Think Carefully Before Opting for Private Education

[PRMum2012]

i am a mum of two (23 months and 3 in august)I am self-employed, part time and married to a lovely architect. We have a great life and two happy kids.

On paper I would say I have not done too badly with my life and my aim is to work full time as soon as possible now my kids are a bit older. If the work was available I would happily work full time now.

Despite setting up my own business I can't help feeling like a failure that I can't afford for my own children, what my parents did for me.... It annoys me that I put so much importance on it ... I am now passionate about finding a decent local primary school for my children so they don't feel the same pressure i do now, when they are older and looking for schools for their kids ....but i'll be honest ......assuming i can afford it i would try and do it from 11 if i can....!!!!...

Hopefully by then, my kids will have an input too and they will be forming their own opinions on the issue.

Depending on mortgage and family support I can't see that it's possible for anyone with two kids earning under £80,000 - £1000,000 + (as a family income) to afford private education anymore, my advice is unless you have a thriving business or two, work as a dr, lawyer or banker.... Forget it.

It's really hard to watch my younger sibling do it for her kids, they are paying for private prep while we cant afford it.... But it really upsets me I feel like this... why can't I just be happy for them and quietly satisfied that I don't need to pay on top of my taxes for my kids education.

For my own primary education i went privately, tried the local school for secondary education but was bullied so moved back to the private system.... I had a mix of private and state during secondary - my second private school was amazing but the second state school I attended for 6th form (my choice) was great too so why is this all having such an impact on what I want for my own kids.

My DH is much more laid back, he went privately all the way through but doesn't place as much value on it as I do/did....I wish I felt the same way but all I feel now is pressure to earn more money so I can pay for them both from 11.

Xenai

In principle, I have no quibble with what you say. In fact i steered 1 DC very much away from studying art as an A level, and then a degree, into something very different. I suggested keeping art as a hobby.

However, I think because you have clearly done very well yourself, and are academic, and move in circles with similar people, that you have a slightly narrow perspective- if only on this forum anyway!

The average £100K salary for someone on IT for example- I know plenty of people working in IT, for multinationals, and in London and they earn nothing like that despite having masters and PhDs.

Similarly, how many people- seriously- have the option of either studying say drama( your example) or doing an English degree at Cambridge. Places fro English degrees are competitive and the majority of students will study not at Oxbridge, but at other unis some of which were former polytechnics.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that not everyone is as bright as you or your DCs, and forgetting the fact that some women- and men- will end up in mediocre jobs like admin, cleaning, service industries, etc because that is the limit to what they can do- no matter how much money was poured into their education - sometimes!

I'm not against private education at all- it's a good thing on the whole. But even the best school cannot make an average child into a high achiever if they weren't born with the brain power. They can bring out the best in them, sure, and I'm all for that- but I have seen countless parents waste huge amounts of money on children's education hoping they would be high achievers and do better than in a reasonably good state school- and they haven't.

Oh for heavens' same. I did work, bloody hard, and got a scholarship to read English at Oxford. Yes, I had lefty principles - I still do and as I am going to be 50 next month I do not think this will change. I also sing extremely well, in a highly competitive chamber choir. And I do a job which interests me. It just doesn't pay very much, but the thing is that a lot of highly paid jobs would be quite boring (though I am quite confident I could have gone down that route if I'd chosen to).

Oh and I don't do much housework as I am a feminist so my male partner does rather a lot of it

I also believe that there is only so much a school can do, it is also a lot about the home environment. With that I don't mean to say that a rubbish school will be fine if a child is supported at home, but rather that the home environment can be limiting (unless boarding I guess).

As an example my DH's best friend has done very well for himself and they have sent their son to a very expensive school. They are rather frustrated that he doesn't excel but when you observe what they offer as a family I think they should apportion a little bit of the blame on themselves.

They never do concerts/theatre/museum/interesting trips, the TV is permanently on, and the house is dotted with the latest games and there isn't a single book around the house (apart from study books in the child's bedroom). I think it takes quite a special child to feel motivated in that environment but they just don't see that. They firmly believe that because they pay their child will suddenly become a genius or inspired.

Bella - permanent software developers with sought after skills like Java earn about £60k to £80k. Their team leaders and managers no doubt earn a lot more. My friend has an Oxbridge Maths Msc and he develops trading algorithms and he earns about £150k pa. plus bonus.

Contractors can earn £350 to £700 a day depending on skill set. The company keeps them for a year. Then they hire new contractors with the latest version of Java for example. Saves having to constantly train permanent staff who then need to get up to speed.

So I suggest that you tell your IT friends to get their CVs out there because it sounds like they are being underpaid.

