Annoyed That Private School High School Students Have Better Admissions Results than Public School Students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op it’s so much worse than you realize.
My kid goes to an elite ( not east coast ) private school.
Her summer camp is 10k
We belong to a country club.
She is 9 but can competently ride a horse.
She plays tennis and golf. She’s been in the chess club for 2 years. She wants to do fencing this year. She plays the piano and will start another instrument in fourth grade. She began Spanish and Mandarin in kindergarten.
And she’s in third grade.
She socializes with all kinds of kids because we pay a fortune so the school can afford to be diverse. Her bestie’s mom is a single parent nurse.
My completely obnoxious point is this…

College doesn’t matter.
For the families that are easily swallowing 40k a year for a country day school, a top 25 school isn’t important.
The fact that they are so over represented in college admissions is just another privilege added to the list.

Not sure I understand your point, unless you were just looking for an excuse to tell us you can afford many things. If you are saying that you pouring resources in your child’s education and extracurriculars will make them more competitive for college admissions, I think it’s actually not as clear cut as you make it seem. It’s more indicative of an overzealous mom, and I know public school kids that do the same exact things for their kids down to mandarin, Spanish, chess, piano, tennis and expensive camps since kindergarten. If anything this is more of an indication of an over scheduled child, with a helicopter/snowplow parent. While it could be great exposure for a child, it’s not going to make them get into Harvard.

If indeed top 25 college is not important, why do you do all that to your child? Genuinely interested to know because I actually see it as counterproductive.

You are correct. You don’t understand my point.
The point is the child is immersed in privilege at all times, and in countless ways. They are socializing with other privileged kids, and forming bonds and connections.
They have 18 years of that before college.
Once they show up to college, they identify similar kids, because they have similar backgrounds and experiences. They self select together.
They start school with wealth and privilege and it just becomes exponential.

Nobody is disputing that some people have a privileged life, is there a follow up to this that’s relevant to the thread?

You seem to imply that the “exponential” privilege results in better admissions to college, or that the college admission to Top25 doesn't matter because they’re already wealthy, or that it’s the social network from meeting similarly privileged kids that is the recipe for success, which is very narrowly defined as more privilege and more wealth. I can’t tell what your point is because you make all these arguments in the same post.

Most of the educational experiences you mentioned are well within the reach of middle class. Foreign languages, chess, sports, camps etc, don’t strike me as particularly selective and hard to get. Private high schools of $50k tuition are a higher bar to clear, but again well within the reach of the upper middle class.

My point is that college acceptance doesn’t matter.

Essentially college admission doesn’t matter for people that don’t care about college admissions. Amazing insight!

Plenty of rich people actually care about developing their skills and following a successful career even when the money is secondary, in my experience that’s actually the norm.

For middle class, a good degree can easily put you in the top 5% of earners, so for them it does make a difference.

It’s still somewhat puzzling on why you bother with all the Spanish, mandarin, chess, golf, swimming for your kid, if as you say, is not for college.

[Anonymous]

The harsh reality is that kids in private schools come from rich and successful parents compared to most of those in public.

Their parents have the resources and intelligence to make good decisions and set their kids up for success.

If you put your kid in public school it’s evidence you either don’t care about their future or you are a loser and your kids will continue your legacy of failure.

[Anonymous]

Why would anyone think that getting into a private college was fair - by which I assume you mean based purely on merit? They want to admit the most people that will maximize their endowment by giving big as alums while keeping enough high scores to maintain their ranking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Between their inflated grades and $$ to do early decision (because they can pay), this system seems so rigged. Anyone else notice this?

Are you rich & influential, are you legacy and are you a big donor of the "desirable" college? No?

The fault is actually your "loser-ness". Your children are your biggest victims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op it’s so much worse than you realize.
My kid goes to an elite ( not east coast ) private school.
Her summer camp is 10k
We belong to a country club.
She is 9 but can competently ride a horse.
She plays tennis and golf. She’s been in the chess club for 2 years. She wants to do fencing this year. She plays the piano and will start another instrument in fourth grade. She began Spanish and Mandarin in kindergarten.
And she’s in third grade.
She socializes with all kinds of kids because we pay a fortune so the school can afford to be diverse. Her bestie’s mom is a single parent nurse.
My completely obnoxious point is this…

College doesn’t matter.
For the families that are easily swallowing 40k a year for a country day school, a top 25 school isn’t important.
The fact that they are so over represented in college admissions is just another privilege added to the list.

