So it's class war then...

[crankedup]

rich1231 said:

FredClogs said:

Indeed, at least someone is being honest about it. The reason most aspirational parents splash out on public schools is because they believe they're buying membership to a club - I'm far too cynical to fall for that...

Apart from your arse, where do you pull your ideas from?

This is a very common perception that the wearing of the 'old school tie' opens doors that would otherwise be firmly closed. After all when one considers, in financial terms, the cost of obtaining that tie together with the unerring commitment toward success. This is recognised by those older more senior tie wearers who have succeeded and now look upon those graduates as deserving.
Of course this cannot possibly be the case for it is illegal and immoral.

[FredClogs]

rich1231 said:

FredClogs said:

Indeed, at least someone is being honest about it. The reason most aspirational parents splash out on public schools is because they believe they're buying membership to a club - I'm far too cynical to fall for that...

Apart from your arse, where do you pull your ideas from?

Well if you'd have quoted the whole conversation as it was above instead of plucking one reply out of it then perhaps you'd be able to work it out for yourself?

What do you reckon?

[iphonedyou]

FredClogs said:

Indeed, at least someone is being honest about it. The reason most aspirational parents splash out on public schools is because they believe they're buying membership to a club - I'm far too cynical to fall for that...

You're projecting your chippy views (again). As you'll be quite aware, that was not what I was referring to.

[NomduJour]

crankedup said:

This is recognised by those older more senior tie wearers who have succeeded and now look upon those graduates as deserving

Those older tie-wearers couldn't give a stuff so long as the graduates they're recruiting are good enough and put the hours in. University is far more important than school for graduate jobs.

[crankedup]

fblm said:

oyster said:

What's left? £27k.
Could you put 2 kids through private schools with that? Possibly, just. If you told them they can't have as much kit/books/trips as their classmates.

I went to school with plenty of kids whose parents scrimped and saved every penny to keep their kids in school. Crappy old cars, no holidays etc... Plenty of people only there with the help of grandparents and always a handful dropping out here and there when things got too tight. I think you underestimate how far many parents will push themselves financially to afford school fees. My dad had a Volvo 240; no one should have to suffer that kind of automotive misery for their damn kids!

Indeed this is the case, also parents who decide which house to purchase based solely upon the quality of schools within the area.
Rather than the closing of the class gap it seems to me that it is widening based upon wealth of course. Well I don't expect that will change any time soon, I am just grateful that our two are now adults and our grandchild (15 months) is already on the 'best education' merry - go - round, such is our daughters desire to see him have the best possible chance in life. Something less valued in 'my day'.

[iphonedyou]

NomduJour said:

Those older tie-wearers couldn't give a stuff so long as the graduates they're recruiting are good enough and put the hours in. University is far more important than school for graduate jobs.

Quite. It's fairly cute that Matt thinks the world of business really does revolve around letting untalented graduates from good schools in, though. A moment - the briefest moment - thinking that through should lead to questions about how those businesses continue to function.

But no. Not with Matt.

ETA: and I am referring to Matt, here. Specifically re his 'aspirational club' comment.

Edited by iphonedyou on Thursday 27th November 16:24

[crankedup]

NomduJour said:

crankedup said:

This is recognised by those older more senior tie wearers who have succeeded and now look upon those graduates as deserving

Those older tie-wearers couldn't give a stuff so long as the graduates they're recruiting are good enough and put the hours in. University is far more important than school for graduate jobs.

Maybe, but TBH I had in mind those very exclusive types from Harrow, Eton and the like, should have used different language in my post to make it clear. But it all starts from the first day at the 'right' school.

[RYH64E]

oyster said:

I guess the vast majority of PH'ers sending kids to private schools are either earning way north of £100k or they are very lucky to have generous parents.

It's no surprise private schools are becoming busier with expats kids, as UK salaries can't keep up.

