To think this 'Austerity Day' is one of the most patronising things I've ever seen?

[NoHunsHereHun]

St Paul's Girls school having to eat baked potatoes and fresh fruit for lunch. For a day. I mean FFS, there are SO many better ways to help. Volunteering at a food bank for one.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-44578499

user, I am not being obtuse. I just think that your line of thinking is prejudiced and incorrect. If these children are going to the top US unis to be educated, they will be receiving liberal arts degrees at bastions of liberal thought. In order to graduate, they will have to take courses in a variety of disciplines and will not obtain a good grade without doing some work - including participating in class. They will be living for some, if not all, of their time with a mixture of people and be hearing their voices on campus. Education has been proved to be a liberalising force, and being educated in these institutions, being brainwashed according to some Trumpites, would expose them to many left leaning voices. If anything, these institutions emphasise the importance of giving back to their students.

You are also prejudiced by their wealth. As if it will necessarily mean that they will be closed minded and selfish. History shows us that, ironically, some of the most radical people came from wealthy backgrounds - Lenin, Mao, Castro all came from wealthy families. Look at the scope and impact of the philanthropy of the Gates Foundations, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros and Warren Buffet.

Then our politics are very different indeed, Mominatrix. I am not prejudiced by wealth - I live in what could only be described as one of the wealthiest places on earth. I am up close to extreme wealth every single day and I know how the very wealthy and privileged (don’t) think. And I find it terrifying.

I think we all agree that education tends to be good for people and opens them to new ideas and different views. We have a relatively meritocratic university entrance system (and St Paul's, Henrietta Barnett and all the rest entrance system for schools) where it is not easy in the UK to "buy" a place. The Beckhams are a good example - presumably children not that bright and did not get into certain schools I think the parents had wanted for them although I am sure they will do well elsewhere. It is certainly by no means disaster if children don't go where a parent wants - in fact it is best the teenager decides. It is a bit late at 18 to make massive allowances for people on university entrance if they are so behind that will have a very bad impact on them whereas if they are just a bit below because of huge disadvantage (although that is hard to define of course - the abusive drunken rowing parents who cane them who live in a castle can as much be disadvantage as anything) and will easily soar once there then no one objects to that. Even by 3 children in some homes have many fewer words that they know that they may never catch up - hence why early years day nurseries are good for the disadvantaged.

Xenia - while I believe that the UK university entrance system tries hard to be meritocratic - it is certainly a great deal more meritocratic than entrance to the better US universities - there is still quite a lot of naivety within top universities about the real barriers to success. Children who have never been exposed to the Socratic method amd have grown up within didactic (at best) educational environments are hard pressed to perform at interview.

@BishopstonFaffing It sounds like that was handled really badly (praising family in the newsletter for living below the line - £1 food budget pp pd). Our family have done that a couple of times, but we've done it in combination with donating the money we would have spent to the food bank and also doing food bank collections (which we do at other times anyway). I've wondered if it was the right thing to do. I can totally understand that it could be construed as patronising and the effect of living like that for a week in a comfortable home is nothing like the reality of living like that day to day. We're not quite St Pauls Girls parents, but my kids do live in a privileged environment and I felt on balance that "living below the line" was a good way to discuss with my very small children issues about poverty and privilege. I really don't know where I stand on this. The St Paul's lunch seems really misjudged but possibly slightly better than the school not focussing on the issue at all?

Not all universities have interviews. I don't tihnk any of my 5 have had a single interview (except one at a London one) - none tried oxbridge so everything was based on the exam results and UCAS forms. However I certainly agree that state schools should teach children better diction, how to speak in a different accent with different types of people, how to hold down a good argument and all the rest - not something you need any money for. you can plonk yourself down in front of youtube on your phone or at the local library and change how you speak for a start.

St Paul's ( or any other independent) is not meritocratic, in 99% of cases unless you have a cheque book that can cover the majority if not all of the fees you are not getting in.

"However I certainly agree that state schools should teach children better diction, how to speak in a different accent with different types of people, how to hold down a good argument and all the rest - not something you need any money for."

What with everything else they have to teach?

Because accent discrimination isn't the same as class discrimination? Its just an easy way of weeding out "the wrong sort".

The issue isn’t just diction or accent, Xenia, although being articulate matters. It is how to engage in a conversation with someone who knows far more than you do and will ask you questions to enable you to tease out answers and draw conclusions, thus increasing your own understanding.

Austerity day here child, have this filling and nutritious lunch!

They would have done better to have a menu of Lunch: here's a slice of cheap white bread, some cheap spread and a teaspoon of cheap jam - and just so you know, when 6.30 rolls round, there'll be nothing left in the house for tea.

Yes, the naivety is flabbergasting.

There is a huge difference between "being articulate (in terms of vocabulary, sentence structure etc.)" vs. "speaking in a particular type of accent."

Xenia, do you discriminate against people with particular types of accent?

It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that even state grammar schools like Henrietta Barnett are 'relatively metocratic'. The entrance tests consist of verbal and non-verbal reasoning of very specific types. It's incongruous that a child from a poorer background who has had no tutoring will stand a chance against a child who has had 2+ years of intensive tutoring in just those subjects.

You just have to cycle around NW London these days and see the proliferation of '11+ Tutorial Centres' to understand that the 11+ system is the opposite of meritocratic.