71% of 'top people' went to private school, or grammar school(282 Posts)
"Ten leading independent schools accounted for 12% of the leading people for which schools data was available. These are: Eton College; Winchester College; Charterhouse School; Rugby School; Westminster School; Marlborough College; Dulwich College; Harrow School; St Pauls Boys School; Wellington College (see table 1 for top 100 schools). "
It's interesting that these leading schools are pretty much ALL boarding schools, the significance of which is that the fees tend to be around £30k/year (so I reckon this is as much about parental connections as anything else)
Wellington does not have a glittering academic reputation, sending handfuls to Oxford. Charterhouse, on £32k/year, has a fraction of the Oxbridge admissions of the nearby Royal Grammar School, Guildford (fees only £13k/year) - which is present in the list, at #58, but behind schools for the rich but dim such as Bradfield
The leading independent schools that aren't exclusively boarding schools (and therefore implying super-rich parents) are all in London, which is home of the elite.
The leading comps are Holland Park School, where lefties send their kids for ideological reasons and which has had £10s of millions lavished on it, and Haverstock School, which is likewise a popular choice with the left-wing elite.
Just 10% of 'top people' attended a comprehensive.
Of course these figures are calculated many years in arrears, so not the best guide for the future, but the 44% of leading people who attended private schools I guess will increase, as the 27% who went to grammars die off (i.e. most of the grammar schools listed are now comps)
To go full circle.
Harry Windsor is not an intellectual. He was fudged into Eton because of who he is. He got enough exam passes to get into the RAF.
Then they let him loose on helicopters and he found the right use for the way his brain works. Both he and his brother clearly have technical brains - even with the official secrets act, rumblings would be about by now if either of them were NOT good at what they do.
BUT I suspect their paperwork leaves a bit to be desired!
I used to mark ICAEW coursework - intelligence and common sense are not interdependent.
I do not know why the Sutton Trust published this piece of research - I assume they were well remunerated for it - as its inanity devalues their serious work.
the daughter of the new head of the Chinese Communist party is currently at Harvard under a pseudonym
so she can pretend not to be a super rich hereditary communist
Yes, it is always puzzling where eg North Korean leadership passes from father to son (never daughter of course because the one thing communists aren't is fair and equal to both genders despite pretending to be so); Castro - brother now in charge: Millband - son of politician I think or political family; Ghandis etc etc on and on for all political parties all over the world even in supposed democracies. Perhaps we need a rule that you cannot stand for power if you have a parent or close relative who was a ruler as even if there is no nepotism it might appear that there is.
"intelligence and common sense are not interdependent."
Talkin Im very aware of this when it comes to Prince Harry maybe the kind of ability/intelligence required to be a good leader and effective in the army is different to that required for A levels.
Agree with happy that strong leadership doesn't in any way have to be linked to intellect. Soldiers might well consider some boffins silly fools.
Agree with Talkin about the quality of this particular piece of ST work.
Some of the best leaders I have worked for were average in terms of academic levels but really knew people and what made them tick. Etelligence seems to be far more important to me in the way you profess in the world than exam results after you have left. Those that progress know what to say and do and keep their head when things get rocky. I would imagine for the military that this inate ability is even more important.
Slightly off topic but why do people keep going on about how the rich and the privileged have a narrow view of Life because they only move in their own circles? By the same logic shouldn't people be suggesting that the not rich are narrow minded for the same reason?
And why is it ok for parents to say that they don't want their DCs to go to an indie because of the privileged children that go there but if the indie parent were to say that they don't want their kids to go to a state school they get hammered?
Similarly, why are the same parents allowed to generalise about indie parents but we aren't allowed to generalise about them?
Xenia, that way we would never have had Pitt the Younger and would be speaking French.
Well, it's a pity the Americans didn't have that rule. The world would have been spared George Dubaya Bush and his neo con buddies.
I think you'll find, APMF, it's because you are in a minority. If a wealthy, powerful minority tries to keep itself separate from and makes rude, generalised comments about, an individually less powerful, less wealthy majority, what do you expect? Obviously, you could go for divide and rule and encourage the majority to divide themselves up into little minority sects who hate each other rather than ganging up on you, which is what is generally done, but otherwise, the behaviour is hardly surprising, is it, given the circumstances??? Particularly in a thread that is all about the power and wealth of those with the power and wealth and how they achieved it!...
