Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think private tuition for college is only worth it if your kid can get into a top 10 (maybe top 15) school; if they can get into an ivy or Stanford, Chicago/Caltech/MIT or the like -- I can consider parents doing everything possible to make it happen.
But what I really don't get is the parents (who are not independently wealthy) killing themselves to make sure that their princess can go to her dream school -- Boston U or Babson or Middlebury or whatever. I say if you can't make the cut for the top 10, go to your in-state school. The education offered is no different and the name on the resume just doesn't mean anything once you get below a certain level. If you're an engineer from MIT or a finance grad from Wharton/UPenn -- that stands out in some circles and often for life; but your typical person and hiring manager cannot tell you whether a chemistry degree from Maryland is any better or worse than one from Boston U.
Now if the parents are independently wealthy -- do whatever you want. I just don't see killing myself or letting a kid take out HUGE loans bc they can imagine themselves on a certain campus -- I guarantee they'll be fine on some other, cheaper campus as well.
100% agree. Every word. No kid of mine is going to Davidson or University of Richmond. NFW.
+1. Add to this -- I also wouldn't pay out of state tuition to go to a state school in another state because a program is marginally better. If we're still living in Maryland by the time DCs are 18, they are going to UMD. I don't particularly care if Penn State or Rutgers has an undergrad business school or engineering school or whatever ranked 10 places higher than UMD and frankly I don't think hiring managers care either because they don't keep rankings memorized; I think they look at a resume they see -- ok -- big northeastern state school, how well did applicant do there. Now if they can get themselves into a Wharton undergrad or Sloan (MIT) business school then that's a different ballgame and I'll do what I can to make it happen bc those schools do open doors to different kinds of jobs at higher salaries and offer different types of mobility over the years -- I've seen it time and time again. Same thing with fields like engineering -- Caltech, MIT etc. are show stoppers -- otherwise state school like everyone else.
+2. The hand-wringing I've seen on this forum about DCs potentially attending a state school is ludicrous.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think private tuition for college is only worth it if your kid can get into a top 10 (maybe top 15) school; if they can get into an ivy or Stanford, Chicago/Caltech/MIT or the like -- I can consider parents doing everything possible to make it happen.
But what I really don't get is the parents (who are not independently wealthy) killing themselves to make sure that their princess can go to her dream school -- Boston U or Babson or Middlebury or whatever. I say if you can't make the cut for the top 10, go to your in-state school. The education offered is no different and the name on the resume just doesn't mean anything once you get below a certain level. If you're an engineer from MIT or a finance grad from Wharton/UPenn -- that stands out in some circles and often for life; but your typical person and hiring manager cannot tell you whether a chemistry degree from Maryland is any better or worse than one from Boston U.
Now if the parents are independently wealthy -- do whatever you want. I just don't see killing myself or letting a kid take out HUGE loans bc they can imagine themselves on a certain campus -- I guarantee they'll be fine on some other, cheaper campus as well.
100% agree. Every word. No kid of mine is going to Davidson or University of Richmond. NFW.
+1. Add to this -- I also wouldn't pay out of state tuition to go to a state school in another state because a program is marginally better. If we're still living in Maryland by the time DCs are 18, they are going to UMD. I don't particularly care if Penn State or Rutgers has an undergrad business school or engineering school or whatever ranked 10 places higher than UMD and frankly I don't think hiring managers care either because they don't keep rankings memorized; I think they look at a resume they see -- ok -- big northeastern state school, how well did applicant do there. Now if they can get themselves into a Wharton undergrad or Sloan (MIT) business school then that's a different ballgame and I'll do what I can to make it happen bc those schools do open doors to different kinds of jobs at higher salaries and offer different types of mobility over the years -- I've seen it time and time again. Same thing with fields like engineering -- Caltech, MIT etc. are show stoppers -- otherwise state school like everyone else.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think private tuition for college is only worth it if your kid can get into a top 10 (maybe top 15) school; if they can get into an ivy or Stanford, Chicago/Caltech/MIT or the like -- I can consider parents doing everything possible to make it happen.
But what I really don't get is the parents (who are not independently wealthy) killing themselves to make sure that their princess can go to her dream school -- Boston U or Babson or Middlebury or whatever. I say if you can't make the cut for the top 10, go to your in-state school. The education offered is no different and the name on the resume just doesn't mean anything once you get below a certain level. If you're an engineer from MIT or a finance grad from Wharton/UPenn -- that stands out in some circles and often for life; but your typical person and hiring manager cannot tell you whether a chemistry degree from Maryland is any better or worse than one from Boston U.
Now if the parents are independently wealthy -- do whatever you want. I just don't see killing myself or letting a kid take out HUGE loans bc they can imagine themselves on a certain campus -- I guarantee they'll be fine on some other, cheaper campus as well.
