[HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Tuition/Thoughts on Crooked noses: wasWeasley Family

[Pen Robinson]

No: HPFGUIDX 73296


On Friday, Jul 25, 2003, at 17:25 Europe/London, megalynn44 wrote:

>
>> bboy_mn:
>> Where in canon do you see anything other than the vaguest
> subtle hint
>> that people do pay tuition.
>
> Me:
>
> Um... see my last post from which you are replying. Seriously
> though, there isn't even a hint that Hogwarts is free.
>

And where is the hint that Hogwarts is *not* free?

When Harry and Hagrid go to buy the needfuls before he starts school, 
Harry knows that there are items he must pay for - robes, books and so 
forth - but there is never any mention of school fees.  Surely if 
Hogwarts required payment of tuition fees, whoever was required to pay 
them would be informed of it?

Harry *never* mentions having to pay such fees.  He never wonders how 
the Weasleys manage to send all seven of their children to an expensive 
school, either.  Uncle Vernon makes one statement to the effect that he 
will not pay for Harry to attend school - note that Harry was to be 
sent to the local (state-run) secondary school, effectively a free one 
- but never suggests that Harry is *paying* for his own education once 
he attends Hogwarts.  (Surely the Dursleys would figure that if Harry 
can afford to pay for his education, he can pay bed and board while he 
is staying with them?)  Does Lucius Malfoy complain that Draco's 
education is expensive, when he berates him for poor results?  Someone 
else has already pointed out that the Molly Weasley never complains 
that the twins have wasted all that money spent on their education!

> BUt that's the thing it is NOT a big deal, it's just as normal to pay
> for education as it is for food, clothing, and everything else in life.

Not here, it isn't.  Not at school level, anyway.  These are children 
aged 11 - 18.  The norm here in the UK is that children attend 
state-run schools which are free at, hmm, point of use.  Yes, the 
community pays for them in the form of taxes, but if one child in a 
hundred gives a moment's thought to that, that's one very unusual child.

The standard, then, for a child in the UK is to attend a non-fee-paying 
school.

>
> Me: As I said before the simplest explanation is almost always
> the correct one. I go to a State run college. It is funded by the
> State and Federal governments, along with Alumni. Not to
> mention the millions coming in from football (which packs a
> 1000,000+ stadium every game) alone. And of course, we have
> the number one women's Basketball program in the nation. We
> rent out to conventions in the summer. With all this help, I still
> have to pay 2,500 BEFORE food and shelter every year, and our
> University is strapped for cash.

You are talking about a college - do you mean tertiary education?  
University?

That's different.  (Though indeed, until very recently, UK students 
were not required to pay tuition fees at university either.)

In another post you said:
We aren't talking about public schools, we are talking about
boarding schools. I have honestly never heard of a free boarding
school anywhere, because private schools cost a lot of money
and are not funded by taxes. My original post covers why
Hogwarts is not governmentally funded so I won't go back into
that.

True, boarding school is unlikely to be free.   However, I don't see 
why in the magical world, the school would not be funded by the magical 
society in the same way that muggle schools are (in general) funded by 
muggle society.  We have not (so far) heard of *any* alternative to 
Hogwarts within the UK - we are told that Hogwarts is the best school, 
it is true, but then, what are the other choices?

If, as it appears, there is no realistic alternative (I dare say 
sending a foreign student to Durmstrang might be a different matter), 
Hogwarts is a closer analogy to the state schools which would be 
familiar to JKR and her British readers, than to the private schools 
(frequently, though not always, called 'public schools' here) which 
very few children in this country actually attend.  If there are free 
schools for magical pupils, why isn't Harry offered the alternative of 
attending one of them and saving his gold?  Why have the Weasley 
children not been sent to one of them?  Ditto the Creevey brothers, 
whose father is apparently a muggle milkman?  Is none of these children 
even remotely grateful for the parental sacrifice involved in sending 
them to 'the best' place when they might more cheaply have gone 
elsewhere?  Bah!

Incidentally, I see no reason why the idea that Hogwarts is a 'state' 
school for the magical community would be inconsistent with the fact 
that Fudge has not the power to expel students.   The Ministry is 
entitled to set policy, but for it to interfere with the day-to-day 
running of the school is actually ludicrous.

I think people try too hard to make JKR's magical universe fit in with 
logical reality.  It doesn't.  Frankly, the 'economics' of the 
wizarding world don't make sense at all.  Why are the Weasleys 'poor' 
(by a very broad definition of the word)?  Who knows!

  At any rate, there are plenty of inconsistencies, and it is far 
simpler to go along with Harry, and not take any notice of these.  
However, if you want them there are possible explanations, like the 
ones suggested by bboy_mn, that would fit in with the total absence of 
canon about school fees.  Assume that Hogwarts *is* funded by wizarding 
society, which is my own assumption as I believe in the (scandalously 
liberal) notion that educating the young is one of society's duties; or 
else assume a legacy of stupendous endowments, or something of the kind.

Pen