Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't fool yourselves, there are plenty of #1 parents who are also competitive about education. They just have the VIP connections to pull them behind the scenes - they know the low rigor high tutor pathway their child needs to get grades high enough for the college to feel ok about the stats to include them in the legacy or VIP admits.

DP. This. It is quite sad for their kids though at some point they will realize that their entire life was based on their parents connections staring with getting them into the preschool on. Often you will see kids with subpar grades and/or very subpar personalties - with absolutely no charisma end up getting into top schools or top internships because of their parents connections but I think it does catch up with them eventually because at some point mommy and daddy's connections mean nothing. At some point they can't get any further and those connections do not work anymore at a certain level.

Glad my kids got into their schools based on their merit and no connections. 100 percent their own grades etc...

Anonymous wrote:Don't fool yourselves, there are plenty of #1 parents who are also competitive about education. They just have the VIP connections to pull them behind the scenes - they know the low rigor high tutor pathway their child needs to get grades high enough for the college to feel ok about the stats to include them in the legacy or VIP admits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Name the schools. Really doubt one has more of either—every school we’ve encountered has a solid mix of both. The key is finding enough of 3: Volunteers and is involved with school but not overly so. This group is still managing ECs for their kid and still angling for top colleges but they are at least less in your face about it and are more willing to allow their kid a slightly longer leash.

I'm on board with group 3: Laid back, but present; a part of the community, not dominating it; give the kids agency, but guide them to stay on track; believe in lessons learned from mistakes, so make sure they have enough responsibility to make mistakes, but are watchful enough to make sure they learn through consequences; high goals, but humble; see "competitive" as teaching kids to work hard toward their personal best, which is is elevated by strong competition, not knocking down the competition, and certainly not through inappropriate means; believe in teamwork, not hierarchy or anarchy.

I cannot imagine there is a place that could pull a big enough concentration of #3 to make it the dominant culture. People as a mass are too flawed for that.

I think many Catholic (not all) schools fit this bill.

The catholic schools near me take the kids who were expelled from the public schools. And the parents lean heavily socially conservative . I think this would be the worst fit, personally- judgmental , socially conservative families with kids who have serious behavioral issues in high school.

Anonymous wrote:2 distinct parent profiles are over represented at certain schools we are looking at.

(1) Very wealthy couples, often with family money, who outsource everything and remain slightly detached from their kids. Have a lot of money so not hyperfocused on school, but definitely still want the kids to get into good colleges (which they will especially with their connections). Competitive about money and status.

(2) Scrappy, invested parents, who manage every aspect of kids lives and are very involved with parenting. Still rich but not generational wealth. Competitive about parenting and their kid’s success.


Which group would be more annoying to be around long term?

Anonymous wrote:Name the schools. Really doubt one has more of either—every school we’ve encountered has a solid mix of both. The key is finding enough of 3: Volunteers and is involved with school but not overly so. This group is still managing ECs for their kid and still angling for top colleges but they are at least less in your face about it and are more willing to allow their kid a slightly longer leash.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If those were the only 2 choices, I'd pick #2 because it's less risky, i.e. If my child is influenced by his peers, I think "competitive for grades" has fewer downsides than "loosely-supervised and wealthy".

I prefer the parents in group 1 to group 2 but I cannot argue with this logic right here and for that reason I’d put my kid in a school with group 2 families. They’ll be more stressed about grades , but I can help them manage that stress better then I can help them navigate billionaires kids with access to drugs and fast cars.

You aren’t correctly describing the #2 group around here. And this idea that #2 group has way more drugs than any other group is silly. All of the good local publics (MoCo/NArlington/McLean) have same subset of drug culture so it can’t be money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2. I don't want checked out uninvolved parents as those are the kids who are often into drugs, alcohol and other dangerous behaviors.

So by “2”, you mean “1”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Name the schools. Really doubt one has more of either—every school we’ve encountered has a solid mix of both. The key is finding enough of 3: Volunteers and is involved with school but not overly so. This group is still managing ECs for their kid and still angling for top colleges but they are at least less in your face about it and are more willing to allow their kid a slightly longer leash.

I'm on board with group 3: Laid back, but present; a part of the community, not dominating it; give the kids agency, but guide them to stay on track; believe in lessons learned from mistakes, so make sure they have enough responsibility to make mistakes, but are watchful enough to make sure they learn through consequences; high goals, but humble; see "competitive" as teaching kids to work hard toward their personal best, which is is elevated by strong competition, not knocking down the competition, and certainly not through inappropriate means; believe in teamwork, not hierarchy or anarchy.

I cannot imagine there is a place that could pull a big enough concentration of #3 to make it the dominant culture. People as a mass are too flawed for that.

I think many Catholic (not all) schools fit this bill.

The catholic schools near me take the kids who were expelled from the public schools. And the parents lean heavily socially conservative . I think this would be the worst fit, personally- judgmental , socially conservative families with kids who have serious behavioral issues in high school.

Where do you live?

Anonymous wrote:I love the scrappy and invested 2, because I am part of that group and I think parents should be involved. It's the entire point of parenting. Why else be a parent? My friend group is made of nothing but highly involved parents.

I cannot relate to the detached parents. They wouldn't be my friends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If those were the only 2 choices, I'd pick #2 because it's less risky, i.e. If my child is influenced by his peers, I think "competitive for grades" has fewer downsides than "loosely-supervised and wealthy".

I prefer the parents in group 1 to group 2 but I cannot argue with this logic right here and for that reason I’d put my kid in a school with group 2 families. They’ll be more stressed about grades , but I can help them manage that stress better then I can help them navigate billionaires kids with access to drugs and fast cars.