I'll put it to you this way. If you child was an expert on Stonehenge, would you take him to see it? There's only one. He's read all the books, he's seen all the documentaries, he's created artwork, dioramas, written essays. The only thing he hasn't done is see Stonehenge. No local US university will have Stonehenge. No local US university will even likely have people studying Stonehenge. Now luckily my son isn't interested in Stonehenge, because that's in a different country and would cost even more to visit. But the situation is the same. I totally understand saying, "Sorry, you can't visit Stonehenge. Maybe in twenty years when you've earned your own money..." That's just reality. But I still think it's a shame.
I'm afraid this analogy doesn't really help me to see your point of view. No, I wouldn't necessarily take my son to see Stonehenge if he were expert on it (even though I'm already in the UK!). If it were possible to arrange for a family holiday to be in the area so that we could visit it and do so at reasonable cost, then sure, I'd consider it, but I'm not getting the "it has to be this and nothing else" aspect. He'd be interested in it from some point of view - prehistoric history, perhaps, or astronomy, or geology - and whatever the aspect of interest was, there'd be a choice of ways to support it. I don't understand what this interest can possibly be that can
only be supported by spending $2,500 - and you're choosing not to explain. My child is expert in several things, several of which
could be well supported by trips costing that kind of amount (for example, he'd love to visit Yellowstone), but I don't understand the fixation and therefore it's difficult to regard your inability to spend that amount as a thing to sympathise greatly with - I agree with whoever it was who said that even if there
were a grant that would support this kind of thing, I'd probably disapprove, and feel that there were better ways of spending that money.
I disagree that most parents would not take their child on an expensive trip. 90% of my friends have taken their kids to Disney--more than once--and that's absolutely frivolous.
Really? 90% of your friends have taken their kids to Disney more than once?
In my experience, expensive trips (whatever "expensive" means to the family in question) are usually family holidays, i.e. chosen for the benefit of the family as a whole and saved up for all year (or longer). I type this from a ski resort; skiing is my family's indulgence in that respect. I couldn't spend the same kind of money again in a year, and I couldn't justify doing it for the benefit of only one family member. That's what I meant when I said I wouldn't; not that I wouldn't spend that money, but that "he's expert on this thing" wouldn't be a sufficient reason to do it.
Living in Britain (as I did for a while), it can be hard to comprehend how far apart things are in the US. The distance between Scotland and England is similar to the distance between, say, Lubbock and Austin--and those are both in the same state! It's only a six or seven hour drive. If someone in the US wants to travel from, let's say, Austin to Seattle, it's at least a two-day drive (maybe longer with little children in the car). And you have to stay in hotels along the way, stop to eat, stay in a hotel when you reach your destination. You can't just turn around and drive home the next day, or hop on a train like you can in GB. The train here costs as much as an airplane, but takes as long as a drive.
Sure, but I don't see the relevance of this paragraph. I don't think I said anything to suggest that I didn't understand the large distances that exist in the US.
