in in thinking that being the national average isn't something that one should aim for?

[Pusheed]

In another thread the OP asked whether DC needed tutoring. Various MNetters posted that the DC was sligtly ahead of the national average for that age group and that the OP shouldn't be worrying.

I want my DCs to go to a good university and from there, to get a good job. That isn't going to happen if they aim to be at the national average.

If you are being operated upon would you be happy with your surgeon being 'average'? If you were a soldier going into battle woul you want your leader to be 'average'? etc etc etc.

There is nothing wrong with being 'average'. We all can't be brain surgeons or nuclear physicists but at the same time why do we have to settle for being average?

The op said she wants her children to go to 'good' universities and get 'good' jobs. She is the one with an extremely narrow perspective. What if her children decide to get worthwhile well paid work without going to university? What if their idea of a good job doesn't match their mothers?

Cogito, who says we will always be talking about bright children? There seems to be a general assumption that a child belonging to any Mumsnetter must of necessity be a bright child. When I use the expression "not academic" I mean more or less the opposite of what is traditionally known as "a bright child".

I don't think anyone would have a problem with pushing a bright 11yo, i.e. one who can easily understand things but is lazy. But pushing an 11yo who finds things much harder than his/her peers, beyond what is reasonable for his/her abilities, simply because you cannot accept the child s/he is, is a totally different ballgame.

My 11yo doesn't know what he wants to do yet, but he does know that he has to work three times as hard to stay in the set immediately above bottom set as his sister does to be top of top set. Telling him that I expect the same of him as his sister would be both unrealistic and unkind; it would be setting him up for failure every day.

Out of my two brothers, one was highly gifted musically (went to a foreign conservatoire and composed his own music), the other was tone deaf. No amount of pushing would have turned brother 2 into brother 1. The pushing that was done was enough to make him rather unhappy about himself.

Which is why I said in my first post that an essential part of parenting is knowing your own child. If you know you have a bright but lazy child- push. If you know you have a not-bright but lazy child- push enough to make him work hard but have realistic expectations. If you have a not-bright but diligent child- be happy and leave off pushing.

cory spot on!

cory - yes exactly. DS1 is in the top 5% of his year and DS2 is in the middle. As long as they both work equally hard we are happy.

However, what bothers/worries me is that the UK education system sets the bar so low on what is accepted as 'average' that many children are left unchallenged to do better than the bare minimum. Of course some children will struggle to attain the low average but that is no excuse for lowering expectations of the rest.

"What if her children decide to get worthwhile well paid work without going to university? What if their idea of a good job doesn't match their mothers?"

Loads of worthwhile jobs out there eg nursing, teaching but well paid? Depends on what you call 'well paid'.

Yes I know that money isn't the be all of human existence but a reasonable amount of the stuff helps.

Various newspaper articles have gone on about how today you need a degree to get a job that in previous decades went to an A level student. When DC applies for a 'good job' by her reckoning, not mine, what makes you think that the employer will not want a degree?

In any case, we are thinking of bypassing university. Various blue chip employers are experimenting with recruiting high calibre A level students and mixing on the job experience with distance learning courses. But even here, it will be the outstanding A level students that will get the in demand places and not the 'above the national average' kid.

In any case, we are thinking of bypassing university. Various blue chip employers are experimenting with recruiting high calibre

WE (by which you mean you and presumably your partner) shouldn't be thinking about making any decision-making. You should be supporting your children's choices, not funneling them down a career path that is of no interest to them.

Your child is absurdly young for these conversations anyway.

"Your child is absurdly young for these conversations anyway"

Fecked if I do. Fecked if I don't.

We have these conversations because we don't want to funnel them "down a career path that is of no interest to them".

The whole thing has been the DCs decision all the way. We took them to the open days for their local comps and a couple of the indies plus a long shot GS (long shot because we are out of catchment). Afterwards we sat down and asked them for their views since they would have to put a lot of prep work in if they wanted to go the 11+ route. We made them aware that if they got in they would be subject to academic pressure for the next 5 years at least. So it was important that they were 100% on board.

Unlike DS, DD was allocated a good state secondary and we (and our bank manager) would have been happy if we went for that school but DD wanted us to accept the indie offer. Why? Because SHE wanted to be just like Aunty C who is a succesful corporate lawyer.

Anyway, the rest is history.

As for being too young to have an input on matters that concern them, your comment kind of contradicts your comment about supporting children's choices. At what age does your child has to be before they are allowed to have a choice for you to support?

Pusheed, my DD recently 'chose' an Independent school over a selective state grammar, in part because she preferred their way of selecting the 'right' pupils.

Your DD could be a successful corporate lawyer if she went to state school too, you know

There are successful people who didn't pay for their education...

My brother, for example, is a neurologist with a 1st class master's degree from Oxford. He went to a standard comp which is now in special measures.

My mum had a very laissez-faire attitude towards pushing us. Not that she doesn't value education (she was a teacher for 41 years) but she knew that we needed to motivate ourselves, otherwise the motivation doesn't last. And she knew we'd all get there in the end.

My brother and sister both don't understand why I 'settled' for being a teacher, rather than "wanting a real career". We are differently motivated, but we are all successful. Even if my bank balance is significantly different.

I did say that there are no GS in my catchment area so I am not against state schools, merely comprehensives. I went to a bog standard one and I am not a fan.

And yes, there are always personal stories about a sibling/partner/friend who went to Oxford, became a doctor etc despite going to a comp. But that doesn't stop studies from concluding that the jobs process favours those from selective schools.

For every comp kid that goes on to get his/her dream job there are probably many for whom the system has failed.

In any case, we are thinking of bypassing university

Who's "we", OP?

Look, I'll admit to thinking about university and so on. I once looked at the admissions criteria of a few universities doing courses I thought ds would be good at and enjoy. He was 10

But there's something in that statement that really doesn't sit right with me. Bypassing university, or not bypassing university, won't (or at least shouldn't be) be your decision to make.

I would generally agree with adult 'children' making their own decision with minimal interference from parents. But it's surely partly the parent's decision if they're paying for it, or at least supporting their 'child' while they study? Obviously if they're going to pay their own way by saving up or doing it part time, that's a different matter.

"Achieving or 'getting ideas above your station' is frowned on by Brits as a whole."

Agree with Dinosaur. High achievers may feel they have to tone down their interest in learning, so as not to upset anyone else.

In general I think expectations in education are too low.

You do know that my DD is 11 and that any decision about uni or not is about 6 years away?

We were discussing options as opposed to you WILL be an accountant or you WILL go to university. Discussing being the operative word. Obviously it will be her/their decision when the time comes.

'I want my children to go to good universities'

Doesn't sound like much of a discussion me. More like you've already made up your mind what their path must be

" who says we will always be talking about bright children?"

The OP's specific example was a friend who described her child as 'not academic' even though she's apparently very good at school work. Just seemed an odd response.

*In general I think expectations in education are too low"

Not just in education. I come from a working class background and growing up I was often asked why I wanted to go to university. Because I didn't want to end up in a dead end, near minimum wage job like the questioner was an answer I kept to myself

The friend said that her daughter was not academic despite being brighter than my DD who passed the 11+ and is thriving at her secondary. Not an odd response if you thought about it.