Before you send your kids to public school ...

[pontypridd]

Think about what sort of person you are shaping for this world.

Under this leadership of lies the youth of today will learn that to survive they must shun the truth.

Public speaking and leadership skills are toxic if they lead to the likes of Rees Mogg, Johnson, Cummings and Gove etc

Power needs to removed from these poisonous public school places.

If the applications are blind how would they ensure a big majority of state school educated students? What would the interview be replaced with? Maybe they could go back to the former system of an entrance exam

Yes, entrance exams - already used by Oxford, Cambridge, med schools and I think a few others. Exam results, personal statement - all the things that most universities currently use. You could still have contextual offers for children from deprived postcodes. UCAS could have a system that adjusted offers automatically for those entitled to contextual offers. I think you would ensure a big majority of state school students by taking away the biases that make this impossible at the moment - interviews, universities knowing school details and probably also name, address and age. I think there is already work happening in universities and other organisations (Engineering Development Trust and Sutton Trust for example) to encourage under-represented groups to apply for courses, whether that's girls going into STEM, working class and black students applying to top universities, etc. More of that is needed. Schools without a history of getting students into Oxbridge and Russell Group should also get a lot of support with encouraging and mentoring students, and doing references and personal statements.

DH went to private school (on a full scholarship). He also went to Oxford on a scholarship.

He's worked his guts out, set up his own company and provides employment to around 100 other people.

He is neither poisonous or a shunner of the truth and the same can be said of his friends.

I went to a state school and I think I'm a fairly nice and normal person too!!

I'm not sure what planet you're on OP. If I said "think hard before you send your child to state school because they are all knife wielding idiots who can barely string a sentence together and will spend the rest of their lives on benefits" you'd rightly be utterly outraged.

Yes, it may be that those who voted for BJ are happy with him. But the original premise of the thread was 'think twice before sending your child to public school lest we end up with twats like BJ running the country'. My point was that even if public schools do churn out entitled twats (which I take issue with), we can only end up with them running the country if people vote them in.

My point was that even if public schools do churn out entitled twats (which I take issue with), we can only end up with them running the country if people vote them in

But the public doesn't select the candidates or, in the Tory Party, have any say in the leadership. So it's a bit disingenuous to blame the voters for voting one of only two possible prime ministers they were offered, both of whom were privately educated. There's a whole other debate about why floating voters chose Johnson over Corbyn, but if we do have a government of entitled twats, isn't that the fault of the party that selected those candidates and that leader, rather than the public who made a choice between very limited options?

This is one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen.

True. But they will have been chosen partly because their parties thought they would appeal to voters and could win an election. Which in BJ's case turned out to be true. If his rhetoric and persona didn't have popular appeal then he wouldn't have got very far. And it's not as simple as like voting for like. Huge numbers in traditional Labour heartlands voted for Boris (because of Brexit of course, but still because of what Boris said about Brexit). I'm a southerner whose children are privately educated but I wouldn't vote for Boris without a literal gun to my head. There are lots of reasons for all of this of course, but I think it's pretty simplistic for the OP (who has vanished, incidentally) to effectively blame Eton for the fact that BJ is PM, without even referring to the democratic process that had to happen first to enable that to occur.

I mostly agree with that goldcone. I think it's a really interesting debate. Similar to Trump in the US, Boris seems to be seen as an anti-establishment figure by many (weirdly, given his background). I think a lot of people who voted for him feel like he's sticking two fingers up at authority, so I guess he was a clever choice, who could somehow get people to feel that a very privileged man is on the side of those who feel they've been ignored by their traditional party.

Boris seems to be seen as an anti-establishment figure by many (weirdly, given his background).

Why ‘weirdly’? Do you think all public school educated people are pro establishment?
Also what is the ‘establishment’ now? When New Labour were in power for 13 years surely they had become the establishment?

