Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Privates are an absolute luxury and most people simply can't afford them. So there is no use in making the majority of the population feel bad. We limited ourselves to having one child so we could afford private.

My sons are best friends and spend every moment together they can. They will always have each other. I'm floored that you think private school is more important than a sibling relationship.

I don't see anything wrong with considering what you want for your child as a factor in limiting the number of children a person decides to have. If PP were a "poor" who decided to have two kids instead of just one knowing that it would mean having zero savings for college or retirement, what would you say?

Please tell me you are a non-native English speaker and that's why you don't realize how offensive this sounds.

You haven't been on DCUM much, have you? It's DCUM tongue in cheek lingo for those of us who do plebeian things like shop at Target.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Privates are an absolute luxury and most people simply can't afford them. So there is no use in making the majority of the population feel bad. We limited ourselves to having one child so we could afford private.

My sons are best friends and spend every moment together they can. They will always have each other. I'm floored that you think private school is more important than a sibling relationship.

My sister and I have never been close and never will be. Just because your kids are close now doesn't mean they will be forever and it doesn't mean that siblings in every family are close. I had one kid for many reasons, my poor relationship with my sister being one of them. As it happens, having one kid has made private school education possible and my kid's private school education has been glorious -- far more valuable and rewarding than my relationship with my sister.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Privates are an absolute luxury and most people simply can't afford them. So there is no use in making the majority of the population feel bad. We limited ourselves to having one child so we could afford private.

My sons are best friends and spend every moment together they can. They will always have each other. I'm floored that you think private school is more important than a sibling relationship.

I don't see anything wrong with considering what you want for your child as a factor in limiting the number of children a person decides to have. If PP were a "poor" who decided to have two kids instead of just one knowing that it would mean having zero savings for college or retirement, what would you say?

Please tell me you are a non-native English speaker and that's why you don't realize how offensive this sounds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Privates are an absolute luxury and most people simply can't afford them. So there is no use in making the majority of the population feel bad. We limited ourselves to having one child so we could afford private.

My sons are best friends and spend every moment together they can. They will always have each other. I'm floored that you think private school is more important than a sibling relationship.

I don't see anything wrong with considering what you want for your child as a factor in limiting the number of children a person decides to have. If PP were a "poor" who decided to have two kids instead of just one knowing that it would mean having zero savings for college or retirement, what would you say?

Well, I don't fit in around here, but I would say it is absolutely fine to bring a child into the world without the ability to save for college or retirement. Those are not prerequisites for having children. Most people in the county have next to nothing saved for college or retirement. They are real people with families they love. Only in the upper class is it a prerequisite to have a bedroom for every child in a suburban house with a 401k and a 529 in order to have kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Privates are an absolute luxury and most people simply can't afford them. So there is no use in making the majority of the population feel bad. We limited ourselves to having one child so we could afford private.

My sons are best friends and spend every moment together they can. They will always have each other. I'm floored that you think private school is more important than a sibling relationship.

I don't see anything wrong with considering what you want for your child as a factor in limiting the number of children a person decides to have. If PP were a "poor" who decided to have two kids instead of just one knowing that it would mean having zero savings for college or retirement, what would you say?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many low class people on DCUM who constantly talk about "great publics". Get real.

The obsession with privates in DC is a total new money thing. Ask anyone who went to one of them 20 years ago.

The obsession with privates has increased as the quality of public has deteriorated and incomes have remained stagnant.

Yes. Wish we did not have to pay for what we should get for our high MoCo taxes.

@16:01 sometimes parents who send their kids to public stem schools or vocational school are cutting off their kids true interest. I really don't see how sending a kid to private school is more limiting for a child then any other form of education.
Sometimes parents who send their kids to public schools and universities are doing so with the intent of limiting their kids options to exactly those afforded the parent. If it was good enough for me, it is good enough for them.... Those parents are not focusing on what would be the best school for their kid. Maybe the kids needs public, maybe the kids needs private private but we can all be sure that the kid does not need " if it was good enough for me its good enough for my kid."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I wouldn't be thrilled ... but for a different reason than your supposition. I hate it when women are relegated to teachers or nurses and men become professors and doctors. I don't like sexism in any form.

So you'd only be cool with it if a son became a nurse but a daughter became a doctor? Sorry to hijack this, but the point I'm trying to make is that parents who invest all this money in private schools sometimes are micromanaging their children's futures in a way that doesn't sit well with me.

Sometimes, any variation of any possibility is the situation.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I wouldn't be thrilled ... but for a different reason than your supposition. I hate it when women are relegated to teachers or nurses and men become professors and doctors. I don't like sexism in any form.

So you'd only be cool with it if a son became a nurse but a daughter became a doctor? Sorry to hijack this, but the point I'm trying to make is that parents who invest all this money in private schools sometimes are micromanaging their children's futures in a way that doesn't sit well with me.

Yes, I wouldn't be thrilled ... but for a different reason than your supposition. I hate it when women are relegated to teachers or nurses and men become professors and doctors. I don't like sexism in any form.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are a luxury and I'm glad DH and I both worked our asses off to be able to afford it.

I hope your child pays dividends on this investment for which you made such a sacrifice. Would it bother you if your child became a teacher or a nurse?

Anonymous wrote:We paid for private (preK-12; earned income, no FA or grandparental contribution) and I'd be happy if DC became a teacher or an EMT. We never saw private school as an income-maximization strategy. Wanted DC to get a great, well-rounded education and come out of it with enough curiosity about the world to last her a lifetime. That's what I got out of my education (which wasn't private until college) and I'm so grateful to my parents for setting me on that path.

Oops -- should add that I'm not the poster (11:12) to whom the question was posed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Privates are an absolute luxury and most people simply can't afford them. So there is no use in making the majority of the population feel bad. We limited ourselves to having one child so we could afford private.

My sons are best friends and spend every moment together they can. They will always have each other. I'm floored that you think private school is more important than a sibling relationship.

+1

We paid for private (preK-12; earned income, no FA or grandparental contribution) and I'd be happy if DC became a teacher or an EMT. We never saw private school as an income-maximization strategy. Wanted DC to get a great, well-rounded education and come out of it with enough curiosity about the world to last her a lifetime. That's what I got out of my education (which wasn't private until college) and I'm so grateful to my parents for setting me on that path.

Anonymous wrote:They are a luxury and I'm glad DH and I both worked our asses off to be able to afford it.

I hope your child pays dividends on this investment for which you made such a sacrifice. Would it bother you if your child became a teacher or a nurse?

Anonymous wrote:Privates are an absolute luxury and most people simply can't afford them. So there is no use in making the majority of the population feel bad. We limited ourselves to having one child so we could afford private.

My sons are best friends and spend every moment together they can. They will always have each other. I'm floored that you think private school is more important than a sibling relationship.