So it's class war then...

[anonymous-user]

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?

4A's and a top universtiy and a better job.

[FredClogs]

NomduJour said:

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.

If you don't want a conversation then don't reply to my postings, but don't try to shut me down with petty minded insults, quite frankly it's pathetic.

[iphonedyou]

fblm said:

4A's and a top universtiy and a better job.

And, for me anyway, the most colossal kick up the arse when I took my foot off the gas in second year, getting me right back on track for where I should have been headed without deviation.

Am I ever glad about that.

[crankedup]

NomduJour said:

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.

Your use of the word delusional is misplaced, it also displays your ignorance within this area that we are debating. You seem to be very confined and insulated in your thought patterns to be perfectly honest.

[iphonedyou]

crankedup said:

Your use of the word delusional is misplaced, it also displays your ignorance within this area that we are debating. You seem to be very confined and insulated in your thought patterns to be perfectly honest.

He's right, however.

[Fittster]

iphonedyou said:

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.

It shows that even with equal educations those with a privileged backgrounds will snaffle the best jobs.

"Our findings are stark. There is a large socio-economic gradient in the likelihood of a recent graduate accessing a top job. 40% of graduates who attended a private school secured a higher status occupation, compared to just 28% of students from state school backgrounds. In addition, 31% of graduates who come from higher SES family backgrounds (NS-SEC Group 1 or 2) enter top jobs compared to 27% from lower SES backgrounds (NS-SEC groups 2-7).

Specifically they have higher achievement at A level, are more likely to attend an elite university and take subjects that have greater economic value in the labour market. However, even controlling for these differences in students’ human capital, we still find a modest residual socio-economic gradient in access to top jobs. Even when we include a measure of the student’s social capital, namely their use of networks to secure their job, the socio-economic gradient remains. "

Going to the right school helps you earn more money.

[NomduJour]

FredClogs said:

If you don't want a conversation then don't reply to my postings, but don't try to shut me down with petty minded insults, quite frankly it's pathetic.

What is pathetic is that an adult - with children - can't see education as anything more than a means of getting exam results.

[anonymous-user]

iphonedyou said:

And, for me anyway, the most colossal kick up the arse...

Likewise. I was an average kid that went to a great school and a top university. My friends at Uni who went to state schools were not average. It's pretty obvious the difference was the school. Like most things in life, you get what you pay for.

[edh]

heppers75 said:

So you have such an antithesis to private education that you would choose to state educate your child at a dire school with a drug problem and in special measures rather than go private?

Tricky, but there are usually other choices... Maybe we're lucky in that the vast majority of secondary schools in our city provide a good education.

jonny996 said:

if you can afford it, why would you not chose to send your child to one? this is a genuine question.

Politically I'm completely opposed to private schools & therefore it's a non-starter anyway. Apart from that I can't see why I would choose it - I don't believe in sending kids away from home, or even long distances to school. I'd rather they had friends locally. I think their experiences have given them a good grounding in life. They mix with a very broad range of people. I'm sure they don't think that £100k pa income is average.

Of course I'm a member of the comfortable middle class, we live in a pleasant area, the schools are pretty good. There is an ex. grammar school near us, people pay a premium for that catchment area. It has a bit of a drugs problem (too many kids with too much money..), and I don't think my kids would have done any better there.

[crankedup]

iphonedyou said:

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.

Yes but you must understand that the positions that are awarded to the 'tie wearers' are not the average jobs, these are positions of serious National and International power. It is the conveyor belt system of best schooling/best further education, best of everything that's been purchased. Look at the Government front bench for examples. This selectivity is pure old fashioned class that was prevalent in Victorian times and now seems to be raising its ugly head again.
Indeed I do accept that your uni degrees and the like are important, but then tell me which Uni will carry the most weight when it comes to a dog fight for that job. It will always be the 'most respected' and almost certainly most expensive degree which will carry the holder to success, regardless the other candidate is equally well qualified for the post.

[blade runner]

Fittster said:

Going to the right school helps you earn more money.

And that's the kind of future we want for our kids? One where you ultimately win or lose based on what 'club' you are in rather than on your achievements?

Funny, I'm not normally socialist, but some of the underlying snobbery on this thread is unbelievable. From some comments its seems that it's tantamount to child abuse if you can afford, but don't elect to send your kids to private schools.

[crankedup]

iphonedyou said:

crankedup said:

Your use of the word delusional is misplaced, it also displays your ignorance within this area that we are debating. You seem to be very confined and insulated in your thought patterns to be perfectly honest.

He's right, however.

Of course he is, after all you do agree with him and that's despite all of the evidence which clearly dictates otherwise. Priceless.

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

NomduJour said:

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.

Your use of the word delusional is misplaced, it also displays your ignorance within this area that we are debating. You seem to be very confined and insulated in your thought patterns to be perfectly honest.

Just interested Crankedup - what is your direct experience of how leading banks, law firms, multinationals etc recruit people? It seems from your statements that you must have detailed, possibly internal, experience. Would be interesting to hear it, obviously you don't need to name the actual employers that you were part of the graduate assessment/selection process for.

