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 think Xenia genuinely feels that state schools are little better than holding pens for the feral children of the feckless.

Oh a biscuit. I thought the new smiley indicated that the poster was a 'tit'.

There is no need to be rude.

I don't know very many people who send their children to state schools either. It's just the way things happen, rather than anything else.

You talking to me?

I disagree - I heartily disagree with what I perceive as arrant snobbery and rampant self-interest...and am entitled to say so.

Xenia's world is a very tiny one of extreme privilege and rampant snobbery, and holding a mirror up to it is no bad thing.

It doesn't have to be the way though. I know a lot of people with kids in private schools, mine are not. However, none of them seem to have had their sense of humours removed when they enrolled in the schools. Unlike some of the posters on here.

I know plenty of people who do both. I send my son to a private school (considered a 'soft" school by the uber pushy parents of North London), because it was the right school for him. He has also attended a state school.

I have no idea who is talking to who now MadameDefage. I was talking to georgiemum who seemed to be calling me a "tit" which i thought was a bit OTT really.

I can't speak for Xenia's world. My world - well at work everyone sends their children to independent schools, my children go to independent schools so I only really ever meet children/parents who are in the same world. Friends out of work and neighbours tend also to use independent schools.

I mean I can see how it looks like snobbery but it isn't really, unless you think that attending independent schools in itself is an act of snobbery.

oh, okay Minty

Gosh I would not agree at all that if a person dreams of being an artist they should bury that and go and work in £££ career instead. Unhappy parents don't make great parents.

And I suppose that's exactly what I mean by my earlier comments - I am the sort of person who would be an artist rather than goldman sachs as I am not driven by money. I have had a career in the financial sector in the city/canary wharf and utterly loathed most of the people I worked with - pushy arrogant arses. All Tory voting people with no sense of social resonsibility who wouldn't ever give to charity as poor people could make penty of money "if they really tried". Awful.

I work in charity sector now (unfortuntely that's not great either - so inefficient - but that's another story ).

I would also like to point out the likes of matt lucas and sacha baron cohen who I was at school with. They certainly did not give up their dreams of being comedians and go and work in the city. And I think they can be considered fairly successful.

It is a very narrow view, success = money = city. Would be a very dull world if that were the sum total of everone's ambition. And a very miserable one.

The North London pushy parent is a rare and wondrous beast...

That is interesting what do you do ? I have a mix where I work and lots of children at our state primary go on to private secondary. All the people in our area send kids to a wide mix of schools. I have never found anybody to be especially snobby.

I know people with children at private schools and people with children at state schools in the part of the UK I come from (Kent) - even within the same family. That is undoubtedly because it is an area with a plentiful supply of grammar schools and a wide range of independent schools. Presumably there is less switching between state and private in areas where there are no grammar (selective) schools.

In my own family, the children who went to grammar schools went on to Oxbridge (the vast majority) or Russell group universities, and have got Firsts, MAs, PhDs etc etc and the children who went to independent schools have got 2:2s from lesser universities and less illustrious qualifications - though not necessarily less agreeable lives!

Eek, not aimed at anyone in particular, but they are hysterical. They seem to think that only Oxford and Cambridge will do, that all other unversities are in some ways just parking spots for failures...

Its a very blinkered view.

And yes, people do tend to congregate in particular socio-economic groups, and it doesn't make them horrid, or their children vile either!

The parents in my ds' school run the gamut of the middle classes, and being middle class, I feel comfortable there. And there were as many middle class parents in his previous state school, many of whom were highly educated and doing very nicely thank you.

I'm not sure what my point is, except that I object to the smug superiority of the monied sneering at the unmonied, because it must be because they are stupid in some way, especially when it comes to education.

And many of my friends who are professors and teachers at oxford and cambridge hate having such a huge swathe of overeducated children who have been nannied to success, because they cannot cope academically at all with the intellectual rigours of uni. You should see how many students end up in the psych unit at John Radcliffe because they just implode.

Xenia - I am interested in your comment 'on the whole the better schools are in the private sector'.

It dependents what you mean by 'on the whole' and 'better schools'.

Let's look at league tables as a guide to which are the better schools:

For GCSE

6/10, 10/25 and 15/50 of the top schools are in the private sector so
4/10, 15/25 and 35/50 of the top schools are in the state sector

For ALevel

7/10, 16/25 and 25/50 of the top schools are in the private sector so
3/10, 9/25, and 25/50 of the top schools are in the state sector

When considered this way the conclusions one draws change as the goal posts change. But one thing is constant and that is -

Private schools are 'better' represented (in the top 50) if you consider A Level results rather than GCSE results.

