From my new favorite website!
Funny story; When my sister and brother in law had recently found out they were going to have a baby. They decided to make a monthly budget and my brother in law made a list (I'm making up the numbers): It's funny because he hadn't realized how much his son was going to actually cost given their style of life and what a kid costs with their expectations. -Much more than he allocated. But yeah, they don't have to be expensive and never should be. Things shouldn't be "expensive" or else you shouldn't do them. If a restaurant is "expensive," then you shouldn't be eating there. There are things that I would consider "expensive" and therefore, I don't partake. However, if you can afford a choice and you find value in making it, go for it. EDIT: As for the "Ivy League Preschool," a lot of that has to do with where you live. Some public school's really do suck and therefore you want to pay for your kid to have a better option. In about 4 months my 3 year old daughter will be starting a spanish emersion Montessori school. Why? Because it kicks ass. I spent two days auditing the classrooms and it really is something special. It's not $30k, but it's not free either. Not sure if that qualifies as "Ivy League Preschool Syndrome," but if it does, that's fine by me. We've done our due diligence on this and I'm completely cool with it. That said, I've never complained once that kids are "expensive."So why do people think kids are so expensive to raise? They weren’t expensive to raise for most of the history of our species, or even most of the tiny slice of history since the Industrial Revolution. But now, all of a sudden people think it costs a million dollars to raise a child
It's true, raising kids doesn't cost a lot of money unless you make it cost a lot of money. Just like traveling doesn't cost a lot of money, it's all relative.
When my sister looked at the list she asked, "where's the baby?" To which my bro-in-law replied, "Oh, I put him in with the groceries." Mortage: $1200
Car/Gas/Insurance: $300
Groceries: $300
Savings: $300
Yeah, expensive pre-school is a bunch of bullshit. You and I both know that good parents are more important than good schooling, and that you can fail the shit out of high school and be pretty damn successful in the world. I would argue that school is the most overrated thing in our society.
You and I both know that good parents are more important than good schooling
-Of course but that doesn't mean I want my kids schooling to suffer. If I have the resources for a pre-school that I think is ideal for our family, of course I'll procure it.
I've disagreed with basically all of hubski on this issue before, that most knowledge can be self-taught to the extent that "bad" public schools versus "good" ones, especially at certain ages, is an unimportant distinction. (Bad sometimes means dangerous, of course. That's a huge factor.) I think the author of this post would agree with me -- if you spend your child's time outside of school correctly, it won't matter if she's the only bright spot in a bad school, or one of a crowd in a good one. Maybe. Any choice has a massive influence on your child's life; the sheer importance is hard to grapple with. However, if you can pay for it, picking good over bad, or over not examining the choice either way and going to the nearest option, probably can't hurt at all. It's the people who bankrupt themselves for silly reasons and cause money to be a constant worry in their son's childhood who get to me. That's the sort of psychological issue that sticks with someone.EDIT: As for the "Ivy League Preschool," a lot of that has to do with where you live. Some public school's really do suck and therefore you want to pay for your kid to have a better option. In about 4 months my 3 year old daughter will be starting a spanish emersion Montessori school. Why? Because it kicks ass. I spent two days auditing the classrooms and it really is something special. It's not $30k, but it's not free either. Not sure if that qualifies as "Ivy League Preschool Syndrome," but if it does, that's fine by me. We've done our due diligence on this and I'm completely cool with it. That said, I've never complained once that kids are "expensive."
School AI've disagreed with basically all of hubski on this issue before, that most knowledge can be self-taught to the extent that "bad" public schools versus "good" ones, especially at certain ages, is an unimportant distinction.
I'll call bullshit. You can be the biggest go-getter, self starter in the world but take these two examples and tell me there would be an "unimportant distinction"
School B Has only a few computers for entire student population. Runs on dial-up still
Has teachers that are underpaid and have to work second jobs on nights and weekends
Has no extracurricular activities
Has antiquated text-books
These things matter. A lot. Has computers in every classroom with high speed Internet
Has teachers that are well compensated and dedicated to their profession alone
Has debate club, science club, young astronauts, a baseball team, recreational equipment, a physics lab, a drama dept with a theater, a school band etc etc etc
Has up to date textbooks and curriculum
I'm with you. in some cases, the disparity is even greater than it is between the hypothetical schools you listed. Jonathan Kozol's text, Savage Inequalities, shows an example of this by looking at two schools in the same county in New Jersey. I forget the specifics, but one receives something like $10,000 annually per student in funding while the other sees just a few hundred dollars. in schools like the latter, textbooks are not only antiquated, but also limited; they are often shared between multiple students, leaving many with none to take notes or study from overnight. classes are taught in supply closets because the schools have inadequate space. the teachers are often less experienced and skilled than the ones in the wealthier district because those ones get the higher-paying jobs. the result is that not very much is learned, standardized test scores (flawed measure of knowledge though they are) suffer, and drop-out rates are high. obviously, these are social issues as well as academic ones, but the point is that education can't be entirely divorced from resource availability or school quality. I'm as charmed by the notion of the autodidact as anyone, but it's hard for me to assume the poor performance of the less fortunate kids is their own doing rather than an uneven playing field. and let's not forget that, to teach oneself, one must value learning and be motivated to pursue it. how valuable does education seem if one's school / town / state can't even supply him or her a textbook or a classroom?
That's fine. I mean, you have personal experience from the parenting side with this stuff, which is hard to trump or argue against. I firmly believe that brilliance will out, as it were. I shouldn't call it unimportant -- to some students it's vital; but to others it doesn't matter a whit. From personal experience, I guess.
Like b_b said, parents are what it comes down to. They tend to instill the curiosity in a child that nurtures brilliance. What a good school can provide are the tools to satiate that curiosity. That's important stuff and you might be shocked at how early the thirst for satiation occurs.
Yeah I agree very much with what b_b said. The tools have to come from somewhere, but I can't help but think of (the obviously exceptional) Abraham Lincoln. He had no "tools", so he walked miles to his neighbor's houses to borrow books and he taught himself to read. School is an easier way for some, but isn't all-important.