Do you think private schools give your children a advantage in life ?

[mistybear]

I am thinking of going back to work full time so I can send my dd to a private secondary school. My husband and I keep going around in circles of whether or not there is any advantage to a private education. We are not rich hence having to work full time to afford it and this is one of the questions, will having parents that are not that well off be a massive problem being at private school, we are not in London and the area we live in is not massively affluent. One of the reasons I keep thinking about it is that the people I have as friends and some of my family that have been privately educated are doing well and more importantly doing a job they wanted to do. My dd is hardworking and has already achieved her leaving school targets even though she is in year five, the state secondary schools around us are not the best but a couple are not too bad educational wise but all of them do not have clubs and sports that the private school has. She loves her violin, science and space also her ponies and she loves her warhammer !! she is also a only child x

No I don't think it does. My DH went to a very exclusive private school yet l earn more than him.

IMO it's about support at home and the type of child your dc are.

However if it's not going to bankrupt you and you feel it's worth it then do it.

Of course they "Bloody do" .. It is not just Academic advantage, it is the whole package . This is true of even the worst Private Schools those with Crap Academic standards have more ex pupils in "affluent positions" than the best state schools do. The only state schools that come close to equalling the "Crap Private schools" for " pupils affluence" at 40 are the top Grammar schools . Middle and top private schools are a million miles away from even the best grammar schools for creating affluence at 40....

My Whole were/are Family State Educated by the way ....

My whole family were/are state educated....

I have to agree with Smokepole too.
Sometimes there are areas where you could find the worst ever private school and it be better than what is on offer in the state sector, just because of the area.
Unfortunately there aren't any grammars or local private schools and children have no option than to attend these schools.

Sorry to derail for a moment Smokepole dd got in, letter yesterday.

Having known plenty of people who went to "top" private schools, I am by no means convinced that they are worth the investment.

Yes, they will probably learn to act confident (doesn't necessarily mean that they are confident) and it's likely that they will acquire a network of wealthy, well-connected contacts, but otherwise I see no discernible difference.

I definitely don't think that they are any happier or more successful than friends who were educated in the state sector.

But we know that some industries are dominated by those who attended private school.

And there are many more where the privately schooled are over represented.

I have to take slight issue with you, Fozzie in that your DD is much more likely to have her work ethic from you than from the school...

Yes Word, but correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.

Do the state schools you are considering use setting, OP? Because some schools don't, and I would be wary if that is the case. Ours doesn't, except for maths, even in GCSE years. They get good results (partly by cheating on coursework), but bright DD has been both bored and has learned much less than she would have in a reasonable independent school (or a school with setting, for that matter). She will nonetheless get good GCSEs; but she is interested in doing English Lit, and she is noticeably lacking in the kind of cultural, historical and literary knowledge that would stand her in good stead for doing English Lit at a good university.

Fantastic and well deserved More Than. I know you and your DD have wanted this to happen for a while, no doubt your DDs talent will "shine" though now..

Why do you want to send your daughter to that school?

Because it is private? That in itself will only be an advantage if she wants a job where snob value matters.

Because it will support her music? That could be a big issue. DS played the cello at state primary school, but only because I kicked and screamed and made them give him the opportunity (I had to drive him to another nearby school for the lesson and then back for the start of lessons, he missed registration and assembly). When he started at a private school and said "I want to learn the bassoon", they said "cool, we don't have any bassoonists right now, we'll arrange a teacher and instrument."

Academic standards? That will depend on the school. Being private certainly isn't a guarantee, and I'd never suggest sending a non-academic DC to a school - private or state - which is obsessed with league tables.

Sporting opportunities? DD's school were great about her missing time to compete at a high level in a non school sport. Several of her friends at state schools would have mum finding a quiet corner at the competition to ring up and lie about their DCs being ill because they wouldn't authorise that sort of absence. Not sure what the current state school rules say.

To be honest, though, I think the best start for your child is for them to go to a school which suits them. I don't think you can make a general statement about that always being private or state any more than I think you can make a general statement about it always being large or small, or single sex or mixed, or 11-16 or 11-18.

I don't agree with this breathless adoration if private schools.

Yes more kids from weakthy families, but this can (and iften does) generate an actual lack of ambition.

The girls who showed me around were lovely, they planned to do a bit of fashion or jewelry design after A level. Maybe travel a bit. Dad would buy them an appartment. No worries all very nice. Friends have sons in the school who have fallen in with rich kids who don't worry about their future as there is just always money, so no ambition other than to party, ski and maybe travel.

Wealth can be a huge ambition killer IMO.

