Bizarre notion: private good for boys, girls will do well anywhere

[duchesse]

Has anybody else encountered this weird logic that private school is good or even desirable for boys, but that their sisters will do well anywhere so can go to the local state school? It was this bizarre statement from my MIL that ensured that I went back to work so that my daughters could go to the same fee-paying schools that their brother was attending.

Is it a generational thing? And is it utterly sexist or on the contrary, a compliment of girls' ability to knuckle down and perform regardless of what's going on around them (which obviously is not the case for many girls). My feeling is that it's an antiquated utterly sexist thing- that there's no point educating girls as much as boys as they'll just leave education and get pregnant. What do you think?

My son was utterly failing in state primary (completely disengaged in classes of 36) by the age of 6, so we took the hard decision to send him to prep school from year 3. Hard because I was dead set against private school back then. I just did not want to see my bright bright boy unhappy and failing for ten more years.

My MIL offered to pay his fees, which bless her she has done ever since then. But she maintained that state education was fine for girls because "girls do well anywhere". I could not accept that classes of 30-35 and no sports or clubs or extra-curricular stuff was fine for the girls but not fine for the boy, vs the 15 in a class, individual attention, 8 hours a week of physical activity and multitude of extra-curriculars offered at our son's mixed prep. Having endured the same situation in my own family I was buggered if I would allow it to be repeated, so I was propelled back into work when my daughters were 4 and 2, which has been overwhelmingly a good thing. I just wanted to be in a position to pay my daughters' fees, which I have done ever since.

They are doing extremely well where they are (very good selective academic schools with wide range of extra-curricular stuff) and I absolutely do not believe that they would be doing as well had they gone to the local state schools. For a start they would not have been able to do triple science, Latin, Greek and play in the orchestras and music ensembles they have access to. There is only one grammar school around here and even that does not offer them these opportunities (apart from the triple science). The lure of not having to spend any money on them would have been quite appealing had it not been for the huge and unfair divide it would have created between my children. Either I would have had to let my son fail in the state system (seriously he nearly "failed" his KS1 SATs aged 6, or would have if we hadn't withdrawn him from school. now don't get me wrong, I didn't give a shit about SATs and was not about to put pressure on him to perform in them, but I did not want him to feel like an academic failure at the age of 6).

So what do you: sexist or based on fact?

If I applied this theory to my dcs I would have to agree. DD is self motivated, bright, interested and doesn't care what others think. Ds wants to be cool, is bright but lazy and needs a toe firmly on the arse of this pants at all times. Both will go to the local state comprehensive but if ds gets in with the 'clever = geeks' gang I'm going to have a battle.

Kris123,

I have a friend with two daughters at grammar school and her son at the local private school. She is thrilled with both schools but her son needed more support. She probably views the grammar school as academically stronger, but not for her son as he would have got lost and will therefore probably do better at the independent school.

An all girls school does not need to be filled with bitchiness and eating disorders but the pressurised selective environment contributes to this and it is much more common at these schools. That is not a sexist attitude but years of parents witnessing the effects of these schools on their daughters.

I don't understand the comment about Downe House being in the upper echelons and that being a bad thing. Most CLC boarders come from London and many DH girls come from Hampshire/Devon/Wiltshire and London.

I have heard that education doesn't matter so much for girls because they'll be supported by their husbands. Boys will need to earn a good living. As long as girls are pretty....

Obviously I don't have a great deal in common with certain members of the family. My 3 older ones are at single sex state grammars - I'd pay fees for any of them who failed to get there in our area, though I'm sure dd2 would thrive in a great comprehensive. There aren't any round here.

Blessings, my question about Downe House wasn't a comment, it was a question about information (or mis information) I had picked up. Neither was there any perjorative implication about the girls or their school, both of which, as I said, I am sure are lovely, as , no doubt, are the other two mentioned. I have never made any negative comments about girls' schools or the children in them - you have - and I am wondering why DH will be different to to others if your opinion of girls together is generally a negative one.

