I know that it feels different as a parent but now try to imagine what is like; the interaction between a non-parent and a rambunctious teenager?

what do you mean?

I do have teenagers as patients. Although admittedly I usually only have to manage one at a time.

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

You misunderstand me… I didn’t suggest that you couldn’t interact with teenagers, only that it’s obvious that you don’t regularly interact with teenagers.

I know that it feels different as a parent but now try to imagine what is like; the interaction between a non-parent and a rambunctious teenager?

what do you mean?

You are a parent, right?

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

I know that it feels different as a parent but now try to imagine what is like; the interaction between a non-parent and a rambunctious teenager?

what do you mean?

You are a parent, right?

yes, but my point is that I’m not sure how your comment is relevant to the discussion.

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

what do you mean?

You are a parent, right?

yes, but my point is that I’m not sure how your comment is relevant to the discussion.

I probably should let buffy have a go at answering that. I shouldn’t have intervened.

However if you want me to have a go, maybe I will later in the conversation.

Education is what you make of it.

My cousins went to private schools, one is now making coffee for a McCafe and the other is a promo girl for alcoholic beverages.

My sister and I both went through the public system and she is high up in her field in the major SA hospital, and i’ve done pretty well out of what i have in life.

When I was growing up, the private schools were known for their drug networks, and the kids had the money to get plenty of that.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Education is what you make of it.

My cousins went to private schools, one is now making coffee for a McCafe and the other is a promo girl for alcoholic beverages.

My sister and I both went through the public system and she is high up in her field in the major SA hospital, and i’ve done pretty well out of what i have in life.

When I was growing up, the private schools were known for their drug networks, and the kids had the money to get plenty of that.

Yo stumpy dude.

yeah.. Catholic dogs sitting on logs eating frogs.. lyrics I remember from passers by.

diddly-squat said:

buffy said:

>>What you find is that boys tend to perform better in single sex situations, especially in the arts.

I’m not sure how this could be considered ‘stunting their development’.<<

Refs please? I am aware of some research that says girls do better in single sex classrooms because teachers concentrate on the boys and boys talk over girls and they let them. And I consider it a pretty poor person who cannot learn in a room with people of all races, creeds and sexual orientations. If they mix with everyone from the beginning it becomes their normal. Separating them means they have a distorted normal in my opinion.

ROFL… you don’t spend much time with teenagers do you…

BTW, I’m not saying that this has anything to do with different races, creeds and sexual orientations (I’m not sure where that came from). All I’m saying is that the teenage brain will often place ‘impressing a potential mate’ above ‘learning’ – especially when certain academic pursuits are seen as classically ‘non-masculine’.

I’ll find you some references fro the all boys performance thing…

so what feminine pursuits are your kids into? ;)

stumpy_seahorse said:

Education is what you make of it.

My cousins went to private schools, one is now making coffee for a McCafe and the other is a promo girl for alcoholic beverages.

My sister and I both went through the public system and she is high up in her field in the major SA hospital, and i’ve done pretty well out of what i have in life.

When I was growing up, the private schools were known for their drug networks, and the kids had the money to get plenty of that.

IME, it appears to have a lot to do with the attitude of the parents

diddly-squat said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Education is what you make of it.

My cousins went to private schools, one is now making coffee for a McCafe and the other is a promo girl for alcoholic beverages.

My sister and I both went through the public system and she is high up in her field in the major SA hospital, and i’ve done pretty well out of what i have in life.

When I was growing up, the private schools were known for their drug networks, and the kids had the money to get plenty of that.

IME, it appears to have a lot to do with the attitude of the parents

It cannot be left out.

diddly-squat said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Education is what you make of it.

My cousins went to private schools, one is now making coffee for a McCafe and the other is a promo girl for alcoholic beverages.

My sister and I both went through the public system and she is high up in her field in the major SA hospital, and i’ve done pretty well out of what i have in life.

When I was growing up, the private schools were known for their drug networks, and the kids had the money to get plenty of that.

IME, it appears to have a lot to do with the attitude of the parents

in my family, My mother, her sisters and brother are all public school teachers, a few of my cousins have also followed that career, only 2 of my cousins on that side have gone through private school. on my dad’d side, his brother is some bigwigfor a mining company with 3 boys all went through private school and his sister is an orchardist, 3 kids went through a rural public school.

Out of 17 cousins, 6 went through private, 11 public.

(all 6 who went through private schools are still living at home with parents, only 1 is still at school, all who went through public schools, except myself, are employed and starting/growing families)

diddly-squat said:

That’s not true at all…

There are public schools that are selective entry only and as a result do very well academically, on the sports field and culturally. Equally there are private schools that do not require entrance examinations and where the only prerequisite is that your parents can pay the bill and as such have very poorly performing individuals.

Coaching happens at virtually all schools now days – like I said much of the difference is related to aspects of student advancement

No one has commented on this comment, thus I’m putting it back up.

IMO, from what I’ve seen in Tas, the attitudes of both systems has a big part in the people who come out at the end. In the public system, they are told they need to work hard to get where they want to be. The private system assures the students that by being in a private school, they are already there

stumpy_seahorse said:

IMO, from what I’ve seen in Tas, the attitudes of both systems has a big part in the people who come out at the end. In the public system, they are told they need to work hard to get where they want to be. The private system assures the students that by being in a private school, they are already there

As a subject of both systems I can only disagree. However, I’m here to listen to the views of others.

roughbarked said:

Who else claims having floored a priest with a right hook?

My old boss floored Kerry Packer in his one and only boxing session at a melbourne private school.
Boss’ dad wanted him to box so enrolled him in the boxing group. KP was a prefect and very big bully, when he was assessing the new recruits and lording over them, he decided to pick on my boss, who was scared enough to do only 1 thing…Swing.
The height difference between the 2 boys meant that the fist connected squarely in KP’s plums…
Boss unenroled in the boxing group the next morning before retribution was made…

diddly-squat said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Do private ed students perform better than public

or is it around the same?

generally speaking (and this is a very general statement) the performance of students from private schools exceeds that of public schools – but there are of course some very high performing public schools and some very poorly performing private schools.

For instance, Brisbane State High is a very high performing high school; but it is also selective entry, so that is to be expected.

I know someone from regional that has moved to the city centre so their kid will be in catchment for that school

maybe that’s what you do move to the right area to make sure your kid goes to the right school, moving to any regional area is a waste of time education wise – in qld Brisbane is where its at.

networking yes

SCIENCE said:

networking yes

of private education, yes.

so now, what about the rest of us?