Where do Professors Send Their Children?

[Anonymous]

Cathedral Schools or Sidwell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a law school prof and we definitely have it good.

Only think I can add to the question of where to send kids to school: mine are at a progressive private that gets a very self-selecting applicant pool. It's a school that often gets derided by the more uptight DCUMers as "indufficiently rigorous," which mostly seems to mean that the kids don't get enough homework, don't take enough tests, and have too much fun.

As someone who spends most weekdays with extraordinarily bright young men and women from extraordinarily rigorous high schools and colleges, I see a lot of anxious, obsessive people who are all about hard work and more than a little lacking in the intellectual curiosty and playfulness department. Some of most talented and interesting students are the ones who did not come from this kind of high pressure background-- the ones who drifted around for a bit and somehow or other, God help them, still found their way to law school.

I'm already confident that my kids are bright. I want them to be at a school where their creativity and curiosity will be nurtured, not their competitive anxieties. I would not send one of my kids either to Sidwell or St Albans or NCS if you paid me-- nor would I send one to any of the top-performing MoCo or NoVa publics. Too obsessively achievement oriented; too competitive. I don't want my kids to end up as miserable, highly-paid over-achieving lawyers with a raft of fancy diplomas on their walls: I'd much rather they be poorer but happier.

+1, prof here with children at GDS. While it is by no means a perfect school, we find that it strikes a good balance between nurturing intellectual passion and the realities of a competitive academic environment. That being said, I would not automatically shut down Sidwell or the Cathedral Schools. I think that depending on the child's interests and strengths (and the family), any of the schools often mentioned on these boards could be very suitable.

[Anonymous]

I highly doubt you're a law school professor. You can't even spell. And, your arguments are a little too convenient. I call "troll" on you.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a law school prof and we definitely have it good.

Only think I can add to the question of where to send kids to school: mine are at a progressive private that gets a very self-selecting applicant pool. It's a school that often gets derided by the more uptight DCUMers as "indufficiently rigorous," which mostly seems to mean that the kids don't get enough homework, don't take enough tests, and have too much fun.

As someone who spends most weekdays with extraordinarily bright young men and women from extraordinarily rigorous high schools and colleges, I see a lot of anxious, obsessive people who are all about hard work and more than a little lacking in the intellectual curiosty and playfulness department. Some of most talented and interesting students are the ones who did not come from this kind of high pressure background-- the ones who drifted around for a bit and somehow or other, God help them, still found their way to law school.

I'm already confident that my kids are bright. I want them to be at a school where their creativity and curiosity will be nurtured, not their competitive anxieties. I would not send one of my kids either to Sidwell or St Albans or NCS if you paid me-- nor would I send one to any of the top-performing MoCo or NoVa publics. Too obsessively achievement oriented; too competitive. I don't want my kids to end up as miserable, highly-paid over-achieving lawyers with a raft of fancy diplomas on their walls: I'd much rather they be poorer but happier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I highly doubt you're a law school professor. You can't even spell. And, your arguments are a little too convenient. I call "troll" on you.

+1000 The spelling is atrocious and the arguments are not only convenient but lame.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a law school prof and we definitely have it good.

Only think I can add to the question of where to send kids to school: mine are at a progressive private that gets a very self-selecting applicant pool. It's a school that often gets derided by the more uptight DCUMers as "indufficiently rigorous," which mostly seems to mean that the kids don't get enough homework, don't take enough tests, and have too much fun.

As someone who spends most weekdays with extraordinarily bright young men and women from extraordinarily rigorous high schools and colleges, I see a lot of anxious, obsessive people who are all about hard work and more than a little lacking in the intellectual curiosty and playfulness department. Some of most talented and interesting students are the ones who did not come from this kind of high pressure background-- the ones who drifted around for a bit and somehow or other, God help them, still found their way to law school.

I'm already confident that my kids are bright. I want them to be at a school where their creativity and curiosity will be nurtured, not their competitive anxieties. I would not send one of my kids either to Sidwell or St Albans or NCS if you paid me-- nor would I send one to any of the top-performing MoCo or NoVa publics. Too obsessively achievement oriented; too competitive. I don't want my kids to end up as miserable, highly-paid over-achieving lawyers with a raft of fancy diplomas on their walls: I'd much rather they be poorer but happier.

[Anonymous]

I don't know. I worked for a while with a bunch of attorneys, and, frankly, not too many of them could spell!

Signed,
Humanities Ph.D.

[Anonymous]

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a law school prof and we definitely have it good.