I am really wondering why people have such negative opinions of girls' behaviour in an all girls environment - yet not about boys' behaviour in an all boys environment. The comment about there being no girls' school to match those for boys struck me as representative of this tendency to denigrate girls and their schools.

Since there is a stunningly obvious historical and socio-economic reason for the disparity between the ancient boys' foundations and the relatively recent girls' equivalent, I am curious as to whether this - to me - woolly thinking, is the kind of thinking which leads to such poor opinions of our daughters and the institutions they might attend or whether there is really something that mothers of these girls at these schools know that I don't.

Anorexia isn't a great example of the evils of female establishments, as far as I am concerned as it is found in mixed schools too. (And my experience is mostly of mixed schools). Since it is a condition more likely to affect ambitious, high achieving children, it necessarily follows that it might be over represented in a selective school which has a concentration of this type of child.

I accept and understand why one child might be put through private education because he or she is in need of a different kind of support but I am aware from a long previous thread that a poster on this thread is choosing to educate a son at Eton and her daughters in the state system. I am not disagreeing with her choice as I have no knowledge of her family circumstances and I am sure she is doing her best for all her children. I'd suggest it's a unequal treatment however.

From some of the comments here, it appears to me that some boys are "rewarded" for not being self starters by being given the opportunity to go to fee paying schools while girls who are self-motivated and hard working are not "rewarded" at all.

This is, of course, only true if you regard going to a fee paying school as offering a better education/environment than a state school and I'm very aware that this is not always the case.

Doesn't really seem fair to me though...

Oh I can't bear all this 'girls do better here, boys do better there...' Have none of you read Cordelia Fine???

(FWIW my brother went to a private school, I went to the local comp. I'm now an academic and he is an estate agent! (but he earns about 10x what I do so it depends what your goals are I guess)

Yes I am aware of Cordelia Fine's work. Her thesis is one of the reasons I want to know why so many mothers are so unkind about girls and so much more prepared, as BelleDame points out, to indulge poor behaviour in their sons yet criticize it in their daughters - if indeed it appears as I do not recognize myself or my daughters or nieces or my friends in the non-eating "overly" competitive (what is "overly" competitive exactly?) spiteful girls so often described on these kinds of threads as if their horrible behaviour to schoolmates is so common in girls as not to need further explanation.

Have been away for few hours, and I can see a shift in the balance on this thread. My past starts to haunt me down. :)

Lets start with BelleDame: I encarage you not look at private as "reward", and state as "pain". This is an issue that many people do not follow here, automatically assuming that private must be better than state. These are two different institutions, plus having lately visited many private schools, I can tell you, without throwing names not to insult them as it would not be too nice of me, that IN MY VIEW not many (if any) of their students would even get into a state grammar, despite their 15k a year fees, amazing sports facilities and after school clubs (which most kids don't seem to use anyway). Indeed perhaps a reason why many of the kids are there, is because they initially failed grammars and had a choice of a number 80 rated school or a local inner london comprehensive. Frankly, should I have only that choice, I would go for number 80 rated indi school.

Now to my long time fan Timebend: thank you for admiting that you do not know my financial circumstances :). However to confuse you, I will tell you that its not even a cash issue, as please note that if I for instance feel that my DD1 is well suited to be a medical doctor (heart, interest and brains), than in many ways the almost solely academic environment of the grammar school might be better for her, than a top round private Ladies school, regardless of it being free or not. Take example of Dr Skidaddle and her brother, and career paths (and salaries) that they took. Its perfectly possible, that despite earning 10x less, Dr Skidaddle loves with passion what she does, where as her brother is totally unhappy in his audi tt seeking (and getting) fun in partying, drinking etc. I am getting ahead of myself for sure here, but men in general are far more elastic with their choice of careers - accepting what they get, and women can be more sentimental about it - doing what matters to them.

Hence, i think that it is highly simplistic to state that I put unequal treatment as i want my girl to attend a state grammar school (i never said state alone), though if it saves my face a bit, let me assure you that my DD2, who is a young devil (if compared to DD1), well she will hopefully one day go to a best co-ed boarding school i can find and afford, if her talent allows it.

