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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why, what a wise and witty response. Of course, if you say so, it must be correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 The lack of intellect on this board is astounding.

Such stupidity really is exhausting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 The lack of intellect on this board is astounding.

Such stupidity really is exhausting.

~yawn~

Remind me why you are here again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting that there can be just ONE straw man argument to a point? And that the argument must be in direct opposition to what was said?

SMH.

On another note (because the ridiculous illogical arguments I see on this board are insane. And the fact that the people try to sound intelligent making the arguments... )

1. I don't think the person making the comment about ivy attendance being an indicator of good parenting is the parent of an ivy leaguer. I don't even think the person is an ivy leaguer. There's nothing to suggest this except my spidey senses. I think it was an innocuous--albeit true--statement that was taken out of context.

2. I think people on this board are overly competitive, sensitive and insecure about not being an ivy grad. That's the reason so many are jumping all over that comment which, in reality, has little to do with the real topic. It became it's own beast when insecure people started 'feeling some type of way' because they're not ivy grads and didn't send their kids to ivy. That comment was just one more reminder to them that neither they nor their snowflakes will ever be seen as good as an ivy grad. Hence all the emotional counter-arguments that make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 The lack of intellect on this board is astounding.

Such stupidity really is exhausting.

~yawn~

Remind me why you are here again?

To engage in INTELLIGENT dialogue with parents who are also preparing to send their children to college.

I am certainly NOT here to shuffle through a bunch of illogical arguments that make no sense whatsoever and only serve to reveal how very insecure (and dense) some people are.

[Anonymous]

I guess now I know where the posters from the private school forum go when their kids get older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting that there can be just ONE straw man argument to a point? And that the argument must be in direct opposition to what was said?

SMH.

On another note (because the ridiculous illogical arguments I see on this board are insane. And the fact that the people try to sound intelligent making the arguments... )

1. I don't think the person making the comment about ivy attendance being an indicator of good parenting is the parent of an ivy leaguer. I don't even think the person is an ivy leaguer. There's nothing to suggest this except my spidey senses. I think it was an innocuous--albeit true--statement that was taken out of context.

2. I think people on this board are overly competitive, sensitive and insecure about not being an ivy grad. That's the reason so many are jumping all over that comment which, in reality, has little to do with the real topic. It became it's own beast when insecure people started 'feeling some type of way' because they're not ivy grads and didn't send their kids to ivy. That comment was just one more reminder to them that neither they nor their snowflakes will ever be seen as good as an ivy grad. Hence all the emotional counter-arguments that make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Princeton grad here. I thought the comment was ridiculous and I am not insecure. Some of my classmates had great parents; some had terrible parents. Some got there in spite of their parents. Some got there because they started life on third base (just because you're the DC of a wealthy alum doesn't mean you are the product of great parents). The fallacy is in making this the measure of parenting. Most of us set out to raise children who are healthy, happy and productive. If you've ever had a child who struggled with any of these three characteristics, you would understand why they are the most important. Even with these as a yardstick, I don't think you can make any one thing the measure of great parenting. Some kids are just wired with challenges, some have health challenges, it isn't an even playing field. But lets say your goal is to get your child into HYP and you succeed. Are you a good parent? I don't think so because you've focused on a ridiculous goal. And if your goal was to raise a child who is healthy, happy and productive and you succeed and they happen to get into HYP, are you a good parent? Probably, but not because they got into HYP.

Its like saying if your child becomes a movie star, this is indicative of you being a good parent. It is possible to be the good parent of a movie star, there are certainly examples. There are also many, many examples of child stars with horrible parents. One has nothing to do with the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you suggesting that there can be just ONE straw man argument to a point? And that the argument must be in direct opposition to what was said?

SMH.

On another note (because the ridiculous illogical arguments I see on this board are insane. And the fact that the people try to sound intelligent making the arguments... )

1. I don't think the person making the comment about ivy attendance being an indicator of good parenting is the parent of an ivy leaguer. I don't even think the person is an ivy leaguer. There's nothing to suggest this except my spidey senses. I think it was an innocuous--albeit true--statement that was taken out of context.

2. I think people on this board are overly competitive, sensitive and insecure about not being an ivy grad. That's the reason so many are jumping all over that comment which, in reality, has little to do with the real topic. It became it's own beast when insecure people started 'feeling some type of way' because they're not ivy grads and didn't send their kids to ivy. That comment was just one more reminder to them that neither they nor their snowflakes will ever be seen as good as an ivy grad. Hence all the emotional counter-arguments that make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Different PP here (not you and not Princeton mom). Thanks for trying to take that poster on seriously. The "yawn" comments demonstrate how flip and unengaged that poster really is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Princeton grad here. I thought the comment was ridiculous and I am not insecure. Some of my classmates had great parents; some had terrible parents. Some got there in spite of their parents. Some got there because they started life on third base (just because you're the DC of a wealthy alum doesn't mean you are the product of great parents). The fallacy is in making this the measure of parenting. Most of us set out to raise children who are healthy, happy and productive. If you've ever had a child who struggled with any of these three characteristics, you would understand why they are the most important. Even with these as a yardstick, I don't think you can make any one thing the measure of great parenting. Some kids are just wired with challenges, some have health challenges, it isn't an even playing field. But lets say your goal is to get your child into HYP and you succeed. Are you a good parent? I don't think so because you've focused on a ridiculous goal. And if your goal was to raise a child who is healthy, happy and productive and you succeed and they happen to get into HYP, are you a good parent? Probably, but not because they got into HYP.

Its like saying if your child becomes a movie star, this is indicative of you being a good parent. It is possible to be the good parent of a movie star, there are certainly examples. There are also many, many examples of child stars with horrible parents. One has nothing to do with the other.

