Financial Times Top 1000 Schools

[Xenia]

398 of the top 1000 are independent
Of the top 100 schools 80 are private and 19 grammar. Only one is a comp but it is a partially selective comprehensive.

(England only)
My older children's schools are 5th, 24th and 35th, not too bad.
www.ft.com/schoolmap-2011
The % ho get A or A* is proper subjects is a good measure and the fact they give the position in 2009 and 2008 too so you can see if a school has just had a bizarre year.

A very good post mottledcat at 23.39. I think it is a shame that this has descended into state v private when it is simply a choice,( unfortunately only a choice for a limited amount of people).
It is one that I can see circumstances where I would have made it for part of a DCs education or for one DC. You have to take each DC on their merits and find the best school for them (this, for most people takes out the one that costs money) and it is why league tables are utterly useless-they tell you nothing of importance.
They can have wonderful results and be wrong for your DC. St Paul's Girl's School has great results but a DD of mine would go there over my dead body! I wouldn't put them through it. (unless they could pass exams with ease, have model girl looks and huge self confidence and be popular with boys).
To get back to OP -it would be an utter disgrace if selective, independent schools weren't hogging the top places-probably you could sue them for fraud if they didn't deliver what they promised!
I did well at school and have had a good career so that I can live life the way I want it and that means working part time,in an interesting job and having quality of life and not getting on some dreadful treadmill of paying school fees to produce a DC who needs to earn enough for school fees!
DS1 went to a top university, from his comprehensive, and he has an interesting job-he is in Madrid at the moment and was in Denmark a few weeks ago and Australia last year. He doesn't earn a lot, but it is interesting and he leaves it at the office and it gives him the spare time he wants. He has friends who are high earners in high powered jobs but they never get away from it, they work late and even get contacted in their holiday! He doesn't want it for any money-and I think that you are much better off with job satisfaction than money, if that is your choice. (we are all different, some people choose money-there is nothing wrong in that-if it suits them).
All education should be doing is opening all doors for you, so that you can choose which ones you want to enter. Having money to pay for the school helps, but some of us would prefer to use the money for other things and still be able to open the doors. Sadly some people get no choice and can't get their DC into a school of their choice. It is very unequal.

Why is there an assumption that highly paid jobs are dull and lesser paid jobs provide job satisfaction?

I know lots of highly paid people who adore their jobs, just as I know lots of poorly paid people who loath their jobs and would give them up in a heartbeat.

And of course, I know lot sof people in the middle.

Surely we shouldn't be encouraging our DC to assume highly paid jobs are a 'treadmill' or whatever?
That's the sort of crap I grew up with on my sink estate and is just another way to keep the same people in all the most highly paid jobs with the most power in the country.

You might want to refer to Xenia's comments about kids doing 'basket weaving at the local comp' for GCSE then working on a rubbish tip to put that 'assumption' in context, worldfactory.

Are highly paid jobs really portrayed as 'dull'? On my 'sink estate', they were portrayed more as 'not for the likes of me' and 'it's who you know, not what you know' that would determine whether you get these jobs, not that they were dull.

Xenia, you've avoided the posts which ask which unis your dc are at and whether they and you get/got 1st class degrees. I'm sure this isn't intentional, given how candid you've been about their schools, your academic prowess, your weight and looks .

JazT - I know someone who is a tutor in English at Oxford. She interviews candidates and she confirms wht you said.

"As I understand it, when you really do compare like with like eg undergraduates at Oxford, the privately-educated do better. Not because they're brighter, but because they've been better equipped to cope with the rigours of the course. I don't like it, but as far as I know it's the truth."

What she says is that some comprehensive school candidates clearly have the intelligence and raw ability but their schooling is so much worse than the polished private school candidates (who may well be less intelligent) that she sometimes has to turn down a comprehensive school candidate because she simply believes they have not been equipped with the basic skils to do the course.

She really tries hard to make sure bright comprehensive school candidates get in but she is under pressure to make sure she does not pick a candidate who then turns out to be unable to handle the course. The safe option is to pick a well schooled private school candidate. Colleges at Oxford compete with each other to be at the top of the Norrington Table that measures the success of their students in finals. A candidate who does not make the grade - for whatever reason - is a black mark against her.

"because she simply believes they have not been equipped with the basic skils to do the course."

BeenBeta - I agree with this wholeheartedly. Childhood and school, together, are about the acquisition of a whole host of skills. Parents who are wise and wealthy are in a good position to equip their children with more skills, more thoroughly taught.

Choose your parents with care.

'Why is there an assumption that highly paid jobs are dull and lesser paid jobs provide job satisfaction?'

Sorry-maybe I gave the wrong impression.Of course some people absolutely love highly paid, high profile, high status, stressful jobs and good luck to them. We are all different. I was objecting to Xenia equating success with earnings. If my DC wants to be a dentist or a vet or a banker fine, but it is equally fine if they want to be a gardener, artist, actor, plumber etc and as long as they were doing what they chose, I wouldn't think them less successful.
All education does is open doors. All DCs need as many doors open as possible and it is then their choice whether they go through them. What is sad is when doors are closed.

