Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JuliusHMarx]

First topic message reminder :

How have some individuals got to the point where all they do is whinge and moan and complain about other people without any sense of compassion for those less well off than themselves through no fault of their own?

[navyblueshorts]

Ridiculous knee jerk reaction to stop outdoor activities like golf but still allow elite football to carry on.

Football at that level involves bubbles for the squads. Can't control that for amateur golf.

[super_realist]

Yes you can. You can play a round of golf without coming within 3-4 metres of anyone in your group. It's not difficult, although the footballers seem to be not good at following their rules.

[navyblueshorts]

You get annoyed by people having a different opinion to you?

Don't we all. Especially if those opinions are down right idiotic.

A man who voted for Corbyn accusing the opinions of others being idiotic. There's irony for you.

An idiotic view is having issues with player of the match.

Not really, no. Whatever makes you happy though....

[JuliusHMarx]

I was going to fire off an e-mail to my local MP about the unnecessary restrictions on golf and tennis during the new lockdown, but instead I ended up complaining about there not being two separate terms - 'Man of the Match' and 'Woman of the Match'.

[McLaren]

Jas I think I agree with a lot of what you say in your post above and voting for "tone" of the country is something that Super doesn't seem to understand. We are limited in our choice of what to vote for and he jackpot of having a party which have your ideal policies and leader is pretty unlikely to happen. At that point you need to vote for the candidates whose policies most reflect your world view. And most might not be a lot. I would also consider who is actually harmed by a particular parties policies, for example who really suffers if Corbyn overspends on a few welfare state areas? and who suffers under the current Tory government.

(PS, I vote green)

[super_realist]

It wasn't Corbyns spending that was the problem, it was the Marxist policies of making everything, including broadband publically owned. Somewhat Orwellian. 
He even wanted to get rid of private schools.

Aspiration is a dirty word to  that branch of Labour. Thankfully those almost Commie politics is being phased out of Labour since Corbyn embarrassed himself and his party.

[McLaren]

Super

But you know most of that isn't going to happen so you think about what a labour government might actually achieve in the next 5 years.

As I said, it is about picking who will set the right tone because at the point you vote you don't know what policy decisions will even have to be made.

[super_realist]

Mac, coming from someone who votes for a party  with  pipe dream policies  which they know they never have to live up to, (who can they can say whatever they like safe in the knowledge they will never have to enact them) , that's a bit rich.

If what you are saying is right, then why did people who normally vote Labour and who wanted to have a party stand against Brexit not vote Lib Dem?

[McLaren]

Not sure super.



I guess the simple question is would you currently rather be living as we are under Tory rule or would you have preferred Corbyns labour to have won? For me it is an easy one, too many people are not being cared for by our current government.

[JAS]

No,  having an opinion that Corbyn is someone worth voting for is idiotic

If you noticed I was responding to Ben who claimed I was an idiot for having a different opinion to him and I was pointing out the irony in his claim because he didn't seem to have the view that he held idiotic opinions when a vote for Corbyn demonstrates that on that point at least, he does.

Unless one lives in Islington North they're not voting for Corbyn, they're voting for the Labour movement. Would it have been wise to vote for that movement whilst it was being poorly led, hmmm, questionable maybe, idiotic no. The movement is a constant, slowly evolving over time. It's leadership is a totally transient thing that changes on a fairly regular basis....look it already has!!.
What you (not so) very cleverly try to do is conflate those two very disparate thing together. You ridicule the whole movement because it temporarily drifted toward the left kerb during a period of vacuous questionable leadership.

That particular blip has now been 'corrected', time to move on. The trouble is, with moving on, the problem  the party will have is that a LOT of what Corbyn wanted DID actually make sense to a lot of members, members that joined under his leadership. A lot of his principles were bang on but he couldn't lead and he couldn't market either himself or the party to the electorate. He wasn't weak but his leadership approach and his lack of media savvy allowed him to be portrayed even weaker than he was. Starmer has a very very fine line to tread, he hasn't got a Blair type charisma but he does come across as having a sound grasp of his brief (as you would expect from his employment history). That's fine but what he also seems to have is a willingness to be a "focus group slave". That can cut both ways, it CAN help align him and the party more with public opinion but at the same time it can also lead to accusations of sell-out from the left and desperation for power accusations from the Tories.  To me the left need to shape up and shut up because if Starmer fails abysmally at the next election they we are well and truly doomed to this current shower of halfwits for a generation. Maybe we should all just buy shares in Serco and accept it.

