AIBU to think upper middle class professionals downplay how much they game education?

[MyCyanAnt]

I can’t be the only one who has noticed this. I went to genuinely average comprehensive schools and had parents who just dgaf like most in UK. I went to medical school where it seemed like this upbringing put you in a small minority, now an ultra high earner from own business but still do part time work as a GP. DC are 12 and 14.

Whenever the topic of education comes up with other doctors/professionals they will say stuff like it’s the child not the school who determines the outcome, we’re not pushing DC, we’re letting DC pick their school etc

However when it comes down to it none of them ever put their money where their mouth is. It won’t always be Eton but it will almost always be either a private, grammar or high performing comp in expensive catchment area instead of a genuinely average comp.

It’s a similar story with paying for tutors and other parents DC being interested in prestigious but completely unrelated careers e.g. Doctor or investment banking who have obviously been guided by parents.

I do the same but I feel like I’m an outlier in that I don’t lie about it, I’m obviously paying/gaming things so DC are much more likely to get a top job. I don’t see what’s wrong with admitting it yet it’s such a sensitive subject with some.

Some do. Some don't. They don't HAVE to provide wraparound and it doesn't have to have places for everyone if they do. Activities may vary by term and who's available. Some of the provision has criteria (e.g. homework club for pupil premium and SEND). You can't rely on it and it's not there to enable parents to work so much as to address other issues like kids not getting breakfast or for enrichment.

If provision were consistent around the country then the government wouldn't be having to subsidise it and bring in "enrichment benchmarks."

Is it gaming? Or just teaching what they know? What do you think they should be teaching their children?

I've been thinking about the phrase "gaming the system".

The English education system is quite a strange and fragmented one, full of funding and historical anomalies. I think it's more like playing the hand you've got as well as you can (which as pp alludes to, means doing research). And it is not everyone's priority to spend lots of time and effort on that. Especially if they picked an area in the first place on the grounds the schools were reasonable.

If you've got a child with SEND (as pp does and I do) the odds are seriously stacked against you. I wouldn't blame anyone for doing what they can to mitigate that.

It's a mentality thing. We are from India. We came here. We are in our late 50s. What our school's had was worse than what the comprehensives have in the uk. We still did well. It's just a mindset thing.

We definitely don't just "dgaf" and actively are involved in our DC's education.

People will prefer to deal with people, always. You think really posh banks dealing with extremely wealthy clients just send emails and updates and let their clients use the big standard bank cards? Guess again. Private banking is ALL about the relationship, as is much of accounting, and really excellent medical care and …

My belief is that the luxury end of goods and services will continue to be the personal touch, just backed up with AI knowledge.

And that fwiw is what you get more of in private education as well - better relationships lead to better learning and there is plenty of research that shows this.

My dc are at a private school. I send them because it’s a lovely environment and they genuinely enjoy going every day. I know we are very lucky to be able to choose this.
I obviously hope they fulfill their potential regarding exams but top universities and top high paying jobs are not the ultimate goal. They are currently interested in careers in the arts.
I want happy, engaged kids with lots of choices . That’s it. No gaming going on!

The first paragraph of your post and the weirdly irrelevant question just make it sound like you wanted to tell everyone you're an "ultra high earner" despite your bog standard education. Why even mention it.

Anyway, well done you.

agree with you. I went to a bang avg comp. have done well. would have done better if I'd been to a better place. but strongly believe a fair society is to all of our benefit and is one in which all state schools offer the best opportunities such that the private sector is no longer required. I live in another European country now, where things are fairer for my kids, and for society in general. to be charitable, perhaps those who are pretending feel guilty and would like things to be otherwise. to be uncharitable, maybe they're a bunch of grasping, aspirational, middle class cunts who are insulating their kids as they themselves were. console yourself with the thought that they squirm if they have to interact with people outside their world.

And that has a knock on effect on teaching and learning. Dd got hit round the head with a chair in a class in year 8 and the teacher didn’t notice so dread to think what chaos that classroom must have been in.

Her English teacher in year 10 sat down on the floor and cried due to kids throwing stuff at her and then walked out the class. After a bit someone went to the office to tell someone and turns out the teacher had walked off the premises. She didn’t come back and they didn’t have an English teacher for the next six months, just supply teachers.

