Knightsbridge School - just for rich kids or a serious prep?

[Hamptons99]

I loved everything about Knightsbridge School when I did the tour but hear mixed views about the school. Mostly that it attracts wealthy Knightsbridge/Chelsea families only and therefore learning and academic results may not necessarily be a huge priority there. I looked at their leaving destinations on the school website and it was very mediocre compared to other schools but to be fair Knightsbridge is a relatively new school and I wonder if results are now improving.

If you had a choice between Queens Gate prep (all girls) and Knightsbridge School which do you mums all think is better? We are waiting to see how we get on with other 4+ assessments.

It seems that I misjudged the issue at hand. I obviously misunderstood the dilemma here for which my sincere apologies.
I do now feel sorry for the six figure earners who are unfortunately just not in the same league as the 'super rich'. While I am at it, I also shed a tear for those at the lower rungs of the super rich elite who protest that they may have a regular yacht and a holiday home, but that doesn't put them on par with those who have the super yachts and the holiday island. Oh the trials and tribulations of the parallel bubble world!
I stand corrected for sure.

On a serious note, congratulations to your daughter. Sounds like you got your first choice school and its worked out in the end. Best wishes.

Coffeeismy... yes, good point, you have to wonder! In the event we didn't get offered a place. We were waitlisted which is just as well. Ended up with an offer from a much better girls prep.

@London

The issue addressed may seem to you to be a bit rarified (and this is because it IS a bit rarefied) but it is a real one none the less.

While the gap between the top one percent and the rest of us keeps increasing, the gap between the top 0.1 per cent and the rest of the one per cent also keeps increasing. Its a strange world up there.

And London has become very attractive to the top 0.1 per cent. The country is politically stable, has the rule of law, and London has tremendous facilities for the rich. Due to the UK tax law, and its rules on domicile, London is also an international tax haven for high worth people who are not from the UK.

So, if you are already in the rich, by any measure, section of the population who can afford to pay school fees of circa 20 thousand a year out of taxed income (which, for example is essentially the total take home pay of a couple on the minimum wage) and on top of that you can afford current rents in Knightsbridge, you will strike most people on Mumsnet as very well off.

BUT

You may still be concerned about whether your child will be in a class with other children accustomed to go on holiday by private jet.

In fact its quite interesting to try and put some actual figures on a discussion like this.

The latest figures I can find are from 2008, and I know that the differences in income bands have grown significantly since then. These figures are incomes for UK taxpayers earned income, and so will not include non doms, or income from dividends etc.

In 2008 to get into the top ten per cent of earners you needed £35,345 a year.

To get into the top one per cent you needed £99,727 a year.

To get in to the top 0.1 per cent you needed £351,137 a year.

Not only are non doms excluded but this is earned income, and not wealth.
(of course wealth figures are hugely affected by house price growth.) As non doms will be disproportinately in the top 0.1 percent, and income from investments not included this understates the actual amounts in 2008. And since 2008 there has been a further significant growth in income for the top 0.1 per cent compared to everyone else.

Did'nt some one once say "The rich are different from us"?

nlondondad - very interesting data. I am not British. I come from across the pond. Not suggesting we do not find these same issues in the US but I have to say I am learning about the social interactions between the rich and the VERY rich rather rapidly in the neighbourhood where we've settled to live! It's all relative I guess. I think the difference between London and the US City I agree up in is that for such a relatively small City, boy does London have some super rich and oddly most of them are foreign. In the US the rich are American so it feels more homegrown and easier to swallow.

Hi, I wonder if you ended up going to KS and whether you liked it. A friend's friend chose it on the basis of the school tour - she was impressed with Head, etc. But, they soon wanted out and left after reception. Apparently, they felt acted less like a school, more like a business - they were asked to pay absurd amounts for charity - I also heard a figure of GBP7,000 from someone else. Mothers joked between themselves "money or (champagne gifts for teachers) or you never see your kids' photos". Apparently, other Chelsea schools, which are as posh, if not more, acting much more dignified. I start to feel Hill House is a better option - its only fault is not having an assessment for entry.

Knightbridge School explicitly said they are Exclusive and its pupils are Priviledged, and its CEO said he loves involving parents for charity stuff because many are CEOs themselves. I won't be surprised if parents want to prove their worth after paying 35k fees. The school apparently and rightly targets the very top end, so you will feel outside if not belonging to that targeted bracket. It is a good and proper school, just culturally not for everyone.