The local Balinese schools were all about learning “by rote,” he said; at the other end, the traditional expat-driven international schools were a “monoculture” of privilege.
Ambitiously idealistic experiments often collapse under the weight of their own internal contradictions, and it is certainly possible to find these at Green School: Here are mostly Western, affluent families, many of them temporarily abandoning their comfortable lives for a metaphysical gap year of voluntary simplicity (or life rebalancing or spiritual reawakening) in an exotic stage-setting, at a school whose annual tuition (roughly $15,000 a year for a sixth-grader), while a bargain compared to New York City private-school standards, is far beyond the reach of the average Balinese. (Hardy’s original vision of having at least 20 percent of the school comprised of Balinese scholarship students was, Druhan noted, easier to scale when the school had 90 students. Today, about 9 percent of the student body are on scholarships.)
Diamond was struck by how different it felt from the “traditional boarding school model — you go here because your grandfather went here and then you’re going to go to Yale and then work at this law firm and charge people $500 an hour to argue about nothing.”
It's hard for me to see this article as anything more than a wealth admiration puff piece. I mean if you locate in a super cheap country, court the kids of Yale graduates and rockstars to get $15,000 a year from them and give up on your mission to also educate the poor locals then yeah, it's easy to build a super impressive, large, expensive school. What's the point? These kids will be the next generation's leaders whether this school exists or not.
FWIW the way that’s function of the New York Times’ “T” magazine. I’m not sure if it’s even distributed to all (paper) subscribers or only to certain zip codes.
Is this just me though? Why not get to the point and intrigue me to read the rest of the article?