Harrow School - a diluted global brand?

[Mrspepperpot1979]

Our DS has been offered a place at Harrow, which of course is wonderful – it’s a school with an extraordinary heritage. However, we're beginning to wonder whether Harrow, perhaps more than any other UK public school, has now evolved into something quite different from what made it so unique.

One concern is the sheer scale of Harrow’s international cohort - particularly the large number of pupils from China. While cultural diversity is something to be celebrated, it feels as though the balance may have shifted too far. When comparing Harrow with schools like Eton or Radley (both of which have made a point of avoiding overseas franchises), the contrast is quite stark.

Harrow has opened a significant number of international schools abroad over the last few years - notably in China – and continues to expand in this direction. While one can appreciate the commercial rationale, one can’t help but question what this says about the school’s strategic focus. Has the essence of what Harrow was – a quintessentially British boarding school experience – been changed for the worse or better as a result?

A number of the traditions certainly remain: the Harrow Songs, Bill, the distinctive dress, Long Ducker etc. But if the pupil body is so heavily international and the school’s global brand is now arguably its driving force, are families still getting the same experience that once made Harrow unique?

I’d really value hearing from others – whether you have current boys there, or considered it but chose differently. How does this international cohort impact the school culture, does it cause division? Through, for example, a lack of cultural reference points and different cultural sporting interests - i.e Rugby and cricket.

Do others share these concerns, or do you see this evolution as a positive step for a 21st-century institution?

I’ve heard Asians are quite good at cricket…

That's a sweeping comment and a half! Nothing like lumping the sporting prowess of an entire continent in one basket.

My thoughts are from experience of another well known public school with a branch in China (not from any experience of Harrow so perhaps of limited interest to you OP and I suppose also statements of the obvious) is that the proportion of international children is a real factor when chosing a school. My boys are in a house with a very large proportion of international students, which mean more friends coming home to stay with us for exeats (good) but not many about in the UK for the holidays (not good). If I had known this before my boys started I would have asked for another house so they would have school friends available in the holidays.

Rugby and cricket are important but not as important as they used to be, as they aren't sports that can easily be picked up by everyone coming into third form if they didn't play before. Or at least, not to the level to get you into the A or B teams. A larger proportion of international students means a corresponding decrease in the pool to pick from for the teams and I can see (along with more interest in the long term detrimental effects of the physical impact of contact sports that rugby may well die out in schools some time).

On the comment "My thoughts are from experience of another well known public school with a branch in China...is that the proportion of international children is a real factor when chosing a school. My boys are in a house with a very large proportion of international students...", I hear you and I agree with the sentiment assuming you mean one needs to be thoughtful when picking the house (because an international make-up can be both a pro as well as a con, depending upon the child's and parents' preferences). I assume also (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that you are not also saying that a school with a branch in China equals lots of international students at that school in the UK. My understanding is (and again I could be wrong) that applicants to a non-UK franchise branch do not gain a right to transfer across to the UK original school. I think this applies to all of the schools with overseas branches, Wycombe Abbey Hangzhou girls do not end up in Wycombe, Wellington Tianjin
kids do not end up in Somerset, and Dulwich Zhuhai boys do not end up in S.London, and so on.

Regarding the OP's comments, again I just do not agree. She/He seems to prefer Radley and Tonbridge and so be it. But I do not follow the logic expressed in the comments supporting that choice. Rather, I assume that there are other reasons underlying her/his preference.

From what I saw I did not detect a significant difference in make-up between those two schools and Harrow (or Eton or Winchester). When we visited Radley (one visit) we did so with a delightful Thai family accompanying us and I saw plenty of non-British kids and surnames. When we visited Tonbridge (three visits) over half the families on the tours were non-British (predominantly Chinese), I met plenty of non-British students, and the boy leading the last tour emphasized that this year's top maths scholarship went "unusually" (his emphasis) to a non-Chinese student. At Eton (three visits) and also at Winchester (three visits) about 30%-40% of the boys we met seemed to be non-British. Here I am not putting a value judgement on whether or not it is beneficial to have a stronger international or domestic make-up of the student body. Rather, I am writing that I did not see such a divergence between any of the schools that we toured.