Yes and no. They are voting for Labour, but they were also voting for Corbyn and his loony far left incarnation of Labour, and this failed hysterically and rather obviously. 
Anyone can see that this was never going to be a popular route for the party to go down, but they carried on regardless and failed in THREE general elections against the worst Tory party and the worst leaders in history, so it was hardly a temporary blip. 

Now they at least seem to be making progress, however this simply wasn't my point. 
I was addressing Ben for claiming my opinions were stupid because they were different from his, implying that his opinions were not stupid.

Corbyn lost 2 elections not THREE and to be fair he increased the Labour Vote from the "wrong" Milliband's 2015 low tide mark. Having said that however and I do concede you this point...given how the Tories have stumbled from one shambles to the next with some half baked attempts at being populist whilst thinly disguising their self serving elitist dogma over the past 10 years, any decent opposition should have absolutely trounced them. We've had a choice of the lesser of 2 evils the past 2 election and each time we've chosen the greater evil...lets see what happens across the pond if the Septics decide to do the same tomorrow.

[JAS]

It wasn't Corbyns spending that was the problem, it was the Marxist policies of making everything, including broadband publically owned. Somewhat Orwellian. 
He even wanted to get rid of private schools.

Aspiration is a dirty word to  that branch of Labour. Thankfully those almost Commie politics is being phased out of Labour since Corbyn embarrassed himself and his party.

I don't personally see an issue with free publicly owned Broadband but if you'd care to explain what horror and damage would ensue if such a policy was implemented then I'm all ears...fire away!!

"wanted to get rid of private schools" and actually implementing such a policy in power are two totally different things, personally I'd have been happy with just ending their charitable status.

The "tone" that was conveyed was indeed not one of aspiration and that is electorally costly. That is one thing Blair understood completely and one of the key reasons why he was so electorally successful.

Mac does make a very good point though re considering "who would be harmed and how much" by a particular raft of policy implementations. If you consider that and boil it down to basics you end up with
1. Do I watch billionaires get richer and hope they might be a bit more charitable because poverty and deprivation (and all the accompanying evils of despair and exploitation that come with it) is going to spread wider in society or
2. Do I watch billionaires get a little pissy about their wealth being top-sliced to provide a fairer society where government is actually serious and aspirational about eradicating poverty or at least capable of meeting UN & WHO targets for reducing poverty and increasing health and where more people can build a decent future for themselves based on stable secure and decent employment.

or maybe 3. I'm alright Jack, everybody else is too fat and stupid to look after themselves.

Obviously its a lot more nuanced than that, for starters, even if you believe in 1 or 2 (3 was a joke!!) you then have to consider if the party advancing that proposition is actually capable of implementing it. I genuinely think the majority of people would go for 2 but the big thing that stops them is that they've been persuaded of the view that its unachievable by the party that believes in it and even worse, they've somehow been persuaded that the Charlatans that always go for 1 can somehow implement 2 better....bonkers eh??

[super_realist]

You think a state controlled Internet might not be a bit compromising? Would you accept China's censored Internet? Corbyn already wanted to control the press, you'd think he'd allow a free Internet? 

Why would anyone want to get rid of private schools in the first place, especially with no idea of how he'd finance it or where you'd put the pupils. McDonnel was often more mad than Corbyn. 
I would prefer that faith schools were disbanded if you have to get rid of any particular type of school, or rather get rid of the faith element. Whilst I'm at it, they should begin to tax religion seeing as it currently enjoys a tax free status which in the case of the Church of England as one of the largest landowners and wealthiest organisations in the country is not on. 

You need to get that chip off your shoulder about people who happen to be rich, it's a shame you weren't a bit more condemnatory of those who can't even be bothered to try. You seem to think that they are deliberately held back by the rich. It's conspiracy theory stuff.

[JAS]

You think a state controlled Internet might not be a bit compromising? Would you accept China's censored Internet? Corbyn already wanted to control the press, you'd think he'd allow a free Internet? 

You think the state don't currently have that capability now? As well as the ability to monetise it, or indeed turn a blind eye to others monetising it. Speaking of China, they probably have the same capability due to Johnson being so reluctant to bin them until quite recently

Why would anyone want to get rid of private schools in the first place, especially with no idea of how he'd finance it or where you'd put the pupils. McDonnel was often more mad than Corbyn. 

