Ask a British private school boy...

[Truronian]

Abaddon, Your school sounds very similar to mine. Suspiciously so... (with the exception of the cannabis bit)

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Good link and there's much of interest in it - about football.

There is also some good material about the Celtic sports of old. In fact, as I was posting about that I had my mate sitting next to me and we mentioned these Celtic sports (Hurling was also mentioned wrt to lacross).

Did you read all of it? Of course it mentioned football, the two have an interlinked history. Maybe that's why it’s called Rugby Football? Fact is, there were 'sports' similar to Rugby many years before Webb Ellis.

However, I wonder if you read the page you linked me to? It does not actually refute the Webb Ellis claim. It just says that you cannot find enough evidence to prove or disprove it. Note that it doesn't actually give any other provable account on the birth of rugby. It does talk about its codification. And it does talk about how football was played by different rules at the school I mentioned - Rugby. It then goes on to tell you how those rules were passed around other public schools. Like Eaton.

Picking and choosing which parts of the link to highlight and ignore will simply not work with me Ram. Public Schools have tried to perpetuate the myth that they invented the game. The game, although not codified, was around for years before Webb Ellis was born.

The link shows the statute of the little public school boy running with the ball and thus “inspiring” the game of Rugby. Again, this is absolute rubbish. The plaque confirming that Webb Ellis: FIRST TOOK THE BALL IN HIS ARMS AND RAN WITH IT, THUS ORIGINATING THE DISTINCTIVE FEATURE OF THE RUGBY GAME is indicative of the elite making their assertion that ‘they’ invented the game. Obviously, not true. Codifying the rules is not “Originating the distinctive feature”.

As far as a Public School witnessing the "birth of Rugby":

Even as the story is told, young William Webb Ellis, chastised for a spontaneous act, could no more be the inventor of rugby than a Neanderthal tribal hunter who shared his kills with each according to his need could be considered to be the inventor of Communism.

Linky

You think I'm saying all of this because I am infatuated with these twisted institutions? I mean really Prince.

I don’t know why you are saying this. Really what?

You sir, need to learn something about the British Empire and Public Schools. You might want to learn something about Britain's class system in the process. You think those toffs allowed the working classes to govern the country and / or adminster their empire? Excuse me while I choke with laughter.

First of all I’m going to call you on your Strawman there. I never said that the toffs didn’t run the country. That is not to say “The Empire was built on the playing fields of Eaton”.

Get over your problems with public schools and read my previous post about Haileybury for one. Then think about, nay, go research those officers of the empire that were churned out by public schools. Then go check how many prime ministers places like Eaton created and so on and so forth.....

The Empire was built on the entrepreneurs, the common man in the cotton factories, and the mines. The common man in the navy, civilian and otherwise. The common solider who fought the wars your Eaton boys sent us to fight. True, the Public Schools have generated those who led, it has not generated those on whom the Empire was ‘built’.

Did you bother to do any of that before you went for your lazy <insert> format? Doesn't look like it mate.

Call it lazy if you will, the whole tone of your post has the smell of Lambert on it. I quite often use the &#8216;lazy&#8217; option as I only ever post whilst in work. Given that I spend all day drafting long and often complex correspondence with a multitude of people waiting to pounce on any ambiguity, you&#8217;ll forgive me if I post on CFC for something of a break from that.

 

[RameNoodle]

Abaddon, Your school sounds very similar to mine. Suspiciously so... (with the exception of the cannabis bit)

You guys could smoke cannabis?

[/bad stupid question joke]

 

[Truronian]

You guys could smoke cannabis?

[/bad stupid question joke]

Not officially, but the teachers didn't seem to care. I never smoked (aything), but the few that did often went into lessons reaking of marajuana, as did a couple of the teachers ocassionally. Our school is this exception in this area though, most private schools take a very firm stance against smoking, drinking and drugs.

 

[Abaddon]

I think thats only been added because a few years ago some stupid yr 10's thought they were really cool bringing it into school an sellnig it amongst themselves.... kinda got police record now...

 

[Brighteye]

This wouldn't surprise me. Its always struck me as funny that the upper class have adopted the violent game (rugby) whereas the lower class have adopted the more artistic game (football), when the stereotype would suggest that should be the other way round.

