Education superclass?

[Amber2]

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100245274/it-is-much-worse-than-sir-john-major-says-a-new-superclass-is-being-created-in-london/

This is interesting coming from John Major ...sounds like more lobbying along the lines of the Sutton Trust but do people really think it's much worse than it ever has been..? and this is do with with the inexorable rise of London...and the global money flowing in there...and so to creating an elite superclass of private schools also ...not just any old private school but a small handful of elite ones, applications to which have reached record numbers, presumably more and more from London and from overseas with over inflation rises in fees pricing out the traditional middle classes that used to be able to afford these schools.

Soul, we aren't talking about 'normal' though. The thread is about an educational superclass.

I'm not convinced by this. Sending children to elite boarding schools is out of the question for any but seriously well off parents (these "super rich") but many of the elite schools in London are day schools.

For example City or St Pauls. City fees are a little under £15k per year. Not affordable for most people, but not out of the question for two well paid professionals e.g. 2 GPs.

In addition the suburbs have some very academic private schools with the majority of the pupils going on to Oxbridge or RG universities. Those schools almost certainly still draw from standard professional families rather than international non-doms.

I don't for one moment want to imply that equality of opportunity exists in education. It isn't particularly more fair that well paid MC children can go to high achieving schools rather than only the children of the "super rich". Nor is it desirable that so many of our politicians attended a school that is well beyond the means of all but the "super rich" and is not accessible to girls at all.

oh please...this is not a discussion about what is poverty ...I've already said if you go down this education path for years, you set a bit of a trap and you need to counter your children's ideas about what is the norm and you need to work hard to do that ...the only point being made was ....on 250k before tax, but based on what we have seen, you will likely be bottom 10 or 20% of wealth in the top London preps ...the many years of private school fees and possibly boarding fees for two will be a big financial sacrifice for us where for others it's nothing.... so that gives you an idea of parents with children goes to these schools...they are more and more of the elite...international tycoon types (wherever they made their money), bankers, magic circle city law firm partners on £1+m plus with houses in central London etc. who are becoming more and more the norm that go to schools which feed to the likes of Eton, Wellington, Westminster, St Paul's - I think of them as the elite by pure comparison to us and if you came and saw our mediocre house you would not think of us as rich by any means...that's the outrageous cost of living in London.

I think the gap is widening between the few and the many. Education simply reflects that. Possibly exacerbates.

There was a short(ish) period during the 80s and early 90s when social mobility did seem to move.

People like DH and I, and I'm sure other MNers, managed to move from traditional working class communities to good universities and on to well paid jobs.

Money was flooding into London, the internatinal applicants weren't coming in numbers and we were needed/given a chance. You didn't need to be te finished article. Far from it. We entered the worlds of finance and business and law and media and politics and science and the performing arts...

But things have got so much more competitive. Polished young people from all over the world are vying for often fewer positions. DH often jokes that these days he wouldn't get a sniff at a training contract at the firm where he is a senior partner. Applicants are so accomplished!!!

And attending a good school is only the starting point.

Poor Dot. I dont think she desrves such a hard time.

We are getting towards the end (do you get barred from MN when your DC turn 18?) but if 15 years ago things had been as they are now, we could not have stayed in London.

House prices were a lot lower then and we were lucky. School choices then were essentially to move (and pay British Rail or an expensive house in a good catchment) find religion, have very clever children, or pay.

We opted for the latter. I worked full time, in-laws passed down their cars, and my husband changed employer. We made it through, on a far lower income than Dot suggests, but we did at times wonder when we would be able to stop living like students.

Things are now silly. House prices are incredible, commuting is expensive, and school fees have risen steadily. Observation suggests that the parent demographic has changed significantly. The culture has changed as well. I am not sure when our son tried out for Westminster that we really knew what a pre-test was. Now preparation is intense. No one wants their kids to be less successful that they are. This also applies to the significant international "elite" who have made their homes in London.

