If you are wealthy would you send your kids to a W school over private?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there's something to be said about class size in high school. If the graduating class is 500 kids, and 80% of them are taking at least 1 AP class, well, in fact there may be more rigour and competition in a public than some privates. I'd certainly expect that at Whitman or Wooton. My understanding is most of the graduating class sizes at large privates is far less than that.

With that being said, paying for private education at the secondary level is similar to the rationale of paying for Ivy's when a good state public might offer very similar courses/standards - you are not paying for the courses, curriculum, or teachers - you are paying for connections and alumni networks.

Not more rigor. More competition, maybe, but only because each kid is competing against more kids.

Yes! and more competition is not necessarily better; it’s just more. At many of the privates each kid gets to stand out at what they are good at. If there are 50 kids just like them they don’t get the same confidence boost. Confidence is a huge part of success IRL. Look at all the insecure parents on this board, for example, insulting random strangers on an anonymous forum to ‘prove’ whatever. It’s nuts. Top kids will be top kids in both places.

Extreme competition is something I see as a real negative in our society and culture. So many people grow up with a “win at all costs” attitude. You can see it in sports, academics, pretty much everywhere. It leads to adults with mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues - these are the things that really hold people back, not necessarily the slight edge a public vs private school can have academically.

Someone saying "top kids will be top kids," then decrying competition, lol. Not to mention a list of "mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues." One of these things is not like the others.

You completely misunderstood that post.

Frankly, what needs to happen is the top colleges and universities need to open up their enrollment levels to match the growth in population in this country. I tend to agree with the implications of Raj Chetty's recent study. The SAT and ACT may be flawed but they're the least flawed of the measurements of student success (and they do measure intelligence despite what many people think) and I think it would be best if colleges based their decisions largely on those. One alternative would be to have an entrance exam the way Oxford and Cambridge do.

Grades have too much variance across schools. Extracurriculars favor the affluent. So do essays. All of these can be gamed in this ceaseless competition and arms race to distinguish oneself for a few privileged spots at certain universities and colleges. Everything but standardized tests and entrance exams favors private schools. Do I think any of this will happen? Nope. Same as it ever was.

Standardized tests and entrance exams favor students who are good at standardized tests and entrance exams, which is a skill, but not an inherently useful or valuable one.

Also, PP is exceptionally naive to cite Oxford and Cambridge as examples, as they are more insular than any US universities.

In some ways perhaps, but Oxford and Cambridge don’t have 30 pct legacy admits as part of their incoming classes the way Harvard does. They don’t allow legacies at all.

hi

On paper, but not in practice.

Are you seriously unfamiliar with how Oxford and Cambridge perpetuate inequality in the UK?

They perpetuate inequality in different ways that HYPS do. They don’t have the legacy preferences that Harvard and Yale and Princeton clearly state that they do on their admissions website. But Oxbridge has been a bastion of wealth and privilege for centuries-although I think the entrance exams and emphasis on academic excellence are changing that. Mediocre or upper mediocre rich British kids are more likely to go to St Andrews or Edinburgh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there's something to be said about class size in high school. If the graduating class is 500 kids, and 80% of them are taking at least 1 AP class, well, in fact there may be more rigour and competition in a public than some privates. I'd certainly expect that at Whitman or Wooton. My understanding is most of the graduating class sizes at large privates is far less than that.

With that being said, paying for private education at the secondary level is similar to the rationale of paying for Ivy's when a good state public might offer very similar courses/standards - you are not paying for the courses, curriculum, or teachers - you are paying for connections and alumni networks.

Not more rigor. More competition, maybe, but only because each kid is competing against more kids.

Yes! and more competition is not necessarily better; it’s just more. At many of the privates each kid gets to stand out at what they are good at. If there are 50 kids just like them they don’t get the same confidence boost. Confidence is a huge part of success IRL. Look at all the insecure parents on this board, for example, insulting random strangers on an anonymous forum to ‘prove’ whatever. It’s nuts. Top kids will be top kids in both places.

