<p>Hi wesray, may I ask how your son felt about the quality of his classes, faculty’s capacity to challenge, and if he made some lifelong friends at SAS? How did he experience the athletic program? What does his social group experience if they are not “counter-culture” as you say? Thanks in advance.</p>
<p>So wesray, if you’re “socially unsophisticated” you’re good for SAS, but if you’re “athletic and mainstream” you’ll be miserable with only a “limited group of likeminded friends and treated, for the most part, disdainfully by the faculty and the administration?” Really?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My first post here. I have nothing to do with SAS except respect for the school based on what I’ve read in the 30 pages here. Many CC’ers follow threads on schools beyond the ones their children attend.</p>
<p>The way I read it, Parlabane was not insulted by your comments about SAS but by the comment:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would have been insulted by that as well.</p>
<p>(Cross-posted with Parlabane who WAS taking issue with your comments, not just the parting shot. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, Parlabane. I was reacting to how I would feel about that comment. I’m out of here; I have nothing to do with SAS 
)</p>
<p>I have nothing to do with SAS either, except that I’ve been impressed by the loyalty and enthusiasm of its many proponents on this site over the last several years. Wesray, I’m sorry your son wasn’t keen about his experience, but respect the fact that he didn’t quit. Perhaps the disdain you hold for many of the SAS kids, faculty and administration was noticeable and not well received. Regardless, sounds like bad chemistry all around. Happens sometimes. Hopefully, he’ll enjoy college and come to appreciate SAS more as time passes.</p>
<p>Hi Twinsdad,
I would be happy to share my thoughts regarding those questions and more offline. If you are interested, post your e-mail and I will repond. </p>
<p><a href="mailto:Gtapscott@optonline.net">Gtapscott@optonline.net</a></p>
<p>wesray1: “I am not suggesting that one type of student is better or more desirable than the other.”</p>
<p>Aren’t you?
socially sophisticated vs. socially unsophisticated types
mainstream vs. quirky
athletic vs. intellectual</p>
<p>You’ve pretty much drawn the line between traditionally “popular” kids and “unpopular” kids, writ large over generations and generations of high schoolers — not to mention the way high school culture has been portrayed in media for decades. And what kid wants to be viewed by his/her peers to be on the “wrong” side of that divide?</p>
<p>When I think of the term “counter-cultural” as it applies to SAS and as it is used by Tad Roach (and others adult leaders at the school), I think of the following:
- an environment that does not foster hierarchies based on socio-economic class or race
- an environment that encourages kindness (often absent among teens — and not just today’s generation)
- an environment that discourages use of/experimentation with drugs & alcohol
- an environment that discourages bullying in any form
- an environment that does not place too high a value on material possessions (especially “status” brands)
- an environment that does not place too high a value on pop culture (looking at celebrities as role models)
- an environment that minimizes dependence on digital devices and encourages genuine face-to-face dialog
- an environment that values hard work, persistence, and resilience over easy and ephemeral “wins”
- an environment that fosters a belief in kids that they can make a difference in the world, and perhaps should do their best/try their hardest to make that difference</p>
<p>Honestly, all of these strike me as fairly “traditional” values…which in our day and age are considered “counter cultural” because of the rise of other values (materialism, “fame”, snark, generally poor taste/form — I’m looking at you, Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus!).</p>
<p>I do not have any personal experience with SAS so do not feel qualified to comment on that particular school. But @wesray my thought is that some of what you describe is being played out on many boarding school campuses as well as on many college campuses nationwide. The whole “check your privilege” article at a prestigious university and the takeover of the presidents office at another are just a few examples. It is just not all that popular these days to be wealthy or mainstream. </p>
<p>I can’t speak for SAS but I do think that the boarding schools in general are trying hard to accommodate alternative lifestyles and racial/socio-economic diversity. It is a VERY difficult undertaking. Although what you describe seems to go deeper than what we have experienced, I can assure you a lot of the preppy, mainstream kids are feeling a bit unsettled these days at many boarding schools.</p>
<p>"socially sophisticated vs. socially unsophisticated types
mainstream vs. quirky
athletic vs. intellectual</p>
<p>You’ve pretty much drawn the line between traditionally “popular” kids and “unpopular” kids, writ large over generations and generations of high schoolers"</p>
<p>I would agree that it’s how the media (specifically 80’s-era John Hughes movies) have portrayed the social balance, but except for the first tension (which is literally a set of opposites), I would disagree this is how it is in real life. In my experience, athletes are often the smartest kids in the school. Or at least, the smartest kids in the school are very often athletes (with much more frequency than John Hughes would have us believe). And I’m not sure what “mainstream” is anymore. Everyone is a little quirky.</p>
<p>I don’t think Tad Roach’s emphasis on these positive attributes is “counter-cultural” at all, so I agree with your last point; but you and I would probably disagree that this sets SAS apart. Most schools are doing these things, or at least most top schools. </p>
