AIBU to think upper middle class professionals downplay how much they game education?

I think people confuse "working hard" and "working to make money"

Someone who works to become or stay privileged or wealthy does not work less hard than someone else, just towards a different goal. People just assume you can only work hard if you get no money. It's not true.

It's about your mindset and your goal not really your privilege.

So they didn't want to be rated on a level playing field.

Very very interesting. So much for 'natural ability' when the life chances are entered into the equation.

Good point. I hadn't considered that. I'm fairly quiet about DC having tutoring. Not secretive, but I don't go on about it.

Sorry, no names named, but for a few years now, certain hard-working privileged children did not even apply to a certain university for medicine and law, because this university counted private school education against them, using a special questionnaire to bump up UCAS points. For example, the following questions were used for grading:

• are you LGBTQ+
• are you from one of the following deprivation index postcode?
• is English not your first language
• Are you from a household where parents are migrants/asylum seekers
• Are you a migrant or asylum seeker
• Are you care experienced
• Household income

This is another reason I left out. There is absolutely a lot of denial around having this type of privilege, so they get very defensive about the notion of it (we see them creeping into the comments already)

Especially when they are HENRYs rather than the upper wealth classes, or more newly rich from entrepreneurship, they think acknowledging this takes away from their hard work and the conversation is always personal to them.

OP may I ask what is ultra high earning ? Just curious ! Is it like 100k plus or are we talking multiple hundreds or even millions ?

I think some of this is just lack of context for them.

I had a family say this to me: their ds chose Marlborough over Winchester! Maybe that does feel relaxed to them.

Oh yeah it’s just nonsense. I find this kind of thing really boring to be part of conversation with. It’s just very disingenuous.

And it’s like what do you want me to say. So you just go hmm, ahh yeahhh. Yeahh. Really great. Great

Yes, they had books, visited museums, had music lessons and I made sure they did their homework. Sixth form was nothing special for the first three, the last one went to a large very successful sixth form college so that may be true in his case.
One thing they did learn from going to the local comp was to work independently. They weren’t spoon fed and when they got to university this was a big advantage over many of the private school pupils they came across. I think it is largely the child that determines the results they get, there may be school effects at the margins but that would be getting a 9 rather than an 8 at GCSE not a pupil struggling to get a 4 at a state school getting a 9 at an independent. Universities will take account of the average results of the school attended when making offers.

Oh yes, I agree with the same sex education for girls. My eldest DD is thriving at an all girls private school (sorry, I know this isn't quite what you agree with!😕)

I'd have probably done much better at the girls grammar school if I'd gone there instead of the mixed grammar. The boys were awful and disruptive. Hindsight is a great thing though....

We sent our kids to the best school possible which meant going to church for many years in spite of not being religious. I've never lied about that (even to the vicar!)
I didn't give a flying fuck if people thought we were hypocrites or whatever. Private wasn't an option so we did the next best thing we could to give them what we felt was an educational advantage at secondary school.
Will we ever know if its made a difference? I'm hoping that it did and I feel like it has but obviously I will never know for sure. For A-levels they have made their own choices and they chose not to stay (based on subjects available/not available to them).
Did we 'game' education? Yes I guess we did. I've not heard the term before. I'm not sure we downplayed it though. We just made that choice.

Train drivers and firefighters are solid working class jobs.

I am deeply, passionately against private education and wish we had the same education system as Finland.

While people can opt out of state education those in power are not incentivised to improve it so ALL children can access high quality education.

My very dyslexic daughter is at an inner city school which is very multicultural and has a high level of pupils on free school meals. I don’t say either of those as criticisms but to demonstrate it is very unlike a private school.

Now in 6th form, she’s predicted AAB at A level. The crucial thing about her school is it is all girls. I think the best thing you can do for a girl’s education is to send her to a single sex school.

I’ve already referred on this thread to the Matthew Effect in education. I’d be interested to know if anyone knows of evidence that disproves it.

I paid for music lessons, sports and educational trips, as I think cultural capital is the way to encourage critical thinking and encourage them to see what's outside of their own milieu, and imagine six impossible things before breakfast. For a long time, I actually thought they were both a bit thick academically and was unperturbed. I knew they would find their own way to be successful.

But there's no way I would pay for a tutor. They both had access to a perfectly good bog-standard comprehensive education. They had internet and school textbooks, like everyone else. Education is the last bastion of equality here in the UK and I would make private schooling and teachers doing private tuition against the law. Or at the very least make A level private tutors declare it on a database, so that the unfair advanntage is made clear on UCAS forms

The one that went to Cambridge University could not believe how thick the private school students were: "Mum, they know how to sound smart, but when you actually ask them questions, they don't know anything". Loads of the syudents claiming to be working class went to selective grammars, or grammars in hideously expensive catchment areas. A lot were claiming to be state kids, but had had expensive private tutors and were also rinsing the university for bursaries, despite their parents owning multiple homes and businesses.

The only actual 'gaming' is where people claim to live in a catchment but don't, or rent for a year in catchment of an excellent state school knowing will move out of area after starts at school - which then deprived a child who should have that space from getting it.

Anything else is people just honestly trying their best.

