Social class prejudice and private schools in Britain

In terms of educational outcomes the average is actually not that different. The primary benefit to those types of schools is networking, attitude ECT..

Generally though I suspect that it's simply that the range in comprehensive schools is much larger. There are plenty of state schools in rural Wiltshire that probably do perform pretty well because you don't have a bunch of children born of immigrants or a large council estate stock while those in Leicester and Bradford are drawing in a much lower class cohort and parents less likely to push their children.

I recall a BBC show about grammar schools a whole ago that basically concluded that the losers in the state school system are not the A grade students who were likely smart or motivated enough anyway but the B/C/D grade students who in a private/grammar setting would have been pushed to A/B grades.

I think state school gives people more real world experience. The pupils meet people from more varied backgrounds.

I don't think that immigration can be mostly to blame but class I can't disagree with.

I think this is a bit of a misnomer. I often hear people say that privately educated people lack “real world experience”, but just because their world is different from yours doesn’t make it any less “real”.

Private schools also contain people from varied backgrounds. The only difference is they vary more across the higher end of the wealth spectrum rather than the lower end. Some kids’ parents are teachers, others are royalty, and you have everything in between as well. At some private schools there are also many international students, which makes it even more varied.

Not always, some groups such as Indians perform well but there are plenty of places where the children of migrants are considered disruptive.

I mean many of the kids (at least in my year group) had the latest iPhone, branded clothing/eyewear (Adidas, Jordan, Nike, Gucci, Armani etc).

We're talking about a standard comprehensive state school.

So I don't know if my school was varied from a socioeconomic perspective anyway, even some of the people entitled to FSM somehow had the latest phone (iPhone X at the time) in their hand.

This isn't me being judgement or jealous but more to prove a point.

Despite this I can still agree with the other user.

I'm aware of this, but I'm comparing those types of school private schools, selective schools, boarding schools and grammar schools etc to your standard comprehensive state school and that I'm inclined to believe that on average (not in all cases), they are better than your bog-standard comprehensive state school.

I’d suggest it’s because although those things are relatively expensive compared to other clothes / phones etc. they’re not *that* expensive in the grand scheme of things (compared to say a car, a house, or a private education).

It generally tends to be the lower socioeconomic classes who are interested in those sorts of items and use them to display whatever wealth they do have, because they can still just about afford them. So it constitutes a sign of being at the higher end of that spectrum. Whereas very rich people, in order to display their wealth (if they really wanted to at all, that is) would do so by getting an expensive house, car, yacht or something like that depending on their income bracket. Branded clothes and the latest iPhones are so easily affordable to them that it wouldn’t really mean much to them in that sense.

I went to a private school and generally didn’t see students with branded clothing and the latest tech. Not that they wouldn’t have been able to afford it; it just wasn’t considered particularly important or relevant to have those things. I did see a lot of parents with brand new 4x4 cars and large houses in the suburbs / countryside though, or kids going on expensive ski trips and the like.



Agree with the other user about what?

I think state school gives people more real world experience. The pupils meet people from more varied backgrounds.

That's not true - I've taught in a comp and a selective school. This comp got great results with students heading to top unis every year and some studnet ssstruggled to get a handful of GCSEs. Sixth formers worked harder than than many I teach now ....

All schools reflect their catchment so a comp in a wealthy area will be very different - all schools are selective to some extent.

The second part mainly/only (despite it not really being the case for me in Y7-Y11).

Ah okay. Personally I wouldn’t entirely agree with it; I think it really depends.

I don’t think a private school or a state school is necessarily more “varied” than the other in terms of the kinds of people you will meet; it depends on the school and many factors about it; number of pupils, location, academic selectivity, ofsted rating, boarding / day, how many bursaries and scholarships it offers etc.

Of course private schools aren’t going to be full of people whose parents are on minimum wage; but nor are most state schools going to be full of people whose parents are extremely rich either. And there are also more ways for a person’s background to vary than just by wealth (I earlier gave the example of some private schools having many international students).

Overall my point is, I don’t think this is black and white.

Back in the early 2000s, Edwardian politician Jacob Rees-Mogg said that state educated people are 'potted plants' and that only privately educated people should be allowed to run the country.

This is outright prejudice and is further evidence that Britain has always had a reputation for elitism.

For some reason, people who go to private school think they're better and superior to everyone else, when they haven't a clue what it's like to live in the real world.

What is wrong with educational competition - if that is what you mean by 'elitism'?

Btw - I can't name any 'Edwardian' politicians - can you?

We need more competition in schools used in a positive way, not mediocracy and false praise in attainment

Labour destroyed a very good system of schooling open to all - That educational system which Labour trashed enabled the brightest and best from all walks of life to be fast tracked into leadership roles in Government. That education was free at the point of use and it was all removed and dismantled and replaced with comprehensive schools. A new 'progressive' style of teaching just cemented the rot.

Labour took a wrecking ball to that World class educational system and replaced it with a system of comprehensive schools citing 'equality' for all. The result - the worst social 'failure' for generation after generation, which political parties and educational authorities could ever address (and still won't) If you were absolutely average you had no problem. But if you were very bright or needing extra support or supervision the comprehensive school did nothing for you. So now the same Labour party are hell bent on stopping private schools.

It is helpful to know how life operates at the sharp end of life; to be able to understand human behaviour at its worst in order to create coherent and practical effective public policy on the back of it. That used to happen when those with a high IQ and academic education could create sensible policy and had the foresight to see what the consequences would be of putting imaginative new policies into practice. The 'elite' have always creamed off leaders from public schools for the Government civil service or political stage. Mostly those individuals haven't a clue about the hard life in lawless wild west estates or life on benefits.

Labour do not want you to have choice they want their own state imposed and state controlled systems. The public schools with better academic results embarrass the state education system. The Irony is that most Labour leaders were educated at private schools, and push their children into private schools. Politicians wanting to trash public schools who want to do this should be questioned. They do not have the welfare of ordinary people at their heart and will always try to make you believe otherwise - if you are not bright enough to see through their intentions.

Back in the early 2000s, Edwardian politician Jacob Rees-Mogg said that state educated people are 'potted plants' and that only privately educated people should be allowed to run the country.
This is outright prejudice and is further evidence that Britain has always had a reputation for elitism.
For some reason, people who go to private school think they're better and superior to everyone else, when they haven't a clue what it's like to live in the real world.

I think you've taken (probably by accident) JRM's quote out of context.
Look it up, he was opposing contextual admissions, saying that it would be wrong for someone who was not academically up to Oxford's pace to be admitted based solely on improving diversity data. 'Potted plants' means someone that is 'planted' for a reason other than academic merit.
Not that I like him though, even as a member of the Conservative party. And I do think contextual admissions are needed.