Posted by In the 1980s, a popular claim was that Loyola School was different from other schools. Whenever a Loyolite was quizzed by friends or relatives as to why his school did not secure ranks in the public exam, he would typically reply: schools like Holy Angels’ Convent prepare students for the public examination; Loyola’s emphasis is on extra-curricular activities, and not merely acquisition of textbook knowledge.
How true was this claim?
Those who claimed so (including me) had limited information about other schools in Trivandrum, to make an honest and thorough comparison. If we were tested on this–say, if asked to list out the extra-curricular activities in any three city schools–all of us would have failed. But ignorance did not prevent us from asserting that Loyola was different because of its extra-curricular thrust.
I believe that we students were parroting the words of our teachers and parents. Their own belief was probably rooted in knowledge of other schools (via neighbours, colleagues or relatives). But it is also probable that they took cue from the Jesuits who ran Loyola and cultivated an image of a “different” school.
The Jesuits were not being dishonest. Loyola did have several platforms for literary and artistic activities inside and outside the classroom. There were a weekly period called “Literary Association”, a youth festival, the wallpaper LENS, debates or quizzes each term, and so on. The school also encouraged students to participate in inter-school competitions. In addition, there were squads for cleaning classrooms, social service and similar non-literary or non-artistic work.The Jesuits and the teachers put in a lot of effort to organise these activities in the school. None will question their sincerity or doubt their dedication.
But was Loyola different?
Those who studied in other schools can tell us whether such activities were common in their schools or, as we believed, unique to Loyola. My guess is that various schools had different extra-curricular activities. If English elocution was a prestigious event in Loyola, it might have been kathaprasangam in school x and mohiniyattom in school y. Accordingly, Loyola fared reasonably well in the state ICSE schools’ meet (where the events were similar to what Loyola hosted), but rarely made a mark in the state SSLC schools’ youth festival. If Loyola was different, it was in the kind of activities that the school hosted.
Loyola of the 1980s was different from other schools also in terms of facilities. Loyola had better infrastructure than other schools. Well-equipped classrooms (good desks and benches), different courts for various sports and games, sporting equipment, sound systems, closed auditiorium–few schools in Trivandrum could boast all of these. The infrastructure helped in hosting a range of extra-curricular activities and strengthened the popular claim.
We had the hardware, but was Loyola different in terms of the software?
Look at the approach, for instance. If the popular claim is to be believed, the activities should have been co-curricular, if not part of the curriculum in this school. But at Loyola, every activity was called “extra-curricular”, i.e. beyond the curriculum, as if the curriculum did not demand any such activity.
In the few cases that art formed part of the curriculum, it was taught unimaginatively. There was a weekly music class (till around class 7). There was a weekly painting class (in the lower classes of the junior school, if I remember correctly). And there was a weekly moral science class (till standard 10). For a school that believed it was different, there was hardly anything different in the way Loyola treated such subjects or activity.
We got many platforms to sing, but Loyola did not teach us how to sing, or what music was. I doubt whether any Loyolite learnt music at Loyola, despite ritually chanting songs every week for seven years. All of us could have been exposed to different genres of music, right? (In these days of CDs, mp3 downloads and an audio-visual room, is it too much to expect Loyola to have music appreciation classes?)
Yes, we could paint in the annual youth festival, but were we taught how to paint? I am not expecting Loyola to make every child a Picasso, but at least: (a) tell us why this Picasso chap is great; and (b) show us a few tricks and techniques to draw. Pick up a basic book on drawing and you will realise the opportunities missed.
Some of you will argue that the situation was the same in other schools. Maybe. But that is exactly what I am asking: was Loyola really different?
Very good post Ashok. I think rather than harp on past laurels and glories, Loyola must seriously do a self-examination and think on becoming a ‘great’ school
“Criticism is something we can avoid easily by saying nothing, doing nothing, and being nothing”.
-Aristotle.
hmm. Good post , sets me thinking; turns me inside with a critic’s eye!
Well, on the areas that you mentioned like music and painting, yes, Loyola didnt offer anything different from other schools, or offered even less than some other schools. But from the past two years I learnt why Loyolites feel that their School is different. It’s the student oriented approach. While Ashok was not part of the great transition that LaFest brought to Loyola, i can safely assure him about the changes that it brought to the students of Loyola. When Ashok took up the school magazine in 2004, it was again a major milestone. Why? Because from then on, students took charge in doing the magazine, and doing it well. (Loyolite 2009 and 2008 are best examples). What makes Loyola different is not its music classes or art classes, its the attitude. I don’ think any other school in the city would have entrusted a student with the entire amount meant for organising an inter-school cultural festival as Loyola did to me. The management entrusted with me Rs.1.5 lac for the LaFest 09 expenses. Each and every decision wrt LaFest was taken by the students and the management endorsed our views on more than 99.99% times. This is one of the many reasons why Loyola is different.