Lastly, and apologies as this is repetitive, I have met plenty of Old Harrovians, some of whom are British and some of whom are not, all of whom have the same sense of self-belief and strength of character, irrespective of their nationality. So, I rather suspect that if that sense of swagger/pride/arrogance is what the parents want then that is what Harrow will provide (for good or ill), regardless of whether your surname is Smith, Su, Singh, or Suzuki.

Why is your experience from 6 years ago proof of what is happening now?

There are plenty of comments that I’d like to make and others I’d very much like to respond to. I promise I shall get there eventually once I’ve dealt with the jet lag, team calls and (fortunately just for one day only) accompanying some chaps from the Gulf on their annual pilgrimage through a giant slow-moving carpark in Berkshire for some horseracing. Ideally in that order because it would be somewhat unpleasant the other way round.

At least the team calls are at a sensible time: having been in a “worse” timezone the past week, it’s a reminder of one key reason why London remains a global financial capital. Yes, to a large part it’s because London can still attract top talent from around the world. But it’s also because we straddle all the timezones from New York to Tokyo and more. There’s that tiny fizz of schadenfreude when dialling into global team calls in the middle of the day rather than early morning or late evening.

Thank you. I appreciate your thoughtful post and the opportunity to clarify.

My original observations are not based on assumptions or impressions from tours. They are grounded in first-hand accounts from current and former Harrow parents, discussions with the school’s admissions and registrar team, and conversations with a specific family who withdrew their son after the first term due to the cultural imbalance in his house - citing an unrepresentative ratio of international (primarily Chinese) pupils to UK-based boys. These insights are not “grapevine” material but factual and consistent. I’ve also observed the school community directly on multiple occasions.

There is a meaningful distinction between seeing international families touring schools - as happens at Radley, Tonbridge, and Eton too - and the actual pupil cohort who take up places. International interest is common across all top schools, but how each institution balances offers and house allocation is key. In my view, Radley and Tonbridge have done a far better job of maintaining that balance, and both still adhere quite closely to the traditional 80/20 UK/international ratio.

This isn’t about placing value judgements on international pupils - of course many are brilliant, and diversity in moderation enriches any school. But when investing significantly in a full-boarding, culturally immersive education, it’s entirely valid for parents to consider whether the environment still reflects the British traditions and peer network they’re seeking for their son.

So to be clear, this is not a preference based solely on "vibe" or on who happened to be on a school tour. It’s about who is actually in the school, and in what proportions. And from what I’ve seen - and heard directly from multiple reliable sources - Harrow appears to have tipped that balance in a way that is markedly different from its peers, whether by design or drift.

Everyone will rightly weigh different priorities - but I do believe it’s important for families to make those decisions based on full, accurate insight into the current school culture, rather than just the historical reputation.

I appreciate that you’re trying to justify your decision to turn down Harrow – fair enough and I see where you’re coming from. I would advise however that in most situations there’s limited benefit in repeating one’s case ad nauseum (viz: too many foreign students; not very English is it?; we’d like our DS to have predominantly English friends; I’ll leave my definition of English a bit vague; anyway, goodbye - we’re off somewhere else). People get your point: some will agree with it and others won’t, but it doesn’t add anything to a conversation to repeat variants of the same theme for a fourth or fifth time.

The one point I’m still perplexed about though is the remark: “Currently we know of one family whose (UK) DS joined Harrow in Sept 24 and subsequently withdrew them only a few months later specifically for this reason. Of the 14 year 9 boys that joined at the same time, 8 were Chinese”. I’m yet to look for and rummage through all of the various Harrow/OH publications that regularly get circulated, but I’m struggling to comprehend how this can possibly be the case. If it is indeed correct then I agree with you that it shouldn’t be happening. I suspect though that this snippet has got contorted along the grapevine… which house was your friend’s son at out of interest?

