<p>I think the publicity is just fine. Chelsea is comfortable with it, and because she is home-schooled, her story has public interest, especially for those of us to whom homeschooling is unfamiliar. And perfect scores and Ivy sweeps aside, she is one of a total of only ten (!) applicants who received an academic likely from Harvard.</p>
<p>"But terms like "gifted" make the whole road much more difficult, imo." </p>
<p>I happen to agree that the term is ironic, but you and I may not be in large company. & we may differ only slightly in the appreciation of that irony. I find that being intellectually on the hgh end, shall we say, is a mixed 'blessing," and I use 'blessing' advisedly. I actually think that being born with that set of traits is more a liability than an asset, but that's just my view. It's because society is not set up to assimilate them as they should be & could be, that they are indeed often socially isolated (cf. my previous posts), and that the expectations are indeed unreal -- both positively & negatively, I might add. But the point is, for our family (& seemingly for many posters on this thread) it has been especially problematic from an institutional viewpoint, particularly in the more dependent years, when the student has less control & is more vulnerable.</p>
<p>To me, the label per se is not important, but the understanding of distinct learning differences, is.</p>
<p>"And the fact is, although Chelsea is clearly a truly outstanding young woman, from a single article in the Chicago Tribune, we don’t know enough about her to judge the degree of her “giftedness.”</p>
<p>I do agree with this comment. However, I think that for the most part, the Chelsea story was not the jumping off point for the subtopic of giftedness, but rather the topic of homeschooling was the trigger for that. I agree, & was going to mention that earlier: no data on whether she's gifted intellectually or merely very capable & very educationally advantaged from the labor and financed opportunities combined.</p>
<p>"Their circumstances allowed them to cherry pick the best our society has to offer, big city cultural amenities and money to travel abroad, plus a mother without other interests to occupy her time."</p>
<p>Untrue. As I said before, I know of this family in a professional capacity (my former employer used their firm). Both the parents work at their own marketing-analytics firm. </p>
<p>"I don't understand the harsh posts about this family. The parents recognized their daughter's unusual abilities very early, and realized that she would not be best served in a traditional school. They arranged their lives, and applied the financial resources they had, to accomodate her needs in the best way they could, and clearly the young woman has turned out very well. </p>
<p>And I don't think we can gather from the article that they are more than comfortable financially. After all, as one poster pointed out, quite a bit of travel, lessons, and enrichment activities can be funded with the $20-30k yearly cost of a private school education. For all we know, they economize in other ways to make possible the private French tutor and the travel."</p>
<p>Exactly. They are NOT rich-rich-rich and it's bizarre to me that they are being portrayed this way. They are comfortable upper middle class and the parents worked for it. They had one child, and it was a high priority for the whole family to do more intellectually-based pursuits. Families at that level may choose to go to Europe for a family vacation; heck, look at all the kids on CC who talk about having gone to another country for vacation and trying to parlay being well-traveled into some kind of a hook. They chose to go to Tibet, et al, instead. What's the difference?</p>
<p>Frankly, they may have wound up spending less on her (with the travels, private tutors, etc.) than the parents of many well-to-do kids I know who spend big-time bucks on their kids with sports trainers, private lessons, etc. in the hopes of getting athletic scholarships. Why is the latter ok, but the former isn't? I say congrats to her. It doesn't take away from my (public schooled) family to say that this is a very successful homeschooler.</p>
<p>And I think it's sour grapes to complain that the parents gave her these advantages. It's not "fair" that some parents can afford elite boarding schools, or Stanford full rides for that matter, but they don't seem to elicit the jealousy that these people are.</p>
<p>Over the years, there has been much publicity about students being homeschooled for religious reasons. I believe the article was intended to show that 1. some are homeschooled in order to provide them with a wider and possibly more advanced education than would be possible in conventional schools; and 2. that homeschoolers can achieve success in the elite college admissions sweepstakes. We do not know how Chelsea came to the attention of the reporter; for all we know, they live in the same area and Chelsea was already well known there for her harp-playing. It would be easy to find out she was homeschooled as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But terms like "gifted" make the whole road much more difficult, imo. They imply effortlessness, blessings by an all powerful god, magic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This supports my comment that gifted kids are often seen as "freaks." Whether or not one applies a label, it is important to recognize that some kids need different approaches to learning.</p>
<p>EDIT: cross-posted with epiphany.</p>
<p>"Why would the home schooled harp-playing girl's parents encourage this sort of publicity? I honestly wouldn't want to be in their daughter's shoes going into Harvard or Yale this fall, with so much scrutiny, so many expectations, so much attention. But everyone is different . . ."</p>
<p>They didn't / don't encourage publicity at all. Good grief, they are not responsible for someone doing an article on them. They didn't call up the Tribune or anything. The Tribune could equally have done an article on a New Trier kid who got into all those schools, or a city athlete who got into a bunch of exceptional schools. </p>
<p>Come to think of it - if you want to talk "publicity," kids who can kick or throw or hit a ball well get FAR FAR more coverage in the Chicago Tribune on a regular basis - why, they even have a section called Prep Sports every week for them! - so you'll have to forgive me if the occasional article about a kid who's actually smart doesn't strike me as that big of a deal. It's kind of refreshing, actually. No one accuses Joe Prep Football's family of encouraging publicity even though he's in the Tribune every week ...</p>
<p>I should add, the parents are somewhat on the more nerdy side of things - they are not flashy or showy at all. They're just very intellectually inclined themselves and had a daughter with those natural talents.</p>
