Kids, education and generational wealth

[Lordosis]

I don't know. Some kids are lazy. Or maybe not lazy but they lack the long view. I remember being a kids and feeling that I had to play sports. I felt this way because my parents told me "you have to play a sport every season or get a job." Sometimes I did not want to but I did. I am now glad I did. There is only a small window to be able to do some things like sports or band, or be in the musical. It is way harder to try these things out after high school.

I do not play the piano but everyone I know who does learned it because their parents made them. And they all pretty much agree that they remember not liking it at the time but glad they learned.

I think it all comes down to moderation. Choose your battles and push enough without pushing too much.

[F0017S0]

You are basically saying life is a "black box". Very few of us will get everything we want but we need to make the best of it.

I don't disagree with you about children being pushed too hard, but that is the fault of the parents IMO. Life goes on if they go to a state college (I did) or a trade occupation instead of an Ivy league school. Likely won't be a Supreme court justice, but who cares?

Life is a series of lotteries that begins with a lottery: the "ovarian lottery". Fast forward some number of years to grade school, high school, and college, those are lotteries, too. Same thing with getting jobs. But we don't call those lotteries becasue we want the veneer of "meritocracy". One "earned" his or her way into an Ivy (or the job), many other equally-qualified did not "earn" their ways in. In some cases, I think that's a lie we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better. I think a clear definition of the standards (for admission, getting the job, whatever), welcome as many people into the pool who are qualified based on those standards, then randomly select the winner(s) transparently; not using the veneer of a "holistic review" to make ourselves feel better about our processes.

Believe me, I taught many nimrods at the Ivy I attended; there is nothing special there and all I have to show for it is a fancy piece of paper for my wall and maybe the small possibility that it will be beneficial professionally and for future educational endeavors...

[StarTrekDoc]

Most people don't like learning new things or items that require practice. It's our responsibility as parents to do that. How MUCH we push and stress and WHAT we choose differs . Music is just one of many genres . Sports. Outdoors craftsmanship. Art. All require exposure and repetition . IMHO the more exposure the better well rounded a child can be and choice to concentrate on their own Accord during teens.

Then again that takes A LOT of energy and commitment to be that renessaince parent to their kid

[bovie]

Life is a series of lotteries that begins with a lottery: the "ovarian lottery". Fast forward some number of years to grade school, high school, and college, those are lotteries, too. Same thing with getting jobs. But we don't call those lotteries becasue we want the veneer of "meritocracy". One "earned" his or her way into an Ivy (or the job), many other equally-qualified did not "earn" their ways in. In some cases, I think that's a lie we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better. I think a clear definition of the standards (for admission, getting the job, whatever), welcome as many people into the pool who are qualified based on those standards, then randomly select the winner(s) transparently; not using the veneer of a "holistic review" to make ourselves feel better about our processes.

Believe me, I taught many nimrods at the Ivy I attended; there is nothing special there and all I have to show for it is a fancy piece of paper for my wall and maybe the small possibility that it will be beneficial professionally and for future educational endeavors...

Getting into a college and getting a job are hardly equivalent to a lottery.

[Sampter]

Life is a series of lotteries that begins with a lottery: the "ovarian lottery". Fast forward some number of years to grade school, high school, and college, those are lotteries, too. Same thing with getting jobs. But we don't call those lotteries becasue we want the veneer of "meritocracy". One "earned" his or her way into an Ivy (or the job), many other equally-qualified did not "earn" their ways in. In some cases, I think that's a lie we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better. I think a clear definition of the standards (for admission, getting the job, whatever), welcome as many people into the pool who are qualified based on those standards, then randomly select the winner(s) transparently; not using the veneer of a "holistic review" to make ourselves feel better about our processes.

Believe me, I taught many nimrods at the Ivy I attended; there is nothing special there and all I have to show for it is a fancy piece of paper for my wall and maybe the small possibility that it will be beneficial professionally and for future educational endeavors...

There are a lot of non-standard attributes for people that can't be put on a checklist. Someone with a lot of negative energy for instance may look good on paper, but no way would you want to work with them on a daily basis. Its life, it isn't fair sometimes.

[F0017S0]

Getting into a college and getting a job are hardly equivalent to a lottery.

Very respectfully disagree, Sir/Ma'am. Thousands of students apply every year to name-brand colleges for the 1500-2000 spots available. Many of those students have identical credentials (valedictorian, perfect College Board scores, APs up the wazoo, et cetera). How can you plausibly delineate between any two students fighting over that spot? At that point, it is a lottery who gets in and who doesn't. We just call it "holistic review" to try and make ourselves feel better...

