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 can't believe anyone would even bother to exaggerate (much less lie) to a bunch of strangers online but OP is certainly the poorest case-maker I have heard in a long time. Inconsistencies, poor sentence structure and just weak, meandering arguments that go off piste so often you can't really follow it.

I know OP says she can't be arsed to write properly as it isn't RL but if you are continuing to argue and putting in the effort that you are right, then you'd bother to sound considered and check you are making sense. At least some of the time. I'm pregnant too but I at least make sense occasionally.

I knew some people at Cambridge who wrote badly though. They just tended to be natscis or mathmos, rather than in humanities or English. And I know some lawyers who aren't that smart.

Ahem. I was a mathmo. Till I swapped to politics for part II. And I can write (at least, I get paid handsomely for doing so. The evidence might indicate that few people actually read and/or understand what I write though. :( That's me. writing bollocks for people who won't read.

Not saying mathmos or natscis at Oxbbridge can't write! Just that not every Oxbridge alumni can write well (clear arguments, reasoned approach etc). I know a few who got 1st in Maths/Nat Sciences but who would struggle in a debate.

Not casting aspersions Herc!

Just can't and don't believe anyone would make up a whole set of creds.

Yes, that's what I thought at first. I wondered how OP could have made it to Oxbridge if her writing was so incoherent and ungrammatical, and thought it might be for something maths or IT related. But law would, I think, require rather more precise writing. I don't think you switch off your grammar just because you are on line. And other posters thinking they might sometimes sound incoherent - honestly, you really don't!

Would a mathematician think that rather than saving you should get used to spending money now so you could spend more money later?

I get paid for making shit up and writing it down - still can't quite believe you can make a living from it!

No, now you come to mention it, merrymouse, the maths (or even basic arithmetic or budgeting) isn't that strong either.

I thought the OP was a historian?? In which case I would expect her to be able to write - all those essays....

Merry - I am a spender not a saver. Always have been. I don't know if having read maths (for Part I anyway) has anything to do with it.

I think it's because I like books. And shows. Etc.

News just in:

www.suttontrust.com/news/news/private-school-premium-of-194000-revealed-in-new-report/

Open Access: an independent evaluation, assesses how most effectively to widen access to high performing independent schools on a needs-blind basis. It calculates for the first time the ‘wage premium’ experienced by those attending independent schools. The analysis uses newly available data to estimate that, between the ages of 26 and 42, someone who attends an independent school will earn a total of £193,700 more than someone who attends a state school. Even when factors such as family background and early educational achievement are accounted for, the wage premium persists at £57,653

So the OP might have a point.

However, 7 years x private secondary school @ £11K/year = £77K.

When you add in the cost of prep school, really the only sensible thing to do is invest the money and give your child a cheque.

(Although, this figure doesn't take into account the relative pleasantness of your local private school and potential for faff minimisation).

So, the extra you earn for having gone to a private school isn't enough to pay for the school fees. Plus, of course, you might end up unemployed, or choose a career that doesn't pay you more than everyone else. So, I fail to see the point, unless it is to provide your kids with a private education and hope they don't do the same for their kids, or they'll have to watch everyone else swanning around enjoying themselves while they pay school fees in order for their children not to earn enough money to cover the cost of their children's school fees and so on ad nauseam. All a bit of a hamster wheel, isn't it?

Much easier just to do what you think is the right thing at the time than to consider that the Sutton Trust has calculated that you will earn a little bit more if you were privately educated. It all sounds like the pathetic arguments over university education - if too many people go for it, you cease to get benefits from it. And life is not all about money - at least in our household. Once you have a certain amount, you don't NEED more. If you can get to that amount via a state education, then why on earth not?

(All this hopelessly mixing up "benefits" with "financial benefits" as though the only real benefits you can get out of life are financial ones...)

The how much more you earn calculation will be the average of private school graduates against the average of state school graduates. Many people who can afford and consider private, and then go state, are likely to be sending their children to above average state schools.

Very recent research has shown that, of people who go to university with the same grades, comprehensive graduates do better at university, followed by grammar school graduates, followed by private school graduates (who are quite a long way behind).

If only school fees round here were £10Kpa. It's more like £14K going up to £18K for the basic fees per child. I have 2 DC and there is no way that we could afford £36K pa even with a 6 figure household income. It would cost more than our fairly hefty mortgage. Giving up the gym, haircuts and holidays would not make up the difference!

