A “school” in Britain provides primary or secondary education (tertiary is “a university”, you wouldn’t find a UK person saying “Cambridge is a good school”). A “public school” in Britain is a secondary school where the parents pay a fee for their kids to attend. Confusingly, if you also describe it as a private school, people will know what you mean. ISTR the name arises because in the Olden Days if you were properly posh you’d have a personal tutor, so shared (but fee paying) schools were “public”. In the UK, what Americans call a public school is typically referred to as a state school.
As well as just having more money for teachers, books and equipment, a major advantage public schools offer is connections (since your school’s alumni basically are the British establishment) and confidence, which may or may not be proportional to ability. Since Oxbridge applicants are interviewed, confidence can affect who gets in there (although these days they’re aware of it and try to level the playing field), and so the cycle continues. Cummings is saying he doesn’t want the archtypical public schoolboy who can quote a bit of Latin but doesn’t really know anything (which is odd given who he works for, but so it goes).
In the UK, we have state schools and private schools. The seven ‘public schools’ are elite independent private schools. In Victorian times, before state education existed, the public schools were those open to all members of the public wherever they lived, whereas most schools were only open to church members or local residents. The public schools were granted independence from the church and crown by an act of parliament, which enabled them to develop to what they are today.
Right, so if I understand correctly “public schools” in the UK occupy a similar status position as the Ivy League schools in the USA, albeit at the level of secondary education (high school) instead of university.
Yes. The fees are typically £40k per year. They are said to be capable of getting a below average intelligence pupil into Oxford/Cambridge through extensive tutoring and support. Boris Johnson is a case in point.
Johnson is all tactics and no strategy. His buffoon schtick just serves to disguise the fact that he is a bullshitter with a posh accent. The clever people are the ones behind him—Cummings and Bannon.
A few new users have shown up in this thread, and while I don’t think this thread warrants any mod action, I just want new users to have a clear sense that this sort of political discussion isn’t what LessWrong is centrally about. (A few comments in this thread seem like the sort of casual political… namecalling? you’d see in typical FB / reddit / twitter. That isn’t what we do here.)
Yes, though I’m not sure whether the USA has the similar phenomenon of a few private schools providing so much of the ruling establishment figures or whether there’s a similar “private school bluffer” / Upper Class Twit archetype there.
Not as strong, but it exists. It’s mostly through the alumni networks of the Ivy League schools. See, for example: George W. Bush. A couple of fancy private schools feed into Ivy League schools, whose alumni networks (and elite fraternities) feed into prestigious law schools, business schools, or certain industries like investment banking and politics.
From the full text:
*cough* Boris Johnson *cough*. But if that’s what you have to work with...
Can someone from the UK translate this quote into Americanese? I don’t understand what connotation “public school” has here.
A “school” in Britain provides primary or secondary education (tertiary is “a university”, you wouldn’t find a UK person saying “Cambridge is a good school”). A “public school” in Britain is a secondary school where the parents pay a fee for their kids to attend. Confusingly, if you also describe it as a private school, people will know what you mean. ISTR the name arises because in the Olden Days if you were properly posh you’d have a personal tutor, so shared (but fee paying) schools were “public”. In the UK, what Americans call a public school is typically referred to as a state school.
As well as just having more money for teachers, books and equipment, a major advantage public schools offer is connections (since your school’s alumni basically are the British establishment) and confidence, which may or may not be proportional to ability. Since Oxbridge applicants are interviewed, confidence can affect who gets in there (although these days they’re aware of it and try to level the playing field), and so the cycle continues. Cummings is saying he doesn’t want the archtypical public schoolboy who can quote a bit of Latin but doesn’t really know anything (which is odd given who he works for, but so it goes).
Ok, so I guess Americans might use “prep school” here.
Yeah, places like Philips Andover is your best translation I think.
I assume you mean “fee paying.”
So “public school” (UK) = “private school” (USA)?
Gotcha. You can see why it was confusing for me—I read it with the exact opposite meaning.
I think Cummings thinks Boris works for him, to be honest.
In the UK, we have state schools and private schools. The seven ‘public schools’ are elite independent private schools. In Victorian times, before state education existed, the public schools were those open to all members of the public wherever they lived, whereas most schools were only open to church members or local residents. The public schools were granted independence from the church and crown by an act of parliament, which enabled them to develop to what they are today.
Right, so if I understand correctly “public schools” in the UK occupy a similar status position as the Ivy League schools in the USA, albeit at the level of secondary education (high school) instead of university.
Yes. The fees are typically £40k per year. They are said to be capable of getting a below average intelligence pupil into Oxford/Cambridge through extensive tutoring and support. Boris Johnson is a case in point.
Johnson was perhaps below average in his application to his studies, but it would be a mistake to think he is/was a below average intelligence pupil.
Johnson is all tactics and no strategy. His buffoon schtick just serves to disguise the fact that he is a bullshitter with a posh accent. The clever people are the ones behind him—Cummings and Bannon.
[Mod note]
A few new users have shown up in this thread, and while I don’t think this thread warrants any mod action, I just want new users to have a clear sense that this sort of political discussion isn’t what LessWrong is centrally about. (A few comments in this thread seem like the sort of casual political… namecalling? you’d see in typical FB / reddit / twitter. That isn’t what we do here.)
This post is a personal blogpost, rather than a frontpage post, so the rules are a bit laxer, but even on personal blogposts the default norms tend to frown upon this sort of thread.
There are similarly priced secondary schools in the USA if you want to get your kids into Yale, Harvard, Stanford, etc.
Or you just bribe the admissions officer, apparently.
Argh, I mistyped “fee” as “free”. Fixed.
Yes, though I’m not sure whether the USA has the similar phenomenon of a few private schools providing so much of the ruling establishment figures or whether there’s a similar “private school bluffer” / Upper Class Twit archetype there.
Not as strong, but it exists. It’s mostly through the alumni networks of the Ivy League schools. See, for example: George W. Bush. A couple of fancy private schools feed into Ivy League schools, whose alumni networks (and elite fraternities) feed into prestigious law schools, business schools, or certain industries like investment banking and politics.