i know that he once told a group of new parents that he would personally guarantee that their children would not be virgins by the time they graduated. no joke.

I personally failed the test for Stuy on purpose because I knew that my parents would have made me go there rather than St Ann's for HS.

Adam Bosworth's comments are eloquent, but that he should choose to top them off with a totally unnecessary attack on Jen Chung boggles the mind. Jen Chung has enabled this dialogue in the first place. All she was doing when she started this thread was expediting the discussion of something already in the news. She had no agenda of her own and was being 'flippant' only in the mildest way. Chung has maintained such a successful website precisely because she has an eye for what's topical combined with the apparent lack of any axe to grind. To attack Chung is simply to blame the messenger.

As someone who has happily and carefully made a career and a life far away from Saint Ann's, but who moved his entire family from Seattle back to NYC just so my daughter could attend Saint Ann's, it is somewhat appalling to read the sort of smug sententious self-righteous remarks above. Stanley is my father and can indeed be thoughtlessly cruel, perverse, and flippant. But, in fact he runs a great school where a love of learning and intellectual freedom is truly fostered. At 13 I learned Dante in the old Italian and a year later Chaucer in the old English and at the same time I learned the fine details of biology and 35 years later I still remember them because of the inspired teaching. As long as Jen Chung summarizes up a great school so flippantly, I very much doubt Jen will leave an equivalent legacy.

Adam Bosworth

I wish I'd seen the article when it was still getting active comments!

Stanley is a nut, there's no question of that. His craziness was well-known and tolerated when I was a student there, as was his habit of hitting on students. I cannot fault the reporter for writing the article she did, given some of the things that he said to her. I'm actually kind of surprised the school let him talk to her without a chaperone.

But I agree that it's too bad the article failed to capture how Stanley managed to attract such an extraordinary staff and faculty. I would love to hear comments from teachers, especially some of the earliest ones like Swacker, talk about why they decided to come to teach at St. Ann's. That would be a great story -- even greater when contrasted with Stanley's complete and total lunacy.

--Tim Pierce '88

I went to St. Ann's, and I am currently the Coordinator for Student Affairs (and a teacher) at Stuyvesant. There should be no hatred between these two institutions--aside from having an incredible student body, there is almost nothing they have in common. Students who don't mind a pressure-packed environment filled with strivers are ideal for Stuy, while those who can handle self-directed learning along with a bit of chaos are good for St. Ann's.

As far as Stanley is concerned, when I went to St. Ann's, it always seemed to me that he was more of a figurehead. I started there in 7th grade, yet only met him my senior year for the infamous "Stanley meeting" in which he tells students where to apply for college. He said that I should apply to Williams because "that's where the good blacks are."

Stanley set events in motion that created a fantastic school, but the place has run without him for at least a decade if not more and should not be judged by his crude eccentricities.

Sorry, those would be the odds in MA. In New York, the odds would be around 1 in 350.

Actually, I think Jenny's comment is interesting. Stanley did, in fact marry Beth, St Ann's class of '75. (my class) With an approximate graduating class of 35, over the span of '69 through '84, the odds are closer to 1 in 700, not 3000.

Stanley's a raving looney, and I'm not sorry the article exposed him for the elliptical individual he is. Somehow, and one wonders really how, over forty years, he's attracted fantastically interesting teachers and parents who have together created something really unique. Latin lovers, string players, fashionistas, mathletes, cool geeks, now that's an achievement. The article was a good rundown of the man behind the scenes... didja ever wonder if Stan was playing a game with her, too?

Levy's profile has provoked this storm of response, while Lynda Richardson's similar piece in the New York Times did not. In addition, opinion here seems divided between those who thought Levy did an inept job of reporting and those who say that her story was accurate but, somehow, should not be taken seriously. Why is Levy is such a target?

The most important thing is to separate the figurehead (loony as he is) from the school. They are two separate and distinct things. The school has afforded many opportunities to many people who think differently from what is considered the social and intellectual norm and allows a great deal of creativity. This particular article was about Stanley. As students, as alumni, and even the parents, have accepted the fact that while Stanley is a complete nutjob, the school that he founded is enormously successful and has turned out amazing people from the student body and the faculty, regardless of Stanley's ongoing contempt. His contempt is not new, it is simply part of his rare and ridiculous personality. And most people ignore it.

As for the earlier post that challenged the SAT scores of St. Ann's with those of other schools, I suggest that you never send your kids to St. Ann's as you just won't get it.

funny - i left hunter to go to st. ann's, not the other way around. i've always thought there were two kinds of high school students in ny - those that went to st. ann's and those that had to talk trash about it because they were jealous.

it's crazy and insulting that in a five page article, only two or three students are quoted. i don't know any st. ann's alums who don't want to send their kids there as well. what higher praise is there than that?

I think the chances of a St. Ann's student marrying Stanley are about 1 in 3,000, so its sort of an irrelevant angle. If the effectiveness of the piece can be measured by the writer's ability to make her subject look like a fool then the New York Mag article was superbly effective. But wasn't the newshook related to the fact that the school was just ranked no. 1 by WSJ? Kind of makes you wonder why the writer doesn't get into that topic a little more effectively.

i'd rather have a crazy man like bosworth in charge of my private school than the lying, prudish, conformity-worshipping bastard i had in charge of mine. i'd go to st. ann's even if it meant i would end up marrying him 5 years after i graduated after we re-met at one of my poetry readings. it's a fair trade in my mind.

Actually, I think it's a measure of the importance of the subject matter. People step up to Stanley's defense because he's worth it. Decades of students have something priceless in their lives because of him, and for that he deserves better that what Levy served up.

If the effectiveness of a piece of writing can be measured by the amount of apologists it flushes out of the woodwork, then Ariel Levy's article was superbly effective.

Let's get a few things straight here. The (facetious) comment about Stuyvesant being dangerous was made over 30 years ago; it was merely related by a Saint Ann's grad speaking at Bosworth's celebratory farewell event earlier this week.

And yes, Levy clearly chose to focus on a few outrageous quotes in order to produce a provocative article. The fact that this resulted in an unbalanced look at the school and, hence, Bosworth's acomplishment and legacy, is not really surprising considering the nature and quality of New York magazine.

And, finally, that someone would even mention SAT scores as some sort of comparative measure just shows that the educational world could use more Stanleys and fewer drones focusing on testing.

Actually I'd take the disapproval of a Wonkette-hater as the highest of flattery.

St. Ann's rival, historically, has been with nearby Packer -- a rivalry about as one-sided as elephant vs. peanut.

As far as the comment that Gothamist is reminded of the Far Side comic when thinking of St. Ann's, well, how very Wonkette!

Not a compliment.

And to be perfectly clear, by "she" I meant Liz. Go Hawks!