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.

Sorry, that clearly should have been prep schools

I also disagree that only selective pre-preps go onto selective schools. There are a few in SE London that pride themselves on getting good results but don't select at 3.

Not that I have anything against selective ones, ds got into one. But they aren't the only ones doing it.

I'd rather be an artist than a lawyer any day.

I assume it must be getting easier to get into the selective schools like NLC and Habs - they were some of the schools included in the quarter page add in the Evening Standard last week offering bursaries.

ad, not add [pedant]

As parents start to feel the pinch and the private education can't be afforded, naturally the level of "selective" is going to more of a theoretical question..

Quattro- of course greed and self interest is not restricted to those with a high IQ. However, those with an IQ and the better educated with better jobs certainly have more influence on the society in which we all live. They are more likely to be in positions of power and some of them do become very greedy and self- serving (politicians, bankers, etc) to the detriment of others.
I'm also not sure that the extra music and sport is the reason that most parents choose independent sector. I think that there are a lot of reasons for making this choice.
We have a number of pre preps in this area and only one that I am aware of is selective at 4/7. The others 'feed' into a variety of different schools some of which have a fairly arbitrary test at entry.
Xenia- I have no doubt that most parent try to do the very best for their children, but, as you say ' best' can be very subjective.

So sorry- that last post was me! Fancied a name change but forgot to change it back for this thread which I keep (foolishly) contributing to!

Fibilou - clearly I expressed myself clumsily but when you say that "'Selective' in prep schools generally comes down to the answer the parents provide to "can you pay the fees'" that is simply not the case for many many prep schools.

There are a lot of selective pre-preps around my way but these are attached to selective schools.

I suspect what you are referring to are independent pre-preps/preps - which are generally not selective - again around my way, although they may operate as feeder schools for a number of selective schools.

I think this sort of makes sense - because the expectation of the attached pre-prep/prep is that they will go on to the senior school, and it would be distressing for children not to be able to carry on with their friends.

Whereas the independent pre-prep/prep will usually feed into a number of different schools.

I think it depends where you are in the country and the schools although even out of London my brotehr and sister have chosen very academdically difficult to enter pre preps although in both those cases they are attached to their own senior schools as were Habs and NLCS where my daughters went/

The traditional prep school model (not Westminster Under, colet court etc which are selective and academic) was certainly take all comers who could pay and might have some hope og etting into a future school at 13 and then nicely let down parents with the children who emerge as quite thick that they may not get into the school the parent hoped so that by 13 they all enter the school they are told is right for the children and the school can say they all got into the school of first choice whichi s both true and not true. They then stream as the children get older and typically have a scholarship class for those c hildren likely to get scholarships at 13 to their next school. The other model is very selective right through the primary level. Both types of schools exist.

As for clever parents in well paid jobs, yes they have more power and we need many many more women being such so get your daughters out there and don't bring them up to be pretty stupid and aiming only to marry rich men. Get them to thirst to run BP.

1. What is a 'silly' career?
2. If you mean things like teaching, nursing, etc, who would do it if people didn't pick those careers?
3. Your island sounds nice, but I wish for you that your husband (a teacher, wasn't he?) had been able to come along on the journey thus far with you, and not just gone off with £1m of your Xenia pounds.

My point was we all do our best for our children so we tend to want them if there is a choice in a career which pays well and in which they are happy. It's an easier combination than say a life of chastity poveryy and obedience in the church or cleaning floors for a living or whatever or even being a housewife.

Just because you might want your child to do well doesn't mean you don't want other children not to do well. Our society, our species works on this planet by the survival of the fittest. We would not be here but for that. Of course we look after the sick and weak and have a stucture and hierarchy and I'm not advocating people never move about their untouchable caste but just because you want the best for your children doesn't mean you think all children should have that.

As keeps being said to Labour if people move up other move down.

As for my own marriage it's not relevant. I don't think we ever argued over money but we certainly were very very unhappy and everyone seems a lot happier apart. There are a lot of unhappy marriages around. And having been one of those people who thought you never divorce and how awful that must be, I can now see for many people it's actually better although if you're economically dependent on a man who disappears with the money and a new Thai girl friend abroad you lose out then as well if you have a silly career like house wife or minimum wage.