I went to public school, associate with lots of ex public school pupils and my job sees me in some contact with a few public schools/top tier independent schools.

If you actually bother to look, there is no defining public school pupil or parent. There are, unfortunately, people who fit the "stereotype" but they're often merely tolerated by peers. Most of them out grow it and grow into perfectly nice people. There are also people at public schools who fit plenty of other sterotypes, too - again, perfectly nice people.

People from my year and the years above and below at school are: opera singers, professional violinists, music producers, actors, business owners, chefs, gardeners, primary school teachers, secondary school teachers, professional rugby players, air hostesses, authors, officers in the military, PRs, PTs, "something in telecoms", doctors, nurses, estate agents, guitarists in an up & coming death metal band, civil servants and council workers, computer games designers, it technicians, accountants, international security consultants, semi pro skiers, "something in fashion", interior designers, lawyers, environmental science phd student cum environmental activists, anarchist punk rockets cum zoology phd students and a professional fundraiser. Oh- and a police man.

Huge cross section of society, most of our jobs either give something to society or let us explore our talents and passions and perhaps give something back that way.

I don’t think it’s at all controversial to see an Eton-educated Conservative politician as part of The Establishment. No, of course I don’t think all public school educated people are pro-establishment. Tony Blair I’d say is Establishment too. But Johnson seems to have little interest in anyone outside of his own elite circle, so it does seem odd that people from a completely different sphere of life believe he’s batting for them.

If you actually bother to look, there is no defining public school pupil or parent. There are, unfortunately, people who fit the "stereotype" but they're often merely tolerated by peers. Most of them out grow it and grow into perfectly nice people. There are also people at public schools who fit plenty of other sterotypes, too - again, perfectly nice people

I'm not sure what stereotype you mean? I'm not from that world, I went to a state comp, but I have 'bothered to look' at the stats for different universities and professions, and I also have visited some public schools for work reasons, and know a lot of people who went to public schools, including a few current pupils.

If I was looking for common characteristics I'd say ex-public schoolboys tend to be very articulate with extremely good social skills, and are confident bordering on arrogant about their ability and knowledge. I've met Boris & know a couple of people who have known him through work, and I believe he is very much like this. I think the social skills and bullet-proof confidence are cultivated by public schools, but, as in any group, some will be altruistic, honest, capable, others will be incompetent, self-serving and dishonest, most probably in the middle somewhere. But great confidence is a problem when people are unaware of their own shortcomings, and it's dangerous if those people are in positions of power. I think that is maybe what the OP was getting at.

The other big problem I've seen in my industry is that the public school network throws up huge opportunities through extensive contacts, internships, people in powerful positions preferring (maybe unconsciously) to give jobs to people like themselves. In many jobs, including ones on your list, there is an over-representation of people who were privately educated. That's sad for able state school kids who can't break into those professions, but it's even sadder for the UK, economically and socially, if we aren't drawing on the full pool of available talent because of networking by people who went to a small number of schools.

I don't think it's fair to demonise the people who went to public schools as if they are training grounds for dishonesty and evil. That's obviously nonsense, but I do think a democratic country should be concerned if there are institutions which skew power and influence, sometimes allowing mediocrity to flourish.

I agree with you about Eton and Westminster but I think the other schools aren’t so bad. Maybe we shouldn’t be allowed another prime minister from Eton until we’ve had at least 30 from other schools? Might balance things out a bit more!

Such a boring topic. Yes all private schools are in the business of raising mini Rees Moggs. 🙄 That's exactly what we're after.

@barkingmadmother I find it interesting. I tend to avoid threads on topics I'm bored by.

@Conkergame I seriously wish that were possible. I find it staggering that 20 of our 55 PMs went to Eton, including 5 of the 15 post-1945 PMs, 2 out of 5 so far this century. Only 9 went to state or non-fee paying schools.

