Private school fees (merged)

Lunar_Eclipse

tomstickland wrote: »

So, in reality, there are no dross anywhere?

That would be nice!

emsywoo123

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

Well that is a big question. Only one you can answer of course.

It is one of those questions that only the benefit of hindsight can answer factually. So 'it depends'. On the school. On the children in question. On luck. On your expectations. On your financial circumstances. On your values. Etc.

I know of people who will not send their daughters to private school because they believe they will end up being SAHM and thus (to a degree) 'waste' their education. (Don't shoot the messenger!)

Oh my god can of worms alert!:rotfl:
a) why would a privately educated child be any more likely thatn a state educated child to stay at home? (admitted implication not explicit)
b) why would a parent assume their child will turn out to be a SAHM
c) so what if they do? they might not be a SAHM forever.......

thanksalot

natalie1974 wrote: »

The 100% pass rate is a bonus for me personally , but my daughter has been at this school since 2 yrs of age , she started in the nursery and I just loved the family feel there is to the school . You can't force a kid to learn if they don't want to , my daughter just happens to like school work and happens to be thriving where she is .

Fine. But then don't say that the reason she goes there is because the state schools are bad.
She goes there because you like it and it suits you.

emsywoo123

Sir_Broke wrote: »

I agree thats bad

Hi and welcome to MSE, nice thread to launch yourself onto!!
If you want to reply to a comment, a good idea is to press the quote button so we can see what you are referring to. Comments get posted so quickly it is easy to lose track!:D

emsywoo123

thanksalot wrote: »

Fine. But then don't say that the reason she goes there is because the state schools are bad.
She goes there because you like it and it suits you.

But if there was a state school locally that offered all that the private school did, then Natalie woudl not have to go private.
I rest my case your honour!:D

Lunar_Eclipse

thanksalot wrote: »

What an awful and patronising statement.
I can tell you that it is far from true

Why? I said I suspected that to be the case. Without knowing the school I wouldn't have a clue. However I live in an area with outstanding private schools. You know the ones in the Times Top 10 for GCSE & A level results annually. They are academically selective. Non-selective schools are another matter entirely I would then agree with you. But these selective schools with national reputations for results only take those children who they believe have the 'most potential' academically. I know that it is true.

Sorry, but the kids who go there are streets ahead of those in the neighbouring state schools. Years in fact. There is little point arguing it isn't true when this is the case. But I agree with you that success in one test does not necessarily constitute being bright (that's a separate argument). And also, this highlights that the brilliant results achieved are in part down to the intelligence that is there to begin with. Not necessarily the brilliance of the school. Which offers some solace to the rest of us.

emsywoo123

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

Why? I said I suspected that to be the case. Without knowing the school I wouldn't have a clue. However I live in an area with outstanding private schools. You know the ones in the Times Top 10 for GCSE & A level results annually. They are academically selective. Non-selective schools are another matter entirely I would then agree with you. But these selective schools with national reputations for results only take those children who they believe have the 'most potential' academically. I know that it is true.

Sorry, but the kids who go there are streets ahead of those in the neighbouring state schools. Years in fact. There is little point arguing it isn't true when this is the case. But I agree with you that success in one test does not necessarily constitute being bright (that's a separate argument). And also, this highlights that the brilliant results achieved are in part down to the intelligence that is there to begin with. Not necessarily the brilliance of the school. Which offers some solace to the rest of us.

I am utterly confused as to wether you are pro or anti private?

Lunar_Eclipse

emsywoo123 wrote: »

Oh my god can of worms alert!:rotfl:
a) why would a privately educated child be any more likely thatn a state educated child to stay at home? (admitted implication not explicit)
b) why would a parent assume their child will turn out to be a SAHM
c) so what if they do? they might not be a SAHM forever.......

Exactly. It's their 'tongue in cheek' reason.


To answer your questions (I hope my friend isn't on here:D)
a) no more likely
b) because they will marry a man rich enough to support them and that is how they are being brought up. history has a pattern of repeating itself!
c) yep that is their expectation (thus not 'wasting' their money) and i agree.

thanksalot

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

Why? I said I suspected that to be the case. Without knowing the school I wouldn't have a clue.

From age 2 they know which are the clever ones??????
(Sorry Natalie, I use your school to illustrate the point).
So either they train them for the exams, or they reject the less academic at some point. Or Both.

Lunar_Eclipse

emsywoo123 wrote: »

I am utterly confused as to wether you are pro or anti private?

Really? Why?