Why do some parents think private school at primary is a waste of money.... but are secretly saving for secondary?

[Tallandgracefulmum]

AIBU as my little one is starting prep school in Sept. I was asked by a friend at DD's nursery my plans, said private all the way and was told I would be wasting my money and should save it for secondary when it matters.

I hate this ..most parents I know would send kids private all the way through but cannot afford it so are saving for secondary. But to be honets if your not used to paying shed loads monthly for schooling, you will not suddently 7 years later ( and higher fees) start doing it for secondary.

What some people don't seem to get is that some parents value educational experience over material possessions or fancy homes. This friend in question said she will use the money she saves to provide education experiences for her children and give them a lump sum for uni.

My thoughts are she just can't afford it and wants to make me feel bad for spending my hard earned money.

How many parents actually compare a range of private school fees, then calculate how much it would cost to send one child then save the relevant monthly amount ready to give each off spring at 18? Doesn't happen. What's wrong in providing the best educational experience you can afford for your kids without others constantly telling me I am wasting my money.

FWIW I can understand private school bashers who hate all forms of private schooling, but not those who bash primary but would send kids to secondary in a heartbeat!

I'm not suggesting it's a level playing field. BUt I don't see that my children are in any way disadvantaged if they decide they want to go to Oxbridge.

Incidentally I don't think I would have got in from my private school - they wouldn't have seen me as a potential Oxbridge candidate. I think moving schools every now and then can be useful - it gives you a blank slate. It was my state school that suggested I try (hadn't occurred to me). I went back and did access talks etc during my time there just to encourage people to apply (which I think is one of the biggest problems - people thinking it's not for people like them). I've already said while there I learned one public school trick for getting in - if you don't get in one year, try again the next, and the next... that wouldn't have occurred to me.

DD1 is open to the idea of Cambridge if she gets sufficiently good ASs (I think that is highly unlikely myself, especially in view of her continuing medical issues). But only really as a back up for what she really wants to do. Which is lucky since, s I said, I don't see her getting the requisite UMS.

Oh there's no way ds2 will - he hates writing essays, so really not the place for him! But if he suddenly discovers the love of academic study I'm pretty sure he can be as well prepared as any Etonian.

I agree that money gives people freedom, and choices.

But happiness is a different thing altogether. TheWord, I would argue that happiness is always illusory and fleeting, whether you have money and therefore freedom, or not.

Worth pointing out here that some Cambridge colleges (notably Kings) won't interview anyone from Eton, Harrow or Rugby. Or at least they didn't when I was at Cambridge in the mid to late 90s. Kings College in fact were overwhelmingly state school. Private schools tended not to encourage students to apply as they probably wouldn't get in. Equally, there were some colleges (Peterhouse, notably) which were simply not an option for a state school applicant (or at least that was the rumour). It was/is wildly college dependent. Mine (Fitzwilliam) was 60% state.

Again, this was the 90s, but I can only imagine it is has gotten more, not less, inclusive since then.

But at a 'mixed' college, I'd say the preparation for the interview sees the odds stacked in favour of the private school student as these schools simply have alot more experience of how to get a student through the interview. I was lucky in that my boyfriend's dad had gone to Oxford and coached me a bit. Plus, I read a book called 'How to Get Into Oxford and Cambridge' on the train.....! Not a joke. I used all the tips.

Dilys - I knew a couple of state school educated lads who were at Peterhouse when I was at Newnham. Late 80s.

Ah, well that's even better. Was probably just a rumour based on it being the poshest and oldest. Don't know much about the make-up these days.

Well a lot of work has gone into making Oxbridge as inclusive as possible. But there's still a way to go.

That said, it's better than some other universities...

Bristol!

Yes, Bristol's state schooled intake has decreased.

I suspect it will continue to do so too, if they don't address the cost of their accommodation! And of course the more a reputation builds of ebing somehwere posh the more it becomes just that...

That's an issue for all the green wellie places though, right?

DD1's friends are all starting to thing about potential places. Some interesting out of the box thinking going on. Although I wouldn't surprised if they all revert to type and apply to oxbridge anyway.

Surely the only city where the student digs area is the most beautiful part of town . There is an urban myth (possibly true) than Jemima Khan while a student there took a wrong turn in her open top sports car and ended up in St Pauls so called for a police escort to get her safely back to Clifton which was duly provided...

'Worth pointing out here that some Cambridge colleges (notably Kings) won't interview anyone from Eton, Harrow or Rugby. Or at least they didn't when I was at Cambridge in the mid to late 90s. Kings College in fact were overwhelmingly state school. Private schools tended not to encourage students to apply as they probably wouldn't get in. Equally, there were some colleges (Peterhouse, notably) which were simply not an option for a state school applicant (or at least that was the rumour). It was/is wildly college dependent. Mine (Fitzwilliam) was 60% state. '

While this might be historically true, it isn't now. Kings was the vanguard of access initiatives and is still largely state school heavy but this is because of the above story which still affects the application statistics. In fact, statistically far fewer privately educated apply there.

Peterhouse these days actually accepts a slightly
larger proportion of state educated students (of those who apply) than Kings.

My public school gave me zero support in applying to/ getting into Cambridge. They were completely Oxford orientated (all candidates intensely tutored for the term before application). Given the vast sums that my parents paid for me to go there it must have pissed them off to have to organise tutoring for me in the holidays (although that was from a family friend, so free). Although I enjoyed the boarding school experience I suspect it was very poor value for money really.

