If you can afford it, would you send your children to an independent school?

[Fiona2011231]

This is a hypothetical question, and I would greatly appreciate your insight.

My question is based on this assumption: In England, if you want your children to have a better chance in life (great success, joining the elites, etc), a good independent school is a requirement. Of course, few have enough money to afford it.

But suppose you have enough money, would you send your children to an independent school? Or would a grammar or a comprehensive school be good enough?

Thank you.

I think Oxford and Cambridge are overrated and not exactly part of my ambitions for my children.

Neither do I envisage them being ruling class.

Unless they want to, and then I would support that.

There are many, many ways to be successful i n life, and of my objections to some of the private schools is their narrow, limited, idea of success.

All these parents pushing their kids into Oxbridge, as if it is a goal in itself.

There are, of course, ways of helping those you love, and ways of helping those you love... I might draw the line at murder. And NLCS and Habs, if they really are shit, anyway.

but how can it ever be right that a kid with lower grades than a state school kid ends up not only in the Oxbridge college of their choice, but pres of the JCR
not by merit that's for sure
strings pulled by the school (not the parents btw)

I sincerely hope my DS doesn't become part of the ruling elite I also am not mad about the idea of him teaching in or running a public school or servicing their needs of the elite in any other way. I'm not parting with my hard earned cash hoping that will be the outcome. Neither do I get the impression that is what the school are training him up to do.

I don't think so - I just can't get my head around the idea of being there because you are the elite - either financially or academically - and how that might affect the child, to know they have been "creamed off". It automatically cuts out associating with a wider cross-section of people, and I do think that for most jobs/aims in life it's better to have more awareness of more different people and a wider sense of the realities of life.

I also think education doesn't just happen at school and you can add a huge amount at home via the things you talk about, books, documentaries you watch, art galleries and museums you go to, countryside walks, whatever. And as a product of the English state education system who got an Oxbridge 1st and has a much-admired and envied career I can't fault it myself.

The only situation in which I might consider it, if I was rich, is if I had a child who was deeply miserable at their school and the only other option was a private school - I think seeing my child suffer would probably override my principles.

I know that my Oxbridge degree got me my first job - I know that because I was told straight out that the boss prioritised those applicants.

Not saying it's right, and this was 20 years ago but there is an effect.

middleclassonabursary - you might have been safer sending your ds to a state school, if you didn't want him to become one of the ruling elite. Obviously, though, most of us ultimately are, directly or indirectly, serving the ruling elite, it's just that some of us are closer to the action than others.

Eyeofnewt we live in the exceedingly affluent Shires It's not exactly diverse here either by ethnicity or financially. Our local comp has more white middle class children than the London independent school my friend sends her DS too.

That's alright then, happygardening - it's well worth your friend spending her money, to avoid all those white, middle class children.

My DH's school has a long tradition of boys becoming part of the ruling elite fortunately my DH has avoided this path as have all he kept in contact with, those who have gone down this road are not those my DH liked at school or had any desire to keep in contact with on leaving. As my DH said about one very well known and prominent member of the coalition "he was an unbearable self congratulatory twat when I was at school with him and he still is now." DS's school also historically has been the school of many who are part ruling elite but I'm optimistic that DS will also avoid going down this road.

ps I'm only teasing - I know plenty of people send their children to expensive public schools because they want their children to be happy, to have wonderful experiences to look back on, and to go out into the world at the end of it all capable of leading fulfilling, worthwhile and productive lives, and that this is the beginning and end of their thoughts and desires on the subject.

It is a shame that these schools make it easier for the unbearable, self-congratulatory twats, too, though.

You can tease rabbit but I genuinely worry that DS1 local state school virtually all white middle class will have very limited experience of other backgrounds. He was by the way born in one of the most ethnically diverse and poorest areas in London we are a million miles from that now. Although I personally am glad to return to my beloved "blue remembered hills" and I can see it has many positives in comparison with raising children in London I can also see that it's not all good.

