Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No. I think liberal guilt is stupid and further not competiitve or appropriate in todays world.
It's not liberal guilt. It's called "compassion." You should try it.
But anyway, raising your kids in a little bubble or greenhouse is never going to make them "competitive." If you want to teach your kids to compete, send them to the local public where they will learn to fight for the teacher's attention and for a place on the sports teams. Also, at the local public they will learn how to deal with all types of people, and will be more likely to "succeed" (although I dread to think of your idea of "success").
You go girlfriend. Let your litt' un FIGHT for the right to be on a team ... and then feel all guilty (no compassionate) about it! So they can "succeed" with "all types of people" Yeah! I feel so happy for your kids. Go for it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No. I think liberal guilt is stupid and further not competiitve or appropriate in todays world.
It's not liberal guilt. It's called "compassion." You should try it.
But anyway, raising your kids in a little bubble or greenhouse is never going to make them "competitive." If you want to teach your kids to compete, send them to the local public where they will learn to fight for the teacher's attention and for a place on the sports teams. Also, at the local public they will learn how to deal with all types of people, and will be more likely to "succeed" (although I dread to think of your idea of "success").
Anonymous wrote:No. I think liberal guilt is stupid and further not competiitve or appropriate in todays world.
Great question OP. As someone who came to the US as an adult, this desire to go out of one's way to surround one's kids with those who are less fortunate is the most puzzling thing about this board.
I want my kids to grow into high functioning empowered adults. The best way to attempt this is to surround them with smart, hardworking kids from well-functioning families and get them used to interacting and competing with them, both in academics and on the sports field. Sure, it will be important for them to learn that the world is full of all kinds of people, but that they will learn from travel and interacting with friends from different activities and camps. If I can give them successful role models, why should I go out of my way to show them "average." They can find that anywhere.
Anonymous wrote:
Because, what, all those buddhist vietnamese and muslim somali immigrants are wealthy enough to buy a house that is zoned for Lafayette? LOL!
There is actually a pros and cons of Lafayette thread going on right now, where one of the pros being touted is how the parents of the kids are all wealthy and older instead of younger and poorer. Sounds super diverse...
Anonymous wrote:Oh no, let's not start comparing random public and private schools to each other again. Didn't we go through that with your Whitman comparison already?
Anonymous wrote:Wow, this thread is still going strong?
And it's moved on to somebody arguing that actual religious diversity in public schools is less useful than teachers teaching about religion in private schools?
And the same poster is still arguing--against all evidence--that there's more religious diversity in private schools than in public schools? Because, what, all those buddhist vietnamese and muslim somali immigrants are wealthy enough to go private?
LOL!
My kid studied comparative religions in a private school. Let me tell you, it wasn't a very impressive. For one thing, the teachers themselves don't always know a lot about the various religions, unless they belong to that religion themselves. The teacher presented a bland, sterile picture of each of the major world religions.