Following on from "privileged education" thread how can my future state ed dd's get the "natural confidence"?

[indiana7]

I really enjoyed the "privileged ed" thread & another similar one on secondary ed forum. I have 2 dd's & they will definilty be state educated due to our lack of finances I am a sahm & although dh earns very good money his job is quite unstable. We would go private if we had the means which unfortunately we don't.
The one thing that struck me from both threads & my own experiences in my own line of work is the inde school confidence. My collegues used to make me quake in my boots even though they were just lovely, they had an unwavering self belief, never second guessed themselves.
I want my dd's to have this sense of self-worth(I don't have it). Any advice on how to foster it at home? All opinions welcome but would be interested to hear from parents with dc at inde schools already. Is this confidence nurtured at home or school?

The fact of going to a nice school with beautiful playing fields, theater, great teachers; excellent extracurricular activities will definitely increase children confidence. I am not wealthy but live in a nice area and every day I drive my kids to school and look at my surroundings I feel confident and happy; they go to nice state schools in leafy areas. However if you are the only poor kid in school who can’t do trips or extracurricular activities, your things are always second hand, you live in a small place, never go on holiday or outings, then I don’ think you will feel very confident despite how many efforts your parents are doing to send you there.; I’d rather go to where I fit.

I would say at home mainly . DC privately educated , I wasn't. I'm constantly fascinated listening to their privately educated friends' parents chatting unashamedly boasting at events. The ability to live life large , and the glass being always half full. Its not a matter of status as I am just as qualified and have a similar income. Its a mindset nurtured from a young age. My DC are developing this self assurance just being around this group unlike myself who prefers to blend into the wall
Removing the obvious cultural /social enrichment, I think its about being comfortable in your own skin ,feeling respected/worthwhile and being encouraged and supported at home, celebrating success and learning to fail.

it's both, school and parents.

And some kids are born with it.

It is necessary to work on your own confidence first though. I find that children from parents with chips on their shoulder pick up their parents' social anxieties. You can teach your kids how to deal with different social situations, by showing them in real life. They will do as you do (not as you say) anyway! So lead by example.

Drama lessons are useful, they teach you to speak (not mumble), stand correctly etc. and speak to an audience.

I didn't grow up in the UK and one of the things I found (and still find striking) is the degree to which some English people tend to cluster with those with whom they feel most socially comfortable. At uni (RG, high proportion from private schools) I was genuinely mystified as to why certain 'types' had zero interest in any kind of social interaction with me. It ebbed a bit in working life, partly because although having a uni degree was essential, passing public exams that your employer paid for was too, and returned with a vengeance after we had DCs. As I've become more senior at work, it's also more in evidence - the company I work for, and the industry I work in, is male dominated at senior management level.

DH and I are both state educated although funnily enough people assume that DH is massively connected and was privately educated when neither is true. However both of us came from families where educational achievement was supported and valued and that aiming high was important.
I work with someone who embodies the confidence and polish that people associate with private schooling. However, it's all surface. So he's successful up to a point, but what I've really learned is that someone like him has utter conviction that he should be in charge. And it's amazing how often people go along with it.

Just thinking...it's a fine line between "confidence" and "entitlement." When you are confident without being competent, I think you cross that line.

I personally think it's not so much actual confidence as the appearance of confidence; being used to being pushed into situations that are uncomfortable for you means that when it happens you are more likely to look like you're ok with it even if you're not.

My private education did nothing for my confidence and my Cambridge degree squashed what was left but the ability to get on with it anyway means people think I am much more confident than I am.

Not necessarily spring.

In my life I've tried lots of new things. Many I couldn't have known in advance if I would be competent. But I attacked them confidently.

Some worked out beautifully, some were, to quote my DC an 'epic fail'.

You shouldn't let lack of experience, or previous failure put you off! Or at leats that's what I tell my DC.

I think "entitlement" comes in when you persist in doing something you have resolutely proven yourself to be incompetent at, regardless of the harm this is doing to others. "Confidence" is when you are willing to give things a go knowing that you are by and large a competent person who can cope with or even thrive on challenge, and who is willing to accept the consequences of any mistakes they make, learn from them and move on from them if necessary, knowing that not succeeding at one thing does not make you a failure at everything else.

One of my biggest disappointments on entering the world of work was to realise how many people are really just winging it - there are tonnes of not hugely competent people out there who put on the appearance of competence without actually having the genuine ability to back it up. They are just expecting to get away with it. You could say, that's why we have a global recession...

I see what you're saying rabbit but I know so many people who, even in the face of rejection and failure, kept on keepin' on.

They had an inner belief and drive.Is that entitled? Perhaps.

But the world of the arts would be empty if it were only populated by those whose talent and competence were immediately recognisable.

Agree rabbitstew!

When the global meltdown came, I kept hearing how nefarious bankers were. But I think plain old clueless and incompetent is a much more likely explanation. Everyone going along with it all, hoping that there really is someone who knows what they are doing and hoping not to get caught out.

TheWordFactory - the world of the arts is a world of opinion, not fact, so you can often doggedly continue in the face of rejection without really harming anyone but yourself. You might even strike it lucky and get other people to share your opinions. Not quite the same as the world of running a Nuclear Power Plant. Besides, I wasn't saying that someone's competence has to be immediately recognisable, or at least, not at the specific task - confident people are willing to take on things they know they are not yet competent at, in the belief that they will become competent and in the knowledge that even if they don't, that doesn't mean they are therefore incompetent at everything. People lacking in confidence will stick with what they already feel they are competent at.