But I do get what you say about people keeping their cards close to their chest/not being upfront about their intentions. Has been especially prominent this year as DD has just finished year 5 in a grammar area. Most parents are all 'we haven't really prepped, will just give it a go and see what happens', and the reality is they are spending several thousand in tutoring and pushing lots of home prep too.
I get it, people don't want others to see they are disappointed if their child doesn't pass.

Saying that, my daughter is doing it, burethought going through the process, we now aren't sure if grammar is best fit for her, and if she passes we will genuinely leave it to her to decide if she goes - I'm sure other parents would say I'm covering up my true feelings on it.

From MN (and other online forums like WIWIKAU) I've seen that there are a lot of conflicting narratives around state vs private schools (which then becomes RG vs non RG), and a lot of these things have elements of truth but are certainly not universally true.

A smart child will probably do as well at an average or above comprehensive as an average private school, but there's massive variability around that and it also depends on how "doing just as well" is measured- often people mean A level results but when nearly 30% % of A levels are graded A* or A there's a lot of knowledge variability even within the offer ranges for a top Uni that might affect ability to hit the ground running at those places. As a comprehensive student who went to Cambridge, my massive disadvantage was that I'd been taught the A level syllabus whereas my peers at the top private schools had been taught much more broadly. which really helped them in the Cambridge system. On personal experience I'd also disagree that "state school students are better than private school students". The brightest and "least bright" (for want of a better word in the context that all these people were at Cambridge) were a mix of the two. Every year has their "wtf" people where you wonder how the hell they got in - they usually bumbled through and got a third - but generally, everyone was within a range and it was a mix of backgrounds at each degree class.

I know exactly what you mean. The advantages of wealth and super-wealth are enormous.
The poorer folk know it isnt a level playing field.
When you are struggling to feed and clothe the children you love, you have no option of sending your kids to fee paying school.
The rich are perfectly aware of their advantages but they downplay it.
I think they are embarrassed to admit that they can so easily have what they want and many seem to loose touch with everyday trials entirely.
I think this is the premise David Ike thought would generate traction for his "lizard people".
Sometimes the wealthy talk about poorer folk with absolute contempt.

I agree with this. My aim in life is to have enough money in our family that my children could have difficulties, a disability, drop out, drop back in, and still have a reasonably happy and cushioned life which isn't dependent either on the state, or on one large salary that, if lost, would scupper everything. It's what my parents, one of whom came from a poor background, gave to me through their own success (that one went to grammar school, his mum left school at 13)- I've always known that if something bad happens, I can return home for a period of time, that someone will always house me, lend me money, so I could get back out there again. I've done this, and I want my children to have the same level of security, if not more.

I think it’s hard to separate what’s the child’s interest vs what the parent encourages and it’s easy to underestimate how much cultural capital makes you feel a sense of belonging. I’ve recently been mentoring some of our new hires. The majority come from families with parents who worked in professional, relatively high earning jobs and who have had lots of exposure to things like regular theatre going, museum/gallery visits, travel, expensive sports (all the stuff that lumps under cultural capital really). Some will self describe as working class, most would say they didn’t know/care what class they were if asked. A very occasional person is someone that would be widely recognised as coming from a working class background or from a family where many people are long term unemployed. I had a girl I was mentoring last year whose family were from a local old mining town where there are genuinely limited opportunities and who was first generation to go to university. None of the cohort set out to exclude her but she nonetheless feels like an outsider. They will be discussing stuff like the best runs at various ski resorts or what they are going to see at the theatre or giving each other recommendations for great hotels and sights and clubs in various European cities. She feels like she can’t join in so she stays quiet and she was saying one day that she felt an idiot as they’d been discussing secondments and she didn’t realise what they meant as she’s only ever read it not heard it said and assumed it was pronounced “second meant”. It’s so easy to blithely think all those things (alongside which specific school you attend) are not that important when you’ve never experienced anything else.

*I just edited for grammar. Teach me to change the start of the sentence without checking the end 😂

The biggest load of crock is that smart children will thrive anywhere

Absolutely agree. My very bright, diligent DD could do very well. But certainly not in our local large school where she’d be overwhelmed and nervous because of behavioural issues of some kids.

She wouldn’t do great in some highly pressured hot house either. She is far too introverted and sensitive for either of those types of situations. So I put a lot of thought and energy into finding somewhere I think she could be supported to thrive.

A bad school can absolutely do that. That’s the main issue with a generalisation such as “anywhere”. However, there’s a big difference (and a lot of middle ground) between a bad school and super selective independent.

On the recruitment, it doesn’t just work that way for so called middle class jobs, tradespeople often help their sons or the sons of friends, likewise firefighters, train / tube drivers etc.

I think there’s a sense of security that comes with wealth/higher class. Of course those parents want their kids to succeed and have the big job and what not, but they also know that if their kid fucks up/fails/has to start over they have a safety net to fall back on. So it’s easy to “let them find their own way”, particularly if they live in a bubble where what’s familiar/all they know /the norm is professional jobs, careers, wealth etc. which makes that “way” fairly prescriptive to begin with.

I'm sure someone smart enough to be a doctor is smart enough to work out that everyone's baseline for an acceptable standard of living (and parenting 'givens') is different, so I'm assuming this is just ragebait.

I don't pat myself on the back for being able to afford to pay my gas bill, nor for tutoring for the 11+. That doesn't mean I don't recognise that I have a level of societal privilege in order to be able to do so.