Social class prejudice and private schools in Britain

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

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

I wouldn't say that. People who go to state schools have real world experience because they live in the real world. What they don't get which the privately educated get in buckets is cultural capital. The trips to the theatre, ballet and opera. The trips to Iceland to see geography in action. The opportunity to learn a musical instrument. And in extreme cases, the opportunity to study pointless subjects like classics, ancient Greek and Latin. And it is these markers that the upper class use to delineate what it is to be upper class. Ability and skills have nothing to do with it as we have seen from our absolutely hopeless government of the last 13 years.

I mean I got to learn a musical instrument in state school (I was forced into doing this against my will and you had to pay for the lessons but that’s besides the point) and things like ski trips (I can’t remember the country) were offered (had to pay for the ski trip).

Sure. But when you compare that to the offering of your average private school, it is bobbins. If you pop to my local private Grammar School on a Saturday morning (my son has swimming lessons there) it is heaving with all manner of netball, football, rugby, hockey, cricket and more besides, all included in the £8k a term prices. They also have two hour lunches so that students can engage in proper extra-curricular activities rather than the 30 minute vague attempts you get in regular state schools.

That is true (I’ve seen some private schools (based on their website) that get the same 45 minute lunch break that state schools do though).

You get what you pay for I guess. £8K a term is too much, I’d only pay that much a term if a had no other choice (because all of the local state schools were trash) or if it’s for university.

In some countries it is normal to have a 2 hour lunch break, France being the example that instantly springs to mind but I’ve never seen a 2 hour lunch break in the UK unless you could university.

It's interesting that you make the point about being willing to pay university. Arguably even despite it's statistical importance, you get far more in education terms out of your schooling.

That is true (I’ve seen some private schools (based on their website) that get the same 45 minute lunch break that state schools do though).

You get what you pay for I guess. £8K a term is too much, I’d only pay that much a term if a had no other choice (because all of the local state schools were trash) or if it’s for university.

In some countries it is normal to have a 2 hour lunch break, France being the example that instantly springs to mind but I’ve never seen a 2 hour lunch break in the UK unless you could university.

Well, just for comparison, state school students pay around £4k to £4.5k per year for their education.

The difference is big. I can definitely see the difference in the quality of education and the schools though.

True, but here is something to separate the cat from the pigeons.


Just because you pay and arm and a leg does not necessarily mean you are accessing the best education. For me, city schools that take the poorest in society and give them a future are way better educationally than private schools by every conceivable measure.

Anyone can take a rich privileged brat and point them them at x10 9s and x5 A*s. The real heroes are those who take kids with nothing and get them a handful of GCSEs and a future.

The difference is big. I can definitely see the difference in the quality of education and the schools though.

Sure. But when you compare that to the offering of your average private school, it is bobbins. If you pop to my local private Grammar School on a Saturday morning (my son has swimming lessons there) it is heaving with all manner of netball, football, rugby, hockey, cricket and more besides, all included in the £8k a term prices. They also have two hour lunches so that students can engage in proper extra-curricular activities rather than the 30 minute vague attempts you get in regular state schools.

Really?

I think my school offers far more than the local Private school - good A level results for a start! The only differenc is they have lessons on a Saturday [but this 'makes up' for longer holidays], We have a one hour lunch break.

I’m talking about difference in the cost of going to a state school vs the cost of going to a private school, £24K a year vs £4K-£4.5K a year.

Not all private schools are bad or worse than state schools or vice versa it depends on the school but a part of me is more inclined to believe that private schools, selective schools, boarding schools and grammar schools are better though (on average, not in all cases obviously).

I had poor quality education in my Y7-Y11 school (see my reply about it in the other thread on schools). So not all state schools are good (my school for sixth form however was a whole different level, high quality education, no lazy teachers bar one or two you argue etc).

Grammar schools are state schools

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.