Private school pupils end up £200,000 richer

bizarrely he telegraph managed to report this as showing that private education didn't pay for itself - which seems like a pretty perverse interpretation of the numbers.

Private school cost 'outweighs child’s future earnings’

I wonder if it's because they employ too many ex-public school arts and humanities graduates

People who went to private school are now earning 43% more an hour than people that went to state schools.

Does this expose the structural flaws of the British state school system, or simply that the rich are getting richer...

I think this is fantastic news showing the success of schools in this country. Surely evidence that selective education works (most private schools have entrance exams like grammar) and that we should seek to expand access.

If one really wants to turn the tide in class then take the children on free school meals and make sure half of those able to pass the entrance exams get access to grammar and private education.

Yes it definitely makes sense.

Looks like someone is going to be richer than all you state school people.

People who went to private school are now earning 43% more an hour than people that went to state schools.

Does this expose the structural flaws of the British state school system, or simply that the rich are getting richer...

x

People try to claim that the schools will cost more than £200,000 anyway, but in fairness that is very rarely the case.

Let's be honest here this is correlation rather than causation. If your parents are rich they are a) more likely to have contacts and b) can pay your way through internships etc to get the best paid jobs. They also will give you a lot of money.

This is basically 'rich people end up £200,000 richer.

My brother sure as hell won't end up that much richer than me.

Are you really saying that private schools don't give you a better chance than normal state schools?

In the South East, for day school, over a 13 year school career that sounds about right, though not in the regions.

If they board it definitely would, any halfway decent boaring school now is over 30k.

Expanding selective education would mean that it ceases to be fully selective - thus lowering the wage gap and rendering it not much use.

Not really, though the article doesn't clearly present the reasoning.

The study shows that private education is naively correlated with a £200k increase in earnings between 26 and 42. When they crudely correct for pre-existing aptitude differences between private and state school pupils this drops to £57,653. The real figure is probably lower because they corrected for aptitude by correlating it with parental wealth, whereas most private schools are directly academically selective via aptitude tests, not only indirectly via fees. But giving the benefit of the doubt and accepting the £60k figure.

If the average school fee is £12k for a day pupil as they claim, putting the money in a bank account between the ages of 11 and 18 would have built a pot of £84k. The bank option at 18 is already ahead of where the private school option is at 42! But it gets worse. If invested, this pot could be expected to grow at at least 3-4% annually in real terms. At the age of 42 it would be worth £213k @ 3.5% (£315k @ 5%) and could be used to draw a stable income of £6k/year for life.

The Telegraph is just treating education as a regular investment which is expected to repay itself after costs and interest in each individual case, rather than counting any non-zero amount of gross revenue as 'profit', as education apologists prefer. While there's nothing to compare it to, it seems likely that state education is also loss making in many instances.

Are you really saying that private schools don't give you a better chance than normal state schools?