For this little girl to have put me off sending dc to private school.

[reallythough]

Name-changed as I have a feeling I'm going to get flamed and I'm a bit scared.

We are unsure of whether to send our dc to private school or state school at the moment, we have one starting school next September.

DC who will be starting school next year attends pre-school at a nursery attached to a private school which we really love, the staff are brilliant, dc is very happy and has lots of friends. Last week I picked dc up and walking out of the school an 11ish year old girl and her siblings ran out shouting 'oh Daddy you've got your new Range, look at Daddy's new Range everyone' on repeat about 5/6 times whilst looking around to show everyone that she didn't know (it was a particularly nice car).

I don't want our dc growing up surrounded by people who place importance on materialistic posessions at such a young age. It made me wonder whether a state school will be a more organic surrounding for dc to grow in rather than the quite narrow selection of people they will be socialising with at an independent.

I read something the other day about how we try to re-create our own childhood for our children and I went to private school but after juniors was desperately unhappy there and felt trapped. I am not criticising the girl at all but it did remind me that on the whole a lot of the people I went to private school with were very materialistic and quite narrow minded. AIBU for this to have jolted me to have a serious re-think?

And did you pay the who looked after your younger children enough for her to send her children to private schools?

I know exactly what you mean; I think a lot of very aspirational people send their children to private schools, and place an unhealthy interest on material possessions. However, you should choose the school based on what you think is best in terms of education and opportunities, and teach your child yourself about values, money etc.

I won a place at a private school, but refused to go because we didn't have much money and I didn't want to be the only one without a swimming pool/yacht/several cars etc. I'm glad I didn't go because I got a good education through the state system and have friends from different social groups, which wouldn't have happened at the posh private I'm sure.

I work in a v expensive posh school but was state educated and have worked in rough-as-all-get-out comps in London. The kids here don't discuss wealth or material goods very much and any bragging is quickly squashed by their peers. It's not cool to be loaded and make a big deal about it, is the general consensus. Some of the kids in the comps were far more overtly materialistic.
Having said that, I could send my son here and am in two minds about it as I'm worried that he won't be properly prepared for the real world.

seeker, I'm not a socialist. People are free to seek higher paid work or lower paid work but it is not a moral right that I am on the planet to ensure everyone has equal amounts of income or similarly pretty children or similarly bright children. People differ

If you want chidlren prepared for careers where they earn a lot of and have fun I would suggest that is the real world and they learn a huge lot more about that real world at a good private school than a local comp.

Goldenbear, just because your brother has a comprehensive education and is a partner in a law firm does not mean that contacts do not get you anywhere any more.

What you seem unable to understand is that someone like your brother, who has achieved a good education in spite of where he went to school, will not be prohibited from getting a good position in a good company, but please, do not delude yourself that this means that contacts no longer matter. If you had two candidates with equal education and personality and one has contacts - who do you think is more likely to get the job?

I bet if you asked your brother he would tell you that the majority of the people he works with are privately educated in either day schools or boarding schools. That is a fact.

Gosh, I am not materialistic at all. I don't buy stuff and I find aspects of my life such as enjoying my work, children, hobbies is a huge part of my life as is exercise and sleep. Most of us want the lives of our children to be reasonable and most woudl probably prefer our children get reasonably paid jobs rather than eking out money on the breadline or hoping to marry someone who will keep them.

Xenia you do realise there is whole world out there between the careers where you 'earn a lot' and jobs where you are 'eking (?) out money on the breadline' don't you? For some life's not all about passing the next selection process be that for a school, University or a job!

All things being equal you could argue the children who attend these schools are 'very clever' but all things are not equal because fees have to be paid. It therefore can only be argued that the children who pass these selection processes are cleverer than those who applied. It cannot be argued that they're the cleverest children within the locality. It is not a child's fault that they do not have access to these schools - there are clever children that are just as bright, brighter even whose parents are not proactive in applying for bursaries and these schools will never know of them, other children will not have to compete with them at the selection process.

ShShShSh, if you had bothered to read all my comments on this thread you would know that I did not say contacts don't count for anything anymore, I said that contacts are not everything, things have changed and continue to do so. The social hierarchies that reinforced old boy networks are being disbanded gradually and performance is often the deciding factor- how much business you can bring to the firm and consequently much money you can generate.

Just to clarify my DB didn't get where he is 'in spite' of the school he went to, he had some very good 'A' level teachers. He was at school with a variety of people. Some were the children of the MPs, others came from the Ferrier Estate- very deprived council estate. The school was huge so you had different pockets of people within the school . The pupils weren't all thugs.

