At what point is going private NOT worth it?

[lexlees]

I was chatting to a friend recently and we got chatting about schools. Their only daughter goes to a top private school and it is a real financial strain on them. They reckon they spend 40% of their net family income on school fees and extras. All her wages go towards the school fees and even then only covers 2/3 of it - the remaining third comes from her husband's salary.

From my perspective I don't see how it is worth it. She maintained that it is not unusual. They just want their child to have 'every advantage' because both she and her husband went private.

Their girl is bright but didn't qualify for any bursary or scholarship and failed to get into the selective state school (they did try all three). Although the girl was top of her class in her state primary, she now feels so much pressure because she hasn't gotten an 'A' in anything yet. She is now no longer the bright one and it took two terms to make friends. I'd love to say she is a lovely girl, but honestly, she is an ungrateful and mean brat (she used to beat up/be cruel to my ds every time they were alone - then lie about it - hence I don't bring my ds anymore to their house).

They are putting minimal money into pensions and have only 'one term's worth' of savings. They haven't had a holiday for two to three years, never eat out and hardly buy stuff (except for stuff for their daughter - so she doesn't feel 'left out' at school) as they have a mortgage as well. They also don't have parental financial support or expect much of any inheritance either. I feel like my friend has changed into some penny pinching miser, always working out how to save pennies and she is just worn out from a low paid job!

It got me wondering if other people are just making ends meet to send a child or children private. Is she correct that it is normal? At what point does it become NOT worth it.

Hmm. I'm not sure the world is yet nepotism proofed SiN, however aspirational some firms are being.

Depends on industry.

DH's law firm gave up on work experience type stuff years ago. Nowadays there are proper paid internships at the end of year 2 which act as a first filter for a TC.

The sort of internships people ask me about ( publishing/media ) are a lot more old school. Favours are regularly pulled.

And I (law) always turn down requests to have young people in as I cannot concentrate unless on my own. Mind you I have never found from my own private school or my children's we have had a single connection/network advantage at all. In things like law you apply formally for paid internships in university holidays which are awarded on basis of excellence, exam results etc. I suppose spending a day or two in someone's business might be useful to some people too but on the whole it's just been simple applying through formal mechanisms that gets most people in the professions jobs. It is different in the media and fashion where you don't have paid internships and it is harder to get in on the basis of exam results and personal communciation skills alone.

What is a "TC"?

Training contract - sorry.

Training Contract. Used to be called Articles.

Fastest finger first .

Agree with the numbers game, it does push them to aspire to achieve the best they can do. There were different activities, cultural capital, that were available at my DDs school that is not available at the local state such as a flute choir, theatre productions, evening dinners.

The options at the state school were a county orchestra that I couldn't get to, nor could she using public transport. Although it's a good state school supposedly, theatre productions happened rarely, although much was made of them in the prospectus. On joining you felt a lot was happening, but in reality there wasn't.

I couldn't do as much stuff with her as I would have liked as I had a young baby a couple of other children and worked, so it was much more difficult to take her to outside activities.

I think it's worth it, if you don't notice the fees, if you struggle then I think you have to look at the needs of the others in the family. If you don't have holidays etc because one child is getting Lots then I think it's unfair.

There is a lot of pressure for the children to recoup the investment made, which I am not sure it a good thing. The children themselves also in my experience find it hard when someone else beats them to something out if turn, as if it's not fair. What they failed to realise is that life is more than a series of academic achievements, and those alone do not always lead to a glittering career path.

In answer to the Op, when is it not worth it?

For me I had this discussion with DD1's teacher when she left primary school. DD1 is very bright and self-driven and I was concerned she would struggle to fit in at the local comp. The teacher advised sending her and seeing how she got on as she doesn't need the challenge of a competitive peer group to work hard and she is so outstanding that private schools would be biting off my hand to give her a place should I decide to change my mind in the exam years. For me this has been sound advice.

We are also very fortunate that DD's school is the creative arts hub for the region and as they cater for a very mixed intake the focus is not just on academics.

On "old school tie" connections - I studied law in Scotland. About half my class sorted out traineeships by swapping between their parents' family firms. Those of us who did not have that option broadened our horizons and have been far more successful as a result.

One thing that has struck me from reading this thread is just how much the distinction comes down to ethos.

I can't afford to send my kids to an independent school. But I had already made the decision to send my children to state school years ago when I left my job as a solicitor to do a job which I loved but which was very badly paid. For our family, we are far, far happier with the life we lead, living pretty frugally on half our income and saving the rest. We have a cheap but nice house in the catchment area for outstanding state schools which have impressive academic results, high levels of progress and many extra curricular activities. We are within walking distance of many more interesting activities, including those based at the nearby university. Our children are currently thriving in the local primary school and friends' children have gone on to do very well in the local secondary schools. For us, sending our children to independent school would have been a huge waste of money, as I honestly can't imagine a better combination of school/family/outside world play and education than they are currently getting. If, on the hand, I had loved my career in law, then the local independent primary schools offer more flexible wraparound care for wealthy parents who are short of free time, so one of them might have been more suitable. And if I had been less well educated, and less confident in my own ability to support my children's education, then I might have felt more confident sending my children to an independent. And if they were geniuses, or very talented in music or sport, then the right independent school might be able to support them better. So for many families, independent education can be a sensible choice. For many, like mine, it would be a huge waste of money.

Spot on Jasper Damerel!

Absolutely Jasper. This is exactly the decision I made with regard to my career.

I don't think there's pressure on private school pupils to justify investment. I would see justification of investment in things like their internal personal happiness, how they treaet others, ability to cope under pressure and that kind of thing, balanced life rather than requiring they all mirror mummy and become a lawyer.

