Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if she chose a classic - like Princeton (her mother's undergrad alma mater). I know she is interested in film production but I seriously doubt if she would attend a school like NYU or USC. It would be cool if she did.

I read somewhere that Michelle Obama did not like her time at Princeton and has been an estranged alum.

It won't be at a historically black college.

I remember Fannie Mae doing a study a few years back of all of its employees in the DC area. I may have this a bit off, but I believe that 95% of all respondents lived in neighborhoods that were at least 95% ethnically concentrated (95% of people in neighborhood were of a single racial background) and 99% went to churches that were 95% ethnically concentrated. On the surface it may appear that we are in a mixed society, but when given the choice we choose to keep with our own - not the real world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wherever the secret service likes....

I seriously wonder how much this comes into play, if at all.

I think this is a big part of why so many kids with secret service coverage choose Sidwell. Much more closed off and protected campus than most of the other privates,

Which soon will have a 30% bigger campus with a bigger buffer.

From the real world, yes.

Tell us about the "real world" choices that you have made for your children? How economically diverse is the public school that you send your kids to? Tell me all about the families below the poverty level that you regularly socialize with? When you look over at the neighboring pew in church do you see a reflection of yourself. The DC area remains one of the most segregated areas of the country, despite its rich cultural mix at a macro level. First, look in the mirror on this issue before criticizing the choices made by others, especially when the school being criticized is more diverse than your own - whether naturally or artificially derived.

"I wish I would have" drives me crazy. UGH!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"enroll at"?

Seriously?

Seriously.

Nails on a chalkboard. I really cannot take it.

It's a DC-area thing. It goes along with "I wish I would have" (or worse, "would of")(vs. the correct "I wish I had").

It's actually not a "DC-area thing". My husband is from a small town out west and this is exactly how they talk. I was born and raised here and don't speak that way, nor does anyone in my family. Sorry to disappoint.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that just because she's a politicians childe then that automatically makes her Ivy League material?

Because her parents are graduates of Columbia, Harvard and Princeton. I'd expect anyone's offspring with those credentials to be Ivy League material.

My parents have three Harvard degrees between the two of them. The real ones, not the Kennedy School stuff. I was not Ivy League material. My sister was, however--albeit at a lesser Ivy. But I had to settle for a top 25 public school.

This is the most DCUM thing that ever was said.

The point was that a president's kid gets in the Ivy unlike a commoner's kid. But just think: how dumb does a president's kid have to be if she ends up attending, say, UT-Austin?

I am not defending any Bush. But who says an Ivy is always the be all and end all? And UT Austin is an excellent university, but not for everyone. The ill-informed snobbery on this board is pretty amazing. If I had a choice of, say, Cornell vs. UT, I would definitely choose UT.

--Not a Texas Ex

+1

A brand-name school is not a proxy for intelligence.

Wow do you even live in DC? Your school is not only a proxy for intelligence, it reveals everything about you.

Basically astrology for "smart" people.

Please tell me you are joking. I've known totally unoriginal Ivy grads and brilliant state school grads. If you're real...blech.

That isn't what I think, that's just the prevailing attitude here.

DC is a city of pedigree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wherever the secret service likes....

I seriously wonder how much this comes into play, if at all.

I think this is a big part of why so many kids with secret service coverage choose Sidwell. Much more closed off and protected campus than most of the other privates,

Which soon will have a 30% bigger campus with a bigger buffer.

From the real world, yes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that just because she's a politicians childe then that automatically makes her Ivy League material?

Because her parents are graduates of Columbia, Harvard and Princeton. I'd expect anyone's offspring with those credentials to be Ivy League material.

My parents have three Harvard degrees between the two of them. The real ones, not the Kennedy School stuff. I was not Ivy League material. My sister was, however--albeit at a lesser Ivy. But I had to settle for a top 25 public school.

This is the most DCUM thing that ever was said.

The point was that a president's kid gets in the Ivy unlike a commoner's kid. But just think: how dumb does a president's kid have to be if she ends up attending, say, UT-Austin?

I am not defending any Bush. But who says an Ivy is always the be all and end all? And UT Austin is an excellent university, but not for everyone. The ill-informed snobbery on this board is pretty amazing. If I had a choice of, say, Cornell vs. UT, I would definitely choose UT.

--Not a Texas Ex

+1

A brand-name school is not a proxy for intelligence.

Wow do you even live in DC? Your school is not only a proxy for intelligence, it reveals everything about you.

Basically astrology for "smart" people.

Please tell me you are joking. I've known totally unoriginal Ivy grads and brilliant state school grads. If you're real...blech.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that just because she's a politicians childe then that automatically makes her Ivy League material?

Because her parents are graduates of Columbia, Harvard and Princeton. I'd expect anyone's offspring with those credentials to be Ivy League material.

My parents have three Harvard degrees between the two of them. The real ones, not the Kennedy School stuff. I was not Ivy League material. My sister was, however--albeit at a lesser Ivy. But I had to settle for a top 25 public school.

This is the most DCUM thing that ever was said.

The point was that a president's kid gets in the Ivy unlike a commoner's kid. But just think: how dumb does a president's kid have to be if she ends up attending, say, UT-Austin?

I am not defending any Bush. But who says an Ivy is always the be all and end all? And UT Austin is an excellent university, but not for everyone. The ill-informed snobbery on this board is pretty amazing. If I had a choice of, say, Cornell vs. UT, I would definitely choose UT.

--Not a Texas Ex

+1

A brand-name school is not a proxy for intelligence.

Wow do you even live in DC? Your school is not only a proxy for intelligence, it reveals everything about you.

Basically astrology for "smart" people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wherever the secret service likes....

I seriously wonder how much this comes into play, if at all.

I think this is a big part of why so many kids with secret service coverage choose Sidwell. Much more closed off and protected campus than most of the other privates,

Which soon will have a 30% bigger campus with a bigger buffer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"enroll at"?

Seriously?

Seriously.

Nails on a chalkboard. I really cannot take it.

It's a DC-area thing. It goes along with "I wish I would have" (or worse, "would of")(vs. the correct "I wish I had").

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that just because she's a politicians childe then that automatically makes her Ivy League material?

Because her parents are graduates of Columbia, Harvard and Princeton. I'd expect anyone's offspring with those credentials to be Ivy League material.

My parents have three Harvard degrees between the two of them. The real ones, not the Kennedy School stuff. I was not Ivy League material. My sister was, however--albeit at a lesser Ivy. But I had to settle for a top 25 public school.

This is the most DCUM thing that ever was said.

The point was that a president's kid gets in the Ivy unlike a commoner's kid. But just think: how dumb does a president's kid have to be if she ends up attending, say, UT-Austin?

I am not defending any Bush. But who says an Ivy is always the be all and end all? And UT Austin is an excellent university, but not for everyone. The ill-informed snobbery on this board is pretty amazing. If I had a choice of, say, Cornell vs. UT, I would definitely choose UT.

--Not a Texas Ex

+1

A brand-name school is not a proxy for intelligence.

Anonymous wrote:This isn't regarding malia, but why hasn't any POTUS kid gone to any of the military academies? Are they barred from doing so?

Now that ROTC is back in the ivies, will we see potus kids going that route?

Doubt it.

Snobs.