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

[happygardening]

Thought I repost the OP although the debate has moved on a little .
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.

.

creamteas, I know that Eton work very hard to find suitable candidates - the irony is that the same problem exists as it does for Oxbridge ("Eton's not for the likes of us").

I'm told that the courses are inspirational. And, of course, the attendees get to live with cloisters etc for a couple of weeks and start not to notice them. Shame if they can't get to the right kids.

"what really marks public school kids is the confidence they have"
I agree Tas but remain unsure where this confidence comes from. Is it their independent school? Or does home life play a big part? I come into contact with well over two and a half thousand children every year from all backgrounds and as a general principle independently educated children stand out a mile from their state educated counterparts and those at top well known schools (the sort we'e all heard of) stand out even more than those from bog standard independent schools. I could pick them out before they've even opened their mouths. Why? Where does this confidence and whole way of being come from. We're a bit provincial here is it the same in a city?

"so more about the level of state school children then"
Yes seeker but that confidence is already starting to develop because as the head of the school I've just mentioned knows "education" is not just about what is taught in the classroom it doesn't begin at 9am and finish at 3 30pm. .

Many apply, and get in.

That's true. But what strikes me a little in this whole forum is that people seem to really expect Oxbridge to take in students representing the masses - is it 7% independent / 93% state???

But hang on a minute though... because that is assuming that 100% of A-level students will go on to university which would be impossible (and not right for society). Not everyone is academic. Not everyone should go to uni. And as someone else said previously, not everyone can be a lawyer/GP/dentist... someone has to also be the cleaner/cab driver, etc. And before someone mentions the importance of each of these jobs - yes, they will all earn different salaries. We are not in a communist country after all.

By the time you cut off those who shouldn't be at uni anyway due to ability alone (although I know for a fact that more do go), and take into consideration that a lot of independent schools are selective (i.e. likely to mostly take students with the aptitude for uni), the ratio of state v independent at Oxbridge suddenly does not look so bad... because they are meant to take only the top tier of the students while the others get distributed to the other 164 HE institutions out there. Getting the ratio completely "right" would mean to forego merit completely, and instead do a lot of social engineering that isn't right either...

To answer op - because it doesn't always make a difference

We both went to state schools and good unis. We are in good jobs w v desirable companies and earn more than people we know who went to private schools. I'd go so far as to say private schooling has put them under pressure to give their kids the same - so they work crazy hours, spend less time w their children - it's a cycle.

Our local state schools are excellent so that does make it an easy decision.

What is the ratio of state/private at Oxbridge, Tasmania?

I could pick them out before they've even opened their mouths.

Me, too. I tend to call it "quiet confidence", and spot it a mile away. It's the whole "walking really straight, but still looking really relaxed" thing which seems to scream of confidence.

Why that is so? Personally, I think that it could be due to "copying" people around you. In other - more isolated - countries, people often say they can "see" where people are from by the way they walk and behave. Similarly, public school kids probably do the same. It's well-known that they copy the accents, for one. You know how sometimes a son stands in the same way as the step-father who raised him, but whom he isn't related to (making the "you're so much like your father" comments quite amusing)? With the schools, I think this is particularly visible at the top boys' schools - many of the adults they interact with will have a similar privileged background and probably copied this from others before them themselves (so it's being passed on from one generation to another). These schools also happen to be boarding schools, so the effect is even more enhanced. Our (whoever is watching) brains also play a big part. We will have seen posh people walk and talk a certain way (whether in TV or real life) and subconsciously connect that way of going / talking with that background. So every time you spot it, you know.

That said, I don't quite see the same thing with girls though. Girls who do ballet for years will always look dignified no matter what school they went to!

But then again, it could just be what DH says - that wearing old-fashioned clothes (particularly waistcoats, apparently) makes you walk in a certain way, lol.

