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.

MrsG. I can't agree with you there. The evidence points to all children doing better with better schooling.

The fact that parents with average dcs who can afford to privately educate them are increasing their chances of doing well is not an argument for dismissing claims that all children should have an equal shot at good education.

MD, Firstly, I think that argument does a great disservice to admission tutors who can usually tell the difference.

Secondly, you could also argue that although they may not have the same level of inate ability, they have obviously listened well and worked hard.

Thirdly, if a very bright student is underachieving at their local comp surely that is a major problem within that school? They will presumably not be achieving as well as the other state educated kid whose comp differentiates appropriately and adequately stretches its more able pupils.

I am genuinely interested in the much vaunted notion on MN that 'spoon-fed' children from Indies (which ones?) 'struggle at University'. Is there any hard evidence of this, 'cos I have seen it often stated on MN, and seems to have bcome a bit of a self-referential urban myth.
The objective evidence would be the stats on students from Indies getting firsts, 2:1s, 2:2s against students from selective states, and againt students from non-selective states - eg 50% intake are from Indie, what % get what grade of degree - since presumably the are no longer 'spoon-fed' @ Uni? Surely someone has stats on this...?

Of course all children would do better with better schooling. Personally, I think the gulf is between excellent state schools and poor state schools rather than excellent state schools and the independent sector.

Their education aside, my children have many unfair advantages over thousands of other children which make their prospects in life more likely to be good. Sadly, it will never be a level playing ground.

well, anecdotely, I can think of at least ten or so friends who come under the nice but dim and totally overeducated banner, and who feel resentful at being pushed and made to feel like failures before being parked at Exeter to scrape a third. So no stats, but def not an urban myth. There are so many private schools, common sense supposes that only the elite of those schools achieve top rank unis, and that the rest have to make do with bog standard higher education.

I agree, MrsGofG!
In fact I see lots of evidence of self directed study periods in the senior department of our school. It's a major part of the post16 curriculum in preparation for university.

I believe we could have a level playing ground if independent schools did not exist. Standards would have to rise across the board.

Not to mention the great swathes of privately educated young people who go nowhere near unis, but who get jobs through connections.

One of the many reasons we went down the indie route was to avoid the 'pushy' atmosphere both DH and I experienced at our state schools.

At my school, the bright kids were pushed down the narrow lanes of opting for law, medicine, accountancy etc. I was practically told that with predicted grades of AAA in arts subjects that it was law for me. It wasn't what I wanted and luckily I resisted but there was an immense amount of pressure there.
At the school my kids attend, bright kids are equally encouraged to by artists, journalists, mountaineers etc. I love that ethos! Simply education for educations sake and enjoyment of what you do.

I wholeheartedly disagree, MD.
Even without abolishing independent schools there is never going to be a level playing ground between my local state school and the one 4miles up the road in the middle of a large estate.

Houses in this catchment cost upward of 500k and their results are unbelievable. Abolishing indie schools would just lead to more little 'ghettos' such as this were house prices go through the roof in a little group of streets.

It will never be level.

I went to a state school (catholic girls school) but it was rigidly streamed, so all the top groups were expected to go to uni, and the bottom groups to become nursery nurses or admin clerks. I don't think being a journalist was considered respectable, you either went to study for a profession or do a purely academic subject.

It was a shit school, but got good results with a certain type of girl. I didn't fulfill my academic potential until I had rattled around the world a bit and decided I actually wanted to study.

Well buck there adminstrative ways around the ghettos. they are used where I live for secondary school at least, which attempts to spread out the ability range across the borough, so the middle class property ghettos become moot. But for primary, I agree there are issues.

Privately educated children do not on the whole struggle at university. It's a myth that makes state parents feel better. They like to think the private thickos get their come uppance. Instead richer parents who value and pay for education tend (a) to have brighter chidlren (b) value education highly and tend to want their children to get on in reasonably lucrative careers rather than being free spirits at Steiner or summerhill type schools and (c) also help their children at home.

I have three at university or did until recently. They know people from state and private schools. In my view the private ones are doing better as they graduate. It's partly because they know banking pays better than teaching and becoming a teacher which is a huge achievement if all your family have always worked down the pit if they worked at all, may be failure and a life of poverty if you earn a decent income. It's partly because they get better guidance from parents on careers. It's also partly because parents can help although employers tend to want people who excel not those who know someone these days if they have any sense.

I have never said I had genioid children. I was asked what I would have done if I had a very thick one. I've never said if they were bright or not. The five vary. They all seem interesting to talk to and have interesting ideas which is what I love (cf my older thread from a while back when I said I wouldn't find a down's child so much fun to debate with over dinner and I'd feel I had lost out no matter how many cuddles they could give me). I genuinely don't mind what jobs they pick or what they earn. My view has always been we are lucky enough to borrow our children for a short time and we do our best for them, give them the tools to make their own lives and then let them get on with it without let nor hindrance. (I am obviously currently failing in that as all 5 are living at home even post graduation... although I don't mind. I love having them around).

I don't think any of my children have been pushed into any particular jobs. I want children with their own views. As a teenager I was very into chidlren's rights and I was perfectly competent to do my own career research. the fact I wanted a job which could mean I could buy a desert island was a factor. I remember borrowing a book from the library when I was 13 on what people earn. Nowadays you can look that up on line. And yes I enjoy the island and all the rest but like most people my personal happiness is not linked to income and I work for the pure joy of it. It's tremendously exhilerating. I adore it. Successful people ultimately don't really work for the money but for the fun of it.

I think genes make a huge difference at least 50% but many including this Government argue more for environment and would like those chidlren failing at age 3 to get middle class help so they are not totally behind at 11. That shows where you go to school and how you're helped at home has a big impact. I can see it with my own chidlren. When I'm busy they do worse. When I'm not to busy they do better.

Obviously I agree with this:
"Why are we being snide about the fact that less able kids are managing to get to uni via private ed? Surely that is proving the point that their parents have made the right decision? They've made the best of themselves due to the education they have received. It's almost more important for them than for the bright ones."

Thanks Buck for the earlier clarification

Is it possible to dissect the interest parents have in a child's education from how well that child is doing? For instance, most of the parents who send their children to private school take a huge interest in their education, obviously, including on a day to day basis. Does this interest alone account for those who are privately educated doing well, when in fact it's parental involvement rather than the quality of the school?

I don't know.

Thank god you didn't decide on a career in politics Xenia, it would have been a car crash.

I think Xenia is actually Margaret Thatcher and Alan Clarke's secret love child.

And if you had ever met children at a state school, those beautiful little bodies stuffed full of joy and potential, you would not be so cavalier about their futures.

There isn't enough money in politics. Not now the expenses have been scuppered.

No Jaja! I went to the Ursulines.

Oh no not the Ursulines!
I survived them (fortunately only for 7 years, not the full prep to sixth form experience)

Ooh, Lily! I had the full prep (snort at the idea paying gets you a good education there!) a brief respite at a marvellous state middle school, then banged up again for the whole of secondary. (were you South London or another one?)

Oh yes, South London - on the hill. Lots of bunking off to a nearby event every June.I was there in the year dot.