Judy1234 (talking about London)

"What is fascinating is that the highest exam results in state and private are all concentrated here. Is it because we are more clever - are people thciker in Exeter, North Wales, Scunthorpe? Is it because even the state school parents are richer? Are there better teachers? Or is it just that the state selective schools (of which there are few - most state schools in London are not selective, even Watford grammar is not I think a selective school) and private selective ones choose from such a wide pool?"

I'm from London. I went to one of the top London comprehensives, top then and still top now. But now I live in Exeter and I'd just like to point out - 2010 top state grammar for A levels (by a country mile) - Colyton. 2010 top state grammar for GCSEs (again, by a country mile) -Colyton.

At least in Exeter we know how to read the school tables.

In a minute I'll read the thread but while I'm doing so please would you kindly categorise the following schools so I know whether my various friends friend are cringe worthy or should be treated with greater respect:

Haberdashers Monmouth
Cheltenham Ladies
Port Regis
Badminton
Clifton
The Dragon School
Edgbaston High School

I am sure there are various others but your help in placing these seven would obviously assist me in my future social dealings

Nothing pretentious about the OP then?

thetasigmamum- whyever have you resurrected a thread from a year ago?

I haven't read the whole thread but there seems to be a sub-thread running by people for whom the pinnacle of aspiration in sending their children to private school is landing a job at Goldman Sachs.

Just wow!

Yes CaptainNancy!!! I was having a bit of de ja vu as well!

I think she must have searched Exeter in the archive and then saw this and got her dander up!

She's been typing her reply all this time, you see. A clear sign of an inferior education, right there...

hahahahahahhahahahhahahahha

I haven't read the whole thread but I do kind of understand where Barrel is coming from.

Where I live there is a proliferation of indy schools. The old boy network is alive and well. There are also a lot of good state schools.

I have friends who are sacrificing a massive amount to send their kids to indy primaries when they already live in the catchement area (by dint of their equally expensive house) for an excellent state primary.

There are some reasons for independent sector - better wrap around childcare, more emphasis on team sports etc. which one could argue would be useful when they go to secondary but for some of the families I know I definitely think they would be better having a holiday and saving the cash to pay for 'extras' like music and ballet.

When the state schools aren't great I can completely understand why people pay.

COI: moved between both systems.

Doh- it's obviously because Thete's a time lord....

I've read this thread and have a few points I'd like to add.

The first is sometimes people choose the less academic well thought of school because a child fails to get into the more 'prestigious'/academic school thinking Cranleigh rather than Charterhouse etc.

LeQueen categories of private school parent were interesting. There is another group that are the one time middle earning, 'John Lewis' types. Or at least their families were when they were growing up. They are highly intelligent and often grammar school pupils that progressed to Oxbridge or similar. Eventually through promotion and city jobs move to the huge pile with outbuildings etc and most take to be 'old money' - they have deliberately avoided anything remotely new build etc. They aspire to the elite public schools for their children sometimes because they felt disadvantaged by not having that status themselves on the way up. Not that you can generalise or any of it matters particularly.

Lastly there is a huge amount on this thread about IQ. I believe, as many of you will know by now, in the concept of 'learnable intelligence' what one can learn most can learn in the right environment etc. There are some very old fashioned ideas about IQ bandied about here.

I am not saying there are not genetic differences in IQ, but the most important thing is that everyone has a wide envelope of variation around that 'base point' that depends on experience, encouragement and self-belief.

It's in part the belief that IQ is hard wired that has caused our school to set so rigidly so early on. Yes, for a general 'sump' of IQ that will be the same for both literacy and maths so no distinction is made.

The views bandied about here about the fixed nature of IQ are ancient and long surpassed by better research. This was written as long ago as 1938 (Spens report) brought in to justify the introduction of the Grammar system:

Intellectual development appears to progress as if it were governed by a single central factor, usually known as 'general intelligence'..It's possible at a very early age to predict with accuracy the ultimate level of a child's intellectual powers'

Intelligence isn't unitary it is the sum of all of your habits of mind. The habits of mind are many and various and most of them can be cultivated. All this talk of IQ tests by Xenia etc and how she enjoys talking to people that have IQs above 130 etc. IQ tests are simply logic tests (that you can get better at by practice).