Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would have just waited ten years to have them. Having them in my teens rather than my 20s means I simply didn't know a lot of things about what kids need. I'd have nursed longer, been more focused on them and bonding and attachment when they were babies,etc.
duh.
Anonymous wrote:What about $? Would you save more or save it differently? How do you approach the $ discussion now? Is it annually decision tpe of thing or do you define how it is to be used?
Anonymous wrote:I would have just waited ten years to have them. Having them in my teens rather than my 20s means I simply didn't know a lot of things about what kids need. I'd have nursed longer, been more focused on them and bonding and attachment when they were babies,etc.
Anonymous wrote:I really wouldn't change anything. My eldest will not be going to an elite college (or, rather, the only "elite" college on the application list for next fall is W&M--you can decide whether you think they are elite), but he is a terrific kid, easy to get along with, fun and funny, has given us no trouble in high school. He has done well (if not stellar) in school and has very good (though not great) test scores. But he has great intellectual curiosity and is a great writer. I have no doubt that he will find a satisfying career and be a productive member of society. Not sure how much of that is due to DH and me and how much of that is just him, but whatever!
My younger child is in 6th grade. A good student, but too soon to tell whether he will be an "elite"-caliber student or not. I don't think it matters one way or another.
+1. I hear you!Anonymous wrote:Would go further back and choose a far, far better man to be my husband and the father of my children.
I think LA is just as much of a rat race re HS/college admissions as Metro DC is at this point. Endless resume building and schlepping kids to lessons and academic pressure. My sibs still live in CA and their kids are confronting the same issues and attitudes there that mine are here.
I had one child go through high school in L.A. and another in DC, and have spent considerable time raising my children in both places. No comparison, the west coast is a much more relaxed, open, outdoors, less stressful, less scheduled, more independent, diverse and adventurous place to raise children. I wish we could have stayed there throughout our DCs' entire childhood years.
LA is not more "diverse" than the Washington DC greater metro area. They're both ridiculously and wonderfully diverse in every definition of that word.
Having lived for long periods of time in both places, I can unequivocally say that yes, L.A. is much more diverse in every way than Washington. DC is lovely, but it feels like a small, socioeconomically segregated city compared to L.A. It's just a healthier place to raise children out there.
Funny, having lived both places, we reached a totally different conclusion. Both dh and I loved LA, but ultimately came back east to raise our kids because felt many aspects of the culture there too superficial, i.e. focus on physical appearance and weight starting at very young age, "Hollywood" lifestyle difficult too avoid in the private schools, and pretty crummy public schools. Add in the ridiculous cost of housing in a desirable area. We still hope to go back some day, but not until after kids are grown.
My guess is that, in both Metro areas, it depends on where you live. And each encompasses a pretty broad/diverse region.[/quote]
I think this is right. There are areas of any major city with affluent, highly performing private and public schools that have this rat race attitude, whether it is LA, SF, Chicago, DC, NYC, Boston, etc. I think a lot of this has more to do with socioeconomics than region.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't have chosen the most challenging high school. DC has done very well but success comes at the price of having little or no time/energy to explore and set your own challenges.
BINGO!
Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't have chosen the most challenging high school. DC has done very well but success comes at the price of having little or no time/energy to explore and set your own challenges.
Anonymous wrote:Reading these admissions threads already have me feeling nauseous. If you were me, with a highly-distracted 7 year old who is going to be a challenge to get to focus on either sports or a musical instrument, and you could go back in time and do something differently (or the same, if it worked out well) -- what would you do over or do differently?
+1Anonymous wrote:If I could go back in time -- not to age 7 but probably by age 9 or 10 -- I would have had more daughter evaluated for ADHD and LDs. We waited to do this until high school and it made the whole process so much more difficult. I wish I'd followed my gut and gotten her tested much earlier. Maybe this would have saved us and her so frustration and heartache, I don't know?