Why would any one want private schools in the first place, never mind give them charitable status, they are one of the biggest perservers of the class system in this country.

I would prefer that faith schools were disbanded if you have to get rid of any particular type of school, or rather get rid of the faith element. Whilst I'm at it, they should begin to tax religion seeing as it currently enjoys a tax free status which in the case of the Church of England as one of the largest landowners and wealthiest organisations in the country is not on. 

Don't disagree with that, on the same theme that private schools preserve class division, faith schools preserve religious division, the country would do much better without such seeds of division being sown into young minds

You need to get that chip off your shoulder about people who happen to be rich, it's a shame you weren't a bit more condemnatory of those who can't even be bothered to try. You seem to think that they are deliberately held back by the rich. It's conspiracy theory stuff.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder about rich people, I do however get rightly arsy when rich people (or anyone else for that matter) get on an exponential greed curve especially when others have to be exploited and suffer to satisfy that greed. So let me summarise that for you so that it is unequivocal. I DO NOT DESPISE WEALTH UNLESS IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY EXCESSIVE AND EXPLOITATIVE GREED

Oh and as for the last bit "the ones who can't be bothered to try" YES, scum, consider them condemned. They are detestable, not only for cheating the system but also for the fact that they give the Tories an "out". Effectively, it's the long term deadbeat lazy scroungers that end up making things a lot worse for the genuinely vulnerable and temporarily unlucky

[super_realist]

What is wrong with private schools? Do you disagree with private health care? Your golf club is private too isn't it?

I also don't see private schools as being a place which allows the class system to flourish, perhaps in regards to Eton, Harrow or Gordonstoun, but there's plenty public (by that I mean private) schools which don't seem to foster what you claim they do. I know just as many snobby people from the state school  I went to from the ones I know who went private.
Not every private school turns out Jacob Rees Mogg's by the dozen.

[JuliusHMarx]

Assuming that private schools give a better education, then the children of poor people who can't afford a private school will get a worse education on average. Would we all agree on that?

[super_realist]

Is it a fact that private schools give a better education? Not necessarily. 
Even if it did, isn't it an inducement to state schools to improve?

Being "poor" doesn't mean you don't have access to  good education, nor does it mean you can't go to university and end up doing just as well as a privately educated person. 

There seems to be this inference that the majority of people are destitute and in Gorbals style depression era poverty. 
The trouble is the term "poverty" has changed definition so many times, but people still have in their mind that it means something it no longer does.

[JuliusHMarx]

There seems to be this inference that the majority of people are destitute and in Gorbals style depression era poverty. 

Classic!

[JuliusHMarx]

Is it a fact that private schools give a better education? Not necessarily. 

On average I'd say they do. Do you disagree?

[super_realist]

Is it a fact that private schools give a better education? Not necessarily. 

On average I'd say they do. Do you disagree?

I don't know, I didn't go to a private school so I can't say I do. 

Lots of things are better in private though. I prefer my car to public transport, I'd prefer Archerfield to my current golf club, I'd prefer lots of things that are private, but that doesn't mean I should get them for free or that these institutions should be disbanded just because not everyone can afford it. What sort of communist country would we have if we only had one option for everyone for every good or service? It would be miserable.

[super_realist]

There seems to be this inference that the majority of people are destitute and in Gorbals style depression era poverty. 

Classic!

Well that's how it comes across as if 90 % of the country is part of that Monty Python sketch about how poor people are or were.

[JuliusHMarx]

I'm not saying they should be disbanded. I'm saying the children of rich people have more opportunity to get a better education, better exam results and better jobs, than the children of poor people.
Yet when the less well off say they haven't had the same opportunities, people don't believe them. Some even sneer at them and tell them they are all lazy, fat slobs.

[navyblueshorts]

Is it a fact that private schools give a better education? Not necessarily....

Depends how measured, I guess. In the main, however, they're vastly better resourced, meaning opportunities that state schools can't offer. Don't know for certain, but I'd wager their staff/student ratios are better as a result as well.
They may get some Tim-nice-but-dim characters, but even so, they perhaps allow such to maximise their chances, whereas the same at a state school may never do so.

[super_realist]

They have exactly the same opportunity because they get to go to school and get the grades to go to university.

Not having the same opportunity would be denying them the right to A-Levels or University. Private school doesn't grant you access to any qualifications you can't get at a state school. 

Does anyone not have those opportunities in the UK?

