controversial opinions about college

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

You must have toddlers if you think these sports don’t cost a bloody fortune. To support my kid’s high school tennis “career” (not scholarship or D1 level) was $20,000 a year. This is pocket change in the tennis training world. To be recruitable in these sports, parents are spending major cash.

$20,000 per year? My kid is an equestrian and I spend over $100k a year and my kid is not recruitable (even if she was, there is no $$ for equestrian and college equestrian is very much a step backward from A circuit showing).

Yes, horses cost more. I’m not complaining that it didn’t make him recruitable, I’m saying that’s pocket change compared to what it takes to be recruited. I grew up showing hunters - it’s not a recruitable college sport. But if you’re spending $100,000 a year on a sport, you’re not the “UMC dead zone” this conversation was about.

True. We are not. We were until we have up our government jobs a few years ago and went into industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AP is a scam.

Kids at my DC's school are abandoning AP for dual enrollment. Credits in hand are a good thing to have vs a test score that a college may or may not accept. The trade off is that the GPA bump isn't as high.

Don't most colleges accept 4s and 5s except for Ivy League schools?

No. My DD goes to a SLAC that accepts them only for placement.

Which school?

I think this is the case at most SLACs now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AP is a scam.

Kids at my DC's school are abandoning AP for dual enrollment. Credits in hand are a good thing to have vs a test score that a college may or may not accept. The trade off is that the GPA bump isn't as high.

Don't most colleges accept 4s and 5s except for Ivy League schools?

No. My DD goes to a SLAC that accepts them only for placement.

In Selingo's book, "Who Gets In and Why" there is a moment in the Emory Admissiosn committee where they frown upon Dual Enrollment, and he says APs are seen as more rigorous.

It makes me really sad actually, because every elite college is like, Oh no you don't have to take 15 APs, the first few years of HS especially are for exploring!, we understand the limitations of your schedule etc. etc..... then the prestigious college is like, ew dual enrollment, gross.

But I think it is probably true.

[Anonymous]

High cost does not equal high quality. You get what you pay for does not apply to colleges. There are many high quality, less expensive options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

You must have toddlers if you think these sports don’t cost a bloody fortune. To support my kid’s high school tennis “career” (not scholarship or D1 level) was $20,000 a year. This is pocket change in the tennis training world. To be recruitable in these sports, parents are spending major cash.

$20,000 per year? My kid is an equestrian and I spend over $100k a year and my kid is not recruitable (even if she was, there is no $$ for equestrian and college equestrian is very much a step backward from A circuit showing).

Yes, horses cost more. I’m not complaining that it didn’t make him recruitable, I’m saying that’s pocket change compared to what it takes to be recruited. I grew up showing hunters - it’s not a recruitable college sport. But if you’re spending $100,000 a year on a sport, you’re not the “UMC dead zone” this conversation was about.

so yes this whole tennis and now riding discussion may seem off base but I do think it leads to my "controversial opinion about college". I already posted on the tennis post because again i said, why would you pay 20K per year for something that will not "pay off" in a college scholarship or D1 offer? I also happen to have another DC who rides, and at the highest level. I was never willing to mortgage myself for riding for my DD because I knew she didn't want to ride in college... could she have been recruited, absolutely and had interest from more than one school when she was thinking about it. Ultimately,decided not to go that route, and my philosophy was always, at the end of her 18 years of eligibility, I do not want to be broke and divorced. She did just enough to stay competitive and rode with a well known trainer, but she did not show every weekend, did not go to FL for winters, did not have multiple horses. It was fun and she did probably accomplished just as much as the PP's DD who spent $100K on horses, but I spent probably less than half what they did. We all got to the same place at the end of the day. I know a family that bought their average riding kid a very nice horse, well over $100K, all so she could do the eq and get recruited to a D1 program. She did eventually go to a D1 program but she never shows, she's a benchwarmer and I'm sure she didn't get money from them. I mean I would have just taken that $100K+ and put it in her 529 and she could have gone anywhere. She was a bright kid and would have gotten into this school without riding (and basically did since as I said she does not show).

My point is, throwing money at a sport in hopes of a scholarship is stupid and short sighted. Many times, the kid decides they do not want to play in college because they do not want to be limited by the options afforded to them by their sports resume. Allow them to pursue it as your means allows, but don't delude yourself that it's going to pay off in some way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:High cost does not equal high quality. You get what you pay for does not apply to colleges. There are many high quality, less expensive options.

And there are many high cost schools that do not have commensurate quality. Avoid!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

You must have toddlers if you think these sports don’t cost a bloody fortune. To support my kid’s high school tennis “career” (not scholarship or D1 level) was $20,000 a year. This is pocket change in the tennis training world. To be recruitable in these sports, parents are spending major cash.