If my DC was hesitating between dentistry and plumbing I know what I would encourage, any day.

All the dentists I know hate their job, and all the plumbers love it. And the dentists are no richer.

BeenBeeta

Exactly what I was told by an Oxford tutor, with almost exactly the same sentiments about it.

MottledCat

No royalty, minor or otherwise, at the independent school that my children attend. Doctors, lawyers, bankers, company directors - just like your grammar school by the sound of it. This is what I mean about people not really understanding sectors other than the one they are in, and passing judgement - from both sides of the "divide". Of course most children at Indie schools come from households with well above average income, they're incredibly expensive places. But these days, many are first time buyers of private education who have made informed decisions about the kind of educational establishment they think will make best use of their childrens' school years. Some, with very bright children, choose grammars, others choose local comps. And some choose independent schools if they are in a position to afford it, or if their children are clever enough to get scholarships and bursaries.

Talking of bursaries, it has been claimed that Eton has more children eligible for free school meals than some of the neighbouring state schools. True or not? I don't know, perhaps someone should google it.

Nothing is black and white.

happygolucky - I agree, noting is black and white and far too much private scool bashing coes out ofpure ingnorance. If we had a grammar school in our area that is where DS1 would be going next year. Instead, we send hm to a private school because the state schools round us are really poor. Parents in our area are desperate to avoid them.

However, just 20 miles away they have state grammar schools and those grammar schools are very high in the league tables. Competition to get in is near suicidal because they are free and because they deliver a very good standard of education. They are higher up the league tables than all the local private schools - where some children go who just missed out on the free grammar places.

Very few parents really choose private out of ideology - most just want a good school and that is why people look at league tables. They just need to be read with care.

I wasn't suggesting there were minor royalty etc at local independent schools!! The parents at our independent up the road are very similar to those at the grammar school.

I am well aware of the different types of independent schools, thank you. I was comparing a grammar school with a top public school and I stand by my comment....'free school meal eligibility' or not, the vast majority of parents are in a different world to the vast majority of parents at a state school, even a grammar school.

I have no personal axe to grind, as I said my DCs' school is on that list, they attend/ed top universities (the same ones as Xenia's DCs....)but the simple fact is that the vast majority of people in this country have no access to certainly the top 20 or so of those schools.

I think the main difference is that some people are inordinately proud of this fact, and that a system that effectively rules out 95% of the country's children (through no fault of their own) is one to be applauded.

I completely understand why one would pay for education, fair enough, but to actually suggest that it is a fair system is absolutely ridiculous.

25% of pupils at Eton are on bursaries and many of those who are not are first time buyers who never went to independent schools so the school has a diverse intake.

Buying a very expensive house in the catchment area of a good state school is not fair. Paying for private tutors to get your DC through 11+ to go to grammar school is not fair. Pretending you are religious and going to church to get into a faith school is not fair. Parents are desperate.

The popularity of private schools in the UK is largely a symptom of the dire provision of good quality state schools.

BeenBeta I agree nothing is black and white.

We all have anecdotes from admission tutors at Oxford/Cambridge.

I could counter yours with stories of brilliant state school pupils outdoing their private counterparts but I won't :).

Unfortunately the wild assumptions about 'basket weaving' GCSEs and 'the mentally subnormal' tends to get me going.

It is not meant as a slur against all privately educated children, just a robust defence of the state educated who have ended up at the same universities as others and who actually can manage once they are there!

nottirednow - " ...the average graduate earns 100,000 more over their lifetime than a non-graduate and the cost of a degree can now easily be 50k plus the earnings lost for those 3 years - getting to the point where there are no financial benefits from a university degree."

I very much agree with that. In my view students are being conned into buying worthless degrees to keep unemployment down. Resources have to be focussed on the Russel Group universities with all the other lesser universities shut down. The money saved should then be used to provide fully fund university for only the top 25% (academically) of the population.

nottirednow

Absolutely - statistics have shown that it is often the case that children from comprehensives achieve lower A level grades than their equivalents in the private sector. Hence, the should be expected to achieve better degrees once they are properly taught. The quote from Oxbridge tutors is about which pupils are better prepared for the rigours of a degree, not about which children are more intelligent.

Mottledcat

We seem to be at odds over semantics here. When I talk about top independent schools, I'm talking academically, not playing fields and top hats. The top academic private schools in the country are full of ordinary, economically high-achieving families who are earning enough money to pay for education. It takes more than money to get a place at St Pauls, NLCS, Westminster, Habs etc., you need to be very bright and very hard-working.

Yes, I absolutely agree BeenBeta.

I actually think only the top percentage of ability should go to university. I think public examinations should be made harder so Tim Nice but Dim can't be tutored or crammed to get the top grades.

What is so wrong at the moment is that only those in the know are taking the right GCSEs/A levels and so there isn't a level playing field to start with.

