OT: Advice on All-Boys Schools
Hey, MGoBlog Community. Been on here a long time and never sought personal advice, but trying to explore all angles on a life decision. We're a firmly middle-class family with blue collar sensibilities, and our eight-year-old son has attended public school up to now. He was offered a scholarship to attend an elite private (non-religious, for what it's worth) all-boys school starting this fall. I'm struggling with the decision and wanted to see if anyone on the board has experience with all-boys schools. For me, the main pro is that the academics are top-notch, and my kiddo is super bright and has been bored and acting out in school lately. My concerns are (a) how he'll be with girls/women down the road not having any exposure most of his days and (b) whether he'll feel like second-class citizen around a lot of super-rich families. First-world problems, I know! But any advice/experiences would be welcomed.
Watch Dead Poets Society. That should tell you everything you need to know
Totally. I've been graphing poetry for almost 25 years now.
Rip it Out! I don't hear enough ripping!
as a former young man, all boys school is a no for me. i think there's a lot to learn in middle school / high school. a lot of it is what not to do. i think a bit of that is lost in an all boy/girls school, but that's just my opinion and in no way science based.
my kids always went to public schools, but they were always very highly rated public schools with lots of AP classes, STEM classes, etc.
My daughter graduated HS with a full semester of college credits and didn't even really try for that.
I went to an all boys school from 7th grade through the end of high school. I can't recommend the experience enough. The friendships are stronger with girl drama out of the picture, and an environment without girls gives boys more leeway to pursue activities they might otherwise shy away from, like plays/singing/etc... Concerns about awkwardness with women down the road are probably overblown, though worth seeing what sort of relationship the school has with a sister school.
On your second point about the socioeconomic makeup of the school, this is where I'm more out of my depth with advice. I was certainly toward the higher end of the spectrum at my school, though the school's need-blind admission policy made it extraordinarily accessible for kids with low-income backgrounds to attend compared to similar schools. I can say that it would be a challenge to feel like the odd one out, but the school's commitment to gathering boys with a range of backgrounds is definitely worth asking the admissions department.
Hope this helps!
My experience is similar to the above. By far the most important thing is if your son needs a quality academic school that will challenge him, there are no good reasons not to do it. The rest of the stuff may present challenges, but so does everything in life. Where i went i was not in the high income group, and there were some problems with that (mostly i was a reverse snob if anything). Sure i probably would have had a couple girlfriends, but i think if there were girls in all my classes i would have had a really hard time concentrating on anything else. usually these schools team up with a girls school for activities. Tell him to join the school play--he'll meet a bunch of girls and have some fun.
As a product of 100 percent public education, all my children are in private schools. We live in a great district. The district is awesome for the too 10 percent of the bell curve and has amazing assistance for those under the bell curve. For those mid and right of the bell curve peak, everyone is a bit of a number lost in the crowd. My opinion. Private provides more attention to all students, in my anecdotal experience.
Private schools are destroying public schools, exacerbating a dynamic in which a privileged few get ridiculously over-the-top educations while the rest get diminishing returns. There's no two ways about it.
The solution to inequality is not bringing everyone down to a lower level
Perhaps we'll be able to reach a place where the those at the top are willing to take a step back (or just not take another step up) to allow those at the bottom to make some strides up as well. I'm sure that there is a place where we could agree that the resources being used at the very top, where the ratio of $ expended to benefit achieved may be relatively low, could be reasonably used to benefit of those at the bottom, where the ratio of $ expended to benefit achieved could be significantly greater.
*Virtue Signaling Alert!*
You first.
No virtue signaling, just suggesting a solution. I have zero problems with people choosing to do what they think is in the best interests of their children, including placing them in private schools.
If you want virtue signaling, it'd go something like this:
You first.
Done, repeatedly.
And although I'm nowhere near the top, we do ok, so I do feel a sense of obligation to help the schools that serve my neighbors and community--financially and through service. I suppose I could fork out to send my kids to private school, but I don't. They're all in public schools. Further, my family volunteers (unpaid) regularly at the local elementary school (not to curry favor or influence policy mind you, but to support the teachers so they can get on with the work of actually teaching your kids and mine). Also, my family lineage contains a long, long line of educators (like you, apparently). Some taught in urban settings, others in rural. How's that for virtue signaling? Hopefully now you know where I stand. How about you?
So what is the solution?
Or is this just a method of halting discussion?
depending on the situation, the specifics could be any of a million things.
but if we want to advance as a society, the best answer is to never bring everyone down. the goal is to get more options and opportunities for others to help them to advance as far
example: lowering the educational requirement so more people can graduate isn't making anyone any better/smarter.
other example: lowering pay so everyone gets equal pay doesn't help and your businesses will go under as people quit en masse
While that is absolutely, 100% true, taxpayer dollars going to private schools is absolutely absurd.
If you mean no vouchers from taxpayer dollars you block out the poor from the private schools.
