The Economist used to be a very independent-minded publication. It's sad to see them chasing the same clickbait trend-chasing garbage that you see on most second-rate news sites.
This is a book review, and the title of this post is the title of the book. Did you stop there, not read the article and make a gigantically incorrect assumption, or are you willing to explain how this is clickbait?
Again, the headline that appears on HN is not the title of the article as it appears on The Economist's site. On the website, it is "Britain’s private schools are lambasted in Richard Beard’s book". The user who submitted this to HN chose to submit this with the book title as the headline.
There's usually a layer of deception or over-sensationalism of some kind involved in order for it to be clickabit, and simply being behind a paywall doesn't qualify as clickbait. My point is that The Economist is not guilty of that in this instance, and OP is incorrect to blame them for as much.
> This argument is far from original; lambasting public schools for tormenting their inmates and ruining the country is one of Britain’s oldest traditions.
Pink Floyd's The Wall, anyone?
> The author also makes good use of his own [1970's] memories at Radley College. The school was trapped in the past, both the 1940s and 1950s—playground games were an endless fight against the Germans
No different from 1970's Czechoslovakia playgrounds.
We're talking only 30 years after a big, devastating war; it held a lot of cultural influence.
If we look at television and film related to WWII:
Cowboys and Indians playground play persisted well into what, the sixties and seventies? That wasn't nearly as traumatic (for the victors, my apologies to Native Americans) and the most public conflicts back in the late 1800s. Although probably the popularity of westerns and introduction of TV helped persist it.
I've heard the author give a really interesting interview on radio 4 about his book - I've not read it though
but i find it equally frustrating and fascinating as a person with a northern accent from an extremely working class background. watching, listening and interacting with various people from many backgrounds. i don't hate or dislike people who have been to public schools - in fact after many drunken nights out talking people who have been in them, i often pity them
(based on my experience) the class system is not only alive in the UK, it's still massively thriving. Including a massive amount of stereotyping - not sure if this is higher or lower in the uk, but it seems to rule some peoples lives here (often people who percieve themselves as superior)
<I've deleted much ranting here - yes I've been drinking>
but tl;dr I think unless the uk (or any country for that matter) wants to progress as a nation - public schools should be outlawed. they're made/ designed (with the class system) to allow rich people to give their offspring highly paid influential jobs no matter what their ability is - at the expense of the nation as a whole.
edit: I expect to get downvoted by varous people for saying this - please give a reply instead of just down voting
“While all of you, in the city, are brothers, we will say in our tale, yet god, in fashioning those of you who are fitted to hold rule, mingled gold in their generation, for which reason they are the most precious—but in the helpers, silver, and iron and brass in the farmers and other craftsmen. And, as you are all akin, though for the most part you will breed after your kinds, it may sometimes happen that a golden father would beget a silver son, and that a golden offspring would come from a silver sire, and that the rest would, in like manner, be born of one another. So that the first and chief injunction that the god lays upon the rulers is that of nothing else are they to be such careful guardians, and so intently observant as of the intermixture of these metals in the souls of their offspring, and if sons are born to them with an infusion of brass or iron they shall by no means give way to pity in their treatment of them, but shall assign to each the status due to his nature and thrust them out among the artisans or the farmers. And again, if from these there is born a son with unexpected gold or silver in his composition they shall honor such and bid them go up higher, some to the office of guardian, some to the assistanceship, alleging that there is an oracle that the city shall then be overthrown when the man of iron or brass is its guardian.”
‘Socrates proposes and claims that if the people believed "this myth...[it] would have a good effect, making them more inclined to care for the state and one another.’
Here is Orwell's essay about his time at a public school, "Such, Such Were the Joys." I, an American, had had a romantic view of these schools for years, after reading Harry Potter as a youngster. Reading this essay disabused me of my enchanted castle imaginings. It also speaks more generally of the cruelty of the old ways of thinking about children and sexuality.
As a little boy's dad, thanks for the link, that was deep, and what a writer, Orwell, better known for his novels but also a formidable essayist. In this vein, I would like to recommend Montaigne's "On the education of children" (yes, I know that showing gratitude is discouraged in this forum)
I would like to offer a perspective I don't think you should miss. Many English authors wrote about their horrible experiences in boarding schools and of life in stodgy, middle-to-upper-class Britain; I find that sentiments similar to theirs persist in many people who came out of what we would call "repressive youth systems". You can hear similar complaints from the children of Nigerian immigrants or of Indian students who came through the IIT network, namely that they were pushed too hard by cruel people and uncaring systems.
