Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

If you can afford private education but remain in the state sector...

1000 replies

TheseJeansHaveShrunk · 30/12/2012 08:59

It's going to be hard to avoid this becoming another state v private thread, but what I'm interested in is a slightly different take on that debate. It's not "which is better?" but "if you think state school is better even though you could afford private education, then why is that?"

The question is based on the assumptions that the DC in question is/are reasonably bright (so might benefit academically from academically selective education), that the state school is non-selective (as most people don't have access to grammar schools), and that you hope for your DC to go to a good university (to make the £££££ fees worthwhile!)

I've been mulling this over ever since I heard some maths professor from Cambridge talking on the radio about the age-old private v state inequality of Oxbridge admissions. He was all for improving access for state school applicants but said that the simple fact was that for maths, even the best state schools generally teach only to the A-level syllabus, whereas the best private schools take their maths/further maths A-level candidates well beyond the syllabus and so the state school applicants are at a huge disadvantage - they simply don't have the starting level of knowledge required for the course.

This made me wonder: with this sort of unequal playing field, if you have the choice of private education, what reasons might you have not to take it?

Would be interested to hear from those who've made this choice - how it's working out, or if your DC have finished school now, how did it work out? Did they go to good universities/get good jobs, etc? On the other side of things, if you paid for private schooling but now regret it, why?

My DC go to a state school by the way.

.

OP posts:
creamteas · 31/12/2012 11:08

Mordion I know several state school pupils who were turned down for Maths at Cambridge, but went on to to PhDs (one at Oxford) and lecture in Maths.

'Fitting in' doesn't mean you can't be an oddball, you just have to be the right sort of oddball

Bonsoir · 31/12/2012 11:10

Lots and lots of private schools pupils are also turned down by Oxford and Cambridge...

MordionAgenos · 31/12/2012 11:12

The whole point about the Cambridge process is that they seek to weed out the plodders. They don't want the people who work really hard to get good results and would get average or poor results if they hadn't worked hard. They want the people who are naturally clever and going to get good results at school whether they are quiet diligent types or wastrels. And then they make them work. That's the model. It always has been. Since it works marvelously well I don't see why they should have to change it (even though I doubt any of my kids will go there, and not just because they don't want to, either)

creamteas · 31/12/2012 11:14

Lots and lots of private schools pupils are also turned down by Oxford and Cambridge

Yes but they still disproportionally get places. The numbers vary but about 7-9% of kids in the UK that are privately educated, they get about 40-50% of the places.....

GrimmaTheNome · 31/12/2012 11:15

Dons a hard hat and waits for the screams of unfairness, from those who think places should be reserved for the privileged clever rather than just the clever

I don't think I've ever heard anyone espouse that view. Confused

rabbitstew · 31/12/2012 11:15

You can't develop yourself in a vacuum - the advantages of birth and privilege are hugely advantageous in helping you to develop to your full potential when it comes to getting into middle class universities.

Bonsoir · 31/12/2012 11:16

Private school pupils also apply disproportionately.

100% of lottery ticket winners bought a ticket...

MordionAgenos · 31/12/2012 11:17

@cream well, Oxford. Grin You do realise that the state school pupils you knew probably just weren't good enough? There aren't very many places. An awful lot of people don't get in. An awful lot of posh school people don't get in, especially for maths. It's all about the maths, nothing else. Not getting in to Cambridge doesn't mean you won't end up as a maths lecturer somewhere else (or indeed, at Cambridge). It just means on the day you weren't as good as someone else. You might have got in had you been a year older, or younger. But maths is the most pure admission process there is, probably. Because your interview is basically doing some maths.

Bonsoir · 31/12/2012 11:18

Indeed, rabbitstew. Which is why we should be investing massively in encouraging development from 0-18 across the population, not denying developmental opportunities (and their subsequent advantages) to those who do, for whatever reason, have access to them.

Avuncular · 31/12/2012 11:29

Can't resist. I went to Cambridge in 1969 from a (more or less) State school in Scotland (direct grant in Edinburgh at that stage). I was 'Dux' in Physics and the school projected me towards Cambridge - the school always managed a small Cambridge contingent each year. I had Scottish 'Highers' (which got counted as 'A' levels at matriculation.

I did the Entrance exams for Natural Sciences but these were not good. However they thought my 'Maths for Natural Sciences' paper was pretty good, and I think my English paper also impressed. This was, I believe, the very first year in which Cambridge would accept a second 'modern language' in place of Latin. The interviewing Tutor (Trinity, where HRH was already resident) seemed to be interested more in breadth and general interest in life than academic ability. I was accepted to do maths, got a 3rd in my first year, floundered early in my second year (real Maths doesn't actually use ordinary numbers, I discovered) and failed that but was able to progress to a third year having been helped by a perceptive Supervisor into Part II (General) Civil Engineering.

On graduation, the 'prestige' civil engineering firms were not enthusiastic so my bread and butter became the sewage wing of the water industry where I thrived, and probably earned more in the early years than bridge designers (too clever for me) or dam builders (too snooty in those days).

The maths and mathematical thinking I HAD acquired often made me the 'one-eyed man in the land of the blind', and if I ever needed help, I had met at uni some men (and women) who really could do the job for me if necessary.

Academically I'd probably have done much better at some other uni but I wouldn't have given up the Cambridge atmosphere for anything. It has given me a partial insight into how the 'Establishment' works.

Off the theme slightly - we could not afford to send our children to private school though we did briefly consider (Christian) Faith schools. We decided to leave them in the State system (Commonweal School then Sixth Form College in Swindon) which - I suppose - was a partial blessing to the staff there because our family seems to have a natural inherited 'brightness' and it gave the teachers more of a 'critical mass' of top students to nurture.