Arun, the “student-oriented approach” is another Loyola myth — the 2000s equivalent of the “extra-curricular”. And I bet every school in India claims that it is student-oriented. I fear Loyola will have to come up with another phrase as a marker. 🙂
The LaFest is a different topic that requires a separate blogpost.
Yes, the best part of our replies to the question as to why Loyola is different will contain at least one cliche that has been passed down to minds over the years. But the fact remains that it is. It is because of the excellent team of teachers that we have. By excellent i do not always mean academically or being-able-to-teach. The teachers i had were good because they shared their knowledge with students, corrected themselves without reservations and were, more often than not, open to debate and discussion. Most importantly, the freedom given to the students: it does stuff to you that nothing else does. Loyola gives space to grow. It is tolerant. Though now, i feel this freedom is being grossly misused. But I agree totally with the Music Appreciation and Painting classes idea, it will be awesome if it is not ritualised (like it is now) but implemented like second-trip basketball/football coaching classes; training to those only truly interested. Loyola will remain uniquely student-oriented as long as we have Fr. Edassery. He will stop the entire fleet of ready-to-leave school buses just so that one boy can answer his call of nature. I heard him say that in the assembly once, so it is a firstperson account. So there!
Interesting post and within its scope thought provoking. I have always claimed that Loyola was different from other schools and have trumpeted it as a fact attributing it to the “Jesuit” style of education. It is true that in the late 60’s we did not have or know of a fair basis of comparison with the exception of St.Joseph’s. In retrospect its got to have been the ivory-tower syndrome giving us this feeling that we were one of a kind plus the fact that most of us came from wealthy families. As to the question of there being any continuity in encouragement of music, drama or arts and crafts, yes, even during those times it fell by the wayside once we reached Std.7 or 8. However, to this day my knowledge and interest in Track and Field or other sports originated and was nourished at Loyola but cannot say the same about the Arts.
Dear Ashok,
“And I bet every school in India claims that it is student-oriented”
Now i agree that every school in India “claims” that it is student oriented. But how many of them are really student oriented? I can’t speak about schools in the entire country, but at least my city. In Trivandrum, no other student would dare to claim that their school is student oriented, other than Loyolites. Now the reason is I myself have studied in three different schools and have friends who has been in Loyola till 10th and later moved on to other big city schools. My sister studies in another big city school and i know how ‘well’ she thinks about her school.
Academics is also important. Some schools which gives too much importance into the extra curricular activities don’t get the same results academically. Pallikkoodam in Kottayam is an example. What we have to do is to find a right balance b/w academic and non-academic activities. I think that balance is almost perfect in Loyola. We have achievers in both academics as well as sports and arts. And i am sure that you wont deny the fact that unless a person is exceptionally talented, he wont make it big in the arts or sports sector. (its a combination of many factors like hardwork, talent, support from parents and luck). So sometimes its the number game that lands us somewhere respectable.
Dear Gurudas,
You were correct when you said that we have open discussions and debates with teachers. But i think the school remains ‘uniquely student oriented’ due to several factors one of which is the presence of Fr. Edassery. I don’t think any magazine work or LaFest work is possible w/o principal’s permission (you have been part of these works, so you should know). Principal was very much cooperative when our batch did magazine 08 and LaFest 08.
Are Loyolites different?
I think only guys who studied through the 80’s would be in a position to answer to what you have raised here, ashok. And being one myself, all that i can say is that the school was really different. However ultimately its upto every individual to decide how different it was for him.
Every school is unique, the uniqueness of other schools does not undermine in anyway the uniqueness of Loyola be it 80’s or 90’s…..
By the way,I keep meeting ex-loyolites(mostly my seniors in school)with whom i have never interacted while in school and find that when we realize that we’re from the same school, we hit off very well. Maybe thats the difference…..
I say Unique, That’s the word that suits more.
I actually sucked big time on a stage, till I hosted B&T for Lafest.
Without all those drawing n music lessons, Where would I have been?? Seriously!!
