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?

Pretty much none of those careers require unpaid internships. Journalism and media really is the only one. I work in an elite profession and there are plenty of opportunities for people who didn’t go to private schools. It’s tone deaf to complain about your white middle class sons lack of privilege.

People wouldn’t pay copious amounts of money and make huge sacrifices if they thought that, supporting their bright children within the state sector, was on par with a private education. The wilful ignorance on this thread is astounding. Just accept that you’ve put your children first and stop pretending that it’s equal or ethical. I get it, I’m a mum too and would always put my child first because that’s what good parents do but I am under no illusion.

Then instead you have the communist system instead of a capitalist system ?

The world is run by money and isn’t fair. Sadly it’s true.

None of these anecdotes really prove anything on their own though do they. I know people in all of those fields (although not the exact same job in every case) who went to private school.

I’m not disagreeing with your overall point that things are improving but I do think analysing large-scale patterns is more useful than drawing out individual examples.

That's the thing no matter how it's spun, society will never be equal, so with that perspective, it's a factually impossibility, therefore then it's do your best children.

And some people will be better at some subjects than other people, ect that's why society can never be truly equal because how would you then standardise what equal is.

Not really the point of the thread but I always thought that the children of teachers were at a big advantage in terms of being able to access support. Especially at the primary level. At the moment my child has a tutor and I pay a lot for an hour of their time. I’d love to be able to provide that kind of support to her day to day.

That doesn't answer my question though.

I accept that people must believe that they are getting value for their £18k a year fees or whatever, but I don't personally see what that value is, unless their child has SEN or some other difficulties that mean they need smaller class sizes, more teacher time etc.

I don't disagree that most people will put their children first. I would have genuinely sent my dd private in a heartbeat if I had believed that she would get a better education, so no judgement from me, I just didn't think it was worth it. So I am always curious as to what the parents who do pay think they're getting for their money and what difference they think it makes to their dc.

I know lots of privately educated adults and lots of privately educated dc. I genuinely don't see that they are any happier or more successful than people from similar backgrounds who are state educated. I really don't see much difference at all tbh.

You’re being pathetic. I went to a (reasonably poor) state school and am from a single parent family. I went to an elite university and worked in the city for years. I’ve never done any unpaid work. Your son is privileged. He may not make it, lots don’t. But you should stop blaming everyone else.

Oh for God’s sake seriously? Don’t plunge your family into this shit way of thinking. We can afford private but don’t wanna waste the money as it could get them ahead in property and not renting, plus I work in private and it’s all spoon fed to the kids. My DD is supremely organised and just doing so well. Would not swap it. Sense of responsibility and focus you can buy even if you throw money at it.

Right. So your children should get a “contextual” (ie lower) offer to Oxbridge because you think the other children are more privileged but there should be no schemes like blind recruitment that benefit children less privileged than your children. So basically your children should have an unfair advantage- does that summarize it?

Alright, SueVineer, calm down. I have already acknowledged some of the inconsistencies in what I have posted and I see no reason to attack me because I am worried that my highly able son may be at a disadvantage further down the line because of money and not his ability. What parent wouldn't feel that way? You may not have done any unpaid work before pursuing your elite career, but ds currently thinks he would like to be a barrister and that is a career, as confirmed by several people on here, that does require significant financial outlay and the ability to support oneself while training/making very little money in the early years. It would be a bit shit if he were to miss out because of money. It's not a case of me blaming everyone else as if I'm failing to take responsibility for the fact that I'm not wealthy enough to support him in that. And no, I haven't spoken this way to ds and I'm not saying it makes it impossible and he doesn't see it as impossible either, but it is unfair.

As for wanting ds to have a contextual offer to Oxbridge, the way his grades are looking at the moment he wouldn't need one anyway. Ds attends a slightly better than average comp (going by P8 scores) and has never received any tutoring. Someone mentioned teachers tutoring their own kids - I have no time to do any such thing and would be worse than useless at the majority of subjects anyway. I've given him some exam strategies for the subject I teach and I'm sure the impact has been marginal. I do stand by what I said about it not making sense to widen access to Oxbridge while at the same time trying to remove some of the benefits gained by attending. I'm not sure why that's difficult to understand.

