The Student Room Group

private school vs state school

Which is better?
In my experience, everyone who went to state school thinks its better for kids to go to state school - they have an idea that sending your kids to private school is like sealing them off from the real world
Whereas private schools tend to get better results and more people sent to top universities

I do not know anyone who has gone to a private school but i have always felt jealous of them since the state school i go to is really ****

anyway, whats all your opinions?

Scroll to see replies

They each have their merits and drawbacks, but personally I'd say Grammars take the best parts of state and private schools.

Coming from someone who's only ever been to state comps.
Personally, as someone who had the option to go to private school but chose state school (i'm in Y11), I think that if you go to state school you will be a lot more aware of different cultures and backgrounds. I think the education is better in a private school but I think if you work hard enough you could do well at any school. I know I'm predicted higher grades than most of the girls at the private school my mum works in.
Original post by madsfilms
Personally, as someone who had the option to go to private school but chose state school (i'm in Y11), I think that if you go to state school you will be a lot more aware of different cultures and backgrounds. I think the education is better in a private school but I think if you work hard enough you could do well at any school. I know I'm predicted higher grades than most of the girls at the private school my mum works in.


I mean if you were a parent (assuming you had the money), which would you view as more important? Personally i would chose having a good education as more important. And yeah youre predicted higher grades but theres nothing to say they wouldnt be even higher had you gone to private school.
Original post by Amanzhol
They each have their merits and drawbacks, but personally I'd say Grammars take the best parts of state and private schools.

Coming from someone who's only ever been to state comps.


Im actually against grammar schools. People say they benefit disadvantaged kids but they dont, they only slightly benefit bright disadvantaged kids (who are the minority) and mostly benefit middle class kids.
Original post by Nihilisticb*tch
I mean if you were a parent (assuming you had the money), which would you view as more important? Personally i would chose having a good education as more important. And yeah youre predicted higher grades but theres nothing to say they wouldnt be even higher had you gone to private school.


I wouldn't want my child growing up in a bubble, I would prefer my child to be aware of their surroundings than smart, I guess you could call it 'street-smart'. I would use the money saved on their education to do other things so that my child is a bit more well-rounded. But that's just me and if you value education and intelligence more, then a private school would be the best option.
Original post by madsfilms
I wouldn't want my child growing up in a bubble, I would prefer my child to be aware of their surroundings than smart, I guess you could call it 'street-smart'. I would use the money saved on their education to do other things so that my child is a bit more well-rounded. But that's just me and if you value education and intelligence more, then a private school would be the best option.


See I disagree with you there. I can raise my child to be aware of such issues but they dont need to experience them directly. And its not necessarily that intelligence and acadamia are more important in a superficial sense but i would want my child to have the best chance in life. And i think you speak from a priviliged perspective : Youre obviously smart and perhaps dont go to a REALLY bad state school. It was only by the skin of my teeth that i got a place at the state school I go to which is still **** but its better than the other option. If you arent super intelligent or you go to a really bad state school, it is virtually impossible to get good grades. Lessons are interrupted 99% of the time so theres no way of possibly learning. With state schools its just pot luck which one you end up at and even the good ones arent really that good. With private school you can have a choice
from best to worst:

good private school
good state school/grammar
bad private school
bad state school

-- the argument that going to a state school is great because you get to meet people from all walks of life is just bolloks:

1, you can do that outside of school - just join a local club/group if you care about it that much.
2, you have your whole life to meet people and broaden your experience, best to focus on your education while your young.
3, its risky for parents, friends are hugely influential - In my professional life, I have seen many good quite kids get into the wrong crowd of people and then ruin their chances in education just because they want to fit in, and they want to follow their new friends. Also, what is more valuable in the long-run, letting your kid mix with all cultures and backgrounds - or letting your kids mix with people who will one day probably be running the country, and be in charge of its biggest companies?

The decision for parents should be simple:

1, can you afford private school? yes/no.. if no, then send them to the best free school that you can.
2, does your kid have other talents/passions that would benefit from investment? (arts, sports, etc)
3, can you afford to invest in both? - if so, go to private school and invest in their passions/talents.. if not, choose what is more important to you
4, are you resentful of rich people, and look down on them? if so, ignore whats most likely to bring your kids success, and send them to state schools.

