Why would anyone consider going to Rugby school better than the mixed local comp?

[Charis2]

I read this article in the standard earleir, and just thought what is this headmaster on? Why is this scholarship presented as such a huge honour for the boy, when in fact it is a way of the school paying to improve its results by taking in some of the best sixth form students without fees.

What "lifechanging" opportunities does he expect he can offer, which Hassenbrook acadamy can't?

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/needs-pic-teenage-footballer-wins-70000-scholarship-to-boarding-school-that-invented-rugby-a2953791.html

Headmaster Peter Green said he hoped Michael and other Arnold Foundation scholars would have a “ripple effect” on their communities when they return home.

He said: “We might be able to be transformative and transform their lives. Then when they go to university, and after, they can start to transform their own local communities. It’s not about parachuting someone out of that. We want to keep their association with where they are from.”

What a snob. Does he think the staff at Hassenbrook only teach poor peoples maths and physics, and the maths at Rugby is somehow a better class of maths? perhaps he thinks the laws of physics perform better there too?

I hope this lad has fun, but I don't think for a moment his life is going to be in any way better because he spent two years mixing with rich snobs rather than normal people.

My dc went to a great comprehensive both have very good first class degree one has just completed a her doctorate my dsc went to the most expensive private schools combined education cost well over 150grand, combined gcse's 3 both dossing about doing nothing with little work ethic and a very inflated view of their own importance. My dss sn totally missed (28 grand a year surely should have helped a 14 year old who struggles to read, comprehend and write legible). Private schools are becoming desperate for bright scholarship kids because they bring the average grade up.

I have a friend whose son is at Rugby and he has had a fantastic time. He is able to access ma opportunities like sport and academic stuff that he wouldn't have had otherwise at his local comp. he has some LDs and it has been amazing for him, smaller classes, 1 to 1 tutoring. They are lucky they could pay the fees and it's appalling that not all state schools can offer same opportunities as they are so cash strapped. OP not everyone will agree with you on this - it's like saying that for all students Oxbridge will never be better than any other University. Some education establishments are better at some things than others. Just a shame they canal get same money to be as good as each other. It doesn't mean that all comprehensive schools are bad, not at all, many are amazing

Having known a few children go through the selection process for private school, I know that, in addition to entrance exams, they even get the kids in for team building games, looking for disruptive/difficult pupils and weeding them out then. I know some academically very average (to low ability) students get into good schools because of their other talents in sport, drama or music, or because they were lovely people. So even in schools with mixed ability, there will be far fewer disruptive students from the outset.

nags that's very true.

My DD's last school was not academically selective, but they did on;y want girls who would play an active part in school life and take part fully in the school community.

The HT firmly believes that whatever their ability, girls who are happy and busy do well. And the results show she is correct.

" Private schools are becoming desperate for bright scholarship kids because they bring the average grade up."

Depends on the school. My son's private school gets over 90% A*/A at GCSE and it's very oversubscribed with full-paying students. Plenty of others like it in and around London. Maybe in the provinces it's a different story.

I've never come across a private school which would have much if any interest in giving scholarships to boost grades. They're usually vastly oversubscribed with straight A students and besides one or two scholarship pupils out of a hundred or so would have a negligible effect on the grades.

As for the behaviour thing- absolutely private schools generally just don't have the issue. At all. Dh and I (both privately educated) had this conversation recently after being totally flabbergasted by appalling behaviour at one of the 'best' state schools in the country.

Personally what I rate about private schools to the extent that I would go to quite considerable lengths to achieve private education for my dcs....?

The range of subjects - and serious subjects, not media studies etc.
There's plenty of time for stuff like that later. School should be a solid grounding.
An atmosphere where it's not seen as geeky to do Ancient Greek or geology.
Teachers who are relaxed and respected and have enough time and treat their pupils with friendliness and respect in turn. I remember a school trip to Italy with our Classics teachers- we just got on so well with them and I think they had a lot of fun with us.
The fact that the above two points mean a relaxed nice environment where the focus is the task in hand rather than people always trying to show off or prove a point.

The facilities are a bonus but not the focus for me as my experience was a city centre shoe string independent with not much space or money for amazing stuff.