[F0017S0]

There are a lot of non-standard attributes for people that can't be put on a checklist. Someone with a lot of negative energy for instance may look good on paper, but no way would you want to work with them on a daily basis. Its life, it isn't fair sometimes.

Agree, but if you happen to randomly select someone from a hypothetical pool of qualified candidates, and that first selection fails miserably, jettison the person in question and select again. You are bound to eventually find someone who would do just fine...

[bovie]

Very respectfully disagree, Sir/Ma'am. Thousands of students apply every year to name-brand colleges for the 1500-2000 spots available. Many of those students have identical credentials (valedictorian, perfect College Board scores, APs up the wazoo, et cetera). How can you plausibly delineate between any two students fighting over that spot? At that point, it is a lottery who gets in and who doesn't. We just call it "holistic review" to try and make ourselves feel better...

If you truly believe that the process of applying to college and for a job affords the same degree of delineation between candidates as that by which a Powerball winner is selected...then clearly you don't play the Powerball.

First of all, you've already made delineations by saying students have identical credentials. This of course is untrue for the vast majority of applicants--so you've already narrowed your field. Sure there may be more than 2000 potential candidates for those 2000 spots, but you can't tell me that all 40,000 applicants are equally qualified.

And once you've gotten down to those last few thousand, you think there are no further metrics by which to make a decision? Valedictorians are not all equal, recommendation letters are not all equal, interviews are not all equal, AP classes are not all equal, extracurriculars are not all equal, etc.

If there were enough spots for all "potentially" qualified students then it wouldn't be a very selective process now would it?

It's anything but a perfect system, but it's also certainly anything other than pure unadulterated chance.

For a select few--very few--students, it is perhaps something approaching chance only in that schools may be trying to round out certain attributes of a class. But you're talking about the whole system, not a very very small subset.

That's for college. For a job...come one. Chance has nothing to do with it.

[AR]

Chance has nothing to do with it.

You were doing great until the very end. There is always at least some chance. We can argue over how little there is, but arguing that it has zero effect (i.e. "chance has nothing to do with it") is obviously wrong.

[bovie]

You were doing great until the very end. There is always at least some chance. We can argue over how little there is, but arguing that it has zero effect (i.e. "chance has nothing to do with it") is obviously wrong.

You can say that about literally anything, if you're really looking to pick some nits. Kind of misses the point though, don't you think?

Of every reasonable variable that goes into getting a job, chance has the smallest effect. So yes, comparatively, nothing to do with it.

[ObgynMD]

You can say that about literally anything, if you're really looking to pick some nits. Kind of misses the point though, don't you think?

Of every reasonable variable that goes into getting a job, chance has the smallest effect. So yes, comparatively, nothing to do with it.

I don’t think it’s either/or. I am lucky to live in the US. I’m lucky my parents paved the way for me to have the chance to go to college. Luck opened the door, and preparation/hard work kept me in the room.

It would be short sighted to say all of my successes are my own. My success was built on the backs of my grandparents and parents who worked their tails off so their kids and grandkids could have a better future. My success is also due to women before me who fought for the right to equal education/the right to go to medical school. Hard work alone is hardly enough without the backdrop of fortunate events that were outside our control.

But I own the blood, sweat and tears I put in as well. It’s best to be lucky and good.

[Shant]

C'mon Bovie, have you never been on a hiring committee? Everybody ranks the candidates in a different order. Just the outcome of who gets stuck with the committee duty this year has a huge impact on who "the top" candidate is.

[bovie]

C'mon Bovie, have you never been on a hiring committee? Everybody ranks the candidates in a different order. Just the outcome of who gets stuck with the committee duty this year has a huge impact on who "the top" candidate is.

I have actually. Which is why I’m making this point.

The fact that people rank candidates differently using separate criteria is not the same as the process being equivalent to chance.

[F0017S0]

I wanted to give others a chance to respond...

I got my current role (soon to be former role) because I made a phone call at the "right time". Had I called sometime unknown in the future (maybe a week or two later), I wouldn't have gotten that opportunity. It was pretty random that I picked up the phone and I beat out the other 40 applicants; by chance, I knew someone who helped me get to the head of the line. By chance those people said the "wrong" comments in their interviews. To use the hiring committee example, there is a chance I might not have connected well with someone, and their opinion from a 30 minute conversation torpedoes my candidacy. Totally random that I ended up with a person with whom I did not click...

I do believe there are critical junctures in those black boxes where it is effectively a throw of the metaphorical dice; we just put lipstick on the pig to make ourselves feel better about it...

[Shant]

I have actually. Which is why I’m making this point.

The fact that people rank candidates differently using separate criteria is not the same as the process being equivalent to chance.

Ah I see, you and I have different definitions of chance.