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?

Please don't lump the civil service in with those other careers - the notion of 70% of SCS (senior civil servants) being public-school educated is mad!

Actual stats: 25% went to a fee-paying school (not the same as elite public schools!).

It's still not ideal, but they are doing a lot to try to recruit a wider range of candidates. Most SCS I know are normal folk from state schools.

@TapestryTeddy where is your evidence of Cambridge contextual offers? They use contextual date (rightly) to decide which of their many talented applicants to make offers to. But those offers are all the same.
Contextual consideration prior to an offer is perfectly valid, and indeed advantageous to the university. If they have two candidates with identical grades and predictions, and one went to a crap comp where they had to do lots of self study, and the other to a small class sized, shiny private school, who do you think might be the better candidate?
It really does a disservice to students who have battled more odds to suggest they're getting a leg up with a lower offer; they're not.
Granted some other universities do this to targeted schools; Cambridge does not.

Unpopular opinion but 'it's life' I'm afraid.

Money does not buy you everything ..... but there's not many things that can't be bought.

It's unfair that some children grow up in poverty and are hugely disadvantaged in school and life from it. While others grow up in the most prestigious home attending the top schools. But everyone can't have an equal start in life.

With grades like that and clearly a great work ethic he'll do well in life.

^this.

Many graduates won’t choose lots of those careers because there’s an initial
period (at least) when you earn very little. It’s having the financial ability to get through that that leads to being a disproportionate number of people with wealthy backgrounds working in them. They will happen to have attended private school bc they/their family are wealthy.

Also, complaining about blind interviewing in the same breath as private school advantage is nuts.

DH and I left school at 15, had DC young, both worked so we could afford to live in an area with reasonable schools. DH grew up where school was seen as a necessary evil! DC are hard workers, and are fortunate that they are well qualified, and earn well, as do their partners. They have substantial homes, great holidays, and the DGC go to good state comps. I see their upbringing as privileged, compared to their parents, also compared to many others, even without private school or generational wealth.

IMO, all parents can do is give their children the best opportunities they can. No society is ever completely fair.

It is disheartening.

My 2 have similar aged cousins. The cousins go to a private primary that we couldn't afford. They are starting to pull away from my kids with their academic ability and I'm definitely a bit jealous that I can't do the same for my children. Their school has 12 children in each class and highly experienced teachers. My children have 30 kids and a newly qualified teacher. The teacher is very good, this isn't a criticism of him, but he has a big class of kids, some with SEN, and my kids will never get anything like the attention they would get in private. We do our best to educate them ourselves out of school too, but we both work so there's only so much time. We need to improve conditions in state schools to give them a fighting chance.

Absolutely agree Seymour our family is the same. A child with supportive educated emotionally intelligent parents going to a decent state school is just as fortunate. It’s more complex than simply state v private.

Our house as I type is crammed with 14 year old pals of my teen the majority of which go to local private schools (she is state). There is not one iota of difference between them.

They are starting to pull away from my kids with their academic ability

Their ability will be down to genetics.

Even if fee paying schools didn't exist people from families with money would likely still fare better in some fields as they'd have the financial safety net to pursue their passion, tutors, extra curriculars, wouldn't have to work part time whilst studying, would possibly have more 'role models' for their chosen career in their network who they could get advice from. Society at its core isn't fair, but actually university admissions and recruitment has come on leaps and bounds compared to years gone by to try and widen access and opportunities.

Coming from a stable home in a decent area with family who have gone to uni and likely work in professional roles has no doubt given your child a distinct advantage even if you don't think it has.

Dc just used a mixed state and switched sector to selective. He’s fine academically, doing well.

Other dc is at a highly sought after state some dc will do just as well academically as a selective private. A big difference is the selection obviously which creates the difference overall in results.

Anecdotally Dh and I and our siblings achieved our full potential at state schools. Dh and one sister got all As at A level and went to Cambridge/ got a first at another top university respectively. My own dd got mostly 9s last year. You can’t blame the difference in ability entirely on the school though I can see the appeal of doing so.

To an extent yes. But if they've got a teacher with the time to sit with them and go through things really thoroughly until they've grasped it because they only have 12 in the class, they're going to do better than a kid who has something explained once to the group between the teacher trying to stop one of the other kids throwing chairs.

This thread is so depressing. To summarise the responses to the OP 1) you are privilegied so you are in no position to speak about inequality in the uk or 2) shut up and accept the status quo.

Move abroad, then return to the uk. You'll be horrified by what people accept/activately vote for as a nation.

But if they've got a teacher with the time to sit with them and go through things really thoroughly until they've grasped it because they only have 12 in the class, they're going to do better than a kid who has something explained once to the group between the teacher trying to stop one of the other kids throwing chairs.

I would argue that the less able students will benefit more from such small classes. Hence why Universities give out offers in context of the different schools.