I’m still thinking through how best to express my thoughts on the aforesaid discriminatory remark that popped up a week or so ago, but in the meantime I must say this thread provides for an interesting discussion in so many ways.

Much of it revolves around one’s attitude to change, and how one reacts to this.

The world is an immeasurably different place to that of our respective childhoods… I shall leave the exact decade unmentioned as I am probably a smidgeon more mature than many of you and – judging from the reductionist thinking that some have proffered above – the difference in maturity might not be in terms of chronological age alone.

The changes over the past few decades have manifested themselves in so many different ways – geopolitically, economically, culturally, technologically and beyond. Who would have expected ten years ago that we would choose to detach ourselves from Europe; that the US would try to detach itself from the rest of the world; that AI would become superior to humans in a rapidly increasing number of fields; that the world would sleepwalk its way into an existential dependency on China’s industrial capacity; that – most bewilderingly for me – when a teenager mentions “mid cap” they are perhaps referring to a bad fib rather than a segment of the stockmarket.

By the time our children reach adulthood, embark on their careers, and themselves become parents, the world will have transformed even more – the pace of change is noticeably accelerating rather than slowing. It’s terrifying and exhilarating at the same time, like going on that rollercoaster you’d no intention of being on, or making a wrong turn and accidentally heading down a black run with a hangover. I still wince thinking about those dry cleaning bills.

Amidst all these changes, what is the “best” education that we can give our children?

There are many ways to respond to these fundamental changes that are happening around us. One is to reflexively curl up and take comfort in the reassuring familiarity of the past – what I alluded to in my original reply as the “is there honey still for tea” sentiment. It’s a very natural and understandable reaction to want to try and step back from the world, to shrink away and watch it from a safe distance.

Conversely, one might equally well conclude that – rather than the comfortable option of a nice school deep in the shires that’s reflective of a seemingly timeless idyll – the best leg-up one can give a DC right now is to get them on the front foot and provide them with a broad outlook and open mind, more than a bit of street smarts, and a deep and extensive network around the world that collectively bonds and reminisces over shared experiences of everything from muddy matches on our infamous waterlogged pitches through to the uniquely intoxicating highs of Harrow Songs.

It’s why I’d made a reference in my original reply about Harrow being an element of “Global Britain”. If one believes that Britain continues to matter in the future world – that one has a role to play on the world stage and to fill in the gaps that others are now creating, that amidst all this economic / geopolitical / technological change there is also immense opportunity for the next generation if they’re up for it – then why would any parent who truly cares about their child’s future opt for anything other than a school that’s at the absolute pinnacle of this game?

It’s a rhetorical question that doesn’t need an answer. The point is to understand that both schools of thought are correct in their own way depending on one’s outlook and attitudes – and most importantly what sort of world we want to prepare our children for.

Thank you for your reply. As you’ve adopted a rather unnecessarily condescending tone, I hope you’ll forgive a brief retort.

This is Mumsnet - a forum for open discussion - not a platform for publishing entries from one’s personal journal, as you appeared to do yesterday with what can only be described as a rather self-important ‘holding post’. The implication that others are eagerly awaiting your next instalment speaks volumes - perhaps even confirming some of the more colourful Old Harrovian traits mentioned earlier by @Crisphead (particularly the latter).

Your past Harrow experience and presumed membership of the OH Society do not, I’m afraid, grant you exclusive authority on the school’s current UK vs international pupil mix - especially not in the context of recent admissions. Many of us, myself included, are actively conducting detailed due diligence for our sons, and have access to both public information and first-hand accounts from current and former Harrow parents.

If you are engaged in the same school search process, I trust you’ll find the same information if you care to look carefully enough. If not, I’m unsure why you’re spending time on a thread like this when you could be ‘accompanying chaps from the Gulf on their annual pilgrimage through a giant slow-moving car park in Berkshire’, as you so colourfully described.