It is called cultural capital. Each culture has a way of being in the world. It is not a problem in itself that middle-class people are different to working-class people. It is the hierarchy, the over whelming assumption that the middle-class way of being in the world is better (rewarding only those who display such traits) that is the problem.

Oh and studies have shown that in the UK, kids can differentiate each other on the basis of social class by 5 years old. In most cases, in the reception year of school, they tend to divide themselves into friendship groups on the basis of social class (obviously this can't happen in some schools, as there is no mix of social class).

seeker according to the Guardian (so God knows how true it is) Oxford university "in 2011 State school pupils receive 58.5% of offers for 2011 admissions."
Tas you're probably right I remember my DH swaggering walking like his school mates! Luckily my DS doesn't have to wear a waistcoat in fact he looks monumentally scruffy when in home clothes. A family member who hasn't seem him since he was tiny was recently completely taken a back at how "normal" he was. He is as he has been all his life reserved (not shy) with people he doesn't know carefully observing them and weighing them up before deciding whether or not he likes them. I suspect she was expecting a braying hooray Henry for some unknown reason.

"obviously this can't happen in some schools, as there is no mix of social class"
Absolutely as we all know middle class parents who send their DC's to state schools move to the right address so that their darlings wont have to mix with the underclasses.

When you're looking at state school entry to Oxbridge it's important to remember that something like 75 ( I think) of the top 100 state schools are grammars. Which considering that there are only 160-something grammar schools. Another 10ish are faith schools. Leaving only 15 which are anything approaching non selective. And I'd quite like to see the catchment of those 15. So not much room for the poor/disadvantaged in that lot!

The same sort of figures apply to most Russell group universities.

middle class parents who send their DC's to state schools move to the right address so that their darlings wont have to mix with the underclasses

some of us don't......

Seeker's definition of poor and/or disadvantaged: Not clever, not catholic. :( I must just have imagined my childhood then.

absolutely seeker as I mentioned already someone on this thread. looking at the balance of state/private schools does not tell you much about the level of inequality at Oxford.

Better measures are things like parental income/FSM/children in care - although none of these is perfect either.

Oxford and Cambridge have the lowest proportion of students coming form households where the average income is less than £15,000 (roughly households on one F/T at minimum wage). Other highly selective universities do better than this.

Seeker:

Cambridge: 63.3% state / 37.3% private

Oxford: 57.5% state / 42.5% private [UK only]

So as I said due to the filtering process of independent schools (and after that grammar schools), you just can't expect this to go anywhere near 93% v 7%. That would be ridiculous, and wouldn't make sense - given that the 7% probably was filtered out for those who were always going to be more likely to go to uni based on ability.

It's not that the people going to Oxbridge are just from ANY independent school... but probably very focused on the best independent schools in the country, which are very selective (Eton, Winchester, etc.). So in fact, the ones that Oxbridge does take in would likely have been filtered out extensively through CE - or in Eton's case even the very difficult King's Scholar exam (where - I'm sorry - but whoever passes the latter deserves a fast track to Oxbridge). As you can see, these people would have already been pre-selected... and the likelihood of them getting in is much higher than for someone whose first ever hurdle is Oxbridge itself!!!

If you think about it - if you're interviewing for a job, if you get through to the second round, you're already further ahead who has yet to be interviewed for the first round.

And yes, people say that people with the same grades may not get in "because they are from the state sector", but that's not all really. A LOT of state schools only teach the curriculum to pass the A-levels (quite rigidly so). So yes, you can get an A in Maths, but you can't say you really know Maths at that point... you simply scratched the surface. A lot of private schools (considering many of the best actually hire PhDs in that subject), can teach beyond the syllabus. You can make connections you won't be able to do by learning solely for the exam. The thing with grades is that they are finite. The highest grade is an A - if you get most of the things requested right. This becomes HIGHLY obvious at interviews because suddenly, as one of the assessors, you have the chance to prod. It only takes a few minutes to figure out who has gone beyond what is requested for A-levels. I am 100% sure that if there was a disadvantaged kid somewhere, without the right accent, who gets full A* and gets through to interview... and then demonstrates knowledge of the subject well beyond the curriculum, the assessors would GLADLY make an offer. Problem is... yeah, the kid will have to work harder than some of his/her competitor from the independent sector, and most likely be completely passionate about his subject to look into it any further.