Another thanks for another thoughtful post. I think you're right about this: most parents want to raise kids who are healthy, happy and productive. These are laudable goals for any parent.

I think a distinction needs to be made between "your kid goes to HYP = good parenting" and "your goal is to get your kid into HYP." The first is an outcome (maybe from good parenting, maybe not) and the second is a parental goal.

I think we're focused on the first, "your kid goes to HYP = good parenting" which, admittedly, is an overly broad statement about an outcome. If your kid does end up at HYP, that's an outcome that could be related to good parenting (you succeeded in raising a kid who was happy, productive and motivated). Or maybe not, and your happened to have a kid is hard-wired to succeed, or a kid who was born on third base (legacy, ability to afford tutors and coaches). I do think that some of the qualities that get a kid into HYP, especially work ethic, are to some degree a function of parenting. I'm not talking about helicoptering, rather the type of parenting that encourages kids to always do their best and teaches them to find joy in learning.

Signed, Ivy grad with kid now in a different Ivy

[Anonymous]

OP here. The thread devolved a little bit there at the end, into different arguments about parenting and outcomes, (though you can see how others "emphasize" the Ivy League), but generally I found many of the posts interesting, well-thought out, and quite helpful. I will come back one day to tell you what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you suggesting that there can be just ONE straw man argument to a point? And that the argument must be in direct opposition to what was said?

SMH.

On another note (because the ridiculous illogical arguments I see on this board are insane. And the fact that the people try to sound intelligent making the arguments... )

1. I don't think the person making the comment about ivy attendance being an indicator of good parenting is the parent of an ivy leaguer. I don't even think the person is an ivy leaguer. There's nothing to suggest this except my spidey senses. I think it was an innocuous--albeit true--statement that was taken out of context.

2. I think people on this board are overly competitive, sensitive and insecure about not being an ivy grad. That's the reason so many are jumping all over that comment which, in reality, has little to do with the real topic. It became it's own beast when insecure people started 'feeling some type of way' because they're not ivy grads and didn't send their kids to ivy. That comment was just one more reminder to them that neither they nor their snowflakes will ever be seen as good as an ivy grad. Hence all the emotional counter-arguments that make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Different PP here (not you and not Princeton mom). Thanks for trying to take that poster on seriously. The "yawn" comments demonstrate how flip and unengaged that poster really is.

OR how childish and unintelligent s/he really is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting that there can be just ONE straw man argument to a point? And that the argument must be in direct opposition to what was said?

SMH.

On another note (because the ridiculous illogical arguments I see on this board are insane. And the fact that the people try to sound intelligent making the arguments... )

1. I don't think the person making the comment about ivy attendance being an indicator of good parenting is the parent of an ivy leaguer. I don't even think the person is an ivy leaguer. There's nothing to suggest this except my spidey senses. I think it was an innocuous--albeit true--statement that was taken out of context.

2. I think people on this board are overly competitive, sensitive and insecure about not being an ivy grad. That's the reason so many are jumping all over that comment which, in reality, has little to do with the real topic. It became it's own beast when insecure people started 'feeling some type of way' because they're not ivy grads and didn't send their kids to ivy. That comment was just one more reminder to them that neither they nor their snowflakes will ever be seen as good as an ivy grad. Hence all the emotional counter-arguments that make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Princeton grad here. I thought the comment was ridiculous and I am not insecure. Some of my classmates had great parents; some had terrible parents. Some got there in spite of their parents. Some got there because they started life on third base (just because you're the DC of a wealthy alum doesn't mean you are the product of great parents). The fallacy is in making this the measure of parenting. Most of us set out to raise children who are healthy, happy and productive. If you've ever had a child who struggled with any of these three characteristics, you would understand why they are the most important. Even with these as a yardstick, I don't think you can make any one thing the measure of great parenting. Some kids are just wired with challenges, some have health challenges, it isn't an even playing field. But lets say your goal is to get your child into HYP and you succeed. Are you a good parent? I don't think so because you've focused on a ridiculous goal. And if your goal was to raise a child who is healthy, happy and productive and you succeed and they happen to get into HYP, are you a good parent? Probably, but not because they got into HYP.

Its like saying if your child becomes a movie star, this is indicative of you being a good parent. It is possible to be the good parent of a movie star, there are certainly examples. There are also many, many examples of child stars with horrible parents. One has nothing to do with the other.

I find it very hard to believe you're a Princeton grad and your comprehension is so skewed. (Or a grad from any college) Are you really trying to push the same illogical analogy between an HYP student and movie star?

Did you even read the 'good parenting' comment in its proper context? If you had, I seriously doubt you'd be in here writing a missive on parenting.

So what if the kid is born on 3rd base, have parents with money, etc? There are lots of kids who have that who do NOT have the support, structure, guidance or work ethic that it takes to make it into the ivies.

You know what? Nevermind.

Signed,

Harvard undergrad, Yale graduate school and Columbia Law school

(Uh, not really, but just wanted to show how easy it is to claim to be a grad from any school you'd like in cyberspace.)

[Anonymous]

Yikes. This thread has jumped the shark.

Signed, Penn grad (really)

[Anonymous]

PP and yes I went to Princeton. If you truly believe there is no difference in chances of getting into HYP between the wealthy, child of alum and big donor and someone with none of these things, you're nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP and yes I went to Princeton. If you truly believe there is no difference in chances of getting into HYP between the wealthy, child of alum and big donor and someone with none of these things, you're nuts.

Penn grad here. Yes, colleges won't say it, but you don't even have to be wealthy. Merely being full pay certainly helps with admissions chances.