Women are dishing out more money than men for basic healthcare products, can the same be said for education? Kasia Maynard investigates the difference in price between independent boys and girls schools in South West London and Surrey.
As a woman I often find myself spending a generous amount of money on basic necessities. Marketing strategies have developed in such a way that we can't help but spend that extra two pounds on an argon oil infused, keratin-fuelled, coconut scented, pretty bottle of shampoo.
However, when I compare products that are specifically designed for women against similar products that are designed for men I notice there is a shocking price difference. Why are women paying more for the same product as men just with a more visually stimulating label?
This got me thinking, does the same price distinction apply for the most basic necessity of all, education? I have compared the prices of independent schools with similar environments, facilities and opportunities in South West London and Surrey and the results are surprising.
LONDON:
- St. Paul's Boys School Vs St. Paul's Girls School:
WIMBLEDON:
- Wimbledon High School for Girls Vs King's College for Boys:
GUILDFORD:
- Guildford High for Girls Vs Royal Grammar School:
COBHAM:
- Reed's School (Boys) Vs Notre Dame Senior School (Girls):
HAMPTON:
-Hampton Boys' School Vs Lady Eleanor Holles:
Interestingly enough, despite women paying more for their health and lifestyle products, they are paying similar if not cheaper school fees than all-boy's school. Does this mean a girls education is less valuable than a boys? Absolutely not, the schools provide a similar environment, with similar opportunities and facilities. Each school noted above provides their pupils with the best possible education in order to ensure their future success. I suspect the price discrepancies lie within a marketing aspect of what males and females are deemed most 'willing' to spend their money on rather than value for money.
