Super-selective or all-round?

thtasig there is no one way to make the best of things or be happy.

What floats my boat probbaly wouldn't suit everyone. It would be dull if it did. But it would be arrogant or unimaginative of me not to understand that others may be perfectly happy living a different way.

DS is perfectly happy and fullfilled living a life where he is not in an orchestra or a school play.

I am spectacularly unathletic but appear to have spawned uber athletes! They get things out of it that I had never even considered.

@Word It's your choice how you spend your money. But as I said - I wouldnt spend good money on a school which didn't care about the arts. And I reckon that if your DS has no interest in the arts he won't really make the most of an Oxbridge sojourn. The best thing about being at Cambridge was the arts scene. I don't miss my maths lectures at all. I do miss all the wonderful times I spent doing music and theatre.

thetasig my DS has had more access to the arts than the vast majority of DC on the planet!
I am a writer and our home, as you can imagine, is filled with everyhting to do with books. DH is a jazz musician in his spare time. There is music and instruments everywhere.
We also have a photographic studio.
Add to that that, DS went to prep school with its own art studios and a kiln!

But DS is his own man and remains resolutely academic. Maths, economics and what have you float his boat. He plans Oxbridge or LSE.

And no, he probably will not make his living from sport but he does take it to a very high level (national). It's what he likes to do outside of academic studies. Well that and play on the PS3 and eat crisps! So in choosing a school it was more important for him that it was highly academic and had lots of sport he could indulge in.

To be fair, the majoirty of girls in DD's school probably won't make the arts their living! But that's not the point is it?

DD's school is better for her but that type of education is not what my DS is looking for at all.

@word DD's school sounds like a much batter school. The majority of those boys - probably all of those boys - will not go on to make a career in professional sport. Why on earth would you pay to put your DS in an environment such as the one you describe? If the arts aren't important to him then clearly he hasn't been given access to the ones that will rock his boat.

Oh yes happy. There is music. The department would probbaly be very pissed off to hear me do it down .

There is an orchestra and a choir and jazz band etc. There is always a GCSE cohort and also an A level cohort.

But tio say it was a the heart of all the boys' lives would be to overstate it. Whereas DD's school could hand on heart say it is part of every pupil's life. Every girl in DD's year either sings or plays a musical instrument. That's very unusual in teenaged girls. The majority of girls will take at least one GCSE in music or art or drama.

I think post 13, music does have a low priority in many pupils lives. Most won't take a GCSE, and most won't play in an orchestra etc.

Sport seems to play a far bigger part in many teenaged boys lives. It certainly does in my DS life.
Sure there exists an orchestra and a choir etc, but for the majority of the guys it's all about the rugby/football/cricket/skiiing/athletics.

DD's school is quite different. The arts are at the centre of school life.

I dont know which school wordfactory has her DS at bi=ut I suspect that she uses the term "not hugely important to the school" loosely and I doubt it would have the same meaning as in a state school.

I wouldn't pay a penny for a school where music could be described as 'not important'. Not that I pay anyway (actually, when you add up all the music stuff I pay for I pay a blooming fortune but that's by the by).

In casa Wordfactory, we're using both.

DD (against my better judgement) chose a relatively mixed school. DS a super selective.

So far DD's experience has been excellent. She is enjoying a braod education. Lot sof focus on music, drama and art. But enough clever girls to make a top set worthy of its name. To work, you need a decent amount of puils at the same ability as you and you need rigorous and flexible setting.

DS experience will be far more cerebral and therewill be little mix academically. The boys will range from clever to genius . Music, drama and art are not hugely important to the school, but neither to my DS.
Sport though is superlative. So DS will fit right in.

diablo - My DCs are at independent (selective) schools so I am not an Indie-basher :)

But I have talked to parents who thought I was 'their kind of people' (I'm not. Both DP and I are WC made good) and so thought it was ok to tell me why they didn't want their kids to go to the local comp.

I accept that not all private school parents are like that. I accept that the OP isn't like that but it was a question that I thought needed asking.

Pusheed - we don't all live in areas where there is lots of local choice.

