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 :-)

My parents know someone who made exactly this calculation, ie. that public school offers a very poor return on investment. They are not English and posh already, so didn't really care for the social cachet or social capital that's such a big but unspoken part of the private school deal.

They'd initially put their son down for various household name schools, then changed their mind and bought him an investment property and sent him to a local private day school at less than half the price.

He did well, went to Oxford, and is now using the rental income to support himself whilst he establishes a career.

What a PP said about someone who can afford public school can probably afford to help their kids financially in later life no longer holds true. All of my clients earn well beyond the top tax bracket and many of them struggle to comprehend the cost of school fees if they have more than one child. With the end of financial salary pensions and high house prices even rich people aren't rich any more.

Two candidates of equal merit interview for a job. The attractive one gets the job because the other is less attractive.

Is that using sexual capital legitimately?

PS I'm not denying its existence or planning to ignore it, but I am asking questions whilst having an opinion. Not odd for this forum I think.

TWF

You make a good point. Why do I accept that it is legitimate to take advantage of intellectual superiority but not superficial superiority?

Perhaps it's because I think intelligence is an opportunity available to the majority whereas beauty is not. Some how it's a bit more egalitarian, but I accept it is not universal equality.

MN164 I live in an area where "superficial superiority," is seen as more easily available to the masses than "intellectual advantage." My gym changing room is full of orange skin, boob jobs, duck lips and bleached blond hair among other things. Anyone can be gorgeous if they make the effort! All depends which circles you run in!

(I have short grey hair, btw.)

Maybe plastic surgery is a better investment than education?

In some public facing revenue generating roles, good looks put workers at a distinct advantage. It is therefore unsurprising that, all other things being equal, the better looking candidate gets the job. In fact, the better looking candidate might get the job even if all other things were not equal!

I hope not MN164, but I am afraid the evidence backs Bonsoir up.

At this point, I think plastic surgery is a little crude and cannot deliver on the promise of beauty. Big boobs, fat lips, taught face: yes. It all looking like a beautifully composed "whole:" no.

It's the moral and ethical side to sexual capital I'm interested in.

Just because humans accept and behave in a certain way does not mean it is "good".

Are we a bit guilty of being happy to exploit appearance when it suits, but not accepting judgement when someone else trumps our merit with their looks?

I personally think that we should worry a whole lot more about the morality of intellectual filtering as the basis for human merit, and worry a whole lot less about appearances. High IQ does not equate with goodness.

Establishing sexual capital does not require beauty per se.
It can be established through personality too.

So today I saw a friend who has sexual capital. I am drawn to her because she is fun/energetic/ sociable.

Today she converted her sexual capital into cultural capital by asking if my agent would give her DD sone work experience.

If her DD does well and ends up with a job, that cultural capital will be concerted to 'real' capital.

So in other words, "sexual capital" encompasses looks, personality and emotional intelligence... Not much, then!

Obviously looks, personality, emotional intelligence, education and IQ all have their own currency, and the relevant importance of each depends on the situation concerned. You can only fake any of these things up to a certain point before others sense the artifice, and only be taught to develop them up to a certain point before you have to start faking it. Sometimes we can be so distracted by a particularly strong natural trait in a person that we fail to notice their failings in other areas - this is most often the case with people who look attractive, as we seem to need lots of evidence that genuinely attractive-looking people are not also the possessors of attractive personalities and reasonable intelligence, whereas we can be more easily convinced that an ugly person might have weaknesses in other parts of their make up. That's why we sometimes end up with people who look the part, but can't do the job so well. We can also be fooled by people who are good speakers - they don't always turn out to be as clever as they sound, but they know all about charisma.

"We can also be fooled by people who are good speakers - they don't always turn out to be as clever as they sound, but they know all about charisma."

I think it is also possible to have superior oratory skills and to be very articulate without possessing superior analytical skills. This is quite common in England among the privately educated.

In addition to being naturally rich in one area allowing you more scope to 'fool' people,deliberately or not, into believing you are rich in others, it also offers far more opportunity for developing the aspects you aren't naturally possessed of.

Alternatively, being a bit talent-poor in one area can spur you on to prove yourself in others!

