Anonymous wrote:The only folks who are anti-elite don't know what they're talking about and/or don't have the money saved.
Elite grads don't rail against the elites. It's always bitter UMD or JMU moms who try to convince you their average kids are soo!! happy at their mediocre college.
Anonymous wrote:The only folks who are anti-elite don't know what they're talking about and/or don't have the money saved.
Elite grads don't rail against the elites. It's always bitter UMD or JMU moms who try to convince you their average kids are soo!! happy at their mediocre college.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We make $200K and have $250K saved so far for our 15 year old. Have been saving for 15 years. If she gets in, we will pay for it. Education is so important IMO.
Your "education is so important IMO" comment implies that you think the only way to get one is to spend $250K for an undergraduate degree. That's just plain silly.
We are part of the 1% (new money--so tacky I know we actually had to earn it ourselves with our public school education--shocking!) and we struggle with this concept of giving our kids everything. DH and I succeeded because we were "hungry." No one was going to pay our tuition, our bills, buy our cars, give us a down payment, etc. Success or failure fell squarely on our shoulders and because of that we were motivated to make all of it happen. Our children will get their college paid 100% but they won't get a private just for bragging rights. There has to be a darn good reason for doubling the tuition besides "I want to go out of state," or "I want to go to an Ivy." Unless that out-of-state school or that Ivy has the best department for what they want to study, it just isn't happening. Too many kids are getting too much too soon without working for it. It is skewing their reality and stifling their initiative. What is it that financial advisors say about wealth--the first generation makes it, the second generation spends it, and the third generation blows it. Our kids will not have to struggle like we did but they will not have everything handed to them on a silver platter either.
All of that makes sense, but I think if a kid from around here gets into an Ivy, they've generally had to work pretty hard to do so. Ivy league admissions are generally not handed out on a silver platter. I'm not sure what you mean by "working for it," but for me that doesn't necessarily mean making money to pay for it.
Anonymous wrote:I disagree. Most kids have an idea if they for example stem or non stem and some schools are better or worse in these areas. Being accepted to an Ivy does not mean the kid is going to get the best education for what he or she wants to do. Teaching them to evaluate or do cost benefit is wise money management and a good lesson for life. I can write a check for any school in the country but I will not write it for some because they just aren't worth it no matter what the brand. I have a perfect 4.0 kid with a near perfect SAT ago has worked incredibly hard- it so have I -- but I am not throwing away money for a bragging rights. Ivy if it makes s nice but she has to be able to articulate why it makes sense and that has to be more than the DCUM mommies are I are obsessed.Anonymous wrote:09:40--
I agree with most of what you're saying, but "best department for what they want to study" strikes me as a problematic standard. "Offers significantly better opportunities in DC's areas of interest" might make more sense because (a) kids change majors (b) it seems weird to say it's either whatever quality department the public school offers or the absolute best and (c) most students will not be well-served by being in "the best" department in a field. They need a program suited to their academic background, ability, and learning style.
Either way, you're giving your kid a "free" college education (in quotation marks because the kid actually had to earn the degree). The difference is how much *you* pay -- and the message you risk sending with that formulation is "I'll invest more in you/your education only if you are/can be among 'the best.'"
By contrast, "Why do you think this school is worth tens of thousands of dollars more than that school?" seems like a better approach -- and it gets DC thinking for him/herself (and talking with you) about what it's worth paying a premium for.
Anonymous wrote:
I really don't understand this board's split obsession with/hatred of the Ivy League. I loved my school. I'm sure I could have had an equally great experience somewhere else and I'd likely have loved that school. It does not make me any better than anyone else that I scored well on the SAT and had the stats to get into a specific college. Lots of people have the stats, many will never apply for a variety of reasons.
I disagree. Most kids have an idea if they for example stem or non stem and some schools are better or worse in these areas. Being accepted to an Ivy does not mean the kid is going to get the best education for what he or she wants to do. Teaching them to evaluate or do cost benefit is wise money management and a good lesson for life. I can write a check for any school in the country but I will not write it for some because they just aren't worth it no matter what the brand. I have a perfect 4.0 kid with a near perfect SAT ago has worked incredibly hard- it so have I -- but I am not throwing away money for a bragging rights. Ivy if it makes s nice but she has to be able to articulate why it makes sense and that has to be more than the DCUM mommies are I are obsessed.Anonymous wrote:09:40--
I agree with most of what you're saying, but "best department for what they want to study" strikes me as a problematic standard. "Offers significantly better opportunities in DC's areas of interest" might make more sense because (a) kids change majors (b) it seems weird to say it's either whatever quality department the public school offers or the absolute best and (c) most students will not be well-served by being in "the best" department in a field. They need a program suited to their academic background, ability, and learning style.
Either way, you're giving your kid a "free" college education (in quotation marks because the kid actually had to earn the degree). The difference is how much *you* pay -- and the message you risk sending with that formulation is "I'll invest more in you/your education only if you are/can be among 'the best.'"
By contrast, "Why do you think this school is worth tens of thousands of dollars more than that school?" seems like a better approach -- and it gets DC thinking for him/herself (and talking with you) about what it's worth paying a premium for.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We would pay if our children are accepted and would like to attend our undergrad, which happens to be an Ivy (though a much maligned one on these boards, since, gasp! it's not HYP). Our parents paid for it for us, which was a sacrifice for mine, not so much for his, and we both had excellent experiences at a small school with an incredible focus on undergrad teaching.
As to those who say they don't know anyone who married someone from college, I find that surprising. Among my closest college friends half are married to someone they knew in undergrad or met after at a college event or through mutual college friends.
Because the "elite" look down on anyone who marries before they are 35. They feel it is better to get married at 40 when you have gobs of money to pay for IVF. There is nothing wrong with going to state school and getting married in your twenties when you are at your peak fertility. These normal people have a happy life. Thinking you will be happier getting two Ivy League degrees and spending 100 hours a week working and putting off family life will lead to bliss is a story people make up in their heads.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We make $200K and have $250K saved so far for our 15 year old. Have been saving for 15 years. If she gets in, we will pay for it. Education is so important IMO.
Your "education is so important IMO" comment implies that you think the only way to get one is to spend $250K for an undergraduate degree. That's just plain silly.
We are part of the 1% (new money--so tacky I know we actually had to earn it ourselves with our public school education--shocking!) and we struggle with this concept of giving our kids everything. DH and I succeeded because we were "hungry." No one was going to pay our tuition, our bills, buy our cars, give us a down payment, etc. Success or failure fell squarely on our shoulders and because of that we were motivated to make all of it happen. Our children will get their college paid 100% but they won't get a private just for bragging rights. There has to be a darn good reason for doubling the tuition besides "I want to go out of state," or "I want to go to an Ivy." Unless that out-of-state school or that Ivy has the best department for what they want to study, it just isn't happening. Too many kids are getting too much too soon without working for it. It is skewing their reality and stifling their initiative. What is it that financial advisors say about wealth--the first generation makes it, the second generation spends it, and the third generation blows it. Our kids will not have to struggle like we did but they will not have everything handed to them on a silver platter either.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We make $200K and have $250K saved so far for our 15 year old. Have been saving for 15 years. If she gets in, we will pay for it. Education is so important IMO.
Your "education is so important IMO" comment implies that you think the only way to get one is to spend $250K for an undergraduate degree. That's just plain silly.