to think many parents who send their children to the lower quality independent schools are so pretentious it is cringeworthy?

[Barrelofloves]

Is it due to insecurity? Because I have found the seriously loaded/titled folk are not like that at all.

I've been following this thread with great interest as I educate my DC privately, one at a top 10 public school, the other at (as some might think) a minor or second rate public school.

I went to a high achieving girls grammar school (horrendous place) - does that make me middle class aspirational I wonder?? - and my DH to a top 10 Boys public school (he is not british so doesn't fit the class system in this country!)

We have a miriad of personal reasons for our choices in education for our DC - too boring to go into here.

If we educate our children privately, does it matter where we choose send them - insecure parents, pretentious parents, pushy parents, "trade" parents (as I think I saw mentioned earlier - what a snobby label), middle class, loaded, titled, whatever - we all have our reasons for our choice.

OP, in my opinion, YABU.

Thank goodness there has been the voice of reason from the majority of private school parents on this thread!!!

Please God most people DO NOT have the attitude Xenia has.

(And also, BTW, someone from my DCs STATE school just been on University Challenge on the Cambridge team so 'Prenez dans la pipe et la fume' or whatever.......grrrrrrrrrrrr)

Yes selective, that's probably because the vast majority of private school parents are not trying to get a leg up for dcs to ubermensch status. That tribal desire is reserved for those who have established, maintain, and wish to perpetuate a status quo in our society of division and inequality.

The rabid tribalism of the "elite' is as pernicious and blinkered as the chavvy estate gangs, just with the power and the money.

And tribalism is based on excluding 'other' and bonding through shared values. Such a shame the 'other' are perfectly nice children and the shared values are snobbery, elitism and contempt for those less privileged.

For the vast majority of private school parents (outside the rarified atmosphere of London) its a pragmatic decision taken for the benefit of their dcs. I would imagine the majority would happily send their kids to state school if the ones available to them delivered what their kids need.

In fact, I think most private school parents are like me, hoping to god their kids don't pick up any bad habits like snobbery and contempt for others.

Bravo MadameDefarge

My thoughts and sentiments exactly.

But that rabid tribalism, sorry to break it ot you, is what mankind is. It's why we're here and what we are, survival of the fittest. it's what determines which men get which women and which of us are regarded as a success or otherwise. It's how the entire world works and it's huge fun to be part of that process and playing that game. Much more fun that soviet style let's pretend we are all the same stuff.

But mrss although you and no doubt many others can find examples of private pupils who drop out and end up on drugs it remains the case that take any board in the UK, take a group of MPs, take our leading Bishops, take our senior surgeons, barristers, judges and male or female mnay many more were privately educated than otherwise in terms of proportion of people educated in the private and state sector. Thus although some may well fail there is little better you can do for your children than buy them a place at a half decent school. The evidence is there. When you show me the boards of plcs where 6% went to private schools etc et then I will be convinced otherwise.

?Another dilemma that I am trying to get my head around is this: When we were in the private sector I was very happy to be firmly footed in the 'have not' camp (in terms of wealth) but now that we are entering the state sector I am beginning to feel like a 'have' IYKWIM. I am even beginning to feel middle class . I know it sounds ridiculous but I prefer to think of myself as working class and it was easier to do that in the private sector. Does anybody know what I mean? Xenia??
On leadership.. what it shows, babyb, is sexism ? that?s all ? girls taught to be doctors and to serve and men to lead in boys? schools. That?s all.

Accents? Wow they are crucial. As soon as you open your mouth you damn yourself in so many environments. We could write essays on accents.

I wish we could get rid of the lot of them, and then we'd have real equality in education. And maybe the start of a more equal society.

But in an imperfect world parents do what they can.

Xenia - you generalise too much and you're not doing many favours for those of us who've opted to educate our children privately.

Accents - several of the grandest people I know have what could be considered "northern" accents and scottish accents. A previous colleague of mine - not privately educated - has a very strong Welsh valleys accent and is now CEO of a PLC. My children, (who I previously mentioned are privately educated) have picked up a distinct west country twang since we decamped to Devon 13 years ago - doesn't seem to be holding them back so far.

Boards of PLC's privately educated - things are changing I think you'll find.

Mankind is about many things, Xenia, not all of them laudable. A civilised society should mitigate against the more pernicious and divisive practices, because it does not actually serve society to have permanent underclasses who are a drain on resources.

Again you bang on about the elite in all professions, as if being a solicitor is not good enough, you have to be a QC...

Your bugbear about accents is just another example of your excluding tribalism. But its power is very diluted now.

And as another poster said, please don't pontificate on state schools or other institutions of higher education when your posts betray a woeful ignorance of either.

Trumpeting this ignorance only serves to illustrate that education and financial success do not add up to a successful person.

Your views are bizarre, even among your peers, selfish, snobby and really rather dim.

Its as if your mind is stuck in the mid-eighties when rampant self-interest began its ascendence.