$20,000 per year? My kid is an equestrian and I spend over $100k a year and my kid is not recruitable (even if she was, there is no $$ for equestrian and college equestrian is very much a step backward from A circuit showing).

Yes, horses cost more. I’m not complaining that it didn’t make him recruitable, I’m saying that’s pocket change compared to what it takes to be recruited. I grew up showing hunters - it’s not a recruitable college sport. But if you’re spending $100,000 a year on a sport, you’re not the “UMC dead zone” this conversation was about.

so yes this whole tennis and now riding discussion may seem off base but I do think it leads to my "controversial opinion about college". I already posted on the tennis post because again i said, why would you pay 20K per year for something that will not "pay off" in a college scholarship or D1 offer? I also happen to have another DC who rides, and at the highest level. I was never willing to mortgage myself for riding for my DD because I knew she didn't want to ride in college... could she have been recruited, absolutely and had interest from more than one school when she was thinking about it. Ultimately,decided not to go that route, and my philosophy was always, at the end of her 18 years of eligibility, I do not want to be broke and divorced. She did just enough to stay competitive and rode with a well known trainer, but she did not show every weekend, did not go to FL for winters, did not have multiple horses. It was fun and she did probably accomplished just as much as the PP's DD who spent $100K on horses, but I spent probably less than half what they did. We all got to the same place at the end of the day. I know a family that bought their average riding kid a very nice horse, well over $100K, all so she could do the eq and get recruited to a D1 program. She did eventually go to a D1 program but she never shows, she's a benchwarmer and I'm sure she didn't get money from them. I mean I would have just taken that $100K+ and put it in her 529 and she could have gone anywhere. She was a bright kid and would have gotten into this school without riding (and basically did since as I said she does not show).

My point is, throwing money at a sport in hopes of a scholarship is stupid and short sighted. Many times, the kid decides they do not want to play in college because they do not want to be limited by the options afforded to them by their sports resume. Allow them to pursue it as your means allows, but don't delude yourself that it's going to pay off in some way.

It was never about paying for scholarship hopes. It was about responding to someone who said white athletes didn’t fit in the wealthy pile for admissions. My point is that yes, they do. Because $20,000 was for EC level participation. College athlete level requires much, much, much more money. Track and football might be exceptions, but for the most part all these white athletes come from wealthy families. UMC white kids are competing against truly wealthy white kids for admission. Wealthy has the advantage every time. That was the point. I get that forums make conversation difficult to follow but this sub thread has gone way off track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

You must have toddlers if you think these sports don’t cost a bloody fortune. To support my kid’s high school tennis “career” (not scholarship or D1 level) was $20,000 a year. This is pocket change in the tennis training world. To be recruitable in these sports, parents are spending major cash.

$20,000 per year? My kid is an equestrian and I spend over $100k a year and my kid is not recruitable (even if she was, there is no $$ for equestrian and college equestrian is very much a step backward from A circuit showing).

Yes, horses cost more. I’m not complaining that it didn’t make him recruitable, I’m saying that’s pocket change compared to what it takes to be recruited. I grew up showing hunters - it’s not a recruitable college sport. But if you’re spending $100,000 a year on a sport, you’re not the “UMC dead zone” this conversation was about.

so yes this whole tennis and now riding discussion may seem off base but I do think it leads to my "controversial opinion about college". I already posted on the tennis post because again i said, why would you pay 20K per year for something that will not "pay off" in a college scholarship or D1 offer? I also happen to have another DC who rides, and at the highest level. I was never willing to mortgage myself for riding for my DD because I knew she didn't want to ride in college... could she have been recruited, absolutely and had interest from more than one school when she was thinking about it. Ultimately,decided not to go that route, and my philosophy was always, at the end of her 18 years of eligibility, I do not want to be broke and divorced. She did just enough to stay competitive and rode with a well known trainer, but she did not show every weekend, did not go to FL for winters, did not have multiple horses. It was fun and she did probably accomplished just as much as the PP's DD who spent $100K on horses, but I spent probably less than half what they did. We all got to the same place at the end of the day. I know a family that bought their average riding kid a very nice horse, well over $100K, all so she could do the eq and get recruited to a D1 program. She did eventually go to a D1 program but she never shows, she's a benchwarmer and I'm sure she didn't get money from them. I mean I would have just taken that $100K+ and put it in her 529 and she could have gone anywhere. She was a bright kid and would have gotten into this school without riding (and basically did since as I said she does not show).