[JuliusHMarx]

They have exactly the same opportunity because they get to go to school and get the grades to go to university.

Not having the same opportunity would be denying them the right to A-Levels or University. Private school doesn't grant you access to any qualifications you can't get at a state school. 

Does anyone not have those opportunities in the UK?

You're just arguing for the sake of it now. I refuse to believe your head is buried that far deep in the sand.

[super_realist]

They have exactly the same opportunity because they get to go to school and get the grades to go to university.

Not having the same opportunity would be denying them the right to A-Levels or University. Private school doesn't grant you access to any qualifications you can't get at a state school. 

Does anyone not have those opportunities in the UK?

You're just arguing for the sake of it now. I refuse to believe your head is buried that far deep in the sand.

You're the one making stuff up. A state school pupil has the same opportunity to pass an A level as anyone else from a private school. 
You need to drop this persecution comex that the poor are deliberately held back. You sound like The boy Jones.

[Soul Requiem]

I went to a Public school for a period of time before transferring to a grammar school but see no reason why I shouldn't benefit from my parents being able to afford a higher standard of education.

[JuliusHMarx]

They have exactly the same opportunity because they get to go to school and get the grades to go to university.

Not having the same opportunity would be denying them the right to A-Levels or University. Private school doesn't grant you access to any qualifications you can't get at a state school. 

Does anyone not have those opportunities in the UK?

You're just arguing for the sake of it now. I refuse to believe your head is buried that far deep in the sand.

You're the one making stuff up. A state school pupil has the same opportunity to pass an A level as anyone else from a private school. 
You need to drop this persecution comex that the poor are deliberately held back. You sound like The boy Jones.

When did I ever say anyone was being deliberately held back? Why do you repeatedly argue against things that aren't said? Is it a method of wumming or are you so locked into your world view that you can only interpret things in a very narrow structure?

[JuliusHMarx]

I went to a Public school for a period of time before transferring to a grammar school but see no reason why I shouldn't benefit from my parents being able to afford a higher standard of education.

No reason why you shouldn't. According to realist, it was a waste of money, as it didn't enhance your life prospects in any way. Would you agree with him, or do you think you benefitted from it, as opposed to attending a state school?

[Soul Requiem]

I'd say I personally benefitted but it wasn't for everyone, quality of local comprehensive schools plays a large part in that.

[JAS]

They have exactly the same opportunity because they get to go to school and get the grades to go to university.

Not having the same opportunity would be denying them the right to A-Levels or University. Private school doesn't grant you access to any qualifications you can't get at a state school. 

Does anyone not have those opportunities in the UK?

You're just arguing for the sake of it now. I refuse to believe your head is buried that far deep in the sand.

You're the one making stuff up. A state school pupil has the same opportunity to pass an A level as anyone else from a private school. 
You need to drop this persecution comex that the poor are deliberately held back. You sound like The boy Jones.

When did I ever say anyone was being deliberately held back? Why do you repeatedly argue against things that aren't said? Is it a method of wumming or are you so locked into your world view that you can only interpret things in a very narrow structure?

Yep!! Keeping Super on a point where it’s obvious you’ve got the better argument is like trying to pick up a live fish with an oily glove :-p

[JAS]

I went to a Public school for a period of time before transferring to a grammar school but see no reason why I shouldn't benefit from my parents being able to afford a higher standard of education.

Neither do I to be honest, if parents want to pay and can afford it, that’s their choice and absolutely fine. What I personally object to is Private Schools having charitable status.

[super_realist]

I went to a Public school for a period of time before transferring to a grammar school but see no reason why I shouldn't benefit from my parents being able to afford a higher standard of education.

No reason why you shouldn't. According to realist, it was a waste of money, as it didn't enhance your life prospects in any way. Would you agree with him, or do you think you benefitted from it, as opposed to attending a state school?

Christ, you're as bad as Beninho for warping words.
I didn't say that at all. I said that they have the same opportunity for an education, let me explain why.
The sole educational requirement and purpose of a school, public or private is to provide a level of education sufficient to meet the curriculum. This is assessed by audit and inspection and schools failing to meet this standard are dealt with. In that respect a public and state schools are required by law to meet this standard sufficient for a pupil to pass that subject at the highest grade. Some of the least intelligent people I have ever met came out of private school, one of them was from Eton and couldn't have been more of a dunce.

I went to uni with plenty foreign people, they paid more than me, did they get a higher level of education? Of course not.