However, I must notice that these people, especially the British authors, are often proud, learned, disciplined, well-spoken, and knowledgeable. The horrible memories they have of their past experiences are saddening, but I cannot deny that whatever repressive and authoritarian systems spawned them often did a damn fine job at raising extremely impressive men and women. I went through far less cruel or invasive schooling than they did, and cannot make the same assessment about the subjective worth of the vast majority of my peers, nor even for their parents. When I read prose of average middle-class thinkers, journalists, authors, etc. from more than 60 years ago to today, I see very plainly a marked downturn in the civic knowledge, moral backbone, and eloquence of these speakers and of the thoughts themselves as Western society moves away from its severe past into its "empathetic" future.
I myself harbor extreme anti-school sentiments and do not ever intend to send my future children to school unless they desperately want to go, but I still believe that extreme, conservative societies tend to produce the most impressive human specimens. Orwell is considered one of the greatest writers in the English language--I often wonder whether or not contemporary society is capable of producing his equal, or even his less impressive peers' equal. When I read the letters and musing of my grandparents- normal American country folk born in the 1930s- I am taken aback by their knowledge and eloquence, and I mourn for what I perceive as a loss of societal standards.
I suppose there are many who might mistake me for saying that I think it's worth returning to the cargo-cult corporal-punishment methods outline in the essay, but that is not what I wish to communicate. I would like to figure out what makes these citizens of strict and severe societies so impressive, and see if it's possible to yield similar results without all of the stupidity and cruelty.
Excellent point! There has often been a part of me that has secretly wished for a slightly more rigorous schooling, even if that would have meant some pain and sacrifice. There is so much that can be accomplished when one is young that can't be made up for later on (languages in particular). The movie "Whiplash" is thematically relevant--an emotionally abusive director of an elite music school orchestra, when confronted by the student he has been targeting, explains that he treats his pupils so poorly because he thinks that all of the pain is worth it if even one of them goes on to become a truly great musician.
I have thought similar things about Whiplash. On the one hand, I find that J.K. Simmons's character was a monster, one who I would have a hard time not coming to blows with if he treated a family member in the way he treats Miles Teller's character. On the other hand, he leads the most elite student band in the (country?), and anyone who could make it out of the other end of his tutelage with their mind intact would be an incredibly proficient musician with the tenacity to endure many different directing styles of various intensity. I am reminded of the Chinese students that I met during my undergraduate degree who breezed through math that kept me up late into the night. Yes, perhaps their upbringing was cruel, but they have minds made of iron compared to myself and many of my Western peers. I still haven't decided whether or not the trade-off is worth it.
>In England and Wales private schools are confusingly known as “public schools”
This is flat out wrong and I'm amazed to see it written in a British publication.
There are plenty of definitions of what a "public school" is but I've never previously heard of anyone suggesting that it's just a private school.
I'm not going to get into how you define a public school but most people would agree these are : Charterhouse; Eton; Harrow; Rugby; Shrewsbury; Westminster; and Winchester, and that while there might be one or two other contenders there certainly aren't many. Just to be clear there are many hundreds of private schools in the UK besides these few.
This is not true. Public schools pre-date modern state schools and what made them "public", by the original definition, was that they were open to any child - provided that their parents could afford the fees.
Other private schools at the time were open only to the children of parents who met certain criteria, and hence were not "public".
You should not be downvoted as you are correct. While all UK schools known as "public schools" are private, most private schools are not public schools.
You are right that what constitutes a public school is hard to define, but I think membership of the Headmasters and Headmistress' Conference is the usual definition.
Your link seems to give quite a few similar definitions of what a public school is, but both colloquially and from a government perspective it seems to be that they should meet:
Non-local, fee-paying, expensive, endowed, boarding, selective and non-profit.
The side-effect of this is that they were traditionally reserved for the male children of elites. The boarding requirement seems to be weaker, as two day schools (St Paul’s and Merchant Taylor’s) are listed as part of the nine “major” public schools.