Talking as a single earner family (well a single earner and a wife who keeps her earnings to herself) it works because I have: no mortgage, no travel costs, cars provided by the company, don't believe in pensions, and a few income streams including rental income/dividends and salary. No idea what I earn, and no idea what I spend.

[Fittster]

NomduJour said:

crankedup said:

This is recognised by those older more senior tie wearers who have succeeded and now look upon those graduates as deserving

Those older tie-wearers couldn't give a stuff so long as the graduates they're recruiting are good enough and put the hours in. University is far more important than school for graduate jobs.

Wrong.

The privately educate take the better jobs even if you control for degree results.

Who gets the Top Jobs? The role of family background and networks in recent graduates' access to high status professions


And they also end up earning poor than those who went to state school

The Changing Economic Advantage from Private School

[Swervin_Mervin]

FredClogs said:

Swervin_Mervin said:

FredClogs said:

All I'm saying is as a parent I would find it very hard to reconcile the money I'd wasted and not allow it to damage my relationship with my kid or find myself putting them under undue pressure.

Really?

That raises very deep questions entirely aside from education then.

Come on, let's be honest, if you're splashing out £100k a year for a kid to go to school and they're not doing well academically, getting into trouble, lack passion and start doing stupid or weird stuff like playing rugby, you can't tell me you wouldn't feel like it was money wasted.

I shout at my kids for leaving their carrots, I hate wasting money and don't mind admitting it.

So your money matters more to you than having kids then. Why did you have them at all?

There's a bit of a gulf between sending your kids at cost to private school and them taking up a low paid job, and them committing a far more serious act/crime.

If your kid ends up a teacher and you spent £100k on fees then you should be happy that you gave your child the best start in life, and if they've been brought up correctly, they will appreciate you for evermore for this generous act. If, instead, you see that as a waste of money, then you have something quite wrong iwth you and probably shouldn't have bothered having kids.

Them committing a serious act/crime is an altogether different kettle of fish and has no relevance to this debate.

[iphonedyou]

Fittster said:

Wrong.

The privately educate take the better jobs even if you control for degree results.

Who gets the Top Jobs? The role of family background and networks in recent graduates' access to high status professions


And they also end up earning poor than those who went to state school

The Changing Economic Advantage from Private School

From the abstract:

A private school graduate who uses personal networks to enter into a top managerial position has a 1.5 percentage point advantage (on a baseline 6.1%) over a state school graduate who uses other ways to find their job.

That doesn't support the assertions made here. It might if it compared private school graduates using networks with state school graduates using networks, but it doesn't.

[FredClogs]

iphonedyou said:

NomduJour said:

Those older tie-wearers couldn't give a stuff so long as the graduates they're recruiting are good enough and put the hours in. University is far more important than school for graduate jobs.

Quite. It's fairly cute that Matt thinks the world of business really does revolve around letting untalented graduates from good schools in, though. A moment - the briefest moment - thinking that through should lead to questions about how those businesses continue to function.

But no. Not with Matt.

So what were the advantages to which you alluded?

For arguments sake I've got a reasonably bright child who may achieve 2As and a B at A level in the state system and have the choice of university - what would be the advantage of dropping £100k on a public school?

[NomduJour]

crankedup said:

Maybe, but TBH I had in mind those very exclusive types from Harrow, Eton and the like, should have used different language in my post to make it clear. But it all starts from the first day at the 'right' school

That just might have been the case in the odd broker's office pre-Big Bang, but do you seriously think Goldmans, Magic Circle law firms and the like operate like that? It's a worldwide market. Delusional.

[Mr Whippy]

RYH64E said:

No idea what I earn, and no idea what I spend.

Just ask whoever does your accounts

[blade runner]

fblm said:

I went to school with plenty of kids whose parents scrimped and saved every penny to keep their kids in school. Crappy old cars, no holidays etc... Plenty of people only there with the help of grandparents and always a handful dropping out here and there when things got too tight. I think you underestimate how far many parents will push themselves financially to afford school fees. My dad had a Volvo 240; no one should have to suffer that kind of automotive misery for their damn kids!

