To find it sad that privately educated actors dominate telly/film?

But he isn't though (I work in a similar field)... it's his own podcast that he created via an online platform, like lots of people do nowadays.
Anybody else is perfectly entitled to launch one of their own. Lots try... but just aren't as good. All there is to it, really.

Damn good interviewer… who is taking jobs from people who actually studied journalism, he was a on a show about rich Toffs. How much more entitled can you get?

I hear you op. Rich people dominate every aspect of everyday life, doctors, media, the government. Glad at the ones speaking out.

But it isn't for 'no reason' re Jamie Laing... I stumbled on his Good Company podcast recently and it's fab. He's actually a damn good interviewer mainly because he seems genuinely interested in whoever he's talking to. He can't help being a nice guy and, in the TV/entertainment world, nice guys get work.

Ive thought this for years, its horrendously closed shop.

DH went to an expensive school & anyone interested in drama had parents who shelled out for even more expensive places like Hurtwood house. Its much much harder to get into the industry if you come from a more modest/ordinary background. Money gets you connections & that is what gets your foot in the door.

@CurlewKate The independent schools offer sport, music, drama and art scholarships. The talented dc apply. They have rugby coaches, tennis coaches, cricket coaches (gone from most state schools) and all sorts of other specialists are on hand to teach and advise the most talented. Often sports dc go into the 6th form and haven’t spent all their time at the school. State schools are rarely in a position to coach professional sports people. Or coach actors! As a result independent schools scoop them up and parents want this. It’s a lot easier than all the club sport they would need if not at school. Ditto acting.

I agree @chulast and it annoys me too. It's like you can't get into the industry (acting/TV/film) OR the music industry these days unless you come from a privileged background, or you know someone/are related to someone in the industry already. I get sick of seeing someone in a film or on TV (and in the music charts sometimes) and finding they are related to someone famous (or come from great privilege.)

I'm not saying someone who is related to someone famous, or who is from a wealthy background/private school shouldn't have a chance at 'showbiz' but it just annoys me that people from modest/humble backgrounds who know no-one famous, can't get that back door into the industry. It's almost impossible now! Even Sabrina Carpenter (who I like a lot) is related to someone famous! (Nancy Cartwright who does Simpsons voices, mainly Bart!)

The days of working class actors and singers and musicians making it purely on talent and hard work alone seem to be in the past. I really hate it too, when someone posh and privately educated plays someone working class!

YANBU - it’s the same in the music industry too. There are probably very many state educated, creative people who cannot get into these industries as they don’t have the contacts or money behind them. It’s such a loss of talent. During the post war years things changed and more working class actors and creatives were seen eg Michael Caine, Terence Stamp, Twiggy, David Bailey etc and we were widely seen as the coolest country in the world in the 60’s. David Morrissey and Julie Walters have spoken out about this - it’s not posh bashing to point it out.
See also nepo babies.

Yep. I hate this too.

Even the ones you’d never suspect like Nicola Walker.

They are here to entertain us

Yes, and the entertainment industry adds millions, if not billions to the UK economy each year so its in all our interests to ensure it remains, you know, entertaining. Which if the stories its telling and people telling them are pulled from an increasingly limited minority might not be the case.

Look at adolescence and the impact it has had, for example. Yes the whole point of acting is that you embody characters who aren't exactly the same as you (although this is changing a bit with the outage whenever a non-trans actor is cast in a trans role or non disabled actor in the role of a disabled character) but somehow I don't think the story would have had quite the same impact and authenticity had benedict cumberbatch or Tom hiddleston written it and taken Stephen graham's role.

Its more complex than it just being about private school,

A lot of theatres will run a youth group, if you are near a theatre. There also used to be chances for drama in youth clubs, but a lot of those have closed. It takes lot of extra time and commitment from the whole family. A friend of mine has a daughter who his very keen on dance and drama, and is in a very good local group, and it takes up a lot of their leisure time, but she is an only child so there isn't a conflict with the interests of other siblings.

I've read several threads on Mumsnet from parents complaining about their kid having to stay late to rehearse for an school play or concert, weekends are often involved too. Private schools, with longer days and even boarding, have an advantage in that respect.

If youngsters can get into a good group there is the option to try for scholarships to private schools. I was talking to a woman whose son won a sixth form drama scholarship to Eton.

He would count as a privileged private school pupil, but he was brought up by a single mum from Kent. Same with sports

I agree with OP but also want to say my kids state school drama dept was amazing - they won competitions and awards, put on excellent shows and get a few people into drama school most years. All the teachers had done some professional work or still did. They took them to Edin festival and lots of theatres (supported by pta money too). They do more than the local private school which is quite small and single sex so perhaps limits some productions. Just putting it out there that there are excellent state schools too.

Acting etc can result in lots of unemployment so maybe its only the middle class who can afford to be bankrolled by Bank of Mum and dad. What annoys me more is the level of nepotism in the industry. Lots of famous kids getting work they are simply not talented enough to do.ii am sick of programmes trying to push famous people's kids like Sarah Beaney for example.

I think being privately educated is a red herring as it’s a symptom of wealth.

Completely agree with your whole post especially this @SomethingFun I’ve made a similar point upthread.

