# Day Schools and Boarding Schools



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

The last generation has seen an increase in the quallity and quantity of independent day schools that are available to people in many communities. Although not inexpensive by any means, their tuitions pale in comparison to the cost of sending a child to a boarding school. I know more boarding school grads that send their kids to day schools than send them to boarding schools, though that may be due to my particular situation.

The headmaster at our school is a boarding school grad and a former boarding school development director. He has told me that most of the people who now send their kids to top level boarding school are families where both parents are so involved in their careers that it does not make sense for them to keep the kids at home. He also has stated that it is the trend for these families to actually move to a home near the school so that the kids can come home for the weekends, allowing for the best family life possible for these people.

Anyway, although we have talked quite a bit about boarding schools on this board, it is good to consider your local day school as an excellent ( even tradly) option.

FWIW


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

LongWing said:


> Anyway, although we have talked quite a bit about boarding schools on this board, it is good to consider your local day school as an excellent ( even tradly) option.
> 
> FWIW


Maybe because I live in an older US city my first response is - well sure. There's a school or two called (_____)(_____) Day School, over a hundred years old, in an old money neighborhood who send many of their grads to eastern ivy schools. Maybe not eastern trad - but certainly midwestern trad.
Cheers


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

My father was emphatically against me attending his boarding school, and we definitely considered the Day School options in the area (Hopkins, Hamden Hall, Choate day). I feel lucky though, because during this same time period we moved a few towns away, and found a small, highly ranked local system there. I asked if I could stay in town with my new friends, and my parents said "great!" (saved them a nice chunk of change, I'm sure, and my mom was happy to have me around). If I had not found the local schools good though, I'd have definitely picked day over boarding, I was not really ready to be run out of the house at age 14 for months at a time.

As far as trad goes, it's my understanding, from looking at catalogs and brochures back then (c. 1996) that many schools have done away with the coat and tie dress codes, so I don't know how "trad" that many schools are anymore, at least in terms of student appearance, though I'm sure plenty have beautiful gothic campuses. Glancing at their website, my father's school still has coat/tie dress codes, apparently, but they've also let girls in, so I guess that decreases the trad quotient as well.


----------



## sweetness360 (Dec 13, 2005)

I may be partial to the all-boys school I attended in Washington DC, but I definitely think that day school makes more sense over boarding school in a most situations. (This assumes that there is a good day school in the area).
For one thing, most of the old boarding schools are what they used to be in terms of tradition and trad-ness. Not only are they now coed, but they've moved away from the English style of education on which they were founded. In fact, ignoring the boarding aspect, my school was just as traditional, if not more so, then the old institutions of Andover, Exeter, etc. We still had a mandated coat and tie, Episcopalian chapel twice a week, sit down family style lunch, etc. 
If you find the right day school (a big if) you can easily get an equal quality education as the boarding schools along with an equally trad culture.
I don't want to offend the many here who went to boarding school, as I have no doubt it was an amazing experience and for many kids, boarding school is the right choice. However, I enjoyed the traditional culture of my school and I didn't have to sacrifice living at home and my freedom to get this. There is a lot to be said for that.


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

Having come of age in the '70s, I tend to identify the term "prep school" with boarding schools. Is this still true, or does "prep school" now refer to day schools as well?


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

Trad is about conservation, so going to a school that has the best value-price ratio seems to be what trad is about.

I went to a top public high school. But everytime I hear my friends talk about their boarding school experiences, I wish I had gone to their schools.

Prep school can be day school I think. St.Albans's and Gonzaga are both day schools in D.C. I think, they definitely fit the prep school stereotype.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

With an average of $8k for Catholic day schools and $20k+ for boarding schools in my area, the choice was easy. My brother and I both attended day schools, and while I am sure that the boarding school experience was great, I'm not sure that it would have been worth the extra money my family would have spent. Besides, we took some great family vacations with the savings.


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

Untilted said:


> Prep school can be day school I think. St.Albans's and Gonzaga are both day schools in D.C. I think, they definitely fit the prep school stereotype.


