Middle Class Dilemma - state school daughters, public school sons?

[Cortina]

Just read an article 'The Son Only Rises' by James Delingpole published this month, sorry don't have a link.

It bascially makes the point that in cash strapped times if you can afford to send just one child to private school you should chose your son. This is why according to article:

1. Boys, whether we like it or not are much more likely to end up earning their family's crust, while girls - especially if they're pretty- can always marry someone rich regardless of their education.

1. Girls, being more sophisticated, devious and socially adept than boys are more capable of negotiating the complexities of the state-school system than boys

1. Boys are generally lazier and less mature than girls so will benefit from more discipline and rigour at private school.

1. Boys are usually more physical and the sport on offer is better quality and more frequent than at the average state school.

Delingpole says, tongue in cheek I hope, that he's still holding out for a lottery win that will buy his girl an education too but this is the outcome he is hoping for:

'Boy goes to tailcoat-wearing school full of boys desperate to meet attractive sisters with urban, state-educated cred; Girl meets future duke/hedgefunder and never has to work again. I don't call that sexist. I call that common sense'.

Hmmmmm

I spoke to an admissions tutor/registrar today at a public school and he says this happens all the time with overseas students.

I read this article a week or so ago and was gobsmacked and had to check the date ... it was not only this century but is in the current September 2010 edition of Tatler - which I find even odder because this is a magazine aimed at women. It was a very strange editorial decision to publish such drivel from a prehistoric dinosaur. The only thing I can think is that they were hoping to pep up their letters page.

I wanted to make a grand gesture of boycotting Tatler in outrage at this article, except it's the kind of thing that I only pick up in a dentist's waiting room when I've finished the Okays and Heats ;-)

I have some sympathy for the idea that not all children benefit from the same type of education.

My DS is fab but a self-starter he ain't. There is no way on earth I would take him out of his independent school. No way.

Whereas DD is naturally rebellious, and finds regulations (and there are so many more at independent schools) irksome. She does not want to wear a beret in winter and a panama in summer. She kicks off at teachers, is generally gobby, and really, a school where she has a lot more independence and latitude would suit her. She works tremendously hard when she is interested. She's quite incredibly trendy, one of the cool kids, prone to rebellion and needs a light touch IMO

So, treating children equally does not always mean that they are getting an education appropriate to their individual needs.

This happened with my DH and his sister but she did better than he did academically, and there is no resentment between them. I find it hard to believe that people would do this in this day and age. I went to grammar school, did extremely well academically, and went on to have a professional career. I work only part time now (so the career has taken a bit of a kicking), but I can stand on my own two feet if necessary, and I cannot undertand any mother who does not want her daughter to do the same.

However, why knock parents who make choices for each child for reasons other than discrimination? The trouble with people who say "I wouldn't do this and I wouldn't do that..." is that they really don't know what they would do if a certain set of circumstances came upon them.

We have three children. DS1 was at a failing state junior school when DS2 & DD (twins)were at nursery. He is the least academic of our children and was prone to being distracted by anything and everything. To be honest, we had very hard time when the twins were small and perhaps we took our eye off the ball a bit as far as DS's education was concerned. Anyway, we pulled him out and put him into private school. He loved the prep school and the boys school he goes to now, but he is still bumping along academically.

DS2 & DD are very bright and motivated (a fair amount of friendly competition between them spurs them on). They would thrive at any decent comprehansive, which is just as well because three lots of school fees is beyond us. We would have left DS1 where he is and put them into the local comp in due course, if it was any good, but it isn't. And to be honest, we aren't really impressed with the DS1s school either. It doesn't seem to push the boys at all and its results are not as good as some of the state schools.

So, we have decided to move to an area where there is a good state school and all three can go there. The money we will save in school fees will be available to help them along with university costs, a deposit for a flat, a car or whatever.

What teamcullen said "If I had the money to educate only one of my DCs, I would still put them all through the state system and use the money to pay for good quality extra curriculum activities for all of them."

