tell me about a 'privileged' education

[Frostycake]

If you attended a grammar or private school or if you teach in one (or taught in one), tell me what I may have missed by having a comprehensive education in the 1980s.

I sometimes see glimpses of the education I could have had if circumstances had been different for my parents (the recent TV series on Harrow, meeting and working with people who went to Oxford, Cambridge, Malvern College etc.) and I often wonder what it is I missed out on apart from the obvious opportunities and overflowing confidence and maturity this type of education seems to instill in pupils.

Come and talk to me about the detail as I'm bursting with curiosity.

Or 'I don't want it because I think it is a bad idea', of course.

Hak, I am middle-aged, not old. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

summerends, I read the research too which is the age old issue are you better off as one of the best in a school with children not so bright (my private school - me top just about and lots of people not at all bright and i did well and remained I suppose of that conviction I am pretty good and can succeed at just about anything; although I did miss having similar children around me at the time)

or in the bottom of some state or private school you were coached into and probably should not be at. Of course if you're in the middle or top at the selective school then you're fine which would be my 5 children.

Often the objections to choices other people have is driven by the fact that that choice isn't available to the objector. It's dressed up with politics, prejudice etc, but it's just plain self interest at heart.

I think this is very true. So easy to see when other's are guilty...so hard to recognise it in myself!

Bonsoir the bilingual choice is a good one. I live in London and can only think of three schools...there must be more. I wouldn't know because, sadly, my DC wouldn't be competitive, but very justified imho for those who are.

Mother. Pseudo grammar schools are schools like Dame Alice Owen's in Hertfordshire ETC 'Comprehensive' schools that have 80-90% high attainers .

These schools give a very large percentage of their places on passing entrance exams either academic, or musical ETC. They tend to equal or better fully classified grammar schools academically, especially at A level.

Those that know me , know that both my DS and DD2 are at grammar schools, there also are aware of the trauma caused by DD1 not getting in to grammar caused me. I believe that DS and DD2 are getting a 'privileged' education, just by being at grammar schools.

Hakulyt refuses to disclose whether she was a grammar school girl , or a 'modernista' ?

But then what about the argument that it's not good to be the brightest - that you need lots of other equally or more bright who are going to challenge you to do better?

Oh and hark at the old reds under the beds here...

You need healthy competition but too many bright DC ahead of you is soul destroying.

'refuses to disclose', what are you, the 11+ police? You can't just say asinine things about people based on nothing and then go all Paxman when they don't lower themselves to contradict your ludicrous assertions, Smokepole!

I went to a normal ordinary comprehensive school, by the way - do I get to have an opinion?

I wish the system would change in England. It just seems so unequal and unfair. My kids are still very young but I'm reading this thread avidly!

I went to school in Scotland, a local state academy with a large intake, over 1300. The choice in our town was this school, the catholic school miles away or private (knew nobody at private school).

It was very mixed socially. Teaching was very mixed too. Facilities weren't great but there were museum trips, ski trip, french exchange, sports teams, chess club, but no swimming pool.

They catered well for the bright. 3 sciences, Latin, extra maths etc and many of my peers went to Scottish Universities to study civil engineering, marine biology, law, medicine, geography, politics. Oxbridge was not on our radar.

There were good vocational choices, food tech, secretarial studies plus woodwork, technical drawing etc. back then many low and mid ability kids left at 16 and went to the banks, the army, nursing and employment ( hairdressing, woollies) or apprenticeships.

The people I'm still in touch with are, again, so mixed. Some are well known, political aide, indie band singer, football manager, criminal lawyer. Some are very rich, self made, entrepreneurs, some are sadly dead or in prison.

Most are employed and suburban.

I do think the educational system worked well for the majority. It felt like an even playing field and I only really encountered snobbery and status around education when I moved to London.

Having been a student at various different unis over the past 15 years, the one single difference I can identify between 'the Oxbridge experience' and other top 50 unis is that at Oxbridge if you said something like "Over the summer I'm thinking of travelling to Tibet, learning the language and then interviewing people about their relationship to football" people would reply "cool! are you going to give a talk on your findings when you get back? do add me to the email list with the time and date on if you do", whereas elsewhere people would say "That sounds awfully hard/risky, are you sure you are up to it? What a stupid idea! What will you do if it all goes wrong? That'll never work! What makes you think that you'd be able to do that?".

How many is too many, do you think? and is it more soul-destroying to have, say, a top set that you aren't placed in than it is to have a school you're not allowed in?

TOSN you could argue that the narrow fails select those who a more anxious on the day of the exam, therefore benefit from a confidence boost. This would contrast with DCs who are able but overconfident and lazy and need the constant stimulus of competition to do some work rather than coast.

I'm not sure those questions have easy answers TOSN. But even at my DSSs' high-performing inner Paris Catholic school there are "refugees" from more competitive schools who wanted a less intense experience and thought they would perform better with less stress.

I think we need to get away from the idea that all DC/families want to get into top-performing (i.e. very competitive) schools. They don't, in the wider world.

That's really interesting BestZebbie.

But most places don't have secondary moderns any more. Or the 11+. The city I grew up in went comprehensive in 1973 or something.