100% agree. Every word. No kid of mine is going to Davidson or University of Richmond. NFW.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I really, really like smoking weed.
Is that a strong minority? Cause I really, really like smoking weed.
Word.
Anonymous wrote:I think private tuition for college is only worth it if your kid can get into a top 10 (maybe top 15) school; if they can get into an ivy or Stanford, Chicago/Caltech/MIT or the like -- I can consider parents doing everything possible to make it happen.
But what I really don't get is the parents (who are not independently wealthy) killing themselves to make sure that their princess can go to her dream school -- Boston U or Babson or Middlebury or whatever. I say if you can't make the cut for the top 10, go to your in-state school. The education offered is no different and the name on the resume just doesn't mean anything once you get below a certain level. If you're an engineer from MIT or a finance grad from Wharton/UPenn -- that stands out in some circles and often for life; but your typical person and hiring manager cannot tell you whether a chemistry degree from Maryland is any better or worse than one from Boston U.
Now if the parents are independently wealthy -- do whatever you want. I just don't see killing myself or letting a kid take out HUGE loans bc they can imagine themselves on a certain campus -- I guarantee they'll be fine on some other, cheaper campus as well.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I really, really like smoking weed.
Is that a strong minority? Cause I really, really like smoking weed.
nmAnonymous wrote:I think Humans of New York on Facebook is stupid, and the cult like following of that site by my friends is ridiculous. They feel so good and uplifted by commenting on other peoples' tough lives -- as if they even understand -- and truly think their words of encouragement are SO important.
Anonymous wrote:I really, really like smoking weed.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm asexual
What does that mean exactly?
I grew up in a small town and married a guy I love. I'm not aromantic, I genuinely did fall in love, and still am in love with my husband. After a few years of having no interest in sex and finding it a bit repulsive, with no interest in being sexually touched, I figured it was just the usual "getting to know my body" stuff. Then I had a few years of thinking possibly I was lesbian, and finally came to realize that I'm just not sexually attracted to people. My husband has had other sexual partners, which I okayed (no need to ask further questions about that.) Basically, I don't like sexual contact. It's not obvious or anything, and I masturbate occasionally (don't know why I have no problem with that. Confuses me somewhat, still) It really isn't a big deal in my life, and I think it's more common than it seems. I can't quite define it, but I don't really mind it. Just is.
I have a few serious questions to ask you.
Where you ever sexually abused?
Did you grow up in a strict and religious household that viewed sex as repulsive?
Do you think that you and your husband were never sexually compatible?
Have you ever had sex with another person to see if you like it or not? The reason I ask this is because you seem to have no problem with masturbating. So, I wouldn't say that you're asexual. You don't seem to like sex with your husband. Do you think that his technique just doesn't do it for you or are you just repulsive about the act of sex itself?
The answer is no to all but the last (yes, I met my husband several years after losing my virginity) Apparently, says my therapist, there are asexual people who masturbate. I'll go to the internet to further explore this, just never bothered.
Totally agree. I just am not that geared up for sex anymore and I'm mid 30s. Masturbate periodically but it's just a release/boredom thing. I could go without. Some people just aren't as wired for sexuality as others/most. It's not a sign of trauma or ignorance.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm asexual
What does that mean exactly?
I grew up in a small town and married a guy I love. I'm not aromantic, I genuinely did fall in love, and still am in love with my husband. After a few years of having no interest in sex and finding it a bit repulsive, with no interest in being sexually touched, I figured it was just the usual "getting to know my body" stuff. Then I had a few years of thinking possibly I was lesbian, and finally came to realize that I'm just not sexually attracted to people. My husband has had other sexual partners, which I okayed (no need to ask further questions about that.) Basically, I don't like sexual contact. It's not obvious or anything, and I masturbate occasionally (don't know why I have no problem with that. Confuses me somewhat, still) It really isn't a big deal in my life, and I think it's more common than it seems. I can't quite define it, but I don't really mind it. Just is.
I have a few serious questions to ask you.
Where you ever sexually abused?
Did you grow up in a strict and religious household that viewed sex as repulsive?
Do you think that you and your husband were never sexually compatible?
Have you ever had sex with another person to see if you like it or not? The reason I ask this is because you seem to have no problem with masturbating. So, I wouldn't say that you're asexual. You don't seem to like sex with your husband. Do you think that his technique just doesn't do it for you or are you just repulsive about the act of sex itself?
The answer is no to all but the last (yes, I met my husband several years after losing my virginity) Apparently, says my therapist, there are asexual people who masturbate. I'll go to the internet to further explore this, just never bothered.