spin-off! What is so awful about attending school with exclusively upper middle class kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this thread is still going strong?

And it's moved on to somebody arguing that actual religious diversity in public schools is less useful than teachers teaching about religion in private schools?

And the same poster is still arguing--against all evidence--that there's more religious diversity in private schools than in public schools? Because, what, all those buddhist vietnamese and muslim somali immigrants are wealthy enough to go private?
LOL!

My kid studied comparative religions in a private school. Let me tell you, it wasn't a very impressive. For one thing, the teachers themselves don't always know a lot about the various religions, unless they belong to that religion themselves. The teacher presented a bland, sterile picture of each of the major world religions.

Because, what, all those buddhist vietnamese and muslim somali immigrants are wealthy enough to buy a house that is zoned for Lafayette? LOL!

There is actually a pros and cons of Lafayette thread going on right now, where one of the pros being touted is how the parents of the kids are all wealthy and older instead of younger and poorer. Sounds super diverse...

[Anonymous]

Oh no, let's not start comparing random public and private schools to each other again. Didn't we go through that with your Whitman comparison already?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh no, let's not start comparing random public and private schools to each other again. Didn't we go through that with your Whitman comparison already?

Nope. Wasn't my Whitman comparison, since I live in DC.

[Anonymous]

OK, let's try comparing private schools to Ballou or almost any other DC public or charter east of Rock Creek or on Capitol Hill or in Anacostia, for diversity. It's only fair, if you're going to pick and choose publics, then so can I.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because, what, all those buddhist vietnamese and muslim somali immigrants are wealthy enough to buy a house that is zoned for Lafayette? LOL!

There is actually a pros and cons of Lafayette thread going on right now, where one of the pros being touted is how the parents of the kids are all wealthy and older instead of younger and poorer. Sounds super diverse...

You make it sound like Lafayette is the only choice out there. Like no rich kid ever attended a public school that was not Lafayette. Further, assuming I can get you to agree there are good publics besides Lafayette, you make it sound like no hard-working poor kid ever attended one of these other good public schools.

You can find hard-working poor kids in many other DC schools besides Lafayette, doofus. And you can find them in many charters. Or they live in west Silver Spring and attend BCC with the kids from Chevy Chase.

[Anonymous]

..?

[Anonymous]

This thread needs to be printed out and saved. Someday soon perhaps people will look at this and say, "People really spent time talking like this?" because the middle class is shrinking.

[Anonymous]

Great question OP. As someone who came to the US as an adult, this desire to go out of one's way to surround one's kids with those who are less fortunate is the most puzzling thing about this board.

I want my kids to grow into high functioning empowered adults. The best way to attempt this is to surround them with smart, hardworking kids from well-functioning families and get them used to interacting and competing with them, both in academics and on the sports field. Sure, it will be important for them to learn that the world is full of all kinds of people, but that they will learn from travel and interacting with friends from different activities and camps. If I can give them successful role models, why should I go out of my way to show them "average." They can find that anywhere.

This is the most sensible post in the whole 15 pages.

[Anonymous]

It's so they don't grow up thinking that anyone of any value is just like them and anyone else is not worth knowing. Unlike in other countries, your kids *might* end up working with and competing with them (the presently less fortunate) in the workplace since upward mobility exists here. Don't you want your kids to have all different kinds or role models, those that model how to succeed when fed with a silver spoon, those that model succeeding despite great odds, those that model kindness despite personal adversity, or different forms of humor/expression/generosity. Don't you want your kids to grow up with friends from all backgrounds? Maybe a friend who doesn't have it all but it doesn't matter because s/he comes from a loving family, etc. etc.

[Anonymous]

No. I think liberal guilt is stupid and further not competiitve or appropriate in todays world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. I think liberal guilt is stupid and further not competiitve or appropriate in todays world.

It's not liberal guilt. It's called "compassion." You should try it.

But anyway, raising your kids in a little bubble or greenhouse is never going to make them "competitive." If you want to teach your kids to compete, send them to the local public where they will learn to fight for the teacher's attention and for a place on the sports teams. Also, at the local public they will learn how to deal with all types of people, and will be more likely to "succeed" (although I dread to think of your idea of "success").

[Anonymous]

It's not liberal guilt. It's called interest in people, and if you don't have it (and your child doesn't have it) why would you hope your child's becomes a doctor, politician, or leader of a company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. I think liberal guilt is stupid and further not competiitve or appropriate in todays world.

It's not liberal guilt. It's called "compassion." You should try it.

But anyway, raising your kids in a little bubble or greenhouse is never going to make them "competitive." If you want to teach your kids to compete, send them to the local public where they will learn to fight for the teacher's attention and for a place on the sports teams. Also, at the local public they will learn how to deal with all types of people, and will be more likely to "succeed" (although I dread to think of your idea of "success").

You go girlfriend. Let your litt' un FIGHT for the right to be on a team ... and then feel all guilty (no compassionate) about it! So they can "succeed" with "all types of people" Yeah! I feel so happy for your kids. Go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. I think liberal guilt is stupid and further not competiitve or appropriate in todays world.

It's not liberal guilt. It's called "compassion." You should try it.

But anyway, raising your kids in a little bubble or greenhouse is never going to make them "competitive." If you want to teach your kids to compete, send them to the local public where they will learn to fight for the teacher's attention and for a place on the sports teams. Also, at the local public they will learn how to deal with all types of people, and will be more likely to "succeed" (although I dread to think of your idea of "success").

You go girlfriend. Let your litt' un FIGHT for the right to be on a team ... and then feel all guilty (no compassionate) about it! So they can "succeed" with "all types of people" Yeah! I feel so happy for your kids. Go for it.

Haha. Yup, since the DCs left their private elementary school, they have been fighting for places on the team and leadership positions in clubs in their public schools. And they got these leadership positions. And now oldest is applying to Ivies because she has the resume and the scores. You can only hope your own spoiled, sheltered brats will do this well.

[Anonymous]

Who revived this thread? It's from a year ago.... Maybe a troll looking to pick fights? Who knows, but I think 15 pages is enough already.