Guru and Arun talk about freedom, tolerance, co-operation etc. So, can we deduce that in the Loyola they know (1990s and 2000s), Loyolites no longer trumpet their school as being different because of the extra-curricular thrust?
Peter, didn’t know that Loyolites saw themselves as superior, even in the 1960s. How was your knowledge and interest in sport nourished at Loyola — by playing in the field, or through other ways?
Sreejesh, I too have felt the bonding. Humans try to ‘connect’ in various ways — school, region, language — probably because we have memories to share, especially when we are far from home. And if every school is unique (as Nitin too seems to agree), then maybe we should merely accept that instead of claiming that we are “different”, and curb the sense of superiority that underlies such claims. I view Sandeep’s comment as a pithy reminder — a question that we should constantly ask ourselves. By making us proud of our school and ourselves, our teachers (including Jesuits) may have meant only to instil confidence, not breed arrogance.
Loyola’s difference might have laid in the kind of teachers we had. Teachers open to criticism, who did not go by a particular practice just because it was how ‘things were meant to be done’, teachers who gave enough space for students to grow as themselves and not as mirror images of how society views an ideal student.
When I was in the 12th, the school had hired some teachers with a great deal of experience from other schools. Great teachers in their own right, I’m sure, but not able to fit in well at Loyola. While we were heading towards the Sutter Hall for the assembly one fine Wednesday, I heard one of them remark, “What indisciplined boys! They’re not even walking in a straight line to the assembly!”
Need I say more?
Bimal, I’ve felt that Loyola teachers took cue from the leading priests on campus — there might have been an exception or two, but otherwise, teachers dance to others’ tunes. In terms of your anecdote, suppose the Loyola Principal tomorrow says that all children should walk in a straight line to the Assembly, few teachers will contest the Principal or encourage students to break the rule.
Following the leader is not unique to Loyola; I think the same happens in other schools, firms and government. We are rats and we follow the Piper.
From reading these posts…my humble conclusion is…as my friend niyas reminds me often….LOYOLITES ARE SPECIAL….JUST LIKE EVERY1 ELSE!
Ashok, to respond to your specific question of me and my peers (that sounds snooty!) involvement in Track and Field, it was in retrospect, the boarders more than the day-scholars who were given opportunities to take part in after school sports. There was a weekly sign-up sheet where one could take part in a sport and the following week switch over to another one. This gave us a fairly well-rounded interest/knowledge of various sports which seems to have stood me in good stead over the years. Depending on where you live the ability to take part in or knowledge of sports trivia is considered almost on par as knowledge of politics or finance. To summarize what I meant in the previous posting about Loyola laying the foundation in my sporting interests, the school gave quite a lot of importance to sports which was pretty uncommon, at least for that time and age.
Loyolites are certainly not arrogant wrt to the ‘student oriented’ approach or thrust on ‘extra curricular’ activities. We are just plain happy to be in an institution which gives its wards space to grow bigger. We certainly sympathise with some of our extremely talented friends in other schools because they don’t get the creative freedom that we get in Loyola…and that sympathy doesn’t arise out of our arrogance… I should admit that Loyola is not perfect in every aspect nurturing its students…but that’s common with any school…
Hi Ashok, Our batch debated this issue on our web group. The reaction, as you can see below, was mixed. I have reproduced the comments verbatim for your reading pleasure.
Anish Mathew – I certainly think that our school was at the top of the pack atleast in TVM during our time primarily because of the importance given to extra curricular activites whether it be sports, the youth festival, stint of public speaking (assembly) or the little bit of SUPW and tree planting that we used to do. And in academics too we were no slouches either – if I am not mistaken more than half the class became doctors and engineers after going through the entrance exam grind.
Renny Lewis – As i recall athletics & art activities happened only once a year…for sports day & youth festival respectively.
On sports: training for football & tennis was pretty much non-existent! ok, football was given (courtesy thankappan) to all for knocking around during lunch break & for games period…but that was it
No exposure to gymnastics at all…in contrast Holy Angels convent had a pretty good gym (with the horse thinggy, parallel bars et al)…no telling how i know that heh heh
Opportunities for training in Music was pretty basic too (only guitar & violin?)
However, all said & done, dunno if any other school did these any better…in those days atleast
Pretty sure Loyola management gave much better attention to stuff like debating, quiz & public speaking tho’…we even had sex education classes – now how many schools in TVM would have offered that?
Prasenjit Saha – agree with Reny completely. Though we got to have the ‘those days’ perspective.