We have done well out of it. Our kids have had a world class education, have an international outlook and are well prepared to compete with whoever. Because of property price increases, we are richer than we ever expected to be. It may not have been as nurturing an upbringing as it might, but they are resilient and reasonably able to look after themselves. (A series of au pairs rather than nannies!)

Our children however, unless they land plum jobs with eye-wateringly high salary levels (probably higher than Dot suggests given mortgage payments on even a modest family house are huge), will not be able to live where we do or send their children to the same schools that they went to.

John Major is right.

The only slight silver lining is that the state system seems to have improved dramatically since my children were little. The local secondary had 93% on free school meals and was classed as failing. Decent school options, not just a few super-selective grammar schools with masses of tutoring, will be vital if London is to thrive.

breathes remember though that it's not just a matter of putting DC through school (30k pre tax income for two kids).

It's the ancilliary stuff.

Then university. Then possibly an MA, or professional training. Then internships. Then perhaps helping in the first few years if starting salary isn't massive.

That prices a lot of people out of the market.

And let's not even go there on the time and effort involved. Day schools plus extra curriculatr activities involve a massive amount of parental commitment.

"No one wants their kids to be less successful that they are."

I agree, but I also see many, many families sleepwalking into just that situation - they wake up too late to ensure that their DC make it to the same world-class universities they went to by virtue of believing that knowing the same amount of the same things as a generation ago will suffice.

30k after tax. Apols.

Bonsoir yes indeed the nouveau pauvre are a rapidly expanding group.

Exactly wordfactory...and unlike the two GPs example, no lovely generous pension scheme or long term job security. So yes, the parental commitment is massive. I never said anywhere we struggle with the fees...what I said was, stupid as it may sound to others, that we do not FEEL wealthy by comparison (and that is entirely subjective, right?) to some of the other parents at school because of (what some would call the elite and we would call privileged) education path we have set our DCS on, and do wonder if we can comfortably afford it long term over many years when DCs talk of boarding school, aspirations of going to study in US, masters etc. and that is even when currently on 250k gross income. We do however feel it is the best path to secure them opportunities in a global market like that in London. If they choose not to use them, that is down to them but we at least want to think they will have some open doors. Perhaps it would have been much easier/better to have chosen another route, but already set on this one now. ...who knows if it would have been worth it....we can't predict the future.

When I started my career in London it was a lot more affordable and while even then competitive still possible for certain professional jobs to get into them...now it is much more about internships, etc. I am not sure my DCs will even be able to afford to buy in a decent part of London in the future unless they restrict themselves to lucrative paying careers only ......it is that crazy.

Bonsoir - is it sleepwalking to be so sickened by it all that you wonder whether it is worth the moral bankruptcy involved in trying to join in and keep up? What sort of children are we creating? They aren't better people, they are just more expensive to maintain and care even less about anyone else than the generations which came immediately before them, if they need to be reminded that not to have your own personal staff does not mean you are badly off. What use is all this excessive accomplishment to anyone but themselves? People less qualified could do their jobs just as well.

Wordfactory - I still think 2 GPs or equivalent could put their DC through a London academic day school. University etc come after school so it isn't more money at the same time. Professional training varies, but after a law degree you seem to need 1 more year and then into a training contract. Finance seems to be a straight graduate entry. Internships can be done in the university holidays. And the hassle of the extra curricular is often dealt with by the school - potentially at further expense.

2 £80k earners might net £80k after tax. Surely they could live on the other £50k, even in London.

Those that are sickened are not the sleepwalkers. Most of the sleepwalkers do things to make money that do not bear an awful lot of close examination.

breathes I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it will be tight.

They'd need a nanny don't forget. And housing is ££££££.

And yes, training to be a solicitor requires only a one year course (or two if one didn't do a law degree)...but let's say a DC wants to go to the bar. That training is more expensive, there's a lot less financial help swilling around (only a few commercial sets really) and the early years before tenancy can be brutally lean.

