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

Just read an article about Sian Gibson working in a call centre before getting her big break on Car Share with Peter Kaye.

Those without public school backgrounds (and the family wealth behind it) often can't afford the big gaps between jobs that come with the industry. I wouldn't be supportive of my kids going into that line of work as they would need a consistent income.

It is not a surprise there are more privately educated people in areas of classical music and sports - where does your average state school get the chance to try out sports like fencing, or as someone mentioned upthread, the chance to play bassoon?

I have a friend who teaches at one of the top boys public schools. The investment they have in their sports facilities and coaches means they have boys who get professional cricket and rugby contracts on leaving - I think they had 4 18 year old last year with cricket contracts. But they get to try less mainstream sports, too. And anyone into elite level equestrianism won't be short of a penny.

My friend's school has a really good theatre on site, that also has professional shows when the school isn't using it. State schools don't usually have that - we did have the travelling RSC visit my state school once, but they brought their own pared down set that works on a flat school hall, which isn't the same as a full theatre with top quality lighting rigs etc that you can get to use yourself.

One of the things parents are paying for with private education is the wealth of different opportunities and experiences children can try. Private school educated people on average are more confident than those at state school (although obviously we are less likely to see those who didn't gain that self-assurance.) Plus they are often better at networking. Every little helps, as does the general access to money cushioning life.

There have been reports on how social mobility has stagnated in the UK, and how the gap between those with money and those without has been widening. The dramatic arts are just a symptom.

Yes it's sad. The same for musicians too. Very opportunities in these arts without parental £££. Art is much better as more available in state schools, cost is far lower, potential careers far more varied.

One of the snobbiest posts I think I have ever read on mumsnet.

You’ve just thrown a load of poorly thought -out, nonsensical ideas together.

Your first paragraph is the very definition of a straw man. People complain about SATs and sports day being competitive and you directly link this to (the same?) people complaining about private schools?
Where is the link between these two? You’ve just made it up.

You then go on to link this to competitive , high pressure private schools making individuals more successful in certain industries. It appears you don’t think that the state system has competition?

You talk about bursaries. I think we can agree that there isn’t enough funding in the state sector for performing arts. I don’t agree this means the government thinks the state sector is rubbish.

But I think what many are arguing on here is that wealth ultimately skews the diversity of those in acting, not talent and training. Even if you receive a bursary and go through an excellent, private performing arts school, if you don’t have wealth to sustain you in your early career then you can’t pursue it.

“There is a shortage of funding for state education and this is probably because there is very little interest in improving actual education from parents or the government.”

I can’t believe you wrote that.
Why on Earth would you think parents aren’t interested in improving education for their children?!? Do you see yourself as some sort of superior being? Do you think everyone who doesn’t send their children to private school is just feckless with no ambition?

”Labours extra education funding goes on breakfast which frankly any self respecting parent should be providing themselves.”

Ignorant and out-of-touch.

”Focus should be on improving state education because that will actually have a positive impact on more people.”

As a general issue, this is something we can all agree upon.
But if your argument is that this is the main driver of the current imbalance we see represented on screen, then I’m afraid I can‘t agree with you.

Education and training don’t address the fact that those with wealthy backgrounds are more highly represented in acting. As others have articulated far more eloquently than me, the main factor is money. The money to get someone through the early years of a career where you can barely afford to live.

I've never associated 'mickey mouse' degrees with being poor. Infact the poor in my experience, are usually the ones worrying about degree outcomes while the rich just do what makes them happy aka mickey mouse degrees.
Discussions about learning a trade have always been to encourage those who are less academic or just not simply interested in following an academic path. Trade has been positioned on MN as a good alternative and to spread awareness that going to university is not the only route for young people. Being non academic isn't the preserve of poor people.

It’s very sad to think of all the potential talent left wasted or undiscovered. Not just in acting but in music, art, production, writing, commissioning, all of the arts.
in my lifetime I’ve seen a big row back from the days when a working class person could succeed in the arts. The opposite of progress.

The same is true of any career where the industry can only function by having an initial pool of massively underpaid and exploited new entrants who don't yet have the experience to show themselves to be talented and worth paying proper money to. E.g. Journalism which similarly has private schools massively overrepresented. If you want to proove yourself in one of these fields, it helps to have family support behind you and a family who has just finished paying the equivalent of a minimum wage job take-home pay to educate you has the resources to allow you to pursue an underpaid/unpaid career for a few years to see if you are one of the lucky ones who make it.

There's no doubt that the ones who make it are talented but there must be a lot of very talented people from less privileged backgrounds who never get the chance to try.

I agree with you that this is sad but short of bringing about the downfall of capitalism, I'm not sure what can be done about it if wealthy people are allowed to spend their money as they choose.

My daughter went to performing arts classes, dance classes, etc throughout her school years (which, when added up, has cost us a fortune) and has studied BTEC level 3 Musical Theatre at a state school. The audition round for the next stage has been gruelling, time consuming and expensive (travelling to open days and auditions). What I have observed from the visits, promotional materials, talking to past and present students is that where they seek diversity, it is mainly in terms of ethnicity, disability (but less so and seems to be almost entirely neurodiversity) and gender diversity. Representation of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds not so much.

