<p>"Her mom did the right thing by homeschooling her." I totally agree!</p>
<p>This was a very inspiring article! Neat to hear from the 'subject' herself, too! Thanks for sharing.</p>
<p>Always so great to hear about parents who broadened their children's experiences as much as possible.</p>
<p>I've done a bit of homeschooling with my 6 year old & this certainly gave a very aspirational picture of what it's possible to provide. </p>
<p>I've been meaning to start French w/my daughter for months---think we'll get some tapes today!</p>
<p>I also totally agree with post 181, in case I'm not being clear! :)</p>
<p>Xiggi, I don't doubt your motivation for coming to the thread, so you don't need to argue with me about that. But we all have our points of view which we tend to repeat -- myself & yourself included. In other threads (I'm not going to research them) you have stated at least once that your particular SAT prep methodology should work for anyone. It doesn't. I don't need to prove that to you. It is empirically true, as it has been reported by others, not just myself, on CC. (My own D's tried it, after a failed math program at their otherwise excellent school with an ill-conceived math curriculum, about which the parents have complained for years, & which have affected the SAT scores of some of their truly brilliant students.) Others have tried it as well. If you have previously acknowledged that it may not work universally, I have not seen you write that, but I apologize if you ever said that.</p>
<p>re: post 183 and the above posts/ apologies to various offended posters-
can we all shake hands now and be "friends"? It would be a nice way to end a thread for a change.</p>
<p>Hand outstretched, mpm. :)</p>
<p>^^^ hand taken gladly!</p>
<p>Epiphany, what is your point here? Are we moving "from sometimes works, but often does not" to having to work all the time in every case? </p>
<p>As far as my statements on the universality of the "method," I think you clearly misrepresent about EVERYTHING I ever wrote on the subject. </p>
<p>I still do not understand why you had to jump onto an item that was not relevant at all to the original post.</p>
<p>^^ oh well, so much for the hope of a peace between posters on this thread. Time for me to move on.</p>
<p>On another note:
Was the reporter correct in assuming that Chelsea had indeed decided on Harvard?</p>
<p>I would love to hear what went into the decision on those great choices and what the ultimate outcome is.
Congratulations and wellwishes go without saying ; )</p>
<p>Again, I think the one dwelling on this is you, xiggi. I'm merely referring to OTHER threads, NOT this one, in which you did state that it should work every time, if only the student does it your way. I have no doubt that such a method works when a sufficient mathematical foundation is the reference point. Truly. :) No, I have not misrepresented your statements, even if those statements do not fully represent your position.
Enough said.</p>
<p>I'm joining the above handshakes as well regarding the previous offer, if it's still being extended. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>;) Hellno. Not me. I'm still ticked no one laughed at my "under the covers with the Lost in Space flashlight" discrete geometry line. ("Just trying to keep it lively." Remember to tip your waiters and waitresses , folks. ;))</p>
<p>(Way OT: And BTW, I was great at Geometry. 9th grade I think. I was already cutting class by then and playing catch up on test day. Never knew any of those dang formulas but I knew there WAS a formula so I could do those proofs. Now, it took me 25 steps when it should take 5 because I had to prove all the underlying stuff .....but hey - I got there eventually.)</p>
<p>Hey, what happened to the icon list that used to come up with the reply box? Oh, well. I was going to stick my tongue out playfully at cur for mocking me again, mockingly. Now I'm limited to lame punctuation icons. ;)</p>
<p>Apart from D 1 and 2's bad geometry program, I notice now in my job position that the geometry teaching, at least in our local publics, is atrocious. Very little teaching of how to get to those proofs! This is really seriously undermining student's math proficiency in high school.</p>
<p>But enough hijacking of the thread....</p>
<p>Thanks for post #174, alchemymom. It's too bad the newspaper article didn't do a more comprehensive job of profiling your approach to your daughter's education, rather than making it read like a parody of an over-the-top "How to Get into Harvard" book, with its emphasis on studying the Irish harp *in Ireland *and learning about Taoism in China, with an abbot, on the country's holiest mountain top. Etc. </p>
<p>Your post did a much better job of describing your daughter's needs and the bold action you took to provide her with an appropriate education and you deserve kudos for your accomplishment. And my sincere congrats to Chelsea for hers. </p>
<p>In cgm's defense, though, it wasn't all the praise and congratulatory posts that goaded you into writing the excellent #174, and the now-anticipated post further detailing the curriculum you designed for Chelsea. It was the sandy grit of cgm's criticism. It truly takes all kinds of posts to make the forum as readable and enlightening as it is.</p>
<p>Oh GAWD CUR! You always succeed in cracking me up! And just when I have taken a sip of tea! Now all I need is a way to permanently shield my keyboard from tea spilt while reading one of your funny posts!</p>
<p>jazzymom, I'm sure Chelsea's mom would have been just as motivated to expand on why she homeschooled her daughter if she had been asked nicely. There is more than 1 way to skin a cat.</p>
<p>I guess I don't read her comments earlier as not being "nice" to someone. She was responding to a newspaper article posted in a chat forum by a third party, not the subjects of the piece. As is her wont, she gave her blunt reaction. Her comments stirred the pot, that's for sure.</p>
<p>I have followed this thread for a bit, and though I am a bit reluctant to post this, I, too, was a bit uncomfortable with this article. Not for anything the student and her family had done/accomplished/said but for the slant the reporter gave to these accomplishments.</p>
<p>This article plugs right into, and reinforces, certain societal/cultural values that I think are quite elitist. It happens at the point where the reporter says the following:</p>
<p>(Parents who can't pry their kids away from the PlayStation should stop reading here.)</p>
<p>Why was this necessary?</p>
<p>One of my ?s regarding homeschooling is how working parents, whether professional with careers on the make, or anyone who needs an extra salary for the basics, can afford homeschooling young kids. School serves as daycare for those who must work.</p>
<p>Dufay, have you not been reading? Both of Chelsea's parents DO work. Her parents own a marketing analytics firm and the mother works full time as the cfo of the firm. </p>
<p>No one has said that homeschooling should or must work for everyone. For those for whom it works, great!</p>
<p>BTW, Dufay, I would say the same about athletic scholarships. From my vantage point, I see a hell of a lot of well-off families where the mother doesn't work, using the mother's time to schlep the kids hither and yon to trainers and competitions in other states. They're spending more in plane tickets for the mother / kids and trainers / lessons than the value of the athletic scholarships they're getting. How is that equally not a racket?<br>
And frankly, what's of more benefit to society? Some well-to-do SAHM schlepping a kid to tennis competitions across the country, or a well-to-do family schlepping their kid to Europe, Tibet, etc. for amazing educational experiences?</p>