House Price Crash Discussion Thread

Nenen

merlinthehappypig wrote: »

If we don't get back on topic I forsee another wrist slapping and a 'no more comprehensive v private education threads' request......

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
I wonder where this thread will be moved to then!

There is a (somewhat tenuous) link between HPC and private ed.... if house prices drop then maybe more people could afford private ed (assuming they wanted it). Conversely, if, as some suggest, a HPC causes/is part of a recession and people lose jobs then they won't be able to afford private ed! On the other hand, if there is a HPC then more people would be able to buy houses in 'desirable' catchment areas and may not feel the need for private ed.

For the record... (hoping I can sneak this under the wire of the eagle eyed mods ) I taught in a variety of state schools for 19 years (including an excellent school in a very deprived part of London) but now work in a private school. Two of my children were educated entirely in the state system and my dd was mainly state educated but had 5 terms of private ed due to her specific learning difficulties. ds1 graduated last year, dd in final year at uni and ds2 going to uni this autumn. So I feel fairly 'qualified' to give opinions on private v state for anyone who is interested (but probably not on this thread)! My ds1's opinion/experience of privately educated students at his uni was very similar to that expressed by Miss Moneypenny!

I find it sad that the exchange of views re HPC has declined so much of late as it is a topic very close to my heart and will have a profound effect on the quality of the rest of my life! Not sure if this is purely due to the 'one thread rule' or if everyone is just waiting with bated breath to see what will happen next. I just wish I had a crystal ball!

beingjdc

I'd like to think house price debate has died down because it's just patently obvious that with banks refusing to lend to a whole chunk of people and on a whole chunk of terms on which they would previously end, prices are going to fall at least in the short term as there's less demand.

I repeat my frequently made point, the big strategic question which determines whether we have a 10% correction or a 40% crash is whether, with a downturn in the building industry and economy generally, a lot of recent immigrants decamp back to their countries of origin when the work dries up, or not.

There are some statistical released due this week (Land Registry and Nationwide, I think), so it might all kick off again, but monthly statistics are hardly conclusive evidence of anything.

On the new-topic, it's true enough that my girlfriend went to a much more prestigious school than I did, was spoon-fed for GCSE and A-Levels, and did as a result struggle when she got into a university which was probably above her abilities.

neverdespairgirl

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I thought the benefits of private school education are the small classes and the spoon feeding? Bright children will do well regardless of whether they have state or private education.

Of the private schools I went to, there was the opposite of spoon feeding, and not smaller classes up to GCSE either. Independent research and study was very much encouraged. From 11 to 16, class sizes were ITRO 28 pupils, which isn't particularly small. At A level, they were a max of 12, however.

The school I went to was a selective, very academic school. There were no discipline problems, the teaching was fantastic, and the facilities excellent - great science labs, music and art facilities, swimming and gym buildings, a theatre, and a wonderful library. There were a huge number of extra activities available after school and during the holidays, as well.

I had a very good education, and I'm very grateful for it.

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The private school will help their pupils to get into a good university, but they are on their own after that, as many found out (and struggled) at the university my son went to.

Everyone is once they go to university, so I don't quite see the difference.

nobblyned

Mr._H wrote: »

Some more info to back up my ranting:

This is a table of the results from the Office Of National Statistics survey of salaries in 2007. It shows that the average salary was £24,908, the median (50% earn more, 50% less) was £19,943, and 90% of people working full-time earn less than £42,902.

And the same data for those employed in inner london shows the average as £53,600, median £34,000 and 90% earning less than £88,000.

So £39k not really outstanding then, well below average in fact...

MissMoneypenny

beingjdc wrote: »

We didn't get spoon fed.

beingjdc wrote: »

* Some selection. Not much, in reality nobody ever failed the entrance exam, and we had our share of the rich-but-thick, but the teachers were not wedded to moving at the pace of the slowest. We were in sets or streams from the second year. .

To get the results from those “thick” kids (although I am sure that most parents think their own children are clever) they would have had to spoon feed. How are the school going to attract fee payers, if their results are bad? Look at what Harry’s school did for him.

My aunt taught in a private school for 40+ years and they did spoon feed. They had to do more of this as time went on as they found academic parents (i.e. doctors) were sending their children to state schools and that private schools were getting more children from parents that would normally have sent their children to state schools. Not many failed their entrance exam as it was set at an easy level and she said any basic standard primary school child could easily pass it. They had the children of some famous parents at their school.

State schools stream too. Where we use to live, the local village primary school streamed for maths for years 5 and 6 and a select few were taught maths at a higher level. The senior schools streamed for subjects after the first term of year 7.

beingjdc wrote: »

* (Controversial I know, but) Only about 10% of our pupils did not have English as a first language, compared to more like 50% in a number of other local schools - 93% in the one where my mother taught. Even that 10% were encouraged by their families to learn English to a decent level.

Good point. All the pupils at our local state school, had English as a first language. However, children aren't at school for many hours and most of the education comes from the home. Some children don't have a parent at home when school finishes or a parent to look after them during the holidays, and some are sent to nursery at very young age (yet another another controversial subject I know).

beingjdc wrote: »

I'm not sure bright children do well in every school. They'll do well in a good state school with a good catchment area. They'll do well in another school if their parents keep fighting, but I know several schools where they will be unable to learn half the time because of disruption, and displays of intelligence will often be discouraged through break-time beatings.

Perhaps not all schools. We moved away from London to raise our children and then moved back home to London when they finished their education. I’m a born and bred Londoner, but London had changed too much for my liking, for my children to grow up there. As a child, I use to travel all over London, but that can’t be done in safety now. I wanted my children to be able to walk to the local shop, use public transport and be able to walk to school, just like I had done. We had to move out of London for them to be able to do all that in safety.

