Who gets the best jobs?

[fizzyfanta]

I wonder if anyone watched this programme on BBC2 last night.

Whilst I appreciate that children from poorer backgrounds are not exposed to the same resources as those who have been privately educated, I cant help think that sometimes,these children are let down by their own parents and possibly their schools for not giving them enough courage to make them believe that 'they can be who they want to be'. Surely, the whole thing is being generalised and private education is being used as a scapegoat for the failures of the state system?

It was quite London-centric for me. As I have always worked in the professions outside of London and have not known State-educated kids to be hampered and many of the accountants, lawyers and actuaries I know are very down to earth and state educated, even the young ones. It may be different in London although my younger cousin, state school but very bright is just finishing 3 years with a London firm but his parents were very focused on education.

purits that's how I feel. There is less forlock tugging and the idea of knowing ones place.

But the actual practicalites of mobilising upwards are becoming increasingly difficult.

bitsy it was London-centric, but then again, there are a disproportionate number of well paid jobs in the South East.

And certain jobs are only really available in London in any numbers.

So if a young person wants to do one of those jobs, then they are going to have to fund living there somehow. Which isn't easy, particularly if you're expected to do an internship.

People seem to propagate the idea that the 'best jobs' are professional jobs.

However, as a professional person, I wouldn't entirely agree with this.

At present, many Architects are losing their jobs and construction is always a difficult industry. People seem to think that being a doctor is a good solution, but as the sister of a doctor, I would really disagree. I also have a university friend who is currently an unemployed consultant level doctor.

The wealthiest people I know have either developed their own businesses or are plumbers. Professional people come in a poor second unless they are successful (but very hardworking) accountants.

My hairdresser is also pretty well off!

Victoria3 - sorry to correct you but Engineers are not all tradesmen. My DS1 will soon be graduating from a Russell group Uni with a 1st (Masters) in Civil Engineering and has four companies interested in him. He will, after around three years, become a Chartered Civil Engineer and that is certainly not a tradesman but is a profession.

He's not that person who comes to repair your washing machine - not that there's anything wrong with that job. It's not a profession though.

As a doctor, I find that the vast majority of my colleagues are indeed privately educated, and do what they can to ensure their children also receive the benefits of the best education they can arrange. But although medicine is (IMHO) the best career in the world, it is certainly not what you want to be doing if significant money or power is your object, or to change the world!

Agree with civil, self employed is wealthier PAYE is a joke.

The thing is professionls used to have status, now that is much less, my db says it will soon swing back in favour of professionals I'm not so sure.

Incidentally medical unemployment in sig numbers is about to become a reality I gather such a waste of money never mind everything else

I've noticed a 'gentrification' of trade and skilled manual occupations. My plumber, decorator and electrician were privately educated.

Imo -middle class parents are just as supportive of their less academically able dc's careers, as their academically able ones. They provide support and resources to ensure those 5 GCSE's which get a place on the best vocational course.

Plus in the absence of apprenterships, parents financial support is needed whilst they train.

Litchick - I agree with your list way back up the thread. The advent of unpaid internships makes it near impossible for anyone who is not wealthy to get into certain professions.

I would add an extra factor and that is highlighted in the FT magazine today. Those children who are unlucky enough to exit university or school during a recession have their prospects permanently damaged if they fail to get a job.

Within 12 months a new set of school leavers and graduates is coming into the job market. Anyone who failed to get a job in the last crop will look like damaged goods. Research shows (in UK and US) that people who are born unlucky enough to exit education in a recession earn far less over their lifetime than those who exit during an economic boom.

Completely agree with you Beta.
And for those students, their parents can either afford for them to wait out the recession doing further study (another degree perhaps, or learning a langusge abroad) or travel etc something that isn't glaring on a CV...or they end up getting a job they don't want and are overqualified to do.

Both my DH and I left uni in the last university. We both had to do an extra year of training although I chose a secretarial course which many may turn their noses up at now but it was invaluable as good secretarial skills are well sought after. At the time the tories were paying for additional training to keep unemployment numbers down. I got my first job a year later on £8k well below market rates for graduates a few years before. My DH started on £6k. I joined a company as a secretary but took professional qualifications and my DH did his accountancy qualifications. We are now professionals and have sufficient contacts to know how to go down this path. It is not the end of the world. However, it has given us a good start for our kids and we can help them but just to be flexible is essential. It takes longer but you can do it in a recession. I heard KPMG is now taking A Level students and paying for their degrees so this may be an option worth pursuing. Certainly in Birmingham and Manchester (there are cities outside London0, private school accents can actually count against you because people deem you to be too high up to take a training job. Most of the people I have worked with in the professions have been state educated and the partners in Brum at one of the top 3 accountancy firms were predominantly state educated (comps). Most jobs can be done anywhere. The BBC is moving to Cardiff and Salford and there are PR companies, architects, accountants, lawyers, doctors.

Sorry should have said 'last recession'

The reporter Richard Bilton used some strange statistics. One of them stood out for me. He said that privately educated kids have more spent on them per capita - on their teaching. In fact I saw a statistic which suggested the state education place was vastly more expensive (can't remember the figure) because of all the overheads within education - ie. supporting all the extra services/advisors/think tanks/ etc etc. which are needed for the state system to exist. As I understand it the private system just keeps it plain - they educate. Less social work in the classroom/less chopping and changing of curriculum (it costs) /less costly centralised and localised education depts etc etc. Not saying none of that needed .... of course some of it is .... but I hate stats being used so loosely to make a point.