Who says that football is more artistic? Just because rugby is a contact sport doesn't mean that it's less artistic. Personally I think that two lines of people seeking a breakthrough in rugby, and the skill (and, yes, strength) of the players in achieving this is at least as artistic as 22 men kicking a ball around.

Not that I'd call sport artistic at all. Sport is entirely different from art. If you're trying to make it look good you've got the wrong idea about what you should be doing.

 

[Brighteye]

It's a huge issue that goes well beyond just kids stuff. Indeed, I believe that the deeply entrenched, ritualistic and institutionalised bullying at public schools has a lot to do with social conditioning for future life in society - we were conditioned to be 'top dogs', if you like. More significantly, let us not forget the close and easy relationship between public school and EMPIRE. This was conditioning towards superiority, to be dished out on a global scale!

More later on: cold baths, fagging, slavery, running the gauntlet, nose races, wedgies, soft toys as weapons, army training and use of boot heels, warming the toilet seat, early morning runs, public humiliation and so much more. These are all the building blocks that were used to construct the edifice in the child's mind that they were to be - rulers of other people - administrators of empire - harshly if need be.
I arrived into England, an Indian kid, coming from Zambia - into the stuffy, elitist, prejudiced world that is so deeply embued with the culture I mention above. I received racist abuse from day one - from teachers - as well as kids.

Narrow-mindedness is also a big area. If we consider that the notion of superiority is to be maintained at all costs, you can clearly see why they put shackles on kids' minds. So, aside from things like racism, there was also intellectual stuffiness in the way we were taught.

Unlike Winston, I got the opportunity to make a comparison between state and private education in Britain. After GCSEs (age 15 I did them), I went to Sixth Form College (SFC) in Cambridge, a state run enterprise. One could easily compare the quality of education. In fact, Oundle did pretty well in league tables, but Hills Road SFC topped the leagues for A levels for 3 years running while I was there (it was later pipped by a private sixth form college). In OT terminology, it was a veritable dichotomy between "conservatism" and "liberalism".

You've fallen into the trap of thinking that just because you think that ritualised bullying prepares people for ruling the world it's intended to prepare people to rule the world.
Bullying, public humiliation and all the others are not intended for any purpose other than the personal assertion of superiority amongst small boys (and girls), and sometimes men who haven't grown up. It was the education that was supposed to prepare people for empire.
It's not conditioning for superiority; it's merely attempted assertion of superiority, in the same way that a big wolf will nip at smaller ones and make them cringe. It's saying 'I'm the boss here'. In the same way, particularly at a boarding school, which is a far more closed society, there's a scramble to be 'top dog'.

I used to play Oundle (at rugby), and I'd agree that they're just a load of thugs. No wonder you didn't appreciate the place much.
Hills Road, on the other hand, is the best state sixth form in the country. I'm fairly sure that St. Pauls and Winchester have topped academic league tables for many years now, and I'd have heard from my friends there if Hills Road had ever truly come top. Did you go some time ago?

Finally, I'd like to redefine public, private and independent. Public schools are the subset of private schools that everyone says they are.
Independent, however, is closer to being the same thing as private. The usage of the term 'independent' to describe schools comes from the infinitely superior system of grammar schools, state secondaries and direct grant schools that we once had.
Some schools were supported by government but independent, in that they had more freedom in their institutional decisions. I may be mixing up the details a bit, but that's where the term independent comes from. This system no longer exists, so all schools are either independent and private, or state run in their entirety.

Soon we'll have 'acadamies' that are 'partnerships' of government and private investors, where the private investors will control many aspects of the school. These acadamies will be close to the old independent schools.

 

[Rambuchan]

You've fallen into the trap of thinking that just because you think that ritualised bullying prepares people for ruling the world it's intended to prepare people to rule the world. Bullying, public humiliation and all the others are not intended for any purpose other than the personal assertion of superiority amongst small boys (and girls), and sometimes men who haven't grown up. It was the education that was supposed to prepare people for empire.