[super_realist]

I went to a Public school for a period of time before transferring to a grammar school but see no reason why I shouldn't benefit from my parents being able to afford a higher standard of education.

Neither do I to be honest, if parents want to pay and can afford it, that’s their choice and absolutely fine. What I personally object to is Private Schools having charitable status.

I think you'd be pretty disgusted to know just how many organisations and institutions had charitable status and which actually provide no benefit to society.

[JAS]

What is wrong with private schools? Do you disagree with private health care? Your golf club is private too isn't it?

I also don't see private schools as being a place which allows the class system to flourish, perhaps in regards to Eton, Harrow or Gordonstoun, but there's plenty public (by that I mean private) schools which don't seem to foster what you claim they do. I know just as many snobby people from the state school  I went to from the ones I know who went private.
Not every private school turns out Jacob Rees Mogg's by the dozen.

As I’ve said a couple of times now “charitable status” other than that nothing, they’re taking a load off the state system.

Same goes for private health care, nothing wrong with it per se as long as it doesn’t impinge on the smooth running of the NHS. Well I say nothing wrong with it but they do like a bit of a one way bet do private healthcare companies, I.e. pre existing conditions are not eligible. A stark reminder that the PHC provider is in it to make money first, care for the patient 2nd.

Straying way off topic into what aboutery re golf courses aren’t you? I don’t choose my courses to play based on my politics, what kind of idiot would do that??

[JuliusHMarx]

I went to a Public school for a period of time before transferring to a grammar school but see no reason why I shouldn't benefit from my parents being able to afford a higher standard of education.

No reason why you shouldn't. According to realist, it was a waste of money, as it didn't enhance your life prospects in any way. Would you agree with him, or do you think you benefitted from it, as opposed to attending a state school?

Christ, you're as bad as Beninho for warping words.

But not as bad as you.

I didn't say that at all. I said that they have the same opportunity for an education, let me explain why.
The sole educational requirement and purpose of  a school, public or private is to provide a level of education sufficient to meet the curriculum. This is assessed by audit and inspection and schools failing to meet this standard are dealt with.  In that respect a public and state schools are required by law to meet this standard sufficient for a pupil to pass that subject at the highest grade.   Some of the least intelligent people I have ever met came out of private school, one of them was from Eton and couldn't have been more of a dunce.

I went to uni with plenty foreign people, they paid more than me, did they get a higher level of education? Of course not.

So to be clear - you don't think that private schools overall offer the opportunity of a better level of teaching and education than state schools. Fine, I disagree. So do lots of other people, given the amount of money they are willing to pay to send their children to them.

[super_realist]

I didn't mention golf courses in relation to politics, I was referring to golf clubs having charitable status and getting lottery funding despite being private entities.

[super_realist]

I went to a Public school for a period of time before transferring to a grammar school but see no reason why I shouldn't benefit from my parents being able to afford a higher standard of education.

No reason why you shouldn't. According to realist, it was a waste of money, as it didn't enhance your life prospects in any way. Would you agree with him, or do you think you benefitted from it, as opposed to attending a state school?

Christ, you're as bad as Beninho for warping words.

But not as bad as you.

I didn't say that at all. I said that they have the same opportunity for an education, let me explain why.
The sole educational requirement and purpose of  a school, public or private is to provide a level of education sufficient to meet the curriculum. This is assessed by audit and inspection and schools failing to meet this standard are dealt with.  In that respect a public and state schools are required by law to meet this standard sufficient for a pupil to pass that subject at the highest grade.   Some of the least intelligent people I have ever met came out of private school, one of them was from Eton and couldn't have been more of a dunce.

I went to uni with plenty foreign people, they paid more than me, did they get a higher level of education? Of course not.

So to be clear - you don't think that private schools overall offer the opportunity of a better level of teaching and education than state schools. Fine, I disagree. So do lots of other people, given the amount of money they are willing to pay to send their children to them.

I haven't mentioned ONCE the level of teaching. That wasn't what I was addressing. It's a fact that all schools are required by law to meet the government standard of education. That's the same opportunity in public and state in that respect. The situations in the classroom in regards to the level of teaching and how an individual applies what they are taught is another matter.

[JuliusHMarx]

I went to a Public school for a period of time before transferring to a grammar school but see no reason why I shouldn't benefit from my parents being able to afford a higher standard of education.

No reason why you shouldn't. According to realist, it was a waste of money, as it didn't enhance your life prospects in any way. Would you agree with him, or do you think you benefitted from it, as opposed to attending a state school?