Sorry not sorry feeling genuinely smug reading this. State education teacher/parent. Got kids from regular comps into Oxford, Cambridge via genuinely excellent teaching and kids' talent including my own child currently awaiting A level results with Cambridge offer. He's fully ready to stick it to the posh twats when he gets there. No tutor, no privilege, just talent and ambition. I have been delighted with the opportunities available to genuinely intelligent hardworking ordinary kids. They genuinely want the best kids from lower class areas to succeed. Gives me hope for the future tbh.

to be uncharitable, maybe they're a bunch of grasping, aspirational, middle class cunts who are insulating their kids as they themselves were. console yourself with the thought that they squirm if they have to interact with people outside their world.

It is possible that you too, high up in the hierarchy of disadvantage, and evidently proud of it, may also have been, compared to others even more lacking in privilege, comparatively more insulated than you ever realised.

Do you even know those others with less as children are there?

And why are so sure all well educated, advantaged people ‘squirm’ when they have to interact with people outside their world?

In so many instances this is far from true.
Doctors, reporters, great reformers, teachers do anything but.

As PP says talent, hard work and ambition takes you places. Stop complaining.

That was replying to @hoofinator · Today 21:37

That was replying to @hoofinator · Today 21:37

But I don’t hear any of my circle saying this. My DC have been at private since age 4. Literally no one is saying this. How is it gaming, it’s just making a choice?

And in fact I’m very much NOT saying DC will find their own way etc. I’m saying the opposite. I’m saying I’m throwing everything I can at them to make sure they’re set up as well as they can possibly be for the future, because life in the west feels harder now. I’m not leaving anything to chance if I can help it.

Do you believe all children should be given the same opportunities? You are gaming a system if you know it's unfair and giving your children an advantage. It's not a choice if it's not available to everyone, it's disengenous to say your simply mKing a choice when it's not available to everyone.

Do you believe all children should be given the same opportunities? You are gaming a system if you know it's unfair and giving your children an advantage. It's not a choice if it's not available to everyone, it's disengenous to say your simply mKing a choice when it's not available to everyone.

I would love to hear your conversations when you explicitly say “I want her to get the best results possible and have the best chances in life “!
It would obviously be extremely rude and insulting to anyone who wasn’t able to afford it… that is why people give a more low-key reason .
For social etiquette.

None of our friends do anything other than talk explicitly about trying to get their kids into the best schools, tutors etc. We are the most relaxed even though my partner is a school governor.

I don’t believe this, no.

I believe, roughly, that we should order society such that opportunities are available in approximate proportion to how much benefit a child can obtain from them, that the state should provide a decent very high minimum (ie rather than constraining to some idea of equality) for all children, with the proviso that we accept deviations from this where the alternative would infringe too greatly on the liberty of parents or children to try to do the best for themselves or their families.

I think the above is much closer to what most people actually believe than your version.

Or, to put it more simply:

It’s good that we have football academies and Oxbridge, even though not all children can go.

The state should focus on making state schools reliably decent, not bringing down private schools.

That it’s laudable to teach your child maths at home even though not all parents can do this.

That we should not ban parents from hiring tutors, even though this may not go to the children who could, theoretically, maximally benefit from it.

Well done to him. He was clearly blessed in the genetic lottery and also worked hard.

If he hadn’t been, would you have done what you can to help him succeed regardless, or sat back to watch him settle to his unaided, low, level?

I think that society works better when the median parent is one who takes responsibility for helping their child succeed.

Some of education is rivalrous, but for the most part, having more more-educated children and more more-supported children is just better. Better for society overall, not just for those who personally benefit from that advantage.

Yes I agree with you OP.

We’ve lived in two different (but both middle class) areas and I noticed different approaches to faith schools though.

In the first area everyone would sooner die than admit they weren’t really that religious and behaved like it was total coincidence that they’d started going to church just in time for school applications.

In our current area most people are very transparent that they have found god for the purposes of school applications alone. They’re very disengaged and some of them I think are quite rude in church services (reading their phones etc). So I actually preferred the first group!

I do know people who say things like this, leaving them to succeed or fail on their own etc. It is patently untrue and continues even when their children are at uni.
When I was just under secondary school age, my parents moved house to a different town. This took me out of catchment for a really amazing school into the catchment for a very rough underperforming comprehensive. But no one thought about things like that back then, as everyone just went to the local school. I have done ok educationally but only later in life I have thought that maybe I could have had higher aspirations.

Let's hope your ds is less of an inverted snob and doesn't brand all his course mates "posh twats" or he may find himself pretty lonely, and miss out on many of the benefits Cambridge offers.

Good luck to him on the 13th.