Discipline in schools seems to be a fear of many parents. Pupils were expelled for bad behaviour at our local state school. Their parents then had to fund private schooling or find another state school if they didn’t have spare money.

To get this back onto property, good catchment areas meant that house prices were more expensive in those areas. The heads are the ones that make a school though, so if a good head moves, that will mean house prices will drop in those inflated areas.

Some advantages of state school are:-

*Those that are not very academic, are not set up to fail at university. All 5 of the private educated children that my son shared his first student house with, got very low grade degrees or failed. Their parents expected too much as they had got good A level grades from their private schools. .Just too much pressure from the parents about how much money they spent of their education. Although one girl did say that she was clever and that’s why she had a private education. She was very, very upset with her low degree result. Another was caught out when he used a published student’s work from the Internet and tried to pass it off for his own. The stupid thing was, he was a bright kid and if he had been taught to work for his results, he would have got his head down and got a good degree, instead of a fail.

*The tremendous sports facilities that some state schools also offer. One of my son’s friends received sponsorship to an American university and will be a very rich basketball player.:D Another pupil competed in the Olympics.

*The facilities can be far superior than private schools can provide. The more a good state school does well, the more money they get from the government. The better results they get, the more they attract the clever children. Then better results. Then more money from government and so on.

What it really comes down to is spending a lot of time with your child and getting to know their true abilities. If the local state schools stream early and you are confident your child is clever enough to get into all those top sets, then I would always go for state school.

Many parents of private educated children won't find out just how educated and motivated their offspring are, until they reach university.

m00m00

the vast majority of my education was state, and I ended up with a Doctorate,


agree about the link between good state schools and house prices. While doing my research into local areas, I've been looking at the ofstead reports of local schools and those that score poorly (not that the stats are actually definitive) are generally in the areas where the housing is cheaper, and crime problems are higher.

Mr._H_2

nobblyned wrote: »

And the same data for those employed in inner london shows the average as £53,600, median £34,000 and 90% earning less than £88,000.

So £39k not really outstanding then, well below average in fact...

The thing is that the average is heavily skewed by the super-high salaries at the top end. Yes, it is true that the average salary in inner London is £48,662 (well above £39,000), but the median is £31,509, 60% earn less than £36,229, and 70% earn less than £42,792 (table here).

And, again, what seems to have gone over your head is that living in London is a choice. London is one of the most expensive cities on earth, and just because someone living there earning £39,000 is "only" earning more than approximately 65% of the population of London, doesn't stop them from being well-off. They are well-off because they can afford to live in one of the most expensive cities on earth and still earn more than 65% of its inhabitants.

This argument started because someone suggested that the upper-rate tax band (which starts around £39,000) should be raised by £10,000. Given the examples in this thread that show how "hard" it is to live in London for £39,000, how do you think the 65% of Londoners earning less than that manage to do it? Isn't it deeply insulting to their situation to suggest that it should be the 45% best-off individuals who should get a tax break, rather than, let's say, the 20% of people in London earning less than £18,441?

And quite why when considering a tax break for any section of society we should focus purely on London to try and justify it, is beyond me.

Generali

Nenen wrote: »

Did you mean you were being harsh in your original comment about the guy Generali or me in my reply based on your comment?

From the comments you've just made I'd say, as he is a genuinely lovely chap and has the ability to do all the above, the school did an excellent job and helped him reach his potential. The difficulty I have with some parents who send their child to private school is that a few think that, because they are paying, the school can somehow 'make a silk purse out of a sows ear' and turn a child of limited academic ability into a genius! Obviously the aim of any school is to enable every child to achieve his/her potential and encourage him/her to become an all round 'good egg', constructive member of society, able to live a full and happy life. As far as I'm concerned, if I achieve that, then I'm happy irrespective of whether the child goes on to win a Nobel prize!

I meant that the idea that I read into your comments that his school couldn't make a silk purse from his being a sow's ear was possibly a little harsh given the other (previously unrevealed) aspects of his personality.

Not a criticism of you Nenen old thing, just an unravelling of an old memory on my part.

It's funny where the conversation in the ghetto leads.

wolvoman

Mr._H wrote: »

And, again, what seems to have gone over your head is that living in London is a choice. London is one of the most expensive cities on earth, and just because someone living there earning £39,000 is "only" earning more than approximately 65% of the population of London, doesn't stop them from being well-off. They are well-off because they can afford to live in one of the most expensive cities on earth and still earn more than 65% of its inhabitants.

Living in the UK is a choice too. By your own admission anyone earning the minimum wage in the UK is well-off in comparison to where they 'could' choose to live in the world.

Mr._H wrote: »

Isn't it deeply insulting to their situation to suggest that it should be the 45% best-off individuals who should get a tax break, rather than, let's say, the 20% of people in London earning less than £18,441?

Don't lower earners already have huge tax breaks as it is with lower income tax rates, family tax credits and so on?

WTF?_2

Nenen wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I find it sad that the exchange of views re HPC has declined so much of late as it is a topic very close to my heart and will have a profound effect on the quality of the rest of my life! Not sure if this is purely due to the 'one thread rule' or if everyone is just waiting with bated breath to see what will happen next. I just wish I had a crystal ball!

The idea was clearly to try to stifle discussion on falling prices by shoehorning discussion into a single thread.

Don't underestimate the sort of animosity that a discussion of price drops can cause - people get very defensive about the price of their houses and how 'rich' they have become thanks to HPI.

It's pretty amazing that the thread has lasted and stayed active for as long as it has, given that all it takes is for enough off-topic momentum to build to effectively kill on-topic discussion.

Hopefully all the private education stuff can go off to a different thread as it really is killing the thread.