Timebend, i appreciate your academic almost analysis of the differences in the system, which recognize that fairly or not, there are significant differences in the recognition between the top boys schools and top girls schools in the country. CLC, WA - great - but for instance how does St Pauls School for Girls compare to them, which seems to have best A-level results in the country of any boys or girls school? Just interested, as at some point I will need to start to plan ahead for the girls too - and at the moment I simply find it difficult to find Eton / Westminster equivalent for girls (regardless if it is fair or not, or the historical reasons for it). Yes it is not fair, but why should I hence pay 30k for the school which is not even that good, if compared to the grammar school (not just any state school)?

Hope it makes some sense now.

Timebends my comments were based on the super selective girls schools such as CLC and WA which help to fuel a culture of eating disorders and unhealthy competition which can manifest itself in bullying and bitchiness.

I do not have a low opinion of girls and I also feel that WA, CLC and a number of girls schools are on par with Eton but Eton happens to have been around for much longer and is more established.

I acknowledge that girls do better in an all girls school but it comes at more of a price than a boy being educated at an all boys school and especially so in a competitve environment.

Indeed perhaps a reason why many of the kids are there, is because they initially failed grammars

And the fact that these private schools take the children that failed the 11+ and send them to university, often Oxbridge in our schools case tells me they are worth their weight in gold.

I doubt children who get into CLC and WA have failed grammars but most grammar kids would not pass for CLC or WA. Grammar schools are not the most selective schools in the UK. As it is most of them wouldn't even considered stepping foot in a grammar and yet this idea that independent schools are filled with failed grammar students seems to continue!

Having had a spectacular row with DH I find this interesting.

He made this same statement which at the time knocked me totally sideways. His arguement was that how many really well educated girls do we know, who today are in their 30's actually use that education. Every single one bar 4 is a SAHM with no intention of going back to what they qualified in. These include barristers, actuaries, doctors etc. Hefty training, all privately educated but biology has tipped the balance.

His arguement still makes me spit and then gets me going on the imbalance we have in society but I do recognise (however grudgingly) his point.

Still stunned that he said it though!

One could argue that they wouldn't have married "well" though if they hadn't been to good private schools!

I'd just like to chip in here to mention my DD2's lovely school. All girls, founded in in the 1640s (so as old as many ancient boys' schools), produces extremely confident, academic, well-rounded and academic young women with very few anorexia issues on the whole. It can be done.

Mamatomany... i agree 100%, and if faced with an option to send my child to inner London comp or even back ranking indi, i would literally sell my car to afford the later one (or simply home educate). The marginal difference at this point is so immense, perhaps much higher than say even a difference between grammar and Westminster - where graduates of both will statistically both do very well, that to spend 15k x 7 and possibly get your child into a top tier university, good job, different life in essence - well this is worth its weight in gold. Totally with you here.

Blessings, my comment on failed grammars, was not reffering to top private schools like CLC or WA, or Eton / Westminster, but to the mid/back ranking ones which London has many of. Perhaps it was a concept of misjudged expectations, but if at 2.40pm I see their 6th form students going back home on the train (teacher was aparently away) then I do start to wonder why would I want to send my kids there even for free (never mind 14k fees) vs the grammar school.

I also recognise that ESPECIALLY FOR BOYS (very unliked notion here) private schools will in addition to top academic environment offer excellent sporting facilities, after-school clubs, debating forums, all the parts of education that frankly especially testesterone driven competitive boys just need to have given in the right dosage and method, whereas in my belief (but I could be wrong - pls do do correct me as it is important to me) girls do not neccesarily show interests in this (as indeed not all boys do). My DD2 is a classic little devil who will do great in boarding school, especially co-ed, whereas my DD1 is a silent five times a day sobing young scientist (or princess) who in the open boarding school for girls might not only not do well, but I would even argue she could actually do very badly. Yes she is academically excellent (so far), and is amazingly motivated, grabbing me all the time to write more, read more, do maths, play piano, play chess. I do not need to be on top of her, she is always on top of me - but put her on the playground... and all the kids, even younger, will enjoy the ride ten times before they let her in. So much for the brains.