My point is, throwing money at a sport in hopes of a scholarship is stupid and short sighted. Many times, the kid decides they do not want to play in college because they do not want to be limited by the options afforded to them by their sports resume. Allow them to pursue it as your means allows, but don't delude yourself that it's going to pay off in some way.

It was never about paying for scholarship hopes. It was about responding to someone who said white athletes didn’t fit in the wealthy pile for admissions. My point is that yes, they do. Because $20,000 was for EC level participation. College athlete level requires much, much, much more money. Track and football might be exceptions, but for the most part all these white athletes come from wealthy families. UMC white kids are competing against truly wealthy white kids for admission. Wealthy has the advantage every time. That was the point. I get that forums make conversation difficult to follow but this sub thread has gone way off track.

well I don't think it's off track, I was not responding to YOUR post, but rather than the sports were brought up with costs associated, and making ANOTHER point under the heading "Controversial opinions about college". Sorry to confuse you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

You must have toddlers if you think these sports don’t cost a bloody fortune. To support my kid’s high school tennis “career” (not scholarship or D1 level) was $20,000 a year. This is pocket change in the tennis training world. To be recruitable in these sports, parents are spending major cash.

$20,000 per year? My kid is an equestrian and I spend over $100k a year and my kid is not recruitable (even if she was, there is no $$ for equestrian and college equestrian is very much a step backward from A circuit showing).

Yes, horses cost more. I’m not complaining that it didn’t make him recruitable, I’m saying that’s pocket change compared to what it takes to be recruited. I grew up showing hunters - it’s not a recruitable college sport. But if you’re spending $100,000 a year on a sport, you’re not the “UMC dead zone” this conversation was about.

so yes this whole tennis and now riding discussion may seem off base but I do think it leads to my "controversial opinion about college". I already posted on the tennis post because again i said, why would you pay 20K per year for something that will not "pay off" in a college scholarship or D1 offer? I also happen to have another DC who rides, and at the highest level. I was never willing to mortgage myself for riding for my DD because I knew she didn't want to ride in college... could she have been recruited, absolutely and had interest from more than one school when she was thinking about it. Ultimately,decided not to go that route, and my philosophy was always, at the end of her 18 years of eligibility, I do not want to be broke and divorced. She did just enough to stay competitive and rode with a well known trainer, but she did not show every weekend, did not go to FL for winters, did not have multiple horses. It was fun and she did probably accomplished just as much as the PP's DD who spent $100K on horses, but I spent probably less than half what they did. We all got to the same place at the end of the day. I know a family that bought their average riding kid a very nice horse, well over $100K, all so she could do the eq and get recruited to a D1 program. She did eventually go to a D1 program but she never shows, she's a benchwarmer and I'm sure she didn't get money from them. I mean I would have just taken that $100K+ and put it in her 529 and she could have gone anywhere. She was a bright kid and would have gotten into this school without riding (and basically did since as I said she does not show).

My point is, throwing money at a sport in hopes of a scholarship is stupid and short sighted. Many times, the kid decides they do not want to play in college because they do not want to be limited by the options afforded to them by their sports resume. Allow them to pursue it as your means allows, but don't delude yourself that it's going to pay off in some way.

It was never about paying for scholarship hopes. It was about responding to someone who said white athletes didn’t fit in the wealthy pile for admissions. My point is that yes, they do. Because $20,000 was for EC level participation. College athlete level requires much, much, much more money. Track and football might be exceptions, but for the most part all these white athletes come from wealthy families. UMC white kids are competing against truly wealthy white kids for admission. Wealthy has the advantage every time. That was the point. I get that forums make conversation difficult to follow but this sub thread has gone way off track.

This whole "UMC whites dead zone" ( using a PP) claim is silly.

No one is feeling sorry for any UMC whites in college admissions. They are the lifeblood of U.S. colleges, strictly based on the numbers alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are not a bad parent for making your child take out loans to pay for their college even if you could afford to finance it yourself.

It’s also okay you paid off your own debt instead of financing a 529.

My opinion is that you are a bad parent in this situation. Why saddle your child to prove some point? You're either a hard worker or you're not. Financing college doesn't mean anything re: how hard your kid will work. There are many examples in my own life that prove that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

You must have toddlers if you think these sports don’t cost a bloody fortune. To support my kid’s high school tennis “career” (not scholarship or D1 level) was $20,000 a year. This is pocket change in the tennis training world. To be recruitable in these sports, parents are spending major cash.

$20,000 per year? My kid is an equestrian and I spend over $100k a year and my kid is not recruitable (even if she was, there is no $$ for equestrian and college equestrian is very much a step backward from A circuit showing).