It's not conditioning for superiority; it's merely attempted assertion of superiority, in the same way that a big wolf will nip at smaller ones and make them cringe. It's saying 'I'm the boss here'. In the same way, particularly at a boarding school, which is a far more closed society, there's a scramble to be 'top dog'.

Thanks for dropping in. I was finding the discussion on this topic to be a bit superficial so far.

Anyway, I think you're wrong here and that you have fallen into two traps yourself:

1) Thinking that the education and the culture are in some way mutually exclusive. They are not. They are one and the same, informing each other and supporting each other, on just about every level. Such a traditional education could not have been possible without such a ritualistic, stuffy and hierarchical culture. The very conservatism in education that I spoke of is precisely founded on notions of hierarchy, stuffiness and ritual worship of those at its peak / denegration of those at its base. Do you not agree?

2) Thinking that such closeted societies are not maintained after school, in wider society. Such closeted societies and social conditioning do go on well after school, well into the institutions of the elite that exist in society ie. elite universities and the insitutions of power (judiciary, houses of commons and lords, military etc). These institutions are riddled with the very same rituals of humiliation and bonding, the very same notions of hierarchy. They are populated by the same bloody people too because that's all they've been brought up to understand largely and that's what the institutions require of them, socially speaking at least. Birds of a feather stick together and these old dogs learn no new tricks. Why bother? Their age old tricks serve their elite preservation instincts wonderfully.

I used to play Oundle (at rugby), and I'd agree that they're just a load of thugs. No wonder you didn't appreciate the place much.

Hey, who ever said that rugby was a cosy tea party? (And I've already said I loved it.)

I must say, with my tongue firmly in my cheek and with an large dollop of self consciousness, that it sounds like you lost! You sound like another jilted rugby hopeful who got his ambitions snubbed by Oundle's superior talent and force. You sound bitter at getting an absolute drubbing from one of the country's most dominant rugby playing schools. Just admit it.

It is arrogance for sure, but like I say, the culture fuelled it. So did the results actually. We "ruled" every school we ever played. When I was there, our top three teams in my year group were unbeaten for three years in a row. Many of our games were even called short to save embarassment and pointless play. I remember games against Stowe, for example, that simply got ridiculous. We would be beating them something like 80-0 a few minutes after half time. I used to play fly half and took conversions. Well, in such games, I would get so fed up of kicking them that we would let our big chubba prop take them (he got about 1/5 btw). The only schools who ever came close to beating us were Rugby and Harrow. Even then, close means 10-15 points difference.

I'm curious to know which school you went to, if only for the rugby stories (and potentially more bragging!) But here's one insight into how nutty about the game Oundle were when I was there. We had a Religious Studies teacher by the name of Terry Cobner. Now, Terry knew jack shid about any religion and neither did it matter really. Because he was the 1st XV rubgy coach and an ex-Barbarians Captain ('77). That was enough. Once, there was a new boy who joined and he walked into Terry's class. Terry noticed his height and build straight away and stopped the class for some 10 minutes to chat with him about his rugby potential. The Buddha and Jesus be screwed, there was rugby to discuss!

Hills Road, on the other hand, is the best state sixth form in the country. I'm fairly sure that St. Pauls and Winchester have topped academic league tables for many years now, and I'd have heard from my friends there if Hills Road had ever truly come top. Did you go some time ago?

Hills Road certainly was when I was there, in 1993-95. Not that my grades did much to help

Finally, I'd like to redefine public, private and independent. Public schools are the subset of private schools that everyone says they are.
Independent, however, is closer to being the same thing as private. The usage of the term 'independent' to describe schools comes from the infinitely superior system of grammar schools, state secondaries and direct grant schools that we once had.
Some schools were supported by government but independent, in that they had more freedom in their institutional decisions. I may be mixing up the details a bit, but that's where the term independent comes from. This system no longer exists, so all schools are either independent and private, or state run in their entirety.

Soon we'll have 'acadamies' that are 'partnerships' of government and private investors, where the private investors will control many aspects of the school. These acadamies will be close to the old independent schools.

This sounds good, just until someone else comes and redefines your redefinition of my definition of someone else's definition!