In sports, we had adequate grounds but that’s about it. I remember that in 1980 when we went ot the district sports meet, I was so surprised to see that a few schools had starting blocks in the sprints. Me? I saw starting blocks with my own eyes for the first time. Further we could definitely have done with some coaching in sports. CT Varkey was the sort of all-in guy who really didn’t know a lot.
Same thing about soc and cult stuff. We did what we did mostly on our own. The only ‘training’ in public speaking were the elocution classes in sixth and seventh where everyone without exception stuttered about ‘my first smoke’.
But it was good life. There was so much freedom. Even wearing chappals and untucked shirts.
Srinivas Chidambaram – We probably experienced the Golden Age or were swept by the perfect storm into an afterlife which left us with only rose tinted memories. Only half kidding.
Think about it, guys – no punishments after class V, no ties, any footwear was ok, homework- yeah sure – who got pulled up, I don’t recall anyone seriously taken to task in class in Class IX and X, career counselling, sex education (which some if not all did’nt need, but hey it’s the thought that counts), I don’t recall a single compulsory activity…. our teachers treated us like adults and most of all, no pressure for exams or studies…I don’t recall getting stressed ever for a friday test (always start or even for icse. I recall an incident – nut that I was, I put in some risque jokes in LENS for a laugh, and apart from a tart commment from Rosachi, god rest her soul, I was instantly forgiven. I apologised to Karadi the bear (Fr Kuruvilla) who brushed it off like water off a duck’s back – forgiven, nay, not even taken to task. Where the f.. do kids get treated like that any more?
To be sure, the counterpoint is there was no great competition, did’nt make a mark in any state or interschool events, did’nt even know there were some, in fact – we were in a world of our own – but I guess we turned out all right, did’nt we, guys! Would’nt trade that freedom for anything.
Antony Joseph – I don’t think I learned much football or cricket or music at Loyola either. But here are some character forming aspects of edu@loyola over and above those that have found mention so far….
1) Remarkable characters like Karadi, Kurup, VC Annen and Rosachi who gave fodder for monoacts and other creative pursuits – and perhaps contributed to the making of a world renowned moviemaker who shared benches with us? (Seeing the ability of a 16mm projector to mesmerize an auditorium full of fidgety kids, did stimulate as well ? )
2) Skill developed from maneuvering around several teams /games/sports/ /pastimes on the soccer field may have contributed to the daredevil driving skills of of a Himalayan Rally finisher.
3) Running around the bunds in the rubber/tapioca fields around junior school may have contributed to the skills of a mobike stuntman who had the Almighty perform so many miracles to keep him alive that he can now reach out to thousands of believers without having to make sensational statements about using or not using condoms….
4) If not for the musicality, I am sure that the dedication, passion and sincerity shown by mj antony did contribute to the making of well respected guitarist within our group – during his heydays.
5) The challenge of having to compete with so many high performers prompted a few amongst us to try out alternative careers (other than docs and engineers!) leading to spectacular careers in entrepreneurship , wealth management etc
6) I am not sure how strong ethics was inculcated in us but I know it is there and I am certain it did not come from the other two institutions I went to in Tvm – arts college and tvm engg.
7) A few teachers taught that life can be unfair….. and also to speak out against that.
8) All that shit cleaning during SUPW did bring a strong respect for labour – and was recently newsworthy when a high flying executive switched places for a day with a company delivery boy…
9) Not many sportsmen I agree, except for a few district / state players (from a class of merely 40!)…. But we did learn to play fair and cheer a winning or losing team with dignity…
I guess there was learning everywhere around us – planned or unplanned.
Issac Philip – Agree with most statements. I also think that maybe we were a good bunch of guys Even now, there is this great bond among us, wonder if this happens with all.
Ashok,
Interesting post. I believe that Loyola was not that much different, precisely for the reasons you mention – the nature of activities were different, but the attitude towards them was pretty much same across schools that I was aware of at that time.
I think the interesting pedagogical question here is whether our attitudes towards education and the world would have changed if the liberal arts and sports were treated better – not just at Loyola, but all schools. The examples you point out – music and painting – are good ones to illustrate this point.
I think its the problem of choosing schooling as an eliimnation mechanism rather than a space for education that lies at the heart of this. Parents (and teachers to a great extent) are more comfortable with a “typical” school which helps kids win those elimination hurdles that we jump all through our teens and a “good” school has to focus on making us “jump” well. As students also at that time (and maturity level), we judge ourselves by how well we’re taught to “jump” rather than our all round development. So the fault is not with the school but with the expectations that are set around it that it has to meet as a “good” educational institution in TVM.