The fact that my DB has got to this position kind of answers your question. His law firm would choose the best person for the job, the person who could yield them the most money and this is what they did when they chose him. So this doesn't really support your theory that they would choose the person they went to school with?

He works for an American firm so the gentlemenly capitalism (which incidentally has died a death anyway) is not as prevalent.

Lots of state school educated people in the top five City law firm I worked in. Very international so "contacts" and old school snobbery didnt carry much weight as people from all over the world not familiar with the nuances of the British education system.

Much hand wringing amongst my parents friends about the huge sums they wasted in private school fees when they compare what their privately educated children are doing in adulthood and what the state school educated children of their peers are doing...

If you want chidlren prepared for careers where they earn a lot of and have fun I would suggest that is the real world and they learn a huge lot more about that real world at a good private school than a local comp Xenia, do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds? LOL

About as ridiculous as claiming a complete lack of materialism while boasting of one's ownership of an island at every opportunity.

Much of this debate can be summed up as:

'I send my children to state school and am smug that my children are getting a fantastic education without me having to spend a fortune on school fees'

'I send my children to private school and am smug that my children are getting a better education than in state school because I pay school fees.

I can't believe the amount of rubbish and bigotry being spouted by both sides of the argument on this thread.

A private education does not turn a child into a super intelligent,snobby, brat who is guaranteed a high flying job in the city and anyone who presumes that is a fool, old school network or not.

Going to a comp does not Necessarily make them a thick chav, or stunt an otherwise intelligent, but "got in with the wrong crowd" or "wasn't given the opportunities because they didn't have the contacts".

There are successes and failures in both groups and one example doesn't prove the rule. Having had 3 children go through state, state/ private, private education respectively, I have been in every situation.

Most people do not have the option of private, lots would not want it anyway, either because state education is sufficiently good, political beliefs, or because of extreme examples of snobbery on here. Equally those with children in failing schools but have no option of doing anything about it are probably horrified at the suggestion that they should just go out and earn more money because it really isn't that easy.

Having contacts, works in all walks of life, whether old boys network or Dads mate down the pub, it is not the exclusive domain of the privately educated, just that there are extreme examples being bandied about.

And anyone else who sneers at the "rich but thick" element (and here, strangely the worst offenders are those on the private side) why should my average child, who wouldn't pass 11+ in a million years, not be in private education? Will it make her intelligent? No. Are we wasting our money? No. She is in a nice environment, in a class of 11, she is happy. She is not a brat. Is it culturally diverse? Yes. There is a huge mix of wealthy/ middle class/ working class and she attends clubs with some of the most deprived children in our area, so gets a proper mix of privilege and real world.

If you are lucky enough to have choices, you make them accordingly. You do your best for your child, at that time. We have been able to make choices with 2 of our DC, we did not have that luxury with our first, much older, DC and state education failed him. When your only option is a failing comp, that gets locked down because of gang warfare between rival schools, drug culture and knife crime, it is totally demoralising. He has though, come through it a nice, well mannered boy who is doing very well for himself. No one could convince me that I have not made the right decision to not allow my other DC to experience that though, just because for them, I had the option to do something about it.

Rant over. Flame away.

I am quite relaxed about it all. The thread shows prviate school parents happy with their choices and state too. So there's no problem. It's a free country. We get choice, even choice over whether to pick a career where you earn £20k or become a housewife earning nothing or chooce careers where pay is higher.

As I posted I think above there are some links in some professions that suggest when picking candidates if you have 100 who are brilliant (as you often do) some employers might pick those with accents which fit in (the class issue) and today you do tend to have 5x the number you need at least of people with almost perfect CVs so it's not as if you are choosing the thick one who went to your school over the brilliant one from the comp = instead you rae choosing between two brilliant ones (and some people in comps have posh accents and some in private schools don't - so you cannot even generalise over that). Half the children at Oxbridge are frmo state schools although mostly state grammars.

I certainly don';t have a problem with the less bright child going to private school at all - the added value can be very good.

I am not quite sure what the GB point is. If you take an area with no grammar schools such as Newcastle or my London borough. The parents who can rustle up £10k for Haberdashers juniors or RGS in Newcastle yes they are the rarer few but even so as there are many applicants per place - sometimes 5 per place you are still taking the bightest and most parents who could afford to pay cannot get their child in. The middle eastern who has given £2.5m to Durham university where his son goes presumably could not buy a place and his son is certainly not at Oxford. So these schools and state selectives are reasonably comparable. I don't think there is a problem - parents happy not to pay fees are pleased and parents who pay fees either for very slective or non selective schools seem largely pleased so we can all be happy.