You may not mind what your child does after school but I think a lot do. Certainly even the school talked in terms of investment return etc. I heard a lot of parents echo similar.

We didn't mind either.

It depends I think how much sacrifice has been made and how much the child realises. If mum and dad keep,telling the child you must work hard as we pay a lot of money for you to go then I think it is pressure. It's surprising what people children pick up from conversations.

Similarly, I was very aware how much it cost my parents to pay for me to go to uni, and dare not leave and do something else ( even though that would have been the right thing for me to do) as I was so aware of it.

DeoGratias to be fair, it helps considerably that you yourself are super rich. I imagine your postman DS is pretty sharp, so he knows he isn't going to go hungry or be short of a bob or two later on.

I can think of two exceptionally well off local Etonian families where all the children have declined to do very much, but are still cushioned. The couple with recent leavers were super ambitious for their four children, but it never happened. Only two even went to university, and one dropped out.

That's certainly true and most of the boys at my sons' private school are Asian and plenty second generation immigrants and if you m ove countries for a better life and put every last penny into school fees you probably hope your son won't be the postman my older son currently is (not that there is anything wrong with postmen but I suspect he won't be featuring in his school old boys' features any time soon... laughing as I type).

DeoGratias - I would see justification of investment in things like their internal personal happiness, how they treaet others, ability to cope under pressure and that kind of thing, balanced life rather than requiring they all mirror mummy and become a lawyer.

Really? So you really don't care whether the £30K a year spent at one of the premier league privates will result in your DC(s) being able to support themselves, and possibliy at some point in the future their families, financially, just as long as they are nice and kind to others and are internally happy (whatever that means).

There is also the stark reality that many state schools, especially primary schools, do not offer any or very few extracurricular activities, therefore parents are forced into a choice. E.g. I either work full time and earn enough to get a nanny; give up a career; or go independent. This I feel is a huge shame. Yes there are many that do, but I am testament to that fact that none of the primary schools I have access to do offer this - and therefore fail many children. Let's not even go there with children whose family cannot afford to fund all the extras or even drive them there.

For us, as I said before, with four children and a full time career, it became impossible to do it all after school. Had I even given up my career, which I did for a while, ( I had a career break) it was impossible anyway. The younger ones spent their lives being carted around and became very stressed. They were also missing out, and I didn't want a two tier system in the family (e.g. the older ones get the opportunities, the younger ones don't).

It was indeed our choice to have four children, and luckily we are able to fund the packaged education for all of them, so far. But the state system topped up after school wasn't a formula that was really going to work for us whilst they were young anyway. I guess it is different when they are teenagers provided you live somewhere with good transport links - which we don't as we live rurally.

"Yes there are many that do, but I am testament to that fact that none of the primary schools I have access to do offer this - and therefore fail many children."

Can I ask how you suggest that state schools do offer a wide range of extra curricular activities on the budget provided?

"therefore parents are forced into a choice. E.g. I either work full time and earn enough to get a nanny; give up a career; or go independent."

And do you think that those are the options facing the majority of parents?

Soveryupset - I either work full time and earn enough to get a nanny; give up a career; or go independent. This I feel is a huge shame.

You think it is a shame you had to choose between getting a nanny, looking after the kids yourself or paying a school to look after them for you? I'm not sure why you think it is a shame that you had these choices, TBH.

Possibly Soveryupset's following sentence: "Let's not even go there with children whose family cannot afford to fund all the extras or even drive them there" might help at least some people to understand why she feels the lack of extras at state schools is a shame....

Indeed, you could say "first world choices" although many many private schools cost £10k a year around the UK and most women if they went back to full time work can earn that so let us not pretend many women have no choice about private schooling. Those who don't work have taken a distinctive choice to use state schools and not pay school fees whereas if they carried on with full time work like many other women they could have afforded one if not two sets of school fees.

"MumTryingHerBest Wed 11-Nov-15 13:59:23

DeoGratias - I would see justification of investment in things like their internal personal happiness, how they treaet others, ability to cope under pressure and that kind of thing, balanced life rather than requiring they all mirror mummy and become a lawyer.

Really? So you really don't care whether the £30K a year spent at one of the premier league privates will result in your DC(s) being able to support themselves, and possibliy at some point in the future their families, financially, just as long as they are nice and kind to others and are internally happy (whatever that means)"

It's about half that in this bit of London for day schools not £30k. I would prefer my son not to be a postman but I am not unhappy about it. He knows my view is that the route to happiness is often through being outside, carrying heavy weights, getting enough son on your skin, moving - all things that postmen get. That can determine the level of seratonin in the brain and thus lead to happiness. I want all 5 children to make informed choices but if that choice is to be a Trappist monk or run a bar in Costa Rica or run RBS all of those are fine. I suppose if all 5 children became postmen I might find that a little disappointing.

I certainly tell my dd she should work hard because of the investment the tax payer has made to her education.
Many may see this as pressure but academically she hasn't been doing her best, attitude not right in some subjects.
They shouldn't be allowed to coast, they need to know of the investment, wherever it has come from.
I don't expect all A* as she isn't really bright, I just expect her best.

I am hoping she benefits from the "old school" favours when she is older and don't feel bad about this at all. I also expect her to be world class in what she decides to do because I know it's what she expects of herself.

There were some extra curricular activities at her Primary and there are at the secondaries, but in most cases it's not much more than babysitting.
The outside coaches that sometimes are employed are only basic level themselves, so hardly able to coach to county level let alone national.

It's about half that in this bit of London for day schools not £30k

I think £30k is more boarding schools - which again brings you to the point that different private schools offer different things.