Public School Stereotype

[Trendsetter2000]

I know there's supposed to be a "public school" stereotype, but do you think there's a difference between someone who's attended private school in north london compared to south west london? Do you think private day schoolers are different to boarder schoolers?

Which paper OP?

Huh?

Well, independent day schools in North London aren't public schools, either technically or culturally.

Surely it would depend on exactly which schools you are comparing?

Boarders (I'm talking about weekly/full boarders here not the child who does the odd/a couple of nights a week) are nearly always going to be different from day children regardless of where the day child was educated. Those who've been to the big name boarding schools are probably more likely conform to the man in the streets idea of a "public school stereotype".

you seem a bit confused about 'public schools' and private schools.

Where is Harrow?

Harrow is in North London.

I think boarding and whether or not the school is single sex prob make the biggest difference, much more than North vs south London! Harrow, UCS, Westminster and St. Paul's are all quite different schools.

Everyone defines public school differently. Originally, public school was defined by being part of the headmasters' conference. If a school now becomes part of the headmasters' conference, it doesn't change the make up of the school. Nowadays, it seems independent/private schools are seen as just that, but we still use the label "public school" when describing people.

I don't think UCS seems very sloaney/public school.

Are there any "Sloaney" schools out there? I thought the term Sloane was out dated something from the 1980's.

Are you American Trendsetter? I just wonder if that explains some of your queries and comments on schools.

I'm American, but I know what a Public school is - on both sides of the pond

on one side its an aspiration for the boys in rich families
on the other side its what the poor have to settle for

Talkin from what you have said previously you are an American brought up in London. I am sure that you know that boys from rich British families don't need to aspire to public school, it is there for the paying. although their parents may have aspirations for certain public schools .

and I'm less good than I used to be at being able to spot the individual school by the level of upper lip immobility

Boys from some public schools are kinkier than others, but they all have a tendency towards bumsex.

Bluestocking
You must have met a very different crowd than I did (and I've partied with chaps from pretty much every famous school you can think of - UK, US, International)

Well, TP, the fact is that so have I - so we will just leave it at that, shall we?

Anyways...

TiP, interesting little quip, but as an American, I have to disagree that public schools in America are what the poor have to settle for. The local public schools in the area I grew up in have better facilities than the Public School my son goes to and the demographic profile is definitely skewed towards the upper end of the Socio-economic curve. This is not unique to that area, and actually, although about 10% of students in the US attend private school, the bulk of those ( a bit over 7%) attend religious private schools due to parental preference as the US has a secular state education.

Forgot to also say that the bulk of the private religious schools are definitely not expensive and for the rich - just those who think that a religious education is important.

there is no confusion, trendsetter, it is quite simple, a public school is an independent school with full scholarships available, and a private school is an independent school without.

Legal and financially they are quite different, and the make up of the student body should be too.

My stereotypical idea of a public school pupil is someone over sheltered, quite ignorant and inflexible, and a private school pupil more so.

Boarders are quite different, and often display life long mild attachment disorders. This is not a stereotype or opinion this is a fact. This does cause problems within family relationships, but can make these individuals better suited to military leadership roles, which of course was the whole point, originally. ( think Winston Churchill!)

Charis1 here is a fact my DS2 (10+ years of full boarding) does not suffer from mild attachment disorder which by the way is caused by relationship problems abuse neglect etc between the ages of 6 months to three years. This is not just my professional opinion but the professional opinion of quite a few others who know what they're talking about. I work with children who do have attachment disorders non have ever boarded. Also as died in the wool serious non conformist he is the least suited person you will ever meet to a military leadership role, many of his boarding friends are also completely unsuited to military leadership roles.

Charis, have you made up that definition of public school? I have genuinely never heard that one.

Also, for you to describe your outlooks on students at different private schools as"stereotypical ideals" is very odd and telling of your own, very distorted views.

Of course there are stereotypes gut as happy says, many who dont fit that image. I know two men who boarded at school. One became an alcoholic, now recovering, and currently works for a local charity. The other went from boarding at the age of 7 onto top uni, Sandhurst and is now a very, very senior military leader.
He fits the stereotype perfectly . And is a lovey chap by the way.