Extreme competition is something I see as a real negative in our society and culture. So many people grow up with a “win at all costs” attitude. You can see it in sports, academics, pretty much everywhere. It leads to adults with mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues - these are the things that really hold people back, not necessarily the slight edge a public vs private school can have academically.

Someone saying "top kids will be top kids," then decrying competition, lol. Not to mention a list of "mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues." One of these things is not like the others.

You completely misunderstood that post.

Frankly, what needs to happen is the top colleges and universities need to open up their enrollment levels to match the growth in population in this country. I tend to agree with the implications of Raj Chetty's recent study. The SAT and ACT may be flawed but they're the least flawed of the measurements of student success (and they do measure intelligence despite what many people think) and I think it would be best if colleges based their decisions largely on those. One alternative would be to have an entrance exam the way Oxford and Cambridge do.

Grades have too much variance across schools. Extracurriculars favor the affluent. So do essays. All of these can be gamed in this ceaseless competition and arms race to distinguish oneself for a few privileged spots at certain universities and colleges. Everything but standardized tests and entrance exams favors private schools. Do I think any of this will happen? Nope. Same as it ever was.

Standardized tests and entrance exams favor students who are good at standardized tests and entrance exams, which is a skill, but not an inherently useful or valuable one.

Also, PP is exceptionally naive to cite Oxford and Cambridge as examples, as they are more insular than any US universities.

In some ways perhaps, but Oxford and Cambridge don’t have 30 pct legacy admits as part of their incoming classes the way Harvard does. They don’t allow legacies at all.

hi

On paper, but not in practice.

Are you seriously unfamiliar with how Oxford and Cambridge perpetuate inequality in the UK?

They perpetuate inequality in different ways that HYPS do. They don’t have the legacy preferences that Harvard and Yale and Princeton clearly state that they do on their admissions website. But Oxbridge has been a bastion of wealth and privilege for centuries-although I think the entrance exams and emphasis on academic excellence are changing that. Mediocre or upper mediocre rich British kids are more likely to go to St Andrews or Edinburgh.

I can’t believe you’re using Oxford and Cambridge as your examples of how to break down barriers to college for less privileged populations.

This is laughable.

[Anonymous]

My old boss who made 10 million a year sent kids to public school, and in state college. He also is giving them no inheritance or helping them financially Post college.

Does not want spoiled kids. Good for him. He is worth like 100 million and is giving it all away to people who need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My old boss who made 10 million a year sent kids to public school, and in state college. He also is giving them no inheritance or helping them financially Post college.

Does not want spoiled kids. Good for him. He is worth like 100 million and is giving it all away to people who need it.

Plenty of spoiled kids go to public school.

Sending your kid to a top private school will not necessarily spoil them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My old boss who made 10 million a year sent kids to public school, and in state college. He also is giving them no inheritance or helping them financially Post college.

Does not want spoiled kids. Good for him. He is worth like 100 million and is giving it all away to people who need it.

Plenty of spoiled kids go to public school.

Sending your kid to a top private school will not necessarily spoil them.

I don't mind "spoiling" my kid with private school. There's a lot worse things to spoil you kid with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there's something to be said about class size in high school. If the graduating class is 500 kids, and 80% of them are taking at least 1 AP class, well, in fact there may be more rigour and competition in a public than some privates. I'd certainly expect that at Whitman or Wooton. My understanding is most of the graduating class sizes at large privates is far less than that.

With that being said, paying for private education at the secondary level is similar to the rationale of paying for Ivy's when a good state public might offer very similar courses/standards - you are not paying for the courses, curriculum, or teachers - you are paying for connections and alumni networks.

Not more rigor. More competition, maybe, but only because each kid is competing against more kids.

Yes! and more competition is not necessarily better; it’s just more. At many of the privates each kid gets to stand out at what they are good at. If there are 50 kids just like them they don’t get the same confidence boost. Confidence is a huge part of success IRL. Look at all the insecure parents on this board, for example, insulting random strangers on an anonymous forum to ‘prove’ whatever. It’s nuts. Top kids will be top kids in both places.