Also, managing to provide them a life-long two-parent reasonably balanced family life may have eased some of the stresses which can distract many youngsters today.

Two of our sons went to Cambridge. Both have changed courses (do you really know what you want to do when you get to uni - or even as you leave?). One is now doing well as a Head of Department in a (sorry !) Grammar school, and the other is now being encouraged to realise his full potential by University and College staff who have also helped him 'pastorally' as needs arose.

I suppose my main point is - if they've got the ability, they'll get to Oxbridge, and it is good to have 'elite' establishments which set and work to the highest standards. But privilege carries responsibility, which in our personal case then consists of trying to put back into society at least as much as it has given us.

Secondary education needs to give 'breadth'. That has given me resilience and flexibility to cope with and even enjoy life's buffetings and opportunities.

Income? Well I 'retired early' because no-one really seemed to want the services of a Risk Analyst (which is where I ended up) beyond the age of 55.

I'm now collecting 'pin money' as a practical risk manager/instructor (AKA DSA Driving Instructor) and still enjoying myself.

When we get to 65 our joint income will hopefully rise to about the national average income for the remainder of our (still productive) lives. We'll never be bored - because we were 'educated' not just trained.

Happy New Year (when it comes!)

ubik · 31/12/2012 11:34

The professor wasn't talking about standards, he was talking about syllabus - surely the A level syllabus needs to be adjusted so that state schools meet the requirements of Oxford. If it always requires extra teaching/coaching to go beyond then state schools will always be on the back foot.

circular · 31/12/2012 11:35

They want the people who are naturally clever and going to get good results at school whether they are quiet diligent types or wastrels

How do they tell this? If it's from school references, I cannot imagine any state schools admitting that a pupil with excellent results did not work hard.

And then they make them work

How?

rabbitstew · 31/12/2012 11:42

University moderations and rustication?

rabbitstew · 31/12/2012 11:43

And humiliation in tutorials?

rabbitstew · 31/12/2012 11:51

I did find that having to produce an essay every week for an expert in their field and having to discuss it with him or her and one other student was an excellent way of focusing my mind and getting me to put in a bit of effort! That was law, not maths, though.

anonnona · 31/12/2012 11:59

Yes but they still disproportionally get places. The numbers vary but about 7-9% of kids in the UK that are privately educated, they get about 40-50% of the places.....

As I sad earlier, Oxbridge students are such a small minority that you can't really do proper statistical analysis on them.
Oxbridge take the best of the best of the best. The sort of pupils who get snapped up by private schools on scholarships. Is it really that astonishing that many Oxbridge students are scholars from private schools? Private schools aren't daft - they take the best talent and then pass it off as their own.

rabbitstew · 31/12/2012 12:10

Whether they always get it right or not, I do think Oxford and Cambridge want to attract the most gifted in their particular field - even if they are deeply odd individuals. They don't just train up establishment figures...

NamingOfParts · 31/12/2012 12:18

NeverKnowinglyUnderstood, good question.

Our local state options tend towards mediocre to crap. We could possibly afford private school for all 3 but that would mean no extras in our lives - no holidays, one car, smaller house with shared bedrooms.

And what exactly do you get back?

DD1 has produced straight A*/As at GCSE. How much better would she have done if she had gone private?

She is now at a much better school for A levels (catchment doesnt apply at 6th form). She has had to work hard to catch up the gaps left by teaching to the test but I dont think having to do the extra work has harmed her.

DS is not academic. What would a heavily academic education do for him? I am not sure that being pushed very hard would really help him.

11112222 · 31/12/2012 12:24

Interesting thread and some good arguments.
I can't comment on Oxbridge, but reading this has made me think about my higher ed.
I was state educated in a v rough comp during the teachers strikes in the 80's and I spent most of my time being scared by the other kids. The other local comp used to 'raid' our school (during lessons) at least every year. 1st and 2nd years escorted to the tennis courts at play time to protect them from the older pupils. A failing school basically.
However, secretly, I played music, and ended up at a world renown top uk music college. I auditioned, played well and got in. Once there, I was not even aware of who was privately educated or not.

I have always presumed Oxbridge was a similar application process. If you're good enough, then you're in. Surely they want the best to protect their reputations. If the best come from Private schools, then the state system must be lacking something - find out what and do it.

By the way - my dc started off at state primary, but we've moved them to private now as our local schools don't have much creative arts on offer. I want my dc to have what I didn't.

seeker · 31/12/2012 12:44

Trouble is, everyone's posts are based on assumptions
The assumptions that Oxbridge is best, that comprehensives do mixed ability teaching, that private schools are best for maths, that an A from a state school is not as good as an A from a private school, that oxbridge is looking for the best brains and nothing else, that state schools don't ever prepare kids for oxbridge entrance.........

Bonsoir · 31/12/2012 12:57

seeker - what a very odd (and inaccurate) reading of this thread. What you say may be true of some threads, but not of this one.

11112222 · 31/12/2012 13:00

Yes seeker - all schools are different in the quality they offer, and all dc are different in their abilities.
I would certainly not be put off applying for Oxbridge if I had a super bright dc in state education.
Maybe some people are intimidated by the big name colleges? No need to be.

seeker · 31/12/2012 13:21

Really, bonsoir? Several of those assumptions are yours!

Bonsoir · 31/12/2012 13:22

I have made no such assumption. You are possibly projecting your obsessions on everyone, as you are wont to do!

seeker · 31/12/2012 13:25
Grin

A touch of pots and kettles, I suspect.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread