<p>that makes sense at sps. they can’t have kids killing themselves over over exhaustion and lack of sleep.</p>
<p>Andover is the least structured. No dress codes, lights out only for freshman, big campus, allowed to go into town whenever, etc.
The most structured is Hotchkiss. The one strike policy, not allowed to leave campus (hard with no town near by), one main building ( not as many spots to “you know”), etc.</p>
<p>As an Andover parent, I agree that it is “less structured” with no dress code, big campus, students can go into town, no required formal dinners. But, that does NOT mean that there is no supervision. Small counselor to student ratio, restrictions for academic issues, students being dismissed or “asked” to leave for a variety of reasons, just like at all schools.</p>
<p>So, parents, do not fret about Andover’s “lack of structure.” I feel that it maintains a good balance.</p>
<p>I think Andover is a different kind of animal. Being “less structured” is part of its core culture. The school trust that their students are the most talented and motivated and deserve the room to explore and find their paths. The approach clearly has its advantages, putting the school in a uniquely competitive position. It’s some parents that get worked up - as most of you would agree, not many parents think their kids are so “special” that they can achieve as much as they can without the “structure”. It’s a test of will power of the students AND their parents.</p>
<p>Sometimes, however, a lack of structure at PA fails kids. When my brother was at Andover in the mid-70’s, the lack of struture (teacher supervision) didn’t not serve him or many of his friends and classmates well. Of the 11 boys who were classmates of my brother and living in his cottage back then, only 4 graduated from Andover. I understand that PA these days has more structure/suprevision than decades ago. (Hope so.) </p>
<p>As was the case in the '70s, it is still vital for PA, like all schools, to strike the proper balance between too much structure and not enough. It seems that each great BS hits that balance differently. In the end, such point of balance is one of the critical factors separating one school from another. Each parent should explore with each BS to which his/her child applies where this balance lies. Knowing and accepting that point of balance could be the critical element between a child selecting the right school and the wrong school.</p>
<p>
Yes, but kids fail sometimes in any other school too, regardless how structured it is. There is no evidence that more kids in Andover fail than in other schools. That said, I agree that the level of “struture” should be a factor to consider when selecting schools. These schools are different in big or small ways. Families should find the right match for their kids.</p>
<p>
In fact, I’m told that Andover has one of the lowest attrition rates, recently about 1.8%.</p>
<p>I’m pleased to hear that PA is doing a great job in retaining their kids. I know that times were tough for PA, as well as other BS’s, in the '70s. Things have changed for the better…and I believe that one of the main reasons for this change has been the increase in structure, rules and supervision at the top BS’s.</p>
<p>There are other ways to fail than getting booted or dropping out. The relevant question is whether there is a correlation between structure and college matriculation. Someone on this board was measuring matriculation with an index. Do the schools which have the most structure (how to measure this?) have a higher matriculation index score?</p>
<p>Actually, Andover and SPS, which are known to be less structured are doing best among BS’s on college matriculation, according to the research you are referring to. I don’t think that being less structured contributes to that though.</p>
<p>The top 3 with respect to matriculation to strong colleges are St. Paul’s. Andover, and Exeter. Interesting dichotomy, eh? SPS seems to be reputed here to be one of the more structured while Andover seems reputed here to be one of the least structured. Perhaps what’s reputed here is just a tiny part of the whole story - if, in fact, it is accurate at all?</p>
<p>Mainer95, I don’t think SPS is known to be more structured. “freedom with reponsibility” is actually an idea from them. From what I’ve learned, it’s one of the least structured.</p>
<p>Benley, I had a different impression, both from our visits to SPS and also from what I’ve read here. However, I also acknowledge that I could be dead wrong. A little bit of “knowledge” is a dangerous thing!</p>
