Talk:Clapham College

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I don't know what the writer of this entry is going on about. I went to this "school" and it bore no resembelence to the institution which he is referring to.

Well change it then ! Victuallers 14:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Victuallers - as far as I am aware the title of this page is 'Discussion' and the chap above is merely making a point is he not? I too went to this school and can also confirm that the article does not describe the institution I attended. I have never heard of the 'Lambeth Inner London Roman Catholic boys grammar'. There is no mention of the mid 70's amalgamation with St Gerards etc. However I would not be so arrogant as to assume that as I have never heard of the 'Lambeth Inner London Roman Catholic boys grammar' it did not exist (perhaps it was a different insitution?) and that I should edit out any reference to it in the article. Perhaps leaving it there followed by these comments might allow someone else in the future to shed some light on the topic and we might learn something - which is surely the point of a 'Discussion'? Or are you advocating removing anything you haven't heard of? Tommy1798 - 18th May 2007

As a fifth former during the academic year 1985/86, studying final year O-levels and with an elder brother in the upper sixth studying final year A-levels, it should be known that the remaining teachers although in part being resentful were far from incompetent. One outstanding quality above all was evident, being that many chose to remain with the school due to loyalty and concern for the academic welfare of the remaining pupils. - Andrew Ng-Yan-Kwong. 6th Oct 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.46.248.59 (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are viewing the past with rose tinted glasses if you think they had any choice in the matter. I too was in that unfortunate upper sixth and can concur that (with 1 exception) my remaining teachers were truely awful - and I would say borderline unemployable as teachers. Our dictatorial head of year would take no criticism of his staff, even though our academic futures where on the line, and greeted a genuine petition that something be done to actually include curriculum based topics in lessons with outright contempt! Hardly the action of those with the high ideals you cite? BDT41 1st Jan 2009

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clapham College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]