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 :-)

WhattodowithMum - that research doesn't actually refer to sporting prowess, and the mean IQ score of the more attractive appears to be about 104, which is an exceptionally long way off being very clever! So I guess it depends what you are thinking of when you refer to intelligence, sporting prowess and attractiveness! I still stand by my assertion that being slightly above average intelligence and looks is useful in all areas of life, but there are plenty of examples of ugly geniuses, relatively ugly sports people and only averagely intelligent beautiful people to know that unusual talents in a particular area do not remotely have to go hand in hand with superior qualities in all desirable traits! However, it stands to reason that there will be plenty of people of above average ability in one area who are equally blessed in others, for all the reasons referred to in the articles. They just aren't unusual people, though, are they? We just treat them with greater reverence than people who are only above average in one area.
I do agree with you about the tyranny of the meritocracy, though.

I've never seen the stats to back it up but my own perception backs up the claim I regularly hear that obesity is more common in low income homes and therefore being slim or at least healthy more likely in a higher income home. Personally I don't think the actual ability to afford good food is the relevant factor though, if you have the skills it's cheaper to eat healthy, unless you're meaning extremes. I believe its a side effect of the other reasons causing low income in the first place.

And as a result of low income on behavior.

Yes, I know they didn't refer to sports. I just threw in my own guess regarding sports for the heck of it. I agree 104 is hardly impressive, but it was the relative difference that was interesting.

I just was thinking about all the threads of frustration where parents complain that a clutch of children seem to get all the awards and win everything at their children's school. Perhaps the school isn't actually being as partial as it seems, but perhaps meritocracy isn't the ideal we often assume it to be either.

"Meritocracy" sometimes seems to result in the abuse and manipulation of the weakest, as few meritocracies appear to place a particularly high value on time being spent on developing the least able, or feeling compassion towards and understanding of those at the bottom of the pile. Lack of ability becomes a sin - you lack merit and don't therefore deserve support.

Yes, that's what I am trying to get at rabbit.

Realise, I am off topic, now!

Money does little good sat in a bank or investments. Private education may not improve job prospects, but it can be an enjoyable experience.

RabbitStew

A good point. And no mention of sexual capital either so i like it.

I disagree with the antipathy to meritocracy.
Don't (State) schools try to teach that we are all good at something, we just have to find what out what our 'something' is. There is, even, a meritocracy in "feeling compassion towards and understanding of those at the bottom of the pile". I may be above-average in 'intelligence' but I know that I am definitely below-average when it comes to 'compassion and understanding' so I would make a rubbish nurse or therapist. Just as I am below-average in dexterity so would make a rubbish tradesperson.
There are loads of things to draw up meritocracy-tables about, way beyond the obvious ones (IQ, EQ etc).

When I read Hakim's theory ( some time ago now, so am para phrasing wildly on this thread from memory), my first reaction was that she was quite right.

The things she observed were definitely a field of capital missing from the original thesis. Possibly overlooked because he was male?

My second reaction was that sexual capital was the wrong description!

senua - I didn't say meritocracy had to result in the abuse and manipulation of the weakest... I said it sometimes does. And increasingly so in my opinion in British society in recent years. The desire to punish those deemed to be "feckless" is so great that we appear happy to inflict an awful lot of collateral damage on the weak and vulnerable whilst venerating the strongest, who are often far from being the most generous or thoughtful - they just assume someone else will be doing all that poncy compassion stuff, preferably for free, because that's what compassionate people do, innit? In fact, those compassionate types aren't very productive, are they?

senua that's true.

However, above average intelligence is easier to convert to real capital than compassion so is thus more valuable ( by which I mean can be converted to resources that humans need).

Those left over to care for the weakest are often amongst the weakest themselves - there's a scramble away from having to care for others, because it doesn't pay well enough to be able to care for yourself, so if you care for others, you're often left with nobody actually looking out for you. You would have to be amazingly caring to give so much of yourself for so little, wouldn't you?

rabbit I'm afraid that it's an inevitable consequence. People who value / are good at power and money will amass power and money. Those who are good at giving freely will give freely. You can't be a give-freely person but expect money and power - that's cognitive dissonance.

(I hope that you appreciate that I am using money / power / free-giving as 'shorthand' for complicated concepts.)

there's a scramble away from having to care for others, because it doesn't pay well enough to be able to care for yourself

Good point.

To get reasonable pay, you have to move on from the basic caring skills and start becoming technical. You are then being paid more for your technical skills, not for your compassion, even though basic physical care, listening and compassion have a colossally important role in quality of life.

senua - there isn't a cognitive dissonance, really. Nobody is pure compassion. There comes a point when people think they are being used, abused and manipulated. If people with power and money are too stupid to notice that, because they think that makes for "cognitive dissonance" then they are just excusing their lack of humanity.

You would have to be amazingly caring to give so much of yourself for so little, wouldn't you?

Yes, and hopefully they feel good for being so compassionate and caring. And feel loved.
I don't get any warm fuzzy feelings from my spreadsheets!

To be a good carer, you need colossal reserves of inner strength. If those are drained but people keep trying to tap into you, you will snap. You don't necessarily need money to stop you being drained, but you do need genuine appreciation, a reasonable diet and accommodation. And you don't get access to those things without money in our society.

People cannot live on warm, fuzzy feelings, senua - although I think that might be a symptom of late stage starvation...

There comes a point when people think they are being used, abused and manipulated.

We all have that, we are all somewhere on a sliding scale but we have different break-points.

I'm afraid that I have to leave this conversation. The money/power side says that I must get to work now so that, later on, my compassionate side can leave work early to help my DD out.

rabbitstew is right about the dangers of meritocracy. To return to the topic, do private schools teach those well enough?

Schools point to their "pastoral" staff as if caring was something for specialists and not for everybody. Do they offer VFM on this front?

Depends on school ( just like state).

DD's school offers exceptional pastoral care. No girl's problem is too great or small to merit care and assistance. The focus is consistently on the girls' well being.

DS school is less nurturing. Or that's how it seems to me. Though to be fair, DS hasn't needed any TLC, perhaps it's there for those in need.

I agree that the meritocracy approach depends wildly on the school.

My eldest two, very different personalities/abilities at their local outstanding state primary, had zero recognition. Recognition came mainly in getting the main parts in the school plays (mine were always sat at the back with no lines) and/or being hand picked for the rare opportunities to represent the school in some wider county event (mine never got picked). Golden book was well known as a farse (everyone gets one) and there were no such thing as academic, sporting or music awards.

The fact that both were excellent academically gained them no recognition ever, even the school reports were not that glorious - I think they largely became an irritation to (some of) the teachers. In an almost punitive way too, they always ended up being sat next to the more troublesome/difficult children, in a bid to temper them down, which very often ended up in bullying. My son especially experienced Chinese burns, was trampled on and had other quite serious bullying at the hands of one of these boys.

At their independent school it has been a long list of awards and constant recognition, and in fairness they worked really hard for it. They got a long list of awards from sporting, musical, academic and softer ones too. Their confidence has grown massively as a result but more importantly in my view their enthusiasm for school and their desire to succeed in those subjects they are more interested in.

Also, and I might have been lucky, my children did not experience physical assaults, which seemed to have become normalised at their old school under the "oh it's just kids being kids" banner. In fairness this alone was worth the money, as a month did not go by where one of my children suffered an attack and I didn't feel they were that safe.