<p>Definitions are getting murky here. Both Andover and SPS have checks and balances in place. The way that I understand SPS’s “Freedom with Responsibility” thing is that the kids are given the benefit of the doubt. Instead of saying, “all kids at this age need proctored study hall for X hours and lights must be out at 10:30” they wait for the student to show that they do indeed need those things and then enforce them. Perhaps a SPS parent could give a better idea of it. My own son has told me that it didn’t matter so much (the amount of structure) because he would put the “study card” on his door, or tell his friends to bug off if there is something he needs to do and I trust him to do so. </p>
<p>I remember reading somewhere that Andover has a “red flag” system in place to look out for the kids who are in academic troubles. I wouldn’t call these two school unstructured as much as I would call them more flexible. Of course, the success of this kind of flexibility is dependent on the depth of advising.</p>
<p>I doubt that there is any strict correlation between the tight structure of a BS and the high acceptance rate of that BS’s students to the top colleges in the country. In fact, there could be no correlation, or even a negative correlation, here. For example, the top private military high schools are not routinely running kids to Columbia and Harvard. </p>
<p>Structure leads more to quality behavior than quality colleges. Good behavior is a goal that all kids at a BS can strive to achieve. Elite colleges are open only to the few. The best BS’s exist, or should exist, to help mold kids for a better life. Helping students get into great colleges is just one big part of that molding. Helping students become great individuals is the biggest part of that molding…in my humble opinnion.</p>
<p>Structured or unstructured are in relative terms. For example, at Choate, freshmen have mandatory study hours as most schools do. During study hours, room door must be open, cell phones out on a table in the hallway, and Internet access is cut off at 9 (?). So, regarding mandatory study hours, Choate is not any more structured than other schools, but in how it’s done, it’s clearly more structured than SPS or Andover. I know the school policies are there for a reason. They may be suitable for the majority of its students at least from the perspective of the school administration. Whether it’s suitable for you is a question you should ask youself. Now, we are talking about “fit”.</p>
<p>Edit: again, toomb61, it shouldn’t be assumed that school being more structured is a necessity to help “students become great individuals”.</p>
<p>As an SPS parent, I can say that SPS is unstructured relative to many boarding schools - no lights out, no mandatory study halls. That being said there is a safety net in place should your child show that they are not capable of handling responsibility. </p>
<p>Like any school, however, different dorms have reputations for being more strict or lax than others.</p>
<p>More structure for kids doesn’t necessarily equal better character of kids. What more structure, rules and supervision by a school signals, however, is more input, concern and care by the school for the kids. Such oversight by the school is what parents want, I think, from a school for their children. The more direction and help teachers and other school officials give students, whether in the form of more rules and regulations of the young or otherwise, the greater the chance the ideals of the school will or should rub off on the kids. It the ideals of a certain school are the ideals you want for your kid and the rules that this school creates to instill those ideals are rules that seem to work, then a parent should feel comfortable that it has a match of child to BS. </p>
<p>If priviate schools don’t exist to help kids become great individuals, then those private schools shouldn’t exist. I, for one, believe the more a school can show itself as existing solely for such a purpose, the better the school. The structure, rules, supervision, level of care, etc. are among the best ways to evidence the application of this high purpose. The more points of contact or “structure” between school and child, the better, if you greatly admire that school. If you disagree, then we’ll just have to stand in disagreement.</p>
<p>It does sound like you have found the right school for your kid because he must be in neither Andover nor SPS. Congrats!</p>
<p>More rules does NOT equal more care.
It is possible to have “many points of contact” without a lot of rules.<br>
It is the way I choose to parent my kids and it is the way SPS chooses to “parent” their students. I am always accessible to my own children, I spend a lot of time with my children and am a very hands on parent. Yet we don’t have a lot of rules in our house other than get good grades, do your best and be a kind and respectful person. The path my kids take to get there is their own. I don’t tell them how or when to study - I expect them to get it done. If they show signs of slipping, then I’ll step in to discuss and see if more guidance or corrective action is needed. It’s about fostering independence and individuality.</p>