The other thing to point out abdabs is that many of the inner city schools have more spent on them than those in the posher suburbs and therefore it is not always the case that the amount of money spent determines how well the children do in their results. The area we live in has very little spent per head but the children perform well so it is more to do with the parents I would say who are happy to pay for private tuition or are able to help the kids themselves. Who you know is also important and the networks built up in the better public schools (not necessarily normal private schools)will put somebody ahead of others. A friend of mine who is a teacher said that the inner city schools were very well funded.

abdabs - the state per pupil spend is about £6,600 PA. I've seen average private fees estimated at between £8,000 and £10,000 PA. (exclude boarding costs.)

IMO -.When you look at results (GCSE's, Alevels Uni places) the private sector (as a whole) appears to deliver more per £ spent.

Certainly, I'd agree that the our independent education sector appears more efficient than our state sector. But they have to be - or they'll fail and the school will close.

Agree with Bits - that the amount per child varies significantly in the state sector - but then it does in the independent sector too!

I think to assume there is or should be a natural link between the amount spent on an education and GCSE or A Level results is really simplistic.

There are many obvious good reasons why the private sector is able to achieve better results by and large

1.) They usually select their intake which the state sector cannot do.

2.) They can kick out kids who are not making the grade or causing problems in terms of discipline or not attending which the state sector cannot do.

3.) The parents of everyone one of the kids in a private school are supportive of education to the extent that they are willing to pay thousands in fees every year or go through the difficult hurdles to get a bursary (and if successful their kids would be likely to be academically gifted anway)
Of course, nobody thinks for a second that there aren't supportive parenets in the state sector but most schools in the state sector have at least some and many have many who are not supportive at all.

In contrast, there are children in the state sector who are actually costing a lot more thant the £6000 per student allocated because they have severe learning difficulties or emotional and behavioural difficulties but may never achieve any GCSEs let alone A Levels. That does not mean that schools have been inefficient or neglectful in providing that child's education.

It is a lot cheaper and easier to get good results from kids who have been selected and have supportive parents.

FiveCandles - I can't violently disagree . But would add:

1. Many private schools do not academically select. If you have the money and are prepared to travel/move - you can usually find a private school that'll accept your dc's. And in areas where the state schools are very good (especially Grammar areas) it's often the less able dc's who are privately educated.

• However, I expect that the state sector does have a much longer 'tail' of extremely low ability levels, than the private sector.

1. Yes, private schools can kick out pupils more easily than state schools. But these children normally move to another private school (where the change of setting can work for them). Possibly the 'threat' of being expelled has more impact in private schools.

1. I do agree that parental support is very high. When people pay for a service directly it's tends to impact both their expectations and their interest in that service.

However, do these totally explain the large differences in achievement between the two sectors? And couldn't the state sector learn from these 'differences'?

I often think that the teachers at DC's private schools have a much easier time of it that the teachers at the primary where I vulunteer.

However, I think it fair to say the parents at DC's private schools make greater, though different, demands upon the energies of the staff

I think you came up with a great list, litchick.

'However, do these totally explain the large differences in achievement between the two sectors? And couldn't the state sector learn from these 'differences'?'

This is an incredibly naive question and I find it deeply patronising when there is a suggestion that state schools have something to 'learn' from the private sector.

If state schools could select on the grounds of ability and/or ability to pay therefore excluding disadvantaged students at one fell swoop and accept only the children of parents who were prepared to pay and sufficently motivated to pay or with children so gifted that they get bursaries and threaten to exclude and exclude any children who were misbehaving or not attending or not making the grades I really do think you'd find that grades would compare extremely favourably with those from state schools.

The evidence for that is the results of state grammar schools.

I speak by the way as a teacher in the state sector with children in the private sector. In fact, I think the private sector could learn an awful lot from the state sector. But there are lots of things they simply don't need to learn like how to manage children with severe behavioural problems or even SN (there is one child with a statement in the whole of my dcs' family of schools out of 1000+).

By the way the vast majority of private schools DO select on academic grounds. The ones that don't are often small and get much less impressive results or are specialist schools e.g. for specific SN like dyslexia. And even where they are not selecting academically they are EXCLUDING any child who is not/does not have parents who are either quite well off or extremely well motivated/gifted and therefore excluding children who are statistically much less likely to do well academically.

DD's HT says that parental support is one of th ekey factors in educational success.

That and application and motivation by the pupil.

She told me she offers places to pupils wiht this in mind.
The girls with the highest test scores sometimes don't get in. HT puts just as much emphasis on school reports and the interview with pupil and parents.

This process has worked for her for years. The results are fabulous considereing it is not nearly as academically selective as some of its competitors.

It's comparing apples and pears. I have no problems with the teachers or teaching at my kids' acadmically selective, private schools but that doesn't mean that they could achieve anywhere like the same results or use the same methods at the nearest local state school. Probably the teachers work equally hard at both schools but in very different ways.

If I think about the A Level class I'll be teaching first thing tomorrow morning. If I applied the same criteria as my nearest private school then at least 1/3 of them wouldn't be there (because they would have had to have had a Grade B in their A Level subjects), if I could then get rid of the ones who are underachieving because there attendance is so low I'd have a class of A or B students. If I could then get rid of the ones whose parents were not supportive I'd probably have a class of A grade students too BUT it would be a class of about 5.

And then I regularly think what would happen if state schools could set the amount of homework my own kids get (about 30 minutes EVERY NIGHT from Reception rising as they get older) and guarantee parental support to do it. In fact, many state schools have stopped setting homework because disadvantaged kids can't/won't do it.

Completely agree.

Whilst I do think there are things the state system could learn from the private system, they're still not going to be able to expect, nay demand, the level of parental support that private schools can.

And that is bound to have a an effect. If DD'd HT is to be believed, this is one of the things that can have the most effect.