To find it sad that privately educated actors dominate telly/film?

[chulast]

6% of the population go to private school yet the majority of successful British screen actors have been privately educated.

I just find it quite bleak really and makes it feel like it's nigh on impossible to make it in that industry without a leg up and connections.

A number of working class actors have spoken out about the unfairness of this

It isn’t right or fair for those in the arts (of course far worse things are happening in the world but that doesn’t mean conversations should be shut down)

Also, state schools mostly don’t have the resources to provide much in the way of creative arts. Many private schools have dedicated staff and facilities.

Don’t get your point. I can wish things were different and be part of the discussion while accepting that they currently aren’t. My son is now in a position to “pay it forward” in increasing ways. What are you doing?

Phoebe Dynevor? Sally from Corrie’s DD? Private school and acting family. Must lead to success! Ditto Cumberbatch with his mum. Show biz dynasties are far more likely to bring success. It’s in the genes and it brings support and knowledge.

The biggest issues are poor drama in schools so dc do not get a chance if parents don’t pay for acting clubs. Too many people fighting for roles so massive unemployment of actors. This is a very costly career. We can all cherry pick privately educated actors but many come from acting families. Or families in allied businesses. This is where it really matters. They can support and guide and know the best strategies to take.Talent is not much to do with school attended but state schools don’t care about arts as much as private schools do.

Because those kids probably have parents that can support them when they don’t get a job.

And since private school doesn’t really exist in the US the way it does here it is a British issue.

What are you doing?

What do you mean, what am I doing? If you mean am I volunteering with a theatre groups, no I’m not as I can’t act and I don’t care what actors’ parents’ income is provided they can act.
We do give a reasonably yearly generous donation to the National Youth Orchestra but I’m not sure if you consider that to be ‘doing’ something.

I used to act, many many years ago when I was young.

I’m not from a well off background. I couldn’t afford to support myself if I wasn’t also working, which meant I couldn’t drop everything for auditions, I couldn’t act in someone’s poorly paid vanity project to make connections, I couldn’t tour with a play that didn’t pay much. I couldn’t go to drama school, I had to work.I couldn’t afford thee money or time from work to take my own play to Edinburgh.

The people I knew who could do all that were from generally well off backgrounds. But more importantly, they had family connections in the industry, from school, from their parents. They had been to universities with performing arts clubs (footlights for eg); there is always a new crop of comedy actors who all met at uni in these groups.

I never got anywhere with writing either. I was good, but I didn’t go to university, let alone have any connections. Time and again, I’d see people who did be able to do things so effortlessly.

But both of the creators of Six were privately educated and met at Cambridge, and the original cast were all their friends from Camb, which tends to prove OP's point rather than disprove it! Even if some of the new cast aren't from wealthy backgrounds, the entire musical probably would never have come into being if they'd met at Leeds with parents who worked as shop assistants.

I don't understand why people are so eager to say this isn't an issue and query why people care? People were happy enough to criticise when most of the last few tory cabinets were privately educated.

@CinnamonCinnabar "I'm more interested in whether they are decent at acting in whatever show it is." Again this contradicts the point it doesn't matter - if you say your main priority is how good someone is at acting then you should be cognisant of the importance of widening access - because the chances are the best actors are also from the wealthiest % of society is pretty small. If you really want to see the 'best' actors then it needs to be a level playing field so the best people can actually get the opportunity to actually get cast in something you see and then can evaluate the quality of their acting!

I agree.

Like it or not some professions are way, way over-personned. The glamorous worlds of acting, TV and media jobs, modelling etc etc are always going to have far more people wanting to join them than there are jobs available.

As you say, only 2 categories of people will succeed in this world:

1. People with such towering talent or looks that they are in high demand from the outset...or...

2. People with moderate abilities whose families either have connections in those industries (this is why I hate 'internships' which hugely favour the metropolitan middle-classes) or whose families can support them while they wait for opportunities, or sit out periods of unemployment. Anyone whose parents live near London, for eg, has a huge and very unfair advantage in this area.

I'm putting my helmet on for this comment but I sincerely believe it. There should be a much more rigorous limit on people who train for these professions because I think youngsters are given a totally false idea of their prospects.

And - all actors need to be totally versatile. I know that the Anna Scher school does great work, but actors need far more than that - they need to be able to do all kinds of accents and perform in everything from classical drama to TV soaps. The problem for many working class youngsters is that they may get roles on the back of their teenage training, but it's only going to give them access to a limited range of roles. The old provincial repertory system was a much better source of theatre training.

.

In the 1980s, when DH took himself from his free-school meals house to drama college, there were grants and schemes (enterprise allowance, princes trust etc) that allowed aspiring actors, musicians and artists to survive while honing their craft. Students could also claim the dole and housing benefit in the holidays and there were grants available so that students weren’t coming out saddled with huge debts. Even then it was still disproportionately over-represented by the privately educated.

DH has built a successful career in the arts, but despairs of the fact that things have only got worse. He does what he can by offering work experience to kids on FSM and championing working class talent. A couple of friends have set up a charity to encourage diversity (including socio-economic) behind the scenes in the film industry. And there’s this https://www.93percent.club/, which DH has joined.

People are trying to make a difference because it really does matter, but it’s huge and entrenched, and it’s clear just from some responses on this thread that there’s still a lack of awareness or understanding of the difference it would makes to society to encourage and facilitate talent in all areas (not just the arts) from ALL walks of life.

In sport too.

Of the GB Olympians at last check, 33% from independent schools, compared to 7% who attend nationally.

Partly due to the cost/commitment it takes to get to that level of course.

But also the strong sporting ethos in independent schools. Up to the state schools to pull their socks up in that regard.