John Major has just given a speech about this. He says today there is no way he would have got anywhere today. Whatever your views of his time as Prime
Minister, he is the last Prime Minister that came from a genuine modest background . He stated far to many privately educated people from a few schools and families are in the"Elite" . It is an attack on the public school cabal who run the Government now. I wonder would he even be a minister in this cabinet.

As one of the wealthiest in the coalition, it's all family money, I don't think the school played any part or in fact needed facilitate his position into the ruling elite he was already there from the moment he first drew breath.

Which One ? ...

Also we need to get this into perspective we're only talking about a relative handful of people. Most leaving Eton SPS Westminster etc are not going to become household names and political policy makers.

If any of the cabinet or even Labour MPs had been educated at "Thornhill" do you believe any of them would be anywhere.

I expect now to be told about someone who made it, not the 99% who are nowhere.

Do you soul really think it's their schools that made them cabinet ministers? DH was recently reading Old Boys directory looking up old friend none listed their occupation as an MP let alone cabinet minister. Ok most had "good jobs" and would be considered successful some were very successful but this is hardly surprising bearing in mind the school and it's academic selectivity. The majority were from very affluent MC homes, ok some were super rich like the well known cabinet minister, some were hereditary peers but these were in the minority. The majority are still very affluent middle classes they've gone onto well paid jobs like their parents not become the ruling elite.

When you consider how few of them there are, less than 0.5 % of the population the amount of influence and control they have is unbelievable.
I have been fortunate most of my life (NOT IN TERMS OF EDUCATION) but in material terms. I know many very Wealthy/Rich people though where i have lived and though family business contacts, all of them and their families are self made ( Maybe their kids will have it off) not one of them are in the ruling elite.
This is despite their achievements , they are not able to join the club because their don't have the right school tie and though wealthy and successful they will still stay in their own group. The old boys network is not just about money or success, its something "Darker" its about keeping their
alumni in the forefront of british life and stopping better brighter people from taking their places.

soul at the very top the "club" is full of Russian/Arab/Indian plutocrats and oligarchs, their children may be or have been at these elite schools but many of them have come from impoverished backgrounds or at the very least their parents have. They've joined the club because they do hold the golden key (encrusted in diamonds ostrich skin and ivory) money.

Depends what you mean by "genuine modest background". Gordon Brown was the son of a minister hardly the world's best paid profession and was fully state educated.

happygardening I take your point but the private school will be selecting, either by money or ability or both. There may be more racial diversity in London but everyone will know they "got in" because they are "special" and "better" in some way - I'm not sure that's great for kids as they learn.

I'm also in a fairly naice area but DS's state school class has every level of ability including a physically and mentally disabled child who attends part-time, and my own DS, who is dyslexic and way behind his peers academically. I confess I'm ignorant about if and how dyslexic children get into private schools - maybe it happens a lot - but I can't see him passing (or even being able to bring himself to sit) an entrance exam.

It's the understanding of, inclusion of and kindness to everyone that our school teaches that is a huge benefit IMO. Obviously you want good academic teaching too, and that is there too. The lack of funds for nice things is a PITA but it also brings people together.

Thought I'd throw this in to the mix, which hopefully makes it clear that any school that does well academically is likely to produce good university students - state, grammar or private.

I'll keep saying it, isn't that what we all want for our kids? The rest is just politics, ideology and opinion. Why do we even bother trying to change each others' opinion on ideology?

"The Higher Education Funding Council for England research, set to be released in the spring, tracked about 132,000 students who enrolled in 2007-08. It looks at how likely they are to achieve either first- or upper-second-class degrees, depending on their background and controlling for different grades.

State pupils generally do better than their private peers with the same A-level grades, even when the varying difficulty of different degree courses is taken into account.

But when schools are divided by academic performance as opposed to their funding status, there is little difference in pupil standards."

www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/hefce-state-students-outperform-private-peers/2008811.article