Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.

[border-rider]

At my school it was called bullying.  

I think you need to take a step back.  This is about a chess match.  The head was not inciting physical or verbal violence against the other side, just firing up his own team to win at the game they were playing.  I read Wow's comment more as reflecting the likely reaction of the "posh kids" in being thrashed at chess by some oiks, for the reasons Julian outlined so eloquently.

For children from a comp up against the poised self-assurance that private education can bring - it's a bit like the coach of a rugby team firing up his players when they take on a famous side.

[Pancho]

What's the alternative?

The alternative is to teach how to be magnanimous in victory. To take pride in achievement in its own right. To have self-respect.

The posh kids turn up to the matches in pristine blazers and tailored trousers to our lot's sweatshirts, jeans and trainers. Their whole body language - and, indeed, language, was geared to try to impose their superiority off the board. That's bullying - flaunting your extra wealth, code for saying "Whatever happens in this game of chess, when I'm grown up daddy will see to it that I get a very lucrative job as an investment banker whereas the best any of you will manage is a teacher.  They are advertising the fact that they are posh. Why should we not refer to this ostentatious display of wealth in disparaging terms?

This is so full of misunderstanding, I don't know where to begin.

As for making them cry, it happens in all competitive arenas. If you don't like it, don't compete.

The more I read of you as an educationalist, WB, the more relieved I am that my children are fortunate to be educated in a system that recognises effort and enjoyment.

[Wowbagger]

What's the alternative?

The alternative is to teach how to be magnanimous in victory. To take pride in achievement in its own right. To have self-respect.

Which is precisely my philosophy.

The posh kids turn up to the matches in pristine blazers and tailored trousers to our lot's sweatshirts, jeans and trainers. Their whole body language - and, indeed, language, was geared to try to impose their superiority off the board. That's bullying - flaunting your extra wealth, code for saying "Whatever happens in this game of chess, when I'm grown up daddy will see to it that I get a very lucrative job as an investment banker whereas the best any of you will manage is a teacher.  They are advertising the fact that they are posh. Why should we not refer to this ostentatious display of wealth in disparaging terms?

This is so full of misunderstanding, I don't know where to begin.

Try.

As for making them cry, it happens in all competitive arenas. If you don't like it, don't compete.

The more I read of you as an educationalist, WB, the more relieved I am that my children are fortunate to be educated in a system that recognises effort and enjoyment.

What makes you think I don't?

[Wowbagger]

At my school it was called bullying.  

I think you need to take a step back.  This is about a chess match.  The head was not inciting physical or verbal violence against the other side, just firing up his own team to win at the game they were playing.  I read Wow's comment more as reflecting the likely reaction of the "posh kids" in being thrashed at chess by some oiks, for the reasons Julian outlined so eloquently.

For children from a comp up against the poised self-assurance that private education can bring - it's a bit like the coach of a rugby team firing up his players when they take on a famous side.

It is actually a state primary school but we often played, and beat, selective and fee-paying secondary establishments.

[clarion]

It's very interesting how bullying takes place in insidious ways.

[Julian]

At my school it was called bullying. 

I think you need to take a step back.  This is about a chess match.  The head was not inciting physical or verbal violence against the other side, just firing up his own team to win at the game they were playing.  I read Wow's comment more as reflecting the likely reaction of the "posh kids" in being thrashed at chess by some oiks, for the reasons Julian outlined so eloquently.

For children from a comp up against the poised self-assurance that private education can bring - it's a bit like the coach of a rugby team firing up his players when they take on a famous side.

And I'm sure the head of the other school will have done a similar pep talk.  It's real Psychology 101 stuff to talk up your team before they start.  (Just before our GCSEs, our head gave us a talk on how {myoldschool} girls were brilliant at maths & science, had a reputation to maintain etc - it's only now that I realise she wasn't just talking us up, she was priming us to remember that we were an educationally good group & to achieve in line with that expectation.)

The posh kids turn up to the matches in pristine blazers and tailored trousers to our lot's sweatshirts, jeans and trainers. Their whole body language - and, indeed, language, was geared to try to impose their superiority off the board. That's bullying - flaunting your extra wealth, code for saying "Whatever happens in this game of chess, when I'm grown up daddy will see to it that I get a very lucrative job as an investment banker whereas the best any of you will manage is a teacher.  They are advertising the fact that they are posh. Why should we not refer to this ostentatious display of wealth in disparaging terms?

I don't suppose the kids thought of it in those terms for a minute.  Their thought process was probably "if I don't turn up as required in blazer & trousers our head won't let me compete."  If that was a message, it was being sent from one adult to another, using the kids as the medium.  And was clearly received loud and clear. 

[Hot Flatus]

At my school it was called bullying.  

I think you need to take a step back.  This is about a chess match.  The head was not inciting physical or verbal violence against the other side, just firing up his own team to win at the game they were playing.  I read Wow's comment more as reflecting the likely reaction of the "posh kids" in being thrashed at chess by some oiks, for the reasons Julian outlined so eloquently.

For children from a comp up against the poised self-assurance that private education can bring - it's a bit like the coach of a rugby team firing up his players when they take on a famous side.

