To be outraged about fee-paying schools and social inequality?

[coffeerevelsrule]

I have a ds in Y11 who has been researching potential careers and degrees and it has brought home to me what a horribly unequal society we still have in this country. Apparently 70% of barristers went to public school and there are similar stats for other desirable non-stem roles like journalism and the civil service, as well as medicine. It's a bloody disgrace - what a joke for a supposedly modern society.

And it seems that certain schemes like blind recruitment might also feed into this as although going to Oxbridge might have become slightly more attainable recently thanks to contextual offers and an awareness that those institutions shouldn't be filled with people from certain schools, now blind recruitment means the advantage a state school student may have got from going there is pretty much cancelled out.

To me it seems that ds is most disadvantaged in a way as he wouldn't qualify for schemes aimed at people who are the first in their families to go to uni and we aren't in a deprived area, but he has none of the advantages that would have come from going to an independent school. Everything about us is just average!

He is very bright (predicted all 9s and got that in his mocks) and wants to achieve but it seems that the odds are against people like him having prestigious roles. Obviously when he is quoting these stats at me I'm telling him not to be defeatist and that he has every chance of doing something amazing as long as he keeps working hard, but inside I'm wondering if how true that is.

I've always been against fee-paying schools but him reeling off all these stats at me has just been sickening and yet when Labour make noises about doing something about it there's outrage when in my opinion there should be daily outrage about the current situation.

Can anyone who cares about fairness honestly say I'm BU?

I’m surprised at a lot of the responses. I think it’s good that the OP’s son has been reading up about this (although would agree that the stats do sound a bit outdated and more reflective of the workplace fifteen years ago).

It’s possible to be angry about inequality and still recognise that your own position is relatively fortunate. As others have said, it’s not a race to the bottom.

I disagree with those saying he “couldn’t be doing any better” because he’s getting top grades at a state school; the reason private school candidates have typically been more successful is because of soft skills like networking, communication etc. Grades are just a part of it.

I also find the anecdotes about the niece/neighbour/uncle’s dog who went to a sink estate comp and is now a top barrister (or the opposite situation) a bit tiresome. It’s just one person’s experience and doesn’t prove anything either way.

@Ladybowes

Teachers have no sen training in the pgce.
Unless they have personal experience or have a specialist interest in it they have no more idea than the average person as to what sen is.

They wouldn't know anymore than any lay person what signs dyslexia has or adhd.

We, society thinks the teachers and the system has something that kicks into place to educate and support sen students.
There isn't any provision or basic knowledge. The difference between a parent helper and the teacher in this case is minimal.

Shocking isnt it.

@wenfy

True.

How much does that matter I wonder, supportive tight family unit? A child at fee paying school with parents who are addicts etc are they any better off.

On the civil service, just to add that I don't think my department is alone in being staffed mainly by people who were state school educated at all levels and insisting that all work experience/internships/student placements are properly paid.

I’m pretty sure if Mr Johnson and Mr Sunak had to send their children to their local school, we’d see a major shift in the quality of state provided education in this country.

What a shame for the other children who had to make do with your failing ‘local’ school. How can you pretend that’s equal or ethical in any way.

Yes, let’s just pretend people pay upwards of 18k annually for no advantage.

Keep dreaming, instead they would have a mix of private tutors for different subjects, why would they spend ££ if there was little return on investment via their children, instead a direct investment strategy would be extra tutors, extra private classes, etc

I don't think it makes much difference academically. I pay for private education so my children have a nicer, more enjoyable time when they are at school not so they get better grades. If I had sent them to the local comp I would have been paying for tutoring on top so they would very likely achieved equally as good grades.

At the end of the day, other factors could also be apparent for the results of the local school, besides if the options are available why is it absurd to not want the best for your children ?

@Staffielove23.. But Blair supposedly did?

Dare I mention dionne abbot.

David Cameron and brown had severely disabled child, did anything amazing happen for disabled provision during their tenure?

The problem isn’t people doing better. It’s whether people have the ability to fulfil their potential, should they wish it. Keyword here being ‘wish’. Also the lower earning sections of society should be paid enough for the basics (food, shelter, healthcare and education).

You can have lots of very rich people. Fine. Not a problem if the poor people have enough to eat.

20% of people get B’s and C’s? Fail? Fine, provided that’s the best they can do and they still have opportunities to do other things that don’t depend on grades.

What’s not fine is people falling by the wayside when it could have been prevented, and megacorps profiting off the backs of the poor.

It’s totally understandable to want the best for your kids but don’t pretend, and own the fact that your are putting your kids ahead of wanting an equal society.

*profiting excessively

A child is so much more likely to achieve if they have an enjoyable time at school.

I expect your son will become a barrister.
I base this on the fact that with a few choice ‘facts’ he has changed your mind dramatically.
Clever.

YABU. DH is a barrister, my best friend writes for a broadsheet, another friend is a charity CEO, I work for a bank: we all went to state schools.

It is changing, and will continue to move in state school kids favour as private schools fall further out of favour. Don’t let your DC be put off aiming high.

One of the choices we made when we started our own businesses was that doing so would open up more choices. Instead of working for a wage/salary, we decided to keep the money we earned instead of giving it to the boss, and that allowed us to choose where we sent DC to school, instead of accepting the default option.

@3WildOnes.. Indeed.

Why make all state schools like 70s concrete grange Hill stuffed with 1000s of pupils like a statzi state.

Why not create many smaller more attractive schools like older private schools!

Yes, but this isn't exclusive to private schools. There are lots of fantastic state schools in lovely leafy areas. There is one a few miles down the road from me, very middle class intake and results similar to the private school mine attend. I couldn't afford the £1mil+ it costs to buy a house in catchment though. So I'll say it again, I think the realy advantage is being born into a relatively wealthy middle class family, not whether you attend a private school or not.

Yes, I can well imagine that girls from certain backgrounds might benefit from that kind of environment.

@Staffielove23

Enjoying school goes hand in glove with a happy child hood. But at the same time why should state comps be so huge and immensely ugly frighting looking places.

And more than that why can't they be happy places inside?

So what do you think that advantage actually is? How does it manifest itself? What is the difference, in your opinion, between bright, well supported children who go to private schools and bright, well supported children who study in the state sector? And why do you consider that to be worth £18k a year?

I think the stats quoted relate to the Senior Civil Service specifically, although I also think they’re a bit old.

I couldn’t find anything more recent although apparently 59% of Permanent Secretaries were privately educated, as of 2019, and a further 14% went to a grammar. Obviously though that’s a very small group made up of people who entered the workplace around 30 years ago, so not necessarily representative of today’s entrants and future leaders.