Just a thought, but why not put all that money towards a (presumably more expensive) house within the catchment of a well performing state school? Myself and the wife are state school educated and we've done quite ok for ourselves from (or in-spite of judging by the most of the comments here) a state education. When we decided to have a family we upped and moved to an area with good schools and paid a premium for doing so, but we never had any intention of funding private education for our kids and still don't.

We both had friends who were privately educated and there doesn't seem to be any correlation between where they stand now in life compared to their peers who attended state schools. Personally, I think it comes down as much to the inclination of the child attending the school as the school itself once you get to a decent standard of establishment.

[crankedup]

iphonedyou said:

NomduJour said:

Those older tie-wearers couldn't give a stuff so long as the graduates they're recruiting are good enough and put the hours in. University is far more important than school for graduate jobs.

Quite. It's fairly cute that Matt thinks the world of business really does revolve around letting untalented graduates from good schools in, though. A moment - the briefest moment - thinking that through should lead to questions about how those businesses continue to function.

But no. Not with Matt.

I made the comment and my name is not matt!
Let me expand on this old school tie, we are talking top end here The door is opened for top end tie wearers not because they are completely educated rounded nice people, but some are of course, but these individuals ability to be educated to a very high level. It occurs at all levels, the need to demonstrate that you as an individual are capable of learning to a high degree or not. The higher up the greasy pole you aim the more important this is. I think at lower levels its called 'fast tracking'. Time has shown that in the commercial world this is a disastrous mistake as opposed to the promote due to experience.

[iphonedyou]

FredClogs said:

So what were the advantages to which you alluded?

For arguments sake I've got a reasonably bright child who may achieve 2As and a B at A level in the state system and have the choice of university - what would be the advantage of dropping £100k on a public school?

You really, really can't think of any? OK, sure.

Fantastic extra-curriculars
Pastoral care
Careers advice

Starter for three.

[hidetheelephants]

FredClogs said:

Sounds like your suggesting two wrongs make a right?

Interestingly enough one of Ms Sturgeon's headline policy changes for her new leadership of the SNP is all about land reform in scotland - so perhaps things might change once some proper socialists get more power north of the border.

Hardly, merely pointing out Hunt's absurd moral relativism; if you are going to whine about abuse of charity status then you must clean the whole augean stables, not just the the easy bits that get you column inches and plaudits from class war goons.

The jury's out on the new SNP leadership; practically nothing of any import has happened in 18 months lest it upset someone or create adverse headlines, so there's a backlog of legislative and government business to get on with. If stuff doesn't get attended to bricks will start going through windows quite quickly.

[NomduJour]

FredClogs said:

For arguments sake I've got a reasonably bright child who may achieve 2As and a B at A level in the state system and have the choice of university - what would be the advantage of dropping £100k on a public school?

You've already demonstrated you don't get it - stop digging.

I pity your offspring.

[iphonedyou]

crankedup said:

I made the comment and my name is not matt!
Let me expand on this old school tie, we are talking top end here The door is opened for top end tie wearers not because they are completely educated rounded nice people, but some are of course, but these individuals ability to be educated to a very high level. It occurs at all levels, the need to demonstrate that you as an individual are capable of learning to a high degree or not. The higher up the greasy pole you aim the more important this is. I think at lower levels its called 'fast tracking'. Time has shown that in the commercial world this is a disastrous mistake as opposed to the promote due to experience.

You made the comment, and my comment was directed at Matt. Per clarification.

Anyway, the above is just largely wrong. You admit yourself that even if it happens, it's only the top end, and then only a proportion - those not actually, in reality, perfectly rounded candidates anyway. Regardless, the reality is that it's of less importance as you move upwards, as all of those that have dropped our schools, GCSEs and A-Levels off our CVs can attest to.

'Fast tracking' these days, in every instance I've heard of - including a former company I worked for - is reserved for candidates that excel either academically or professionally.