Killiks & Co research indicate private school (at curent prices) reflect poor invetment.

[topsy777]

"The research, published by investment advisers Killik & Co, says the £236,000 paid by parents of a day pupil would, if invested, return nearly £800,000 over the child’s lifetime – enough to pay for university, put down a substantial deposit on a house and leave £500,000 for retirement."

www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jul/15/private-school-education-could-be-poor-investment-research-shows

All views welcome :-)

Exactly, TWF, and the flaw, as you say, is that it isn't really either or. According to the High Mistress of SPGS, university is a waste of time. It follows that those who can't afford school fees should not save up instead for their DC's university fees. Killiks are wrong to be encouraging parents to think of university.

It really depends on where you are living and what state schools your children have access to.

If you live in London, rent and living costs are very high, and so are fees at around 18K. If however you are living in Manchester, rent and living costs are much lower, private school fees are around 12K, so much more affordable!

However, if you are living in London and the school your children have access to is sub-standard or very rough, then you don't really have a choice (and you can't move!) or a viable option except to put them in private or home school.

"However, if you are living in London and the school your children have access to is sub-standard or very rough, then you don't really have a choice (and you can't move!) or a viable option except to put them in private or home school."

From family based in London another problem is how oversubscribed local schools can be. The distance needed to travel for them to get to even a primary school would be a great difficulty for the subsequent commute to work. A nearer private school maybe essential to keep a job and get their children to school.

Private school is also a luxury item and a status symbol. The ROI of such items can be difficult to quantify in financial terms alone.

Even for the very wealthy there are trade-offs to be made when equipping DC with financial/social/intellectual/erotic/cultural capital with which to build their lives.

Bonsoir

OK. You can't just slip "erotic capital" in to a long list and not expect me to ask what you mean and how I should be equipping them with some?

Erotic or sexual capital is essentially attractiveness ( not just in sexual terms ).

And this capital, like other firms can be converted into other forms of capital.

One example given by Gladwell recently was teeth.

Straight white teeth are now seen as de rigour in the US for anyone attempting to be successful. This is also true among young people here in the UK.

So we could help our DC obtain this sexual capital by finding a good ortho and paying for braces.

Agree with mn, wordfactory and co.
Slightly different in that a generous package means it's not actually a question of what I could do with the money instead. However in a way I have because I've already made the decision mentally that to a large extent any future increase in income or chance of decent savings will go on school fees rather than uni, deposits etc.
I'm confident at any state school she'd still get results that won't curb her horizons and future chances of success. But what her choice of state school will do is curb her love of learning and her happiness, and therefore quite possibly her horizons and future chance of success. Saving for uni is no use if by 18 she has the mindset I did, that uni would be more of the same mind numbing drivel so therefore no desire to even apply. Her independent school does not view her level of achievement/ ability as a bad thing that causes extra work and an excuse to let her coast, it's treated as a positive that should be stretched and raise your aims.
In short I've not signed up to buy grades, I've signed up to buy the atmosphere and happiness and chance of future success my local selection by postcode comprehensives either can't or won't provide for her.

I came on here to make exactly the point that Lurkedforever just has. We tried state education, it really didn't work for DD and she was giving up entirely on trying. So I don't really feel that we had a huge amount of choice in the matter.

And actually, while I do like to have enough savings not to scare myself, I also run a lot of things past the 'what would I do if I knew that I would die next year' test. Or in this case DD. I could save a ton of money for her, and she might get killed in a car crash in her twenties. She's so much happier now at the private school, and that's far more important than her having a tonne of cash in the future.

MN164 - describing people whose children go to state school as 'living off the state' is rather odd

Erotic capital sounds evil.

The idea that appearance can be converted in to cash is clearly real, but totally odious.

The notion that form trumps substance is also real and sickening.

The label "Erotic capital" brings up vomit too.

Yuk.

Amber

Fair cop. Even the rich that can afford school fees are entitled to use the state system if they choose. This is what Killik are hoping for so they can "help" invest all that liquid wealth taxpayers have helped them save.

Sexual capital is simply the name given to it by the sociologist Catherine Hakim who propounded the theory that attractiveness is another field that can be converted to capital.

And actually sexual capital is one form of capital that is relatively independent of class and gender ( which is why it is usually devalued by the the elite ).

It's worth noting that attractiveness here, does not just include sexual attractiveness, or even only appearance. The energy we give off, our sociability, indeed everything that makes others drawn to us is part of sexual capital.

What my granny would have called "making the best of yourself" then!

Sort of, though what is best changes depending on context.

Sexual capital is far more subject to variation than other types of capital.

Yes I worked that out and put the investment in property and moved house for outstanding state schools. There may be other reasons why people would choose a fee paying school though. For me I would want a guaranteed return on that investment. So far my kids are doing great in state so I think the investment in property rather than education has paid off. If my kids had additional needs or were mediocre educationally and required a lot of extra pushing I may have made a different choice. We also have access to good extra curricular activities where we live inc lauding world class sport tuition. I am happy to pay extra for that.

Are you going to give your DC that investment property heels ? And assuming so, when ?

Word, we live in the Property. We didn't buy additional ProperTies we invested in a more expensive property for us to live in than we would have done if we had been paying school fees, in a area with great state schools.

I guess when we die our children would inherit any assets that I have not already used up during my retirement! Same as anyone else!

MN164 - making a value judgement about erotic capital isn't going to make it go away. And helping your DC improve their appearance and sociability seem like fairly innocuous crimes in the big picture of the evils that are parenting

Ah heels that's not really what Killick are advising.

Essentially they are saying to divert the educational fund to investment fund directly for the benefit of DC ie university fund and property for them.

Indeed bonsoir

We can tell our DC that we think sexual capital is wrong etc but we should not tell them that it doesn't exist and have a value.

Also, is sexual capital any worse than say intellectual capital? Which is most definitely not freely available with the majority excluded?

I know that's not what killick are advising! The issue with their recommendation is that you need £200k liquid capital to invest. Most people do not have that even those who pay school fees don't necessarily have £200k in the piggy bank as loose change wondering what to do with. But there are other ways of investing the equivalent of school fees without £200k liquid assets. We could have bought another property as an investment and sold it for uni fees etc but prefer a different route which gives us a higher value home in an area with great state schools. Of course to realise capital from that we would need to sell the house but we don't plan to live here forever anyway so downsizing would suit us at some point. But not at uni stage. But that's a long way in the future for us, unis may be all online by then! Who knows.

Would point out my first home as a a adult was a council flat in a tower block. Have never inherited or been given a house!

Going way off piste here, and thanks to TWF for the enlightenment, but is sexual capital compatible with feminism?

MN164 - why would erotic capital be incompatible with feminism? Like all other aforementioned forms of capital, both men and women may possess it (or not). And, even if you dislike it (though personally I do like it, much as I like all other forms of capital greedy), you cannot wish it away by ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist. Embrace it! And enjoy it - it's a great life enhancer