Same with every industry.
To difference extents, of course.

i have noticed that most of them went to university
never paid much attention to the private/state education of actors

Ewan Mcgregor went to private school.

what about the playwrights?

I suspect it’s not just about wealth to cushion the journey but also about access to facilities and drama education itself. All these notable private schools have full size, fully rigged, theatres and dedicated teaching staff. The interest and passion can be nurtured

wikipaedia

When I was a young woman, many people trying to break into the creative industries could get benefits, which were enough to survive on. Not saying whether that’s right or wrong, but it certainly gave opportunities for people without family money behind them.

Yes - this is what lots bands did. Lived at home or with mates, didn’t go to college or university. They’d either be on the dole or did low paid jobs for a few months at a time. Most big bands and artists from that era were gigging from an early age but living on very little money

I work at a performing arts institution, and we're continually assessing the entry/audition criteria. We're very concerned about diversity, but a big problem for us is that the state education system's arts instruction does not prepare students to study the subject at university: basically, students have to have private lessons and/or attend an arts school to get to the required level. We can broaden our idea of the sorts of skills that are needed for entry only so far: eventually, we wouldn't be able to get students to the required level in the time we have available.

The institution is elitist in the sense that it accepts only the best, but it already offers free courses to help prospective students prepare for the entrance exams, and there are other initiatives in place to help students access performing arts schools. But beyond the obvious problem of financial affordability for families, it's a bigger question of valuing the arts enough, both as a society to invest in them (say, by raising the standards in schools, or not dismantling school-connected lesson programmes), and as families, to take advantage of the programmes that do exist, or to seek out opportunities. Not surprisingly, many families don't prioritise this...I think that addressing poverty as a society would have a far more sustainable effect than diversity initiatives of institutions, and I think it's not really fair to blame post-secondary institutions for a much bigger problem that starts far earlier in children's lives.

Another, related aspect is that the required skills or even the field itself has to be on prospective students' radar, in the sense that they need to be aware that it's even possible to study the subject in question. There's apparently a world shortage of orchestral bassoonists (unlike e.g. violinists, where there are hundreds competing for every orchestral chair), but how do you find out what a bassoon is, as a musically interested child whose parents don't know what a bassoon is, either?

Most will have gone to stage school, surely?

I really don’t care. If they’re good enough, they’re good enough. Doesn’t matter to me how they were educated.

Because it can be applied to the wider world - wealth buys you the opportunity to take risks or spend time developing your craft. If you have family money behind you and can therefore afford to spend periods of time with no income without that pressure to take any job you can, they ultimately you have a much wider array of opportunities available to you and also a greater chance of success.

Obviously there’s exceptions to that rule (Brooklyn Beckham/JK Rowling) but it’s broadly true across society. I’m glad the US thing of unpaid internships isn’t a huge deal here as that massively amplifies the problem.

To be fair though, whilst I completely agree that the nature of the career means having a safety net means you can carry on in the early days, access training etc, I'd not want to go down the route of saying they don't deserve success. The two that spring to mind are Cumberbatch and Redmayne, both excellent actors and Redmayne has an Oscar. They are v good actors and wouldn't be working with the directors they do if that weren't the case. That's not to say I don't agree with the basic premise of the OP but it's true in so many fields, including sport, that money is needed in so many cases so access the kit, training, event fees and logistics etc.

I agree with you OP.

It is the same with fashion, the arts, museums...

Basically any creative industry. The people who seem to make it are the ones with contacts and enough wealth to do unpaid internships and take on careers that can be precarious.

I think things got worse with tuition fees. I managed to do a fine art degree only because I started it before the tuition fees came in place & I had a part-time job to pay the bills.

The problem with creative careers only being open to the wealthy is that it narrows the talent pool and does not support individual, original voices.

This, particularly "many other professions" this applies to. The routes in require a level of wealth in order to gain the experience on almost no money; it's not just acting. There are many parts of the working world that are unfair.

I agree. This actually has far wider implications than just acting. I reckon one contributory factor is that the population of the uk is so big. That even 6% gives a large enough pool of people to choose from.

Look at politics, law, journalism. Professions with huge over-representation from private schools. Throw in the scandal of student loans. The working and middle classes have become the worker bees, with little opportunities to shape the country.

This is it in a nutshell. It is a very difficult industry to break into if you haven't got the luxury of financial support and somewhere to live. The same goes for other careers in the entertainment industry. Opportunities for newcomers are few and far between and even if you are a talented actor / musician/ whatever, if you have to work in a day job full time, you will miss oppprtunities. This is why nepotism is rife and it is the same people who get all the work.

Just for accuracy, only 6% (till recently 7%) of school age children are attending private school at the moment. It is not the percentage of the population that has been to private school. That figure is around 12% (though estimates of that figure vary depending on how you count it - i.e. do you include primary or sixth form, how long did the pupil have to attend for - I have seen between 10 and 28%). Many children only go to private school for part of their education, which means that there are children currently at private school who will move to state and vice versa. The numbers receiving private education at some point in their schooling are higher than 6%.

The Sutton Trust misuses the 6% figure (though it was then 7%) early on in its 2019 report about elitism in certain occupations, and this has been repeated by the BBC and numerous other outlets. They do later use the figure correctly in the report.