The unfairness of the difference of opportunity between private and state is awful, but I have to say I can't get overly worked up about private school kids only mixing with a narrow range of backgrounds. This tends to get brought up in the context of thinking that private school kids are narrow minded and snobbish. Not a bit of it IME. The ability that private education gives people to comfortably talk to anyone cuts both ways and I'm as happy and comfortable chatting to someone a million times more advantaged than me as much less advantaged. Same for everyone I know from a similar background. Personally I've lost track of the number of people who've been amazed when they find out I'm privately educated and they keep on about how 'normal' I am. Invariably it turns out they've never actually been friends with someone with my background before so had just had a bunch of clichéd assumptions.

All that said, my upbringing was very different from the equivalent now and plenty of parents of my peers at school were single mothers and people with very ordinary incomes, houses etc. It's very different now.

The issue of recruiting super-bright scholarship kids to boost the results, if it happens at all, would be specific to a very particular type of school, where the local population of parents who can afford to shell out ten grand plus out of taxed income is very limited, so they can't afford to be academically picky about their paying customers, and in fact need to fight for them against St Custards twenty miles away, which is the only other private option. That's the situation where a school might find a couple of carefully selected 5A* potentials useful for advertising purposes. In London where there are plenty of parents with the necessary money the game is played differently.

My daughter's old school (North London Collegiate) gets about 95% A* and A at GCSE. I don't think they are "desperate".

The thread just shows that those of us who pay fees are delighted with private schools and some parents with children at comprehensive schools are very happy with the education there so what's the problem? Each to their own.

I like the freedom private schools have to teach what they like, no SATs, teaching beyond the exam curriculum. I obviously like the fact 8% of children go to private schools and get 50% of the best university places and up to 80%+ of some very good jobs never mind acting/rugby/olympic success far and away out of proportion to numbers. We are quite a music family and 3 of the children won music scholarships. I like that private primaries have chidlren singing the Messiah, and latin anthems in parts with hours of practice something which costs nothing but tends not to happen in state primaries. My chidlren have all bee happy too at their schools and hard work and being interested in the work is not an issue. Most of all I pay to avoid low level disruption and for segregation so my children are educated with children of high IQs who are ambitious and will do well.

Most teenagers follow the herd. So if the herd is leaving or going to London met type universities they might follow them. If the herd is all off to good universities and have sensible career plans then there is more change that will rub off.

"8% of children go to private schools and get 50% of the best university places and up to 80%+ of some very good jobs"

Which is no indication on ability, its nurture vs nature isn't it. Privilege buys a lot more than hard graft achieves.

It's more than 8%, at A Level, and more than that at GCSE too. 8% is averaged across the whole age range, 5-18.

"I obviously like the fact 8% of children go to private schools and get 50% of the best university places"

My god how depressing. I guess you are telling it how it is: money buys unfair advantage. It's something else to actively crow about it though:(

Fwiw, I think poverty of ambition is definitely issue in the state sector, however good the teaching. My DD goes to an outstanding state primary in a wealthy city in a wealthy part of the country. But certainly nobody thinks the kids there could sing the messiah. For that she has to go to saturday music school, based - yup - at the local public school. In the school choir they sing unchallenging kiddies songs.

Not just money. Hard work. You learn how to fail. How to get things wrong etc in private schools in away that state schools don't. You learn how to keep going no matter what, how to be strong - that kind of essential grit which is what I think does young people as much use in their 20s (as well as passing the posh test and speaking in a way that people understand) as very high exam grades and personal skills.

" You learn how to keep going no matter what, how to be strong - that kind of essential grit"

Is that why the data shows that students from non-selective state comprehensives generally get better degrees than those who went to selective private schools?

You learn how to fail? Bollocks, the above is also true because actually if you are from privilege you don't have to work as hard, it will come your way anyway.

Just look at our esteemed leader and his cronies, if any of my kids had been caught smoking dope at school ( as Cameron was) or had been trashing restuarants as students then they would have had much different lives to that of the "private school" kids who do the same.

You can have your prejudices, doesn't mean they are correct dear.

It may give you all those things, but only if your parents have money to send you there! Hence money paying for the unfair advantage. I'm not bitter, though my kids go to state school we earn enough and have enough cultural capital that my kids will get many opportunities and advantages, even if not a private education - like Saturday music school. But I'm socially conscious enough to know that what is good for my kids is bad for society. Thinking that the fact that 8% of private school kids get 50% of uni places is an actively good thing is morally indefensible

If I had dared to touch drugs my parents would have pulled me from the expensive school. Taking drugs wasn't an option, nor was aiming for anything less than an A grade. If I didn't get an A grade I felt like I had failed and did my best to work towards getting an A grade the following term.