I fear that the next generation of QCs and judiciary will only contain those from wealthy backgrounds...

And let's not even go there about politics and their dubious research posts!

'Applicants are so accomplished'. I often hear the wry comment that 'we' wouldn't get our jobs now.

Some friends described 8000 applications for about 200 training places at their magic circle firm. The first sifting of cvs now has to be outsourced and the filters applied mean that the unusual candidate doesn't make it through the first round, which is a shame and would mean that several people I know would not have made it.

But are the successful candidates, once their training is underway, noticeably stronger than they were in the 80 s / 90 s, despite the extra accomplishments?

I won't get into what I do and where, but I can very easily say that no way would my DCs be able to get into the sort of employer and professional career I got into in London today if they had my educational background and qualifications. The bar is now so much higher than it was given the international competition and social mobility a lot harder.

Fascinating discussion. But isn't part of the point that UK state schools are so dire that successful international parents working in London have to pay to provide their children with a comparable education to that which got them into their elite jobs and which they mostly got free in their own countries?
Very personal example: I speak 6 languages, three of them to native level, the rest good enough to read professional papers in. I came in the top 1pc nationally in school-leaving exams in two countries, degree was in the top 1-5pc nationally. All this going to average state schools in my home country and having intelligent intellectual parents with normal professional jobs (not City law firm partners or similar). DCs would not even get to do 1 foreign language to a decent level if we sent them to our local state schools in London. Frankly, I doubt they would learn English well enough to get an interview at my current employer. So of course DH and I are looking into private school and realise that we are v lucky to be able to afford it. But the problem are not the very good schools in London (don't think they are as brilliant as the Torygraph says, but very good), but rather the dire standard of UK state schooling and the low expectations that pervade it.

No of course they aren't, Slipshodsibyl...

and yes, Slip, a couple of friends who are partners at law firms in London tell me the same and say they never would have got a traineeship at their firm today, not even an interview.

SuiGeneris - given that you came in the top 1pc nationally in school -leaving exams, do you actually have any understanding of the level of accomplishment of your more normal peers from those other countries?

slip that's a very good question.

The trainees these days certainly do more than we did. They're expected to hit the ground running and make money.

We were a complete waste of space for most of our contract. Loss making .

And the current crop are far more suited to how global business works now. Our skills/outlook wouldn't be a good fit.

However, is it good for a busines to have everyone cut from the same cloth? No, of course not. For creativity and growth you need diversity. TBH you need diversity for safety (pace the banking crisis).

But encouraging businesses to employ weaker applicants is a very hard sell, no?

Did you learn all 6 languages at school, SuiGeneris?

You don't need a nanny for secondary age children. None of my London friends have nannies for their primary age children. They juggle. It's hard work, but doable. I have a friend who is a barrister and has had no parental support in achieving that. Again, not easy, but possible.

There is an elite who offer unpaid internships as charity auction prizes and who have contacts everywhere. There is a sphere that well paid professionals can't get their children into and it seems that politicians are increasingly coming from that sphere (perhaps reflecting the closure of grammar schools). It does matter, but it is relatively small and doesn't have a monopoly on RG and Oxbridge entrants.

Of course, the more the sphere gets control of the power and money, the more it will recruit from among its own - it took 2 World Wars to shake the stranglehold the last lot of "elites" had over everything. And they usually do cause wars, chaos and revolutions eventually, too.

Dotmania - I don't think the accomplishments of SuiGeneris's "normal peers" is entirely relevant. If the most able in state schools aren't given the opportunity to excel then they are poorly served by the system. This isn't the case in every state school but certainly is the case in some.

I was shocked by the standard of a German lesson in a very good state school. I was not considered good at German at school, but my 10 year old GCSE knowledge was streets ahead of what was expected of this class. The difference was partly that our language teachers only ever spoke their language in lessons and we had additional conversation classes.

State comprehensives can struggle to genuinely challenge the most academic pupils in all subjects and at all levels.