- Its amazing how many of the liberal elite who desire equality, still send their kids to private schools (a lot of the labour high-ups for instance). What we do with our kids really draws back to our basic instincts, and they normally end up in us doing whats best for them, regardless of how it effects others.
Thanks for your input
I prefer non-selective state schools. It teaches children to exceed on their own merits rather than relying on privilege.
Original post by fallen_acorns
from best to worst:

good private school
good state school/grammar
bad private school
bad state school

-- the argument that going to a state school is great because you get to meet people from all walks of life is just bolloks:

1, you can do that outside of school - just join a local club/group if you care about it that much.
2, you have your whole life to meet people and broaden your experience, best to focus on your education while your young.
3, its risky for parents, friends are hugely influential - In my professional life, I have seen many good quite kids get into the wrong crowd of people and then ruin their chances in education just because they want to fit in, and they want to follow their new friends. Also, what is more valuable in the long-run, letting your kid mix with all cultures and backgrounds - or letting your kids mix with people who will one day probably be running the country, and be in charge of its biggest companies?

The decision for parents should be simple:

1, can you afford private school? yes/no.. if no, then send them to the best free school that you can.
2, does your kid have other talents/passions that would benefit from investment? (arts, sports, etc)
3, can you afford to invest in both? - if so, go to private school and invest in their passions/talents.. if not, choose what is more important to you
4, are you resentful of rich people, and look down on them? if so, ignore whats most likely to bring your kids success, and send them to state schools.

- Its amazing how many of the liberal elite who desire equality, still send their kids to private schools (a lot of the labour high-ups for instance). What we do with our kids really draws back to our basic instincts, and they normally end up in us doing whats best for them, regardless of how it effects others.


Lots of people at my school resent private schools because they hate rich people. I am actually fairly liberal and would say that state schools should aim to be as good as private schools in terms of out comes but private schools should just be a luxury. As ljberal as anyone can be, you havr to accept that it is impossible for everyone to have an equal start in life. Even if you send a diasdvantaged kid to privste school they may not do as well due to whats going on at home.
Original post by Sulfolobus
I prefer non-selective state schools. It teaches children to exceed on their own merits rather than relying on privilege.


Succeed maybe.

Personally I think that a good school has a) excellent teachers b) excellent opportunities available to students c) a positive educational environment that encourages students to succeed and engage with what's going on.

That could be any school, but in reality that describes mostly private schools, grammar schools and the odd outstanding other school. Private schools certainly benefit from money helping with the staff and opportunities side of things, and the positive educational environment is in small part (but not wholly) helped by student selection i.e. passing entrance exams, so students are pre-profiled.

So the answer to the question is statistically private schools I suppose.

I don't think there is much in the idea that you don't get to meet a diverse group of people at private school vs state schools. Both have cultural and ethnic diversity. To make the opposite argument for the sake of it, all private schools I know of are technically (somehow) charities and accept a number of students on scholarships who come from families who would not be able to afford it, so there is an element of financial diversity (although small). Parents of all sorts of cultural and ethnic backgrounds who do well for themselves can send their kids to private schools so that happens. You could argue that a lot of private schools accept numbers of international students - which is not something that happens in state schools and allows for a huge degree of cultural and social diversity/connection. And of course, you don't tend to meet a lot of people from well-off backgrounds in state schools compared with private schools - in a way that matches the fact you don't meet so many people from less well-off backgrounds in private schools. So really I think the situation is moot. If anything at private school you're more likely to get a kind of 'training' in life smarts when it comes to soft skills like self-presentation and networking/communicating with adults/self-confidence type skills which partly accounts for why kids who've been sent to private school tend to do better in interviews overall (at least fresh out of school when a bit of prior practice helps). Certain things have been socially trained into them. Long paragraph but I guess I just wanted to point out that you meet a diverse group in both state and private schools, equally meet less of your 'opposites' in society at both (so both sides lose out on that one) and certain life smarts are better gained from private schools than state schools, on the whole. Obviously this is all generalising, there will be exceptions to the rule.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by Interea
I went to a state school until year 8, then moved to a private school to avoid the awful state high school in my area. I was definitely fortunate that my parents could afford this change, as I got so much more freedom in subject choices from the school being able to offer more, and a much greater challege from being in a selective school.

At times I am all too aware of the lack of diversity of any kind at my school (we frequently discuss it, and all agree it’s not a good thing), but considering the state alternative it was certainly a good decision. I wouldn’t have liked to be in the private school system from the start though, as growing up alongside people from so many different backgrounds is really important to help develop a wider understanding of our population - there are several people in my year group that have been at a private school since the age of 4, and you can tell they’re just missing that extra layer of appreciation for their fortunate position.


I think if i sent my child to private school, i would only send them in high school. I think for those who have been in private school from the start, the understanding of their privileged position can come from proper parenting.
Original post by Nihilisticb*tch
Which is better?
In my experience, everyone who went to state school thinks its better for kids to go to state school - they have an idea that sending your kids to private school is like sealing them off from the real world
Whereas private schools tend to get better results and more people sent to top universities

I do not know anyone who has gone to a private school but i have always felt jealous of them since the state school i go to is really ****

anyway, whats all your opinions?