It's not private school that gives you these advantages, it's money. You could ban private schools tomorrow and it wouldn't make much (if any) difference.

Money buys you a nice house with space, so your children have their own rooms and a quiet area to study, sleep and do homework.

It buys you nice holidays and lots of educational, cultural experiences abroad.

It pays for lots of extra curricular sports and activities that look good on UCAS applications.

It means your parents can pay for tutors and private lessons if you're struggling.

It means you don't need to work through school or university, giving you more time to focus on work.

It means you have access to things like cars and lessons, so you immediately have access to all those jobs that require you to have a driving license.

You can't ban people from having money and spending it on their children.

This is simply not true and the evidence says it's a complex interaction between nature and nurture. This idea academic ability is genetic is so dangerous and damaging to young people.

You're looking at it all wrong. The benefit is that your DS would still have had an Oxbridge education. Which, theoretically at least, would give him a better chance at landing a job in his chosen field. Except it won't just be because of the name of an institution on his CV, it'll be based of the merit he demonstrates himself.

@Oysterbabe I’m sorry but ultimately that is nothing to do with the type of school they go to unless they really do need extra support. I sent my kids to the local state primary. They had classes of 30, resources pretty low (the gym equipment was from about 1960!) but fabulous atmosphere and teaching and mixed ability classes. But where I found them falling behind I made sure I helped them. I ran through their times tables every single morning before school, I did their spellings with them, when my son was struggling with his writing I got extra books and we spent hours working on it at weekends. I supported them with their homework and school projects etc. My kids scored almost 100% in their SATs. Their type of school ultimately made absolutely zero difference to their outcomes. They are immensely privileged to be born to academic parents (genetic lottery- pure luck for us all) and to have me do all that with them because I love educating them and find it easy (there are many parents who themselves struggle with maths and spellings so can’t give that level of support). I went to 3 different primary schools, 2 with classes of 30, and one with a class of less than 15. I don’t recall any difference whatsoever. At my children’s’ primary school if children need extra support they were given extra sessions during the lunch hour so smaller class sizes wasn’t necessary. If you school is not doing that then you need to swap schools as it sounds like your primary is nothing like the one my kids went to.

I think OP is confusing private school as a confounding factor in outcomes.
Wealth is the causative agent here. If you are wealthy you are most likely going to sink money into private school. If you are wealthy your child can try a career that pays well below minimum wage like newly qualified barrister, as you have that financial fall back.

it isn’t the school that’s somehow creating theses careers.

Both the school, and the years of post uni financial support, (and ski holidays in Aspen!) are just things people with wealth can buy.

The school itself is not a causative factor but a confounder.

Your son has done as well as it’s possible to do at school- a private school would have been a waste of money anyway for him. Private schools great for kids with mild SEN that struggle in large classes. Be happy your child isn’t one of them.

This is true but as I said earlier in this thread - if private schools were abolished tomorrow people with money would have to send their darling children to the local secondary - you would soon seen a massive improvement in many of these schools - as the moneyed classes would not stand for the poor resources that many of state school currently have to deal with. Classes would also be smaller like in private it would be a massive benefit to all our children.

The best and quickest thing we could to level the playing field is take away the charitable status of these private schools. We need to raise the standards of all schools to the same level and by keeping private schools this will be difficult. Parents of private school children should be happy to send their children to state school simply as that but we know currently they are not.

You are not incorrect op with the stats but it's far more complicated, partly there's a time lag, 60 year old barristers we're at school in the 60's, a very different world when working class kids left school at 15. Things have got better but it takes 2 full generations to work through changes. Second issue with your barrister example is that pay is incredibly low at the beginning meaning it favours those who have parents to support them, thirdly good old nepotism, barristers often have family who are barristers so they got the right work experience etc. Banking would be a far better example of how things have changed - since they brought in university blind recruitment the number of entrants from poorer backgrounds have shot up, as they were at the once discriminated against universities.

I think this nails it. Private school is just school, the kid still has to do the exams themselves. But they are more likely to come from wealth that creates all kind of other privileges.

Look on the bright side, OP - because fees are relatively so much less affordable than they were say 30 years ago, a lot fewer of the sort of children who’d have attended independent schools, are now going to state schools.

The biggest advantage IMO for children at whatever school, is parents who care about their education, who encourage them and expect them to work reasonably hard, who read to them when younger, etc. Not to mention who expect certain standards of behaviour, both at home and at school. And none of those are dependent on having loadsamoney.

Sorry but explain how the state schools would improve and the classes get smaller if parents of kids in private school were to rock up looking for a state school place.

is it back to some daft idea that they would ‘demand’ more?
teachers are doing all they can. ‘demanding’ more and ‘demanding’ small classes - how would that happen?

State schools are funded by government/ taxpayer and locally demanding parents will get absolutely nowhere with school budgets as they are.

Your suggestion makes no sense.

A lot more are going to state schools! (memo to self, check before posting!)