Would you rather be in a school with aloof or helicopter parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If those were the only 2 choices, I'd pick #2 because it's less risky, i.e. If my child is influenced by his peers, I think "competitive for grades" has fewer downsides than "loosely-supervised and wealthy".

I prefer the parents in group 1 to group 2 but I cannot argue with this logic right here and for that reason I’d put my kid in a school with group 2 families. They’ll be more stressed about grades , but I can help them manage that stress better then I can help them navigate billionaires kids with access to drugs and fast cars.

You aren’t correctly describing the #2 group around here. And this idea that #2 group has way more drugs than any other group is silly. All of the good local publics (MoCo/NArlington/McLean) have same subset of drug culture so it can’t be money.

[Anonymous]

For young kids, #1 be great. If your child befriends theirs, sometimes their nannies will do all manners of things for the kids. I often offered to pay extra since they were watching extra kids, offered to pay for activities. Offers have never been accepted by nannies or parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the scrappy and invested 2, because I am part of that group and I think parents should be involved. It's the entire point of parenting. Why else be a parent? My friend group is made of nothing but highly involved parents.

I cannot relate to the detached parents. They wouldn't be my friends.

Are you talking about teens? It's time to let go a bit. Detached doesn't mean you don't know what's going on. I think parents who control their teens are doing their kids a disservice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Name the schools. Really doubt one has more of either—every school we’ve encountered has a solid mix of both. The key is finding enough of 3: Volunteers and is involved with school but not overly so. This group is still managing ECs for their kid and still angling for top colleges but they are at least less in your face about it and are more willing to allow their kid a slightly longer leash.

I'm on board with group 3: Laid back, but present; a part of the community, not dominating it; give the kids agency, but guide them to stay on track; believe in lessons learned from mistakes, so make sure they have enough responsibility to make mistakes, but are watchful enough to make sure they learn through consequences; high goals, but humble; see "competitive" as teaching kids to work hard toward their personal best, which is is elevated by strong competition, not knocking down the competition, and certainly not through inappropriate means; believe in teamwork, not hierarchy or anarchy.

I cannot imagine there is a place that could pull a big enough concentration of #3 to make it the dominant culture. People as a mass are too flawed for that.

I think many Catholic (not all) schools fit this bill.

The catholic schools near me take the kids who were expelled from the public schools. And the parents lean heavily socially conservative . I think this would be the worst fit, personally- judgmental , socially conservative families with kids who have serious behavioral issues in high school.

Where do you live?

+1 Doesn't sound like the schools around here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2. I don't want checked out uninvolved parents as those are the kids who are often into drugs, alcohol and other dangerous behaviors.

So by “2”, you mean “1”?

They mean they would choose 2 because 1 are the "checked out uninvolved parents...."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If those were the only 2 choices, I'd pick #2 because it's less risky, i.e. If my child is influenced by his peers, I think "competitive for grades" has fewer downsides than "loosely-supervised and wealthy".

I prefer the parents in group 1 to group 2 but I cannot argue with this logic right here and for that reason I’d put my kid in a school with group 2 families. They’ll be more stressed about grades , but I can help them manage that stress better then I can help them navigate billionaires kids with access to drugs and fast cars.

You aren’t correctly describing the #2 group around here. And this idea that #2 group has way more drugs than any other group is silly. All of the good local publics (MoCo/NArlington/McLean) have same subset of drug culture so it can’t be money.

They are saying #1 has more drugs.

And good publics have parents with money too - not everyone with money sends their kids to private. Just look at my overcrowded public school in a wealthy neighborhood. Our neighborhood has kids that attend a mix of public and private (and this mix occurs whether they be high academic achieving kids or not).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Name the schools. Really doubt one has more of either—every school we’ve encountered has a solid mix of both. The key is finding enough of 3: Volunteers and is involved with school but not overly so. This group is still managing ECs for their kid and still angling for top colleges but they are at least less in your face about it and are more willing to allow their kid a slightly longer leash.

This, and I find OP's framing a bit odd. (1) and (2) strike me as sitting at two extreme ends of the spectrum (completely outsourced vs. completely managed), and parents at most schools around here tend to be somewhere in the middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2 distinct parent profiles are over represented at certain schools we are looking at.