Not sure I understand your point, unless you were just looking for an excuse to tell us you can afford many things. If you are saying that you pouring resources in your child’s education and extracurriculars will make them more competitive for college admissions, I think it’s actually not as clear cut as you make it seem. It’s more indicative of an overzealous mom, and I know public school kids that do the same exact things for their kids down to mandarin, Spanish, chess, piano, tennis and expensive camps since kindergarten. If anything this is more of an indication of an over scheduled child, with a helicopter/snowplow parent. While it could be great exposure for a child, it’s not going to make them get into Harvard.

If indeed top 25 college is not important, why do you do all that to your child? Genuinely interested to know because I actually see it as counterproductive.

You are correct. You don’t understand my point.
The point is the child is immersed in privilege at all times, and in countless ways. They are socializing with other privileged kids, and forming bonds and connections.
They have 18 years of that before college.
Once they show up to college, they identify similar kids, because they have similar backgrounds and experiences. They self select together.
They start school with wealth and privilege and it just becomes exponential.

Nobody is disputing that some people have a privileged life, is there a follow up to this that’s relevant to the thread?

You seem to imply that the “exponential” privilege results in better admissions to college, or that the college admission to Top25 doesn't matter because they’re already wealthy, or that it’s the social network from meeting similarly privileged kids that is the recipe for success, which is very narrowly defined as more privilege and more wealth. I can’t tell what your point is because you make all these arguments in the same post.

Most of the educational experiences you mentioned are well within the reach of middle class. Foreign languages, chess, sports, camps etc, don’t strike me as particularly selective and hard to get. Private high schools of $50k tuition are a higher bar to clear, but again well within the reach of the upper middle class.

My point is that college acceptance doesn’t matter.

Essentially college admission doesn’t matter for people that don’t care about college admissions. Amazing insight!

Plenty of rich people actually care about developing their skills and following a successful career even when the money is secondary, in my experience that’s actually the norm.

For middle class, a good degree can easily put you in the top 5% of earners, so for them it does make a difference.

It’s still somewhat puzzling on why you bother with all the Spanish, mandarin, chess, golf, swimming for your kid, if as you say, is not for college.

So that they can do business in Latin America and China with other chess, golf playing golfers and swimmers, later in life. Or something like that. Most of the rich people are extraordinarily ordinary and ugly people. Look at BRF. Stupid idiots! And dimwitted. But they are still ruling UK because they know how to ski and play golf. Sports that will unfortunately not break their necks.

[Anonymous]

Tale as old as time. Losers pump out kids they can’t afford to support and find out that life is not fair.

Could you imagine what our society would be like if we rewarded and incentivized smart and successful people to have kids and made it more difficult for poor and stupid people?

We would not have any of the problems we have these days.

Instead, we reward stupid losers for pumping out kids with zero consequence. This thread is a great example of poor losers complaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The harsh reality is that kids in private schools come from rich and successful parents compared to most of those in public.

Their parents have the resources and intelligence to make good decisions and set their kids up for success.

If you put your kid in public school it’s evidence you either don’t care about their future or you are a loser and your kids will continue your legacy of failure.

What’s is that success? If we talk about college admissions, unless you’re a legacy you’re not significantly more likely to get into a selective college. The other route is to buy the college a building but I’m quite confident this doesn’t apply to anyone in the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Between their inflated grades and $$ to do early decision (because they can pay), this system seems so rigged. Anyone else notice this?

Yes AND their school counselors build relationships with college admissions officers and really advocate for their students. Due to small class size, teachers, counselors, coaches and principals know everyone personally so their LORs come as more sincere and genuine. In large public schools, everyone is a number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tale as old as time. Losers pump out kids they can’t afford to support and find out that life is not fair.

Could you imagine what our society would be like if we rewarded and incentivized smart and successful people to have kids and made it more difficult for poor and stupid people?