It was interesting on the women who earn £1000 a day thread that IT people did figure quite highly and they tended to be self employed and selling their skills on a daily basis I think from memory. Nor that you cannot enjoy singing on a lower income... just that high earning women and men do have time for hobbies and ilfe can be nice when you earn a lot not that it is always absolutely horrible so you either choose happy life and low earnings or high earnings and horrible life. That is simply not so for many women although you certainly need to work fairly hard to do well in most jobs.

I am certainly not suggesting high earnings for women as the panacea for all life's ills, but having money can help and women can make informed choices or we hope they will.

MTS I know all of that. I am talking about the majority not the few. I equally know people with MScs in maths and economics who earn nothing like what you quote.

Before everyone starts rushing into IT, just a couple of points. The big salaries are almost exclusively paid by banks and financial institutions. We are in a recession so there are currently no pay rises, bonuses are generally low and many are being made redundant. Those average figures for permI 60-80k probably are still about right, but that is pretty much exclusively in banks and not that many are hiring. With regards to developers, many are out sourcing to low cost locations. So for example, the place I just left, the perms are told to relocate to Eastern Europe or take redundancy. IT managers in banks can be on significantly more but that is stull an old boys network, generally, and most women are pushed out before they get to that point (in my extensive 15+ years experience working in IT in the city)

IT contracting does pay well, but contracts can be few and far between in a recession. And rates are much lower than they were (tho still not bad admittedly) - I know many and the top rate is 550 a day, most are on 400/450 a day. I don't know anybody who is on 6/700 a day anymore, though they may be charging that to clients, some umbrella organisation will be taking a cut. Contracts are short term, 3-6 months, usually, so there is not much stability or surety. This can make planning childcare etc difficult. You also have to be prepared to travel to wherever the work is, often at very short notice. There is also a lot of out of hours and weekend work.

It is well paid, but certainly not easy money. You have to do a lot of studying in your spare time to keep up with technology. It is also very tiring commuting into a big city 5 days a week. You only see your children briefly in the morning and evening at the most fraught times of the day (unlike Xenia who works from home).

Having said all that, the thing I really like about IT contracting is that generally once you are taken on the fact that you are male or female makes no difference.

As far as I know the only women making over £1000 a day are lawyers and traders, where the hours seem to be even longer than IT. It is all a trade off and there is no way to make the big money without it impacting on your home life unless you work from home like Xenia. She may have pulled it off but I don't know any other women who have. And I think she was very lucky, as well as hard working.

I totally support Xenias anti-sexism campaign but the reality unfortunately is still not as black and white as go out and get a well paid job, where you can still breastfeed your babies (not so easy when the nanny is the other side of London, not downstairs). hopefully it will be for our daughters.

If you sell things you can earn more than £1k a day. In fact you could argue lawyers, It consultants etc simply selling their time are the low end of UK earnings. If it earning whilst you're sleeping, sell off of your company and selling large quantities of products that pays more. I suspect the time I put into the small subscription journal business I own is less than other parts of my work but more profitable as the more you sell the more you earn. If I look at the clients billed today some of whom are small businesses and some in IT they all have people doing work for them and they own the company

I wouldn't let breastfeeding put women off. I expressed milk at work - yes it's a nuisance buti t's worth it if for 40 years after that you have a high earning career when if you took 10 years off to have 3 babies and return to work on the minimum wage you lose the career which often makes women unhappy. A few months with a breastpump is well worth enduring and the benefits to your children can be long if you earn well are happy and love your work thereafter. I have not worked from home all the years and not when the older children were little. In most jobs you tend to have to start working for others until you get to know what you're doing. A few women and men when they graduate immediately start businesses but it is not easy for most to do that.

I was not believed on a thread when I posted that my child's salary will double in 2 or 3 years until I printed the evidence so I fear some women have dreadfully low expectations or thing that is not for the likes of me or I am not bright enough whereas if instead they thought I can do anything, I am just as good as anyone else, no reason I cannot be on that rising salary rather than working in the local Tesco they might get a bit further.

But we can't have a society where EVERYONE is a lawyer can we? Law is exceptionally well paid.

I was going to be a Barrister. Got a great degree but then decided what I really wanted to do was teach. So, because I know I could do anything, am just as good and capable as anyone else, and (without being arrogant) am extremely intelligent decided to do so..because having a huge salary is genuinely unimportant to me.

Could have been earning an absolute fortune but truly doubt I would be as happy and enjoy going to work every day as much as I do now.

I feel sad for people who define success in life or people's value by how much money they earn (or how many material possessions they have). It makes me angry that some children are brought up to believe this is the case.

For me, private education is a way of giving my children a really well-rounded experience they can't get in their local (poor) state primary/secondary schools (and all the extra clubs before and after school help me work the hours I need to!). In comparison to the majority of parents at our school we are probably 'poor' but actually when I look at the fact we have a home in a safe country, more than enough to eat, lots of opportunities for doing fun activities, our health, the occasional holiday, and education at one of the best schools in the UK etc...I feel extremely rich.