Maybe we shouldn’t be allowed another prime minister from Eton

Conker why just Eton? There are other schools that are just as exclusive.
Also how would it work? Would an act of Parliament be passed banning Old Etonians from being PM?

I don't think Conker was seriously suggesting this would be possible. Why just Eton? Because no other school has been as dominant in British politics or produced more than one postwar Prime Minister.

The real reason that we have so few state educated senior politicians now is because the grammar schools were closed in the 1970s. Able children who would once have been selected at 11+ for an academic education and with a shot at Oxbridge, lost that route out and up from their humble origins.

I think Oxbridge has more to do with political success than the school a person attends. Very selective education systems skim and filter talent upwards at every pass, so organisations seeking out the most able concentrate their search on the elite institutions. If you want to work for the BBC as a journalist, a media degree from a second-rate uni is not going to take you close. Private schools are paid to nurture and celebrate any tiny talent in every single pupil. Which creates confidence.

Hmmm - tiny talent. I love that.

The real reason that we have so few state educated senior politicians now is because the grammar schools were closed in the 1970s. Able children who would once have been selected at 11+ for an academic education and with a shot at Oxbridge, lost that route out and up from their humble origins

Two responses to that:

There are still 163 grammar schools in the UK, so if you were right we might expect to see a bigger representation from those schools among high ranking politicians.

The top slice of kids who would have passed the 11+ still exist. If you compare like with like, say an area where the top 20% go to grammar, compared with the top 20% of students from a comprehensive area, the comps tend to outperform the grammars. The most able kids are still doing well in comps, but progress hasn't been made on equalising entry to top unis and professions. See my previous posts about blind applications - yes, we do need to put pressure on Oxbridge and other institutions to reform their entry and application processes.

You are right that public schools nurture tiny talent, but they can't make mediocre brains into geniuses. They are doing a good service to those who pay for them, but their disproportionate power is damaging to the UK.

I went to private school and I’m nice. My parents went to private school and they’re (were in my dad’s case nice. We are all left wing. I have worked for a long time in state education as did my mum.

I don’t think demonising public schools is fair or right. We need to improve how state schools are run and funded. Maybe we can encourage partnerships with grammar and public schools to support this? I don’t know, I’m not a politician. I don’t even think every conservative MP is evil or wrong. I’m sure some of them disagree with Johnson, Mogg and co.

At the end of the day people voted for the current government. I’m not sure the fact that Johnson being an Etonian is the reason he’s an out of touch prat.

There's more to it than academic attainment, even if you apply to Oxford with top marks in 11 GCSEs and 4 A levels, chances are they also want some evidence of extra curricular activities/sports/volunteering etc. My friend is exceptionally academic, and she didn't even get to interview. I know many don't, but I guess working in Tesco (or any other supermarket) to help your mum pay the bills, not being able to afford to play a sport beyond PE lessons isn't as appealing as Captain of the netball team at county level, gap year volunteering abroad etc.

Ps agree though that going to one doesn't make you a nasty person, or selfish, or entitled. Like anywhere, it depends, and it's a bit chicken and egg- do the schools foster that, or are people who are able to access it likely to have been brought up in that environment where it's the way it is.

You are right that public schools nurture tiny talent, but they can't make mediocre brains into geniuses. They are doing a good service to those who pay for them, but their disproportionate power is damaging to the UK.

I like this reply.

Tarantulala I think you're right, but that's a much wider wealth argument than state vs private. Most of the MC kids around here do loads of extra-curricular stuff regardless of whether they go to private schools or not. They do stuff at school and/or they pay to do lots of sport, music, drama etc privately outside of school. None of them will have any shortage of things to put on a UCAS form.

@Tarantulala well if it's Oxbridge you're after in fact extra curricular doesn't really count, unless it's directly subject related. They are all about the subject and the keenness and potential to study it. DS made the briefest of passing mentions about his other attainments and focussed on what he'd read and what made him tick academically.
Maybe for other Russell Group and Medical school it matters more