What is wrong with just winning?

Frankly, I can't see any context in which hoping a losing child cries is anything other than unsavoury, bordering on frankly disgusting.  WB approves of this message being passed onto other children because it fits in with his prejudices.

I have taught some very scuzzy kids over the years. How would you have felt, WB, if I'd sent them to some competitive event involving your kids, who are hugely privileged by comparison, and told them that I hoped they made them cry?

[border-rider]

What is wrong with just winning?

Absolutely nothing, and I think that's all what was being suggested.  As I say, I read the comment about making them cry as a somewhere between a prediction of reaction and a confidence-booster for the under dog.  If it's suggested in all seriousness that making posh kids (or any kids) cry for its own sake (as opposed to them reacting that way when they lose) was a  good thing then I'd agree that it's highly unsavoury.

[Pancho]

At my school it was called bullying. 

I think you need to take a step back.  This is about a chess match.  The head was not inciting physical or verbal violence against the other side, just firing up his own team to win at the game they were playing.  I read Wow's comment more as reflecting the likely reaction of the "posh kids" in being thrashed at chess by some oiks, for the reasons Julian outlined so eloquently.

For children from a comp up against the poised self-assurance that private education can bring - it's a bit like the coach of a rugby team firing up his players when they take on a famous side.

And I'm sure the head of the other school will have done a similar pep talk.  It's real Psychology 101 stuff to talk up your team before they start.  (Just before our GCSEs, our head gave us a talk on how {myoldschool} girls were brilliant at maths & science, had a reputation to maintain etc - it's only now that I realise she wasn't just talking us up, she was priming us to remember that we were an educationally good group & to achieve in line with that expectation.)

And that's a perfectly valid message conveying high expectations and confidence in the ability of the audience.

What makes WB's story so unpalatable is that the headmaster is praised because his message to his pupils was "not only did he want them to "beat the posh kids" but that he wanted them to make them cry".

No school in my experience would tolerate this attitude from a child let alone an adult. In fact I know of an occasion when a comment demeaning an opposition team resulted in detention.

I'm wondering if this was ever actually said or whether WB embellished the tale without thinking of what he was saying. The more I think about it, the less credible it is that a headmaster ever said those words.

[Wowbagger]

At my school it was called bullying.  

I think you need to take a step back.  This is about a chess match.  The head was not inciting physical or verbal violence against the other side, just firing up his own team to win at the game they were playing.  I read Wow's comment more as reflecting the likely reaction of the "posh kids" in being thrashed at chess by some oiks, for the reasons Julian outlined so eloquently.

For children from a comp up against the poised self-assurance that private education can bring - it's a bit like the coach of a rugby team firing up his players when they take on a famous side.

What is wrong with just winning?

Frankly, I can't see any context in which hoping a losing child cries is anything other than unsavoury, bordering on frankly disgusting.  WB approves of this message being passed onto other children because it fits in with his prejudices.

I have taught some very scuzzy kids over the years. How would you have felt, WB, if I'd sent them to some competitive event involving your kids, who are hugely privileged by comparison, and told them that I hoped they made them cry?

Some, but by no means all. But I don't see how a willy-waving "my school's kids are scuzzier than yours" is a profitable line of debate.

As I've pointed out above, tears after chess games are not uncommon, even amongst otherwise supposedly well-adjusted adults. It can be because one's sense of entitlement is proven to be misplaced (more likely in a junior who doesn't have the experience of the world to be realistic), but it can be sheer frustration at one's own ability to bugger up what seemed to be a winning position. I know that feeling very well indeed.

[mattc]

OK, I think we can now translate the original statement, which appeared to have unsavoury intent:

When we took chess teams to National Championships, he actually told them that not only did he want them to "beat the posh kids" ...


"posh kids" = kids with more privileges than us, but who are people too, and worthy opponents


... but that he wanted them to make them cry.

kids often cry when they lose at chess. We want to win, and that might make them cry, but everyone will be friends afterwards. Let's go win!

If we leave it there will everyone be happy?

[Wowbagger]

Some, but by no means all. But I don't see how a willy-waving "my school's kids are scuzzier than yours" is a profitable line of debate.

The fact that you said that, and assumed that was my motivation, shows that you are myopic when it comes to issues of class. You are unable to see things from the point of view of the 'privileged', even though in many ways you are in that category.

Now, care to answer my actual question and not one of your choice?

Your original question about winning? Nothing at all, but in chess you don't take any prisoners. You get the upper hand and it's your job to keep it. You don't want to give your opponent a chance to get back in. Ruthlessness in a game of chess looks to the uninitiated to be just the same as bullying: taking advantage of your superior forces and not letting up. The difference is that the participants are there on a voluntary basis.

Winning was all we were setting out to do. During one National Final (1996), which by coincidence (I think) had been arranged for the same day as the County Championships Finals in Birmingham, and just a few yards apart, we had a succession of top players come in and see what was going on. One of them remarked "Hasn't anyone told the Temple Sutton players that they don't have to win every match 5 - 0?"

Am I supposed to apologise for the fact that that particular team was absolutely streets ahead of the opposition that year?