However, the working definition given in the Wikipedia article, and definition used by the British government for the Public Schools Commission means that there are almost 300 “public” schools in England and Wales
.
Your list is supported as being part of the “major” public schools AKA Clarendon schools:
‘Today, while the hierarchical distinction is less commonly used, only the "Great Nine" public schools of England – Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Charterhouse, Merchant Taylors', Westminster, Shrewsbury, Rugby and St Paul's – are referred to as "major"[citation needed] on account of this historical association. Schools outside this group are referred to as "minor"[citation needed], irrespective of contemporary influence’
Citations are missing for that paragraph however, all throughout the article it’s made clear there are certainly a few hundred public schools, and not just a handful.
For instance, the link to the HMC page, of which membership seems to be more or less a good rule of them for a school being “public” : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headmasters%27_and_Headmistr...
Colloquially I do know that boys who attended Eton only acknowledge 3 or so other public schools, but the general public does have a broader definition. Nonetheless have a few hundred is still substantially less than the thousands which exist across England and Wales.
35 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 65.9 ms ] threadAgain, the headline that appears on HN is not the title of the article as it appears on The Economist's site. On the website, it is "Britain’s private schools are lambasted in Richard Beard’s book". The user who submitted this to HN chose to submit this with the book title as the headline.
There's usually a layer of deception or over-sensationalism of some kind involved in order for it to be clickabit, and simply being behind a paywall doesn't qualify as clickbait. My point is that The Economist is not guilty of that in this instance, and OP is incorrect to blame them for as much.
https://archive.is/XXQKO
>Archiving webpages are temporarily disabled.
It was enabled before and he let me keep using it for HN purposes when he had to disable it.
Pink Floyd's The Wall, anyone?
> The author also makes good use of his own [1970's] memories at Radley College. The school was trapped in the past, both the 1940s and 1950s—playground games were an endless fight against the Germans
No different from 1970's Czechoslovakia playgrounds.
We're talking only 30 years after a big, devastating war; it held a lot of cultural influence.
If we look at television and film related to WWII:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_films_and_TV_speci...
still plenty of action into the 2000's.
but i find it equally frustrating and fascinating as a person with a northern accent from an extremely working class background. watching, listening and interacting with various people from many backgrounds. i don't hate or dislike people who have been to public schools - in fact after many drunken nights out talking people who have been in them, i often pity them
(based on my experience) the class system is not only alive in the UK, it's still massively thriving. Including a massive amount of stereotyping - not sure if this is higher or lower in the uk, but it seems to rule some peoples lives here (often people who percieve themselves as superior)
<I've deleted much ranting here - yes I've been drinking>
but tl;dr I think unless the uk (or any country for that matter) wants to progress as a nation - public schools should be outlawed. they're made/ designed (with the class system) to allow rich people to give their offspring highly paid influential jobs no matter what their ability is - at the expense of the nation as a whole.
edit: I expect to get downvoted by varous people for saying this - please give a reply instead of just down voting
“While all of you, in the city, are brothers, we will say in our tale, yet god, in fashioning those of you who are fitted to hold rule, mingled gold in their generation, for which reason they are the most precious—but in the helpers, silver, and iron and brass in the farmers and other craftsmen. And, as you are all akin, though for the most part you will breed after your kinds, it may sometimes happen that a golden father would beget a silver son, and that a golden offspring would come from a silver sire, and that the rest would, in like manner, be born of one another. So that the first and chief injunction that the god lays upon the rulers is that of nothing else are they to be such careful guardians, and so intently observant as of the intermixture of these metals in the souls of their offspring, and if sons are born to them with an infusion of brass or iron they shall by no means give way to pity in their treatment of them, but shall assign to each the status due to his nature and thrust them out among the artisans or the farmers. And again, if from these there is born a son with unexpected gold or silver in his composition they shall honor such and bid them go up higher, some to the office of guardian, some to the assistanceship, alleging that there is an oracle that the city shall then be overthrown when the man of iron or brass is its guardian.”
‘Socrates proposes and claims that if the people believed "this myth...[it] would have a good effect, making them more inclined to care for the state and one another.’