Yes, having lots of money can buy you certain options, but actually it is possible to be perfectly content with having enough for your needs (not having enough, however, is tragic).

I have always said I value most of all my good physical and mental health and happiness. If as a woman you can also have that plus a career you love which is also well paid that's fine. Obviously some people are not interested in having much money. I am just encouraging women to look at the options out there. I have worked over 30 years with a lot of high earning women and they are by no means lawyers. It is those who set up companies like the White Company and then sell them who make a lot of money, those who build up property empires, knicker companies - the Gold woman? etc etc who make a lot of money.

No rich parent ever brings up its children to think that money is some kind of panacea. What they do do is give children choices and make them realise anything is possible.

I beg to differ Xenia. Unfortunately I have met far too many people (either who think they have a lot and are therefore superior to 'the poor' or are worried and dissatisfied that they don't have enough and therefore 'inferior' in some way) who truly believe that the amount of money they earn; the size or value or location of their house/s and holidays etc... defines them. They are very unhappy people even though they would tell you so.

In reality, by definition, there is a limited percentage of the population who are 'top earners' and while encouraging anyone to think it is possible for them to personally be a part of it is no bad thing in and of itself, it is reality that most will never be. This doesn't mean parents can't teach their children that 'anything is possible' because IMHO that is not the same thing as teaching 'you too can have an obscenely well-paid career!'

Parental income does not necessarily make people capable of bringing up their children to believe anything is possible. Although low income will limit the amount of expensive activities that can or cannot be undertaken, it does not necessarily follow that children's choices/dreams become limited. As you yourself said, you worked very hard to get where you are from a young age...I inferred this was despite a low-income family situation.

If you are genuinely interested in encouraging women to look at the options they have, you do it in a very unusual way - You talk an awful lot about having a high paid job and inferring that if you don't have such a job, you have let yourself down/have low expectations/don't have enough belief in yourself or are in the wrong line of work. Forgive me if I have misinterpreted your previous posts, but this is certainly the impression I gained from them (in this thread and in others).

People only construe that fro my posts because they feel inadequate. I have never said if you don't have a good job which pays a lot you have let yourself down. I write quite a bit about internal contentment and happiness and those are not things which flow from work or children or anything external - they are about the balance of chemicals in your brain.

Keeping up with the Joneses mentality has never been a route to happiness. In fact studies show if you can live amongst people who earn a bit less people tend to be happier (as we are apparently such an envious people sadly).

Yes, I also agree - you can be quite badly off and because of that you encourage children to do a lot better or the child wants to do a lot better as they remember living hand to mouth as children.

(I don't think my parents were low income - my father worked for the NHS but certainly money was never free flowing for most people in the 70s - it was a very difficult period).

'People only construe that fro [sic] my posts because they feel inadequate'

ROFL . Seriously...thank you. I haven't had such a good laugh in a while...

and I hope the OP to whom you referred as 'bottom of the food chain' in terms of her poorly paid PR job which does not enable her to 'adequately' educate her children (given that 'Mr. Architect' on "only" £300K p.a isn't much help either!) understands that (actually) she has not let herself down.

The thing about being competitive about money is that you always end up by defining yourself as a loser. By this I mean that no matter how much money you have, there will always be someone with more. Once you get to a point that your basic needs are taken care of, money really is irrelevant. So yes, be aspirational but be aspirational to have a good interesting and fulfilling career. Rather than aspiring to have pots of money. Sometimes I think Xenia that you confuse the two. Academics have good interesting and fulfilling careers but in general they get paid diddly-squat. Should I therefore following your logic, be discouraging my children from becoming academics?

Absolutely. My father said to us all pick careers you will enjoy all your lives (he worked full time to 77). So that means in my view picking something intellectually challenging which is why the professions are often more interesting that the factory production line or even running the factory and money should not be a main motivator. I have never said otherwise. However if you can find a really interesting and well paid career go for it and parents should ensure their daughters know that plenty of women find that nirvana - high paid but interesting work.

I also advise people to pick something where it changes so you are not doing the same thing for 50 years and also choose something where ultimately you could own (work for yourself) rather than will require you always to be working for others.

On whether to become academics that is up to the children. I have written 30 books in my field and am supposed to be some kind of leading authority and that is in my spare time. The day job pays the bills, school fees, for houses and islands etc. You can have much of the life of an academic without having to accept low academic pay. If money does not matter to you then that's fine too.

Academics have good interesting and fulfilling careers but in general they get paid diddly-squat.

I couldn't agree more. Most people we know, including us, earn way over 100k and are not academic. 100k wouldn't even cover my shoe and handbag cost for the year LOL.

You don't need a university degree to make you rich, in fact I think it holds you up.

