Salary to consider private

[Duckyneedsaclean]

Just wondering at what take home salary you would consider/be able to pay for a private school place?

We were hoping for a bursary but not been granted one - trying to figure out if we can afford full fees.

I'm not saying environmental doesn't count, but if you think intelligence isn't heritable you need your head examining.

Here's another one. 75% genetic 25% environment.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

@Luckydip1 I have repeatedly said its heritable...

However, genetics is not why the wealthy have higher IQs on average. That is the environmental impact. I don't know how to say it any more plainly than that and I've linked to copious amounts of research on the point.

@Dyslexicwonder the amount of variation in individual IQ that is genetic differs between groups. For the wealthy the genetic component is higher and for the poor the environmental factors are higher. Its not one figure across socio-economic groups.

If you're concerned you cannot afford private school, don't do it!

This thread has obviously gone off on a bit of a bizarre tangent, but to answer OP's original question, there have been threads on here citing 12-13% fee increases this year.

Personally, I think I would only consider private affordable if I could budget comfortably for a 15% fee increase year on year. Not because I think it would be 15%, but because then I'd believe I could absorb any fee increases comfortably. Bear in mind it's cumulative, too.

Most people's salaries won't go up by 10-15% each year, so if you're think it's tight at 11, and you want to pay up to 16, then it's a major factor to consider.

Moving schools after about Y9 is pretty risky, as it can significantly impact GCSE options etc.

@MomFromSE I'm talking about the children of wealthy parents who are often intelligent who in part inherit the intelligent genes.

To those who suggest to make savings instead of paying private school fees, were you or are you actually able to do that? I didn't trust myself doing so - don't think I would really have been able to slice out the 2k each month and put it in a pot for DD, that would need great discipline forcing myself to have that set up and continue. After a few years in state school with no huge savings made anyways, we decided it would be wiser to invest on DD's education. Though slightly stretched and our savings grow a bit slower, we're happy with our choice. Our household income is slightly below 200k but we do pay a hefty mortgage monthly.

@Luckydip1 I don't want to derail the thread. I think that's true to a greater degree for academically selective preps. An average non-selective prep school (which most are) has an average IQ I think about 8 points above the UK average. Most of that is just down to socio-economics. You take those kids out of their environments and their IQ wouldn't be different to that of the general population.

@MomFromSE you are contradicting yourself, on the one hand you say intelligence is heritable and on the other you say it's environmental. I have said it's a bit of both.

Ummmm... do you really think that people are better paid because they are brighter than everyone else? I really think there are a few issues with that belief. You'll no doubt find the odd private school parent who is completely self-made, coming from a poor and uneducated family with low aspirations for their child and going to a bad state school but becoming wealthy through sheer intelligence (though realistically they would need to have other qualities too). But I think you'll find that the majority of private school parents benefited from one or probably more than 1 of: 1) a private school education, 2) well-educated parents who read to them and encouraged reading, schoolwork and other educational pursuits and assumed their children would go to university, 3) good living conditions and stability which made focusing on academic work easy, 4) money spent on mind-expanding extra-curriculars, 5) financial support at university and encouragement to go to university, 6) financial support in getting professional training and establishing a career, including knowing they could get help if something went wrong, 7) offers of work experience, internships, first jobs etc from family, friends, school contacts, 8) were preferred by the type of employers who pay well because they had the right educational and class background, 9) went through life with the kind of self confidence that wins people over, because they knew that they were the right kind of people with the right kind of background.
I'm sure I've left a lot out.
Your sweeping statement that private school children are brighter than state school children is frankly ignorant, and is only one step away from saying that children from rich families deserve a better education and better jobs simply because they are, genetically speaking, the elite of our society (your actual view?!). The opposite of social mobility. A fixed 2 class society. Is that the kind of society you want?

@User534 It's widely accepted that intelligence is heritable, do you, at least agree with that?

1. You categorically stated that private school children are more intelligent than state school children. Could you link to the scientific research on that?
2. Do you have good grounds for believing that rich people are rich because they are intelligent? Or is this just an assumption?
3. I don't know how heredity works - feel free to add links to research on this. From my own experience, I've certainly come across plenty of apparently unintelligent people who have rich, or even seemingly intelligent parents. Also of course plenty of intelligent people who are not rich and don't send their children to private school. And quite a few intelligent people who are also rich and choose not to send their children to private school (including a number of university professors).
4. It may be that if you take a class of London prep-school children and compare them with a same-age class of children at a state primary in a deprived part of the country the London children will have higher IQs. If that's the case, do you think that that might be related to the fact that they have been hot-housed from birth onwards? Do you really not think that environmental factors are relevant?
5. In other news, if a child from a rich family who is hot-housed from birth gets top results in their A'levels or gets into a good university, that is a lesser achievement than when a child from a poor family who went to a standard state school achieves the same thing.

Sorry, my post was for @Luckydip1

@Luckydip1 I am not contradicting myself. You don't understand the terms you are using.