<p>HarvestMoon, we have both paid attention to what various people on college and boarding campuses have said, which boils down to diversity, in so many different ways, is good and we are going for it. I am not so sure that that means traditional prep school families, whatever their individual tastes or backgrounds, are no longer “popular”. They feel not so popular, for sure, because the field is getting so crowded with intelligent hard-driving kids from everywhere; like at the info sessions, “how is my kids going to get through these masses?”.</p>
<p>It’s only been a day or so, but @bellemet and @wesray1 don’t seem too interested in describing much of anything. The school is too liberal for them, but what this amounts to is thin: anti-athletic, “counter-cultural”, too permissive on sexuality but not on drugs and alcohol, alleged instances of impropriety with an utter lack of specifics. Wow. </p>
<p>It is a “liberal” environment, like the general pattern that you point out. But why on earth would you think that the descriptions given thus far “go deeper” than at any other well known boarding school?? The Maya Peterson case at Lawrenceville, discussed so much, clearly supports your final sentence, but we have nowhere near as much information as this from these two new CC posters. For them to say that SAS has gone over the liberal abyss, or is even near it, in comparison with peer schools, is still unfounded. SevenDad is correct to define “counter-cultural”, which is wesray’s whole problem, and I will weigh in on that in due course.</p>
<p>I think it was wesrays opinion about the disdain that faculty had for a certain type of student that made me think it went deeper. Our experience has been that BS faculty are extremely supportive of all students in the community and actually celebrate the differences that exist in the student body. That modeling goes a long way in achieving a harmonious campus environment. I am not saying that he is correct in his assessment, but I am saying it is something we have never encountered.</p>
<p>Ok, folks. Stop ganging up on wesray1. S/he raises a valid point - that there is a cultural academic elite that calls itself “liberal” but is actually very intolerant of other, more conservative, viewpoints. With the result that those not going with that flow can find themselves ostracized, and that this tone is set from the top down. Really, this is not news in our universities, although it is usually reserved to the faculty, not the administration, I had thought. It’s a little surprising to think that atmosphere pervades secondary schooling and may be sanctioned at higher levels than individual teachers, however. But wesray1 went through four years of it, and his/her POV is no less valid than yours.</p>
<p>I think Bloomberg hit the nail on the head in his commencement speech to Harvard in June! It totally speaks to Wesray1’s point!</p>
<p>“Bloomberg’s remarks struck a chord with me, as I think many of our colleges and universities promote a strong liberal ideology where the views of conservatives are not only not welcome, but the number of conservative faculty members is often miniscule. I should know—I’ve experienced the elitist condescension first-hand as a conservative faculty member by those who were stunned that I would deign to differ from liberal ideology.”</p>
<p>@Nwbbdad: The distinctions were provided by wesray1, not me. And while I agree that “everyone is a little quirky”, I believe (based on observation and my work with our church youth group) that the “us/them” dynamic is very alive in American high schools. It’s not just the stuff of John Hughes films…there are plenty of relatively current news stories about kids who are systematically ostracized or bullied — often the behavior is amplified by social media/technology.</p>
<p>As for the unique-ness of what SAS is doing, I admit to being most familiar with St. Andrew’s and St. Paul’s…the two schools that my older daughter was between a few years ago. And I can say that from our POV, the vibe was distinctly different. If I knew more about more schools (thank goodness we are done with the high school searches!), perhaps I would agree more with you on this point.</p>
<p>On a related note, shouldn’t the opposite or anti-type of “intellectual” be “not intellectual”? Furthermore, assuming that one reason many parents look into the BS option is academic rigor for our kids, wouldn’t you want a critical mass of “intellectuals”?</p>
<p>Well, yes, the general point of “liberal intolerance” might be supported by particulars somewhere else, at another place and time, but nobody on this thread has substantiated it with any detail as pervading St. Andrew’s School. If you’re a lawyer, you should see this quite readily, but, really, anybody should. I have not ganged up on wesray by asking him for more facts, but what s/he has done in lieu of these amounts to character assassination. Most readers here who have posted are simply pointing out that it stretches reason beyond belief to claim that the administration and faculty “disdain a certain type of student” – which type is described no further than as being “bourgeois” (and “mainstream”)!! </p>
<p>This is a serious charge, and taken very seriously. It is one that I have not found any evidence for in the last three years. </p>
<p>If anything, what I have seen as a parent of two at SAS goes exactly to the opposite. The school may have been too liberal for these alumni parents, which is fine, but that does not permit them to make scurrilous charges about a broad group of professionals and to gossip about allegedly horrible things. </p>
<p>@bellemet, why won’t you speak to what you think happened at St. Andrew’s?</p>