( I don't show off about my island by the way - most people I know don't even know I have it and they cost less than a spanish flat anyway so it's not any kind of really expensive thing really but fun).

Well no not really suebfg, much of the thread has been a demonstration of some utter snobbishness and misguided beliefs that have been presented as fact.

It is not snobbishness to point out that the 8% at private schools get 50% of Oxbridge places are 73% of judges etc etc etc etc It is fact. It is not snobbishness to show surveys which illustrate class and accent (as well as good looks and height) has an impact on earnings. However I certainly agree that the City of London has a lot of good people who went to state schools. In the end if you are excellent at what you do and work very hard and love it that tends to show through. If you only got a job through a contact (which is pretty rare - I have never managed it for a child anyway) if that child is useless they dont' do well.

However the Outliers bookd did show that if you take 100 applying for one plaec at Harvard who are all about the same and that 1 in a hundred got lukcy then that person does well but any of the other 99 given that place there woudl do well too. Thus is we can ensure our particular child on that day does well in that interview or more to the point that they do or whatever it might be that we can do to improve their chance - even ensuring at 7 they know their tables - then most loving parents do that. That can equally be applied to paying for a good school or moving to be near a better school as anything else.

Having worked with private school folk,they are no brighter than I am
and I went to scumbag school
they do however have school, familial connections.whereas I have none.hey ho

Goldenbear, I think much of the thread has been a demonstration of prejudice and I think that works both ways.

private school threads always elicit rabid prejudiced posts
and stereotypical tales of horahs
and counter stereotypical tales if neds and ne'er do wells at state school

Actually, Xenia wrote some very offensive and ignorant posts which included comments about mixing with those of low IQ at comps, being able to talk to your cleaner, mixing with thickos at the comps. I think it is important to highlight when someone is being offensive.

Equally, she seems to think certain schools are educating the cleverest people in the land. This is inaccurate as the initial part of the selection process is charging for an education. That is a lot of people already removed from the selection process. Within that group of people there must be very clever individuals. Those who can afford to pay will never have to compete for a place against this large group of people. The children who end with places at these schools are bright but it can not be said with absolute conviction that they're the top 5% in the country or whatever as they're chosen from a relatively small pool to begin with, owing to the fact that it is a fee paying school.

I have no particularly prejudices about people who attend private school , I went to one until I was 11 but it is a sheltered existence. I attended my local brownies, had friends that didn't go to my school but it is not enough to lessen your naivety in the world. It was like living out a Malory Towers book, when I went to state secondary school it was more like Grange Hill, it was not a good mix and IMO that isn't good preparation for life as whether you like it or not Xenia you will have to relate to a range of people as an adult!

Even if you aren't prejudiced Goldenbear, there are plenty who are.

Totally new to this thread, but have been glancing through it out of interest. It strikes me as strange that the whole premise of the thread is about not wanting your children to be materialistic/greedy, but at the same time everyone's arguing about the best way of ensuring that your child lands a top job in a law firm/bank etc etc. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with working somewhere like that, but it's surely a little materialistic/snobby to assume that your child is going to want to be a barrister rather than, say, a farmer or a social worker or a nurse or whatever?

I do not agree ai wrote anything offensive. I try always to be polite to everyone. I do believe in selective education and that bright children b enefit in being in schools with other bright children (and indeed comps believes that too as most set so people can hardly object to selection can they?).

Being able to talk to all kind osf people - my comment there was because someone had wrongly suggested going to a comp helps you mix better with all people. I said it was the opposite - that good private schools are better at ensuring you can mix with all kinds of people. People may disagree but my comments are not offensive.

In terms of careers plentyo f the private boarding schools for the not so bright have always assumed the children will go into farming surely? YOu manage the estates that you have if you have them and you go to Cirencester Agricultural college etc etc Most of us don't want to determine what our children do - we just want them to know the consequences of certain options - leading female surgeon probably means fun life, lots of money. Bog standard nurse means do not need anything liek the exam grades as the surgeon and you will never have much money. As long as children know that they can choose.

I would hope all good schools give children accurate information about careers and do not dampen down the expectations of the brightest. Let them know they can be whatever they choose.

"I do not agree ai wrote anything offensive"

To paraphrase- you wouldn't, would you?