Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think people who say that they wouldn't have children if they couldn't afford to educate them privately are ...

307 replies

seeker · 13/05/2012 16:35

.....bonkers?

And before anyone says that nobody has ever said that, there have been plenty of threads on here with people saying they stopped at one, or advising people not to have a 3rd because they can't afford private school for more. So presumably they wouldn't have had any if they could not send them to private school.

OP posts:
DogEared · 13/05/2012 16:36

I agree with you.

bringbacksideburns · 13/05/2012 16:37

I think you will find that this is only on Mumsnet actually.

Debeez · 13/05/2012 16:37

YABU, people having kids or not based on what they think would be best for them and existing/future children is never a bad thing. Also, thread about a thread?

ExitPursuedByABear · 13/05/2012 16:38

Plenty of bonkers people on MNet.

diddl · 13/05/2012 16:39

YABU.

Surely it´s up to them?

BumpingFuglies · 13/05/2012 16:41

Personal choice, surely? What's bonkers about it?

Noqontrol · 13/05/2012 16:44

Oooh another twist on the private school theme seeker. I'm amazed at the different variations that you think of Wink

GrahamTribe · 13/05/2012 16:50

You really don't approve of independent schools, do you seeker?

Original poster
seeker · 13/05/2012 16:51

I just can't get my head round it. I do understand why people choose private education. But to actually choose not to have child because you can't educate it privately......,I'd love somebody to explain the reasoning. As if all the is to a child is educating it.

I suppose I can't believe people who think like that really exist. But I've read it frequently on mumsnet.

OP posts:
Iteotwawki · 13/05/2012 16:53

Surely every

Original poster
seeker · 13/05/2012 16:55

It's not that, grahamtribe- I couldn't understand anyone saying they were only going to have one child because they were worried about university fees, or holidays to Disneyland.

If you can clothe and feed and look after a child, surely that's all you need.

OP posts:
Trills · 13/05/2012 16:55

Nobody has said that.

There is a difference between restricting the number of children that you have and not having any at all.

BumpingFuglies · 13/05/2012 16:58

Isn't it a basic desire to do the very best you can for your child? If that means choosing private education, that's your bench mark. Some parents may not feel that private education is essential, some do. It's down to choice and circumstances. It's definitely not "bonkers".

Trills · 13/05/2012 16:59

Could you understand someone, having committed to doing something for two children, being unwilling to have a third child when the options would be:
1 - take that advantage away from children 1 and 2
2 - treat the three children unequally
Both of which are bad options

If you can't afford to privately educate any children then it's a much simpler decision, because there is no worry of inequality.

This of course only works if you believe that being privately educated is an advantage.

Jinsei · 13/05/2012 16:59

I feel sorry for them tbh. To miss out on having kids for such silly and spurious reasons seems quite tragic.:(

mayorquimby · 13/05/2012 16:59

imagine... people planning the type of life they wish to have. Bonkers.

Iteotwawki · 13/05/2012 17:00

Surely everyone decides to have children based on whether they can provide for them though?

We stopped at 2 because I don't think we could have coped financially with a third. Nothing to do with schooling - state schools here are pretty good - but food, clothing, housing, extra curricular activities, holidays (which are important as that's when we go back to see extended family), future financial support if required - all manageable with 2 but wouldn't stretch to 3.

I think it would be selfish of me to have a child because I want one knowing that we probably couldn't afford it and the effect that would have on my older children.

Some people see private education as important. I view other things like swimming / music / trips as important. I'm still making the same decision though - not to have a third child because I wouldn't be able to provide things I feel are important for it if I did.

DPrince · 13/05/2012 17:01

After years of struggling me and dh have good incomes and at the moment I could afford private school for both, we have 2 holidays a year, can afford after school clubs. Money isn't everything but its move not worrying and being to have days out without having to plan weeks in advance. If we had a third we wouldn't. We like our life. I see nothing wrong in making a decision based on finances and what you opportunities you would like your dcs to have. Why have another if it means you have to change your ideals? Who is to say how many children you should have or if the reasons are valid. Yabvu. It may not be a valid reason for you but it is for others.

MaargeritaPracatan · 13/05/2012 17:01

Mumsnet has a certain concentration of certain people with very strong opinions, it's not real life at all.

scarlettsmummy2 · 13/05/2012 17:03

I have two girls, who will both be going private. I would love a third baby but my priority is the two I already have. The state school in my catchment is dire so it's a choice of private or move house. We chose private because we are otherwise happy where we are and the girls school is very good and will hopefully give them lots of opportunities they wouldn't get at the local state primary.

AKissIsNotAContract · 13/05/2012 17:05

YABU, most people have to consider finances when planning family size.

LaurieFairyCake · 13/05/2012 17:05

Hmmm.....interesting. I might say that now but only because I've been working in a private school that I love very much. I think it might be the best school I've ever been in.

This does not mean that the school I currently have foster dd isn't fine, it's just that the place I work in is a lot better. It's a moot point as I don't get to choose the school for foster dd - it has to be state.

However, knowing what I know now if I couldn't afford to send a child to the private school I work in it might be a factor in me having one - please note I am not representative of the general population here as I don't want children now Grin but I can see how others arrive at it - if they work in a school that they love.

My dh works in state and we both believe in state education obviously.

Jinsei · 13/05/2012 17:07

There's a big difference in my view between deciding to limit the number of kids you have in order to afford the best opportunities for those you do have, and deciding to have none at all because you can't afford to educate them privately.

Fair enough if that's how you feel, but I think its very sad. But perhaps the people who make that decision don't really want kids anyway.

Noqontrol · 13/05/2012 17:08

Did anyone actually say that they would have no children because they couldnt afford to send them to private school?

VelmaDaphne · 13/05/2012 17:09

No one says they wouldn't have children because they couldn't privately educate them.

What people do say is that they won't have more children after their initial 1, 2, 3, whatever, because they have established a particular lifestyle which they can afford, and having an extra child would make that lifestyle unaffordable, so they choose to stay as they are. I think that's probably sensible.

I think you're missing the point.