71% of 'top people' went to private school, or grammar school

[joanbyers]

Link:
www.suttontrust.com/research/the-educational-backgrounds-of-the-nations-leading-people/leading-people-report.pdf

"Ten leading independent schools accounted for 12% of the leading people for which schools data was available. These are: Eton College; Winchester College; Charterhouse School; Rugby School; Westminster School; Marlborough College; Dulwich College; Harrow School; St Paul?s Boys? School; Wellington College (see table 1 for top 100 schools). "

It's interesting that these leading schools are pretty much ALL boarding schools, the significance of which is that the fees tend to be around £30k/year (so I reckon this is as much about parental connections as anything else)

Wellington does not have a glittering academic reputation, sending handfuls to Oxford. Charterhouse, on £32k/year, has a fraction of the Oxbridge admissions of the nearby Royal Grammar School, Guildford (fees only £13k/year) - which is present in the list, at #58, but behind schools for the rich but dim such as Bradfield

The leading independent schools that aren't exclusively boarding schools (and therefore implying super-rich parents) are all in London, which is home of the elite.

The leading comps are Holland Park School, where lefties send their kids for ideological reasons and which has had £10s of millions lavished on it, and Haverstock School, which is likewise a popular choice with the left-wing elite.

Just 10% of 'top people' attended a comprehensive.

Of course these figures are calculated many years in arrears, so not the best guide for the future, but the 44% of leading people who attended private schools I guess will increase, as the 27% who went to grammars die off (i.e. most of the grammar schools listed are now comps)

Not to worry APMF

The Tories have it covered, they are moving the poor out of the inner cities, haven't you heard? Coming to a leafy catchment near you

You see,for a typical comp sized school, say 8 classes per year*, in a less densely populated area it would be hard to draw a catchment line which only took in a middle class intake. There would be all sorts of people living there.

That's another advantage of large comps, the top streams are so competitive, As top stream, A second stream for example.

At uni I went out with a guy who was from public school and from a wealthy background. He came to visit me at my home and his first words on coming through the door were 'oh my god, you can hear your neighbour's tv from your house!'

A mum at our predominantly white middle class primary school made the same point about wanting diversity for her kids when I mentioned we were going private.

Her kid was going onto to the predominantly white middle class local secondary. Hardly a diversified environment.

One of DS's BF is an African boy. His father is a lecturer at one of the London universities. His other BFs are two Indian boys, one Jewish boy and one Belgian. Why does 'diversity' has to be about how much money you have or don't have?

I can't even answer that question properly as you have to put in the father's profession and credit the addition of a Belgian child as making your school so ethically diverse. I can't get into competition, traveler children, refugee children but why bother.

In fact I did chose the catholic school rather than the two local outstanding but predominantly white school for that reason but then I guess I am the child are of immigrant parents although still white so could never understand could i?

In my world we're all just people. To my mind diversity as a concept clings to the idea of separation, classifying people by wealth, race, intelligence and so on. Dcs who experience a school with a representative sample of the population will automatically accept everyone, unless they are taught other values at home.

Look at me! I'm so diverse mixing with all these different types of people.

I am not trying to get into a competition as to whose DC has the more 'diverse' groupvof friends.

There is diversity of some sort every where you go. I just find it silly that mixing with people less well-off than yourself is being elevated to a higher level.

I find it funny that middle class parents want their kids to mix with working class people so as to become more 'rounded'. I wonder if working class parents regard your kids in the same way you regard kids that go to private school :) :)

Glad we are making you laugh.

My kids know that they are very lucky. They know that not every one can afford what we can. They know that God created all men to be equal regardless of colour, religion or economic circumstances.

My mind boggles at the thought that people think their DCs can't learn these values in a middle class environment like a private school.

The 'funny' thing is that I'm the working class Midlander yet I'm the 'snobby elitist' parent in this conversation. :) :)

It's a bit like those people who will pay lots of money to visit a region in which the poor inhabitants are doing their best to escape.

As an employer I love to give jobs to people who went to Cambridge.

I went to Cambridge and it was flipping hardwork. Therefore, anyone who survived the experience is probably very bright.

However, a Cambridge graduate is very different to someone who went to private school. The former will be incredibly able and motivated, regardless of how much money their parents have. The latter is just someone whose parents could afford private school fees.

People often mix up with elitism of Oxbridge with the elitism of privates schools, but they are completely different issues.

I am a working class brummie too funnily enough!

In theory cat yes.

In practice the most selective schools (both private and grammar) take up the most places at Oxbridge.

Many woeking class students go to their nearest university and remain living at home. Most don't go to university at all.

Oxbridge, despite everyhting they do to counteract, remains resolutely middle class/advantaged.

Ox - perhaps your sister has read 'Flatlands'?

(SIL, sorry )

Surely going to your local university is a cost issue?

losing - definitely, I think.

I really respected my two friends who went to Cambridge because they worked their asses off to get there and were very single minded. They were both from very deprived backgrounds. Total respect from me as as soon as I found out what was involved I took the lazy option and went to another Russell group uni. Having said that never worked with anyone senior who went there.

I am going to encourage mine to go away if possible although we have Aston, Warwick even oxford and Birmingham close by but the experience of independence would be better. Having said that it very much depends on my job situation at the time. At the moment can afford to pay their costs but in six years who knows?

Steaming

I will ask her next time she says it.

wordfactory
do not forget the sound statistical basis why there will always be a disproportionate number of private and selective school kids at top universities.
Once I did the maths it bothered me a lot less.

TOSN I think it is absolutely a cost issue that keeps less advanataged students local.

My point was only that advantage of a facet of both public school and Oxbridge. The later less obviously so, as in theory anyone can go. In practice, not so much.

What bias is that talking...keep it simple, I am a dolt at numbers

Wordfactory
I'll round from 7% to 10% as it makes the maths easier
1000 children hit school ....
100 go private 100 go state selective 800 go state non selective
they all sit GCSEs
after GCSE's statistically 30% kids leave education - and chances are they will all come from the non selective schools
so we now have 100 private 100 selective 500 non selective
after A levels, statistically another 1/3 leave full time education (they may do training courses but will not consider degrees)
again chances are they will not mostly come from the selective and private schools, so an approximation of the students applying for degrees would be
80 private 80 selective 140 non selective
then in degree choices, the kids aiming for RG degrees will be the upper third of that lot - and by definition, the selective school kids will be in the upper half of state, leaving
27 private 40 selective and 33 non selective
ie 27% from private schools at top universities, with not a hint of discrimination, just the likelihood of career choices
round back down from 10% to 7% and you end up with a quarter ....
which actually would be a significant improvement both for our children and the country.

Talkin

I will reread that tomorrow when I have not had two large glasses of