@coffeerevelsrule I can see what you are saying but I would add that to believe that one cancels out the other assumes that all Oxbridge confers is a label and I do not believe that is the case at all. I think an Oxbridge education does builds a number of marketable strengths such as critical thinking, ability to perform under pressure, juggling a heavy work schedule with sport commitments etc. Any selection process worth its weight should pick up on those strengths and it is those rather a university brand that should set the candidate apart. I would caveat that with the comment that I don't believe these skills are exclusive to Oxbridge but the short terms and intensive tutorial systems do foster development in certain areas.

I went to Oxbridge and I disagree. Oxbridge is the same as any other uni and their students are no smarter or have any more marketable strengths than someone who graduated from say the University of East Anglia.

The main benefit from going to Oxbridge is that people think that you're smarter when you're not.

It’s not up to you @coffeerevelsrule how people spend their money. Our neighbour sends their child to a private school but they never have a holiday, they both work full time, she works as a midwife and is always doing extra shifts. It’s their choice.

I’m perfectly calm, thanks.

it’s not true that if your ds wants to be a barrister he needs financial support from elsewhere. It depends entirely on the set and type of law. The commercial sets tend to earn reasonably well straight away. But those are extremely difficult pupilages to get. Criminal work which is low paid is easier to get but obviously financially difficult.

re Oxbridge- very many kids who are extremely talented with straight As don’t get into Oxbridge each year. “Widening access” basically means you think your son can get an advantage by being from a certain background even though he remains pretty privileged. So he gets to leapfrog another kid with the same grades because of his background. Then you want to get rid of blind applications so your son retains this unfair advantage!

why do you think your son should get an advantage simply for attending a particular university anyway? if anything entrenches privilege it’s the Oxbridge dominance of certain institutions in the uK. How is it any different from private schools?

Reality is that the standard to obtain a decent pupilage is extremely high for the best spots and there are many great candidates losing out each year. It’s nothing to do with private schools- simply it’s a tough environment that only the best can navigate. These are people who are truly exceptional. Not to do your son down but getting all top marks in some GCSEs isn’t exceptional. Of course it’s great and well done to him but not exceptional.

Similarly with medicine- many kids with straight As and fantastic applications are not getting in to university courses. IT’s competitive and most won’t make it.

I think it’s difficult to separate that these children are a self selected group of offspring of generally the most successful parents (at least financially). Also most decent private schools have tests for admission so there is an element of aptitude too. So it’s just not comparable to most if not all state schools.

interestingly there is a school near me that focuses on being a “nurturing environment” with no admissions test. The academics aren’t particularly great in comparison to state schools and I don’t know if the kids are really getting much of an advantage. But it’s difficult to know how they would do otherwise I suppose

I’m sorry your kid isn’t more privileged than he already is op; and that he needs to compete, that the pair of you sit at home and discuss stats on how he’s not the most privileged. But more privileged than most. I feel for him. I really do. It’s awful to have to compete on one’s merit and not be the most privileged kid.

back in The real world it’s important to teach your kid about privilege, about what they can achieve. And to not sit and focus on how they aren’t THE most privalaged.

I wanted to jump on and defend what you said about him being disadvantaged by not being in a low enough income bracket for uni help. I grew up in a very low income household and got the full loan, bursary and some additional funding for uni, which meant I was able to afford to go. DD is only a baby, but me and DH now earn almost the exact "average" salary each, which would mean DD would get much less help. With things the way they are right now, we wouldn't be able to help her financially at all!

Oh good lord. He is disadvantaged compared to some. Advantaged compared to most others. That’s life, you can’t always be the most privileged person, and play the victim card. Any parent feeding that is doing their kid a disservice.

I had a friend at school in this position. She took a year out, worked bloody hard and saved every penny she could, then went to uni. When it came time to do her internship she had those savings to support herself, and she also took on a part time evening/weekend job to supplement her income. There are solutions op, but you have to be willing to work for them rather than just complaining that it's not fair.

YANBU!!! Totally disgraceful! And a big "blind spot" in UK society based on some of the comments you're getting on here. We left the country for this reason.

I think that's my point, really. Once you adjust for factors like family background and wealth etc, there really isn't much difference in outcomes. So what exactly is the added value, I wonder?