We would not have any of the problems we have these days.

Instead, we reward stupid losers for pumping out kids with zero consequence. This thread is a great example of poor losers complaining.

This is funny but true

[Anonymous]

There is nothing funny about this. It’s cruel and mean. Not everyone is born with a silver spoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tale as old as time. Losers pump out kids they can’t afford to support and find out that life is not fair.

Could you imagine what our society would be like if we rewarded and incentivized smart and successful people to have kids and made it more difficult for poor and stupid people?

We would not have any of the problems we have these days.

Instead, we reward stupid losers for pumping out kids with zero consequence. This thread is a great example of poor losers complaining.

This is so funny because it’s so dumb.

How would you incentivize smart and successful people to have more kids, give them even more money from the public funds? lol, you can’t make that up.

How do you make it more difficult for poor, stupid people to have less kids? I think I’ve heard something somewhere about “one child policy”, forced abortions, fines for having a second child etc. That worked wonders! At destroying the demographic future of a country.

From your post I’m sure you’re neither intelligent nor successful, so why don’t you follow your own advice, and go on a prolonged abstinence regimen to avoid pumping out more kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op it’s so much worse than you realize.
My kid goes to an elite ( not east coast ) private school.
Her summer camp is 10k
We belong to a country club.
She is 9 but can competently ride a horse.
She plays tennis and golf. She’s been in the chess club for 2 years. She wants to do fencing this year. She plays the piano and will start another instrument in fourth grade. She began Spanish and Mandarin in kindergarten.
And she’s in third grade.
She socializes with all kinds of kids because we pay a fortune so the school can afford to be diverse. Her bestie’s mom is a single parent nurse.
My completely obnoxious point is this…

College doesn’t matter.
For the families that are easily swallowing 40k a year for a country day school, a top 25 school isn’t important.
The fact that they are so over represented in college admissions is just another privilege added to the list.

Not sure I understand your point, unless you were just looking for an excuse to tell us you can afford many things. If you are saying that you pouring resources in your child’s education and extracurriculars will make them more competitive for college admissions, I think it’s actually not as clear cut as you make it seem. It’s more indicative of an overzealous mom, and I know public school kids that do the same exact things for their kids down to mandarin, Spanish, chess, piano, tennis and expensive camps since kindergarten. If anything this is more of an indication of an over scheduled child, with a helicopter/snowplow parent. While it could be great exposure for a child, it’s not going to make them get into Harvard.

If indeed top 25 college is not important, why do you do all that to your child? Genuinely interested to know because I actually see it as counterproductive.

You are correct. You don’t understand my point.
The point is the child is immersed in privilege at all times, and in countless ways. They are socializing with other privileged kids, and forming bonds and connections.
They have 18 years of that before college.
Once they show up to college, they identify similar kids, because they have similar backgrounds and experiences. They self select together.
They start school with wealth and privilege and it just becomes exponential.

Nobody is disputing that some people have a privileged life, is there a follow up to this that’s relevant to the thread?

You seem to imply that the “exponential” privilege results in better admissions to college, or that the college admission to Top25 doesn't matter because they’re already wealthy, or that it’s the social network from meeting similarly privileged kids that is the recipe for success, which is very narrowly defined as more privilege and more wealth. I can’t tell what your point is because you make all these arguments in the same post.

Most of the educational experiences you mentioned are well within the reach of middle class. Foreign languages, chess, sports, camps etc, don’t strike me as particularly selective and hard to get. Private high schools of $50k tuition are a higher bar to clear, but again well within the reach of the upper middle class.

My point is that college acceptance doesn’t matter.

Essentially college admission doesn’t matter for people that don’t care about college admissions. Amazing insight!

Plenty of rich people actually care about developing their skills and following a successful career even when the money is secondary, in my experience that’s actually the norm.

For middle class, a good degree can easily put you in the top 5% of earners, so for them it does make a difference.

It’s still somewhat puzzling on why you bother with all the Spanish, mandarin, chess, golf, swimming for your kid, if as you say, is not for college.