Only think I can add to the question of where to send kids to school: mine are at a progressive private that gets a very self-selecting applicant pool. It's a school that often gets derided by the more uptight DCUMers as "indufficiently rigorous," which mostly seems to mean that the kids don't get enough homework, don't take enough tests, and have too much fun.

As someone who spends most weekdays with extraordinarily bright young men and women from extraordinarily rigorous high schools and colleges, I see a lot of anxious, obsessive people who are all about hard work and more than a little lacking in the intellectual curiosty and playfulness department. Some of most talented and interesting students are the ones who did not come from this kind of high pressure background-- the ones who drifted around for a bit and somehow or other, God help them, still found their way to law school.

I'm already confident that my kids are bright. I want them to be at a school where their creativity and curiosity will be nurtured, not their competitive anxieties. I would not send one of my kids either to Sidwell or St Albans or NCS if you paid me-- nor would I send one to any of the top-performing MoCo or NoVa publics. Too obsessively achievement oriented; too competitive. I don't want my kids to end up as miserable, highly-paid over-achieving lawyers with a raft of fancy diplomas on their walls: I'd much rather they be poorer but happier.

I understand what you're saying and share your opinions. Would you mind telling us the name of the school? Exactly what I'd want for our child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a law school prof and we definitely have it good.

Only think I can add to the question of where to send kids to school: mine are at a progressive private that gets a very self-selecting applicant pool. It's a school that often gets derided by the more uptight DCUMers as "indufficiently rigorous," which mostly seems to mean that the kids don't get enough homework, don't take enough tests, and have too much fun.

As someone who spends most weekdays with extraordinarily bright young men and women from extraordinarily rigorous high schools and colleges, I see a lot of anxious, obsessive people who are all about hard work and more than a little lacking in the intellectual curiosty and playfulness department. Some of most talented and interesting students are the ones who did not come from this kind of high pressure background-- the ones who drifted around for a bit and somehow or other, God help them, still found their way to law school.

I'm already confident that my kids are bright. I want them to be at a school where their creativity and curiosity will be nurtured, not their competitive anxieties. I would not send one of my kids either to Sidwell or St Albans or NCS if you paid me-- nor would I send one to any of the top-performing MoCo or NoVa publics. Too obsessively achievement oriented; too competitive. I don't want my kids to end up as miserable, highly-paid over-achieving lawyers with a raft of fancy diplomas on their walls: I'd much rather they be poorer but happier.

I'm the law prof poster. Sorry, skeptics, even law professors make typos. This is a parenting forum, not the supreme ct or the yale law journal. And, well, this is kinda my point: if your idea of the perfect school is one that will turn out kids who never make spelling mistakes, then you're looking for something different than what we're looking for. good luck in your pursuit of perfect spelling and perfect test scores! I'll take happy kids who get enough sleep and enough playtime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a law school prof and we definitely have it good.

Only think I can add to the question of where to send kids to school: mine are at a progressive private that gets a very self-selecting applicant pool. It's a school that often gets derided by the more uptight DCUMers as "indufficiently rigorous," which mostly seems to mean that the kids don't get enough homework, don't take enough tests, and have too much fun.

As someone who spends most weekdays with extraordinarily bright young men and women from extraordinarily rigorous high schools and colleges, I see a lot of anxious, obsessive people who are all about hard work and more than a little lacking in the intellectual curiosty and playfulness department. Some of most talented and interesting students are the ones who did not come from this kind of high pressure background-- the ones who drifted around for a bit and somehow or other, God help them, still found their way to law school.

I'm already confident that my kids are bright. I want them to be at a school where their creativity and curiosity will be nurtured, not their competitive anxieties. I would not send one of my kids either to Sidwell or St Albans or NCS if you paid me-- nor would I send one to any of the top-performing MoCo or NoVa publics. Too obsessively achievement oriented; too competitive. I don't want my kids to end up as miserable, highly-paid over-achieving lawyers with a raft of fancy diplomas on their walls: I'd much rather they be poorer but happier.

I'm the law prof poster. Sorry, skeptics, even law professors make typos. This is a parenting forum, not the supreme ct or the yale law journal. And, well, this is kinda my point: if your idea of the perfect school is one that will turn out kids who never make spelling mistakes, then you're looking for something different than what we're looking for. good luck in your pursuit of perfect spelling and perfect test scores! I'll take happy kids who get enough sleep and enough playtime.

