NEW MESSAGE FROM DAVID BODDY

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:14 am

a different guest wrote:
anti_ses wrote:You obviously missed my sarcastic comeback.


If that's what it was cos if it was it was pretty pathetic..

Thank you. My remark was meant to be pathetic, and should therefore have succeeded in demonstrating the similar pointlessness of leonmich's rhetoric. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. I have endeavoured to explain my ideas wherever possible, but rational debate does not seem welcome here.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:17 am

a different guest wrote:I've noticed before that long-term products of the adult schools aren't crash hot at sarcasm.

What exactly are you insinuating? For those who haven't yet heard: I am not, nor have I been, nor will I be, a member of the SES.

rachelS
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:30 pm

Postby rachelS » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:33 am

I have to admit anti-ses, that your name is rather puzzling. You mostly seem to defending the SES. And, if you have never been a member, why are you 'anti" ? Is it that you have joined in some other part of the world where the name is different? ( In some places, for instance, it's called the School of Philosophy)

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:41 am

anti_ses wrote:Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.


so the oft-quoted cliche goes.

Done well it is one of the funniest!


I have endeavoured to explain my ideas wherever possible, but rational debate does not seem welcome here


rational debate IS not only welcome but asked for. However regarding your ideas your name and your stance seem at odds. More endeavouring needed??? Or just some plainspeaking would do.

Matthew
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: London

Postby Matthew » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:20 am

anti_ses is an ex-St james pupil. Perhaps it would help to explain his agenda by quoting from his currently inactive yahoo forum: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/anti_ses

Anti-SES - providing relief for those unfortunate enough to have been in contact with the School of Economic Science, particularly students from St James and affiliated schools. Those effected by the SES must begin to confront the facts which underpinned the belief system and investigate them as fully as possible. This requires the ?tolerance of mental and emotional uncertainty? and leads one to put more and more facts, claims and sub-beliefs into mental parentheses while a reorientation is sought through open and honest communication and reflection. The purpose of this forum is to facilitate open and honest communication and reflection. If you wish for a more meaningful explanation of this group, you are invited to read the messages already posted on this site.

From: "anti_ses2k" <anti_ses@h...>
Date: Sat Sep 13, 2003 1:44 pm
Subject: The SES Effect

One ex-pupil from St James, a school associated with the SES, speaks
about the cult and its effects:

Hi. I haven't had therapy but I am one of everyone who has had a
very hard time getting over the St James/S.E.S effect.The 'doctrine'
on men and women is very bad (ie completely sexist..role
based,patriarchal, man= reason...woman should be dedicated/serve
men), on modern art and music very unperceptive, on homosexuality
back in the dark ages. when it comes to 'God' I have formed my own
relationship there, and what I consider to be my own
personal 'conscience' does not equate with the negative restraining
connotation that pervades most S.E.S member's view of what the 'will
of the absolute' is. Meditation is good (not something the S.E.S
invented)

Some of the inner philosophy that charters the 'within' is
good...the philosophy on motives for example, but so much of it was
just confusing clutter...it was never presented in any order, was
never truly pan-national or universally eclectic (for example
Nietzsche would never ever be discussed ortaken seriously either at
St james or the S.E.S...to do that is to disregard fundamental
characteristics of the human psyche....for all the talk of reason
and rationality the S.E.S is essentially very devotional and
religious to one man, the shankaracharya...who himself says that any
new consciousness arising in the West would be new not the copy of
Indian traditions and most essentially the relationship between
people and 'god' would change to be a non threatening one..a
metamorphosis that hasn't entirely taken place at the S.E.S. So to
sum up the S.E.S presupposes a scientific approach, but is infact a
very emotionally based devotional sect that cannot see society let
alone help it because it's eyes are blinkered by dogma and a lack of
any universal approach. You can't think if your mind is filled up
with all these notions,half understood truths,other people's
views...the inner state of most people's minds in the S.E.S..and if
you can't think you can't see hear or ultimately understand anything
as it is.

From: "anti_ses2k" <anti_ses@h...>
Date: Sat Sep 13, 2003 1:47 pm
Subject: Re: The SES Effect

A current St James pupil replies with his feelings about
SES "philosophy":

I agree. I am in the sixth form at the moment and in all
the `philosophy' lessons I take a psychologist/anthropologists
viewpoint on the discussion. As a result of our often heated
discussions Mr Debenham now frequently blanks me for the whole hour.
He also refuses to accept any contrary points to what he proposes.
If it was the truth then it should be able to stand up to any
questioning. I am not saying it is false as there is definitely an
element of truth involved. However, from what I have noticed about
St James (and I have been in it for 14.5 yrs now) you are allowed to
have any opinion you want so long as it is the right one. If the SES
is to continue and not die out with its aging population, it has to
accept that people want to question and that sometimes
the `teaching' does not reflect what actually happens in the world.