Private schools existed well before public schools, so i'm confused how private is destroying public?
I'm guessing that the commentator is referring to 'recent' efforts to redirect funding that would have otherwise gone to public schools to private/charter school tuition.
Public education has never been, nor ever will be, a ruling-class priority. Unfortunately.
Hey hey let’s not get political…..
Wow, blanket statements that are purported to be indisputable facts!!!
Parents destroy public schools. Some private schools are for "rich" kids, most are not. Most are religious based private schools with a good percentage of the kids attending that aren't that religion. Most of the private schools are made up of middle class families who believe their kids will receive a better education and upbringing there. Most of those families make big sacrifices to pay for their kids to go there.
I am very much middle class but will start off sending my kids to private school. I've had to make some sacrifices for my kids to go there.
I tend to believe that families are more invested in the future of their kids at a private school and the kids generally have better parental influences. I also believe the teachers care more or want to be there more seeking as how they are paid less.
With that said I believe in a good public school system as well as it provides for different opportunities as well
Public schools outperform private schools head to head. You're paying for entitlement and it's an expensive price tag.
Not my experience. I am an admin (in special ed) for a very good school district and High School. We are actually the only district in our very large county that has had enrollment increases every year for the past decade. Several in our ISD have lost over 1000 kids in the same time. We have two parochial k-8 schools in our district lines that we provide special ed services to (TC, speech, and social work). A lot of those students from the Catholic schools end up coming to our high school. The vast vast majority of them are so far ahead of their classmates that they exhaust most all of our AP classes and/or dual enrollment.
I’m surprised that’s not the case overall because it hasn’t been my experience. There has to be some sort of a floor to that statement because unfortunately a lot of inner city districts would anchor any comparison in scores to private schools. The district in the inner city I spent a bulk of my career in had less than 5% proficient readers in 8th grade.
If you compare the elite public and private schools the public always do a better job. The finances backing the private will be higher, and you won't have to work as hard at the private school due to family connections, but you'll get a better education. You wouldn't expect it because of assholes like the guy I was replying to who thinks if you get paid well you're a bad person.
Show me where the private school kid touched you.
You wouldn't expect it because of assholes like the guy I was replying to who thinks if you get paid well you're a bad person.
he didn't really say that ... and i had to reread it a couple times to get close to that conclusion. i prefer public schools for my kids, i think they are exposed to a greater diversity (not just in race or religion, but in many things) but that's me.
it is up to each parent to decide what's best for their kids.
in addition, the parents are the #1 factor in how successful your child will be, not the school they went to as a kid.
Disagree.
Relative to every neighborhood kid I knew, my private school workload was *significantly* heavier/greater than anything the public schools asked of their attendees. And that applied to all my fellow students, including those kids who were SES "disadvantaged" relative to the "family connected" ones. We all worked our asses off.
Well stated on all fronts!
Public school principals have to deal with school boards and superintendents, whom have to deal with local governments, which then deal with state governments, that then deal with the federal government. And within all those relationships, there are political games afoot.
Education is so low on the totem pole, that you never hear about it. It's an election year and the only time education is brought up is to talk about CRT.
If each individual public school could govern itself like a private school, it would be much better, but you can't do that when you're relying on government funding.
I went to an all-boys high school decades ago and although my family wasn't wealthy, it was a wonderful experience. The academic and sports experiences were so much better than the local public schools and I was able to make some great life-long friendships that continue to this day. It also enabled me to get into Michigan.
I sent my daughter to a private school here in Illinois because she is extraordinarily smart but somewhat shy. I felt that she would get lost at the local high school (over 2,500 kids in attendance) and that she would have a much better shot at standing out academically. It seems to have worked as she was accepted into every college that she applied to including Michigan. She will be attending Northwestern in the fall and was essentially given a full ride to attend.
If you can justify the financial expenditure, try it out for a year and you can always transition to a public education if that's what your son wants to do.
Also well stated!
Two words - Sausage party.
Two more words, sword fight!!!
No experience here with an all boys school, but I did go to a private grade and high schools (both Lutheran schools, so religious). I highly recommend that experience! The education opportunities are so much better.
I know yours isn’t a religious school, but I was able to outgrow that part of my indoctrination. (Thank God! Oh, wait…)
I can bring an "international" flavor to it :D
I studied in all-boys public schools till sophomore year of high-school. Then moved to a co-ed school for junior and senior years. The friends I made when I was younger are still strong today. But I am more in touch with the friends I made later in life.
Derision, mockery, etc. were present in both settings. So were resources to try out most things. Relationships with women among my friends have been weird to some extent. I married the first girl I met after college (20+ and going strong), so I don't know how I am or may be I am weird as well.
At the end of the day, do not have any regrets. I know a family who moved from NJ to NV because their kid got into a prestigious gifted & talented school in Reno in 7th grade.