Height is highly heritable (more so than IQ). However, environmental factors impact if you reach your full height potential-- nutrition, illness, environmental toxins, etc etc.

Intelligence is the same. How much of your genetic potential is realised is impacted by your environment. Google the Flynn effect-- it might help you understand.

It is not based on salary.

Rule of thumb, the longer time the mum manages to find herself in MN (lurking included), the more one can afford for the private school fees. 😆

Ummmm... do you really think that people are better paid because they are brighter than everyone else?

Umm yes I do. People with learning needs exhibit downward social drift. Those with huge inherited wealth are insulated from this to some extent. But given enough generations it will happen. Similarly someone with great raw intelligence who has enormous social disadvantage will do better than one would expect based on their circumstances alone. Again it might take a few generations, look at Carole Middleton, Alan Sugar or Phillip Green.

Solidly middle class professional families know about this interaction between genes and environment and will often go the extra mile for thier DCs who they perceive as not being as naturally talented with extra tutoring or private school. I have heard so many parents says " X school is OK if you manage to get into the top sets". If they percieve their DC may not manage this then they take avertive action.

This is very interesting
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changing-gears-understanding-downward-social-mobility/changing-gears-understanding-downward-social-mobility#understanding-downward-mobility

Like it not, the average IQ of private school parents is higher than state school parents, yes some may be dim and have inherited their wealth but I'm talking about the average. Consequently as it is well known that intelligence is heritable it stands to reason that the average IQ of the private school children will be higher than the average state school child.

IQ tests are cultural, learnable and skewed towards the knowledge base of the more afluent end of society. They include vocabulary knowledge that some working class families will never use.

@ArdeteiMasazxu Thank you. There is so much wrong with things that have been said on this thread. Independent schools are constantly changing the way they test candidates. Some of this is because things that were previously impossible to tutor for, just aren't. You can improve your score in anything if you practise.

I have no reason to think that intelligence isn't sometimes inherited. But only sometimes. That's why some intelligent parents have unintelligent children, and some unintelligent parents have intelligent children. But you'll find it very difficult to work out how much intelligence is inherited and how much is simply gained through an environment which is far more likely to be there if the parents are wealthy. If your measurement is IQ, that goes up and down depending on what the child is doing educationally.
Your "theory" that rich people have intelligent children is easily disproved just by visiting one of the many non-selective private schools which exist to educate the unintelligent children of the rich.
Your view that people are rich because they are intelligent is ridiculous. It is sometimes a factor, in the mix with environmental advantages. But other factors are probably far more important - in particular the wealth of that person's parents. We all know people, both through personal experience and through following politics and so on, who are in top jobs and are clearly stupid. Their parents were wealthy and gave them every advantage and they themselves are ambitious and unscrupulous. Like you, I suspect, they believe that they fully deserve their wealth and job positions and that people who don't have their privileged background are lesser.
Research has in fact shown that the mother's educational background is a big factor in how children do educationally. That has been proved in spades in my family. I'm not talking about inheriting intelligence. I'm talking about everything an educated mother can do to encourage learning and instill self-confidence, and about the advantage educated people have in ferreting out opportunities for their children. But interestingly, out of me and my siblings, the one who has made money in life is the one who failed at school. Their DC failed their GCSEs, including maths and English, and of course didn't go to university. That DC now earns a good income as a banker.

Private schools definitely give kids an advantage but I'm not buying this higher IQ at private schools stuff. A) many private schools aren't academically selective. B) there are a large number of very good state schools in this country with very bright kids in attendance especially in the most affluent areas. There is a huge different between good and bad state schools in the U.K.

Anecdotally I went to both state and private schools and the thing that often set private school kids apart and gave them an advantage was lots of cultural capital and an aspirational attitude that comes with that school environment. Having affluent often well educated parents with successful jobs or businesses with a 'you can do anything' attitude and knowledge of how to get there it's good contacts and peers with similar families fills many of these kids with confidence and aspiration to achieve. They also have far smaller classes so kids get more attention, so they are given a greater chance of reaching their potential. Private schools often give kids good social skills and good networks that set them up well for the future. However, it isn't because they are naturally smarter. Some of the smartest most 'successful' people I know were state educated.

IQ is highly heritable but it’s like height not like eye colour. You cannot make direct ‘genetic’ comparisons between people in different environments.

Our ancestors were much shorter on average than today. We are not ‘genetically’ taller than our great grandparents. We have more supportive environmental conditions to maximise our heritable genetics regarding height. It is only appropriate to compare genetic traits like height between people from the same circumstances.

Similarly, you can’t attribute differences between groups like the wealthy and the rest of the population to genetics. The environmental factors mediate the outcome making direct comparisons without controlling statistically for those variables inappropriate.

Also the average IQ in prep schools isn’t that high. It’s about 108 so on the higher side of average; it’s not like the wealthy are geniuses or something. Given research on the impact on socio-economics and IQ, the difference is likely just environmental rather than any inherent genetic differences. Also, 108 is just an average. There a plenty of very bright poor people and unintelligent rich people.