Extreme competition is something I see as a real negative in our society and culture. So many people grow up with a “win at all costs” attitude. You can see it in sports, academics, pretty much everywhere. It leads to adults with mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues - these are the things that really hold people back, not necessarily the slight edge a public vs private school can have academically.

Someone saying "top kids will be top kids," then decrying competition, lol. Not to mention a list of "mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues." One of these things is not like the others.

You completely misunderstood that post.

Frankly, what needs to happen is the top colleges and universities need to open up their enrollment levels to match the growth in population in this country. I tend to agree with the implications of Raj Chetty's recent study. The SAT and ACT may be flawed but they're the least flawed of the measurements of student success (and they do measure intelligence despite what many people think) and I think it would be best if colleges based their decisions largely on those. One alternative would be to have an entrance exam the way Oxford and Cambridge do.

Grades have too much variance across schools. Extracurriculars favor the affluent. So do essays. All of these can be gamed in this ceaseless competition and arms race to distinguish oneself for a few privileged spots at certain universities and colleges. Everything but standardized tests and entrance exams favors private schools. Do I think any of this will happen? Nope. Same as it ever was.

I agree that SAT/ACT are a better metric than grades but people can study for exams as well, which again favors the wealthy. There's a large number of kids at our public school that attend enrichment/tutoring with the hope of getting a high MAP score and getting admitted into a magnet high school. Of course those kids would probably be just fine either way, since their parents have $$ for tutoring.

Schools that care (the competitive ones) have a really good idea what grades from what schools/school systems really represent. They understand the inflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there's something to be said about class size in high school. If the graduating class is 500 kids, and 80% of them are taking at least 1 AP class, well, in fact there may be more rigour and competition in a public than some privates. I'd certainly expect that at Whitman or Wooton. My understanding is most of the graduating class sizes at large privates is far less than that.

With that being said, paying for private education at the secondary level is similar to the rationale of paying for Ivy's when a good state public might offer very similar courses/standards - you are not paying for the courses, curriculum, or teachers - you are paying for connections and alumni networks.

Not more rigor. More competition, maybe, but only because each kid is competing against more kids.

Yes! and more competition is not necessarily better; it’s just more. At many of the privates each kid gets to stand out at what they are good at. If there are 50 kids just like them they don’t get the same confidence boost. Confidence is a huge part of success IRL. Look at all the insecure parents on this board, for example, insulting random strangers on an anonymous forum to ‘prove’ whatever. It’s nuts. Top kids will be top kids in both places.

Extreme competition is something I see as a real negative in our society and culture. So many people grow up with a “win at all costs” attitude. You can see it in sports, academics, pretty much everywhere. It leads to adults with mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues - these are the things that really hold people back, not necessarily the slight edge a public vs private school can have academically.

Someone saying "top kids will be top kids," then decrying competition, lol. Not to mention a list of "mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues." One of these things is not like the others.

You completely misunderstood that post.

Frankly, what needs to happen is the top colleges and universities need to open up their enrollment levels to match the growth in population in this country. I tend to agree with the implications of Raj Chetty's recent study. The SAT and ACT may be flawed but they're the least flawed of the measurements of student success (and they do measure intelligence despite what many people think) and I think it would be best if colleges based their decisions largely on those. One alternative would be to have an entrance exam the way Oxford and Cambridge do.

Grades have too much variance across schools. Extracurriculars favor the affluent. So do essays. All of these can be gamed in this ceaseless competition and arms race to distinguish oneself for a few privileged spots at certain universities and colleges. Everything but standardized tests and entrance exams favors private schools. Do I think any of this will happen? Nope. Same as it ever was.

I agree that SAT/ACT are a better metric than grades but people can study for exams as well, which again favors the wealthy. There's a large number of kids at our public school that attend enrichment/tutoring with the hope of getting a high MAP score and getting admitted into a magnet high school. Of course those kids would probably be just fine either way, since their parents have $$ for tutoring.

