Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Rising scholarship funds to rising college costs

I'd need to see statistics on this claim. What percentage is "some?"

Most of the people around here who send their kids to the Russian Math School and suchlike are tech workers or other professionals. I know this because they're classmates of my kids at private schools and I talk to them. I also see their work badges (a Kumon abuts our local grocery store, and I take one of my kids to the Mathnasium). They also drive expensive cars. Half or more are immigrants.

$2000 a year isn't a lot. Let see I take my son to music lessons ($32 a pop) and Aikido (cheep at $80 per month -- he attends ~2 twice a week). And that adds up quickly. And that is over the $2K a year even saying he doesn't goes to music lesson every week. And that doesn't include summer camps, or the amount I donate to the schools.

And he doesn't do a lot of activites compared to a lot of kids I know. A lot of kids do a lot more, or do a lot more expensive things. Yes, I know a lot of parents can't afford even that.

What difference does it make what the percentage is?


We have a mix of both here (high income, middle income and low income) all sending their kids to after-school enrichment. I don't know the exact percentages, but I do know parents from each SES sending their kids to these types of programs and the motivation is pretty much the same no matter what the SES - they are either sending their children because they see an opportunity for learning above and beyond what the children are receiving in school and because they perceive that opportunity to be worthy of the investment in time/money. None of the parents I know would qualify as "tiger" parents who are pushing their children beyond their children's ability, they are simply parents who value education and see it as a means to an end. For some of the parents, that end is "catching up" their children who have fallen behind in regular school and aren't receiving the extra help they need because their children don't qualify for it. For others the goal is adding on extra enrichment that just isn't present in a curriculum aimed squarely at the bottom-half-of-average (in our area). I'd say that quite a few of the parents who send their kids to these enrichment programs are immigrants who purposely worked hard and studied hard to get here to the US. They see education here as the key to success and they are giving their children everything they can to help them find the key, to give them a better life. I don't see that as triggering or pampering in any way, shape, or form - that's simply parenting in the way that fits a family the best.

I also know, having friends who are immigrants, that it's not always easy to come to the US and find work at the professional level you were working in previously in your country of origin, unless you were brought over to the US *by* a company who needed you or unless you came to the US on a student visa and graduated from college here. There's a good chance that some of the immigrants who are in low-paying jobs and sacrificing salaries for education for their children are people who would have been working as engineers, professors, medical professionals, architects etc back in their home countries - but they all saw something to strive for in coming here, and they all have hopes that their children will have good options going into college and careers. Bottom line is, most of us parents all want the same thing for our children - health, happiness, a bit of a challenge intellectually, and an opportunity for an adulthood that is filled with stability, possibilities and love

polarbear

The claim is that hard work is resulting in advantages to the kids. My counterpoint is that parental ability to pay has a lot to do with it (hence, pampering/primping/hothousing).

I have no doubt that there some people who send their kids to academic tutoring centers of one kind or another have incomes that are low compared to the average in that particular group. But that doesn't make them truly low-income. Truly low-income people don't have that kind of money, full stop. And they can't take time off work to drive their kids to these places.

Let's not lose sight of HowlerKarma's original point, which was that a lot of the kids competing for merit-based scholarship money are generally pretty privileged kids.

Of course, I am not in a position to rule out incompetence on the part of the district and stupidity on the part of the students/parents but I would be rather surprised based on my past experience.

Actually, that was kind of what I was envisioning when I started this new thread. Lots of kids with good grades but nowhere near the top are getting scholarship money.

These ideas can be reconciled. Some affluent parents pay people to make their children work harder than they otherwise would, as occurs when I send a child to a math camp or afterschool program. It's strange to call it "pampering". Does anyone say that the Williams sisters became great tennis players because their father "pampered" them from an early age?

Well, I am sure that the competition is usually fierce enough that you would want to do a cost-benefit analysis accounting for probability as well. Perhaps the odds are somewhat improved for the applicants due to the many kids opting out of applying.

Since we are not currently undergoing this process, I really don't have an opinion as to the feasibility of gaining a significant contribution from these miscellaneous sources. Interestingly, one of the upcoming DYS seminars is about scholarship funds and will be conducted by a recent graduate who received significant scholarship funding. I didn't sign up as my kids are still so young and spaces are limited but perhaps I will go read some of it when Davidson opens it after the seminar concludes.

LOL. I suppose it's a question of perspective. Personally, I don't have a problem with most narrow targeted scholarships. After all, we want people to make charitable contributions so it makes sense that they should have a right to control to whom their money goes.

Things must have changed. I seem to recall that at least some National Merit Scholars used to get more substantial awards.