As I am briefly going to say to PrinceofLeigh (because I don't have time to reply to his rugby post at length) ~ Elitism and Empire is ALL about making up the rules as you go along!

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Get over your problems with public schools and blah blah

Just as a side point could I point out that I've nothing against Public Schools themselves. If someone wants to pay for a 'better' education that's fine by me. What I detest is the status over other schooling Public Schools recieve.

As you've said, old dogs don't learn new tricks and the idea that Public Schooling grades are somehow superior is perpetuated. Same goes for university degrees. I know of a few people asked why they didn't go to a "red brick" university*.

Since you assume I have a 'problem' with public schools I shall assume you think it is because of some 'class divide' which I object to. I have no problem with Public Schools provided the grades given are treated equally. Fact is, they are not.

*Whatever the hell "red brick" means.

 

[Abaddon]

Just as a side point could I point out that I've nothing against Public Schools themselves. If someone wants to pay for a 'better' education that's fine by me. What I detest is the status over other schooling Public Schools recieve.

But you get a better education, results clearly show that...isnt that enough to grant their status.

As you've said, old dogs don't learn new tricks and the idea that Public Schooling grades are somehow superior is perpetuated. Same goes for university degrees. I know of a few people asked why they didn't go to a "red brick" university*.

I would say the reverse, its expected you get good grades at a public school, if you do well in a normal school (hate normal but forget proper word right now) its a greater achievement apparently.

Since you assume I have a 'problem' with public schools I shall assume you think it is because of some 'class divide' which I object to. I have no problem with Public Schools provided the grades given are treated equally. Fact is, they are not.

We're graded against, again, better grades are expected so not worth as much

*Whatever the hell "red brick" means.

erm...Built out of bricks? Generally red ones!.... the 'poly's are concrete monsters, generally ugly as hell.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

But you get a better education, results clearly show that...isnt that enough to grant their status.

Sorry but that is simply incorrect. The results statistics don't show that Public Schooling is a 'better' education at all. Also, results don't necessarily show 'better education' since education is only one of many factors which contribute to a person obtaining 'good' grades.

I would say the reverse, its expected you get good grades at a public school, if you do well in a normal school (hate normal but forget proper word right now) its a greater achievement apparently.

So an employer with two applicants, one with good grades from a Public School and one with less grades from a State school takes on the State School applicant on the basis that those grades are a 'greater achievement'?
Forgive me if I disagree.
In fact, I would argue that if two candidates equal in all terms bar the fact one is State educate the other Privately applied for the same job the Public Schoolboy would be hired. I've only acedotal evidence to back up this arguement so I won't take it to heart if you disagree.

We're graded against, again, better grades are expected so not worth as much

Amongst yourselves maybe, but in the outside world better grades at Public schools are worth as much, if not more, than grades from elsewhere.

 

[Abaddon]

Then how come in the school league tables, which goes on Grades Achieved, the public schools vasty out number the private schools?

Im not an intelegent kid - if i went to normal school i probably would have bombed, but the teaching environment my parents paid for me to go for, meant i could learn, and thus i came out better educated.


As for how people look upon grades depending where you were educated.. i think we have both been hard done by! Both getting graded down!

For uni application, you definitly have an advantage if you got your grades at a normal school.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Then how come in the school league tables, which goes on Grades Achieved, the public schools vasty out number the private schools?

Which grades are you talking about? I don't think it's A-Levels since State Schools have the top slots there.

For uni application, you definitly have an advantage if you got your grades at a normal school.

I think it's very well documented that for Oxford and Cambridge at the very least this is not true.

 

[Abaddon]

perhaps we are argueing through error.

the schools you have to pay to go to, get better grades by far.. yes?

As for the grades valueing... i guess you just see it from whichever side of the fence to sit.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

the schools you have to pay to go to, get better grades by far.. yes?

No, they do not.

Besides, as I said before, there is a world of difference between better 'grades' and providing a better 'education'.

 

[Dionysius]

Besides, as I said before, there is a world of difference between better 'grades' and providing a better 'education'.

explain how.

 

[Brighteye]

Thanks for dropping in. I was finding the discussion on this topic to be a bit superficial so far.