Schools that care (the competitive ones) have a really good idea what grades from what schools/school systems really represent. They understand the inflation.

Yep. They’re very familiar with schools. Each admissions officer has a geographic area assigned to them, and it’s their job to become familiar with the landscape.

So they know all about MCPS, FCPS, the area private schools, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there's something to be said about class size in high school. If the graduating class is 500 kids, and 80% of them are taking at least 1 AP class, well, in fact there may be more rigour and competition in a public than some privates. I'd certainly expect that at Whitman or Wooton. My understanding is most of the graduating class sizes at large privates is far less than that.

With that being said, paying for private education at the secondary level is similar to the rationale of paying for Ivy's when a good state public might offer very similar courses/standards - you are not paying for the courses, curriculum, or teachers - you are paying for connections and alumni networks.

Not more rigor. More competition, maybe, but only because each kid is competing against more kids.

Yes! and more competition is not necessarily better; it’s just more. At many of the privates each kid gets to stand out at what they are good at. If there are 50 kids just like them they don’t get the same confidence boost. Confidence is a huge part of success IRL. Look at all the insecure parents on this board, for example, insulting random strangers on an anonymous forum to ‘prove’ whatever. It’s nuts. Top kids will be top kids in both places.

Extreme competition is something I see as a real negative in our society and culture. So many people grow up with a “win at all costs” attitude. You can see it in sports, academics, pretty much everywhere. It leads to adults with mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues - these are the things that really hold people back, not necessarily the slight edge a public vs private school can have academically.

Someone saying "top kids will be top kids," then decrying competition, lol. Not to mention a list of "mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues." One of these things is not like the others.

You completely misunderstood that post.

Frankly, what needs to happen is the top colleges and universities need to open up their enrollment levels to match the growth in population in this country. I tend to agree with the implications of Raj Chetty's recent study. The SAT and ACT may be flawed but they're the least flawed of the measurements of student success (and they do measure intelligence despite what many people think) and I think it would be best if colleges based their decisions largely on those. One alternative would be to have an entrance exam the way Oxford and Cambridge do.

Grades have too much variance across schools. Extracurriculars favor the affluent. So do essays. All of these can be gamed in this ceaseless competition and arms race to distinguish oneself for a few privileged spots at certain universities and colleges. Everything but standardized tests and entrance exams favors private schools. Do I think any of this will happen? Nope. Same as it ever was.

Standardized tests and entrance exams favor students who are good at standardized tests and entrance exams, which is a skill, but not an inherently useful or valuable one.

Also, PP is exceptionally naive to cite Oxford and Cambridge as examples, as they are more insular than any US universities.

In some ways perhaps, but Oxford and Cambridge don’t have 30 pct legacy admits as part of their incoming classes the way Harvard does. They don’t allow legacies at all.

hi

On paper, but not in practice.

Are you seriously unfamiliar with how Oxford and Cambridge perpetuate inequality in the UK?

They perpetuate inequality in different ways that HYPS do. They don’t have the legacy preferences that Harvard and Yale and Princeton clearly state that they do on their admissions website. But Oxbridge has been a bastion of wealth and privilege for centuries-although I think the entrance exams and emphasis on academic excellence are changing that. Mediocre or upper mediocre rich British kids are more likely to go to St Andrews or Edinburgh.

I can’t believe you’re using Oxford and Cambridge as your examples of how to break down barriers to college for less privileged populations.

This is laughable.

Why should you break down barriers? Have a pure meritocracy. Don't even consider sex or race...only admit the smartest. Just like pro sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My old boss who made 10 million a year sent kids to public school, and in state college. He also is giving them no inheritance or helping them financially Post college.

Does not want spoiled kids. Good for him. He is worth like 100 million and is giving it all away to people who need it.

He sounds like a cheap di@k.