Thanks

[Fittster]

crankedup said:

Yes but you must understand that the positions that are awarded to the 'tie wearers' are not the average jobs, these are positions of serious National and International power. It is the conveyor belt system of best schooling/best further education, best of everything that's been purchased. Look at the Government front bench for examples. This selectivity is pure old fashioned class that was prevalent in Victorian times and now seems to be raising its ugly head again.
Indeed I do accept that your uni degrees and the like are important, but then tell me which Uni will carry the most weight when it comes to a dog fight for that job. It will always be the 'most respected' and almost certainly most expensive degree which will carry the holder to success, regardless the other candidate is equally well qualified for the post.

Do you believe its possible to have equality of opportunity? Personally I think there's sod all chance, those with money will use it to give their children an advantage.

[FredClogs]

NomduJour said:

FredClogs said:

If you don't want a conversation then don't reply to my postings, but don't try to shut me down with petty minded insults, quite frankly it's pathetic.

What is pathetic is that an adult - with children - can't see education as anything more than a means of getting exam results.

When and where did I say that? I didn't go to private school (although as I said earlier in the thread my dad did) both me and my sister were educated in a pretty bad state school, we both got good A levels and degrees and live perfectly normal lives with reasonable careers, all I'm asking is what you get above that in the Private system for £100k...

To somehow suggest (as people are) I'm not a good parent for questioning a £100k investment on a rather flimsy premise that my kids won't be happy or achieve in a state school, or that the money couldn't be better spent enriching their lives in other ways is ridiculous.

So far all I've been told is that for £100k I might get them some career advice, pastoral care and extra curricula activities + a kick in the arse. Quite frankly I don't see that as money well spent I'm sure I could get better value else where.

[Soov535]

wsurfa said:

crankedup said:

NomduJour said:

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.

Your use of the word delusional is misplaced, it also displays your ignorance within this area that we are debating. You seem to be very confined and insulated in your thought patterns to be perfectly honest.

Just interested Crankedup - what is your direct experience of how leading banks, law firms, multinationals etc recruit people? It seems from your statements that you must have detailed, possibly internal, experience. Would be interesting to hear it, obviously you don't need to name the actual employers that you were part of the graduate assessment/selection process for.

Thanks

He hasn't got any.

[rovermorris999]

FredClogs said:

When and where did I say that? I didn't go to private school (although as I said earlier in the thread my dad did) both me and my sister were educated in a pretty bad state school, we both got good A levels and degrees and live perfectly normal lives with reasonable careers, all I'm asking is what you get above that in the Private system for £100k...

To somehow suggest (as people are) I'm not a good parent for questioning a £100k investment on a rather flimsy premise that my kids won't be happy or achieve in a state school, or that the money couldn't be better spent enriching their lives in other ways is ridiculous.

So far all I've been told is that for £100k I might get them some career advice, pastoral care and extra curricula activities + a kick in the arse. Quite frankly I don't see that as money well spent I'm sure I could get better value else where.

So don't spend it then. But if others wish to then what has it do with you? Let them. You think it's a waste. Fine. Others don't. Chacun a son gout etc.

[Fittster]

blade runner said:

Fittster said:

Going to the right school helps you earn more money.

And that's the kind of future we want for our kids? One where you ultimately win or lose based on what 'club' you are in rather than on your achievements?

Funny, I'm not normally socialist, but some of the underlying snobbery on this thread is unbelievable. From some comments its seems that it's tantamount to child abuse if you can afford, but don't elect to send your kids to private schools.

The evidence shows there's very little social mobility (I'm sure I'm about to get the usual anecdotal evidence about some who was brought up in such poverty their diet consisted solely of rat piss until the age of 18 and is now CEO of the world) and there's not much that can be practically done to give all children an equality of opportunity.

[NomduJour]

FredClogs said:

Quite frankly I don't see that as money well spent I'm sure I could get better value else where

If you're happy viewing your children as some sort of experiment in economic utility, so be it.

You pay your money (or not as the case may be), you take your choice.

[FredClogs]

rovermorris999 said:

FredClogs said:

When and where did I say that? I didn't go to private school (although as I said earlier in the thread my dad did) both me and my sister were educated in a pretty bad state school, we both got good A levels and degrees and live perfectly normal lives with reasonable careers, all I'm asking is what you get above that in the Private system for £100k...

To somehow suggest (as people are) I'm not a good parent for questioning a £100k investment on a rather flimsy premise that my kids won't be happy or achieve in a state school, or that the money couldn't be better spent enriching their lives in other ways is ridiculous.

So far all I've been told is that for £100k I might get them some career advice, pastoral care and extra curricula activities + a kick in the arse. Quite frankly I don't see that as money well spent I'm sure I could get better value else where.

So don't spend it then. But if others wish to then what has it do with you? Let them. You think it's a waste. Fine. Others don't. Chacun a son gout etc.

Well that all sounds entirely reasonable until you consider the original point of the thread which is that some public schools are creating elitist institutions that refuse to interact with the community in which they're based and call themselves "charities".