I think you have to think what you define failure as. For me failure is that I won't make partner by the age of 40. For others their definition of failure is going to be very different. I would assume those who attended private school have had more ambitious plans introduced to them, therefore their idea of failure is a whole lot different.

zoe

My dd sings the Messiah and a whole heap of other things at a private school, we hardly pay anything for it tbh, neither do many others.
Any child can audition and gain a place and pay fees according to income.
there are places for people from all walks of life.

I went to a good star comp
My son will too
I would bite his hand off for the opportunity and rugby isn't too far for us
It's the confidence and self presentation which is developed in a better more prepared for real world
The stats speak for themselves- better uni access, better career access supported by who you know
Not butter just don't see why anyone would take offence at someone offering an opportunity- if it's not for your child presumably you'd just pass at the offer?

So the private paying parents are happy to pay the comp parents are happy with their set up too so what is the problem? I do think private school provide all kind of things state schools don't and the children do much better in life for it and earn more, a lot mroe and have better lives and a more rounded education. Comprehensive parents may not think that and that's fine too. We all have choices.

I don't agree that thinking the children who get the best education and perhaps are genetically and in terms of IQ the better children get the better jobs is morally wrong. It's morally right.

It's parents who if they both worked full time like the rest of us and could afford fees but instead choose in effect to steal bread from the mouths of the poor by taking state school places when they could afford otherwise who have a morally indefensible position (and yes I include Cameron whose children are at a state schoo,, in that as well as the parents of Corbyn and Tony Blair)

Grazia

I completely agree, we all have choices.
In terms of fairness the state sector is far more unfair than the difference between state and private.
If you can't afford private then that's it, unfortunate if that's what you want,but you can't do much about it.
There is such a difference in the state sector from schools that are barely satisfactory to those that are outstanding offering far more than others.
Is it fair that we have bad schools and huge pockets of deprivation and degeneration when half an hour down the road there are lovely schools in state sector, and grammar and private.
Of course life isn't fair, you do the best you can with what you have or make sacrifices for better, if you want better.

"You learn how to fail. How to get things wrong etc in private schools in away that state schools don't."

Sorry? What does this mean?

"genetically and in terms of IQ the better children"

Crikey - I'm not even going to attempt to go there

Regarding the learning to fail well; there is a lot of competition in many private schools.

Sometimes it's a bit much, especially at primary level, however what it does teach DC is that you will not be great at everything. You will lose. And nothing bad will happen.

State schools don't have as much opportunity to incorporate this as so much of it is bound up in extra curricular stuff/non NC stuff, for which the state system has limited funds.

Yes, that was the learning to fail, not everyone gets prizes, sometimes you are useless - rather than you are all brilliant and can do whatever you like in life even ify ou never pull your finger out and work twice as hard as other people.

On the IQ issue there are lots of studies that those who have a higher IQ tend to earn more and these days marry each other eg someone they met at university - it is called assortive mating. In the old days clever rich boss might well marry not very bright secretary and have not very bright chidlren. That does not happen so much now. He is less enamoured of the bottle blonde hair and large chest and wants a woman who is his intellectual equal. Although it is true that IQ lowers to the mean eg two 150 IQ people might have a 140 IQ child on the whole the children tend to be about the same IQ as their genetic parents and have a home environment which is similar.

Anyway I'm happy and the comp parents are happy so what a wonderful world in which we live where we can all be happy with our choices.

"Yes, that was the learning to fail, not everyone gets prizes, sometimes you are useless - rather than you are all brilliant and can do whatever you like in life even ify ou never pull your finger out and work twice as hard as other people."
Oh, right. So only private school kids take exams or have to work hard for anything or fail to get what they want. What a bizarre idea!

Grazia I assume you are an old poster who has name changed. I actually find your posts so upsetting that I can barely respond. I am a comp parent and am absolutely not happy with this appalling segregated society in which the less academically successful and less rich are more likely to end up in poverty. It is so deeply wrong. God forbid one of your 'better' children had a child with a learning disability. It's hard to imagine you would see their worth at all.