The corollary to ask is, if we did have a school that did not focus on rote learning or teaching us to jump through hoops, but did in fact focus on all these things that we wish Loyola did, how many of us would send our kids to that school instead of Loyola or a similar “good” “traditional” school.
Jojin, interesting observation there from your pal Niyas.
Peter, thank you for elaborating. The boarding seems to have been a den of activity.
Anish, very grateful (and flattered) for taking this up in the 1981 e-group, and submitting the responses. The replies not only add to the discussion here but also reveal the liveliness of your e-group.
Anand, your analysis is interesting and I think spot on. My guess is that there would be enough demand for a great school; social exposure, economic well-being, etc are rising (not falling) in Trivandrum society. And one question I’ve been bleating on this blog is: Why are Jesuit priests and teachers unable to convince parents? (Why are they being led, instead of being leaders themselves?) The more the school bends before a few unimaginative parents, the more it will attract the wrong kind of parents.
Ashok, this post seems to be good fodder for discussion 🙂
I’ll echo Arun Sudarshan’s comments here. I’m not sure what happened during the early years of the school but in the 90s when I studied what I loved most about the school (and why I think it’s different and special) was how much freedom we had and how we were treated mostly as adults. I ended up finding college life with its monotonous assignment submissions, attendance requirement and unending exams very stifling, whereas my friends from other schools found college liberating.
The usual counterargument of course is that this makes students “spoiled” (sic), and the lack of measurable achievements in sports, arts and academics mean that we are all sharing one big collective delusion.
My riposte to that is twofold:
1) This is not true – we’ve had our share of over and under-achievers just like any other school but the average Loyolite in our times was a cut above our peers. The problem is with how we measure success in a school – a student with learning disability will hardly match his peers (and one with exceptional brilliance will exceed), but the average bloke is much better off at Loyola than in any school in Trivandrum. In my 4 years in college every time an event happened at another local or state college I used to find Loyolites at the helm – these are people who never stood out in our batch but who nevertheless were better when they went outside.
2) Even if it is a delusion, it seems to be an extremely happy one and more like a self-fulfilling prophecy than a dying out candle. As an example, how many students start a competing Alumni association and a blog on a school that they passed out from 10+ years ago? Which other local teacher has a fans association in Orkut?
As an aside, I’ve argued this very same topic with my friends from other schools. Especially the girls, “What makes you Loyola guys so special, huh?” So I ask them to point out the Loyolites that they know who are NOT special. Usually that’s zilch. (A major point for our side here is how awed they are at the edifice that is Lafest)
So maybe what’s special about Loyola is that (like a very cozy romantic movie) it brings out what’s special in all of us 😉
Vishnu, I was waiting for at least one of your friend-girls to challenge you here. You win. 🙂
Loyola takes ‘above average’ kids, in the first place. So, if your average Trivandrum kid walks in, but doesn’t improve and become ‘above average’, chances are that he’ll be sent out of Loyola before the 10th standard. About Loyolites helming (and hawing), I think it’s similar to what happens in youth festivals — we perform well in a few items, others perform well on other fronts.
BTW, there’s no competing alumni association yet, and there are fan clubs for teachers of other Trivandrum schools too (like Sarvodaya). The fact that there is only one Loyola blog suggests that it is freak and weird, and not the Loyola norm. 🙂
“Bringing out what’s special in each student” — that’s a good tagline for the Great School Campaign. Thanks!
A little late in the day, but ya, I’ve always agreed with the idea that Loyola gave a lot more freedom than any other similarly placed school. It’s established fact that we are one of the most student friendly and liberal private schools in the state. In terms of purpose and pedagogy, I’d say Pallikoodam was more “different” than we were. Though that hardly proves anything. And anyone who has doubts about the academic performance at Pallikoodam should probably check their facts.
But in terms of average capacity of each student, I guess we were well ahead of similarly placed schools. Loyolites generally did everything. They played pretty much every sport in school, were coaxed into using their vocal skills for JJ House in the Youth Festival, and had to face the whole school at the assembly at least once every term and make a speech. All the Loyolites who went to college with me generally played all sports and were active in culturals as well. I dont know if this applies correctly everywhere, but my classmates were generally jacks of more trades than my friends from other schools.
