[Closed] Private school vs state school

Poshism is the last 'acceptable' ism, it would seem.

Please tell me this is meant to be a joke. 😕

The discriminated against posh people who only make up the majority of the cabinet you mean?

This would appear to be another good example of the gaping lack of perspective engendered by a public school education if you really believe that.

Believe it or not there is a middle ground between selfish 'I'm all right jack' attitudes and wanting a worldwide socialist revolution.

Indeed there is but it will not be achieved - tragedy of the commons.

May I ask if you applied to the one? Did you also apply to any grammar schools with entrance exams, or any schools that required a particular faith?

No, no, no.

Well given that most of your clients are likely to come from the "real world" (there are simply more of them so it makes it a statiticaly inevitability), I'd say that the benefit would be quite high.

Nope.

Only about a third do any criminal work at all. I assume that's what you're referring to when you talk about the "real world". In fact, it's not the "real world" of those clients at all anway. Perhaps we should propose opening up the bar to those with a long history of criminal activity to make it more "real world"?

Also, you're trying to convince a judge/jury, not your client. The judge won't care how "real world" you are.

From the Bar council stats, almost half went to fee paying schools and a third went to Oxbridge.

The reality is, that while it may not matter what school you went to and how much your education cost in terms of your ability to be a good barrister, you'll struggle to get a foot in the door of a good set when you're up against competition from tried and tested schools/universities.

(at my old firm, partners were openly critical/rude about trainees who had attended universities with poorer reps/old poly. Most of it was in jest, but the "how did we let that slip through the net" comments surely indicates that school prejudices are alive and well. I'm all for trying to change that, but I'd rather not use my own kid to make the point. Vicious circle.)

THM - I understand fully your choices. You are paying large sums of money so that when your children reach school leaving age, they have a huge inbuilt advantage over 95% of their peers.

The older one is at the same Uni, doing the same courses, eating the same food, living in the same house, competing for the same jobs as other with different educational backgrounds. Whether he has any advantage or not, we shall see. At the moment, he bleeds and laughs like the rest of them

A massive advantage (possible true) available exclusively (false) to those who can afford it.

odd when 1/3 of those attending clearly cannot.

You can try and kid yourself that this isn't a ridiculously unfair form of educational apartheid for a supposed modern democracy, but it is.

I do not kid myself. Education is a mess in this country. There are various forms of apartheid not helped by muppets including Gove who screw things up. A narrow focus on a small segment of the supply of education does not solve most if these issues. It's is a distraction and not a very helpful one at that. A wager that I would have with you is that simply banning different types of school will not improve the situation.

No they are proper discriminated against in society and we need to look after them - its all they talk about in the men only millionaires clubs the Cpt frequents Wot wot 😉
Anyway remember THM is telling us all why they are not post so that cannot be factor here can it

What does surprise me is how it seems acceptable to deride people who send their kids to private school while the converse would be shouted down as snobbery.

I get the point about social mobility but my job is to get the best education I can for my daughter, not change the world.

Would you not just want you child to have the same opportunities as everyone else children? I dont want a better education for my kids or better roads or better health care than your daughter gets. I want us both to have access to high quality services not based on which one of us is the most wealthy

The older one is at the same Uni, doing the same courses, eating the same food, living in the same house, competing for the same jobs as other with different educational backgrounds. Whether he has any advantage or not, we shall see. At the moment, he bleeds and laughs like the rest of them

odd when 1/3 of those attending clearly cannot.

If money was not an issue my kids would be more than likely going private. It is a good school and that is not just based on exam results (I understand this is not representative due to the selective nature) it is also the extracurricular opportunities and the value they place on them (for my kids sport, which they both love). It would also be part due to the selective nature with respect to 'behaviour' .

odd when 1/3 of those attending clearly cannot.

What percentage pay no fees at all THM? You keep quoting this 1/3 figure as if they all pay no fees but that's not the case is it?

Poshism is the last 'acceptable' ism, it would seem.

There's very few of the genuinely (i.e. landed aristocratic) 'posh' left. There is, however, a large number of vainglorious monied berks who think it's something you can buy.

How about 'Made-in-Chelsea-ism'? 😉

CaptainFlashheart - Member

What does surprise me is how it seems acceptable to deride people who send their kids to private school while the converse would be shouted down as snobbery.

Poshism is the last 'acceptable' ism, it would seem.

[img] [/img]

If "no" mike, how can you argue that only one is "entirely unavailable." Perhaps you missed a trick?

Grum - Shylock was making the point that Jews are no less real that Christians in the famous court scene. Given the arguments that some peoples's experiences are unreal, then I would suggest that the quote is highly relevant here.

Grum - I don't know the answer to the % who pay no fees at all. It is clearly much less that 1/3. Typically 10-30% of total, if my memory is correct. So if the fees were 12k say, then that is broadly the same as a new MTB a year. Which is the better investment?

