Why are school fees at boys schools higher than at girls schools?

[dimsum123]

DD's school fees just under £5k per term. Every single boys school I've looked at for DS the school fees are around £5.5k per term.

Am looking at equivalent types of schools.

If the question is why do private girls' schools charge less than private boys' schools, isn't class a given and equally applicable to both sets of fees?

(I may have misunderstood the social class aspect I admit, I'm not English)

When I was at school at a girls' school, the boys' school was separate but next door - same name one boys one girls similar results facilities etc etc

Boys was twice the price of the girls.

Don't know if that is still the case. It's down to supply and demand I imagine which is in turn down to sexism - parents aren't prepared to splash as much £££ on their daughters education as their sons.

Don't know if that has changed in recent years at all.

And before Bear comes and stamps on my head, I don't agree with private education either. But surely on a feminism board such a stark indicator of sexism is worth flagging up. Not in a "oh poor rich people" way but in a "look here is an obvious sign that sexism is alive and well and being visited on people's own children no less" way.

Just checked the girls are now at 90% of the boys so it has moved somewhat since the 80s!

That's quite heartening actually.

I am not sure why it is the case for schools that are highly selective as the market would surely support higher fees, though I guess the schools might lose out on some of their candidate pool.

I think that the facilities are often different, so girls don't get the same range of sports facilities. And class sizes are sometimes higher in independent girls' schools. I went to one and the class sizes were shocking for the independent sector.

Because girls are brighter and need fewer teachers?

There is a historical hangover for some. If you're set in 70 acres with grade 1 listed buildings, your maintenance costs will be far higher. And I think it tends to be the older (ie boys - or at least originally boys) schools that look like that.

But, looking at this a different way, if your girls school gets better results at lower cost, isn't that a sign of better management?

Your theories don't hold up in the example I gave, Pico!

Highly selective = check
Similar facilities / grounds etc = check
Class sizes = no different
Results = pretty similar (they always used to be I haven't checked lately!)

As the schools are the same name and on the same site just one is boys one is girls it's a pretty good example I reckon!

Like I say girls being 50% price of boys to 90% in 25 years feels like movement but equally, well, it's still not great is it.

I reckon there is ££££ in successful alumni - and I suppose more boys go on to "make it" in visible areas than girls? e.g. politics, media. And in less visible areas are more likely to be well known due to more men being chosen to do "talking heads" expert type activities by the media.

Just thinking out loud but I wonder if that might have an impact.

I was perusing the extra curricular / weekend activities for a girls school and they were having an etiquette expert coming in for a workshop and also a styling / makeup expert. At my son's school they get to do ultimate frisbee and mucking around in the woods...

OMFG moid

I don't think that the higher demand for private boys schools is necessarily sexism, but supply and demand. There is evidence that there are boys with SEN and more boys who are gifted than girls.

www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx

Ie. the average IQ of boys and girls is the same, but there are boys than girls at the extreme ends of the IQ range. Maybe there are more boys whose educational needs cannot be catered for in large state/ private school classes.

I went to a girls school on a site next to the partner boys school.

We didn't really have the same facilities. E.g. No squash courts, less impressive sports stuff generally.

We did have bigger classes.

Both highly selective and both getting similar results.

There is still a 15% difference in fees.

I really don't know why they stick with this disparity. Possibly because each school thinks they have a formula that works for them.

My DM was frustrated that she couldn't spend as much on my education as my DB's way back when we were at school. It's bizarre that the discrepancy still survives.

Seven - how does the girls school provide the same thing for less then?

Supply and demand, I assume, Pico.

I'm not making it up and I don't have access to their accounts. I assume it's not a case of "how do the girls school provide the same thing for less" but "how much more profit does the boys school make".

I wonder as well if male teachers are more expensive than female ones? Most of the teachers in the boys school were male and we only had one man teaching over in the girls school IIRC. I wouldn't be surprised TBH.

Interesting that people are so keen to find an explanation other than what people are prepared to pay. Why is that? Is it because the idea that girls educations might be valued less than boys educations amongst the type of people who use the private education system is so bizarre?

It would be interesting to compare the non-boarding rates for the most expensive boys and girls schools but I have no idea what they would be! Westminster / eton presumably? Erm... Don't know what the equivalent girls school would be.

Which again says something - the most famous schools are boys schools aren't they. Again it's the alumni adding £££ possibility.

IIRC Queen Ethelburgas has higher termly fees than Eton.

Westminster has been over £7k per term day fees for a couple of years now. St Paul's Girls is £50 under £7k. If you want high fees, they can be found whether boys, girls or coed.

Ooh queen ethelburgas never heard of it!

£7K a term I would have thought more money than that for that sort of school.

Interesting thanks

It seems to be co-ed though unless I have the wrong ethelburga (can there be more than one? )

Yes, QE is coed. Straying, I know, from girls only, but working on idea that boys only (and long established) is always more expensive.

Though either I was outdated or wrong about Eton. It's at c.£11.4k per term (I've rounded). QE is c.£10.5 rising to c.£11 for the same year groups.

(Idly wondering now which are the most expensive schools).

£50K a year sounds more like it Fara.

Need to pitch the price to keep out the oiks, don't they

I'm not sure about boys schools making higher profits as more independent schools seem to be non-profit than profit making.

Wycome Abbey is just over £11.5k per term, so it is possible to spend more on an all-girls school than for Eton.

International boarding school fees are over £40K.

That's per annum, not per term!

You only have to look at the life of the recently departed Deborah Mitford to see that the upper classes are no different to anyone else in terms of how they place different values on boys' and girls' education. She and her sisters received no formal education at all while their brother went to Eton.

It's not uncommon for people even now to send sons to Eton or Win Coll while sending girls to day schools or a fairly mediocre girls' boarding school. I know several families where this has been the case.

Plus you have the effect of there being so many boarding pupils from overseas. I haven't seen any figures on this, but at a guess I would say people are more likely to send sons to board in a another country than daughters. This may have the effect of making the boys' boarding school market more competitive than the girls'.

The effect of many formerly all-boys schools going co-ed is interesting. I would say that it has in a way increased the social prestige of the ones which have remained all-boys, so perhaps that is part of why they can charge so much now.