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie
https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/joys/english/e_joys
I would like to offer a perspective I don't think you should miss. Many English authors wrote about their horrible experiences in boarding schools and of life in stodgy, middle-to-upper-class Britain; I find that sentiments similar to theirs persist in many people who came out of what we would call "repressive youth systems". You can hear similar complaints from the children of Nigerian immigrants or of Indian students who came through the IIT network, namely that they were pushed too hard by cruel people and uncaring systems.
However, I must notice that these people, especially the British authors, are often proud, learned, disciplined, well-spoken, and knowledgeable. The horrible memories they have of their past experiences are saddening, but I cannot deny that whatever repressive and authoritarian systems spawned them often did a damn fine job at raising extremely impressive men and women. I went through far less cruel or invasive schooling than they did, and cannot make the same assessment about the subjective worth of the vast majority of my peers, nor even for their parents. When I read prose of average middle-class thinkers, journalists, authors, etc. from more than 60 years ago to today, I see very plainly a marked downturn in the civic knowledge, moral backbone, and eloquence of these speakers and of the thoughts themselves as Western society moves away from its severe past into its "empathetic" future.
I myself harbor extreme anti-school sentiments and do not ever intend to send my future children to school unless they desperately want to go, but I still believe that extreme, conservative societies tend to produce the most impressive human specimens. Orwell is considered one of the greatest writers in the English language--I often wonder whether or not contemporary society is capable of producing his equal, or even his less impressive peers' equal. When I read the letters and musing of my grandparents- normal American country folk born in the 1930s- I am taken aback by their knowledge and eloquence, and I mourn for what I perceive as a loss of societal standards.
I suppose there are many who might mistake me for saying that I think it's worth returning to the cargo-cult corporal-punishment methods outline in the essay, but that is not what I wish to communicate. I would like to figure out what makes these citizens of strict and severe societies so impressive, and see if it's possible to yield similar results without all of the stupidity and cruelty.
This is flat out wrong and I'm amazed to see it written in a British publication.
There are plenty of definitions of what a "public school" is but I've never previously heard of anyone suggesting that it's just a private school.
I'm not going to get into how you define a public school but most people would agree these are : Charterhouse; Eton; Harrow; Rugby; Shrewsbury; Westminster; and Winchester, and that while there might be one or two other contenders there certainly aren't many. Just to be clear there are many hundreds of private schools in the UK besides these few.
If you're interested to know more the wikipedia page for Public Schools https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(United_Kingdom) gives the background, in particular the passage relating to the Clarendon Commission.
EDIT: Changed "is is" to "is".
In other cases, "Public [entity]" = "paid by the people".
There are also complex unwritten rules governing dress, speech and general manors that serve the same purpose.
There are some job interviews you better not turn up to wearing the wrong colour shoes or shirt.
Personally, I blame the Normans.
This is not true. Public schools pre-date modern state schools and what made them "public", by the original definition, was that they were open to any child - provided that their parents could afford the fees.
Other private schools at the time were open only to the children of parents who met certain criteria, and hence were not "public".
When learning English in France, you are taught about these British naming quite early and it is always a surprise for the children.
It is not even that there are specific needles for theses schools, rather the fact that a public school is not for the public.
You are right that what constitutes a public school is hard to define, but I think membership of the Headmasters and Headmistress' Conference is the usual definition.
However, the working definition given in the Wikipedia article, and definition used by the British government for the Public Schools Commission means that there are almost 300 “public” schools in England and Wales .
Your list is supported as being part of the “major” public schools AKA Clarendon schools:
‘Today, while the hierarchical distinction is less commonly used, only the "Great Nine" public schools of England – Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Charterhouse, Merchant Taylors', Westminster, Shrewsbury, Rugby and St Paul's – are referred to as "major"[citation needed] on account of this historical association. Schools outside this group are referred to as "minor"[citation needed], irrespective of contemporary influence’
Citations are missing for that paragraph however, all throughout the article it’s made clear there are certainly a few hundred public schools, and not just a handful. For instance, the link to the HMC page, of which membership seems to be more or less a good rule of them for a school being “public” : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headmasters%27_and_Headmistr...
Colloquially I do know that boys who attended Eton only acknowledge 3 or so other public schools, but the general public does have a broader definition. Nonetheless have a few hundred is still substantially less than the thousands which exist across England and Wales.