Anyway, I think you're wrong here and that you have fallen into two traps yourself:

1) Thinking that the education and the culture are in some way mutually exclusive. They are not. They are one and the same, informing each other and supporting each other, on just about every level. Such a traditional education could not have been possible without such a ritualistic, stuffy and hierarchical culture. The very conservatism in education that I spoke of is precisely founded on notions of hierarchy, stuffiness and ritual worship of those at its peak / denegration of those at its base. Do you not agree?

2) Thinking that such closeted societies are not maintained after school, in wider society. Such closeted societies and social conditioning do go on well after school, well into the institutions of the elite that exist in society ie. elite universities and the insitutions of power

Woohoo! An interesting discussion. I didn't say that they were exclusive. The point I was making is that many people see purpose in causality where there is none. The bullying and 'stuffy ritual-worship' may have prepared the public school boys to stick together and help each other into all the good jobs, but that doesn't mean that they were intended to do this.
It's the same mistake that people make with evolution. Evolution doesn't intend to make us better; there's no quest for improvement. It's just that the forces that make up evolution happen to cause improvement in the species' survival.
No, I don't agree that a conservative education relies on the sort of boy-bonding that takes place at male private schools. The two may often be found together, but can be separated entirely. Parents sent their children to the schools for the stuffy education. Any bullying was coincidental.

Hey, who ever said that rugby was a cosy tea party? (And I've already said I loved it.)

I must say, with my tongue firmly in my cheek and with an large dollop of self consciousness, that it sounds like you lost!

Oh yes, we lost. I recall one match we lost 105-5. We spent 90 minutes (including half time) mostly laughing at our opponents. In particular, one chap was very lazy, ran through us again, and I pushed him over the dead ball line because he was taking his time to touch down. Even the rest of the Oundle team joined in our laughter about that one.

Did you ever have problems with Wymondham? Did you play them? We never liked playing them either. At least Oundle played rugby. Wymondham played beat up the opposition while their coaches aren't looking, and then walk over their 8-man teams.
I distinctly remember their coach meticulously checking all our studs, and complaining about a couple of sets that were slightly worn. Half-way through the game one of our forwards was taken off because a Wymondham player was wearing running spikes, and a spike had gone through his boot, toe, and out the other side.

Yep, you've a few years on me. Hills Road in the last 8 years has been beaten consistently by a fair few private schools, including my own, just half a mile down the road.

 

[Rambuchan]

Brighteye: Short on time, but, is it The Perse?

Prince: Sorry sorry. I will get back sometime.

 

[BCLG100]

I think thats only been added because a few years ago some stupid yr 10's thought they were really cool bringing it into school an sellnig it amongst themselves.... kinda got police record now...

Same sorta thing happened at my school except with E, then the school had a major clampdown and tobacco is viciously sought after by the school now.

 

[colony]

explain how.

An A at A-level really doesn't prove anything, except that you can look at a few old mark schemes and learn the major points off them, high exam grades can be achieved more easily through knowing what the mark scheme's likely to look like, as well as knowing a few facts, than by spending the time needed to get a good understanding of the basics of the subject.

My experience of doing A levels at a grammar school:

My teaching was almost entirely based on learning specific things off the mark scheme to get a high grade, rather than trying to get us to understand the subject and then through applying that knowledge getting a high grade. We were being taught how to pass a chemistry exam for example, rather than being taught chemistry. If you added up the amount of time we spent going over old exam papers it probably wouldn't be far off 1/2-2/3rds of the amount of time spent actually being taught the modules themselves. In the end it "worked" for me, I got high marks, yet I still didn't really have any real idea of why what I'd learnt was important, or how to apply it to new topics I might encounter.

Not having a general understanding of my A level subjects really made my 1st year at uni very difficult. I couldn't see how anything fitted together, not even within modules, and I sudden;y had to be able to really understand things very well , as well as that for the first time in my life actually had to work hard to keep up with the rest of the year. The ones who went to public school do seem to be able to cope better on average than the ones who didn't, even if they didn't get 3 or 4 As at A level.

Basically what I'm trying to get at is that exam results aren't the only measure of how good an education is, they're just a part of it