The teachers who taught me were generally the best I could have found in the state. I played basketball and quizzed and debated and did pretty much everything, except of course, singing and art. However, I dont think its fair to say that Loyola didnt appreciate or encourage music. I remember these bunch of guys in my batch (ISC 2003) who were pretty crazy about music and dance and were good at it too. One of them also happens to be the very talented Saran Soman who’s vocalist for the TVM Med College band, appropriately called Spasm (Mathew George described a Youtube video of the band as the funniest thing he saw in a long time, but I havent seen it to judge yet.) Anyways, I remember there were quite a few people in school who took music seriously.
Art i agree is a big black hole.
Were we different? At the end of the day, I’d say we were. Not a huge lot, but a substantial bit. It may not have been all we sometimes claim it to be in bouts of extreme jingoism, but I think being a Loyolite has been an advantage in my life.
And Ashok, I remember there was a couple of other blogs about Loyola, mostly by juniors. But I guess, when the competition is a professional like you, who would want to venture? 🙂
Dear Loyolite,
Think positively….I never saw a single positive word you have told about Loyola,
Did you forget how we were asked to do speches in assembly???Did you think of the second trip arranged for games???Did you think of a humanitarian person…Fr.mathew pulickal??? Which school has a teacher like him who openly speaks the truth???Which school children has the routine of cleaning the school’s WC???These are all a part of EDUCATION.
Our major problem is we all think negatively.
You dont know the peace of mind we have enjoyed while sitting on the granite sofa opp to the Union Bank after 5 PM chatting to Fr.philip Thayyil the then principal.
Quote Fr.Mathew Pulickal ” Your parents are paying the maximum,make use of it,you have to make use of it and no one will spoon you”.If we cant make ourselves different after passing out from Loyola it is our fault.
Harshan, I feel that thinking negatively is a good thing — as good as thinking positively. In this blogpost, I brought under the scanner the claim of the 1980s (and later) that Loyola was different, superior, etc. I am not saying that Loyola didn’t have any good feature; some things were promoted in Loyola (more than in other schools), and some things were promoted in other schools (more than in Loyola). We tend to highlight x or y feature, and ignore z. This blogpost tried to shine light in that dark corner where z stands along with a, b and c; won’t blame you for seeing “only negative” stuff on this particular page. Explore the ARChive — it’s a store of “history and honey”. And those who enjoy the honey should withstand the occasional sting of the bee. 🙂
You say, “Our major problem is we all think negatively.” In my view, our major problem is that we Loyolites have an uncritical approach to our beloved school.
Loyolites,
I may start by apologising for posting a comment here, as I am not a ‘loyolite’. But, being a teacher, being the wife of a loyolite and mother of a boy, I would like to make a comment here and thank Mr. Ashok. I was really trying to know if Loyola is really different!!!
Most of us heard that Loyola is the best school for boys here in Trivandrum. But when I started enquiring about in detail I couldnt find much difference in the approach or curriculum followed there..
As far as I understood, its a school where the students are made to be proud of being a loyolite than who they really are in person, convincing what all they provide is really unique and no other schools will be providing such facilities (extra-curricular activities).
And I think, most of the Loyolites are not in a position to admit it and they think they are superior to everyone else. If this is the attitude which is developed among the loyolites, the x-factor that lacks there is the respect for others or the ability to admit the right things even in the future with a fear of losing their “projected superiority”.
In every school, the output might depend on the teachers and the aptitude of the students. Some may become stars…Some may not… It depends on many factors such as IQ level, hard work, luck and opportunities.
Should have a mind to accept it.
Loyolite wives are highly qualified and most welcome to comment here. “Projected superiority” — loved that! Lack of respect for others…hmmm, I can see quite a few of my non-Loyolite friends and relatives nodding vigorously.
(Anusree’s comment must be read in the context of these blogposts too.)
It may not be my place to comment on the Loyola as you knew it, as it has likely changed over the years, but I know my answer as to why Loyola is different from other schools. It’s not just the extra curricular activities the school encourages, or any academic prowess the students have. That, I doubt, would instill the same sense of pride in every loyolite.
What Loyola has for it’s children is something that can be expressed as different from other schools, as any transfer student can tell you. It is every little thing, from the interaction between the seniors and the juniors, the way the seniors effectively raise the juniors to the school itself, it’s calming surroundings, and every little event that brings the loyolites closer together as a family. That is what sets Loyola apart. In no other school would you find a group of people do dedicated to each other, and to their school itself.