What if your child, who was qualified for their "reach" or "stretch" school, chose not to apply?

[Anonymous]

It's amazing to me how invested people are in this idea that they take it so personally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how invested people are in this idea that they take it so personally.

You clicked so you must be invested as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

yes, but are there parents in the DC area patting themselves on the back because if their kid got into E Podunk that means they must have done a good job?

The question isn't whether some parents whose kids go to HYP (or E Podunk for that matter) did a good job-- I'm sure some of them did-- it's whether you can know they did a good job simply because their kids went to HYP.

Just shut the hell up!!!

Having a nervous breakdown which I call BS on...is indicative of pressure. Not poor grades.

And funny how I have degrees from TWO ivy league schools but didn't see all of these breakdowns and out of control behavior you claim to have witnessed.

Bottom line: IVY KIDS have parents who invested in their success. PERIOD.

I have to agree with the Shut Up part, and the rest too. I have a degree from one Ivy school and didn't see any of this out of control behavior. I do know a few kids with depression or severe anxiety who are at Ivies, but often these have a genetic component. Further, the fact that these kids have been able to work through these issues to stay in their Ivies says something positive about parenting, to the extent it says anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how invested people are in this idea that they take it so personally.

I agree, some of this is pretty shocking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how invested people are in this idea that they take it so personally.

I agree, some of this is pretty shocking.

To me I watch the people relentlessly bashing Ivies and Ivy grads, and I think: they are invested in something pretty sad. Probably invested in proving their own self-work, in proving that the non-Ivy label doesn't define them.

[Anonymous]

Also, the lack of logic displayed by some posters is pretty shocking. You could spend your entire day here explaining to people why their logic is flawd and proves nothing. The straw men arguments that prove a negative but nothing useful. The logical fallacies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, but if you follow the thread carefully, it does appear that the Yale mother does tacitly acknowledge that her younger son then attended Harvard instead. She has been a very helpful poster, do no grief for her even if this is the case, but I also believe you can read that acknowledgement into her Rolex analogy. In any case, she is not denying it, as she most likely would have by now if it were a mistaken assumption. And she should proudly own it, and then share her child rearing advice with the rest of us!

This is exactly what's wrong with this thread, and to some extent this area. Your kid going to H/Y/P is not in and of itself the mark of good parenting.

I disagree. There are many factors involved, but sound parenting is one of them.

Child attending HYP is INDICATIVE of sound parenting, but not CONCLUSIVE.

Seriously? So if a parent pressures a child to do what it takes to get into HYP and wants to live vicariously through her child's college acceptance, thats indicative of sound parenting?

I have a DC with all the credentials to apply to these schools but she knew she would be terribly unhappy there and that she needed something different, choosing a SLAC with an emphasis on an area she is interested in. I'd say the fact that we let her make that decision, that she is NOT attending HYP, in INDICATIVE of sound parenting.

I have trouble determining whether people who post responses like this are dense or just never learned that straw man arguments aren't effective. Too tedious to explain the fallacy.

Glad you said it before I did, as I was thinking the same thing. This response is so beside the point, I don't know what to say.

What IS the point?

[Anonymous]

I would insist DC applies. It is a good idea to keep your options open. Applying doesnt mean DC has to go, remind DC that! DC may not have that positive feeling about that one college today but may change mind about it later.

[Anonymous]

I think I may have been your daughter back in the day. I had the stats - valedictorian, a dozen APs, 1560 SAT, president of the student body, dedicated volunteer at a local charity with a passion (and some talent) for dance, etc. I probably could have gotten in to most schools (perhaps with the exception of Princeton, even then the rumor was you needed to have patented an invention or written a book to get in).

But I had no interest in Harvard or Yale or Princeton. And my parents listened. They did ask that I go visit most of the top schools in the country just to make sure. I ended up at what DCUMers consider a "lesser Ivy" (which, by the way, are you people serious?) because I drove up to that campus and I was in love from the moment I laid eyes on it. All my parents asked was that I keep an open mind when looking at schools. And they didn't bat an eye when I applied ED.

Have some faith in your daughter. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are not the end all be all for all students, even for all top students. It sounds like she had enough of an open mind to look at all the schools she might be accepted at and has decided that not all of them are for her. Which actually makes a lot of sense to me given the differences of the locations, campuses, etc. Like the kid who applied to and was accepted at all 8 ivies this year - it makes no sense to me that someone would be equally interested in Cornell and Columbia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how invested people are in this idea that they take it so personally.

I agree, some of this is pretty shocking.

To me I watch the people relentlessly bashing Ivies and Ivy grads, and I think: they are invested in something pretty sad. Probably invested in proving their own self-work, in proving that the non-Ivy label doesn't define them.

Admittedly I haven't re-read the whole thread, but I don't recall anyone bashing the Ivies or Ivy grads-- just recognizing that HYP might not be the best match for every kid. Do you really think that's bashing? (and then there's the debate about whether your kid getting into HYP proves you did a good job parenting, which also doesn't seem like bashing the schools or the kids). (FWIW, under those standards I am a "basher" and I went to an Ivy)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how invested people are in this idea that they take it so personally.

I agree, some of this is pretty shocking.