(1) Very wealthy couples, often with family money, who outsource everything and remain slightly detached from their kids. Have a lot of money so not hyperfocused on school, but definitely still want the kids to get into good colleges (which they will especially with their connections). Competitive about money and status.

(2) Scrappy, invested parents, who manage every aspect of kids lives and are very involved with parenting. Still rich but not generational wealth. Competitive about parenting and their kid’s success.


Which group would be more annoying to be around long term?

I would prefer type 2 if possible but I really prefer a 3rd type you have not mentioned which is invested involved parents that are not helicopter parents and who are also not status/money obsessed. Status/club/money types have values that do not align with ours but what happens is those values (or lack thereof) do and will pass to your kid as peers are the number one influence on teens. Kid starts talking about designer clothes and status and you know it is not coming from your family - it is coming from their peer group.

[Anonymous]

Helicopter every day

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Name the schools. Really doubt one has more of either—every school we’ve encountered has a solid mix of both. The key is finding enough of 3: Volunteers and is involved with school but not overly so. This group is still managing ECs for their kid and still angling for top colleges but they are at least less in your face about it and are more willing to allow their kid a slightly longer leash.

I'm on board with group 3: Laid back, but present; a part of the community, not dominating it; give the kids agency, but guide them to stay on track; believe in lessons learned from mistakes, so make sure they have enough responsibility to make mistakes, but are watchful enough to make sure they learn through consequences; high goals, but humble; see "competitive" as teaching kids to work hard toward their personal best, which is is elevated by strong competition, not knocking down the competition, and certainly not through inappropriate means; believe in teamwork, not hierarchy or anarchy.

I cannot imagine there is a place that could pull a big enough concentration of #3 to make it the dominant culture. People as a mass are too flawed for that.

I think many Catholic (not all) schools fit this bill.

The catholic schools near me take the kids who were expelled from the public schools. And the parents lean heavily socially conservative . I think this would be the worst fit, personally- judgmental , socially conservative families with kids who have serious behavioral issues in high school.

I call BS. And it’s impossible to get expelled from a public school these days.

[Anonymous]

I would prefer to be around type two. Not because of how the parents are but because the kids in the school are likely to be better supervised.

[Anonymous]

I'd much prefer the #1 group. Over-competitive parents tend to take themselves WAY too seriously raise self-important overly competitive kids who are stressed out, obsessed with grades and obsessed with everyone else's grades. Yuck.

[Anonymous]

Don't fool yourselves, there are plenty of #1 parents who are also competitive about education. They just have the VIP connections to pull them behind the scenes - they know the low rigor high tutor pathway their child needs to get grades high enough for the college to feel ok about the stats to include them in the legacy or VIP admits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't fool yourselves, there are plenty of #1 parents who are also competitive about education. They just have the VIP connections to pull them behind the scenes - they know the low rigor high tutor pathway their child needs to get grades high enough for the college to feel ok about the stats to include them in the legacy or VIP admits.

DP. This. It is quite sad for their kids though at some point they will realize that their entire life was based on their parents connections staring with getting them into the preschool on. Often you will see kids with subpar grades and/or very subpar personalties - with absolutely no charisma end up getting into top schools or top internships because of their parents connections but I think it does catch up with them eventually because at some point mommy and daddy's connections mean nothing. At some point they can't get any further and those connections do not work anymore at a certain level.

Glad my kids got into their schools based on their merit and no connections. 100 percent their own grades etc...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't fool yourselves, there are plenty of #1 parents who are also competitive about education. They just have the VIP connections to pull them behind the scenes - they know the low rigor high tutor pathway their child needs to get grades high enough for the college to feel ok about the stats to include them in the legacy or VIP admits.

DP. This. It is quite sad for their kids though at some point they will realize that their entire life was based on their parents connections staring with getting them into the preschool on. Often you will see kids with subpar grades and/or very subpar personalties - with absolutely no charisma end up getting into top schools or top internships because of their parents connections but I think it does catch up with them eventually because at some point mommy and daddy's connections mean nothing. At some point they can't get any further and those connections do not work anymore at a certain level.

Glad my kids got into their schools based on their merit and no connections. 100 percent their own grades etc...

Love the imaginary ideal world you are living in! You know that isn’t how the actual world works?