Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well our daughters sport turned into us buying a horse. So we are at about 27k a year with boarding, fees, vet bills, and then the competitions itself. Still worth it as she is very grateful and very hard working. She's been at the stalls everyday at 545 am since we bought the horse 17 months ago. Literally every.single.day.

Heh, a friend of mine who bought his daughter a horse said that a major advantage of it was "she's too busy to bother with boys".

Anonymous wrote:Also, it's not just undergrad. NYU medical school is now tuition free:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2018/08/21/nyu-medical-school-student-loans/#ee3cd437ac0e

The schools with huge endowments can afford to do this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

My son is a freshmen at Princeton and he is not a legacy, not a top 50 in a sport, not a minority but he is really smart. Frankly, the odds of you knowing several kids ranked in the top 50 in their sport is statistically impossible.

If you are top 50 in a sport you are a very serious and heavily recruited athlete. Not many of them will go Ivy because the allure of playing high level D1 is pretty powerful. Of course if your definition of top 50 is in your HS league that's different.

My son got into Princeton as long as he agreed to play his sport. However there was no scholarship involved. Luckily he is actually smart and decided to go with the D1 school who was giving him a free ride.

I cannot even begin to tell you how many doors his sport opened to him after he graduated. These doors were all held open by the alumni community After 4 years playing ball at school, he started his first job at 70k. Not only did he graduate without a penny in debt, we were able to gift him the 120k we saved for him for his first home.

Princeton would have been a bust.

Ivies don't give out scholarships for sports or anything else. However, they do give out need based aide. Generally, for families that make under 150K nowadays, tuition at Harvard is zero... but you have to get in first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

My son is a freshmen at Princeton and he is not a legacy, not a top 50 in a sport, not a minority but he is really smart. Frankly, the odds of you knowing several kids ranked in the top 50 in their sport is statistically impossible.

If you are top 50 in a sport you are a very serious and heavily recruited athlete. Not many of them will go Ivy because the allure of playing high level D1 is pretty powerful. Of course if your definition of top 50 is in your HS league that's different.

My son got into Princeton as long as he agreed to play his sport. However there was no scholarship involved. Luckily he is actually smart and decided to go with the D1 school who was giving him a free ride.

I cannot even begin to tell you how many doors his sport opened to him after he graduated. These doors were all held open by the alumni community After 4 years playing ball at school, he started his first job at 70k. Not only did he graduate without a penny in debt, we were able to gift him the 120k we saved for him for his first home.

Princeton would have been a bust.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

My son is a freshmen at Princeton and he is not a legacy, not a top 50 in a sport, not a minority but he is really smart. Frankly, the odds of you knowing several kids ranked in the top 50 in their sport is statistically impossible.

If you are top 50 in a sport you are a very serious and heavily recruited athlete. Not many of them will go Ivy because the allure of playing high level D1 is pretty powerful. Of course if your definition of top 50 is in your HS league that's different.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

My son is a freshmen at Princeton and he is not a legacy, not a top 50 in a sport, not a minority but he is really smart. Frankly, the odds of you knowing several kids ranked in the top 50 in their sport is statistically impossible.

If you are top 50 in a sport you are a very serious and heavily recruited athlete. Not many of them will go Ivy because the allure of playing high level D1 is pretty powerful. Of course if your definition of top 50 is in your HS league that's different.

Anonymous wrote:Re figure skating, I can tell you that no amount of money will compensate for a lack of talent.

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.

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.

My son is a freshmen at Princeton and he is not a legacy, not a top 50 in a sport, not a minority but he is really smart. Frankly, the odds of you knowing several kids ranked in the top 50 in their sport is statistically impossible.

Anonymous wrote:So only the top 1%-10% families can even have kids competing in some of these expensive sports? I would never say the child getting private skating lessons and training isn’t good at figure skating, but there can only be so many kids even wealthy enough to compete—and those that are, how much is it about natural talent and how much is it about the amount of money parents are willing to throw at a sport?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

My son is a freshmen at Princeton and he is not a legacy, not a top 50 in a sport, not a minority but he is really smart. Frankly, the odds of you knowing several kids ranked in the top 50 in their sport is statistically impossible.

If you are top 50 in a sport you are a very serious and heavily recruited athlete. Not many of them will go Ivy because the allure of playing high level D1 is pretty powerful. Of course if your definition of top 50 is in your HS league that's different.

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.

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.

My son is a freshmen at Princeton and he is not a legacy, not a top 50 in a sport, not a minority but he is really smart. Frankly, the odds of you knowing several kids ranked in the top 50 in their sport is statistically impossible.

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:These numbers are astounding - what does travel ice hockey cost per year? Anyone know!?

Yeah, I can answer this one. I have two who play travel, and have played since the age of 5. Started at 2 and 4 with skating. Oldest is headed to college to play now, having gone to boarding school in New England to play (which is the highest level of play after "travel"). Top tier travel hockey is Tier 1 AAA, in this area Little Capitols or Team MD. But I digress.

It starts off with travel as a Mite, around age 5. Usually playing at A or AA level. That's relatively cheap, you're paying under $8k/yr per child then. It escalates up from there as the expenses get higher, trips longer, equipment more costly, etc. The last year we tracked expenses, we hit roughly $30k for oldest child.

Kids are both in private schools, so we pay over $200k/yr for the kids sports + school alone.

Ok, now I'm a little queasy....

Any insight into the path for girls? I have young ones playing - and we have no clue what the path is ...