Its claims to multiculturalism are laughable. By excluding anything
other than `SES Hinduism' and Christianity, it is blocking all the
truth and viewpoints of not only Buddhism, Judaism and Islam, but
also the modern philosophers and thinkers. Even if it were to
continue as it does but explain the human mind and psyche with
proven facts from the scientific world then its arguments would hold
a lot more water.

When asked whether I would be joining the foundation group, I
declined, because I felt that as I was a practising member of a
religion, I didn't need another, as the SES is most certainly a
religion.

It is a shame that it is so blinkered and rigid, as there is a lot
of good things that the SES could spread. However to make the
changes would I think kill it.

From: "anti_ses2k" <anti_ses@h...>
Date: Sun Sep 14, 2003 8:01 pm

The mission of the Anti-SES group is stated on its front page:
"The purpose of this forum is to facilitate open and honest
communication and reflection." We encourage people to question the
messages on this forum, unlike the situation met by people in the
SES group. It is very difficult to keep an "open mind" when everyone
around you follows a mysterious organization and you have been
brought up in the basking light of the SES teachings. It must also
be emphasized that the messages on this board are contributed by
people who are in the SES and people who are not. All messages
within reason are posted unedited. Views on this board do not
necessarily represent the views of the owners of this group.

Although there is no law specifying that you have to believe
everything that you are told, this is irrelevant if the SES is in
fact brainwashing people. This group seeks to facilitate "open and
honest communication and reflection" - such a group is necessary to
provide relief for those who have obviously suffered distress from
the way in which the SES works, pervading through St James. Pupils
in St James junior schools often cannot consider the teachings of
the SES from a critical viewpoint, and therefore are prone to
brainwashing.

The SES is not "just a theory as to a beneficial way of life" - for
many people in the SES, it is a religion. The SES does not allow
free speech like this message board: in the words of one
person, "There are things you just don't say in the SES." There may
indeed be many beneficial effects the SES has on St James and
affiliated schools, but debate is necessary before such a conclusion
can be reached. That is why this forum has been set up.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:39 am

Thank you, Matthew. I would have thought everyone would have made the effort to read those posts, given so many are so intent on analyzing my agenda.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:41 am

rachelS wrote:Is it that you have joined in some other part of the world where the name is different? ( In some places, for instance, it's called the School of Philosophy)

No.

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:55 am

AS - not all of us have read those posts or have seen the link to your Yahoo forum. Would it have been so hard to post a link to it?

Goblinboy
Moderator
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:07 am

Two anti-ses?

Postby Goblinboy » Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:50 am

Anti-ses (maybe this is better left to a thread of its own but time is short),

Please don't take this as an ad hominum attack (it isn't intended to be). I had suspected that you were something of an imposter - partially borrowing the title of the Yahoo web list owner anti_ses2K. The postings on this website under your name read quite differently to the more reflective and questioning approach demonstrated by anti_ses2K.


FWIW the URL is http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/anti_ses/

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:49 am

well and then there is THIS post - the last on on that board by AS
Although moderator of this forum, I would like to intervene to express
my views regarding the recent posts. I very much sympathize with
gibble gabble's criticism of past pupils' motives in posting here. It
has become clear to me, often by what they say and even more so by how
they say it, that they are categorically attempting to put down the
SES and/or St James. Now this is not the objective of this board. St
James Schools no longer pressurizes pupils into joining the SES,
although it seems that those who do join are looked upon with more
favour as people who yearn to "be of use to the world" by the few
hardcore SES advocates that remain. I also believe that in my opinion
the two best teachers that taught at the Senior Boys' school left due
to their not being members of the SES.

Having said all this, these
obvious disadvantages, compounded with the appointment of a pro-SES
headmaster-elect, are outweighed by other offerings of St James in
comparison to the majority of independent schools. I may be Anti-SES
but I am a firm supporter of corporal punishment - in answer to
gadflys_dreams about alternative forms of punishment now that corporal
punishment is out, the effect it has had is to increase the number of
expulsions even though the policy of the school is not to pass on
problems. It has also meant increased disorder throughout the school,
which I do not feel can be subsided by any way other than corporal
punishment.


so SES=bad
SES schools = good

????
I suspect other past pupils would beg to differ

daska
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby daska » Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:51 pm

and ADG, some would not

Anyone who hasn't been to see the junior schools in the last few years should take the chance to BEFORE they condemn the current schools on the basis of their experiences many years ago.

Having said this, I would still say that the SES link is not fully explained by the schools, SES still hold classes at Earsby Street...

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:59 am

daska - I would refer you to Snowman's post in the "Amazed" thread.