As an edit to the above, it is a great psychological advantage to be able to sit down to play against someone who is already frightened of you. Games can be won and lost by what happens off the board to affect the players' attitudes.

[Clandy]

As winning is so often seen as a 'bad' thing these days, Chess could always go PC...

[Frenchie]

Private shools in France = catholic schools. I went to one. My parents didn't pay much more than in a state school (we paid a £300 p.a. 20 years ago as opposed to £100). Yes, however, education was better. But, as I understand it, the staff etc. are still paid by the Education Nationale, i.e. the state.

As for the UK, well, I will be deciding where I send my kids. If state schooling is poor, which it is in many areas, then I reserve the right to invest myself in my daugther's future, seeing as the UK is very liberal and has left it for me to decide to do so. Will she become a little pest? well that is also down, in part, to me at home and, with our respective origins and a strong belief in meritocraty, I think she will remain well grounded.

[Hot Flatus]

As winning is so often seen as a 'bad' thing these days,PC...

Only if you believe the shite in the Daily Mail

[Clandy]

As winning is so often seen as a 'bad' thing these days,PC...

Only if you believe the shite in the Daily Mail

Wow, you really are a humour free zone aren't you.

[Hot Flatus]

Boo hoo   

[Julian]

Are you being bullied, UK?

[Jaded]

Clandy made the posh kid cry. 



 

[pcolbeck]

As winning is so often seen as a 'bad' thing these days,PC...

Only if you believe the shite in the Daily Mail

Well all three parties did seem to take the winning is a bad thing to hart at the last election. Shame only two came out with prizes though I thought it was PC to have prizes for all these days.

[matthew]

Having played chess for a local comprehensive against Eton in the Berkshire schools league, I can say there didn't appear to be a sence of entitlement, and yes the match was played in Harry's maths class room.

We were there in our uniform blazers all looking sensibly smart, with our teacher who ran the club but didn't train us. Yes it did feel odd to walk past some of their pupils in tail coats etc. but the wasn't the intimidation we got from some of the other comprehensives who would throw eggs at the bus as we went past. The biggest difference was in the food provided for the matches, most teams would take turns to have your parent provide sandwiches, however for the boarding schools this was a bit harder so the staff would supply biscuits or if we were lucky the canteen would provide an array of sandwiches and cake.

I would agree though that the achievement of the pupil is down to a number of factors including:
1) the willingness of the parents to support/ cajole/ push the child to achieve.
2) the ethos of the school to supprot / cajole / push the child to achieve.
3) the drive of the parents to ensure 2
4) the ability of the school to cope with disruptive pupils so that children where 1), 2), and 3) are there are not held back / disadvantaged.

In choosing private schools 1) is met as the parents are often making sacrifices to achieve this, it can also be seen in the scramble to get into 'top' state schools. 2) is also there in private schools though it was also there in my comprehensive. 3) is about the parents input, often about achieving 4) and 2) and is about the parents opting into activities which will stretch the child or taking an active interest at parents evenings. For private schools 4) is probably achieved via exclusions / letters to parents to achieve 1). For comprehensives it is about coping with those children where 1) is not happening.

[Attitudeless Badger]

he actually told them that not only did he want them to "beat the posh kids" but that he wanted them to make them cry. Chess, of course, tends to be the domain of the Public Schoolboy. There are very few girls.

Can we replace the word"posh"  with "gay" or "black" and see if people are still willing to defend the original statement?  They are all words to describe a group of people who are different through birth and/or the genes/social standing of their parents.........

[Julian]

he actually told them that not only did he want them to "beat the posh kids" but that he wanted them to make them cry. Chess, of course, tends to be the domain of the Public Schoolboy. There are very few girls.

Can we replace the word"posh"  with "gay" or "black" and see if people are still willing to defend the original statement?  They are all words to describe a group of people who are different through birth and/or the genes/social standing of their parents.........

I don't think that works - you'd need to replace the word 'posh' with  'straight' or 'white' for that to be effective.  There are a very few schools where the intake is almost all black (in the political sense) - would it be okay for that headteacher to say "Let's beat the white kids!" 

Isms are privilege plus power.  This is why people who talk about "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism" are usually talking out of their bottoms.

[Pancho]

he actually told them that not only did he want them to "beat the posh kids" but that he wanted them to make them cry. Chess, of course, tends to be the domain of the Public Schoolboy. There are very few girls.

Can we replace the word"posh"  with "gay" or "black" and see if people are still willing to defend the original statement?  They are all words to describe a group of people who are different through birth and/or the genes/social standing of their parents.........

I don't think that works - you'd need to replace the word 'posh' with  'straight' or 'white' for that to be effective.  There are a very few schools where the intake is almost all black (in the political sense) - would it be okay for that headteacher to say "Let's beat the white kids!"

Er, no.

And doubly no to say "lets not just beat the white kids - I hope you make 'em cry as well".

It's just not they way to bring up children. It's vile.

[Julian]

Curiously, it does seem to be okay for primary schools to divide kids into 'boys' teams' and 'girls' teams' and to urge each one to 'beat the boys / girls.'