I actually think the problem in banking came from the lack of diverse voices within the industry.

If those in the banks, the regulators and the government are all speaking with one voice, then what can we expect?

It's not that the bankers were incompetent, more that they were doing what they set out to do with a ruthless efficiency, and there was no one within the industry saying 'hold on lads, let's take a rain check'.

Bollocks to ruthless efficiency. They were all a bunch of twats following the herd.

Individuals in general lacked the "confidence" to point out that the herd was behaving like one big idiot - you don't get a bonus, or keep your job, if you stick your head above the parapet, you just get your head shot off. Better to join the thoughtless stampede than commit suicide early on.

I've never worked in a bank, but if your main function is to make money for your clients by whatever means necessary, then you could argue that they were super successful. Extremely competent.

As for herd mentality, well that's just another way of describing speaking with one voice.

Agree with post by Talkinpeace.
I have two dds( both state educated)
One is extremely confident,, will try her hand at anything.
My other dd has so many talents; great poet, mathematician, swimmer , singer etc,
However, she lacks confidence and thus can be overlooked at school.
They have both been exposed to cultural activities, they have travelled extensively , yet they are very different. I agree with those who say that it is more about a child's innate confidence.

Your main function of working in a bank is not to make money for your clients by whatever means necessary - bankers are supposed to have a code of ethics or conduct, so far as I'm aware, as are lawyers, doctors and other professionals. As for herd mentality - that is not the same as speaking with one voice. You can speak with one voice because you agree with everyone around you, or you can act like a herd because everyone else is doing it. Totally different things.

Absolutely, rabbitstew.

When you unwind the thread on all of this, you find a few people committed bald-faced fraud followed by legions of people on the gravy train assuming that all is well but just too complicated for them to understand. They pretend to understand so that they don't lose their position. This further reinforces the patina that it's all very complicated and the people running things are amazing and intellectually brilliant.

The general public is given to believe that it is all very complicated: practically impossible to understand. Nonsense. It's pretty straight forward when you pull it apart. It was impossible to understand and didn't make sense because it was all bulls*t.

Diversity may have helped to allow someone to notice that "the emperor had no clothes," word. But I sincerely believe, greed, deceit and laziness lie at the heart of this morass. Not ruthless efficiency.

I see what you're saying, but if the regulators and the government were all nodding frantically talking about light-touch regulation and rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of the tax take, you might be forgiven for thinking that what you were doing was not only competent but A Jolly Good Thing.

You'd certainly understand that there was tacit collusion and be pleased to carry on enriching yourself at the expense of society as a whole.

There is a problem that government regulators need to be as good as the people they are regulating or they won't "keep up." It's hard for the government to politically justify the salaries needed to do this. So the "gamekeepers" do tend to be outwitted by the "foxes."

I think to some extent, we simply need to say:

1. Banking is a utility for a free market society, not a casino. And properly split the banks the way they did after the 1929 crash.
2. If it's too complicated for the regulators to understand, then you can't do it.
3. If you want to do risky investment banking that the regulators only touch lightly, fine. But you can't be a limited company. You can be a partnership. With the joint, personal liabilities that entails. Big rewards tied to big risks again.

areyoubeingserviced

Same hear, except the uber-confident one is the older boy and the (arguably) more capable but less-confident one is the younger girl.

I think there are many things driving confidence, of which schooling is one:

• gender
• ability
• willingness to experiment
• willingness to fail
• resilience
• sibling position (shadow of elder siblings can be dark!)
• parenting style, leading by example and genetics
• randomness of childhood (nature and nurture)
• peer group and relationships
• school type and ethos

TalkinPeace will go nuts when I bring this up (soz), but single sex schooling appears to help with academic performance, future earnings and career. That said, for the wrong girl type, it might be a bad thing.

TheWordFactory - you might NOT be forgiven for having thought that. It sadly proved my experience in the world of work - far too few competent people doing their jobs properly. It's also what can happen when your sense of entitlement trumps your desire to be competent and your confidence to stand up for what you think is right against the odds. It's just so much easier to float along on a cloud of entitlement, pretending to yourself that others understand the bits you don't, than to butt up against a corrupt system. You might, after all, just get away with lots of accolades and tonnes of cash, leaving the mess for the next person.

I read a book over 20 years ago for a sociology class about the workplace. The one point that stuck with me: successful managers are those who "outrun" their mistakes.

Just keep declaring victory and moving on as fast as you can. You look great, the mistakes don't show up on your watch and any bosses who catch on to you will be wise to just promote you up and out of their department as soon as possible because really you are a huge liability and that is the easiest way to get rid of you. Bucking perceived opinion and saying you are not a "star" will just make them look small minded and incompetent to manage true talent.

Scary stuff, after all these years I've not forgotten it. I think years in corporate middle management just kept reinforcing the point to me.

springisonthe way - my observation too, Im astounded at how quickly some of my corporate clients have risen through the ranks - it becomes self fulfilling, suddenly they are CEO's having left a trail of destruction and causalities. With share options, executive directorships and big pay offs and are laughing all the way to retirement completely in denial that they are actually talented.
But that goes back to the innate self belief and where it originates from.

One thing I tried to impress upon my DC is that the best man certainly does not always win.

That 'best' is a subjective definition anyway.

If they want something, they should go for it. Bugger the opinions of others. Be prepared for rejection and failure.