The schools may no longer by nasty places where one gets whacked with rulers and ritually humiliated - but the CORE idealogy that underpins EVERYTHING the school does and how it goes about things is SES. If the SES is faulty then, ergo, so are the schools. For instance you can easily pickup from the various schools websites that they are still spuiking their outmoded notion of gender.

daska
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby daska » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:21 pm

ADG

I agree. Some of the values are outmoded. I just don't think you can completely dismiss the schools as 'bad' just because of their link with SES.

Today has been an odd day. This morning a flyer came through the door for the local branch of the SES - not called SES of course because they call themselves different names in different parts of the country. The reaction, as usual, was physical - fear and anger - I had to remind myself that the school where they hold the lectures needs every penny they can get from renting out the room and limited myself to shredding the flyer! Then this evening, halfway through writing this response I had a phonecall from a parent who has had to go through the process of accepting that she was blind to the problems there were at the schools and who is still making peace with her own kids. Tears on both sides as we talked about what happened at the schools. But also an acknowlegement of the changes that both she and I have seen.

A lot of the posts here are from ex-pupils. Some posts are from people who have never visited the schools or attended an SES lecture. Some are pro some are anti. Some ex-pupils were badly damaged, some don't feel that there was anything wrong with the schools. This post is from an ex-pupil who didn't come out unscathed but who has taken time to visit and judge what the St James JUNIOR school can provide when held against other schools.

The truth is that as with every school there are positive and negative aspects. St James do do some things exceedingly well and some things badly (oh my god the reading scheme AAAAAaaaargh! just one look and you want to slit your wrists on behalf of the children!). And, as with every other school in the world they will continue to be a good fit for some children and a bad fit for others. This is the eternal struggle for every concerned parent going through the pain of finding a school that suits their child's disposition and educational needs, budget, childcare requirements, religious sensitivities if they have any etc etc etc. e.g. My son is blissfully happy in his little local school and when I asked if he'd like to try a new school he was adamant that he never wanted to leave where he was but a classmate is leaving at half term because she isn't happy and her parents aren't happy as a result.

When it comes to St James what really matters is the balance of school v. home. If the kid's family isn't in SES then there will be a balance that is less likely to be there if the family is in SES. Many people posting here who suffered most come from SES families.

Schools good, SES bad? Simplistic yes but not wholly inaccurate depending on how a good a fit the school is for the individual child. Whereas SES (as opposed to it's members) has no redeeming features at all.

N.B. I am not at all positive about the senior schools and as I have said in previous posts there are aspects of the junior schools that still need addressing such as the curtsey.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:06 pm

daska wrote:...there are aspects of the junior schools that still need addressing such as the curtsey.

Just for clarification, do you also feel junior school boys taking their hats off is an issue worth addressing? I think the reason why the curtsey remains at St James is due to old English tradition, and is not an act of submissiveness per se.

As some have noticed, although I disapprove of many things the SES practise, I don't think St James is pure evil. I'm supportive of corporal punishment. I think the lack of reliance on IT is great: I know several pupils who have gone on to study Computer Science at degree level without any difficulties and actually think the introduction of a wireless network was a step in the wrong direction. In my eyes, classics are more relevant now, when transferrable skills such as logical thinking are in demand, than they'll ever be. I agree there isn't enough for pupils interested in modern languages, but I think this is partly due to the small school size and the consequent lack of demand. Overemphasis on Mozart and Shakespeare is disliked by many, including me, but that's a difference of opinion: St James doesn't hide the existence of these preferences. There's only a limited amount of time in a school day: the things that might replace subjects like geography are well worthwhile. Few schools of a similar size can match the range of extra-curricular activities offered (cadets, Duke of Edinburgh, climbing, sailing, debating, etc).

On the spiritual side of things, St James is hardly a recruiting ground for the SES. Many of the 6th Formers that do go on to join the SES do so because either their family is closely associated with the SES, or they want the opportunity to teach abroad in an SES school. Many ex-pupils think the underlying principles which govern the way the school is run have not changed, and so teachers still have the potential to reproduce the monstrosities produced in past times. This cannot be further from the truth. With the rapid influx of pupils from the local, non-SES community, the senior boys school will always be questioned whenever parents think something is wrong. It also means the philosophy will always be considered critically and, not surprisingly, result in heated discussions. At the end of the day, St James is an independent school and if parents don't like what's offered, they won't send their children there. Of course, if they happen to be in the SES then the story is different in many ways. I speak mainly of the current boys schools; the pace of change in the girls schools may be slower. I do not think St James can be seriously accused of false advertising: the schools' website seems to agree with the aims of the schools. Whether those aims are achieved is another matter.

parent
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:23 am

Postby parent » Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:12 am

Please get real. The school (including junior) is the furthest away from reality as it gets.

Take a closer look behind the facade. Behind the beautiful courtyard and the well rehearsed spectrum and the charming speech day.

This is not a normal school. The SES teachings are beautifully packaged and gently imparted. The Upanishads and Mahabharata are the highlights of the curriculum.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests