Ah, the modern high-end American college preparatory education: Cramming in as many honors and AP (or even IB) classes as humanly possible (and sometimes more); SAT, ACT, and college application essay tutors, as well as tutors for every "weak" subject; struggling to fill community service requirements and otherwise fill time with extracurriculars, internships, and jobs to please the admissions department of your top choice school. It's strenuous enough during high school, but are some people trying to get a head start a bit too early?
In New York, there are $400-per-hour "playdate consultants" who monitor the actions of preschool-aged children during play as well as teach them and their parents how please the admissions departments of the most elite preschools and kindergartens. This surprised many people, but should it really, at this point? The college admissions process that I went through the year before last left me as jaded as I possibly could be about the subject, so it came as no surprise to me.
I used to say something along the lines of "If you get a 6.0 GPA, devote 25 hours per day of your time to extracurriculars and community service, get a 2500 on the SAT and 900s on the SAT subject tests, get a 37 on the ACT with writing, and 7s on all of your AP exams (for those of you unfamiliar with the American educational system, those are impossible numbers), then you have a slight chance of getting into ITT Tech" during my senior year of high school. As you could imagine from someone who would say that, the college application process was hell for me, even though I got into my top choice school. I applied to a whopping twenty-two schools (although six of them were a part of the University of California system, which has a single application and the individual schools don't have extensive supplements, so it was a bit easier than expected, but only slightly). I didn't necessarily want to apply to that many schools, but my family was so afraid of any failure to get into a "good" school that they didn't take any chances.
My school, George Washington University, is excellent in my field (political science) and I love it with all my heart, but that's beside the point: It's not a part of the absolute pinnacle of American tertiary education, the Ivy League and the like.
Most people are concerned about being able to pay for high-quality tertiary education. But what about those who don't worry about that and worry instead about getting into the "best" schools? I am a part of the latter group. It's easy to dismiss this as "rich-kid problems", but this effects everyone.
I found a comment on a Wall Street Journal article detailing the subject of "playdate consultants" from three years ago:
Oh my God, this guy actually thinks that the more well-to-do are concerned about sending their children to the Ivy League and the like solely for the education! *hearty laughter* Ha ha, no! While I'm sure that an Ivy League education is in a class of excellence entirely its own, the real reason that they're so concerned about their children getting into the "right" schools is so that their children can form valuable friendships and acquaintanceships that could possibly advance them in their fields, otherwise known as "buying connections". The parents' first priority is not necessarily education for their children (to say that education is not one of the main priorities would just be unfair), but rather getting access to a network that will enable their children to make friends in high places. It's sad, but it's true.
In addition, I found a blog post commenting on "playdate consultants" critiquing the concept of "playdates" as a whole:
No, there are often no "neighborhood kids" in the neighborhoods where the well-to-do call home. I haven't lived in a house even near a sidewalk in thirteen years. When I lived in Bel-Air, there were no "neighborhood kids". It's the same situation now: I live in a gated community just outside of Calabasas with six households total. Again, there never were and are no real "neighborhood kids". The kids can't drive, so they really can't do anything to help that situation, not to mention that the lot of them are so overscheduled that they might not even know how to play with other children in the first place.
Let's just state the obvious here: This is ridiculous. You shouldn't have to do anything like hiring a "playdate consultant" in order to give your children a better lease on life, but such is becoming the way of the world. Now, if you'd excuse me, I've got to set my future children on the path to Exeter so that they can be valedictorians at Yale.
In New York, there are $400-per-hour "playdate consultants" who monitor the actions of preschool-aged children during play as well as teach them and their parents how please the admissions departments of the most elite preschools and kindergartens. This surprised many people, but should it really, at this point? The college admissions process that I went through the year before last left me as jaded as I possibly could be about the subject, so it came as no surprise to me.
I used to say something along the lines of "If you get a 6.0 GPA, devote 25 hours per day of your time to extracurriculars and community service, get a 2500 on the SAT and 900s on the SAT subject tests, get a 37 on the ACT with writing, and 7s on all of your AP exams (for those of you unfamiliar with the American educational system, those are impossible numbers), then you have a slight chance of getting into ITT Tech" during my senior year of high school. As you could imagine from someone who would say that, the college application process was hell for me, even though I got into my top choice school. I applied to a whopping twenty-two schools (although six of them were a part of the University of California system, which has a single application and the individual schools don't have extensive supplements, so it was a bit easier than expected, but only slightly). I didn't necessarily want to apply to that many schools, but my family was so afraid of any failure to get into a "good" school that they didn't take any chances.
My school, George Washington University, is excellent in my field (political science) and I love it with all my heart, but that's beside the point: It's not a part of the absolute pinnacle of American tertiary education, the Ivy League and the like.
Most people are concerned about being able to pay for high-quality tertiary education. But what about those who don't worry about that and worry instead about getting into the "best" schools? I am a part of the latter group. It's easy to dismiss this as "rich-kid problems", but this effects everyone.
I found a comment on a Wall Street Journal article detailing the subject of "playdate consultants" from three years ago:
Ironically, parents who strive for 'Big Brand' schools are chasing declining quality. Of course 'elite' pre/primary schools are an absurd predictor/preparer/indicator of a life to be fulfilled by the child, but even bigger brands should be called to account. If people think this prepares for Harvard, Princeton, or other top-brand schools, consider the destination.
Oh my God, this guy actually thinks that the more well-to-do are concerned about sending their children to the Ivy League and the like solely for the education! *hearty laughter* Ha ha, no! While I'm sure that an Ivy League education is in a class of excellence entirely its own, the real reason that they're so concerned about their children getting into the "right" schools is so that their children can form valuable friendships and acquaintanceships that could possibly advance them in their fields, otherwise known as "buying connections". The parents' first priority is not necessarily education for their children (to say that education is not one of the main priorities would just be unfair), but rather getting access to a network that will enable their children to make friends in high places. It's sad, but it's true.
In addition, I found a blog post commenting on "playdate consultants" critiquing the concept of "playdates" as a whole:
I never really understood 'play dates' when I was growing up we went outside and played with the neighborhood kids. When I was raising the boy same thing. Do parents that 'schedule' play dates not have neighborhood kids? Do you not trust them? I’m so confused by this play date concept. Growing up if we went over a friends house we just went over a friends house. My mom didn’t call my friend’s mom talking about lets set up a time for our kids to play your kids should be playing anyway.
No, there are often no "neighborhood kids" in the neighborhoods where the well-to-do call home. I haven't lived in a house even near a sidewalk in thirteen years. When I lived in Bel-Air, there were no "neighborhood kids". It's the same situation now: I live in a gated community just outside of Calabasas with six households total. Again, there never were and are no real "neighborhood kids". The kids can't drive, so they really can't do anything to help that situation, not to mention that the lot of them are so overscheduled that they might not even know how to play with other children in the first place.
Let's just state the obvious here: This is ridiculous. You shouldn't have to do anything like hiring a "playdate consultant" in order to give your children a better lease on life, but such is becoming the way of the world. Now, if you'd excuse me, I've got to set my future children on the path to Exeter so that they can be valedictorians at Yale.