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.

Selective -I'm sure Xenai knows perfectly well that all state school kids are not morons.
I recall a post some time ago when one of her DDs was dating a boy at uni from state school.

But I do think it is a fair point that considering private schooled children are so few in numbers they are totally over represented in certain areas:

Law making and overseeing.
Money making.
Media and publishing.
The arts.
Sport.
And yes, of course, not everyone wants to enter these professions but I do think the sheer concentration of the independently schooled requires us to ask the question what those schools do so well. Because however bitter those of us from less privileged backgrounds may feel, it's far too simplistic to say that money is the only factor no?

There are also studies showing that after your basic needs for food and shelter are met, and you have a bit of cash left over for leisure, you don't actually get happier the more money you have. In fact above a certain income level, I think there is a negative correlation between income and happiness.
So I do think that educational attainments are not the be all and end all of life and that parents need to consider their childrens' personalities and abilities.

I had a childhood friend who, looking back, had a very elite lifestyle. Her family bred dogs, went to gymkhanas and horsey camps, skiing every year in the Alps, etc. Xenia, you'll be pleased to know this was all done on the mother's money. She worked full time in business (not sure what) while the father was a poor farmer. Anyway, my friend was privately educated , but unfortunately neither she or her sister were particularly bright. Then OMG, she started having elocution lessons around the age of 9 or so. It was bad. She started talking "posh", which probably allowed her to fit in with her peers at the private school; but you see, she didn't really have the brains to get a good job. I doubt she really had the brains or organizational skills to even be a secretary, lovely though she was. So she was destined to be stuck in that rural area, forever a square peg in a round hole. Maybe others disagree with me, but I think her mother did her a disservice. She should have gone to the local state school, been allowed to make "local" friends and sent to learn a skill at 16, be that horse-grooming or whatever.
What do you think? If the parents can easily afford it, is it a given that they should automatically send their kids to private school? Or am I just being naive about private schools? Are they "gentler" on kids who might find state schools more difficult to navigate?

DH was privately educated. I wasn't, but I have a higher degree than him. We can afford to send the kids private if we want but I keep thinking that holidays abroad and other cultural experiences going to give us a more well-rounded child than sending them to a private school? Would most people opt for the private education over other lifestyle choices that may broaden their kids minds such as homestays abroad, etc?

Longtalljosie - I am shocked you were told to downgrade your expectations at a private school. Was it really a private school? DW was at a grammar school and was told to downgrade her expectations and she rebelled and it drove her on to higher achievement.

The one thing that I would say a private school generally delivers and is something DW did not get with her grammar school experience is that a good or even average private school asks a tough question of every child every day.

That question is: "what are you doing now and what are you contributing?". That tough question was asked of me so many times at school that it is so drilled into me now I ask it of myself every day. What did I do today that was worthwhile and contributing to my family and myself and my community?

That is why kids from private school perhaps seem so driven and motivated and on average do well I suspect. It is not just about going to school and getting good exam results. Its about a lot more than that, it is the ethos. Perhaps it is the moral fibre of whch Xenia speaks. Not the getting up at 6.30 for a 5 mule run and a cold shower afterwards - oh yes those were the days. Its about being given responsibility and expectations and personal objectives that I do think average state schools lack. Unless you have experienced it personally, its hard to describe. I am sure good state schools have it but so often it is lacking.

I agree Abetadad.

The motto for my DS's House at his minor public school translates as No Passengers - his prep school motto translated as Not for Oneself.

This ethos is gently enforced throughout the school generally resulting in a spirit of participation, cooperation and understanding of others within the school community.

Maybe this is the basis of "moral fibre" oft quoted on this thread.

Kids from private schools are driven and motivated because on the whole they have driven and motivated parents who earn the necessary to send their children to private schools and have a strong
work ethic. They mix with children from similar backgrounds.

Similarly, they are overrepresented in certain fields because their parents work in those fields and they grow up with the expectation of following similar careers. If your parents and your peers' parents both went to university and work in professions, you will have similar aspirations

Attributing such an ethos to a school motto is laughable

Our motto was 'Be, not seem to be'.

It means don't put on airs and graces or pretend you are something you are not but do be something worthwhile.

Many is the time as a prefect at school I swept down a corridor of a Sunday afternoon gathering boys up in my wake who were loitering.

Me: What are you doing there Simmington-Smythe?

Boy: Oh nothing Sir.

Me: Nothing? Well come and do something useful with me and these other boys then!

I was just expected of everyone.

Read my post properly .... the -ethos- of the motto is gently enforced throughout the school - not the actual motto.

Mind you, my school motto translated as Under the Shadow of Thy Wings. I've no idea how that shaped me.

I think actually Mrs S and A betadad, you are both right.

At DCs school I see the children are already motivated and ambitious before they even arrive. This is due to being part of motivated and ambitious households. That the school is on message provides a double whammy. If the same 'can do' mentality permeates home, school and peers, it just makes it so much easier no?

Contrast this with the school where I volunteer and the kids often arrive with very low expectations of themselves and life generally. The school, I'm sorry to say does very little to alleviate that and sometimes compounds it.

Xenia- humans and animals do have an innate desire to survive, the Darwinian 'survival of the fittest'. What drives our society today, however, seems to be something very different to the original meaning of this phrase. I would say that money and appearance play a far larger part in today's society than they have done in the past. This, to me, is sad and a great failure of society rather than something to be automatically subscribed to and celebrated. All of us wish our children to be as successful, fulfilled and happy as possible but we have differing views as to what this may constitute.
The fact that such a large proportion of MPs, Bishops, QCs, leading doctors were schooled privately is a fact. However, the cause of this is not simply their schooling. I would agree with Mrs S in saying that parental education, ambition and support is more important in achieving 'success' than private or state education. In addition, it is a real failing of these professions that they tend to admit individuals into their profession who are most similar to themselves. They tend to fairly steeped in history, closed to change, new people and new ideas. This will therefore mean that more people in these professions will tend to be public school educated, male, Caucasian, etc. Some will also be admitted on the basis of contacts rather than merit. This is not a strength.
I do agree that some private schools have great strengths and can offer things that are perhaps not possible in the state system. However, talk of 'moral fibre', 'strength of personality' and sweeping generalisations about success are not persuasive to me. If I do send my children to a private school when they are older, it will certainly not be for these reasons.