We are now paying the price for it in our society. And in our world.

Absolutely Mme Defarge.

It is the hideous mixture of arrogance and ignorance which is so utterly ghastly on so many counts.

Hooray for Xenia.

I don't agree with more than a fraction of what you say, but you've certainly livened this thread up with a lot of thought-provoking (or splutter-provoking) comments.

I do wonder whether your view of success is too narrow. You see success as being success in the professions. And you are right in that grades matter for those professions and no-one with poor grades from a poor university is likely to be recruited into a top firm.

But there are people who are successful in business for example, who are universally highly driven, but often not highly intelligent in the way that you need to be to get to the top of a profession.

Ditto arts (all of them) and sports.

And I think you don't take account of people who actually have no ambitions whatsoever to make the most of themselves or climb to the top of any tree. Often the nicest and most fun people to be around, as well.

Xenia's turgid philistinism is indeed provoking. It makes me want to stick needles in my eyes.

So no hoorays from me. Xenia's posts depress me. All that education gone to waste.

lol drayford

a fine note to end on!

I must take my huge, but woefully undereducated brain to bed. I need to be fresh before I continue my entrepreneurial assault on contemporary commerce.

Xenia, while I agree that this "tribalism" exists, I don't agree that it is always inevitable. Some societies, and people, are intrinsically more peaceful than others. I would say that people born with an artistic temperament, for example, have a genuine lack of interest in the material and find the battling for resources a silly and meaningless waste of a life.

I find this thread fascinating. I had no idea all of this went on. I'm from what you would call a thick part of the UK. In my "world", those who had an obvious innate intelligence and flair for academia studied hard (no tutors, no private education) and if they did well, they then applied for the best unis including oxford and cambridge. Quite a few of my classmates who stayed on for A-level made it into good unis. Those who weren't academically inclined left school at 16 and went to college. It never crossed anyones mind to encourage kids who weren't naturally academic, and who didn't enjoy studying, to go to uni because I suppose the thinking was that they probably wouldn't surive when they got there and they'd be better off training for something they enjoyed.

So based on my own experience I believe that the cleverest kids will always "out" themselves anyway and we don't need to worry too much about which school they go to (within reason- I understand there are some really bad schools!). You can give your kids an academic advantage by paying for private school: I think accent is very important!! and also that certain behaviours and mannerisms can be learned at a private school, and other skills such as confidence and a sense of entitlement (not always a bad thing). But on the whole its best not to place too much importance on it or it could even have a negative effect on the child's self esteem!

I definitely agree with LeQueen that its ridiculous that universities are not for the academic elite anymore and that is harder these days for a clever kid from a poor background to go to an elite university than it used to be because funding now goes towards sending a larger quantity of less bright kids. Then again if it makes for a more educated society overall, perhaps its not such a bad thing.

Xenia, I think you are guilty of confounding there. There is plenty of (worldwide) research evidence that suggests that the greatest indicator of educational success is the educational level of the mother. Education gives access to higher paying jobs, higher paying jobs gives access to private school. So better educated parents are on average richer and are also more likely to send their children to private school. Also educated parents are also more likely to value education more, so are more likely to consider paying for private schooling. Plus once you get into a couple of generations of educated better paid parents, then grandparents are more likely to support the payment of school fees too.

But evidence also shows that where parents value education then even when they send their children to the "rubbish/bog-standard local comps" they still do well.

As university has become more expensive those parents who had enough money to pay for private schools are likely to go on spending to support their children through university, so again more private schooled children will go to university.

We've seen here that employers who are influenced by snobbism will give those with good schools and good universities more of a chance of employment, so that first job is easier to obtain. Plus getting professional qualifications is expensive, so again having a moneyed background helps. Finally parents who work in prestigious industries give their children a leg up through contacts for work experience, interview practice etc.

So all in all if you come from a richer more educated (basically privileged) background you are more likely to become a captain of industry/top professional. Part of that may well be going to a private school, but I would very much suspect that if you took the privileged background away you would find that the private schooling made a fairly small amount of difference.

I do agree about the influence of peers and the poor quality of careers advisers.

Well I went to a very minor private boarding school, had loads of Hong Kong Chinese children in it to fill up the places (or it would have gone bust) and with rubbish facilities. It was all my parents could afford and it was better than the local Comp.

In teh case of our own DCs we took them out of a top league table day school because we did not want them to be so intensely coached and pressured but given a more rounded education. Xenia would be horrified!

I did very well out of going to a 'lower quality' private school and I know our DCs wil too but I know people who went to top private and state schools and did not do well. However, what Xenia is saying is partly true. An average private school does do better with the average child than the average state sector school does. The top state schools and top private schools both do excellent jobs at academic results and that is related entirely to the fact that they are in London/South East and intensely selective so can pick the brightest kids and chuck them out if they do not perform knowing that place will be filled 10 times over by another child within weeks.