I think this is interesting. However it is not necessarily a 'fair test' as we may not be comparing the same 50 schools. What would be interesting would be to do just that. I may return later with some results .

Oh, what I should add is that based on their relative numbers, you have a better chance of finding a good independent school than a good state school, but that's obvious isn't it?

The thing is in the education system at the moment it is really not that hard to get a string of A*s especially in the private sector, if you are a) reasonably bright to start with and b) do everything you are told.

The average child in a private school is much more likely to get top grades at A level as well. However, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE BRAIN OF BRITAIN or that a child from a not very good state school is any less intelligent than them: they have just not had the same opportunities thus the reason why people pay.

It is the sheer arrogance of Xenia (and only Xenia, I hasten to add) that a child from a state school is somehow inferior by dint of the fact their parents cannot pay for their education.

My two older DCs are/were at the same university as one of Xenia's offspring, and I can assure you they are heartily sick to death of some of the quite frankly not very bright private school brigade not managing to understand quite a lot of the academic work.

Quite a lot of Independent Schools decided not to submit their GCSE & A level results to the Times this year - particularly those (like my DD's school) who have a high percentage of students taking IGCSE at 16 or IB at 18 - as they feel it's like comparing apples with pears! Exam results are not the be all and end all.

Bonsoir - Do you think your non grammar school educated counterparts would have faired as well in the state sector as in their presumably non academic independent schools? I am presuming they didn't/woundn't get in to grammar school and that is why they went down the independent route.

Or do you think their second rate independent school education (in the spirit of the OP) was the making of them?

I never said the child at the state school was inferior. I did say on the whole the private schools are better. They must be. They account for 50% of oxbridge entrance and educate at most 10% of children at A level.

On our road not one single person has sent a child to a state school and most people I work with don't either. It's just the way it is as Q says above. I didn't literally mean I don't know a single person who does. Presumably the chidlren of the milk man do and probably the local vicar etc.

I certainly agree however that how "well" children do is not just their schooling. Birth order helps. I'm sure I earn more than my siblings because I am the oldest child. Also personality. I know loads of very bright people who can't talk to other people. Their verbal skills are useless. Some are hampered by a very strong regional accent (or I suppose advantaged by it depending on where they work).

Should you [anyone ] give up your dream to act to make enough money instead to give your children a good start in life? Of course that's up to you to choose in a free society as long as the rest of us are not subsidising you through our taxes but for most teenagers future income and ability to keep themselves is a factor. I have seen all these university students friends of my 3 older children in the last few years all picking careers and they do make these judgments. Many follow what they think they enjoy but they do need reminding that most actors end up as bar workers or cleaners and that some jobs appear glamourous because you get free clothes working at a particular magazine but the reality is you earn a pittance and that may not matter when you're 23 and the pittance is double your student loan but might be material if when you're 30 you might want to buy a flat.

The other fascinating thing is charting children through their lives. 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 take it by your pro grammar school stance Bonsoir that if you were in this country you would seek out the good grammar schools as opposed to the good/possibly great (but non selective so no real way of knowing) state comprehensive schools?

We have a private school locally. We also have very good state schools. The private is a boarding school and has a mix of children from overseas, other counties and of course the local day pupils.

I recognise most of the the parents of the local day pupils are no 2's in the list. Parents are social climbers in trade. The children from this school who do well usually end up in our state comp when they reach 6th form.

It always makes me smile when I see them with their kids in 'that uniform' Cannot understand why they want to spend so much money when there are perfectly good state schools.

Oooooh, the "lower qualiity" "independent" schools, don't you know.

(finger-crooked, tea-sipping emoticon)

Lah-di-dah-di-dah.

No wonder the banking system is in crisis, overpopulated as it is by the dim but overeducated offspring of monied snobs.

It would be a damn sight better for our country as a whole if these 'tim nice but dims' got winnowed out before embarking on fast track careers suited to brighter individuals.

Let alone the appalling attitudes these young people have towards other sectors of society. Totally continues the class system which is one of our country's greatest weaknesses.

My nephew is privately educated and he regards all children at state schools as 'oiks". we have plenty of heated discussions on the subject. But he is not alone, he is pretty representative of his peers.