MrsS, as an LSE graduate, Mick J is definitely not a thickie, and knows a thing or two about choosing schools for his kids, I'll tell you that (we used to be neighbours and discussed this once).

Some of the public schools further up the league tables are simply that was because they are more academically selective. The question is, what are they doing with the kids once they're in there apart from bredding neuroses?

'That was' should read 'there'. And 'bredding' should read breeding. Trying to speak on phone and type at same time.

Are good teachers are as important as good homes when it comes to academic success, do we think?

BM - what I see at DCs school is that a combination of the two is an almost unstoppable force.

From my own perspective, I was brought up on a sink estate. No-one in my family had ever been educated before me but my Mum was determined for my life to be different.
I have succeeded but it was not easy.
I was out of kilter with my peers and that made the process unenjoyable.

People on MN often talkj about the arrogance of the public schoolers, yet I was always called arrogant or 'up myself' too, despite my impoverished background, because I shared the confidence and self belief that so many privately educated people have.

My observation is that at many social gatherings where I live which is in a very rural place, the most cringeworthy people of all (and I mean cringeworthy, ''arff arff where did you/ your children go to school?' even before they know your name), darting eyes for the next 'mwah mwah' to bestow,I could go on.

But the important thing I should say is they are not a particularly bright group of people and the fact that their children get sent to a low standard prep school is more to do with keeping up their own social standing than for a good education per se. (This prep school is popular with the horseracing/military sector)

I understand most decent independent schools are not like that, but then they would have fab rsults/inspections to match. I am not referring this post to them.

I had more interesting 'champagne on lawn' experiences /discussions at Cambridge with multicultural students when I studied there, and quite frankly, it is highly embarrassing to meet so many shallow, snotty types in rural England.

I wonder if it is a form of insecurity as none of them are landowning gentry. It's a case of the tenant being loftier than the landowner ifswim.

I understand a lot of you do not have experience of this where you live, I think it is a particularly regional 'feudal' thing.

At my local college there are 40 yo women studying for their GCSE equivalents because they suffered such terrible domestic violence
as children their fathers would not let them do any homework as it was considered 'a fkg waste of time'.

I think it is wonderful they are motivated to study now and so any appalling attitudes to people who speak 'incorrectly' or who have not had the same guilded educational experience, SHAME on you.

loobylu3, why then, would you send your kids to a private school? Please elaborate.

Boff, I never said Mick Jagger was a thickie, he's not!

But I consider the schools his children go/went to to be pretty unimpressive - he may have chosen them carefully but imo they're all prime examples of schools for the not terribly bright children of the superrich

I'm just sayin' ...

And I know exactly what Barrel is saying, it's one of the things that amuses me most here in an affluent corner of SW London (not far from the Jaggers as it happens) how when you mention your dc1 has started school, the denizens cant help but ask "And where do they go?" in a faux-bored-but-secretly-gagging-to-judge-you manner.

I'm confused by all this talk of different tires of independent schools.

I understand that some are ranked higher than others but on here it seems you're ranking certain 'establishment' schools as top followed by what is being referred to as mediocre indie schools.

Surely the excellent day schools around the country which are probably not household names but are fiercely competitive academically cannot be considered mediocre? What about Withington Girls? Which is probably not that well known yet I'm sure Xenia has heard of it as it usually comes no.2 results wise, splitting NLCS and Habs. And of course, is in Manchester not N London.

I'm sure the country is littered with not very inpiring preps whose sole purpose is to offer an elitist education within small classes. But that tag by no means extends to the great many independent day schools around the country whose facilities, like their results are outstanding.

tier not tire.

Abolutely Buck, there are dozens of fabulous indie day schools - mainly former grammar or grant maintained schools which have traditionally educated the brightest from all backgrounds

It's the schools that existed to educate the sons/daughters of the gentry that are often dreadful. Think Princess Diana's school, which she left without an O level and has since closed down.

Of course I'ev heard of Withingtons Girls. The head of NLCS came from a good state sector school.

Different tiers? Depends what you're after. I'm not particularly snobbish so I was never after that and I believe boarding school cause long term psychological damage so again they were never on my list. I prefer single sex education and I like academic selection. Hence the Habs/NLCS/MTs schools our older children went to.

As for the girl educated so she didn't fit in with the locals most country areas manage that by having two groups of people surely. The ones who meet at the hunt ball etc (and I've very thick private educated friends from own school who exactly fit into that category) and those who hang out with locals from the council estate. You don't get taht so much in London because we're more egalitarian and mixed.

My own choice was pick schools in the top 10 or top 20 in the whole country for A level results in proper subjects, where you pay fees which are single sex (assuming you have bright enough children to get in which most people don't as the average IQ is about 100)

xenia -- don't understand: 'where you pay fees which are single sex.'

ilove, I think Xenia meant to have a comma in there. So, Alevel results, single sex and fee paying.

I am interested to know what Xenia would have done if her children had turned out to be "thick". Would she still have forked out for a private education if they had all failed the exams to the selective schools of her choice?

My guess would be no. She would still want them to mix the 'better' social circles of a private school.

But I could be wrong. Maybe they would all have gone to the local secondary with her blessing.