I went to the type of school I'd give my hind teeth for my own children to go to (& may well try to do that if that's what it takes!).
Class sizes weren't particularly small, but almost everyone was engaged, interested and listening. Teaching was superb. Extra curricular activities - well I tried several instruments, fencing, trampolining, acting in plays, debating & ESU public speaking teams (one of my debate partners was Jacob Rees Mogg), cooking, dressmaking, producing a magazine, Young Enterprise etc etc. They now offer polo and flying light aircraft. IT's phenomenal. We lived in a beautiful building (think HOgwarts but with more light), with grounds that had tennis courts, pitches, a lake, woodland, our own theatre and indoor pool. God, what I took for granted!
The only trip I went on was to the Lake District but nowadays their geography and biology field trips are to Peru / Ecuador etc etc (£££). I was at school with a lot of offspring of the aristocracy / minor and foreign royalty (often deposed) / household names & squillionaires but I don't recall it ever being an "issue" with the kids. I don't recall anyone flashing money and in fact it was the children of the wealthiest parents who wore the most second hand (vintage wasn't a thing then) Portobello Road clothes / uniform with holes in. We got shipped off in a minibus every Sunday evenign to go scottish dancing at Eton. By the time I left, I dont' think I knew a single boy who hadn't gone to a major public school - when all my friends went to discover the world in India, I went to the Old Kent Road instead to learn about the real world on my doorstep.
About half my year went to Oxbridge (all went on to Uni, mainly RG) but the odd thing is that many of them don't work / never really worked. They got fantastic degrees but never used them. There are of course a few very successful people doing remarkable things from hollywood to the laboratory via investment banks and global politics, but I am surprised at the vast numbers who were not sufficiently motivated to work with what they were given.

At 10 my DD was adamant that she wanted to attend a non selective girls private school ( the type that hak is always terribly sniffy about ).

I was keener for her to take up a place at the selective girls school, or, at a push, grammar.

I agreed that we would give her way a go. And it's been great. Really great.

She sits comfortably in the top sets, should do fine at GCSE ( assuming no disasters or change of attitude) and has been under no pressure that I can see.

It has suited her.

But now she has decided that she wants something different. She wants the competition.

We will see how she gets on.

TheOriginal, most private schools even the very selective kind have top sets for a good few subjects at GCSE. My daughter was in the bottom of 5 sets for maths at Haberdashers and still got an A. I am have been surprised by recent news items that some comprehensives don't have sets particularly for subjects like maths and English. My sons are in sets for maths, English, French and I think sciences (GCSE year, selective independent school). Also they don't necessarily always want to be in top sets as sometimes that means more work which your average teenager is loathe to have. I remember one would not move up from the 3rd maths set because he liked it - there were only 8 of them and he's quite good at maths and he liked the teacher so I don't think lower sets are a bad thing particularly if you get As in them and only with children who work hard because their parents are paying fees.

I went to a girls' grammar in the early 80s, it would now be considered a super-selective I think. The teaching was mediocre or downright terrible in some cases, lots of us got a U in a particular subject year after year and no-one seemed to bat an eyelid. I expect it is a lot better now otherwise they wouldn't get the grades they do, putting them near the top of the league tables. Unlike now, it was not filled with middle-class girls and the intake was quite varied socially. But I don't think it gave any of us particular self-assurance, I also went to a university dominated by public school applicants and I felt utterly overawed by them and their particular lingo (can remember thinking wtf is an 'exeat') until I met some 'normal' people like me. Also I wondered incessantly just why they were so loud? (Still wonder that!) I come from a big city and have a mild accent which was ridiculed by some people I met at university - I went from being teased at home for being posh, to being teased for being the opposite at university.

However, what my school did give me was a love of classics - I am a huge fan of Latin - and of classical music, and the opportunity to play in a fantastic orchestra and sing in a choir. It also instilled in us proper English so that I am now a complete pedant and absolutely anal about apostrophes. I do hope I haven't committed any howlers here

I now live in a different part of the country and my dc are at a fantastic state comp, purely by luck, it's our catchment school and we bought the house with no thought of children or schools. So I am lucky, and it seems to me that a good comp really is the best of all worlds - especially when I witness the grammar school anguish people go through these days back in my home city. However, very little classical music and certainly no classics at dc's comp - which I am disappointed about I suppose, but I make up for it by inflicting Latin verbs on them when they get home, and classical CDs in the car . I also drag them to classical concerts. Eldest fell asleep at the last one though.

Tranmere I am guessing which school you are talking about. It is curious why very bright girls in one of the most academic girls' private schools don't seem to have produced many go-getters after university.
Is is because it encourages personalities who are used to striving for academic approval and insecure without it, finding it hard to drive themselves in 'real life'?

In response to summerends post . Or is it because , they live a life of luxury so never needed to work past a couple of years in PR/ or at Sotheby's. This after their three years of fun at finishing school (University.)

People are entirely motivated by self interest and envy

It's so much better for middle and low ability children to be kept away from high ability ones-otherwise they will be all discouraged and have their self esteem damaged by glimpses of The Golden Ones- so much better for their aspirations to be kept managable........

Smokepole but then the equivalent boys' schools such as Eton would also not be producing 'go-getters' and that is definitely not the case.

I don't think that logic holds. If the parental role model is "go-getting father" and "lady of leisure mother" (and, tbh, I can remember a lot of upper middle class families like that from my childhood), that is the ambition that the private schools of yesteryear fostered, to a large extent.

Hakluyt I think a casino would be more appropriate than bingo .

So Bonsoir privileged bright girl with 'lady of leisure mother' is more likely to just marry for money. In which case that's a blow for the education of girls.