No, I agree. I really really regret going to a grammar school now. Both grammars and privates are echo-chambers full of middle/upper class kids who are often only marginally smarter than the people they believe to be idiots, which is wrong in itself. The attitudes at grammar schools are deeply deeply elitist. The funny thing is that, once you get to sixth form, most of the nice people are from other schools.
You only need a grammar or private school if you yourself lack independence when it comes to exams.
But, even then, I am not sure that the benefits outweight the mind-rotting psychological effects.
They should really be abolished.
Original post by Nihilisticb*tch
Which is better?
In my experience, everyone who went to state school thinks its better for kids to go to state school - they have an idea that sending your kids to private school is like sealing them off from the real world
Whereas private schools tend to get better results and more people sent to top universities

I do not know anyone who has gone to a private school but i have always felt jealous of them since the state school i go to is really ****

anyway, whats all your opinions?


I've gone to both and it really doesn't matter. If you're not lazy, you will do well. If you are lazy, you'll blame your bad results on the school.
Original post by That'sGreat
I've gone to both and it really doesn't matter. If you're not lazy, you will do well. If you are lazy, you'll blame your bad results on the school.

I strongly disagree lmao. I get good results but i think i would be getting better results if i hadnt lost so much learning time to **** teachers and endless disruption. I have had to teach large portions of the syllabus to myself for some subjects. Its ludicrous to say that the school has no effect on you.
Original post by ugaaa5
No, I agree. I really really regret going to a grammar school now. Both grammars and privates are echo-chambers full of middle/upper class kids who are often only marginally smarter than the people they believe to be idiots, which is wrong in itself. The attitudes at grammar schools are deeply deeply elitist. The funny thing is that, once you get to sixth form, most of the nice people are from other schools.
You only need a grammar or private school if you yourself lack independence when it comes to exams.
But, even then, I am not sure that the benefits outweight the mind-rotting psychological effects.
They should really be abolished.

I see your point of view but honestly if youve never been to a **** state school youll never understand just how **** it is. I have gone to a supposedly good state school but still lost years worth of learning to having **** teachers, constant disruption and an all round lack of resources. That is a negative aspect of grammar schools but i would take that over what i got lumped with.
Original post by Sulfolobus
I prefer non-selective state schools. It teaches children to exceed on their own merits rather than relying on privilege.


what do you think of sets, or tiered classes based on ability?

For example - people like to think that if we have a non-selective state school, everyone receives an equal education, but in a lot of cases what ends up happening is that it moves the selection internal rather then external. So internally state schools have selective classes, putting the best students together based on ability and competence.

I have a lot of respect for people who think that a truly mixed, equal and non-selective education is the way forward.. its not my personal choice, but it makes ideological sense.

What I don't like at the moment is where we have a raft of education professionals, who hate the notion of selectivity between schools, but are happy to implement selectivity within schools. so:

Instead of having X school for the most able, and X school for the lesser able..
you end up with 2 schools, each with X class for the most able, and X class for the lesser able..

Its a distinction without much of a difference..
Original post by Nihilisticb*tch
I see your point of view but honestly if youve never been to a **** state school youll never understand just how **** it is. I have gone to a supposedly good state school but still lost years worth of learning to having **** teachers, constant disruption and an all round lack of resources. That is a negative aspect of grammar schools but i would take that over what i got lumped with.


Yes, I understand. I have been to one before though, and I was doing pretty well there too.
But, the problem with me is that school seemed to be a hinderance for me altogether to the point that I didn't really pay attention in class and just stared into space...
then I went home and read the book for 10 minutes!
Original post by fallen_acorns
what do you think of sets, or tiered classes based on ability?

For example - people like to think that if we have a non-selective state school, everyone receives an equal education, but in a lot of cases what ends up happening is that it moves the selection internal rather then external. So internally state schools have selective classes, putting the best students together based on ability and competence.

I have a lot of respect for people who think that a truly mixed, equal and non-selective education is the way forward.. its not my personal choice, but it makes ideological sense.

What I don't like at the moment is where we have a raft of education professionals, who hate the notion of selectivity between schools, but are happy to implement selectivity within schools. so:

Instead of having X school for the most able, and X school for the lesser able..
you end up with 2 schools, each with X class for the most able, and X class for the lesser able..

Its a distinction without much of a difference..

You cant compare internal selection to external selection. My mum is a teacher and i have to tell you that tiering sets is essential for both the performance of lower ability students and higher ability. The higher ability students can be pushed further and the lower ability students can spend more time on the basics without slowing everyone else down. The main difference is that internal selection is fluid and changeable. If a child surpasses the ability of the rest of their group they can be moved up and likewise others can be moved down. It isnt static like with grammar schools.

Quick Reply

Latest