Doesn't hold any appeal to me and having attended both public and private schools while growing up I found the experience of public school much better in terms of learning to operate with a wide range of people and learning from different experiences. But that is also because I went to a magnate school in a city and my high school had a lot of different backgrounds represented. If your public school is just filled with kids that look like your kid and have the same background that you do the private school might actually be more diverse.
To your second point the money thing is going to be real. The best thing is probably to be honest with your kid and have conversations about it. I know a lot of people struggle with that at Michigan because Michigan is such a rich school.
It's perfectly fine for elementary school. Once they hit high school it's a much bigger thing but through like eighth grade I wouldn't flinch to send any boy to an all boys school.
That was my education and it was awesome but definitely was ready to switch to a coed school for high school.
I've actually been having the reverse concern in that lack of exposure to girls during his early developmental years might have some sort of weird formative effect.
I went to coed schools through 8th grade. And all boys high school.
Played sports year round, participated in high school musical (at all girl school)
Went to multiple dances and proms all four years.
Had, maintained, gained friendships from all experiences.
Graduated from Michigan
Don't overthink it. If the all boys school is best for your son, he thrives in the environment, and he enjoys it. Do it.
I guess for me I got plenty of that outside of school. But just for classes and sports in the afternoon I think it works great.
Does that scholly carry forward to future years would be an early concern for me.
Yeah, it's guaranteed through the end of eighth grade.
I went to public schools as did my oldest. Sent my youngest two to a catholic all-boys school (for high school only). We thought the smaller environment in a private school would be better than our large public high school. I'm also a believer that boys learn a little differently and it's helpful to be in an environment that recognizes that. I don't see any problems with them relating to women. They have a mother, aunts, teachers and other females in their lives. They had dates to all four years of homecoming dances and senior prom as did most of their classmates.
We were probably in the middle economically. There is a lot of wealth. However, the boys seem to make friends more based the sports the played and classes they're in.
The end result is two kids at State and one starting UM in the Fall.
I attended public schools that invested in strong gifted programs through 8th grade and then switched over to an academically hyper-rigorous coed private school with weekly chapel services (but no other religious indoctrination and a student body with diverse religious backgrounds). Observations:
1. I thought it was helpful to learn to interact with girls at that age instead of treating them like a different and exotic species.
2. Private schools vary widely in academic rigor. Mine was ridiculously hard and that's not necessarily a good thing for the mental health of teenagers. The upside was that people who graduated near the bottom of the class could still get accepted to top-tier colleges and everything after that from college to graduate and professional schools were relatively easy in comparison.
3. Independent of the academics, it's probably worth the tuition just to be in an environment where disciplinary issues aren't tolerated. Public schools kinda hafta put up with a lot of bullshit from their kids.
4. Uniforms make getting dressed much easier.
Btw perhaps you could expound on what you consider "blue collar sensibilities"? You prefer Larry the Cable Guy to Dave Chapelle? MANBALL to spread O? Pabst Blue Ribbon to craft beer?
I never got the appeal of attending all boys or all girls schools. If you're more worried about your kids education then go for it, but as someone attending public school right now meeting girls and being good friends with them really pulled me away from the toxicity an all boys friend group could bring.
I attended De La Salle (suburban Detroit) in the mid-1990s --- my family was definitely not poor but at the same time we ranked in the lower half income/wealth-wise amongst the families of all the students.
So, my situation was somewhat analogous.
In retrospect, the academic rigor was much more of a benefit for me than any handicap from not being around young women. I wasn't exactly a social animal as a High School student, but I had attended co-ed private school prior to 9th grade so I interacted with young women prior to High School. I also had a healthy amount of exposure to young women during High School in both my neighborhood and at the high school jobs I had.
Net: if your son has a decent amount of interaction with young women already: he'll be fine.
The wealth inequality --- that was a thing, and I did feel it. Maybe High School is a bit different 25 years later, but I did notice even then that the way the social/friend groups formed - family wealth was a component to how those groups formed.
I have always thought that it's not the wealth by itself ("I only befriend people with a certain level of net-worth") rather wealthy people being able to participate in the same activities with other wealthy people ("Let's go to that restaurant tonight". "Oops. Have you seen the price of their dishes!!" "Oh, that's not bad.")
My son went out with his school buddies to the local mall a week or so ago. We gave him $20-$40 to spend. He comes back with a jersey of an NBA player. Apparently one of the kids in the group brought one for each of the four kids that were there. His parents gave him $600 to spend.
Oh well!
Good point. When I was in High School, I only had a little bit of walking around cash (if I had $20 in my wallet I felt RICH!) and I definitely didn't have a debit card with access to my parents' bank account.
Even today, the idea of a High School kid having that card seems bizarre to me. But I know if was normal for many of my class-mates even then.
The difference between the '90's and today is that these kids are much more aware of the economic differences among themselves.
A quick Google or Zillow search can provide them with information we couldn't possibly have been able to access when we were younger.