Successful people have one thing in common drive, determination and hard work, these are the qualities I feel outweigh anything else in life.

100k wouldn't even cover my shoe and handbag cost for the year LOL.

OMFG

Can we not have a thread on "My income is bigger than yours- na na ne na na'.

I don't know why women feel the need to post comments like this- even if they add a 'LOL' to try to soften the boast.

The whole point surely of education and feminism is to give women freedom to do what the heck they want- be that being a SAHM, a £1million a year barrister, or a nurse, teacher, dog walker, whatever.

Not everyone wants to express milk whilst holding down a job. Personally I cant think of anything worse.

I think you're over worrying.

Me and my two siblings all went to our local state schools; an appalling primary and a thorough - if dull - comp. Then on to the local sixth form college.

We got all As at GCSE and A-level. Two of us went to Cambridge. I think that sending my children to private school would be a complete waste of money; I would resent every penny.

Also, don't private schools aren't necessarily better; we have a few teachers in our extended family who have taught in the private sector and they haven't noticed the teaching being any better (sometimes it's even worse!)

Enjoy spending your money on holidays instead!

But, I agree that you need 100k plus to send two children to private school.

It is not freedom to become a housewife or take the veil moving into total seclusion in the home - that is nto what feminism is about and housewives who think it is need to go on some kind of consciousness awareness course. Those are choices which ultimately do not benefit women and turn back the clock in terms of female advancement at work. They pander to male views that all women are fit for is ironing a shirt and clearing up mess at home. It is not a wise feminist choice to become a housewife, it is not a higher calling - it is a sell out to other women.

I agree with poppyd that plenty of women and men - the 15% with the XX factor - who succeed (in work terms) tend to be those with ambition and certainly do not need school qualifications. It does however help if you have them which is why most parents would rather their children did well at school and picked work where the chances of earning a good income are higher than if you leave at 16 with no GCSEs. Yes, you can do the latter and start a business and do well but it is harder.

I don't think I've ever said what I earn other than the fact it could fund 5 sets of day school fees. I would not call myself particularly materialistic - happy to have a cheap car and keep it 15 years, not competitive over clothes, I think my current handbag is quite nice but I'd only ever want one. We have reasonably nice holidays. I only drink tap water and dye my own hair and don't use a hair dresser. The things that give most of us pleasure don't cost much - sex is free (ah except the divorce settlement you pay a man if you earn a lot I suppose - actually I've probably paid the highest price for sex on mumsnet of all posters....., sunshine, walking, cuddling children and my hobbies aer too - reading, yoga, singing in choirs, thinking.... so I do not really put myself into a materialistic category at all but I do think women can set themselves high targets and achieve them and enjoy competing and succeeding and that can be part of a happy life as much for a woman as a man. It's fun.

Xenia - Sorry, but viewing your divorce settlement with your husband as an expensive payment for sex does not sound like the view of a totally happy, well adjusted person. It makes you sound more like you have big problems with your relationship with men and with taking your blinkers off from time to time to consider anything other than your own lonely furrow... Also, given the repugnance of such a view when it comes from a man, I don't see that it is doing the feminist cause much good to take on such an attitude for yourself. I don't see it as doing much good for children, either, if all adults are supposed to view "scrubbing" babies' bottoms and caring for other reliant human beings as work that is beneath them and to be avoided by all but the most unlucky and stupid.

Xenia Mon 06-May-13 14:59:38

It is not freedom to become a housewife or take the veil moving into total seclusion in the home - that is nto what feminism is about and housewives who think it is need to go on some kind of consciousness awareness course.

Breathtakingly arrogant and also very out of touch.

1. Some women like to be 'housewives'- though I didn't use that term and know no one who calls herself that now if she is a non working ( outside the home) wife, or mother.

1. Take the veil ? Pot shot at some women's religions?

1. Since when did 'being a housewife' mean you were also in 'total seclusion'?

I know many women who do not work for money. They enjoy being at home and keeping the home. They are all intelligent. They have full and busy lives.

They have made a choice which is something Xenia does not seem to understand- because it doesn't conform to her notion of what is worthwhile for women to do.

I quite like cleaning ! Not sure what being a housewife has got to do with feminism - more about a life style choice about wanting to be with kids full time. It never ceases to amaze me how it's ok to pay other people to look after your kids but if you deem to look after your own then it's an affront to women. Sorry, I loved being home with mine whilst they were little and no career or amount of money would have enticed me away from them (I earned buckets in the City when first got pregnant and left without a backward glance).
Feminism was about having a choice to do as we pleased and for some people that means staying at home. Might not be everyone's choice but please don't belittle those whose it is. I now work in a job I love and earn a tenth of what I used to, but the satisfaction it gives me is immeasurable.
I am now off to pub to meet old Oxford friends for glass of wine x

Ooh Bella, we seem to agree ! Come to pub with us x