Why have money if you can't give your kids the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there's something to be said about class size in high school. If the graduating class is 500 kids, and 80% of them are taking at least 1 AP class, well, in fact there may be more rigour and competition in a public than some privates. I'd certainly expect that at Whitman or Wooton. My understanding is most of the graduating class sizes at large privates is far less than that.

With that being said, paying for private education at the secondary level is similar to the rationale of paying for Ivy's when a good state public might offer very similar courses/standards - you are not paying for the courses, curriculum, or teachers - you are paying for connections and alumni networks.

Not more rigor. More competition, maybe, but only because each kid is competing against more kids.

Yes! and more competition is not necessarily better; it’s just more. At many of the privates each kid gets to stand out at what they are good at. If there are 50 kids just like them they don’t get the same confidence boost. Confidence is a huge part of success IRL. Look at all the insecure parents on this board, for example, insulting random strangers on an anonymous forum to ‘prove’ whatever. It’s nuts. Top kids will be top kids in both places.

Extreme competition is something I see as a real negative in our society and culture. So many people grow up with a “win at all costs” attitude. You can see it in sports, academics, pretty much everywhere. It leads to adults with mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues - these are the things that really hold people back, not necessarily the slight edge a public vs private school can have academically.

Someone saying "top kids will be top kids," then decrying competition, lol. Not to mention a list of "mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues." One of these things is not like the others.

You completely misunderstood that post.

Frankly, what needs to happen is the top colleges and universities need to open up their enrollment levels to match the growth in population in this country. I tend to agree with the implications of Raj Chetty's recent study. The SAT and ACT may be flawed but they're the least flawed of the measurements of student success (and they do measure intelligence despite what many people think) and I think it would be best if colleges based their decisions largely on those. One alternative would be to have an entrance exam the way Oxford and Cambridge do.

Grades have too much variance across schools. Extracurriculars favor the affluent. So do essays. All of these can be gamed in this ceaseless competition and arms race to distinguish oneself for a few privileged spots at certain universities and colleges. Everything but standardized tests and entrance exams favors private schools. Do I think any of this will happen? Nope. Same as it ever was.

Standardized tests and entrance exams favor students who are good at standardized tests and entrance exams, which is a skill, but not an inherently useful or valuable one.

Also, PP is exceptionally naive to cite Oxford and Cambridge as examples, as they are more insular than any US universities.

In some ways perhaps, but Oxford and Cambridge don’t have 30 pct legacy admits as part of their incoming classes the way Harvard does. They don’t allow legacies at all.

hi

On paper, but not in practice.

Are you seriously unfamiliar with how Oxford and Cambridge perpetuate inequality in the UK?

They perpetuate inequality in different ways that HYPS do. They don’t have the legacy preferences that Harvard and Yale and Princeton clearly state that they do on their admissions website. But Oxbridge has been a bastion of wealth and privilege for centuries-although I think the entrance exams and emphasis on academic excellence are changing that. Mediocre or upper mediocre rich British kids are more likely to go to St Andrews or Edinburgh.

I can’t believe you’re using Oxford and Cambridge as your examples of how to break down barriers to college for less privileged populations.

This is laughable.

Why should you break down barriers? Have a pure meritocracy. Don't even consider sex or race...only admit the smartest. Just like pro sports.

The smartest at/about what, as determined by whom/what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there's something to be said about class size in high school. If the graduating class is 500 kids, and 80% of them are taking at least 1 AP class, well, in fact there may be more rigour and competition in a public than some privates. I'd certainly expect that at Whitman or Wooton. My understanding is most of the graduating class sizes at large privates is far less than that.

With that being said, paying for private education at the secondary level is similar to the rationale of paying for Ivy's when a good state public might offer very similar courses/standards - you are not paying for the courses, curriculum, or teachers - you are paying for connections and alumni networks.

Not more rigor. More competition, maybe, but only because each kid is competing against more kids.

