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.

blueshoes.

lequeen, for example, is a t... t... terrible snob.

Le Queen- totally agree with your 17.50 post. Universities need to be able to sort 'the wheat from the chaff' regardless of crude GCSE/A level results or which type of school candidates attended.

When we were choosing schools for the DCs, it became apparent that what was important was the proportion of A/A* grades they achieve at GCSE, rather than the overall pass rate.

So I agree that the grades are a bit meaningless.

I don't like the modern ways either.

Not doing separate sciences, having to do "non" subjects which are an almost guaranteed A, loads of coursework that you are able to repeat until the desired grade is achieved, no means of telling who the genuinely bright and talented are as so many people get top results.

Also disagree with aim to have 50% of people go to university. All it means is that many people get hugely into debt and then still can't get a decent job, and would have been better off starting work at 18 and be well on career path by 21. People say that certain jobs onyl take graduates now - so everyone must have a degree. But that's the wrong way round - certain jobs ask for degrees now because everyone has got them. But the jobs themselves haven't changed and before they only needed A-levels or even O-Levels. Surely the end result is even less social mobility as those who can't afford a degree are squeezed out of all but the most menial jobs. Rather than more social mobility as claimed by govt.

I'm so not telling- I agree with you. Universities used to be for the very academic. That is not the case any more.

University should only be for the very academic, but remember there are plenty of privately educated students at top universities who shouldn't be there as well, who are not truely academic.

The education system at the moment does allow for those not particularly brilliant to achieve top grades. It's ridiculous.

Totally agree selectivememory - university should be for those who really deserve it, not simply because people can buy their way there or old boys network.

how to achieve that is the difficult question.

blueshoes - All of the state schools in the top 50 are selective. Most of them are grammars and a few of them are foundation schools. The independent schools are selective also I'm sure so one is still comparing like with like.

The mediocre independents probably send a disproportionate amount of students to university. Whether or not they should be there is another debate. University is a great experience and I think that trying to make that accessible to more people is a good thing. Yes people could be working their way up in a job but they have the rest of their lives to do that. Going to uni presumably just delays the inevitable but ensures that the workforce is better educated on the whole - no?

Well, no IMO and IME. Even in my day people went to uni and studied ridiculous things. Which is great if the subject is something you have a genuine passion or talent for, or is connected to a job you want to do.

However even then far too many people went as it was "something you did" and that was in teh days when it was free and grants were still slightly available. By the time DH went there were no grants and banks had stalls at freshers fairs offering loans to students. Many people he went with hobestly believed the hype - that with any degree from any university they would walk into a £££ job. While in fact it was mis-sold and they walked out with less money and no more chance of getting a £££ job than they had before.

And I think it is worse now. People are sold the idea that a degree, any degree, will = massive earning potential, but that is just not true.

If people want to study for fun, or for the sake of it, that;s great. but at least be honest about it. There are a lot of very disappointed debt-ridden grauates out there.

thedolly, I think selective grammars (which are not universally available) are not representative of the state sector in the way that a comprehensive is. I don't have experience of foundation schools so cannot comment.

Selective grammars start at 11+ and select from both state and independent sector. In fact, a disproportionate amount of their intake is from private schools and preps, many of whom proudly declare in their prospectus materials how many of their graduates go on to grammars. Doing well in 11+ sadly too often depends on tutoring and coaching, which is affordable only to a certain income bracket and sort of parent who is ambitious for their children. So there are all sorts of hidden barriers to getting into a grammar which would rule out genuinely bright children from more disadvantaged backgrounds.

When you say you are comparing like with like, I believe there is more truth to this than you think, but it is not necessarily supporting your argument.

The only point that I am making is that a good 'free' state education can be as good as a costly independent education. You are of course correct blueshoes in that there are hidden barriers to getting into a grammar. But on a more positive note, if the best of our state schools can compete with the best independents then perhaps our mediocre state schools can compete with the 'cringeworthy' parents' choice as per the OP .

lequeen imnottelling i agree entirely

recently a friends dd has won a place at a redbrick university (russell group)

she is a really lovely hardworking girl though not overly academic - she got one A at gcse

at A level she got ABB

redbrick university must have to alter teaching methods/standards

Most areas of England have no selective state schools so the Kent/Bucks grammars are an inrrelevant but plenty of areas have the posh comps in posh areas and the sink comps in bad areas. That is as unfair as the fact I can afford to pay school fees. It's not a better unfairness. It's still an unfairness but life is unfair .

In Pakistan they now have one of the lowest percentages of chidlren learning to read - it's absolutely dreadful, much much worse than poor parts of Africa and than India. At least even the bad comps offer some education.

I've slightly lost what the point was of the thread now. The private school educate thick as well as clever children and they do pretty well with the low IQ ones too. Harrow for the thick. Eton for the clever. That was traditionally one divide. The sector has always catered to a variety of children.
I will have spent from age 3 to what for at least 2 of the children is 5 years univesrity and beyond about £1m out of taxed income which I think is about £1.7m assuming about £10k a year in total for 5 children. I suspect they'll make the £340k each back in a life time of additional earnings.

Even if they don't pick well paid work (and I am not in any sense a pushy parent - I think my best legacy to them has simply been love and interest in them and the ability to ignore them and let them play and I don't have set careers for them in mind) I don't mind. I want them to haev enjoyed their education. I have loved being in the choirs, singing Handel, champagne on lawns, clever interesting other parents, school trips, tradition etc etc. I've thought £10k a year per child for taht is really nothing much and much more fun than spending the money on new shoes or a yacht.

'champagne' on lawns

bet it was cheap stuff

I understand now. If only I hadn't bought the yacht the kids could've gone to Eton. What a shortsighted fool I've been

to the poster that said comps dont match up even in leafy suburbs - well not at gcse but then they are not selective

by the time you have 'self selected' at A level figures at a decent comp can be much nearer private schools