<p>Lots of readers may want to believe, as Nwbddad does, that wesray is correct about SAS, but that does not make him so. If you have no affiliation with the school, if you have not read or listened to its many voices, then why go along with a stranger’s provocative “point of view” just because he’s “entitled to it”? </p>
<p>One of the great voices at St. Andrew’s for the last several years was the daughter of Ed Gillespie, formerly of Mit Romney’s campaign and now the Republican candidate for senator from Virginia. She was a member of a club called “the League of Extraordinary Conservatives”, and, more importantly, she wrote opinion pieces quite frequently in the school newspaper. You can learn a lot more about what is going on at St. Andrew’s by following the students actually there than you can by reading parent posts here, including mine. </p>
<p>Here is a newspaper issue from last fall, after a talk on campus by Joel Salatin. There are two pieces by Ms. Gillespie, and several others that comment on Mr. Salatin from “different points of view”.<br>
<a href=“http://library.standrews-de.org/lists/archives/student_publications/cardinal/2013_10-18_vol-81_no-2.pdf[/url]”>http://library.standrews-de.org/lists/archives/student_publications/cardinal/2013_10-18_vol-81_no-2.pdf</a></p>
<p>And here is a video clip of Tad Roach speaking to what he means by “counter-cultural”. It is not an all-encompassing statement, but you will notice that his meaning transcends any liberal-conservative divide:
<a href=“http://www.standrews-de.org/news/detail.aspx?pageaction=ViewSinglePublic&LinkID=1111&ModuleID=22[/url]”>http://www.standrews-de.org/news/detail.aspx?pageaction=ViewSinglePublic&LinkID=1111&ModuleID=22</a></p>
<p>I would like to comment further on this term in a future post. I reject the notion, for now, that the admissions office at SAS is “looking for counter-cultural kids rather than mainstream kids”, but there is no denying that the counter-cultural message aims to affect the students over four years time. Listen to Tad, and judge for yourself whether that is the message you want your children to get. </p>
<p>To Charger78 - clearly your daughter heard the same type of info that I did and I quote you - “My daughter, a rising sophomore, stated this evening that she was aware of something a bit “d-ickish” (the auto draft automatically wants to change some words I’ve typed today) involving junior boys. She wasn’t sure whether this was in Founders on Schmolze or Baum corridor. In either case, she seems not to know, or to have wanted to know, much more in the way of details though she said one of the corridor parents quickly put a stop to some undesirable behavior, whatever it was”. It is not my place to gossip on a forum thread but involves boys in a Shmolze single and is not related to drugs or alcohol. </p>
<p>@SevenDad: Since you adopted wesray1’s distinctions by your next statements (endorsing them as “drawing the line”…“over generations and generations of high school students”), I thought it was fair to say you agreed with them… no?</p>
<p>I would definitely agree with you that SAS is different - I think that’s wesrays1’s point as well. I just don’t think the difference has anything to do with the factors you mentioned in your post, which was a pretty egregious straw man - essentially you said, “you say SAS is different? If by “different” you mean <em>insert list of the things the Head emphasizes</em>, then I agree with you my good man, and isn’t that a great thing?”</p>
<p>Problem is, that’s not the problem wesray1 described.</p>
<p>I’m puzzled over your last paragraph - the point of my post was that “intellectual” is not the opposite of “athletic,” which it seems you’re agreeing with but I can’t tell. I’m actually not really sure who you’re addressing in your last paragraph.</p>
<p>Oh well. This was fun.</p>
<p>@Charger78: “Scurrilous?” “Amounts to character assassination?”</p>
<p>To quote Bill Murray, “Lighten up, Francis.” It’s a message board. </p>
<p>I really have no dog in this fight, except I don’t like to see people silenced for unpopular opinions. And I would add, your reaction seems pretty disproportionate, which kind of adds to my growing suspicion that wesray1 may be onto something there.</p>
<p>@Nwbddad: I was using wesray1’s words to illustrate (possibly poorly?) that s/he was in fact assigning some value to the groups, contrary to his/her claim.</p>
<p>My actual POV on this minutiae is that I am more in your camp — that everyone has their own quirkiness, and that athletes can and are among the most solid students, life is more grey than black and white, etc. But I also realize the quite powerful tendency of all humans to create an “other” and define their world in terms of “us” and “them”.</p>
<p>Regarding my defining of “counter-cultural” as it applies to SAS, with my litany of virtues…I was trying (again, perhaps poorly) to clarify what I believe it to mean at SAS. The very phrase “counter-cultural” can evoke some extreme imagery (think Abbie Hoffman) and I was trying to mitigate that perception — especially by people who are still in prospecting mode</p>
<p>My last paragraph (of post #473) was mere musing, directed at no one.</p>
<p>I find the particular counter-culturalism at SAS refreshing. My impression is that SAS is authentically counter-cultural, not just moderate or split the difference…counter-cultural in ways that liberals might not like, in ways that conservatives might not like. As examples, SAS requires weekly attendance at religious service…not “chapel” programs but actual church (or your religious service); SAS embraces the LBGT community. If you are a rigid, stereotypical conservative or a rigid, stereotypical liberal, you can find something not to your liking, yet you might find you like the whole package at SAS regardless. But none of us are rigid, stereotypical…right?! :)</p>