Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but I'd rather spend the $6000 on building their intellectual horsepower. My kids were all good athletes but size and speed were not in their gene pool. My son was a varsity tennis player (good but not great) but he really got into science so he went to a couple of science camps. He went to Harvard and he is now a doctor. It's unlikely that tennis would have gotten him to the same place.
So he is a doctor now, this was what? 20 yrs ago. To get into Harvard now, he’ll have to be an outstanding athlete AND outstanding in the sciences or whatever. My friends and I like to joke that we would not have gotten into our respective ivies if we applied now.
No worries, today he'd still have the (((legacy))) credentials he had back then.
Of course he will and legacy admissions have held steady at 1 out of 3. Much easier than the less than 5% admitted from general admissions.
But you did not mention that he had legacy status in your original post where you implied being good in the sciences and being a middling athlete was enough to get into Harvard: Certainly a bit disingenuous.
No one becomes that good at a sport, music or whatever unless they love it. Doubtful these kids work so hard to impress colleges ... but talent doesn’t hurt in admissions.
He didn't have legacy status (I wish!) but he was and is really smart. It was his essay that made the difference which amazed us given he didn't share it with us.
Neither did I but that does not mean I’ll get in now... 20+ yrs ago, admissions rate was around 10%. Now it is less than 5%.
I know several kids who are currently attending Ivies or equivalent like MIT and got into multiple ones: what they all have in common is that they were outstanding academically and nationally ranked in the top 50 in their sport for their age.
The point of sports and music and other extra curricular activities is not to impress colleges but to instill something positive in your kids and a skill they can enjoy for the rest of their lives.
Plenty of people went to Ivy's and Top 5 medical schools. My sibling did. My spouse makes more than she does and went to a no name college. If its money you are after in less you are a specialist in medicine its not a high paying job anymore nor that impressive.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but I'd rather spend the $6000 on building their intellectual horsepower. My kids were all good athletes but size and speed were not in their gene pool. My son was a varsity tennis player (good but not great) but he really got into science so he went to a couple of science camps. He went to Harvard and he is now a doctor. It's unlikely that tennis would have gotten him to the same place.
So he is a doctor now, this was what? 20 yrs ago. To get into Harvard now, he’ll have to be an outstanding athlete AND outstanding in the sciences or whatever. My friends and I like to joke that we would not have gotten into our respective ivies if we applied now.
No worries, today he'd still have the (((legacy))) credentials he had back then.
Of course he will and legacy admissions have held steady at 1 out of 3. Much easier than the less than 5% admitted from general admissions.
But you did not mention that he had legacy status in your original post where you implied being good in the sciences and being a middling athlete was enough to get into Harvard: Certainly a bit disingenuous.
He didn't have legacy status (I wish!) but he was and is really smart. It was his essay that made the difference which amazed us given he didn't share it with us.
Neither did I but that does not mean I’ll get in now... 20+ yrs ago, admissions rate was around 10%. Now it is less than 5%.
I know several kids who are currently attending Ivies or equivalent like MIT and got into multiple ones: what they all have in common is that they were outstanding academically and nationally ranked in the top 50 in their sport for their age.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but I'd rather spend the $6000 on building their intellectual horsepower. My kids were all good athletes but size and speed were not in their gene pool. My son was a varsity tennis player (good but not great) but he really got into science so he went to a couple of science camps. He went to Harvard and he is now a doctor. It's unlikely that tennis would have gotten him to the same place.
So he is a doctor now, this was what? 20 yrs ago. To get into Harvard now, he’ll have to be an outstanding athlete AND outstanding in the sciences or whatever. My friends and I like to joke that we would not have gotten into our respective ivies if we applied now.
No worries, today he'd still have the (((legacy))) credentials he had back then.
Of course he will and legacy admissions have held steady at 1 out of 3. Much easier than the less than 5% admitted from general admissions.
But you did not mention that he had legacy status in your original post where you implied being good in the sciences and being a middling athlete was enough to get into Harvard: Certainly a bit disingenuous.
He didn't have legacy status (I wish!) but he was and is really smart. It was his essay that made the difference which amazed us given he didn't share it with us.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but I'd rather spend the $6000 on building their intellectual horsepower. My kids were all good athletes but size and speed were not in their gene pool. My son was a varsity tennis player (good but not great) but he really got into science so he went to a couple of science camps. He went to Harvard and he is now a doctor. It's unlikely that tennis would have gotten him to the same place.
So he is a doctor now, this was what? 20 yrs ago. To get into Harvard now, he’ll have to be an outstanding athlete AND outstanding in the sciences or whatever. My friends and I like to joke that we would not have gotten into our respective ivies if we applied now.
No worries, today he'd still have the (((legacy))) credentials he had back then.
Of course he will and legacy admissions have held steady at 1 out of 3. Much easier than the less than 5% admitted from general admissions.
But you did not mention that he had legacy status in your original post where you implied being good in the sciences and being a middling athlete was enough to get into Harvard: Certainly a bit disingenuous.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but I'd rather spend the $6000 on building their intellectual horsepower. My kids were all good athletes but size and speed were not in their gene pool. My son was a varsity tennis player (good but not great) but he really got into science so he went to a couple of science camps. He went to Harvard and he is now a doctor. It's unlikely that tennis would have gotten him to the same place.