For the record, the example mentioned earlier in the thread regarding house composition is genuine. Out of fairness to the House and its HM, I won’t name it publicly - but I can assure you the circumstances described did take place.

This thread is not an attack on Harrow. It remains a fine school with much to commend it. But families are perfectly entitled to weigh up cultural and social fit, just as they would academic and pastoral provision, and make whatever decisions they feel are best for their children.

Well said @Mrspepperpot1979
This thread is not about men on a corporate hospitality bender and I don’t care whether or they do teams calls or use coloured crayons to communicate with each other.

It is rather condescending for a man who attended a school years ago, does not seem to have any children of his own at the school, and has not done any recent due diligence to lecture you about what is and what is not the case at that school today and what you should be thinking about.

I don’t think anyone on this thread has been discriminatory, or “vilified” or “disparaged” anyone. The balance of British v international students is an issue that virtually all UK private schools think about. They know that international students bring valuable diversity as well as income, but if the numbers get too high, their school can change its character and culture to a point that no one (not even the international families) is happy. Eg on a tour of a boarding house at one school, a Korean boarder told us he was miserable because all the other boarders in his year were Chinese and spoke Mandarin to each other in the evenings - it wasn’t what he’d signed up for when he’d come all the way to school in England.

Dear @Mrspepperpot1979 ,

Please will you kindly tell us or me which house had the 8 Chinese students in the one year group of 14?. If you are concerned about confidentiality please can you DM me?

Thank you.

Tonbridge also takes day boys so it’s not really a fair comparison. A lot of British people are switching to day to save money! Especially now with the VAT.

All boys boarding schools, now a rarefied concept.
I have friends and colleagues and family with kids in a variety of the remaining boys schools. I think the mix depends on the house and year group. My colleague has a boy who started at Eton this academic year and does not have a single international boarder in his house and several are “locals” living within a half an hour drive away radius.
It is also just difficult to tell if you tour a school. London is 40 per cent born abroad now. Lots of British kids have a different race. My kids go to grammar schools in London - there really aren’t many white British kids. Lots of British Asian kids, some first and some second generation, lots of mixed backgrounds. Extremely common in and around London.

Radley is further away and still has a different admissions system (I think), so I suspect it to be different. However, I would personally prefer a one tier admissions system. Eton became a lot more academic when they did away with the old system, I think.

I reckon all these schools are just slightly different to make parents choose one over the other. It’s deliberate.
I don’t know anyone who chose Harrow over Eton if they had offers from both, unless there is familial loyalty. Which I suspect is still very relevant for some families. I have friends who went to Harrow who say they won’t even apply to Eton which is quite something.
Except now the market for all boys boarding schools is down to a choice of 3 I suspect they may rethink in the future.

I also think there is an expectation now to attend matches etc judging by my colleagues and private schools are a social circle for the parents as much as the kids so personally I would focus on geographical proximity to your home rather than how many overseas boarders.

Does Harroe have such a great name? In my day it's reputation was for educating rich, somewhat thuggish, not particularly bright boys who didn't get in elsewhere

All boarding schools rely on international money because British taxpayers have experienced flat-lining incomes, high levels of inflation and the highest level of cumulative taxation in our history. Consequently our economy is stagnating and career opportunities plummeting. Meanwhile the cost of running these schools has gone through the roof. I agree that at some point international parents might say Hang on! We wanted to send our kids to a British school, to immerse themselves in British English and British culture, where are the Brits? The answer will be: at the state school form the road because they’ve been taxed into penury.

For day school, yes, this could be true. No one is visiting their full boarding DC on a weekly basis.

It’s not nobody. My British local friends and colleagues (the alumni type) do visit very regularly. Like I said, it’s a social thing. Many schools do allow boys home on Sundays after chapel.

