Talk:Brooks School

message: There were a few things I learned from brooks school.  First I had first hand experience intereacting with the principal agent problem involving a manager and those whose interests the manager should be serving.  The principal were the students and their parents and the agent was the headmaster.  The headmaster acted in his own interests in trying to leave his mark on the school in the new buildings for which he was raising funds, and often neglected what was in the best interests of the students in his reign over the school.  For example making students who accidently slept in because they were short on sleep wake up on the one way of they were normally aloud to sleep in only compounded their sleep deficits causing anger and resentment in students who otherwise had been of a favorable opinion of the school.  
I also experienced being mislead by adverse selection in how the school mislead potential students into thinking that mandatory chapel was two rather than four times a week.
I also learned how makeing rules too strict leads them to be ineffective.  This was made clear by the drug use on campus.  There seemed to be a cycle of expulsions, devestation of the fabric of the school, looking the other way, and then again rampant drug use.  
I learned that rules with moderate consequnces if broken were much more consistenly enforced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.25.105 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [First section]

message: On the contrary. The headmaster has done differnt things to improve the welfare of the student body such as increase sleeping times on certian days, which is starting effectivly at the start of the 2006 school year. In addition he is also at the mercy of the board who puts him responsible for the addition of newly created buildings to bring in more money and smarter students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Astanley (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just an update to a wrong 

message: If Harvard and Princeton don't get to call themselves elite universities on their Wikipedia pages – and see their talk pages for arguments to this effect – then prep schools shouldn't.  "Elite" is a pretty subjective term and has no place in an encyclopedia.
Mjl0509 (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Elite'

message: the dormitory page is written as if it were straight out of the brochure, as a matter of fact the whole page does. I know the school edits this page as a fact, which doesn't bother me, but it might annoy you guys  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.5.29 (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The school doesn't edit the page, but many students do. 74.9.46.125 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dormitories: Objectivity

message: This edit of a documented piece of unfortunate school history has been deleted now twice without explanation. Swliv (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I suggest that you warn the user for deleting it and invite him here to talk about it?  I have reverted this deletion in the past, too. I put it back again and gave him a templated message about using edit summaries.  If he does it again, I would suggest using the second level twinkle warning for deleting material.  If he won't talk about why he is doing it, removal of referenced content would qualify as vandalism.  If he is talking, it isn't...Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You may suggest. I have to admit I didn't have the fortitude right then to take on the problem more directly. I appreciate your taking it up here, in the article again, and at the editor's Talk page. I've looked into twinkle a little but don't have a real handle on it yet. I do try not to assume gender of editors. The moving-toward-vandalism conclusion unless there's talk I agree with completely. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Invariably, when I think I know an editor's gender, I am wrong.  But it isn't important.  I use him because I went to grade school way back in the 1960's and we were taught back then that if you were unsure of the gender of a human, you refer to the human as he. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Same basic vintage. Times do change. I try. And I do think it is of some importance (while we wait for main subject to be joined). We don't think now that the old "grade school [or (male) parent, in my case] way" is correct, do we? :-) Swliv (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate headmaster relationship 2013