I am glad Michael Gove has brought in the EBacc to let every child know, not only those at private and grammar schools, what is actually needed in order to access the top courses at top universities. This is obviously what the OP was alluding to at the beginning of this thread but a) parents at Westminster and the likes already know that and b) parents at high achieving state schools also already know that.

I agree that the state system has to improve, but the state system also has to provide an education for children at all levels of intelligence and from all backgrounds. Again it is not black and white.

Mottlecat, I agree with you, no axe to grind, state or private. We are lucky to have excellent state comprehensive schools near us (no GS). If not I would have considered private. It is annoying though when people do put down the state system the way that has been done on this thread about basket weaving and working in a tip and that needs to be answered. I find it hard to read such narrow-minded views.

Some courses are better at non-russell group universities, particularly Art and more technical courses and therefore there is a market there. If I am honest (both DH and I went to Russell Group unis) I would want my DCs to go to a better university for more academic subjects and I worry that kids who go to lower universities to do academic subjects may not get value for money. However, parents in the know will guide their kids.

It is those going to uni for the first generation and with parents who do not engage that could be the worst off but this is where schools should be providing that advice when pupils choose their subjects at GCSE and A Levels. When I was at school we were guided by the teachers and subjects for more acadmic children at my comp were half dicated by the school to provide a better base. Those applying to Oxbridge were encouraged to take voluntary latin or greek for instance and they were tutored to help them get through the interviews. Maybe this is continuing now as my DCs are too young I do not know but I am sure Fivecandles can provide a better insight here.

I don't know that xenia is so far out with her basket weaving comment. We used to live in a different part of the country and I was surprised by the courses on offer at both of the 'excellent' comprehensives locally. Hairdressing? Beauty therapy?

Happygolucky: yes, I also know you have to be 'very bright' to get into Westminster, St Pauls etc., as you have to be to get into a super selective grammar school, and I also understand that you can't buy a place as you have to be very clever in the first place. I think that point has been made over and over again.

You are missing the point, big time.

Generally speaking (taking out the minority, i.e those on free school meals/bursaries/scholarships/Prince Harry) 95% of people can't afford to pay for education (also taking out purchasing of flatscreen tvs/foreign holidays)however much they scrimp and save.

Some people may think that's great. I happen not to.

Luckily the state grammar schools do give a chance for some children to compete on a level playing field for university places. Not everyone has 'bought' their places there either. There are actually some children who get in on their own merit, gaining places over the ones who have been highly tutored.

As we have all said, it is not black and white, but the simple fact IS that only about 5% can afford to pay for private education, and those children are disproportionally represented at top universities.

Yes, well we all know what Xenia means by her 'basket weaving' courses and we all know that Westminster et al don't teach those courses, so a bit pointless to kindly point it out to us on this thread I think.

Unfortunately the wild assumptions about 'basket weaving' GCSEs and 'the mentally subnormal' tends to get me going.

It is not meant as a slur against all privately educated children, just a robust defence of the state educated who have ended up at the same universities as others and who actually can manage once they are there!

It is the thing that gets me going too! As if every caring parent would pay school fees and the rest of say 'local comprehensive -we don't care!'. There are excellent comprehensives and many of the parents are highly intelligent, highly educated, with high flying careers and high expectations for their DCs. The mind boggles at the thought that we would leave our DCs to rot in an institution where teachers are not allowed to teach! (oddly enough some of the parents were privately educated themselves).
My niece is a vet, went to Bristol from her comprehensive, DS's friend got one of the top A'level scores in Maths in the country, went to Warwick to do maths-friends DS turned down Cambridge and went to Warwick to do maths-doing fantastically well now if you use Xenia's success criteria (even mine as he loves his job). DSs friends at University are dentists, civil engineers etc-mainly from comprehensives. He has friends from independent schools, grammar schools and comprehensives and I don't think that any of them are remotely interested in where they went to school! They have all done well.
I have had a tour of Eton and was impressed-one of the main things being that money, who you are and connections don't get you anywhere- unless you have the ability you don't get a place. I think that it is quite good to have schools for the real top end of the ability range, but I don't think they are for those who need years of tutoring and I wish they could devise a test that could really take the raw material and not be manipulated by pushy parents.

why does Xenia always bang on about "basket-weaving" & "needlework" in the context of A levels & RG universities?

People who choose to do truly vocational subjects don't generally want to take A levels or apply to university - they want to train for a career they're interested in & good at.

I am not sure anyone is suggesting this is a fair system. I am someone from a "bog standard" comprehensive background who has managed to get a "high flying job" and yes I do send my kids to private school. I know what it is like to have a class where there are disruptive pupils (chucking stuff at the teacher for example) and no matter how bright you are its very hard to learn when the lessons are disrupted to that extent and where the standard of teaching is not sufficiently high. I have chosen private education to give my children a broader education, with more facilities, smaller classes etc so they have more choices and opportunities than I did.

I think it is a real shame for this country that the standard of education is so polarised. I have seen with some of my family that their kids are given limited GCSE options such as BTEC construction or childcare which are good for league tables but not so good for career development (unless you want to work in those particular areas)