Page 2 of 3

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:41 am
by marty
yamaha wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:36 am Jeremy Gates was the only one who complained about being in the sticks. He got a job at Harrow and a couple of years later the IRA blew up his home at the school.
Blowing up his home because he complained is taking things a little too far :lol:

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:13 am
by CodFlabAndMuck
Keyhole Kemp was a ski instructor in the Alps during holidays so dovetailed perfectly with the academic and sporting life at CH
Some of the teachers just couldnt get out.
I recall my Housemaster mentioning to us on a min bus trip out somewhere that hed applied for a headship and got nowhere.
A little later he admiringly commented "theyve got it sorted" as we drove past Dulwich College
And lets not forget a number of "confirmed" bachelors who eventually married.
Plumley who was a wonderful eccentric, and Dodger Martin who had children
Lorimer, Rocker Ray, O Meara, Kemp, they just loved the life. It wasnt a job and they were as straight down the line as any person you could meet

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:25 am
by Mid A 15
I believe the pension arrangements were considered generous 'back in the day' too.

That may well no longer be the case with the squeeze on pensions generally.

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:24 am
by J.R.
Quite an interesting slant on staff types which I'd never really thought about.

Some names I recognise - Many I don't.

Obviously Lorimer and Rocker Ray both taught me during my tenure, as did R.A. Hewitt who taught me English and was my Junior house-master in Coleridge B and a fairly young bachelor. I don't think he had a very long career at CH and I never did find out any of his later career.

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:01 pm
by Mid A 15
The late Ron Lorimer was my housemaster throughout my time in Middleton A.

I met him at (another Old Blue) a friend's wedding some years after leaving and as the only people either of us knew were the groom, his brother and their parents, all of whom had other duties most of the day, we spent much of the time together before adjourning to a pub once the bride and groom departed.

He asked me what I was up to and, as the beer flowed, I asked him a variant on the title of this thread.

In summary his answer was that at a day school you can only really see and influence the child's academic development whereas at a boarding school you see and influence the child's whole development and in essence the job satisfaction is you can feel that you have made a significant contribution.

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:36 pm
by bakunin
marty wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:26 am
If you mean Roger Sutcliffe I'm not sure he fits into that category. He had 2 separate stints at the school. Whilst I recall he was single during his first stint, he was married (i think to a member of staff - perhaps a matron...#hazymemory) by his second one.
I thought he was there continuously the whole time? Not sure though. He married the mother of a pupil. He was my housemaster in Mid B, and was trying to promote philosophy as an option on the curriculum (unfortunately he didn't succeed except for hosting a philosophy club - don't know why philosophy is such a low priority in England compared to e.g. France. I think it should be a core subject)

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:55 pm
by wagenman
bakunin wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:36 pm don't know why philosophy is such a low priority in England compared to e.g. France. I think it should be a core subject)
It's because philosophy requires thinking rather than didactic learning.

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:47 pm
by Avon
Ah, but the French teach philosophy in a didactic way, non?

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:16 pm
by Katharine
Going back to the original question, was the attraction having accommodation thrown in? I think at an early stage of one's career that could be very useful, then inertia might set in!

At Hertford none of the teaching staff were billeted in the boarding houses, we had non-teaching housemistresses. I'm not sure how many staff lived on the premises, but it certainly seemed as if most of the single ones did, none of the married staff did. I think the younger and newer ones had bedsits in two staff houses and the more established ones lived in some of the oldest buildings on the site, a series of cottages along the front wall.

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:27 pm
by DazedandConfused
During my time many (most?) staff also owned properties in nearby towns that were rented out so they were on the property ladder whilst enjoying CH accommodation, which made sense.

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:14 am
by Spoonbill
On the other side of the coin, I remember one bachelor master who, during the holidays, had only two options: stay on in his study and bedroom at the school or go back to his hometown and live with his mother. Not much of a life, really. Whether he eventually put aside a lump sum and bought a house, I've no idea, because he quit the school after it went mixed, but I do know that in retirement he lives in his old hometown to this day. For all I know, he may live in his mother's old house.

I can't help feeling that for a master who isn't especially outgoing, taking a live-in job at a boarding school could easily represent a sort of early-onset death knell. One wonders whether arriving at CH as a rather shy and retiring bachelor was 'Boot' Smith's route to suicide.

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:19 am
by Bishbashbosh
A couple of the replies in this thread appear (to me at least) to be leaning towards a general suspicion and condemnation of anyone who was apparently a bachelor at school.

That would be wrong. Many people weren't single, clearly, with the number of "surprise" marriages happening - why would staff talk about their private, personal lives outside the school, with pupils? Some did, many didn't.

Then there are those for whom a romantic relationship just isn't of interest. These days there is more recognition and specific terms such as asexual, demisexual, pansexual etc.

Then there are the perks of the job such as free accommodation in what were (and I assume still are, some 30ish years later) beautiful scenery and epic buildings; free food, these things should not be underestimated. They allowed people to save deposits for buying property, and even earn an income from renting out property elsewhere.

Also, if you lived in the school, you could always spend time at your partner's home.

Being ostensibly single in a school environment is not and should not be a cause for suspicion. The rotten eggs are in the minority, please try not to tar everyone with the same brush.

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:32 am
by richardb
Bishbashbosh wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:19 am A couple of the replies in this thread appear (to me at least) to be leaning towards a general suspicion and condemnation of anyone who was apparently a bachelor at school.

That would be wrong. Many people weren't single, clearly, with the number of "surprise" marriages happening - why would staff talk about their private, personal lives outside the school, with pupils? Some did, many didn't.

Then there are those for whom a romantic relationship just isn't of interest. These days there is more recognition and specific terms such as asexual, demisexual, pansexual etc.

Then there are the perks of the job such as free accommodation in what were (and I assume still are, some 30ish years later) beautiful scenery and epic buildings; free food, these things should not be underestimated. They allowed people to save deposits for buying property, and even earn an income from renting out property elsewhere.

Also, if you lived in the school, you could always spend time at your partner's home.

Being ostensibly single in a school environment is not and should not be a cause for suspicion. The rotten eggs are in the minority, please try not to tar everyone with the same brush.
I don't tar them all but I think Spoony's post echoes my initial thoughts on the subject.

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:49 am
by yamaha
Then there were the ones who were too unattractive to ever get married even if they wanted to.

I'm thinking of Pongo who lived in the same badly soiled suit 24 ... 7 ... 365.25

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:13 pm
by jakew
I have a friend who teaches at a well-known public school (not CH) but doesn't live in.

I get the impression it is quite hard work; he has to drive over there early in the morning for chapel, teach during the day, then hang around until 7 or 8 in the evening to supervise prep a couple of evenings per week, or even later if they have an "event". Naturally, there are also lessons on Saturday mornings.

So, even though he escapes every night, his social life isn't great!

The upside is of course the holidays - at least those ones when he isn't accompanying a gang of dipsomaniac teenagers on a jaunt around Europe - and that the salaries are said to be rather better than for comparable positions in the state sector.