Blimey that coffee break went on a bit. Better get back to work now. Idle hands and all that....

So if the fees were 12k say, then that is broadly the same as a new MTB a year.

Can you start paying for my bikes please? 😯

Nah, I haven't treated myself to one for 7 years!!!

If "no" mike, how can you argue that only one is "entirely unavailable." Perhaps you missed a trick?

We can't afford the fees, so why apply?

I also don't think she'd benefit from going there.

Well unfortunately it would appear this thread has taken it's predictable course. Thanks to those who contributed a view/opinion/experience whilst respecting other peoples views/experiences/opinions without the need to try to prove them wrong.

You're welcome comrade 😀

[img] https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_cpLMfs3snsuJgZ2C9W8wdasb0R52P5feW3qlBwyxBLPn4B3g [/img]

THM's point about exclusion was very neat because it is so often used as an "attack" line but its effect has been rather watered down with the inane arguing of the point. I used "ideological" for similar reasons, but sadly no one picked me up on it!

Clearly you are unlikely to come across kids from extreme poverty at a private school, although there are exceptions. A friend of mine's child was at boarding school with a child who had been saved from living on the streets of Kolkota/Calcutta. He probably knows more about extreme poverty than anyone on here. That is without doubt an exception. However, there are plenty of state schools in affluent areas where you are unlikely to encounter it too. Is that wrong as well?

As I noted earlier, I went to a boarding school many years ago. Whilst clearly all the kids came from relatively affluent homes, I was at school with black, indian and chinese kids which I certainly wouldn't have been if I had gone to the local state school in rural Hampshire. The point being some state schools are just as sheltered as private ones.

When talking about the standards of teaching in private schools, you have to remember that there is no statutory requirement for those who teach there to be qualified teachers, unlike in state schools. Also all the research that has ever been done shows clearly that once all factors (e.g. wealth, background) have been allowed for that the state education system provides the better education than does the private.

Of course none of that is actually of that much relevance as it is well known that the biggest single influence on an childs eductional achievement is the attitude of the parents.

Oh and CFH, have a word with yourself!

Of course none of that is actually of that much relevance as it is well known that the biggest single influence on an childs eductional achievement is the attitude of the parents.

And that of the childs peer group.

mefty - Member
THM's point about exclusion was very neat

Why thank you..

mefty - Member
but sadly no one picked me up on it!

"They" are very selective! 😉 keep trying and you may be included with time and effort!!

the point being that some state schools are just as sheltered

+1

Of course none of that is actually of that much relevance as it is well known that the biggest single influence on an childs eductional achievement is the attitude of the parents.

+ 100

There are two level at which we can look at this:

At an individual level, the decision to apply to a particular school will depend upon many factors. For some kids, private will be a benefit and cost won't be an issue. Personally, I suspect that many people overestimate the benefits of a private education; as gonefishin says, research shows this.

At a society level, we have a multi-tier education system and it would almost certainly be better for society as a whole if we didn't.

it would almost certainly be better for society as a whole if we didn't.

^^This, although the problem being that those who benefit see no reason to change.

They may be on the continuum of sheltered or exclusive but, as they do not select on ability [ generally] or wealth, they can never be as exclusive
How can fee charging aptitude testing schools not have less of a cross section of society than non fee paying non aptitude testing schools? { attempting to pick outliers is not helpful IMHO}
It is clearly a skewed sample of the bright and the able to pay .

So where do you end up if you are thick with rich parents?

I'm trying to think of backgrounds of our ex-students: I don't think we've had a billionaire's child, but we have had millionaires' kids.

So where do you end up if you are thick with rich parents?

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25639442 ]Cambridge[/url]

That is without doubt an exception. However, there are plenty of state schools in affluent areas where you are
unlikely to encounter it too. Is that wrong as well?

My school was in an affluent area but there was still a few local council estates, poorer tenant farmers, and kids from local towns etc.

As I noted earlier, I went to a boarding school many years ago. Whilst clearly all the kids came from relatively affluent homes, I was at school with black, indian and chinese kids which I certainly wouldn't have been if I had gone to the local state school in rural Hampshire. The point being some state schools are just as sheltered as private ones.

This is a fair point. My school was very white. Although I'm not sure the kind of kids who get sent to foreign boarding school are massively representative of life for most people in India or China either. 😉

jam bo - Member

So where do you end up if you are thick with rich parents?

[img] [/img]

In the Cabinet, berating people who didn't enjoy your feather-bedded upbringing and marriage into the landed gentry for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, like you did.

Many private schools, and I imagine increasingly more as time goes on, are not really academically selective.

miketually - Member
So where do you end up if you are thick with rich parents?
Cambridge

😆

One of the many private schools that cater for that demographic...

So where do you end up if you are thick with rich parents?