Christ, you're as bad as Beninho for warping words.

But not as bad as you.

I didn't say that at all. I said that they have the same opportunity for an education, let me explain why.
The sole educational requirement and purpose of  a school, public or private is to provide a level of education sufficient to meet the curriculum. This is assessed by audit and inspection and schools failing to meet this standard are dealt with.  In that respect a public and state schools are required by law to meet this standard sufficient for a pupil to pass that subject at the highest grade.   Some of the least intelligent people I have ever met came out of private school, one of them was from Eton and couldn't have been more of a dunce.

I went to uni with plenty foreign people, they paid more than me, did they get a higher level of education? Of course not.

So to be clear - you don't think that private schools overall offer the opportunity of a better level of teaching and education than state schools. Fine, I disagree. So do lots of other people, given the amount of money they are willing to pay to send their children to them.

I haven't mentioned ONCE the level of teaching. That wasn't what I was addressing.

When having a discussion it can be quite useful to address the points that other people are raising rather than just raising your own points.

[beninho]

Trying to piece this all together and understand surrealists views.

It seems he thinks that all students have the same opportunity no matter what school they attend?

[JuliusHMarx]

Yes, but that is based on a very limited definition of the word 'opportunity'.

Imho, this is purely a device to avoid acknowledging that the children of poor people are in any way disadvantaged when compared to the children of rich people.

[superflyweight]

Yes, but that is based on a very limited definition of the word 'opportunity'.

Imho, this is purely a device to avoid acknowledging that the children of poor people are in any way disadvantaged when compared to the children of rich people.

Nailed it - but unfortunately he’s painted himself into a corner with his arguments.  If it’s not the case, then he’s being wilfully ignorant.

[super_realist]

Trying to piece this all together and understand surrealists views.

It seems he thinks that all students have the same opportunity no matter what school they attend?

Typical bone headed response from you. They are by law supplied with the same information requisite to pass the subject they are being taught in. That's where the opportunity is equal. 

I didn't mention anything about classroom size, resources etc because I wasn't referring to that in tje context of opportunity.

[beninho]

So, do you think everyone who goes to a school have the same equal opportunity, yes or no?

[Soul Requiem]

Classroom size, resources etc. affect the opportunities children have at school. Some comprehensive schools are plagued by 'problem children' (not their fault the majority of the time) and that has a knock on effect to everyone else, such issues are less prevalent in grammar or public schools, simple fact.

[beninho]

Classroom size, resources etc. affect the opportunities children have at school. Some comprehensive schools are plagued by 'problem children' (not their fault the majority of the time) and that has a knock on effect to everyone else, such issues are less prevalent in grammar or public schools, simple fact.

Of course it is. For the bast majority of children the quirk (sp?) Of where you are born will and your family upbringing will impacylt your schooling. In a variety of ways.

[super_realist]

I wish you'd gone to public school then. What a garbled load of nonsense.

[super_realist]

So, do you think everyone who goes to a school have the same equal opportunity, yes or no?

In terms of having the information to learn a subject by having access to the information they require they have the same opportunity. That's my entire effing point.
All other stuff differs from state school to state school and from public school to public school. All schools are different and have different facilities regardless of whether they are private or public.

Does a foreign university student get better tuition because they pay 3x what I paid?

[beninho]

So, do you think everyone who goes to a school have the same equal opportunity, yes or no?

In terms of having the information to learn a subject by having access to the information they require they have the same opportunity. That's my entire effing point.
All other stuff differs from state school to state school and from public school to public school. All schools are different and have different facilities regardless of whether they are private or public.

Does a foreign university student get better tuition because they pay 3x what I paid?

So yes or no? Whats your answer?

[JuliusHMarx]

We get your point. It seems to be the only point you are capable of making. When we try to widen the conversation you just keep repeating it.
Why not try to have a normal conversation instead?

[Soul Requiem]

So, do you think everyone who goes to a school have the same equal opportunity, yes or no?

In terms of having the information to learn a subject by having access to the information they require they have the same opportunity. That's my entire effing point.
All other stuff differs from state school to state school and from public school to public school. All schools are different and have different facilities regardless of whether they are private or public.

Does a foreign university student get better tuition because they pay 3x what I paid?

This isn't actually true and is again resource based, computing rather than books are now the main source of information so there isn't equal opportunity in that regard.

[Sponsored content]