Either that or buy some nice wine

Interesting. I was offered three scholarships to different independant secondary schools. My parents turned them down on the basis that I have siblings.

I resented it a bit at first. However, when I realised I was going to a mixed sex state school rather than a single sex private one I perked up considerably (Oh the priorities of teenagers )

The author has a very sad view on boys, along with a worrying perspective on state schools. He seems to say that girls are so smart and clever they can get good grades despite going to state school, and boys need public school in order to stay afloat. As a mother of two boys, I find this highly degrading to boys!

It does not work for all, though. Some parents have paid an arm an a leg to put their boys through public school only for them to snort on champagne and fail. cough hark erm lineker.

QS, Lineker's son failed due to the school's choice of exam - the new, and difficult Pre-U, as opposed to the "easier" A levels, (although I his attitude worked against him as well, reminiscent of Prince Harry)

All children even within the same family are different. Our son is exceptionally bright, musical and very sporty with an alpha male personality. The local very selective and independent school was and is ideal for him. He also tends towards the linguistic and artistic and the local grammar is science based so therefore the decision was a "no brainer". Our daughter is delightful, all level 5's at the end of year 6 but by no means as bright as her older brother. She's also very shy. Although bright she would have been in the bottom quintile at the two local selective independents and this would not have been good for her self confidence. The right school was a local high performing but small comprehensive girls C of E school. Yes she could have gone to a less selective independent but this was five form entry and would have involved an hours travelling each way; the other independents were not as good as the state school she was offered. One size doesn't fit all and parents have the right to make the choices which they feel are the best for their individual children. There is no resentment between my children because they know they have been treated as individuals and school choices have been based upon their happiness.

I would hate to only be able to afford it for one child and wuld forever worry about the other. Not so much how they'd fair, but their feelings, really. Would they feel less valued?

I think it's my DD who would miss her independent school more than her brother. She talkes advantage of absolutely everyhting on offer and is having a ball, though he is brighter and more likely to end p with a clutch of A*s.

Results aint everything.

breathtakingben, but the other students did well on the pre u exams, no?

DH and I offered DD chance to go to independent school at age 11 but she declined in favour of attending local comp with all her friends from primary. She had an excellent time there and loved it and is now in 6th form and doing well.
DS was offered same and he chose to go to independent school and leave behind his primary school friends who all went to aforementioned local comp. He is just about to go into yr 8 and it has taken a while to settle in but has now made a group of friends at his new school and he also keeps in contact with a couple of boys from primary.
I feel we have given both our DC's the same chance and they have both chosen to take different paths so I can't envisage that this will cause any problems in the future. I hope I'm right!!
In DS's year group btw, there are double the number of boys than girls.

It is interesting that there is a pre-conceived idea that boys are not as hard-working as girls. I have one of each and would say the opposite. My DS is very hard-working and my DD needs to be encouraged. It really annoys me that people base the decision purely on the gender.

As many people here have said it depends on the child. Personally, we have a very good state schools and I would prefer to spend the money on extra-curric stuff, a decent house in a nice area and save for the kids future but that is a choice we have made.

yy fsmail

I am female, yet I was (and still am) very lazy if allowed to get away with it, and very much not sophisticated, devious, or socially adept. In fact I suspect I would have got eaten alive in many schools.

It's got to be decided on the basis of the actual child not the gender. (And of course the fairness issue).

While I can see that "one size does not fit all" the article is not stating that schools should be chosen in accordance with academic ability but in accordance with the sex of the child (based on some rather old fashioned generalisations).

The attitude that girls are somehow second class citizens who do not deserve the same privileges as boys simply because they might have children and thus take a career break is outrageous. It makes me so angry.

I can't believe that any mother of a daughter would agree to this kind of shit but, of course, plenty of them do.

I think James Delingpole is one of the foulest people I have ever read. Not just because of this book, but because of other stuff he has written over the years. Merely hearing his name makes me want to vomit.