But that isn't the fault of the independent sector or Oxbridge. It is the fact that he/she wasn't taught beyond what is seen as the national curriculum (which really, should just be seen as the minimum required).

Oh mordion- please don't.

You know that most areas don't have grammar schools- so those 75 schools in the top 100 are restricted to just a few LEAs. You know that even in the areas that do have grammar schools, the proportion of children on FSM who get into them is very low. You know that the same applies to faith schools.

Saying that over 50% of oxbridge undergraduates come from state schools is a weasely statistic.

If we wish assist the poor and disadvantaged we need to look the the whole family. I work and have worked with poorest in society it is a complex picture of little or no education, poor health including addiction, exceedingly limited finances poor housing unemployment crime/prison poor family and social support amongst others. It is unrealistic to talk about Oxbridge entry when you are addicted to drugs can hardly read and are struggling to maintain a roof over you and your DC's head and don't know where the next meal is coming from. In one area I worked in London 25% of the population had little or no literacy skills they are not going to support their children in education. Poverty and everything that associated is at the root of all of this and now this government is reducing benefits to those who need it the most. This is an outrageous situation and even more scandalous is the fact that many relatively wealthy Mail reading types think this is a good thing. How we can do this in a developed country is beyond my comprehension. If we don't assist the adults to a better life and give them genuine opportunities and educate the children then we are creating an underclass that should not exist in a modern 21st century county like the UK.
My DH works with some of the richest people in the world and we need to worry whist those at the bottom and even in the middle are struggling these people are becoming ever richer buying ever more obscene possessions bigger yachts, seventh or eight homes costing millions in the most expensive part of London more flash cars most haven't inherited this money they earned it and believe its there's because they're cleverer and better and their right to spend it on themselves they don't give a toss about anyone especially those at the bottom of the heap.

I agree happy but until we change the mindset of many, at the moment the only possible root out of poverty for these kids is through education.

By perpetuating the class divide through independent/state schools is not helping.

All the evidence suggests that everyone leads happier and healthier lives in more equal societies, so lets start by abolishing private schools (alongside getting rid of grammars, faith, academies and free schools) and move to school allocation by lottery so it can't be fixed :)

Public transport issues with schooling by lottery must be horrendous.

creamteas I'd say abolish the state schools and put everyone into schools of the same quality as the top quality independent schools (run by them) - no need to get rid of the best that you have!!!

But seriously though - such a move will just mean that people may send their kids abroad. It's a globalised world we're living in now.

You can abolish every independent school in the UK it wont help the under classes. You cant educate the children of the underclasses until you educate the the parents, ensure they have a living decent wage/income address their many health concerns/issues address the fact that many commit crimes and or are in prison with al the negative impacts that has. It is the parents who need help then they may become more aspirational for their children.

Tas I would disagree that the 'top' private schools are the best.

Some might send their kids abroad, but I still think it would be a lot better than what we have

I'm curious about the obvious confidence thing too....

I'd guess some of it comes from school, some from parents who are equally confident. Probably more the latter than the former. I'm not sure whether 'confidence' or 'sense of entitlement' would be the correct description, or a mix of both...they do overlap...and a mixed blessing, sometimes.

You could say that top public schools are the best in the same way that a hand-made designer suit is the best - we don't "need" them, they do nothing to improve society as a whole, but they feel good to the people inside them. And until they start having a direct impact on the quality of all human life, we will continue not needing them. We need to be able to look at them and genuinely be able to say, "never was so much owed by so many to so few," rather than "never was so much denied to so many by so few."