Yes, horses cost more. I’m not complaining that it didn’t make him recruitable, I’m saying that’s pocket change compared to what it takes to be recruited. I grew up showing hunters - it’s not a recruitable college sport. But if you’re spending $100,000 a year on a sport, you’re not the “UMC dead zone” this conversation was about.

so yes this whole tennis and now riding discussion may seem off base but I do think it leads to my "controversial opinion about college". I already posted on the tennis post because again i said, why would you pay 20K per year for something that will not "pay off" in a college scholarship or D1 offer? I also happen to have another DC who rides, and at the highest level. I was never willing to mortgage myself for riding for my DD because I knew she didn't want to ride in college... could she have been recruited, absolutely and had interest from more than one school when she was thinking about it. Ultimately,decided not to go that route, and my philosophy was always, at the end of her 18 years of eligibility, I do not want to be broke and divorced. She did just enough to stay competitive and rode with a well known trainer, but she did not show every weekend, did not go to FL for winters, did not have multiple horses. It was fun and she did probably accomplished just as much as the PP's DD who spent $100K on horses, but I spent probably less than half what they did. We all got to the same place at the end of the day. I know a family that bought their average riding kid a very nice horse, well over $100K, all so she could do the eq and get recruited to a D1 program. She did eventually go to a D1 program but she never shows, she's a benchwarmer and I'm sure she didn't get money from them. I mean I would have just taken that $100K+ and put it in her 529 and she could have gone anywhere. She was a bright kid and would have gotten into this school without riding (and basically did since as I said she does not show).

My point is, throwing money at a sport in hopes of a scholarship is stupid and short sighted. Many times, the kid decides they do not want to play in college because they do not want to be limited by the options afforded to them by their sports resume. Allow them to pursue it as your means allows, but don't delude yourself that it's going to pay off in some way.

It was never about paying for scholarship hopes. It was about responding to someone who said white athletes didn’t fit in the wealthy pile for admissions. My point is that yes, they do. Because $20,000 was for EC level participation. College athlete level requires much, much, much more money. Track and football might be exceptions, but for the most part all these white athletes come from wealthy families. UMC white kids are competing against truly wealthy white kids for admission. Wealthy has the advantage every time. That was the point. I get that forums make conversation difficult to follow but this sub thread has gone way off track.

This whole "UMC whites dead zone" ( using a PP) claim is silly.

No one is feeling sorry for any UMC whites in college admissions. They are the lifeblood of U.S. colleges, strictly based on the numbers alone.

Colleges? Yes. Not the most selective colleges which is what this was about.

[Anonymous]

In the name of equity, some elite schools will soon switch to "essay optional".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

You must have toddlers if you think these sports don’t cost a bloody fortune. To support my kid’s high school tennis “career” (not scholarship or D1 level) was $20,000 a year. This is pocket change in the tennis training world. To be recruitable in these sports, parents are spending major cash.

$20,000 per year? My kid is an equestrian and I spend over $100k a year and my kid is not recruitable (even if she was, there is no $$ for equestrian and college equestrian is very much a step backward from A circuit showing).

Yes, horses cost more. I’m not complaining that it didn’t make him recruitable, I’m saying that’s pocket change compared to what it takes to be recruited. I grew up showing hunters - it’s not a recruitable college sport. But if you’re spending $100,000 a year on a sport, you’re not the “UMC dead zone” this conversation was about.

so yes this whole tennis and now riding discussion may seem off base but I do think it leads to my "controversial opinion about college". I already posted on the tennis post because again i said, why would you pay 20K per year for something that will not "pay off" in a college scholarship or D1 offer? I also happen to have another DC who rides, and at the highest level. I was never willing to mortgage myself for riding for my DD because I knew she didn't want to ride in college... could she have been recruited, absolutely and had interest from more than one school when she was thinking about it. Ultimately,decided not to go that route, and my philosophy was always, at the end of her 18 years of eligibility, I do not want to be broke and divorced. She did just enough to stay competitive and rode with a well known trainer, but she did not show every weekend, did not go to FL for winters, did not have multiple horses. It was fun and she did probably accomplished just as much as the PP's DD who spent $100K on horses, but I spent probably less than half what they did. We all got to the same place at the end of the day. I know a family that bought their average riding kid a very nice horse, well over $100K, all so she could do the eq and get recruited to a D1 program. She did eventually go to a D1 program but she never shows, she's a benchwarmer and I'm sure she didn't get money from them. I mean I would have just taken that $100K+ and put it in her 529 and she could have gone anywhere. She was a bright kid and would have gotten into this school without riding (and basically did since as I said she does not show).