So that they can do business in Latin America and China with other chess, golf playing golfers and swimmers, later in life. Or something like that. Most of the rich people are extraordinarily ordinary and ugly people. Look at BRF. Stupid idiots! And dimwitted. But they are still ruling UK because they know how to ski and play golf. Sports that will unfortunately not break their necks.

Yeah, it’s beyond stupid to care about your kids elementary school and then not to give a damn about their college education regardless of the money you have. At least be consistent!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tale as old as time. Losers pump out kids they can’t afford to support and find out that life is not fair.

Could you imagine what our society would be like if we rewarded and incentivized smart and successful people to have kids and made it more difficult for poor and stupid people?

We would not have any of the problems we have these days.

Instead, we reward stupid losers for pumping out kids with zero consequence. This thread is a great example of poor losers complaining.

This is so funny because it’s so dumb.

How would you incentivize smart and successful people to have more kids, give them even more money from the public funds? lol, you can’t make that up.

How do you make it more difficult for poor, stupid people to have less kids? I think I’ve heard something somewhere about “one child policy”, forced abortions, fines for having a second child etc. That worked wonders! At destroying the demographic future of a country.

From your post I’m sure you’re neither intelligent nor successful, so why don’t you follow your own advice, and go on a prolonged abstinence regimen to avoid pumping out more kids.

Yes to both. Tax breaks for people who should have kids. Forced abortions and sterilization for welfare. Zero tax breaks and penalties for the poor and stupid.

We need a screening process after kids hit puberty and start them on tracks like they do in Europe. Enough is enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tale as old as time. Losers pump out kids they can’t afford to support and find out that life is not fair.

Could you imagine what our society would be like if we rewarded and incentivized smart and successful people to have kids and made it more difficult for poor and stupid people?

We would not have any of the problems we have these days.

Instead, we reward stupid losers for pumping out kids with zero consequence. This thread is a great example of poor losers complaining.

This is so funny because it’s so dumb.

How would you incentivize smart and successful people to have more kids, give them even more money from the public funds? lol, you can’t make that up.

How do you make it more difficult for poor, stupid people to have less kids? I think I’ve heard something somewhere about “one child policy”, forced abortions, fines for having a second child etc. That worked wonders! At destroying the demographic future of a country.

From your post I’m sure you’re neither intelligent nor successful, so why don’t you follow your own advice, and go on a prolonged abstinence regimen to avoid pumping out more kids.

Yes to both. Tax breaks for people who should have kids. Forced abortions and sterilization for welfare. Zero tax breaks and penalties for the poor and stupid.

We need a screening process after kids hit puberty and start them on tracks like they do in Europe. Enough is enough.

Ok, I get that you’re trolling, but you’re an idiot for even suggesting and joking about this. You don’t sound intelligent or successful, please do a favor to humanity and force sterilize yourself by clubbing your balls into a pink mist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tale as old as time. Losers pump out kids they can’t afford to support and find out that life is not fair.

Could you imagine what our society would be like if we rewarded and incentivized smart and successful people to have kids and made it more difficult for poor and stupid people?

We would not have any of the problems we have these days.

Instead, we reward stupid losers for pumping out kids with zero consequence. This thread is a great example of poor losers complaining.

This is so funny because it’s so dumb.

How would you incentivize smart and successful people to have more kids, give them even more money from the public funds? lol, you can’t make that up.

How do you make it more difficult for poor, stupid people to have less kids? I think I’ve heard something somewhere about “one child policy”, forced abortions, fines for having a second child etc. That worked wonders! At destroying the demographic future of a country.

From your post I’m sure you’re neither intelligent nor successful, so why don’t you follow your own advice, and go on a prolonged abstinence regimen to avoid pumping out more kids.

Yes to both. Tax breaks for people who should have kids. Forced abortions and sterilization for welfare. Zero tax breaks and penalties for the poor and stupid.

We need a screening process after kids hit puberty and start them on tracks like they do in Europe. Enough is enough.

Ok, I get that you’re trolling, but you’re an idiot for even suggesting and joking about this. You don’t sound intelligent or successful, please do a favor to humanity and force sterilize yourself by clubbing your balls into a pink mist.

Well that one vote for more stupid kids!