My own DS is at a non selective Prep, and I am perfectly happy with it, there are no selective Preps anywhere in my County.

I get what I want, good academics, great sport for DS, small classes, long school day and activities and he is encouraged 100% of the time to be an individual.

I don't think it's fair to insinuate that people who don't choose academic schools are only interested in mixing with "posh" people. That's generalising as much as the independent-school-bashers do.

My son went to a non selective fee paying boarding school at 13. He's already achieved 3 A* at GCSE and is on course to gain a few more. Yes no selective schools do have weaker exam results but there's a bigger picture than academics. My son's school is sporty and great for the child who's yet to work out what they're good at. Only wish was that the school was closer. We felt a 2.5 hour commute each day was too much so my son's a boarder.

diabolo - As I said in an earlier post, I wasn't posting in favour of choosing the long commute school. Instead I was questioning why the OP wanted to spend whatever on a private school that wasn't particularly academic.

Pusheed Can I ask at what point would you not consider the very academic option for this OP? A 3 hour daily commute seems extreme to me, but you seem in favour of the OP's child doing this.

I know of a parent in a similar position, whose DD gets home after extra-curricular activities and a long train journey at nearly 8pm, then does 2+ hours homework (she is on an academic scholarship) and goes to bed at 11pm (13 years old), and is getting up at 6 each day to start over again.

It sounds hellish to me and not what I would want for my DC.

Pushy? Depends on who you compare me to.

I'm not advocating the OP travels to the more selective school. But I can't help but wonder if being in a super selective improves motivation and therefore results because of the culture of excellence that exists.

Pusheed, are you PushyDad?

riverside - You must have outstanding DCs. :o I mean, mine
needed to be pushed. Otherwise they are happy to be 'average'.

In their primary school DCs were top table for everything but their first set of tracking grades at their Year 7 indie had them in the bottom 30% of their respective class. Christmas had them at 50% and the recent one had them at 70%. We reckon that DCs will get into the top 20% and then plateau for their remaining school years.

We all have stories of siblings or DCs or friends who coast and still end up with a First at University but for most children they aren't naturally clever or self motivating.

If your son is bright enough and works hard enough to get 10 A*s then he will get them wherever you send him. Like neolara said, if he has that capacity, he could do it at a state comprehensive (plenty do). It is also possible, if he is tired from commuting 3 hours a day, if he is fed up because he can't stay at school to do games, drama, music etc then that may impact his academic achievement. I think your gut feeling is correct.

Please don't listen to the other parents. They are not polite enough or mature enough to respect the fact that other people have different values to their own. The fact you have chosen more of an "all round" school for your son should ensure that he does not turn out like that.

imo the parents at current school are daft - of course they're more likely to get 10 A's if it's superselective - doesn't mean the teaching's any better - just means they've started with a bright intake. Personally I'd go with the allround any time - quality of life, having local friends etc very important vs the long commute. Having said that, I suppose you'd want to ask if there is streaming at the non-selective school - you wouldn't want DS getting bored....

Good call thetasigmamum DH.

As for the other name mentioned, Benedict, I'm unfortunately far too closely acquainted with one of those and would gladly pay £15k a year to avoid him or his ilk. Worth every last penny.

I wanted to call my first child Tabitha, when I was a kid. This was because I really liked Bewitched. When I suggested the name to DH he said it sounded like a cat so that was that. :(

I have a goddaughter named Tabitha who went to her local state primary, then to the nearest 11-16 comp, then to the associated sixth form college. Admittedly she did then get an offer from a pretty very ancient Oxford college but still - she failed spectacularly until then to conform to the stereotype.

On commutes, they can provide downtime which can substitute for downtime at home, so not necessarily prejudicial to ecs at all. Plenty of children at our school have long commutes and many say it's the most enjoyable part of the day. That said, having done long distance since Y3 myself, I'm glad my DC only have a skip and a hop to their school. Not that they then use the freed up time in any particularly ennobling way, but that's a separate point.

mydog - You two only have one syllable but what about your DCs? Be honest :)