To me I watch the people relentlessly bashing Ivies and Ivy grads, and I think: they are invested in something pretty sad. Probably invested in proving their own self-work, in proving that the non-Ivy label doesn't define them.

Admittedly I haven't re-read the whole thread, but I don't recall anyone bashing the Ivies or Ivy grads-- just recognizing that HYP might not be the best match for every kid. Do you really think that's bashing? (and then there's the debate about whether your kid getting into HYP proves you did a good job parenting, which also doesn't seem like bashing the schools or the kids). (FWIW, under those standards I am a "basher" and I went to an Ivy)

The notion that your kid getting into HYP says anything about one's parenting is patently ridiculous. Would you also argue that any kid who achieved anything notable must have had the benefit of good parenting? By that standard, Lindsay Lohan, Michael Jackson, Jennifer Capriati, and Gypsy Rose Lee had good parenting, as did many children of proverbial Tiger Moms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how invested people are in this idea that they take it so personally.

I agree, some of this is pretty shocking.

To me I watch the people relentlessly bashing Ivies and Ivy grads, and I think: they are invested in something pretty sad. Probably invested in proving their own self-work, in proving that the non-Ivy label doesn't define them.

Admittedly I haven't re-read the whole thread, but I don't recall anyone bashing the Ivies or Ivy grads-- just recognizing that HYP might not be the best match for every kid. Do you really think that's bashing? (and then there's the debate about whether your kid getting into HYP proves you did a good job parenting, which also doesn't seem like bashing the schools or the kids). (FWIW, under those standards I am a "basher" and I went to an Ivy)

The notion that your kid getting into HYP says anything about one's parenting is patently ridiculous. Would you also argue that any kid who achieved anything notable must have had the benefit of good parenting? By that standard, Lindsay Lohan, Michael Jackson, Jennifer Capriati, and Gypsy Rose Lee had good parenting, as did many children of proverbial Tiger Moms.

Huh? You're comparing HYP kids who somehow imbibed a solid work ethic with kids who imbibed just about everything else?

Also, responding to the PP above you, I think the "relentlessly bashing" comment was probably directed at the College forum in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how invested people are in this idea that they take it so personally.

I agree, some of this is pretty shocking.

To me I watch the people relentlessly bashing Ivies and Ivy grads, and I think: they are invested in something pretty sad. Probably invested in proving their own self-work, in proving that the non-Ivy label doesn't define them.

Admittedly I haven't re-read the whole thread, but I don't recall anyone bashing the Ivies or Ivy grads-- just recognizing that HYP might not be the best match for every kid. Do you really think that's bashing? (and then there's the debate about whether your kid getting into HYP proves you did a good job parenting, which also doesn't seem like bashing the schools or the kids). (FWIW, under those standards I am a "basher" and I went to an Ivy)

The notion that your kid getting into HYP says anything about one's parenting is patently ridiculous. Would you also argue that any kid who achieved anything notable must have had the benefit of good parenting? By that standard, Lindsay Lohan, Michael Jackson, Jennifer Capriati, and Gypsy Rose Lee had good parenting, as did many children of proverbial Tiger Moms.

When did Lindsay Lohan, Michael Jackson and the others go to ivies, Straw Man ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how invested people are in this idea that they take it so personally.

I agree, some of this is pretty shocking.

To me I watch the people relentlessly bashing Ivies and Ivy grads, and I think: they are invested in something pretty sad. Probably invested in proving their own self-work, in proving that the non-Ivy label doesn't define them.

Admittedly I haven't re-read the whole thread, but I don't recall anyone bashing the Ivies or Ivy grads-- just recognizing that HYP might not be the best match for every kid. Do you really think that's bashing? (and then there's the debate about whether your kid getting into HYP proves you did a good job parenting, which also doesn't seem like bashing the schools or the kids). (FWIW, under those standards I am a "basher" and I went to an Ivy)

The notion that your kid getting into HYP says anything about one's parenting is patently ridiculous. Would you also argue that any kid who achieved anything notable must have had the benefit of good parenting? By that standard, Lindsay Lohan, Michael Jackson, Jennifer Capriati, and Gypsy Rose Lee had good parenting, as did many children of proverbial Tiger Moms.

When did Lindsay Lohan, Michael Jackson and the others go to ivies, Straw Man ?

I don't think straw men are what you think they are, Toto.

Someone said going to an Ivy was a sign that the person had good parenting. Someone else said that achievement in and of itself was not evidence that one had good parenting, and listed a few notable high achievers (albeit in other arenas) who are famous for having been poorly parented. You may find the comparison false or inadequate but that doesn't make it a straw man.

Now, if someone replied to the person above, "so you're saying that people who don't get into ivies are poorly parented!?" that would be a straw man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think straw men are what you think they are, Toto.

Someone said going to an Ivy was a sign that the person had good parenting. Someone else said that achievement in and of itself was not evidence that one had good parenting, and listed a few notable high achievers (albeit in other arenas) who are famous for having been poorly parented. You may find the comparison false or inadequate but that doesn't make it a straw man.

Now, if someone replied to the person above, "so you're saying that people who don't get into ivies are poorly parented!?" that would be a straw man.

NP here.

No. But I don't have the energy for you.