But it had wonderful facilities and teachers with very good qualifications. My group tutor had three doctorates, but I don't recall seeing him more than a few times and he mostly talked about jazz. My physics teacher had been a researcher at CERN but couldn't handle the demotivated boys in my class. My macro-economics teacher was frankly just crap, gave all the girls good marks regardless, and my politics teacher, although lovely and hugely knowledgeable just couldn't handle discipline - I had never seen such poor behaviour at school before, despite my previous 'mediocre' private shcool (using the OP's term as it was in the same league as St Dunstans and stole plenty of my classmates) or state primary experiences.

In fact in my family the only one of us that went to Oxbridge was my big sister, who was also the only one that went to a state secondary school (although it was a grammar at he time).

Rabbit
But guess what; it is actually possible for people to decide to save their money for their children's future needs, not to make the choice either to blow it on hairdressers or to educate their children privately from the year dot...

So spending money on education from age 3/4 is not investing in their future? Oh well. I guess we all have different views, plus I am ALSO saving funds and investing in other areas for their future rather than spending it being a gym bunny, my choice, their choice. As one poster said its all subjective. I just dont get why private schooling from year dot is seen as a waste, blowing money.
And yes, those friends I have distanced myself now, its best just not to discuss education with other people it is such an emotive subject.

nooka

Private school is not just about getting into Oxbridge! I am hoping my DD gets to be a female version of Usain Bolt, Lionel messi or Serena Williams or be the type of artist that sells paintings that people want to buy or appreciate the work.

But if she ends up at a decent university, thats good too!

Well, there's only 1 of those, globally per generation!! Hmm. I wish my dc to have a happy, fulfilled, "good enough" life, to be well-rounded and confident. Not cowed by inevitably failing to meet the dauntingly high expectations of their parents.

I am hoping my DD gets to be a female version of Usain Bolt, Lionel messi or Serena Williams or be the type of artist that sells paintings that people want to buy or appreciate the work

Is this serious or a piss take? :confused:

And to add, I would happily put them in private school if needed (we have the resources, if required), but so far their particular outstanding state schools outperform their local private equivalents. I'd therefore rather spend the money on a tutor, classes, holidays and fun!

Slipshodsibyl

'Worth pointing out here that some Cambridge colleges (notably Kings) won't interview anyone from Eton, Harrow or Rugby. Or at least they didn't when I was at Cambridge in the mid to late 90s......

Thats what the masses want people to believe and it is absolutely rubbish!

One of my nephews is will be leaving one of the mentioned schools this summer and nearly half of his cohort will be going to Oxbridge this October grades permitting.

Anyway as an Oxbridge alumni, is best to choose a university that is best for the subject that the DC want to study.

My niece went to Scotland to read medicine, as it was recommended by her school that they have the better universities for medicine.

my in-laws used to live in North Dulwich and all kids went to local primary/secondary run down schools in 70's-80's
they are now in the following jobs: a hospital Consultant, an Accountant, a GP and a company CEO

IMHO all boils down to personal motivation and family support!

Tallandgraceful, it was me who said that and I don't think it was rubbish. I was at Fitzwilliam at the time (mid 90s) and knew plenty of people at Kings, including academics, who all told me this. Sounds like you were at Cambridge as well and may have heard differently (although unless you were actually at Kings at the time you wouldn't know for sure either), but either way, Kings is a well known 'state school' college (within Cambridge world, granted). My own college was definitely more state than private, as I believe were Robinson, Churchill and a number of others.

I was state educated and went to quite a rough SE London comp. Mum and dad (bless them) didn't have high expectations but I did well and got in to Cambridge. I'm no genius, just quite good at putting forward a case (which is what humanities, English etc are all about).

Of course, I totally accept that privately educated kids have a far better chance of getting in generally. That is not news. But it was and still is quite college driven.

As an aside, you sound incredibly disparaging about other people's choices (spending cash on anything other than education seems to be 'blowing money' in your book). If you give away any of these views in your everyday conversation with friends (and I'd be astonished if you don't, given it all sounds quite extreme) then I'd put money on some of these friends giving you the 'wasting your money' view in retaliation. I suspect some of them think you are a bit snobby and a pain in the arse, to be frank. Your original comment about your friend - 'I think she just can't afford it' - is also pretty mean. If you really think that, and education is so important to you, then maybe feel a bit sorry for her and turn a blind eye to what she said, rather than bitching.

And I hope your DD picks up some humility at her private school because I'm not sure she'll learn it from elsewhere. I also hope she doesn't suffer from the crushing weight of expectation in years to come! She can't be any older than 4 or 5! Glad to hear you will settle for decent university though, if she doesn't make it as an Olympic medalist or generation defining artist.

saintlyjimjams

why are you confused? we all have different aspirations for our kids.
My daughter likes athletics and very good at it, why should I not want her to end up being the best athlete?

She likes painting and is talented, why should I not want her to end up a talented artist.

She likes tennis and is good at it, why should I not want her to end up being a grand slam winner?

She likes football, by the time she is older womens football may be on par with mens, why should I not have high aspirations.

Like many working class people, we have compe a long way through high aspirations and hard graft. I want my DC to be the best of what ever they choose to be.

Maybe if this attitude is taught in some schools, our British team sports men and women would not get thrashed by the world.

Oh, out of the British sports men and women on the top of their game, they happen to have been educated privately!

Bradley Wiggins, Jessica Ennis, Andy Murray - all state educated.

Helen Glover, Victoria Pendleton, Mo Farrah, Greg Rutherford.