Employers hate private schools?

[5329871e]

In the fortunate position of choosing between one of the best private schools in the country, vs one of the best non-selective state schools in the country. Private school is affordable with sacrifices, which we’re happy to make, and it has all the expected advantages of better funding and selective intake, but the state school is also lovely.

To avoid this thread being bogged down by all the nuances of our choice, I’ll keep the question simple:

DH is convinced that employers dislike privately educated applicants. All things being equal, they’ll pick the state educated person. In other words, job applicants are disadvantaged by a private education.

Is this true? If so, how much better does a privately educated applicant have to be, for you to pick them?

It's not Peter Symonds is it? It's huge so statistically sends large numbers to uni.

Of course it's not true. "Employer's" are not a homogenous mass for a start. But also, how do they even know what school you went to? Mine isn't on my CV, I can barely remember the name of it myself.
And even if it was on there, unless it's very local, or Eton, I bet most "employers" wouldn't know what type of school it was anyway.

I went to comprehensive secondary, and v posh private college. Neither of these things has ever come up at work (well, with the exception of jobs immediately after college where people specifically employed people from that college, but that's the opposite of what you're saying anyway).

Yes I suppose a super selective school or a very rare one in Cambridge might send that many to oxbridge, or might have better exam results than Eton. Hardly representative of the average state school though.

Hopefully the poster will mention as I’m genuinely interested to know. If there’s a state school out there with better results than Eton sending 41 kids a year to oxbridge house prices in the area must be through the roof! If not please save me a place!

Increasingly big employers like big accountancy and law firms are trying to go ‘blind’ and not consider school. It helps to redress balance.

But private kids always can pull on a network. I’ve seen some shit people get amazing jobs due to their parents.

Private school creates great self confidence and presentation which puts kids ahead.

But we took ours out of private primary and into regular secondary and she is thriving. The entitlement is crazy, and kids get a skewed idea of real life. Better chance of uni acceptance as well.

That said, if the high school was awful we would have stuck it out in private, or moved house.

@Kanaloa

I’d also be interested to know which state school send 41 kids to oxbridge in a single year. That’s a huge amount to send to oxbridge. Although if they have grades that are superior to Eton I’m not too shocked!

Could it be this one?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/oxford-cambridge-oxbridge-london-eton-b949961.html%3famp

Very possibly! Looks like it’s very selective though and extremely long hours/travel etc. So not really representative of the average state school. So again, don’t think op has much to worry about with her child possibly missing out on a place due to private school discrimination!

They prefer public schools first
Then private dependent upon results - not just any old private
I think grammars equal private
State - dependent upon reputation

However, if your child is bright and you pay for private tuition then your kid will do well even if he goes to a crap school.
Tutor him yourself.

To give you an example 30 minority kids out of a year of 300 where only one parent could speak English are now all in good professions, accountant, architect, doctor, banker, engineer.

We went to a crap comp full of racists majority kids from broken families with no interest in education and racist teachers that did not want to help the minority kids.
The kids did well because their parents tend to be good at mathematics and private tutors for the rest.

I want to school in the 90's maybe things have changed now.

However, my sibling is much younger and went to Oxbridge. Same crap comp as me but had a private tutor plus parental help.
School took the credit of course when it came to the local paper

Another case of save your money.

I know someone that earns very little and her and her husband sent their kids to private school.
Kids are average, waste of money.
The parents now realise and wished they saved their money.

16:15Rrrob
Are the disadvantaged applicants good though?

Eton etc are public schools not private.
They are considered crème de la crème.

16:27feyzer

The thing is the really good employers, the ones where you get a golden handshake wait for you after graduation and knab you before your job search has begun.
Then it's the normal graduate jobs that everyone applies for.
Depends on OP's ambitions for her kids or their own dreams..

However, top employers still prefer public over private regardless of the origins.

So it doesn't serve this conversation to lump them together.

I'm my working class city there were 2 private schools, one was considered good the other a joke.
Nearby by Rugby the public school was out of reach for the ones sending their kids to the private fee paying.
They aren't the same.

I went to a state, a rubbish one so I'm not biased.

Also, grammars are considered better than most privates.

But it's the uni that really matters, I guess.

Your DH is being quite insulting to the talented state educated people working in great jobs. His implication is that they got a leg up by dint of private applicants being disadvantaged. An implication which is so very wrong. That's why I called him daft. A fairly soft insult in comparison I think.

@PelvicFloorTrauma... the 6% in 20% statistic that you mention needs a closer look... between the ages of sixteen and eighteen the total number of students in private school does not change significantly, this 20% number comes from a reducing denominator which excludes state educated students who transfer to vocational courses.

It is disingenuous to imply that that the 20% number that should be used.

I do not think they discriminate based on this. However, the social resentment for privately educated children in this country is real.

Not to my knowledge. We don’t care who we hire - as long as they’re educated enough to do the job. Do you genuinely believe that Op?

The outstanding state school isn’t a super selective grammar, it’s a very “normal” state school that had a good reputation locally and some people move into the catchment for that purpose.

The private school isn’t a household name, but it’s top 20 in the UK. I hadn’t heard of it until I started researching schools.

Thanks again for the replies in the meantime - once again a big mix of opinions and experiences!

She would be seen as more privileged than a comp educated child and less privileged than a privately educated child, based on academics alone (simplifying - it takes actual data from schools and is essentially looking for outperformance). The other factors you describe would also be taken account of in the screening using non-academic data (disability, neurodiversity etc) where available or a more subjective lens where not. In interview, we actually ask questions about character and motivations, more than experience - again, because those in more privileged positions can have had access to work experience that is directly relevant, whereas what we actually care about is their genuine interest in/knowledge of the work and what it entails, and what will motivate them (their development, working as part of a team etc v pursuing financial reward and promotion).

@crazycrochetlady

Your DH is being quite insulting to the talented state educated people working in great jobs. His implication is that they got a leg up by dint of private applicants being disadvantaged. An implication which is so very wrong. That's why I called him daft. A fairly soft insult in comparison I think.

That’s over sensitive.

He’s a talented state educated person, in fact, who performed over the odds.

As I keep explaining, we’re not pro private sector, and we’re not moaning about anything. We’re right at the start of the decision process and want to know what the best choice is for our kids.

@SmaugMum sorry the above post was a reply for you

@5329871e The implication remains. I don't particularly care because me and mine are out the other end.
It's a common misconception though, parroted to the private parents I know, who tell me their schools tell their children that they are disadvantaged when it comes to places at top universities. I think it's a case of news management myself - preparing those who don't get in by implying its the fault of the system. My friends are lovely, but I do have to correct them!
Just choose the school you think will be right and try not to second guess on the basis of myth and speculation, and good luck to your DC in securing those great future jobs.

I doubt my employer even knows I went to a private school. Honestly though if you have a good state school locally I wouldn't bother with private. I went to one and although I loved my time at school, I wouldn't say I have done any better than my non privately educated friends.

Save the money to help them get on the housing ladder, will be much more beneficial long term.

Private schools to me are about the parents’ decisions, not the candidate’s. The fact that this decision is unethical in my opinion has no bearing on whether I would hire you.