What do parents hope to gain from the private school arms race?

[Abladeofgrass]

Genuine question about the private school “arms race” - what’s actually the end goal?

This is a bit alien to me as I live outside the capital and my kid is just a baby, so genuinely asking rather than being obnoxious. But I read so many threads on here about the trajectory towards a “top” education, especially in and around London - feeder nursery for the 4+, then prep school, tutoring for 7+ or 11+, then one of the big-name secondaries, all aimed at Oxbridge or a “good” university. Sometimes this planning seems to start before the child is even born.

I get that everyone wants the best for their DC, but I’m curious what people feel the actual payoff is? There’s only one PM, only so many top media/barrister/City jobs, and surely plenty of those are filled by people from state schools or less famous privates. So what is it people are hoping this level of selection and competition actually gives their child - is it the school name, the network, the confidence, something else?

The OP is asking about academically selective schools, so the children obviously aren't 'thick as mince'. They're all bright kids, who would easily be top set in a comp. Much like the kids at an academically selective state grammar.

I'm not really sure what you're saying the parents are misunderstanding though? Are you suggesting - as another poster has - that there are only private schools for bright kids, and parents with 'thick as mince' children won't get a place? If so, I don't think you should worry for them. There are schools that cater for all abilities - just like state schools.

Or are you saying that it's not worth the parents paying for education for a child who is 'thick as mince'? That's an odd suggestion: children of all abities benefit from education, which is why the state offers an education to every single uk child, at the cost to the taxpayer of about £8k per child per year.

Or are you just taking the opportunity to try to throw mud at private school children? It's not a very well-thought out, coherent insult if so...

We went for private prep from Yr6 and my child will start private senior school in Sept. She boards because we move around a lot and it's the only way not to disrupt her every couple of years.

I don't need her to be PM or have an amazing job, I want her to be happy, have a great group of friends, play lots of sport and be supported academically. If all of those things had been possible in the state system (and sometimes they are, her older siblings went to state boarding) then we’d have gone for that.

More chance of getting into oxbridge from a state school. As my daughter found out on her visit to Oxford uni last week!

Who’s richer ?
Someone who spends 20/30k a year on education
Or someone spending the same on a large mortgage to fund a house next to the best state school having numerous holidays and flash cars 80% of ppl earning £200k or more send their kids to state achool so im sure they cd ....

That was basically me too. The school still had its faults but they were very minor compared to the local senior school. Neither of my kids had a bad school experience so it was a win for me as I was badly bullied at my state school and there were many disruptions in class. The private had strict rules on behaviour.

Yeah I also don't get it. My cousins have all gone to private school (about 800k, maybe more, on each of their education) and don't work. One has a role in finance.

Me and my siblings went to state and went to Oxbridge, top jobs in Media/law/finance. I don't really understand what you're paying for.

Me and DP earn well but our kids are going to a top performing state school (that we bought a house in catchment for)

I have family members who went to private school (some day, some boarding) and had horrific bullying experiences. I don't think bullying is unique to state school!

With vat on school fees many kids are forced to move to state and private schools are cutting back.
Clemmie and Charlie don't get to go skiing or go to Malawi or get to see a volcano in Sicily. But neither do Olivia and Ollie, whose parents are already scrimping to pay their 50% fees. And Jayden and Aaliyah who are on 100% bursary have now lost their only chance to see these places or even leave the UK, and experience what social mobility might have to offer them.

I actually agree with this that it's a lot about status for the parents, as much as anything else "little Harry is at Harrow" etc etc

What point are you making?

No but I knew this school had good pastoral care. My kids never got bullied and any sniff of bullying was stamped out immediately (they didn’t even tolerate any kind of teasing that caused upset). My school days were quite traumatic, my children’s weren’t at all so for me it was a win.

Who’s richer ?
Someone who spends 20/30k a year on education
Or someone spending the same on a large mortgage to fund a house next to the best state school having numerous holidays and flash cars 80% of ppl earning £200k or more send their kids to state achool so im sure they cd ....