For dance there is a scheme which pays for advanced training (means tested) including travel, leotards/shoes, theatre visits etc. It’s spread over the country (not just London) and is not just for ballet but for contemporary, hip hop etc, and works around normal school.
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2025/jun/10/relief-after-10-dance-centres-for-children-across-england-saved-from-cuts-arlene-phillips-matthew-bourne

I wonder whether we will see greater diversity in dance as a a result, or whether it then all falls apart at 18 as the employment rates and wages for dance graduates are so low?

I agree with this. Wages and salaries should be enough to cover all reasonable living expenses. I feel where we went wrong as a society was accepting that not all jobs are well enough paid and topping up with tax credits or benefits. Employers should be forced to pay a living wage and we should have limits on rents and house prices, as we used to before the Tories scrapped them in the 1980s.

I can understand why it is a bad thing for the majority of our judiciary, political class or even Guardian journalists to have been educated privately.

But actors ? They are here to entertain us.

If anything I am happy somebody else has paid for their education and subsidised their early careers.

Exactly.

House prices/rents are ridiculous and a big contributor to what’s wrong in society . They keep going up and wages are not - you do the maths!

In one of my previous roles I saw massive amounts of housing benefit being paid to house families in cramped damp conditions. Nobody was a winner in this situation except the landlord.

This is the result of selling off all the social housing stock without replacing it.

I feel where we went wrong as a society was accepting that not all jobs are well enough paid and topping up with tax credits or benefits.

We've never got that right.

<Digs out essay on managing the poor from Elizabethan times to the 1830s, with particular reference to the Speenhamland system...>

I think the main problem is people. There are those who will use benefits as intended, as a helping hand to keep going through tough times, till they get on their own feet, and then there are those who won't make much effort, because the state will always help out. Deserving and undeserving poor and all that. But whichever system you have, there always will be those who use it to their advantage (all the benefit scroungers the press currently worries about,) and others won't.

You can also argue the arts aren't strictly necessary, and on one level that is true - but also, it's a huge chunk of the UK economy, and how much poorer all our lives would be without plays and dance and films and paintings and music and sports to watch and listen to and take part in. If life is entirely utilitarian, is it worth living?

Yeah, sure. Pull your socks up, state schools! Manage your resources better, and you’ll be able to employ ex test cricketers as coaches and buy a few shells and sculls. Maybe even a horse or two?

Isn’t this the problem with absolutely everything nowadays though? Do we really genuinely believe as a society that in 2025 the best politicians, law makers, academics, artists of all types, models, entrepreneurs etc etc only come from wealthy families? I think being privately educated is a red herring as it’s a symptom of wealth.

It’s the myth of meritocracy that keeps people in their places, working hard and trying their best. We don’t and have never had a meritocracy. If we did, things would be in such a better state. We might as well have a proper monarchy here where the king is appointed by god and his word is law because at least we wouldn’t be kidding ourselves that anyone can make it if they work hard and try their best. At least we would see everyday that if you didn’t inherit it you’re never going to see it. And yes a fraction of people come from nowhere and become very successful but it’s nowhere near as many as there should be.

I think being privately educated is a red herring as it’s a symptom of wealth.

Completely agree with your whole post especially this @SomethingFun I’ve made a similar point upthread.

Acting etc can result in lots of unemployment so maybe its only the middle class who can afford to be bankrolled by Bank of Mum and dad. What annoys me more is the level of nepotism in the industry. Lots of famous kids getting work they are simply not talented enough to do.ii am sick of programmes trying to push famous people's kids like Sarah Beaney for example.

I agree with OP but also want to say my kids state school drama dept was amazing - they won competitions and awards, put on excellent shows and get a few people into drama school most years. All the teachers had done some professional work or still did. They took them to Edin festival and lots of theatres (supported by pta money too). They do more than the local private school which is quite small and single sex so perhaps limits some productions. Just putting it out there that there are excellent state schools too.

Its more complex than it just being about private school,

A lot of theatres will run a youth group, if you are near a theatre. There also used to be chances for drama in youth clubs, but a lot of those have closed. It takes lot of extra time and commitment from the whole family. A friend of mine has a daughter who his very keen on dance and drama, and is in a very good local group, and it takes up a lot of their leisure time, but she is an only child so there isn't a conflict with the interests of other siblings.

I've read several threads on Mumsnet from parents complaining about their kid having to stay late to rehearse for an school play or concert, weekends are often involved too. Private schools, with longer days and even boarding, have an advantage in that respect.

If youngsters can get into a good group there is the option to try for scholarships to private schools. I was talking to a woman whose son won a sixth form drama scholarship to Eton.

He would count as a privileged private school pupil, but he was brought up by a single mum from Kent. Same with sports

They are here to entertain us

Yes, and the entertainment industry adds millions, if not billions to the UK economy each year so its in all our interests to ensure it remains, you know, entertaining. Which if the stories its telling and people telling them are pulled from an increasingly limited minority might not be the case.

Look at adolescence and the impact it has had, for example. Yes the whole point of acting is that you embody characters who aren't exactly the same as you (although this is changing a bit with the outage whenever a non-trans actor is cast in a trans role or non disabled actor in the role of a disabled character) but somehow I don't think the story would have had quite the same impact and authenticity had benedict cumberbatch or Tom hiddleston written it and taken Stephen graham's role.

Yep. I hate this too.

Even the ones you’d never suspect like Nicola Walker.

YANBU - it’s the same in the music industry too. There are probably very many state educated, creative people who cannot get into these industries as they don’t have the contacts or money behind them. It’s such a loss of talent. During the post war years things changed and more working class actors and creatives were seen eg Michael Caine, Terence Stamp, Twiggy, David Bailey etc and we were widely seen as the coolest country in the world in the 60’s. David Morrissey and Julie Walters have spoken out about this - it’s not posh bashing to point it out.
See also nepo babies.