I agree with you Timebends, about the misogynistic attitude towards girls together in groups, about the longer-standing, higher-funding of boys' schools affecting the way they are regarded- everything really.

I'm really surprised that some people would put one child into a fee-paying school and not the other siblings. UNless there were extenuating circumstances (such as special needs) I don't see how you can justify it.

there was a study somewhere (will try to find it) about some cultures seeing the value of educating girls over boys, and the family's money would go on educating any daughters first. Something to do with educating girls benefiting the tribe/culture as a whole, but educating boys only benefitting that particular boy and immediate family.

Completely agree, in educating my daughter I am educating my grandchildren too, what's not to like.

Sakura, i am so tempted to go nasty here, but will try to keep this MN forum to some standard.

If you happen to live in London, do you sometimes use the underground? Why? It is dirty, has baceteria infected seats and handrails, with rats and "even homeless people". Why would anyone ever bother entering it if they can afford a taxi, and maybe even a chauffeur driven car?

Why do you assume that by not paying I am prioritising boys over girls? Where is the logic?!

Know however that cash allowing I am seriously thinking of potentially sending my DDs (especially DD2) to a place like Le Rosey in Switzerland, which costs twice as much as CLC or any boarding school in UK. I know, I know I am prioritizng girls over boys now - sending boys to "cheap" Eton and girls to billionaires playground in Switzerland, where they move the school in the winter so that kids can ski for three months every winter. I do feel that despite lower academic standards my DDs might actually be simply happier there, than at the place which will immediately assume that a Lady cannot meet a successful millionaire on the London underground (believe me... she can).

Its this difference that I am trying to examine here - with your help of course, and whereas I am confident that a place like Eton, Westminster is excellent for the boys, who will leave it confident (maybe even slightly arrogant at first), speaking Latin - who else does?, playing musical instruments, playing sports, and also hopefully with three A*s at A-levels, I am not so sure that I feel the same way about CLC or WA (perhaps I do not know them - but pls, someone give me a reason to like them!).

You see I have a very good friend from Eton, who is a total "dude", outgoing, work hard play hard type of person, now a great father, and a good friend. Through him, I know other Eton graduates, who are equally outgoing, confident - and frankly I would not mind if my DS shows similar behaviour.

However, with all honesty, I struggle to find girlfriends who attended CLC who actually tell me that they will send their own DDs there, as they recognize that meeting boys for the first time in the university lecture hall was bit "surreal".

Perhaps I am just trying to find a bigger sample than the people I know, though I start to seriously doubt if I will be able to do this here.

Does anyone understand what I am getting at or I am totally alone here?

Kris, I was commenting on mamatomy's post not yours. :)

...having thought about it, i do think that it would be highly unfair of me to send DD1 to a free grammar, and DD2 to the elitist Le Rosey in Swirzerland, where one would go by train to school, and the other would have her classes on the ski slopes of Gstaad... This cannot happen.

so hats off, i do admit my mistake, that cash allowing, both, regardless of their initial behaviour and talents, should go to Le Rosey.

I do remain unconvinced however about CLC, WA and other places of this type. Someone please please convince me, as it will make my life much easier (as now i face a prospect of somehow finding extra 820k for the education of my two girls... unless i will send them to grammar for years 11-15 and le rosey for years 16 - 18)!

Never mind the DD's I want to go to Le Rosey
Are you going to send them for a summer schoolto how they like it first ? I'm quite tempted to register for 2011 for my two.

You can't beat a good ol English Public School but if you must look overseas Kris then the only other school you should be looking at is Phillips Exeter. Now that school is much better than Eton but son said no! :(

kris, I wasn't talking about you!!!!!!!
But if your saw yourself in my post, then if the cap fits...

Maybe she meant 'trouble'. I.e. That boys in a rough school will end up involved in gangs.