Yes! and more competition is not necessarily better; it’s just more. At many of the privates each kid gets to stand out at what they are good at. If there are 50 kids just like them they don’t get the same confidence boost. Confidence is a huge part of success IRL. Look at all the insecure parents on this board, for example, insulting random strangers on an anonymous forum to ‘prove’ whatever. It’s nuts. Top kids will be top kids in both places.

Extreme competition is something I see as a real negative in our society and culture. So many people grow up with a “win at all costs” attitude. You can see it in sports, academics, pretty much everywhere. It leads to adults with mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues - these are the things that really hold people back, not necessarily the slight edge a public vs private school can have academically.

Someone saying "top kids will be top kids," then decrying competition, lol. Not to mention a list of "mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues." One of these things is not like the others.

You completely misunderstood that post.

Frankly, what needs to happen is the top colleges and universities need to open up their enrollment levels to match the growth in population in this country. I tend to agree with the implications of Raj Chetty's recent study. The SAT and ACT may be flawed but they're the least flawed of the measurements of student success (and they do measure intelligence despite what many people think) and I think it would be best if colleges based their decisions largely on those. One alternative would be to have an entrance exam the way Oxford and Cambridge do.

Grades have too much variance across schools. Extracurriculars favor the affluent. So do essays. All of these can be gamed in this ceaseless competition and arms race to distinguish oneself for a few privileged spots at certain universities and colleges. Everything but standardized tests and entrance exams favors private schools. Do I think any of this will happen? Nope. Same as it ever was.

Standardized tests and entrance exams favor students who are good at standardized tests and entrance exams, which is a skill, but not an inherently useful or valuable one.

Also, PP is exceptionally naive to cite Oxford and Cambridge as examples, as they are more insular than any US universities.

In some ways perhaps, but Oxford and Cambridge don’t have 30 pct legacy admits as part of their incoming classes the way Harvard does. They don’t allow legacies at all.

hi

On paper, but not in practice.

Are you seriously unfamiliar with how Oxford and Cambridge perpetuate inequality in the UK?

They perpetuate inequality in different ways that HYPS do. They don’t have the legacy preferences that Harvard and Yale and Princeton clearly state that they do on their admissions website. But Oxbridge has been a bastion of wealth and privilege for centuries-although I think the entrance exams and emphasis on academic excellence are changing that. Mediocre or upper mediocre rich British kids are more likely to go to St Andrews or Edinburgh.

I can’t believe you’re using Oxford and Cambridge as your examples of how to break down barriers to college for less privileged populations.

This is laughable.

Why should you break down barriers? Have a pure meritocracy. Don't even consider sex or race...only admit the smartest. Just like pro sports.

Umm … did I ever say we shouldn’t break down barriers? You totally misread my post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My old boss who made 10 million a year sent kids to public school, and in state college. He also is giving them no inheritance or helping them financially Post college.

Does not want spoiled kids. Good for him. He is worth like 100 million and is giving it all away to people who need it.

Plenty of spoiled kids go to public school.

Sending your kid to a top private school will not necessarily spoil them.

I don't mind "spoiling" my kid with private school. There's a lot worse things to spoil you kid with.

Wealthy private school parent here. Yep, I admit I spoiled my children with a top notch education. I’m not spoiling them with designer clothes, the newest tech devices or fancy cars. I like to think that I have my priorities straight!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My old boss who made 10 million a year sent kids to public school, and in state college. He also is giving them no inheritance or helping them financially Post college.

Does not want spoiled kids. Good for him. He is worth like 100 million and is giving it all away to people who need it.

Plenty of spoiled kids go to public school.

Sending your kid to a top private school will not necessarily spoil them.

I don't mind "spoiling" my kid with private school. There's a lot worse things to spoil you kid with.

Wealthy private school parent here. Yep, I admit I spoiled my children with a top notch education. I’m not spoiling them with designer clothes, the newest tech devices or fancy cars. I like to think that I have my priorities straight!