James Delingpole's views are such crap one hardly knows where to start. Women marrying money as a default option... oh please... men not minding a thick trophy wife... you've got to by joking coming out with that hoary old chestnut. I can't believe this idiot can set foot out of the door without getting lynched.

I was sent to the local comp and then to the grammar at 13. My brother was deemed to be too precious to be allowed to stay in the state system and went to private boarding school at 12. Guess what, we have nothing in common, we hardly speak and the favouritism couldn't have been more gross and obvious.

If you want your children to resent you and there to be a permanent divide between them then do exactly what JD suggests. I still resent it even now and I'm in my forties.

I went to an independent girls school, partly as the local comprehensives were truly awful ( a 2% pass rate) and then was made to switch to state for sixth form.

My brothers were given the choice, but chose the newly opened CTC over a single sex independent school.

Even though we all made our own choice my brothers still resent it now!

My DH's sisters both went to a private convent school, until it closed before the younger had finished. By the time their 3rd child came along they couldn't afford fees for all- let alone for children no. 4 (my Dh) or 5! No resentment there though.

My parents did this because brother was a straight A student and I was a straight D student. Even so, I think they felt bad because at the last minute, with 2 years to go) they swapped me to the fee paying school and I hated it. They all seemed so geeky and wholesome after the comp. My brother is a lot more successful in life than I am though.

I mentioned this on another thread.

He thinks girls marry so it's a waste of money but as Eleanor Mills mentions in today's Sunday Times no way to posh boys from Eton want to marry girls like his daughter will become when he decides to pay £30k to send his son to Eton rather than £10k a year x 2 to send both children to very good academic day schools like Haberdashers. He is damaging her marriage prospects if indeed he thinks that is all she is good for.

Indeed she may end up marrying a journalist who doesn't earn enough to pay several sets of school fees if he's not careful. Presumably he married badly too and his wife doesn't fund fees. If I can pay 5 sets of school fees alone I don't see why he can't. People should pick their careers with care if they want a certain type of education for their children. If you're into private schools and private education becoming a journalist is not usually the best route to riches.

That 'pick your career with care' advice is only relevant to the most intelligent layer of society. I can't just decide to be a lawyer. I still care about the same issues, but deciding to do something well-paid has not worked out for me and thousands of others. I wish it were so easy.

This actually happened to me. For my parents to keep their respectability in their careers one of my brother or I had to be state educated. As the girl I drew the short straw and went to some hellhole I care not to remember, was incessantly bullied and walked out age 14 and educated myself.
My brother was sent to a top boarding school with all the pirvileges.
It causes huge divides. I still think that by that choice my parents clearly valued my brother much more than they do me. I educated myself in the end, not for myself but to prove a point that I didn't need an expensive public school to do as well as my brother. It worked - my exam results were better than his. Ha ha ha.
We're now adults and even though I've heard every explanation under the sun I'm still resentful and have no confidence in myself. It's resentment that drives me now - a bitter feud that started with me being made to feel I was not worth spending the money on.
This man is a twat but what does one expect from the Tatler anyway. I work in that section of society who take that magazine seriously - prima genita is not dead and never will be

I don't understand it. Some of the best schools in the country for exam results like Haberdashers are day schools near london where the boys and girls' fees are not that much over £10k a year so you get 2 children educated very well for the price of one set of fees at Eton but instead they decide to take the same pot of money and give 100% of the boy and 0% to the girl assuming the boy is clever enough to get into Eton (or indeed Habs) Most people who apply don't get in because they aren't clever enough so it's not even parental choice unless you get down to the lower tier private schools for the thicker children which cannot fill their places.

Poor Tavvy and what silly paernts. Most parents do try to treat all children the same.

Where I live in Surrey/London religion takes an unusual hand in school choices. There are a number of Muslim families who, if there is not enough money for all the children to go private, will send their daughter not son in order to protect them in some way from the influence of boys I suppose.