I guess times have changed. Back in my day, my friends who went to Gonzaga might have taken real offense to saying that they fit the "prep school stereotype." Their athletics were too good and their neighborhood was too sketchy to be a stereotypical prep school. For those who do not know the school, its alums include Bill Bennett, Robert Bennett, Patrick Buchanan, and Pat Conroy (attended only one year). Good school though.


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

some of their grads who came to UVa pledged real southern fraternities with other prep school goers.

i must agree that gonzaga is pretty week on trad-meter compared to other prep schools. Still, kids who went there are very very wealthy.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I am a great partisan of same-sex boarding schools. I have often speculated that a major reason my mother and I enjoyed such a close, loving relationship for as long as she lived was because I didn't see her for months on end during those adolescent years. (My father died in WWII before I was born.)

The irony is that there is no way, given my family's economic circumstances, I could have attended my prep school today. Tuition, room and board were about $1,200 a year in the late 1950s. Today it is about $25,000. The nearest high-quality private day school to us has a tuition of $17,000 or so. There was no way my wife and I could send her son to either institution. Fortunately, the public high school he attended was a very good one. Around the time he graduated, Newsweek rated it among the top 4% of public high schools.

I absolutely loathe the introduction of coeducation into formerly all-male institutions of education--completely ruins the character of the places. I have had no use for my prep school since they went coed in the 1970s--my old class president won't even attend reunions there for that reason. Likewise, I never want to lay eyes on Oxford again since Balliol admitted women.


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

I am a non-Catholic who attended a Jesuit highschool myself.

I do identify with my kids' school though. Our city has 3 independent high schools plus a high quality, and athletic, Catholic highschool. This is quite a lot for a town of 500,000 in a poor state. Sadly, it is a testament to the quality our public education system. Not all who attend are wealthy. Many parents make sacrifices for their children to attend. And there are many only children. The school parking lot is not full of BMWs. For that you must go to the free schools in the nicer neighborhoods.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I was a "dayboy" for four years at a boarding school 20 minutes from my home. We composed a bit more than a quarter of the enrollment. One advantage to attending a boarding school, whether or not you live there, is that you'll get to know kids from around the world. We had some Europeans, some Asians whose families still lived there, and lots and lots of South Americans. We also had a fairly national student body -- mostly from the Northeast but some from other regions. We also had urban minorities there on scholarship. I think the diversity was of great benefit to me.

Tuition when I started there in 1973 was $1,800 for day students and $3,600 for boarders and I think it about doubled by the time I graduated. Now tuition, room and board is $35,000, $26,000 for day students.

If you believe boarding school is right for your child, understand that there is financial aid available and that you need not be impoverished to qualify. My parents paid $600 per year. Currently about 40 percent of the students at my old school receive financial aid.


----------



## septa (Mar 4, 2006)

In my limited experience, kids from most of the top boarding schools resemble the majority of kids at the top colleges:damn smart and hardworking, often the childeren of professionals (MDs, JDs, etc) as opposed to the childeren of entrepeneurs and philanthropists, athletic, and plain in thier dress and manners. They tended to be a bit more "intellectual". The "preppiest" kids I knew in college, the squash and lax players who wore boatshoes year round and had the rakish attitude of the upper class all went to day schools-The Episcopal Academy near Philly, Landon and St. Alban's (For Catholics I thought Georgetown Prep was more prep than Gonzaga Prep, as is the Benedictine one, something Abbey, but maybe I'm confused) in DC, there were more, I just can't think of them right now...but the point is that IMO the boarding schools have become an extension of the national "meritocracy"--high academic standars, huge endowments and generous scholarships, and an international student body. The day schools seem much more old fashioned and trad.


----------



## LPinFla (Jan 7, 2005)

We sent our daughter to a local independent day school in our town, which happens to be one of the oldest in the state. She was there for three years, and we would have kept her there but for the local gifted school. The gifted school is unique, one of the only ones of its kind in the country; very highly rated with colleges and it's public. Students have to be tested and qualify to get in though.