Being bright isn't enough, as you probably well know. It's how to combine brightness with drive and hard work -- this applies as much to someone in the social sector trying to change the world as it does to an associate on the partner track. While this combination of capabilities and skills may be innate in some kids, a lot of bright kids benefit from having a competitive cohort pushing them to work harder and do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a law school prof and we definitely have it good.

Only think I can add to the question of where to send kids to school: mine are at a progressive private that gets a very self-selecting applicant pool. It's a school that often gets derided by the more uptight DCUMers as "indufficiently rigorous," which mostly seems to mean that the kids don't get enough homework, don't take enough tests, and have too much fun.

As someone who spends most weekdays with extraordinarily bright young men and women from extraordinarily rigorous high schools and colleges, I see a lot of anxious, obsessive people who are all about hard work and more than a little lacking in the intellectual curiosty and playfulness department. Some of most talented and interesting students are the ones who did not come from this kind of high pressure background-- the ones who drifted around for a bit and somehow or other, God help them, still found their way to law school.

I'm already confident that my kids are bright. I want them to be at a school where their creativity and curiosity will be nurtured, not their competitive anxieties. I would not send one of my kids either to Sidwell or St Albans or NCS if you paid me-- nor would I send one to any of the top-performing MoCo or NoVa publics. Too obsessively achievement oriented; too competitive. I don't want my kids to end up as miserable, highly-paid over-achieving lawyers with a raft of fancy diplomas on their walls: I'd much rather they be poorer but happier.

I'm the law prof poster. Sorry, skeptics, even law professors make typos. This is a parenting forum, not the supreme ct or the yale law journal. And, well, this is kinda my point: if your idea of the perfect school is one that will turn out kids who never make spelling mistakes, then you're looking for something different than what we're looking for. good luck in your pursuit of perfect spelling and perfect test scores! I'll take happy kids who get enough sleep and enough playtime.

Being bright isn't enough, as you probably well know. It's how to combine brightness with drive and hard work -- this applies as much to someone in the social sector trying to change the world as it does to an associate on the partner track. While this combination of capabilities and skills may be innate in some kids, a lot of bright kids benefit from having a competitive cohort pushing them to work harder and do better.

Depends on what you want them to work harder and do better at? Law prof, please post school your kid attends!!!

[Anonymous]

I'm a med prof and my kid goes to Madeira. It's rigorous and a drag. I would never have sent her there had I known that she d lose her love of learning to competition. I ll send my next one to an easier school.

[Anonymous]

I stumbled across this looking for something else. I know it is late but I'm posting anyway.

Law professor - I'm a lawyer and you could've written my post. I felt the same way about my kids and the educational landscape. We left our highly rated public school and ended up at the Washington Waldorf school 5 years ago. It was the best decision I ever made for my children.

[Anonymous]

I know anecdotally of several academics who send or have sent their children to GDS. Larry Summers is probably one of the better known.

[Anonymous]

There are a number of CUA faculty children at St. Jerome's in Hyattsville.

[Anonymous]

I really enjoyed the law prof's post - I guess because it reinforces my thinking.

I am increasingly dismayed by the pressure being forced upon high school kids to complete impossible workloads. If your kid is taking 5 APs (Math, Science, History, English, and Foreign Language), it's reasonable to expect he would have an hour of homework in each class per night. So that's 5 hours of homework every night, at a minimum.

Say he plays a sport and doesn't finish practice until around 6. Say he wants to take a shower and eat a meal after driving home. Now it's 7 - and time to start 5 hours of homework. What kind of life is that for anyone, let alone a teenage kid? Do you really think this is going to engender a love of learning, or intrinsic motivation to pursue genuine interests? To me, it's putting kids on a soul-deadening treadmill that teaches them to resent adults, to grind out rote work, and to focus on the all-important grades - basically to produce the kind of kids written about in "Excellent Sheep."

The irony is that - having worked in higher ed for more than a decade - I see many professors sending their kids to these schools that produce the same kind of spiritless kids they then lament seeing as students. I am fortunate that through my spouse's tuition remission benefit, and by living outside the immediate DC area, my kid ended up in a school that isn't a pressure cooker. We were a little worried about the lack of homework and Honors sections in 9th Grade, now we are so thankful that as a junior he truly does have balance in his life - challenged and engaged by most (though, admittedly, not every one) of his courses, with time to play sports and even pursue some outside interests.

I hear friends who simultaneously lament and brag about their kids' workloads (like bringing flashlights in the car so they can do homework during the 15-minute ride to a sibling's practice, because they can't afford not to work during that time) and it makes me feel very sorry for the kids.