Why can't it be both? Why does it have to be one or another? You sound like my parents and the real reason wasn't the money but it was they didn't want to make the sacrifices to drive us to activities daily and put in the effort. They bitterly criticize us for letting our child do it. No reason he couldn't have done tennis and science camps. My sister did no science camps or sports and is still a doctor and went to an ivy for undergrad and medical school.
Don't discount the sacrifices, because it's not a huge sacrifice to you. DH and I both work full time. While we could afford travel sports etc., It would mean we and the kids would have little to no free time. I wouldn't be a happy or good parent in that scenario. If I saw Olympic level talent in my child, maybe, but for just getting exercise and enjoying sports, it's not necessary. We do rec sports each season, musical instrument lessons, and various summer camps. Not that I begrudge or judge those who do spend that time. But you shouldn't judge those who aren't up for the time commitment.
You don't need to do travel sports. Yes, its a huge sacrifice, but that is the choice you make when you have kids. If you don't want to make the sacrifice, don't have kids. This is really about you and your happiness and free time, not the kids. Some kids enjoy being very busy, mine do. I do not but I do it for them. My parents were like you and I am very distant to them now as they are always about their needs and happiness and ironically complained how we had no interests when we did, it was just them not willing to sacrifice some of theirs to take the time to do it. When you have kids, you give up your time for them.
Wow - have you sought counseling? It might help with your anger toward your parents.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but I'd rather spend the $6000 on building their intellectual horsepower. My kids were all good athletes but size and speed were not in their gene pool. My son was a varsity tennis player (good but not great) but he really got into science so he went to a couple of science camps. He went to Harvard and he is now a doctor. It's unlikely that tennis would have gotten him to the same place.
So he is a doctor now, this was what? 20 yrs ago. To get into Harvard now, he’ll have to be an outstanding athlete AND outstanding in the sciences or whatever. My friends and I like to joke that we would not have gotten into our respective ivies if we applied now.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but I'd rather spend the $6000 on building their intellectual horsepower. My kids were all good athletes but size and speed were not in their gene pool. My son was a varsity tennis player (good but not great) but he really got into science so he went to a couple of science camps. He went to Harvard and he is now a doctor. It's unlikely that tennis would have gotten him to the same place.
So he is a doctor now, this was what? 20 yrs ago. To get into Harvard now, he’ll have to be an outstanding athlete AND outstanding in the sciences or whatever. My friends and I like to joke that we would not have gotten into our respective ivies if we applied now.
No worries, today he'd still have the (((legacy))) credentials he had back then.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but I'd rather spend the $6000 on building their intellectual horsepower. My kids were all good athletes but size and speed were not in their gene pool. My son was a varsity tennis player (good but not great) but he really got into science so he went to a couple of science camps. He went to Harvard and he is now a doctor. It's unlikely that tennis would have gotten him to the same place.
So he is a doctor now, this was what? 20 yrs ago. To get into Harvard now, he’ll have to be an outstanding athlete AND outstanding in the sciences or whatever. My friends and I like to joke that we would not have gotten into our respective ivies if we applied now.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but I'd rather spend the $6000 on building their intellectual horsepower. My kids were all good athletes but size and speed were not in their gene pool. My son was a varsity tennis player (good but not great) but he really got into science so he went to a couple of science camps. He went to Harvard and he is now a doctor. It's unlikely that tennis would have gotten him to the same place.
So he is a doctor now, this was what? 20 yrs ago. To get into Harvard now, he’ll have to be an outstanding athlete AND outstanding in the sciences or whatever. My friends and I like to joke that we would not have gotten into our respective ivies if we applied now.
Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but I'd rather spend the $6000 on building their intellectual horsepower. My kids were all good athletes but size and speed were not in their gene pool. My son was a varsity tennis player (good but not great) but he really got into science so he went to a couple of science camps. He went to Harvard and he is now a doctor. It's unlikely that tennis would have gotten him to the same place.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but I'd rather spend the $6000 on building their intellectual horsepower. My kids were all good athletes but size and speed were not in their gene pool. My son was a varsity tennis player (good but not great) but he really got into science so he went to a couple of science camps. He went to Harvard and he is now a doctor. It's unlikely that tennis would have gotten him to the same place.
Don’t fall off your high horse there! It doesn’t have to be either/or.
With very limited resources it does have to be either/or. $2000 is a great deal of money to me even if it's not to you. $6000 impossible. Some of us are not as blessed as you must be.
Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but I'd rather spend the $6000 on building their intellectual horsepower. My kids were all good athletes but size and speed were not in their gene pool. My son was a varsity tennis player (good but not great) but he really got into science so he went to a couple of science camps. He went to Harvard and he is now a doctor. It's unlikely that tennis would have gotten him to the same place.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but I'd rather spend the $6000 on building their intellectual horsepower. My kids were all good athletes but size and speed were not in their gene pool. My son was a varsity tennis player (good but not great) but he really got into science so he went to a couple of science camps. He went to Harvard and he is now a doctor. It's unlikely that tennis would have gotten him to the same place.
Don’t fall off your high horse there! It doesn’t have to be either/or.