I know loads of parents visit full boarding schools , even when I was there 10 years ago there guaranteed several parents per weekend visiting. In a house of 60 I'd say at least 7 sets visited at some point, either for matches or for a sunday chapel and lunch. Could be as many as 20.

My parents visited weekly but they lived 20 mins away. It was their local town so was handy. But even friends 1 hr away ever other week.

I'd say we visit our full boarding DC two weekends in three, usually for matches and tea afterwards but sometimes just for lunch. It's not for the sake of meeting other parents and the boys really appreciate the support. It's a 3.5 hour round trip. They are L6 and have been FB since Y4.

I know lots of parents who do exactly that.
They go for matches Wednesdays and/or Saturdays.

Dear @Mrspepperpot1979 ,
I asked a few days ago if you could please tell all as to which house has 14 boys in a year group of whom "8 were Chinese, 4 were African and
2 were from UK." Personally I have not seen it with my own eyes and as our family is considering Harrow for our DS I would like to please know to which house you are referring?
A number of parents/old boys have disputed what you have written. You have been reticent to name the house. Meanwhile, I am sure the house must know already so there should be no secret here. Please can you name the house? You are welcome to DM me if you prefer.
Thank you.

For clarity, having double checked with the family directly, in that year group, there were 7 boys of Chinese origin, 4 of African origin, and 3 from the UK - one of whom was their DS, leaving 2 remaining UK pupils.

This was one piece of shared evidence within a broader discussion, supported by other comments - including from another current parent who commneted that every academic prize on Speech Day was awarded to pupils of Chinese origin. These are not isolated observations, but part of a pattern some families are quietly noticing and reflecting upon.

Out of respect and privacy, I'm not naming the house. Nobody owes that level of disclosure to a mumsnet poster when the source is a close family connection. If your son joins the school, I’m sure you’ll draw your own conclusions based on your own experiences - just as others have.

From your previous posts, it's clear that we don't ’t agree on this issue, or on the collective due diligence many of us have done across the other schools discussed. That’s absolutely fine. You can pursue your own direct research and form your own view.

I’ve contributed to this thread honestly and respectfully, and don’t intend to go further on this point.

I would also point out that focusing on just this one house misses the wider issue, which is evident across the entire school - as has been discussed at length in this thread. The lack of UK pupils is not unique to one house; it’s a consistent pattern across all of them. Just because you or anyone else may not want to accept it doesn’t mean there isn’t a real and growing issue at Harrow with the imbalance between international and UK pupils.

I think this thread has gone on long enough.
i have followed it because my son left Harrow 3 years ago. He had a fabulous time and met some life long friends, some foreign, some English. His boarding house was not dominated by foreign students. There was a mix. Anyway, we were happy for my son to make friends with students not from UK.
his

His little country prep school only had English children in it. Meeting global students was a great thing.

With regards to Harrow traditions, old fashioned discipline, morals, - yes this is all adhered to. And they are strict.

I did not attend sports at weekends as I live far away but tried to get to concerts as my son was a music scholar.

And btw, my husband and I decided to let my son choose which school he wanted to go to, having been given several offers.

Honestly, OP, let it go now. It’s time to go this alone.

This Is missing the point, your DS matriculated a decade before the posters DS will do, institutions change, and can change significantly within a decade.

The premise of the thread is not questioning Harrow's historical brand/excellence but whether, in light of the undeniable socio-economic changes these big school businesses are facing, the service/experience they are now providing is the same, better or worse. As someone also with DC approaching secondary school age, this question is entirely valid.

Yes, one of the changes is the increased number / proportion of intentional students. However the statistics are reported, it's clear to see they are increasing, in some cases a lot. Value judgements aside, this will provide a different experience for one's DC, which is what I think the original question is about?? Through a Harrow lens obviously.

If it is me you are talking to, my son left 3 years ago. Not that long ago. I honestly think you are very much overthinking. It’s certainly a changing world but hey ho, you make your choices over your precious little boys. I’m leaving this thread so don’t bother to reply. I hope all your anxieties down.