I am still a strong believer in independent day schools, and would be in favor of those over boarding if given the choice. However, a day student at a boarding school is probably a good option as well, albeit with a hefty pricetag.


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

the preppy kids in my school went to St. Christophers, St. Alban's and Woodbury Forest School.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> I am a great partisan of same-sex boarding schools. I have often speculated that a major reason my mother and I enjoyed such a close, loving relationship for as long as she lived was because I didn't see her for months on end during those adolescent years. (My father died in WWII before I was born.)
> 
> The irony is that there is no way, given my family's economic circumstances, I could have attended my prep school today. Tuition, room and board were about $1,200 a year in the late 1950s. Today it is about $25,000. The nearest high-quality private day school to us has a tuition of $17,000 or so. There was no way my wife and I could send her son to either institution. Fortunately, the public high school he attended was a very good one. Around the time he graduated, Newsweek rated it among the top 4% of public high schools.
> 
> I absolutely loathe the introduction of coeducation into formerly all-male institutions of education--completely ruins the character of the places. I have had no use for my prep school since they went coed in the 1970s--my old class president won't even attend reunions there for that reason. Likewise, I never want to lay eyes on Oxford again since Balliol admitted women.


It occurs to me that maybe this thread should be in the interchange.

I happen to agree with you on coeducation most strongly, despite having attended co-educational schools all my life.

For one thing, on the non-academic front, and assuming heterosexuality (which I know can't be assumed, but go with me here), to me at least it seems that coeducation has created a climate where people tire of conjugal relations more quickly, have rediculously high standards for who they want, and spent most of it all unsatisfied. On the few visits I have made to all women's colleges, the graciousness and enthusiasm with which I have been received and asked to return has made me very jealous that this is what my forefathers in college experienced all the time. I think, in that arena, coeducation has provided too much of a good thing.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Coolidge24 said:


> It occurs to me that maybe this thread should be in the interchange.
> 
> I happen to agree with you on coeducation most strongly, despite having attended co-educational schools all my life.
> 
> For one thing, on the non-academic front, and assuming heterosexuality (which I know can't be assumed, but go with me here), to me at least it seems that coeducation has created a climate where people tire of conjugal relations more quickly, have rediculously high standards for who they want, and spent most of it all unsatisfied. On the few visits I have made to all women's colleges, the graciousness and enthusiasm with which I have been received and asked to return has made me very jealous that this is what my forefathers in college experienced all the time. I think, in that arena, coeducation has provided too much of a good thing.


My prep school went coed three years before I arrived and was two-thirds male during my time there, so when I was a freshman the senior girls were part of the first coed class. The gender disparity was the only thing I disliked about the place. In fact it was enough of an issue for me that I chose a college, Vassar, where the odds were exactly the reverse.

As I mentioned earlier, the school's ethnic and racial diversity was a key benefit of having been schooled there because I learned how to relate to people of different cultures. I think learning to have normal relationships with the opposite sex -- and I'm not talking exclusively sexual since not everyone is oriented that way -- is a key component of a teen's informal education. It's a little difficult for those relationships to be entirely normal if your experience with the opposite sex is that they are an exotic species like a platypus. I loved the school, but geez I was horny.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

Hahaha Fair enough, fair enough...I would only say that some of the relationships though that many of my coeducational peers and I have had with the opposite sex aren't perhaps all that normal. But you do indeed have a good point about being able to learn to relate to different people.


----------



## sweetness360 (Dec 13, 2005)

Not to stray too far away from the prep day vs. prep boarding debate, but the arguments made in favor of all male education are not concerned with how men will interact with women. Noone could deny that growing up in a coed environment will change how you deal with girls. This aside, I enjoyed my single sex education because I felt that everyone was much more free to say what they wanted. There was a real sense of comraderie, plus, girls can be a huge distraction in many ways for boys growing up. By eliminating that, you may create a sexist culture, but you also create one of comraderie and friendship which is far less tangible but equally important. 

