Dilemma... 'more average' sibling to follow super-bright brother to same school, or somewhere else, with a chance to 'shine'??

Properly intelligent industrious people don't need the OBN. Merit will do.

And you are deluding yourself if you think the OBN is not alive and well and living among the movers and shakers of the country.

I suppose it depends what you mean by "rich". My dd goes to a state school- admittedly a grammar- but she goes on trips, has courses in the History of Western Thought and Critical Thinking and things like that. She sings Madrigals, and Jazz, plays Baroque music and Swing, does D of E and community service, had a choice of 4 'MFL and Latin and Greek, plays or has played practically every sport you could name (except Fives or the Wall Game, I suppose. Or Real Tennis)..... Does that sound rich to you?

As I have no idea what school your ds2 is at i can't answer that question, happygardening.

Tell us what advantages you think he has and I'll tell you whether they are things I care two hoots for.

My husband was at one of these top schools and has never used or even tried to use the old boy net work. This is a myth perpetuated by those who have not sent their children to these schools; he receives an old boy directory but has never and will never contact any for a so called leg up.
He is only in contact with a handful of friends from his school days and none to our knowledge however successful and some are really successful have ever used the old boy net work either.
All have worked hard as do most people been good at their jobs and ultimately in many cases just been lucky.
Yelowtip and BandB perhaps can you provide me with the evidence that your schools provides as rich an education as my DS2 school. I would actually be happy to be proven wrong because I'm not anti state ed. but my gut feeling is that unless your in these top indie schools then I don't think you realise what is actually provided. This is not a pissing match by the way I respect and admire seeker for her principles ( especially as I'm actually a bit of a leftie!) and I too work for the public sector and deplore the ever increasing provision of private alternatives which I don't believe are any better.

What the top public schools give you is contacts. Pure and simple. Access to the Old Boy's ( and I use the word advisedly) network.

happygardening - sounds like a good thing you chose indie and as you say, left the grammar place to someone who wants it.

No, I couldn't afford to send my dc private but would absolutely not wish to do so, as it disagrees with my values as much as state ed does with yours. Was discussing politics with an old school friend recently and realised that all my close friends from grammar school happen to be left-wing - very actively so in some cases. Coincidence? I doubt it.

I don't believe in buying privilege or in an attitude that having lots of money makes you a better person in some way - I wouldn't wish my dc to be educated somewhere where attitudes such as Abitwobblynow's were generally accepted.

So no, can assure you it is not remotely 'galling' that I can't afford to send my dc private - galling that I can't live in a bigger house, have more holidays, eat out more often, say, then yes, yes and yes!

But you'd have to pay ME to get me to send my kids private - and I don't think you could pay me enough. I'd hate it. Really.

How do you know that I couldn't send my children to that school if I wished?! Perhaps I could, perhaps if I couldn't I could borrow, perhaps I couldn't do either. Whatever, I personally grew up in a London day school environment and prefer my children at home :)

I'm afraid that you evidently don't have the experience of those schools that you deride but whose education may well be on a par to the top independents'. There aren't that many top schools in either sector, by definition. I can't see how you can directly compare the academic education that the different schools provide and I think that however you dress it up, in fact you are really are comparing on the basis of beauty of buildings and the splendour of the sports fields etc.

If you can provide me with evidence of how these schools (the ones in the tier immediately below SPGS and Westminster) provide a richer academic education than the ones b&b and I are familiar with, I'd be interested to listen. For the meanwhile, it sounds a little hollow.

Yellowtip DS1 is in the counties top performing non selective state!! And in fact beats many of the local indies even those which are selective although obviously not the very selective ones.
I'm unsure of the results of all selective states but DS2 was offered a place at ones of the countries top performing grammars always in the top 15 often top 3-4 and the results still aren't on a par to his indie if you actually break them down. But this is not what I judge schools on I have no doubt that DS2 would have got identical results out of DS1 school non selective comp and its not swimming pools or cricket nets or building dating back 600 yrs and no seeker its not smugness or money or the fact that the staff speak the same English I speak not some jargon that I don't understand (although this does help) its something else that is not only not available in the state sector and is not available in may indies either.

Its suits me and I'm lucky (because at the end of the day that is all it is) and can and am prepared to pay for it but I accept it doesn't suit all.
But breadandbuttefly and Yellowtip you are deluding yourself if you think that the state can ever offer what these handful of top indie schools are offering. I agree its not fair on all the rest and I'm sure its galling to those who can't afford to send their children but even if I didn't send my DS2 it would make any difference to yours I'm afraid. If I'd sent my DS2 to the grammar school where he was offered a place it would make any difference to any of the other children there in fact all it would have done is deprive a child from a family who don't have the money for private ed. a place.

happygardening you've said often which school your DS2 attends and only a fool would deny it provides a fabulous education (and nice cricket nets too).

The state sector is a poor relation to that sort of school in terms of funding, for sure.