I'm blasting the 'anecdotal' klaxon now, but...
It may have been on here I read that in our area there has been a trend recently for MC parents to withdraw their children from private school for sixth form and send them to our local (famous) academy.
Mossbourne Apparently they think they'll have a better shot at Oxbridge from there.
I believe inner city schools in deprived areas are also getting more kids into Oxbridge than state schools in wealthier areas too so soon all those mc parents will be sending them to those schools. I read a study about this earlier.
I believe inner city schools in deprived areas are also getting more kids into Oxbridge than state schools in wealthier areas
Evidence for that?
Its certainly NOT in the DFEE destinations data for 2011 which is publicly available
2012 will not be released until February. Any Newspaper that has stories about it is lying.
It was in a report that I read this evening not in a newspaper. Cannot link from this phone but they were evidencing some key schools in deprived areas and it was suggesting that deprived kids do better in deprived schools then in wealthier areas. When on computer tomorrow will link it.
would be VERY interested to see it because I have the dfee data on my PC here and can sort it by FSM and Oxbridge and there is evidence of that.
Local schools network 21 nov. the centre of London study suggests inner city schools doing better for deprived children than those in wealthier boroughs who are lagging behind. This is a criticism I have heard from the deputy head of inner city school who claims schools in wealthier areas are lazier than those in the inner city who get the same or better results certainly in ks2 but from a lower base. Obviously not all kids in wealthier areas will have the parents backing but they should be getting higher levels.
Ah Fiona Millar. Not exactly the worlds most unbiased person.
Am not willing to register.
Would like to see who carried out the 'study' and what its protocols were.
It was the centre of London study - deprived children going to school in deprived areas as opposed to deprived children in wealthier areas so not possible to compare on fsm which would be the same wherever they went to school. Would be interesting to compare some of the leading inner city schools who are actively promoting top universities to their kids as opposed to those in well off areas who may be seen as less able from day one and therefore only pushed to average levels. There may also be more minority language assistance in inner city schools which would help those without English as first language.
A friend of mine who teaches in a 'nice area' was very upset after visiting a state of the art school in a very deprived area as all the money from the lea had been ploughed into the school without recognizing that not all the pupils from her school were from wealthy backgrounds but they had to make do with buying their own stationery and being in cramped falling about conditions because all the councils efforts were going into these areas. I have heard from other teachers in Birmingham schools who have much more funding in the inner city and therefore children could be failing more in the posher suburbs through lack of support and finance with more one to one coaching required. The funding may now have been extended to other areas. However certainly in Birmingham the inner city schools are progressing at a faster rate than the surrounding areas. Don't get me wrong. I agree with it as parents in mc areas can pay for tutoring but not those in mc schools but without the resources to do this.
the funding per pupil of each school is on the DFE and ofsted websites - its not a secret.
I'd like to see a link to the actual study because it might be sound
Mrs Alastair Campbell has quite a few axes to grind ...
Having said that I moved house to avoid in a school that was in a more deprived area when ds went to school only to find that school now one of the best in the country. You win some you lose some! I am though typical sharp elbowed mother and should have learnt to trust the local school more.
Yep. It does sound like true labour propaganda .
@rabbit - That is a very weak excuse. You are basically saying that it's ok to generalise about well-off people and to say that you don't want your kids to go to the same schools as their kids simply because they are well-off.
If you accept that something is wrong then how can it be ok just because the people you are picking on are rich white folk?
Also @rabbit. I find your views offensive. I went to one of the public schools listed in the report. I went on to an excellent university and I now practice law. EXCEPT my parents are from a working class background and they did not have the means to pay for school fees. I was on a full academic scholarship. The rich people you so readily stereotype were welcoming, humble, considerate and at no stage was I made to feel inferior because of my background.
Succubi, thank you for that. I like it that the headmaster of Eton was a full fees scholar at Eton himself. 37 years after leaving the school, with a brilliant teaching career behind him, he was back at Eton and widening access yet more.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.