That's all true sometimes, but haven't you noticed that the sporty kids are often the smart kids and also look quite attractive? The kids cursed with afflictions often have more than one, too. Life is definitely not fair!

Also some traits/talents are more valuable ( ie can be easily converted) than others.

Often we personally value those that we have but that's not an indication of true value although they can overlap of course.

The ability to capture and hold attention, communicate, form effective relationships, collaborate and work in a team are not things I am comfortable dropping into a set container called sexual capital. Not least that gender or sex aren't sufficient to encompass them (by a long way).

I still don't understand what sexual capital is and why it explains things any more effectively.

There are some great posts here, but I am still in the dark like some kind of dullard.

I haven't noticed that the sporty kids are often the smart kids. There are certainly all rounders who are fairly good at everything and they can get away with not being brilliant at anything, because people still see them as objects of virtue and thus tend to inflate in their minds the actual ability concerned, but in my experience, sporting ability does not always go hand in hand with high intelligence or good looks. Slightly above average intelligence and looks help in almost all fields in life, but high intelligence is entirely unnecessary for physical prowess. As for attractiveness - there is some appeal in a sporty physique, but it is not necessarily always viewed as particularly attractive. I can't think of any rugby players I find attractive. I don't find the physique of the long distance runner particularly attractive, either... And I know plenty of ugly musicians, although the ones who look nice tend to be more successful, regardless of the noise they are making.

This is an average fee though. My children go to private school and it costs around £4000 a year each. So at current rates, I would be nowhere near the two hundred and whatever thousand throughout their education. I work in education in the public sector- I am under no illusion that I can 'buy' a good education, but I know their schools suits them better than the local primary.

Bonsoir "I think it is also possible to have superior oratory skills and to be very articulate without possessing superior analytical skills. This is quite common in England among the privately educated"

I normally disagree with most of what you say but I do agree with this.

Not that it actually matters, because they end up getting the high-powered £££ jobs anyway, though their intellectual capital may be as abundant as the finances of Greece.
It is a shame for the UK's international competitiveness though.

I think it's possible at a beginner level/ young children there can sometimes be a correlation between intelligence and sporting ability, purely because they can understand the rules, aims and tactics, although that's quickly overtaken by sporting ability. Dd is very physically fit, but no more so than 5/6 others that do a lot of sport outside school. Dd's sport doesn't really provide any cross over skills and isn't a curriculum or team one. And yet after the two real sport stars, she's always next choice for any team games in her 30 intake class, above other children that are naturally better, because she's far more tactical at that age than the other equally good or better children. However she retains that place of third choice even when her ability to provide tactics is not required because she's perceived as better at all sport than she really is, because she's unwittingly using her intelligence to 'fake' it to a degree. Likewise a lad who is gifted by anyone's standards at sport, but only average academically is usually treated by the others as brighter than he is.

rabbit, I get what you mean about the "halo effect." There are recent studies claiming there actually isn't a halo effect, the "attractive" kids really are smarter.

Here is an example from the LSE:
personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/I2011.pdf

Here is another one in psychology today (not quite as August a body as the LSE but hey ho):
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent

I suspect these kids tend to be more "sporty" because they have better coordination too. (And possibly better nutrition lies as a base cause of all three?)

I admit it is a little distasteful to think about. It seems like things should balance out somehow. That burdens should have compensating gifts etc. But that may not be the case, generally. If so, then you have to wonder about "meritocracies." They don't seem quite so fair somehow. Some people may be born with more brains, beauty and talent, but we all have equal humanity and an equal right to exist in this world. None of us can survive alone. Even the fittest among us needs to the whole tribe to prosper.

I think it is also possible to have superior oratory skills and to be very articulate without possessing superior analytical skills. This is quite common in England among the privately educated"

I also agree with the above. I would also say that this is a huge advantage in many corporate environments - coupled with being presentable and having excellent interpersonal skills - and I would go as far as saying that they go much further than pure intellect!

There are, in all evidence, people who are fabulous specimens of humanity born with multiple talents and physical and mental prowess. Talents are not distributed equally.

A good diet, exercise makes someone better looking healthier and more intelligent. Private school kids don't tend to eat as much cr@p food as low income families.