Isn’t this the problem with absolutely everything nowadays though? Do we really genuinely believe as a society that in 2025 the best politicians, law makers, academics, artists of all types, models, entrepreneurs etc etc only come from wealthy families? I think being privately educated is a red herring as it’s a symptom of wealth.

It’s the myth of meritocracy that keeps people in their places, working hard and trying their best. We don’t and have never had a meritocracy. If we did, things would be in such a better state. We might as well have a proper monarchy here where the king is appointed by god and his word is law because at least we wouldn’t be kidding ourselves that anyone can make it if they work hard and try their best. At least we would see everyday that if you didn’t inherit it you’re never going to see it. And yes a fraction of people come from nowhere and become very successful but it’s nowhere near as many as there should be.

Yeah, sure. Pull your socks up, state schools! Manage your resources better, and you’ll be able to employ ex test cricketers as coaches and buy a few shells and sculls. Maybe even a horse or two?

I feel where we went wrong as a society was accepting that not all jobs are well enough paid and topping up with tax credits or benefits.

We've never got that right.

<Digs out essay on managing the poor from Elizabethan times to the 1830s, with particular reference to the Speenhamland system...>

I think the main problem is people. There are those who will use benefits as intended, as a helping hand to keep going through tough times, till they get on their own feet, and then there are those who won't make much effort, because the state will always help out. Deserving and undeserving poor and all that. But whichever system you have, there always will be those who use it to their advantage (all the benefit scroungers the press currently worries about,) and others won't.

You can also argue the arts aren't strictly necessary, and on one level that is true - but also, it's a huge chunk of the UK economy, and how much poorer all our lives would be without plays and dance and films and paintings and music and sports to watch and listen to and take part in. If life is entirely utilitarian, is it worth living?

Exactly.

House prices/rents are ridiculous and a big contributor to what’s wrong in society . They keep going up and wages are not - you do the maths!

In one of my previous roles I saw massive amounts of housing benefit being paid to house families in cramped damp conditions. Nobody was a winner in this situation except the landlord.

This is the result of selling off all the social housing stock without replacing it.

I can understand why it is a bad thing for the majority of our judiciary, political class or even Guardian journalists to have been educated privately.

But actors ? They are here to entertain us.

If anything I am happy somebody else has paid for their education and subsidised their early careers.

I agree with this. Wages and salaries should be enough to cover all reasonable living expenses. I feel where we went wrong as a society was accepting that not all jobs are well enough paid and topping up with tax credits or benefits. Employers should be forced to pay a living wage and we should have limits on rents and house prices, as we used to before the Tories scrapped them in the 1980s.

For dance there is a scheme which pays for advanced training (means tested) including travel, leotards/shoes, theatre visits etc. It’s spread over the country (not just London) and is not just for ballet but for contemporary, hip hop etc, and works around normal school.
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2025/jun/10/relief-after-10-dance-centres-for-children-across-england-saved-from-cuts-arlene-phillips-matthew-bourne

I wonder whether we will see greater diversity in dance as a a result, or whether it then all falls apart at 18 as the employment rates and wages for dance graduates are so low?

In sport too.

Of the GB Olympians at last check, 33% from independent schools, compared to 7% who attend nationally.

Partly due to the cost/commitment it takes to get to that level of course.

But also the strong sporting ethos in independent schools. Up to the state schools to pull their socks up in that regard.

In the 1980s, when DH took himself from his free-school meals house to drama college, there were grants and schemes (enterprise allowance, princes trust etc) that allowed aspiring actors, musicians and artists to survive while honing their craft. Students could also claim the dole and housing benefit in the holidays and there were grants available so that students weren’t coming out saddled with huge debts. Even then it was still disproportionately over-represented by the privately educated.

DH has built a successful career in the arts, but despairs of the fact that things have only got worse. He does what he can by offering work experience to kids on FSM and championing working class talent. A couple of friends have set up a charity to encourage diversity (including socio-economic) behind the scenes in the film industry. And there’s this https://www.93percent.club/, which DH has joined.

People are trying to make a difference because it really does matter, but it’s huge and entrenched, and it’s clear just from some responses on this thread that there’s still a lack of awareness or understanding of the difference it would makes to society to encourage and facilitate talent in all areas (not just the arts) from ALL walks of life.

I agree.

Like it or not some professions are way, way over-personned. The glamorous worlds of acting, TV and media jobs, modelling etc etc are always going to have far more people wanting to join them than there are jobs available.

As you say, only 2 categories of people will succeed in this world:

1. People with such towering talent or looks that they are in high demand from the outset...or...

2. People with moderate abilities whose families either have connections in those industries (this is why I hate 'internships' which hugely favour the metropolitan middle-classes) or whose families can support them while they wait for opportunities, or sit out periods of unemployment. Anyone whose parents live near London, for eg, has a huge and very unfair advantage in this area.

I'm putting my helmet on for this comment but I sincerely believe it. There should be a much more rigorous limit on people who train for these professions because I think youngsters are given a totally false idea of their prospects.

And - all actors need to be totally versatile. I know that the Anna Scher school does great work, but actors need far more than that - they need to be able to do all kinds of accents and perform in everything from classical drama to TV soaps. The problem for many working class youngsters is that they may get roles on the back of their teenage training, but it's only going to give them access to a limited range of roles. The old provincial repertory system was a much better source of theatre training.

.