Is Hogwarts Public or Private?

[Hollydaze]

No: HPFGUIDX 33566

Ahah, my FAVOURTIE topic (I have enjoyed this topic on many other sites)
> > I would demand a refund of my tuition paid. 
> Does Hogwarts have a tuition? The Weasleys couldn't possibly pay. And imagine asking The > Dursleys to cough up money for a magic school.

This is an edited copy of two posts I sent to another HP site about why I feel that Hogwarts does not require tuition and is a public school:

(During this post I refer to Public and Private schools as Americans would -even though I'm British- to avoid confusion)

This was in reply to someone asking:
  a.. How would wizard taxes be able to pay for a school that had gold plates?
  b.. Would a private school give scholarships to muggle borns and People like the Weasley's?
  c.. Wouldn't people like Lucius Malfoy object to paying taxes so that "Mudbloods" could go to the school?
START 1st EMAIL:
Firstly there are 6 main reason why I believe that Hogwarts is a Public school (non fee paying)

1) There are house elves who do all the cleaning/cooking/housework etc. Even if you don't like it and think of it as slave labour, you still have to accept that they don't get paid so the school does not have to pay for that, which cuts down on the amount of money they have to spend.

2) They do not have to pay a gas/electricity bill because they don't use them. They use fire instead (in the torches-lights), and it is safe to presume from the way the kitchens were described (book 4) that they use it there too.

3) This is a bit of presumption on my part but they have a gigantic fresh water lake right next to them which they dump their waste in it (see Moaning Myrtle in Book 4) so is it so impossible that they take their water from their as well and have some kind of magical cleaning system? This stops it from over flowing too, as it would if they put stuff in and never took stuff out.

4) The Gold plates (and other furniture) can be accounted for in two ways, either they could have belonged to one of the founders OR it could have been created by magic in the first place, after all we have already seen Dumbledore make a chair from magic in about 3 seconds in book 3 at Christmas. If things like the plates had an-breakable spells on them or spells to stop them wearing out then that could also account for why they last so long etc. It could even be a combination of both with some belonging to the founders and some having been created by magic.

5) The students buy their own equipment so the school does not have to pay for that, just benches, tables etc, which would come under stuff that could be made by magic (see point 4). This is also what I assume Harry was referring to when he said he had 4 more years at Hogwarts, that he would have to buy books etc rather than that he had to pay tuition.

6) Hogwarts seems to be partly self sufficient when it comes to food too, (although I should think they do buy in some stuff). We already know that they at least have a chicken coop because Ginny was killing the chickens in it. We have also seen evidence that food can be made by magic, Molly Wealsey for example (book four) pours a sauce out of her wand. Also, we don't know the exact way that the House Elves' magic works but we can presume that it is something to do with cooking / cleaning / food etc so they can probably do something similar if not better.

This only leaves the teachers/staff (and Dobby's) salaries which I am pretty certain could be afforded by the taxes!!!

For the moment that is all I can think of but I think the thing we have to remember is that it is a magic school therefore everything in it could be magic and not actually need paying for.

I know part of this is presumption but even without the presumptions there is still a lot that we know that would reduce the cost of the school to a level that would be acceptable to tax payers.

Also to the person who said that Lucius Malfoy would not like the idea of paying for "Mudbloods" to go to school, what would be the difference between paying taxes so that no one had to pay fees (and so be paying for the "Mudbloods", and people who can afford it (the Malfoys) paying extra in the fees so that people could get scholarships because that would be exactly the same. He would object to both.

END 1st EMAIL

START 2nd EMAIL
A friend I was talking to on the Internet (Mandy, also a member of HPfGU) has come up with an idea that solves the problem of whether Hogwarts is Public or Private. When I presented your arguments and mine she simply stated that it was both, the reasons being that it is like a private school in everywhere (boarding, buying books -which could be either- staying over at hols etc. etc. ) except that they don't actually have to pay anything (reasons in my last email would back up that there isn't that much to pay for apart from food and teachers salaries which would not amount to as much as paying for a muggle public school really.) 

And one last question that I find rather interesting. I have been asking EVERYONE I know who has read the HP books in Britain (and some Americans as well) what they think Hogwarts is, Public or Private? and every time the answer comes back as Public with the British, and (with two exceptions) Private for the Americans (and any Canadians). I find it interesting that there should be this difference of opinion between people in Britain (Public school) and people in America/Canada etc. (Private school). Especially as the books are set in Britain and yet it is the Americans and not the Brit's who see it as a Private school.
Why do you think this is?

END SECOND EMAIL.

I would be most grateful if someone could answer that last question for me as I never got a reply on any other groups I posted it on.

HOLLYDAZE!!!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]