The rest of what Xenia is saying is too extreme and is not reflectng the reality of how most parents who send DCs to private school think.

Abetadad - your school sounds very similar to mine. And as far as aspirations nurtured at it are concerned - I wanted to be a barrister when I was 14, but the careers advisor told me that was pretty much impossible because I was female. I was told to seek a career as a legal secretary instead . And it had nothing to do with my grades, which were good. Everyone was told to reduce their expectations... this was in the late 80s, not the 50s!

While it is true that all societies are probably competitive in some way, it is also true that some societies are more competitive than others and it doesn't necessarily mean that they are less fun or more hypocritical.

When I go back to Sweden, it is pretty obvious that this is not the egalitarian paradise traditionally supposed- nor was it in the 70s when I grew up there. Of cousre not. People do care about status and jobs and that sort of thing. But they seem to care considerably less than here. They fuss less about their children's education, they worry less about them having friends with the wrong accent, they agonise less about their career choices. I don't think it's because they are non- materialistic as such, nor entirely because you can't get rich and successful anyway because of the tax system so there's no point in trying(Kamprad got Ikea off the ground).

A lot of it seems to be that they are constantly being distracted by things that are completely outside the success ladder and don't cost anything: walking to the nearest lake and jumping in, coming home early from work to play with the children, skiing through a snowy wood. These are things that have no tie to the class system or to financial success in this particular society- and they are seen as at least as important (probably more important) as the things that do. Which is why you meet relatively few driven Swedes. It's not because they're puritanical- it's because they don't need to be rich to enjoy life.

There's been a bit in the press recently about why Britain has always had these leadership and entrepreneurial qualities and why that is so. We are like that and although it's helped - industrial revolution, inventions, very hard work ethic it does not necessarily make for individual happiness of course. Although they do say all you need to do is surround yourself with people who earn less and you feel happier (because that's how humans are made). Do the opposite and you're cross because you're not keeping up with the Joneses.

Anyway I have to go to a work thing but it's been an interesting thread. On the whole children at better schools do better. But of course as I've said on other threads before now "doing well" is not only about money. Much nicer to earn enough and have good relationships with others and good mental health than be successful and not. The most valuable thing I have is my good health (and my children of course) but if you can have that and financially do okay that makes life a bit easier too.

I agree with much of nooka's last post but adding in the good private school element to the nice home, being loved etc etc helps the child succeed so if you can afford it you might as well do it. The uniforms tend to look nicer too and the chilren have a sort of glow about them. If I took boys from my son's prep school and put them next to chidlren of the same age who walk near here to the local comp every day they just seem so different. This is the comp with 34% A- C at GCSE which is about 2 minute from my house. Their hair is less shiny and the material of the clothes seems thinner and they drop litter and put graffiti on walls, their school is covered in it. It wouldn't last a second at the prep school.

The trouble is Xenia is rather stating the obvious all the time.

Life isn't fair....yes, we all know that

Going to a public and/or private school buys good exam results, top university places, influence, feelings of entitlement, a nice speaking voice with no regional accents, top jobs in all professions, military, just about everything, .....erm, yes we all know that too.

The education system is dumbing down... yes, agree with that too.

Making lots of money is wonderful...yes, for some greedy people it is the be all and end all of everything.

What is so offensive is the assumption that if one does not educate their children in the private sector, they are all going to be knuckle dragging, half witted morons, unable to string a sentence together, let alone a CV
which is complete and utter nonsense.

So no hoorays to Xenia from me I am afraid.

Xenia - my comment about dropouts etc was in response to you saying ...

"I suspect even the private school drop outs tend eventually to get their act together and do fine but that might also be because of family money and contacts as well as what they took in of the education they appeared to reject."

I have no beef with private schools. My children will eventually go to (good) private schools. I have a beef with your ludicrous argument that private schools deliver moral fibre and with mediocre private schools which are hoping to survive by marketing themselves as delivering some kind of social cachet when a better education is actually available at the grammar school or outstanding comprehensive down the road. And, while your policy of working hard to put children through private schools may have paid off I know plenty of people for whom this tactic has misfired horribly.

Ah Xenia - been away for a month and back with a distinctly different writing style... still always good to have your views thrown into the mix, otherwise MN does become bloody turgid.

Whilst I don't agree with a lot of what you say, I do agree that the world is a fecking competitive place and our DCs may as well know that from the off, both from home and school.
I certainly tell my kids it's no picnic out there.

And this applies not just to City type jobs - nearly all the jobs in the arts require a steely determination and backbone to get anywhere.
The idea that we writers are gentle sorts is simply not true. It is fierce outthere and we are all fighting for an ever decreasing piece of the same pie.

Yes, the boys from the local comp will look different to the prep school boys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's called being deprived because they don't have as much money....(that goes with the life not being fair bit).

Surely, surely you understand that????? It's really not very hard, what with you being a top lawyer 'an all (tugs forelock).