My point is, throwing money at a sport in hopes of a scholarship is stupid and short sighted. Many times, the kid decides they do not want to play in college because they do not want to be limited by the options afforded to them by their sports resume. Allow them to pursue it as your means allows, but don't delude yourself that it's going to pay off in some way.

It was never about paying for scholarship hopes. It was about responding to someone who said white athletes didn’t fit in the wealthy pile for admissions. My point is that yes, they do. Because $20,000 was for EC level participation. College athlete level requires much, much, much more money. Track and football might be exceptions, but for the most part all these white athletes come from wealthy families. UMC white kids are competing against truly wealthy white kids for admission. Wealthy has the advantage every time. That was the point. I get that forums make conversation difficult to follow but this sub thread has gone way off track.

This whole "UMC whites dead zone" ( using a PP) claim is silly.

No one is feeling sorry for any UMC whites in college admissions. They are the lifeblood of U.S. colleges, strictly based on the numbers alone.

Colleges? Yes. Not the most selective colleges which is what this was about.

9/4, 11:38 post:

"Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is."


Don't see any references to "the most selective colleges."

Even if it did, it still wouldn't hold true.

Middle or working class whites? Maybe.

UMC whites? Not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

You must have toddlers if you think these sports don’t cost a bloody fortune. To support my kid’s high school tennis “career” (not scholarship or D1 level) was $20,000 a year. This is pocket change in the tennis training world. To be recruitable in these sports, parents are spending major cash.

$20,000 per year? My kid is an equestrian and I spend over $100k a year and my kid is not recruitable (even if she was, there is no $$ for equestrian and college equestrian is very much a step backward from A circuit showing).

Yes, horses cost more. I’m not complaining that it didn’t make him recruitable, I’m saying that’s pocket change compared to what it takes to be recruited. I grew up showing hunters - it’s not a recruitable college sport. But if you’re spending $100,000 a year on a sport, you’re not the “UMC dead zone” this conversation was about.

so yes this whole tennis and now riding discussion may seem off base but I do think it leads to my "controversial opinion about college". I already posted on the tennis post because again i said, why would you pay 20K per year for something that will not "pay off" in a college scholarship or D1 offer? I also happen to have another DC who rides, and at the highest level. I was never willing to mortgage myself for riding for my DD because I knew she didn't want to ride in college... could she have been recruited, absolutely and had interest from more than one school when she was thinking about it. Ultimately,decided not to go that route, and my philosophy was always, at the end of her 18 years of eligibility, I do not want to be broke and divorced. She did just enough to stay competitive and rode with a well known trainer, but she did not show every weekend, did not go to FL for winters, did not have multiple horses. It was fun and she did probably accomplished just as much as the PP's DD who spent $100K on horses, but I spent probably less than half what they did. We all got to the same place at the end of the day. I know a family that bought their average riding kid a very nice horse, well over $100K, all so she could do the eq and get recruited to a D1 program. She did eventually go to a D1 program but she never shows, she's a benchwarmer and I'm sure she didn't get money from them. I mean I would have just taken that $100K+ and put it in her 529 and she could have gone anywhere. She was a bright kid and would have gotten into this school without riding (and basically did since as I said she does not show).

My point is, throwing money at a sport in hopes of a scholarship is stupid and short sighted. Many times, the kid decides they do not want to play in college because they do not want to be limited by the options afforded to them by their sports resume. Allow them to pursue it as your means allows, but don't delude yourself that it's going to pay off in some way.

I’m the other riding parent. We never did it for college purposes. We did it because our child had a passion for it and for a while thought it was the career she wanted. She has other challenges and riding brings her joy and peace. We are not mortgaged or divorced. We can afford it or we wouldn’t do it. There are things she wants (second horse, etc) that we do not do because we feel it is too much (potentially we could afford it but it’s not where we choose to spend our money). My child hated IEA so I suspect she would hate riding on a college team. She likes show jumping much better than eq (she’s not tail thin with the “eq body”). She does well and has fun, which is what we are looking for. She will have a lifelong passion. It was never about college. I personally believe you would be a fool to do equestrian for college purposes. It is so expensive and there are no scholarships. There is no ROI, not to mention that the D1 schools that have the best riding teams are not necessarily where you would want your kid to go (decent schools but not top of most lists). I’ve seen the eq craziness and met the parents at EAP clinics, etc, riding is crazy but that is a whole other level of crazy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to go in the military, you should be allowed to drink alcohol.

I don’t think you should serve until 25, you can train at 16.

Drink beer and wine at 18.

Liquor at 23.