Also, my prep school did have cooeducational english classes for upper schoolers, with girls walking over from our sister school. Sports like crew and climbing were also combined, so we weren't completely insular.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

sweetness360 said:


> Not to stray too far away from the prep day vs. prep boarding debate, but the arguments made in favor of all male education are not concerned with how men will interact with women. Noone could deny that growing up in a coed environment will change how you deal with girls. This aside, I enjoyed my single sex education because I felt that everyone was much more free to say what they wanted. There was a real sense of comraderie, plus, girls can be a huge distraction in many ways for boys growing up. By eliminating that, you may create a sexist culture, but you also create one of comraderie and friendship which is far less tangible but equally important.
> 
> Also, my prep school did have cooeducational english classes for upper schoolers, with girls walking over from our sister school. Sports like crew and climbing were also combined, so we weren't completely insular.


Just to be clear, I don't think the gender disparity created a sexist culture, at least not at my school. I think it gave both genders a distorted sense of how we'd interact as adults in real life. I was surprised that in the real world it was easier to find female companionship. I think our girls, no longer outnumbered 2-1, found it less easy in the real world to attract male attention. I think both genders would have found the situation more realistic if boys hadn't outnumbered girls by quite that much. Understand that even though I was a local kid, we attended classes six days a week and had more homework than our old friends in our hometown, so those relationships tended to die and our social lives became more focused on our prep school friends.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

sweetness360 said:


> Not to stray too far away from the prep day vs. prep boarding debate, but the arguments made in favor of all male education are not concerned with how men will interact with women. Noone could deny that growing up in a coed environment will change how you deal with girls. This aside, I enjoyed my single sex education because I felt that everyone was much more free to say what they wanted. There was a real sense of comraderie, plus, girls can be a huge distraction in many ways for boys growing up. By eliminating that, you may create a sexist culture, but you also create one of comraderie and friendship which is far less tangible but equally important.


My sentiments exactly. I would also add that you eliminate the terrible stressors of sexual rivalry and competition, the feeling of being "odd man out" or "loser" if you haven't "hooked up," to use the current parlance.

As to sexual disparity, in my day at Oxford, the male to female ratio among the undergrads was something on the order of six to one. This meant that even young women of quite mediocre charms (as all too many of the "undergraduettes" were in my day) were used to being feted and competed for quite intensely. I heard that when they got out into the real world and faced far more formidable female competition and far less favorable odds with men, it was very rough for them. Many had nervous breakdowns.


----------



## Scarred by Homer (Sep 8, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> I am a great partisan of same-sex boarding schools. I have often speculated that a major reason my mother and I enjoyed such a close, loving relationship for as long as she lived was because I didn't see her for months on end during those adolescent years. (My father died in WWII before I was born.)
> 
> I absolutely loathe the introduction of coeducation into formerly all-male institutions of education--completely ruins the character of the places. I have had no use for my prep school since they went coed in the 1970s--my old class president won't even attend reunions there for that reason. Likewise, I never want to lay eyes on Oxford again since Balliol admitted women.


I go to a single-sex day school, and while I like the school, I hate the fact that it is single-sex. It undoubetedly has certain benefits: the environment is more relaxed, less competitive and there are fewer distractions. But you're missing out on 50% of the human race. Yes, most people, myself included, see plenty of girls socially outside school, but it's not the same as working together. I have often heard English teachers who have taught at mixed schools before joining mine lament the fact that there are no girls, because they bring completely different perspectives to discussions on literature that you just don't get from boys.

Both sytems have advantages. Quite a few previously single-sex schools in Britain are now instituting a 'diamond' system, whereby girls and boys are taught together up to age 11, then separated, and brought back together for Sixth Form (age 16-18). This, to me, seems like a good compromise.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Apt signature. Yes, the ice age is indeed on its merry way. Another good reason to get a house with fireplaces.


----------