But do you have the experience or expertise to diss the education that the top performing state schools provide? After all, their results are on a par with your own. If you do have first hand knowledge, my apologies. But if you don't, then I wonder how you can substantiate your assertion that they are 'poor relations'?

breadandbutterfly I'm trying not to rise to your argument but... I have no idea what independent school you taught at but I know from my DS2 top performing independent boys boarding school that when the best independent schools get it right and I do accept they may not be that many if them in reality and your DC thrives in this environment then I'm sorry to have to tell you this but the state sector just looks like a poor relation in comparison. But as I've pointed out to the OP this environment is certainly not right for all and many will do as well if not better in state ed whether it be grammar or comprehensive.

Hi OP we have the identical situation. DS2 will go to our equivalent of your "school 1".

Our "school 2" was the local grammar, in the exam for which DS2 got a high mark. We have concluded that our perceptions have been skewed by top-of-his-year prize-winning golden child DS1, resulting in us underestimating DS2. DS2 is markedly less sunny natured and enthusiastic than DS1 and will not win the academic prizes that DS1 does. But he has got his place, he wants to go, and he will go.

He may be compared unfavourably (either by others or by himself). He may raise his game! He will get an excellent education and will never be able to conclude that what I expect will be DS1s better exam grades are a result of us paying for one and not the other. We can provide equality of opportunity, the rest is up to him.

A small add:

the grammar school debate is not relevant and does NOT solve the education problem in the UK, IMO.

This is because it only deals with the top 20% of the intake. We have to forget about the bottom 20% (because they are not teachable in the linear progression system of mainstream), but what about the other 60%? Who are precious, worthwhile and add value to society if taught/trained well?

The solution to me is to adopt the dutch/german 3-tier system of education. And for pupils to move freely between them and prove they can do it.

I absolutely agree with Yellowtip's HT, but there is another factor that counts even more: determination.

Yes, it is the tortoise and the hare tale. You can have all the brains there are, but if you have no work habits no self-discipline and no ability to negotiate with other people, you can be a failure.

Have faith, folks! We are ALL valuable.

Send him to school 1. He got in. That's fantastic isn't it?

You haven't had experience of state secondary. Larger class sizes - less feedback etc. Its not just about how clever your son is, state school is a different entity altogether (I'm not saying its worse - just completely different).

I would send him to school 1 because you know the teachers, know the systems, know some parents.

All this cream talk is nauseating. Very few truly intelligent and thoughful people would regard themselves as cream.

I can't quite see why you should "bloody well hope so". A state grammar whose pupils achieve this highly do so against a background of far inferior funding, with all the educational ramifications that that can have.

As the HT of one well known super-selective often says: money can't buy you brains.

'my state grammar school beats all bar a tiny handful of private schools hands down in the league tables.'
..well i should bloody well hope so!! A free selectuive school is never going to be short of takers and is taking the cream !

seeker this is what i posted
'I think rich children overall would be brighter than poor children.One or both e parents are more likely to be in jobs which demand a higher level of intelligence and therefore the children are more likely to have 'intelligent' genes.
Now of course there will be many poor children who are very bright and many rich children who are thick as short planks.But overall using a large enough sample I would certainly expect a pattern whereby children from affluent backgrounds were more intelligent than those from poor backgrounds.''

I can't see how I've backtracked on that!

By the way, as Yellow has pointed out, my state grammar school beats all bar a tiny handful of private schools hands down in the league tables. Just gibbering nonsense to suggest all private schools are inherently better than all state schools. Sorry to point out the obvious (again).

I have also have worked as a teacher in both the state and private sector and anyone who truly believes that the private sector looks after their kids better or that the teaching is inherently better in the private sector just BECAUSE it is 'independent' is truly a fool, who deserves to have hard-earned siphoned out of their bank account every month.

I say that with feeling having been horrified at what I have seen in the private sector.

Dandelionss- this is what you said-

"I think rich children overall would be brighter than poor children."

That is not what you said. You are backtracking.

Clearly university academics and teachers are much thicker than lawyers or bankers, in fact about 10 times thicker, as that is the approximate relative position of their salaries...or not.

Not everyone chooses to go into high paying jobs. Some people choose jobs that are high interest and/or status rather than high earning.

Certainly, among people that I know the correlation between those who earn the most and the most intelligent is precisely zero.

Would that the capitalist system was as efficient at rewarding brains as Abitwobblynow imagines - I and my family would be loaded. (She says modestly. )

The reality is that wealth can be inherited with no requirement for brains of effort on the part of the inheritee, whatever their distant forbear who amassed the wealth might have possessed in the brains department. Wealth is supposedly the reward for risk-taking as much as/rather more than brains or hard work within the capitalist model. Or at least that's what all those defending huge salaries for bankers keep telling us.

seeker - I said that (overall) more intelligent people tend to be in higher paying jobs.

Certainly my typing errors would also indicate that!

Ah thank you. I've always been crap with crap with abbreviations perhaps thats an indicator of low intelligence. But I haven't come from a very poor back ground?!

c and p = cut and paste