For most it’s not status though for some it is. They are easy to spot and are absolute cringe. Like a dreadful woman I met at a work event “hello I’m Julia my son is at Marlborough”. Right whatever ! Urgh. Shudder.

it’s not what you know, it’s who you know. My daughter went to a state school and then to a university with a very high number of privately educated. She said they kept within their social class and there was a lot of
nepotism in terms of securing opportunities for each other in and amongst that rarefied world.

It's not so much the end result as avoiding bullying, disruption, etc. Kids do better if they're surrounded by other kids who want to learn and/or have parents who are aspirational for them so encourage them to value education etc.

I was horrendously bullied at my crap comp. DH was horrendously bullied at his crap comp too. It blighted our teenage years, our education and our adult lives.

No way were we going let our DS suffer that. So the local crap comps were out of the question as the two closest had awful reputations and low Ofsted rankings - one of which was the crap comp I went to decades ago and it was still crap! That left a private school (not particularly elite so not ridiculously expensive) or a state grammar school. Thankfully he got a place at the grammar and enjoyed 7 happy teen years of an environment where the pupils actually wanted to learn and where bullying/disruption was minor and mostly nipped in the bud by the teachers before it got out of hand.

Why should anyone buy anything 'better' for their child? No kids should have their own bedroom if all kids can't have one. No kids should have blueberries and porridge for breakfast if all the kids can't have some.

FFS

Thanks for that @StrictlyCoffee . I already said upthread that my child has cognitive issues and that is among the reason why I chose a private school after he was hideously treated by his state school. Do you think it's a laughable matter my child is - as you put it- thick as mince? His birth was catastrophically mismanaged by the NHS. You don't pay for my child to be educated, I do. So you can very seriously fuck off with your laughter about thick children being educated and paid for by their parents. Trust me, if he were to be educated from the public purse then it would cost a fucking bomb.

And I will add- our medical negligience advice when his issues became clear was to sue the hospital. They lied. They said I was in labour for 10 hours when actually it was over 30 hours. But you know what- we did't have the appetite to sue as we were so depleted, so exhausted and so much in despair. My child is unlikely to ever live independently, and we pay for him- including his expensive private education where he is quite possibly going to get through his GSCEs. Not all of them, and not well. But of yes, it's all about elite aprents with their egos.

”if I lived in London and earned London wages”? What on earth makes you think those of us living in London earn anywhere near enough to pay for private school?!
I’m senior in my field, earn well, but pay a London mortgage and there is no way I could pay for private school for my kids. Nor do the vast majority of my colleagues and friends.
A basic Google suggests London average wages are 27% higher than the rest of the UK, but the cost of living is roughly 39% higher.

And to the posters commenting that this arms race is why they left London - you realise it’s possible to live in London and avoid it entirely by just using the state system? Works well for most of us, particularly as London schools outperform the rest of the country, as PPs have pointed out.

(and no, I’ve not moved to a desirable catchment area and don’t pay for tutors)

Some of my children go to private school. I pay for it because it is a nicer place to spend 8 hours a day than the available state school, and I am happy to pay for my kids to have that.

The private school I pay a lot for is very similar to the state secondary school I went to in the 1990s. If we had a comparable state school locally I would absolutely use it and not pay for the private school.

I don’t do private primary or tutoring.

Is that nepotism really any different from the van you see passing you by that says Smith & Sons (or Daughters) Decorators.

Buying better starts in life is normal though. If you had the money would you buy a nice home on a nice street in a nice area for your family or choose a neglected sink estate somewhere so you won’t be seen as giving your children a better living experience?

The point is, you can start planning for hothousing them, super selective education, Oxbridge all you like, but if your kid is dense it’s not going to happen.

Generic “your”, not your kids per se @BunnyLake

You just continue with the anblist insults don’t you. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You also fail to get why many ordinary people stretch to breaking point to try and do the best they can for their children, if they can. It’s not all elitism and networking.