If you didn’t go to a private school, what do you think about those who did?

[hanginds]

Do you feel they had an unfair advantage? Do you care? Do you think they don’t know about the real world?

I really struggle to connect with colleagues who were privately educated as they seem almost entitled to the job. They seem fearless about finding alternative work if needs be, yet I just don’t have that confidence. I assume it’s their background as it’s the only difference between us in the academic/work context.

@kefir were allowed to share our own view online, on SN, etc just as long as we make it clear that our views are our own, and that they don’t bring the company into disrepute.

So if my view is, I’d rather hire someone into my team with work experience and a lower class degree than someone with a 1st with ZERO work experience the. That’s fine. I can have that view, express that view.

Also - and perhaps you’re not aware- this forum is anonymous!

What I mean is that we didn't go into it thinking "ooh goody by paying xx amount of money per year we are buying our DD a better set of GCSE results/uni/job etc". We based our decision on her abilities + interests Vs local state offer.
Of course smaller class sizes and a calmer, more focused learning environment where teachers aren't constantly dealing with low level disruptions will provide an advantage however the issue is that this environment doesn't exist in state schools. All children should be able to learn safely without fear of being bullied if they work hard, safe in the classroom with appropriate teacher:pupil rates and a challenging, stimulating curriculum however reality is that isn't available in our local state offering.

All my private school friends had part time jobs through a-levels and uni. Just like me and all of my state school friends. Then again, none of them went to Eton or Winchester or any private schools of that ilk and most had parents in jobs like teaching/middle management so they needed to work to fund their social lives etc.

But it has to be the right kind of work experience, right? A summer interning with a law firm is bad, but Macdonalds is good? Did I get that right?

It sort of does bring your company into disrepute, as you've made it very clear that you let your own bias affect your decision making and you spend a good part of the day on mumsnet

‘But it has to be the right kind of work experience, right? A summer interning with a law firm is bad, but Macdonalds is good? Did I get that right’

if I was hiring a position for a lawyer that work experience would be perfect! But we’re not a law firm. So moot point.
If you’re genuinely being dense, or perhaps just snobby, about why working in Fast food service or any other typical student job might be seen as a positive to an employer then there’s not much I can say to change your mind.

is there probably a general perception that the 6% or so of children in private education in this country are privileged? Yes
is that a fair perception? Yes
Should that bother the parents who are paying for that privilege? That’s up to them.

So if my view is, I’d rather hire someone into my team with work experience and a lower class degree than someone with a 1st with ZERO work experience the. That’s fine. I can have that view, express that view.

Of course you can express that view. However there’s a simple solution to your dislike of privately educated applicants: simply tell HR not to put any forward for interviews.
By interviewing people you’ve got no intention of hiring is wasting everyone’s time including that of the company you work for and which pays you a wage putting you in the top 1% of earners.

If you’re genuinely being dense, or perhaps just snobby, about why working in Fast food service or any other typical student job might be seen as a positive to an employer then there’s not much I can say to change your mind

No, you were the one who said you judged candidates by where they worked. My dcs would blow your mind, as they've worked in chain cafes since leaving their - prestigious - private school, during university and in the holidays.

So I presume you also don’t want children from grammars or other selective schools as they have of course also had an advantage in their education. They won’t have had to have worked nearly as hard as someone in a non selective setting. Or is it just money you think changes peoples work ethic?

Everyone wants to do the best they can for their own family.

Different people have a different understanding of what that looks like. For us 'best' included security. We couldn't be sure of being able to afford school fees into the future so we didn't take that risk.

I find myself feeling sorry for families which are beggaring themselves to afford school fees which only ever go up ahead of inflation. A second hand uniform shop is not going to make much difference when parents have to find £5k plus per term per child.

Any school that’s not private is considered state. And, even with grammar thrown in - a small proportion- we’d be looking for kids from that background over private as part of DE&I.

So you don’t have any problem at all with any kind of selection other than financial and only then in the form of school fees.

Gosh. That sounds more than just your opinion. That sounds like company policy. Interesting.

Oh absolutely my children are privileged. They’re privileged to have involved parents who are able and willing to spend time with them helping with their homework. They’re privileged that we have enough money to pay for their extra curricular activities such as gymnastics, ballet and music lessons. They’re privileged that we’re able to provide them with cultural capital and take them to the theatre/museums etc. They're lucky that, for example, when they studied Vikings at school we were able to take them to the Jorvik Viking centre in York. They're privileged that we are able to take them on holiday and weekends away. All those things are things that many children in the U.K. sadly don’t have access to. As you and your husband are in the top 1% of earners I imagine you do many of those things for your children to. So how much of an ‘advantage’ is it acceptable to pay for?

Yes - with a combined take home of 30k a month (average pay of top 1% is 14,662 a month) I should think there's quite a lot of privilege going on somewhere.

The biggest privilege for DCs is parents who have the time and energy to take them to museums, library etc etc. It isn't about the cost mostly, it's the time.

And with that salary, why do you think @StarmanBobby that your children are more likely to need to do paid work through their a-levels/uni than children of private school pupils? Your income is far higher than ours.

It’s both. Children from wealthy families are also more likely to have their own bedroom, space to do their homework, access to equipment like computers and tablets needed for their studies etc. And anyone who argues that their child doesn’t have privileges over and above the rest of society when their household income is in the top 1% in the country, they’re deluded. So it just comes down to what is ‘acceptable’ privilege and what isn’t.

So StarmanBobby between you, you and your partner earn £360,000 a year.
You're not really in a position to lecture people about privilege.

Top 1% of the country is an absolutely humongous income and will be far greater than many parents of children in independent schools earn, including us.

awaits post explaining that they deliberately send children to state school to keep them grounded in a kind of poverty tourism way

Gosh. That sounds more than just your opinion. That sounds like company policy. Interesting.

monitoring and improving social mobility is a recognised and established ED&I strategy.

It absolutely is, but I think it's a pretty blunt tool if you only distinguish between state/private. There are plenty of very privileged kids in the state system - my own dd is one of them.

I think it's more common these days to assess social mobility by looking at parental occupations/eligibility for free school meals etc at a certain age. Still far from perfect as a measure, but definitely more nuanced than a simple state vs private metric.

I absolutely wouldn't discriminate against a privately educated candidate for a role because I don't actually buy into the idea that private education gives people significant advantages. I think well educated, motivated and supportive parents are what makes the difference. We definitely don't have a level playing field in our society, but giving preference to middle class kids just because they're state educated doesn't even begin to tackle that problem.

They do not do that by looking at schools though. Parental occupation is the main indicator (so @StarmanBobby s children would immediately be disadvantaged there).

I am honestly dismayed at the level of hate for private school pupils! I think the difference is between people with rich parents and people without rather than private or state educated. I was educated privately, but we didn't have any money, I got a bursary for my fees. People who have money to fall back on are going to be more confident, more able to take a year out etc. because it's not the end of the world if you don't have a job. I think I probably received a more well rounded education (before you all get your knickers in a twist I did NOT say better) as I was in contact with people who knew things or did things as a matter of course that I wasn't able to experience, and I do think it is easier to pick up that kind of knowledge when it is around you all the time. There are loads of things I didn't know about when I left school that would have been useful ( the benefit system, for example).
I think lumping all private school people together is very discriminatory - everyone is different and should be judged (if you must) on their own merits - or not.