Everyone thinks they have their priorities straight. I wouldn’t pat yourself on the back too hard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there's something to be said about class size in high school. If the graduating class is 500 kids, and 80% of them are taking at least 1 AP class, well, in fact there may be more rigour and competition in a public than some privates. I'd certainly expect that at Whitman or Wooton. My understanding is most of the graduating class sizes at large privates is far less than that.

With that being said, paying for private education at the secondary level is similar to the rationale of paying for Ivy's when a good state public might offer very similar courses/standards - you are not paying for the courses, curriculum, or teachers - you are paying for connections and alumni networks.

Not more rigor. More competition, maybe, but only because each kid is competing against more kids.

Yes! and more competition is not necessarily better; it’s just more. At many of the privates each kid gets to stand out at what they are good at. If there are 50 kids just like them they don’t get the same confidence boost. Confidence is a huge part of success IRL. Look at all the insecure parents on this board, for example, insulting random strangers on an anonymous forum to ‘prove’ whatever. It’s nuts. Top kids will be top kids in both places.

Extreme competition is something I see as a real negative in our society and culture. So many people grow up with a “win at all costs” attitude. You can see it in sports, academics, pretty much everywhere. It leads to adults with mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues - these are the things that really hold people back, not necessarily the slight edge a public vs private school can have academically.

Someone saying "top kids will be top kids," then decrying competition, lol. Not to mention a list of "mental health problems, insecurity, obesity, anxiety, social issues." One of these things is not like the others.

You completely misunderstood that post.

Frankly, what needs to happen is the top colleges and universities need to open up their enrollment levels to match the growth in population in this country. I tend to agree with the implications of Raj Chetty's recent study. The SAT and ACT may be flawed but they're the least flawed of the measurements of student success (and they do measure intelligence despite what many people think) and I think it would be best if colleges based their decisions largely on those. One alternative would be to have an entrance exam the way Oxford and Cambridge do.

Grades have too much variance across schools. Extracurriculars favor the affluent. So do essays. All of these can be gamed in this ceaseless competition and arms race to distinguish oneself for a few privileged spots at certain universities and colleges. Everything but standardized tests and entrance exams favors private schools. Do I think any of this will happen? Nope. Same as it ever was.

Standardized tests and entrance exams favor students who are good at standardized tests and entrance exams, which is a skill, but not an inherently useful or valuable one.

Also, PP is exceptionally naive to cite Oxford and Cambridge as examples, as they are more insular than any US universities.

In some ways perhaps, but Oxford and Cambridge don’t have 30 pct legacy admits as part of their incoming classes the way Harvard does. They don’t allow legacies at all.

hi

On paper, but not in practice.

Are you seriously unfamiliar with how Oxford and Cambridge perpetuate inequality in the UK?

They perpetuate inequality in different ways that HYPS do. They don’t have the legacy preferences that Harvard and Yale and Princeton clearly state that they do on their admissions website. But Oxbridge has been a bastion of wealth and privilege for centuries-although I think the entrance exams and emphasis on academic excellence are changing that. Mediocre or upper mediocre rich British kids are more likely to go to St Andrews or Edinburgh.

I can’t believe you’re using Oxford and Cambridge as your examples of how to break down barriers to college for less privileged populations.

This is laughable.

Why should you break down barriers? Have a pure meritocracy. Don't even consider sex or race...only admit the smartest. Just like pro sports.

Speaking of Oxford and Cambridge - "The Rise of the Meritocracy" was intended as a dystopia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My old boss who made 10 million a year sent kids to public school, and in state college. He also is giving them no inheritance or helping them financially Post college.

Does not want spoiled kids. Good for him. He is worth like 100 million and is giving it all away to people who need it.

He sounds like a cheap di@k.

Why have money if you can't give your kids the best.

NP he sounds more extreme than I would be but I would also be pretty concerned about my kids turning out spoiled if I made that much. Actually I’m concerned about this without making that much.

I can definitely empathize with the knee jerk reaction to always giving your own kids “the best” when so many others have so little.