Westminster School

"when i was there (mid 1980s) the joke was that there was no drug problem because you could get anything you wanted"

If this was the local comprehensive we'd all run a thousand miles, not to mention pay for the privelege!!

I think the only place that can rival it intellectually is Winchester. Other schools are more, well, school-like whereas West and Win are like Oxford Colleges.

I am also confused. Our experience mirrors that of LetsEscape. Our son is blissfully happy at Westminster.

To respond to other comments, I agree that as a parent you cant always know what teenagers are up to. Sometimes I assume you might prefer not to know. But in a "crests of the waves" sort of way parents do hear of parties and other stuff going on involving pupils at various London schools. My experience is that there is less talk about Westminster than some other schools, which I have assumed reflects our experience that any significant drug culture that may have existed a decade or two ago is now reasonably under control.

I am also not sure that I follow the comments about the Head. There does appear to have been a bit of a clampdown on some of the "quirkyness" and it is a pity that some traditions, like house singing, have been lost. However the food is genuinely good, which sounds like an improvement. And pastoral care seems very strong. Beyond what LetsEscape has described, there is a school Councillor, regular Parenting forums, and a school chaplain. Even matrons for those in boarding houses. All perhaps standard in a boarding school, but unusual for a day school. I have no idea if he or his predecessor are responsible, but from what others have posted the school is a better school for these changes.

letsescape those are my views and experiences, and if this is your first experience of Westminster and as a parent, that my experiences are a tad longer than yours. I don't care to form an opinion of the tone of your message, and don't mind at all if you don't like mine either. Certainly things have changed recently, and this little exchange demonstrates it somewhat. BTW, I wasn't referring to you, you don't count as a group by yourself...

Thirdhill I didn't like the tone of your message. Those were my views and my experiences.

The really extraordinary aspect of letsescape's post is that I've never heard a Westminster parent spout the party line before. It could almost be verbatim from the current HM's speeches! There does eem to be much more "group think" these last few years and not an especially welcome aspect, but we all hope the school will survive it, as time goes by, and people move on.

In my husbands experience those who send their children to St Pauls are exceedingly successful business men (he works with them) he has many clients in London who send their DC's to St Pauls all are eye watering driven and ruthless successful not one has a DC at Westminster. These people want results in all aspects of their lives and St Pauls as I've said before does what is says on the can thats not to say Westminster doesn't but St Pauls is not subtle if that makes senses. This ethos is bound to reflect in their children. Where as he's found that those that send their DC's to Westminster are a lot more celebrity/art/lovee/music types equally ambitious and successful but in a more discrete way. i'm sure this is a bit of a generalisation but like all genralizations has a ring of truth about it.

Let'sEscape: what do you mean when you say St Paul's boys are more of a "sort"? What is a typical St Paul's boy like, then?

I have a son at Westminster and I am glad to say things appear to have changed a lot and certainly for the better. Our son (a day boy) is blissfully happy both socially and academically. Pastoral care is excellent with a housemaster in constant contact and who returns emails/phone calls immediately. My son also has a tutor who is more an 'adult friend' . There is also a form tutor although they are minor in comparison. There are academic reports half termly and all in all as parents we feel we have excellent open communication and the teachers all know him well and have 'read' him correctly. The pastoral care is very individual.
We haven't experienced or heard of drugs yet - may be we are lucky, maybe he isn't interested but certainly there is no pressure in that area. Likewise no experience or reports of bullying.
I have been surprised how relaxed the school is. They are less obsessed with exams than other schools I know in London. The relationship between teachers and students is one of collaborative scholarship. In terms of homework there seems to be a lot less than St Paul's but they do have Saturday school, which takes some getting used to.
It is definitely a school for the very bright and academically applied boy who likes to get into subjects at a deep level. It suits the quirky or the child who likes to debate. I'd say there is no real Westminster-type in comparison to St Paul's for example where there is more of a 'sort'. I would be careful not to send a borderline boy or boy who required tuition to get in as they may feel unnecessarily inferior and could be near the top elsewhere.

I think Westminster is a fantastic school. It was my number one choice as I was looking for a school that felt like the best of Eton and Winchester combined. Unfortunatley my son absolutely hated it and he had the final say. I still wish he was going there.

I was told by a mum whose son left about 10 years ago that the pastoral care was pretty limited to say the least. It may have improved more recently.

I think treatment of girls was a bit better by my time (mid-90s) though still quite rough-and-tumble. Tougher I agree if you were less attractive or less confident, even in mainstream classes you could easily be one of only one or two girls in a set; also I boarded and in the evenings and weekends girls were hugely outnumbered, there were only about 20-30 of us in total. On the plus side, I found my confidence hugely increased by the experience and have been at ease in male-dominated contexts ever since, sadly still a useful skill.

Agree about lack of pushiness. Parents' evenings were called "parents' parties" and featured wine.

I would be pleased if the drug issue has eased; but I'd also be wary of assuming any parent knows what goes on. I certainly never breathed a word to mine and there are still things I would hesitate to tell them!