And about all the great sport, yes, great if you get selected. Many don't get to play any/many matches. Great for the A and B team though.

Agree with Kestrel, setting is most important for all subjects. My DD and DS went to single sex state comps (just the way our catchment schools work round here) and were set for everything. Both schools offered good sporting and music opportunities too.

MY DH from working class routes with uneducated parents went to the local comp, made it to Oxford and then Imperial.

"The girls who showed me around were lovely, they planned to do a bit of fashion or jewelry design after A level. Maybe travel a bit. Dad would buy them an appartment. No worries all very nice. Friends have sons in the school who have fallen in with rich kids who don't worry about their future as there is just always money, so no ambition other than to party, ski and maybe travel."

Then pick a better school.

I wouldn't send my kid to a school where that was the level of aspiration regardless of whether it was state or private.

FWIW neither of my kids has ever got into a school sports team - A or B - with the exception of DS who was once asked to play for the tennis team when they screwed up the fixtures and had a tennis match on a day when almost the entirely of the year was on a geography field trip.

I don't understand why people seem to think that, because they once saw a private school which they didn't think was worth the money, all private education must be crap.

"But we know that some industries are dominated by those who private schools"
I dont think we should underestimate parental expectations if you father/uncle/parents friends are CEO's of a major international corporation or a senior partners in large corporate law films or investment bank your and his bench mark for success is likely higher than if your father is a bank manager in the local Lloyd's in Swindon. Most major public boarding schools are going to be dominated by people of this ilk; the very rich and successful, because of the extraordinary cost of the fees which are completely,outside of the reach of the vast majority of people. It's a never ending circle, only the rich and successful can afford to put 2/3 children through top boarding schools, the parents that send their children are likely to be highly ambitious for their DC's, their DC's will mix with other children from the same economic back ground/ambitious parents, the schools encourages it's pupils to aim high because this is what the parents want/expect and what the children want/believe they should be doing, and also what the school wants, if it is to to continue to attract children. And so the cycle continues.
I'm not sure OP what advantages you are hoping will be given to your DC if you pay for education perhaps you could elaborate further.

Wealth can be a huge ambition killer.

Totally agree.

But as regards sport a good school should be fielding sufficient teams to embrace everyone who is interested in playing.

I don't think all private schools are crap, that would be really silly.

I just don't buy into the "any private school is better than state" as was argued upthread.

And that you want your kids to mix with wealthy kids. I don't. I think extreme wealth can be an ambition killer.

"More kids from wealthy families but this can and often does generate a lack of ambition"
I've spent yearly 14 years in the independent sector I've met Sunday Times rich lister, hereditary peers with land as far as the eye can see, more CEO's of major international corporations than Ive had hot dinner, doctors, corporate lawyers, investment bankers and successful businessmen/women and many doing slightly more normal jobs. When a I think about their approach to parenting not once have I felt they're lacking in ambition/expectation for their DC's and were they also expect their DC's to be very ambitious for themselves. May be it's the sort of schools I'm used too. In fact the complete opposite many are over ambitious but there's a reason for this they know it's a bloody tough world out there.

"I just don't buy into the "any private school is better than state" as was argued upthread."

Um...in which post? I can't find even one post which says this. Every single one has said that it depends on the schools.

Whilst you comfort yourself with the concept that "extreme wealth can be an ambition killer" I can assure you that those with extreme wealth driven by their high level of ambitions for themselves and their families are laughing all the way to the bank.

Happygardening, I guess I am talking about rich kids of another "class"

Slebs etc

IYSWIM

Skylark, the morethanpotatoprints post of 15:47for example

Hmm... I certainly wouldn't say that wealthy parents lack ambition for their offspring. And of course lots of trust fund children go on to do all manner of great things. But I've spent so much time (too much) with dabblers - who waft into St Andrews or Exeter purely for the social life and have no need whatsoever to achieve anything further.

It's terribly damaging for any poorer friends they might pick up - who can all too easily become confused about just how hard they really need to work to earn what their richer peers simply open their arms to receive.

Happygardening. You have to be a "very very special" person to achieve any of those careers mentioned if you are educated in a "Standard Comprehensive" as opposed to just "normal bright" when educated in a public or top private school.

Unless you are "fantastic" you just will not get a look in coming from a normal background. (watch someone know comment saying how they came from a normal or poor background !) The truth is in 99% of cases , there is no chance....

Nimpy. They are the lucky ones being able to know, there is no "real pressure" on them to succeed (To Live) opposed "most" state school educated kids who could work their hearts out at school and work, and still get nowhere.