Is this a good school based on A levels results??

parkrunner

JReacher1 wrote: »

Ok in actual numbers state schools provide more but you have to remember that there are a lot more state educated pupils than privately educated pupils so a much greater proportion of students who are educated private go to oxbridge as opposed to state educated pupils.

I agree, but I think it shows the top state school students still have an excellent chance of getting into Oxbridge. They want the best regardless of where they were educated. Now Harrow or Eton (although not universities) I think is very different.

JReacher1

parkrunner wrote: »

I agree, but I think it shows the top state school students still have an excellent chance of getting into Oxbridge. They want the best regardless of where they were educated. Now Harrow or Eton (although not universities) I think is very different.

How many of the state schools whoses students go to oxford/Cambridge are selective?

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the oxford state school intakes split into the type of state school they've come from.

BorisThomson

fred246 wrote: »

If you have £32k - £34k a year you can send your child to a top boarding school. They will look after your child every minute of the day. They have a tradition of sending children to Oxbridge. A lot of parents that I mix with are both working long hours to pay for private education. While they are working their children are being looked after by all sorts of childcare. All sorts of ratios of children to adults. Normally very low pay. The schools they send the children to are local private schools which are basically the same as state schools it's just that you pay for them. I think you are better off sending them to state schools and spending more time with your own children.

One thing I learned at private school was to have an open mind, examine all the facts before forming an opinion.

Your narrow, non fact based view of private education suggests this skill entirely passed you by.

fred246

In the UK the state provides free education to everyone using taxpayers money. I had 3 children approaching secondary school age. I was already paying for their education but I had the ability to pay twice - if I wanted to. For 3 children to go to the local private school would cost me another £230k in fees before their expensive uniforms. So the decision was pay £0 or £230k. This is a money saving site. So we went to all the open days. Classrooms, computers, gyms, musical instruments, sports teams, trips. All the same really. We asked everyone we met "what are the advantages of paying for something you can get free?". I asked lots of people and got no good answer. Maybe you could explain?

JReacher1

fred246 wrote: »

In the UK the state provides free education to everyone using taxpayers money. I had 3 children approaching secondary school age. I was already paying for their education but I had the ability to pay twice - if I wanted to. For 3 children to go to the local private school would cost me another £230k in fees before their expensive uniforms. So the decision was pay £0 or £230k. This is a money saving site. So we went to all the open days. Classrooms, computers, gyms, musical instruments, sports teams, trips. All the same really. We asked everyone we met "what are the advantages of paying for something you can get free?". I asked lots of people and got no good answer. Maybe you could explain?

It's impossible to say unless you provide the actual state schools, and private schools you looked at as all are different.

At a very high level private education tends to be smaller class sizes and more money spent per pupil so the quality of education is better. In addition they invest a lot in extra curricula activities e.g, sports that state schools can't afford to do. You may also get a more rounded education with subjects being offered that state schools don't offer. From a snobby point of view it also means that your kids will mix with kids from a more affluent backgrounds while at a state school anyone can attend.

Of course it depends on the quality of the state schools you have in your local area. I was lucky enough to attend a selective state grammar school and although there were private schools in the area the quality of education provided by the state grammar schools was outstanding so no real need to pay.

fred246

So we have got
Small class sizes - controversial question in education. More important in early years. Not worth £230k IMO
Expensive sports - most sports are quite cheap anyway. I suppose my children might have missed out on polo. Not worth £230k. You could play polo in spare time cheaper.
More rounded, spend more per head - non specific waffle - not worth £230k
Mixing with affluent kids - one teacher told me to avoid private schools because of drugs. If you were a pusher would you target rich or poor children?

JReacher1

fred246 wrote: »

So we have got
Small class sizes - controversial question in education. More important in early years. Not worth £230k IMO
Expensive sports - most sports are quite cheap anyway. I suppose my children might have missed out on polo. Not worth £230k. You could play polo in spare time cheaper.
More rounded, spend more per head - non specific waffle - not worth £230k
Mixing with affluent kids - one teacher told me to avoid private schools because of drugs. If you were a pusher would you target rich or poor children?

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about private education. It is a choice that people make as they think it benefits their children and they can afford it. It appears that you can't afford it and for some reason seek to belittle people who do go to private school. I suspect it is a class problem you have as you seem to believe people in private school spend their time playing polo.

I agree with you about the drugs. It is a well known fact that all these people you see on the streets with serious drugs problems did in fact attend schools like eton and since have fallen on hard times. In addition all drug dealers themselves are privately educated and sit next to your kids in class when they are doing Latin

fred246

I could afford private education. When I am spending that sort of money I just like to think "why am I doing this?" We played rugby, cricket, football. All sports that are cheap for everyone. You said my children have missed out on expensive sports. Polo was the only one that came to mind. Which expensive sports were you thinking of? They all went on multiple annual skiing trips.
I would have thought educated people would often ask why. Why do people get worked up when I ask "why pay for private education?"

JReacher1

fred246 wrote: »

I could afford private education. When I am spending that sort of money I just like to think "why am I doing this?" We played rugby, cricket, football. All sports that are cheap for everyone. You said my children have missed out on expensive sports. Polo was the only one that came to mind. Which expensive sports were you thinking of? They all went on multiple annual skiing trips.
I would have thought educated people would often ask why. Why do people get worked up when I ask "why pay for private education?"

The problem we have here is that you are providing no details of which state schools and private schools you are comparing. It is therefore impossible to provide any genuine examples between which school is better. Not all private schools are better than state schools and not all state schools are better than private schools. What tends to be the case is private schools have more money so can invest more in their pupils.

A third of all UK Olympic medalists at the last two Olympics went to private school which is not a coincidence (apparently 7% of pupils are educated privately). Sports like rowing for instance are unlikely to be on offer at the local comprehensive school (although I am sure some state schools offer it). In addition if you excel at a sport then going to a private school with the facilities on offer can really help your development. Millfield school for example have 50 former pupils a year who are picked to represent their country. I would be surprised if a state school can compete with those sort of figures.

fred246

Just looking. Millfield school would have cost me £240k per child for secondary education. I did say earlier that I thought these schools were probably a bit special. It's the private school down the road that people send their children to so the parents can say "I sent my child to a private school" that I don't think are worth it. I probably couldn't afford £720k to send them all to Millfield. They aren't very sporty anyway although the oldest did do rowing at 6th form and is on the university boat team.