Wages are low around here though. £25K is considered a decent salary. And yet there are lots of private schools. We don't have the problem with extras at our school either - there are almost no extras, similar to state school.

Obviously, since the OP would never be willing to go back to the circumstances of her childhood, there are limits to what she would be willing to do to enable her children to access a private education. She would not, it would seem, be willing to do what her mother did to enable her children to be educated privately. I think she would rather stay in her nice house where she can access a reasonable state education than downsize to a flat in an area where the state schools were awful and she didn't feel safe, in order to be able to afford her children's school fees, if push came to shove. Which all sounds very sensible to me.

Actually, I know a lot of people who went to private schools who assume that state schools are crap, and so inevitably they choose professions which pay enough to cover school fees. Others don't necessarily feel that pressure and are therefore able to choose more freely.

I know lots of Oxbridge graduates who have chosen to work in the voluntary sector. I'm not sure if it's a coincidence that they were all state educated...

jinsei I think it's a bit of a push to argue that your average privately educated 22 year old choses a well paid job so that they will be able to pay school fees for any DC they may or may not have! I think its more a case that the children of the rich are just alive to which industries will make them rich!

And they need to be rich to pay school fees! If you don't have to pay school fees, you can happily earn considerably less without feeling like you're short of money all the time!

Xenia's children have certainly had a little talk given to them about the virtues of choosing a high-earning career, one of which is the ability to pay school fees. And, obviously, you shouldn't consider being a mere nurse or midwife when you could be a surgeon, because the three careers are all just SO similar - the involve human bodies, after all.

And the average state educated child isn't aware that a surgeon can earn more than a midwife.

"Not saying mathmos or natscis at Oxbbridge can't write! Just that not every Oxbridge alumni can write well (clear arguments, reasoned approach etc). I know a few who got 1st in Maths/Nat Sciences but who would struggle in a debate.

Not casting aspersions"

Glad no aspersions being cast

jinsei I think it's a bit of a push to argue that your average privately educated 22 year old choses a well paid job so that they will be able to pay school fees for any DC they may or may not have! I think its more a case that the children of the rich are just alive to which industries will make them rich!

They may not be thinking about private school fees, no, but if they are choosing a career path on the basis of what will make them rich, perhaps there is a difference in values.

When I left Cambridge and went into the voluntary sector, I was well aware that I could earn much more doing something else, and that's exactly what many of my friends did, but as long as I had enough to live on, the money wasn't important to me. Not everyone aspires to be rich.

As it's turned out, my career led me in a direction where I've ended up earning far more than I'd ever envisaged, but actually, I think I was probably at my happiest when working for a small charity, earning peanuts.

I am not suggesting that real poverty doesn't make you bloody miserable, but I think there is a fair bit of research showing that, one you get past a certain level of income, more wealth doesn't actually make you any happier. That has certainly been my experience.

I have no doubt that many people choose less lucrative professions in the full knowledge that they won't get rich doing them, but perhaps they have other advantages that make them worthwhile.

I agree with everything you say, Tall and Graceful Mum.

I now send both my kids to private primary. They were going to what was considered to be one of the best state primaries in London, yet in my opinion it turned put to be one big disappointment.

I killed myself for 5 years to do the commute on jammed packed public transport as I was determined to send them to the best school I could possibly get ( did not want them academically to turn out like me). However, that school was an effort not worth making.

A friend of mine was encouraging me to go private. I fought the idea for years as the cost for me was astronomical, however once I viewed a local private, saw how the kids just sat down and got on with their work, etc, that was it for me. We made the move, and I have never looked back. I used to think private primary was a waste of money ( it's fine if you're awashed with money, but not if you're like me) but now I'd say it was the best thing I ever did.

I live on on a council estate, drive a car probably worth about £800, forgo expensive holidays abroad. Summer holidays for the kids are spent in the local parks/ playgrounds. Keep my expenses down, no fancy clothes for myself etc, you get the drift.

Why do I do it? Probably because I don't want them to end up like me. I went state, came out with pretty crap qualifications, have done all the crappy shitty jobs imaginable (doesn't bother me getting my hands dirty) only problem was the crap pay. Living isn't fun when it is hand to mouth.

We're just fortunate now to be able to afford private school, but it's done by forgoing other things and is to a large degree, a sacrifice. We do not live in a nice house, drive a nice car etc, but I've realised education for me is such an important thing. I've had a taste of the state sector and it was one big let down.

Private school is not going to guarantee success, but I feel the chances are higher than if I had left them in the state sector.