35 years ago, the kids from my junior/prep school who went to the schools with the lowest entry requirements went to Blundell's, Gordonstoun (although the kids who went there were very bright but went for family reasons) and Bloxham. I'm sure there were others with lower entrance requirements at the time and certainly things will have changed in the intervening years, but that is what I recall from a small and very old sample.

miketually - Member
There are two level at which we can look at this:

At an individual level, the decision to apply to a particular school will depend upon many factors. For some kids, private will be a benefit and cost won't be an issue. Personally, I suspect that many people overestimate the benefits of a private education; as gonefishin says, research shows this.

At a society level, we have a multi-tier education system and it would almost certainly be better for society as a whole if we didn't.

+1 on that (with a slight caveat on the benefits bit unless you mean purely academic)

Thing is as a parent, given the opportunity (eg the money or if are academic enough to get scholarships) to send my kids to good private schools I probably would, at least assuming that I reckoned it was right for them. Largely though based on my own experiences of having gone through the state system until early in secondary school, being bored out of my brains a lot of the time (despite my secondary supposedly being a good one) and then finding the private school that I was lucky enough to go to later on was brilliant and I loved it.

Maybe things have got better. I really hope so as my kids will probably being going the state route but we're in the process of moving somewhere that has good state secondary schools. We're lucky to be able to afford to do that but fundamentally it's no different to paying for private education isn't it - eg it's unfair.

But then I'm not the type who has strong convictions meaning that I won't send my kids to private school even though I'd rather that there was no need for them.

I think as a parent, you always want the best for your kid, or at least you should.

If a parent can afford (either by wealth or by sacrifice) to send their kid to private school as they feel it will give their kid a better chance, why shouldn't they?

And if as has been said on here, one person has made sacrifices to send their kid to a better school, why don't others do the same rather than complaining about a tiered system? You aren't going to invert the pyramid in your lifetime so work it.

why don't others do the same rather than complaining about a tiered system

That's a bit of a silly statement given that a large part of the population could never even dream of affording the fees.

I think as a parent, you always want the best for your kid, or at least you should.

I think that's how most people think. Others live by their convictions and are willing to stick to that even if it maybe impacts negatively on their kids (and I appreciate that's a VERY subjective statement but as most people we're affected by our own experiences and I'm pretty sure I would have been negatively affected by staying in the state system compared to not). In many ways I do admire people with that level of conviction.

lapierrelady - Member
Many private schools, and I imagine increasingly more as time goes on, are not really academically selective.

I am not really sure about that. In addition to Common Entrance, an increasing number of schools are adding their own pre-selection exams. They then are happy to kick weak performers out in order to maintain league table status with A levels. You can spend £30-90k and then be told that you son/daughter needs to consider "other options."

Don't trust the league tables for the full picture!

Why should multi-tier needs not be met by a multi-tier supply? I can see reason why a single tier system would create a better or more equatable result. Kids (and parents) have different needs that should be met in different ways IMO.

On the other hand, some private schools are very good at getting the best results possible for kids that aren't so academic and there are plenty of people who will pay for Tarquin to get 3 Cs at A-level rather than three Ds.

THM - I think that is very much a South East problem, where they is a very large pool of affluent parents in their local area. Schools in less affluent areas have to offer something different to appeal to parents outside their region to survive.

I would guess that the number eligible fir free meals cannot be quantified and probably few care. The possible situations where kids might be eligible as as Dar ranging as: on full bursary as academically gifted but from a background that would make them eligible. To parents have good accountants so technically no money or assests but in order to put them through school they pay the full wack.

On the other hand, some private schools are very good at getting the best results possible for kids that aren't so academic and there are plenty of people who will pay for Tarquin to get 3 Cs at A-level rather than three Ds

State schools are also good at doing this, but it leads to accusations of dumbing down and Michael Gove changes the goal posts.

I think as a parent, you always want the best for your kid, or at least you should.

If a parent can afford (either by wealth or by sacrifice) to send their kid to private school as they feel it will give their kid a better chance, why shouldn't they?

And if as has been said on here, one person has made sacrifices to send their kid to a better school, why don't others do the same rather than complaining about a tiered system?

So, anyone who could send their kids private but don't doesn't want the best for them?

I would guess that the number eligible fir free meals cannot be quantified and probably few care. The possible situations where kids might be eligible as as Dar ranging as: on full bursary as academically gifted but from a background that would make them eligible. To parents have good accountants so technically no money or assests but in order to put them through school they pay the full wack.

Presumably schools check financial status before doling out bursaries? If they do, and we assume anyone paying fees wouldn't be eligible, it wouldn't be hard to put a figure to FSM eligibility.

yes they do and well beyond current income....

State schools are also good at doing this, but it leads to accusations of dumbing down and Michael Gove changes the goal posts.

True enough no doubt but given the choice of a good teacher trying to improve the results of 30 kids or the same one trying to do the same for 15, I can see which is likely to be more successful.