Bullying of younger boys by older was definitely a problem especially among boarders; though I think already a bit better than it had been. There were still remnants of fagging too - in my boarding house the youngest boys had certain set duties like waking up older boys at their preferred time.

Still a fantastic experience for me, but as I say, with all the elements of a very unfantastic experience for the wrong child. Very interesting to hear of others' experiences. Would be good to hear from someone who had left more recently but I guess they are less likely to be on mumsnet.

There was zero pushiness when I was at Westminster. It wasn't particularly cool to work hard but the year end exams were fiercely competitive, especially once girls were introduced into the equation and regularly beat the boys. As Witchwithallthetrimmings says, the way girls were treated was bad - they were seen as being there merely to provide competition for the boys along with teaching them some manners. The fact that they probably boosted the school's results can't have hurt. Less attractive and confident girls probably had a horrible time, particularly if they did traditional boys' subjects.

When DH was at St Pauls early 80's there was hardly any drug culture. I once read St Pauls lacks the social cachet of Westminster just groaning in exceedingly pushy parents! Even when my DH was there the parents were unbelievably pushy; my MIL is pushiness personified.

Pastoral care in my brother's day (he was a boarder) was almost non-existent. Total failure to crack down on drug use. He was even introduced to heroin, though I doubt that would happen now. I just get the impression St Paul's is perhaps a less glamorous but more normal school, while there's still a brainy decadent rich kid element at Westminster

i think the worst aspect of the school then was the treatment of the girls and the inability of the teachers to do anything about it.

i think we must have overlapped bigmug (me 1984-1986)

We are considering westminster for our DS in a couple of years. We aren't sure about St Pauls and its location is a bit too far south for us.
This thread is a real eye opener and hasn't put me off Westminster! but realistically I know we should try DS at 2 or 3 schools and have back up plans, he is only young so not really sure what will suit him best just yet, he is sporty as well as academic. Can any of you wise London education experts recommend other schools we should look at?
Thanks!

tsk tsk I've been told that every boy knows full well, that when asked by touring parents if there is a drug problem, the answer is not: None whatsoever, what did you want?

I was there in the 80s and drugs were rife. Also some of the bullying of the younger boys was horrific. Not just the "fagging" culture but also things like defecating in other boys' school bags
The pastoral care was pretty rubbish unless you were a boarder.
I agree with the comments about feeling stupid unless you went to Oxbridge. However, I think that did spur on pretty much everyone to give it a go, which is a good thing. I only ended up with an Oxbridge place because of the amazing teaching I had and the help I got with selecting which college to apply to.
All in all an incredible school but a lot of bad behaviour as well. I was there the year of the infamous Carol Service in St Margaret's....

ha! yes that was pretty much my experience too. I was so staggeringly naive when I arrived though that it all sort of washed over me . . .

when i was there (mid 1980s) the joke was that there was no drug problem because you could get anything you wanted

That's interesting about the drug culture in London as a whole. My own experience was mid-90s and although I never so much as smoked a cigarette it was obvious at university that I had been exposed to much more drug-taking than friends from almost any other school. That was partly an effect of boarding.

I'm not sure about the demographics of the school in relation to that of London as a whole, but it's an interesting point. It was markedly international even then but the relative cost has gone up a lot so that must have made a difference. They also make a huge effort to keep up with alumni now.

I have friends who teach at St Paul's and I have visited the school recently in a professional capacity. It seems very impressive in a different way I agree - very down to earth, much more of a traditional school in atmosphere, but very appealing. I like the obvious work ethos and unpretentiousness. The sports facilities are obviously great, the location is lovely right on the river and the whole thing feels very practical and self-contained. Just expecting my first at the moment so this stuff is a way off for us but I think they're both great schools.

I read recently (Economist?) that drug use amongst London teenagers is falling to the extent that it is now lower than in many other regions. I also suspect that the demographics of Westminster's intake has changed over the past couple of decades, in line with the dramatic changes in London demographics, and that this too has reduced the size of any residual drug culture. Certainly for us it has not been an issue, and not something talked about amongst the parents we know. In contrast there are some quite scary tales of expulsions, parties, stomach pumps etc emerging from one or two other schools that DCs peers go to.

The University flop does not surprise. As you say: "I had an amazing time - better than being an undergraduate". Interestingly DS is being encouraged to research which universities are best for his subject. It is not a case of if you are clever enough to get into Oxbridge that's where you go. As it is, lots go to American Universities, but also by the time you have gone through the sixth form you probably don't need to go to Oxbridge if another university offers better teaching.

My impression is that Westminster and St Pauls are very different schools. Some boys will say "why would I go to Westminster when I could go to St Pauls", whilst others will say the reverse. St Pauls' location and facilities are overwhelming, so to are Westminster's but in a different way. Any boy who has a choice is very lucky and as long as the boy is involved there really cant be a wrong decision.