<p>I could not agree more with the last paragraph of post 106.</p>
<p>Narcissa: "Also, I know an absolutely brilliant girl who graduated a few years ago from my school; I can't describe her because that might identify me, but she could definitely give Chelsea a run for her money in IQ and passion and intelligence and college acceptances...and whatever."</p>
<p>Yes, maybe the girl you know could definitely give Chelsea a run for her money. Why are you so defensive? Chelsea wasn't elected Queen of the World, you know. Her accomplishments don't take away from that of the girl you know.</p>
<p>wjb,
We know folks who have homeschooled or supplemented using w/EPGY or JHU curricula, bought software packages for language learning, gotten together a group of students together and hired a tutor for some subjects as a way to reduce the cost, parents who have shared the role, etc. We know kids who go to public school and do extensive stuff outside of class. We know kids who went straight from middle school to community college (in fact, our local CC offers courses for homeschooled students), and others whose kids have gone off to college at fifteen. </p>
<p>There are many flavors, and not all are limited to "gifted" kids. Sometimes the kid has a passion that can't/won't be met in the local school, even one that "gets it." To me, if it's the student who is the driving force to pursue an interest, then I'm inclined to support it. I have horror stories of what toxic teachers did to S1 along the way that would make your hair curl; I also have stories of teachers who, in very real ways, save kids' lives.</p>
<p>I thought the hoopla over homeschooled kids getting into elite schools was done and over with several years ago. It's not exactly unheard of these days. I'm not sure why this family's getting raked over the coals or why some of us feel we have to justify how we educate our kids. To me, it's about finding the best possible scenario for educational and emotional health for our kids, in whatever shape that may take. Just as we all have differing opinions on what colleges are best and to what extent families should fund them, so we have different experiences and beliefs about building a foundation in the years prior to college. Peace out! :)</p>
<p>Hello everybody!</p>
<p>I'm Chelsea Link, the girl in the article. I read the first four pages of this thread yesterday, and I haven't read most of the posts since, but I'd like to reply to what Ive seen of this discussion.</p>
<p>I mostly want to clear up my motivations in agreeing to be interviewed for this article. First of all, I didn't call the Trib and say, "Hey! Look at me! I got into college!" The mother of one of my Shakespeare students told the Trib about me, and then a reporter called me to ask to interview me. I agreed because I was hoping to dispel some myths about home schooling. I know that when I was working on my college applications, I felt like I was burdened with something most kids aren't: proving my normality/competence/independence. I needed to demonstrate, first, that I did not spend my years at home sitting in my pajamas and watching television; second, that I did not organize my curriculum around the Bible; third, that I didn't just sit around the kitchen table with my mother pretending to work and receiving A+'s across the board; fourth, that I was not tied to my mother's apron strings, and that I would be fully capable of living independently in college; and fifth, that I have friends, go to the movies, and generally lead a fairly normal high school life. I feel like home schoolers have a bad reputation in many different areas (academic, religious, social...), and I was hoping to clear the air a bit for future generations of home schooled students.</p>
<p>I had no idea the article would be on the front page. I was a little embarrassed to discover that, actually. I was expecting it to appear in one of those little filler sections about interesting local people. Also, I hope people remember that I did not write the article! I did not choose what was included and what was ignored, how things were phrased, etc. It was a bit too adulatory for my taste, but I had no control over that.</p>
<p>Finally, I want to address an issue that several people have brought up regarding my family's financial status. Pizzagirl posted at one point that she happens to know us somehow (I'm not sure who she is, so I can't say how), and would describe us as upper middle class, which I believe is fairly accurate. We are quite comfortable, but we are not the Pritzkers. We live in Evanston, not Kenilworth or Winnetka or Lake Forest. I feel extremely lucky to have had the freedom to travel every summer, to buy a good harp, to take courses at Northwestern, etc. I am extremely proud of my parents, who started their own marketing analysis company sixteen years ago, back when we were living in a small apartment in Rogers Park. (Somebody mentioned at one point that my mother was a stay-at-home mom, which was an odd comment, since that person doesn't know us. My mother is the chief financial officer of the company, and she works full-time.) I do not qualify for financial aid (although both my parents went to college on full need-based scholarships), but I will be working throughout my college years to pay my tuition.</p>
<p>So our financial resources have definitely allowed me to have a lot of opportunities I would not have had if we werent so lucky. However, I dont believe I bought my way into college. I worked hard, and it paid off. Yes, having a French tutor helped me learn French, but I only had a tutor as a substitute for the French classes I would have had in public school, which would probably have been just as effective I know many kids in public school who excel in foreign languages because they work hard like I do. Also, Im pretty sure my test scores had a lot to do with overcoming any doubts about my credibility as a home schooler and Im sorry, but money doesnt buy test scores. Perhaps it could be used to hire private test prep tutors, but I didnt have one. All the money that went into preparing me for the SAT was about $10 or $15 to buy the 10 Real SATs book of released exams for practice. Or maybe youd also count our internet bills, which have allowed me to receive Merriam Websters word of the day for several years. (I think our local library offers free internet access on their computers, though.) Also, for my AP exams, which constituted a large part of my coursework for the last two years, I purchased a textbook for some subjects, but for others I just used Princeton Review test prep books. Everything I used to prepare for the AP English Lit exam, for example, could be borrowed for free from a local library. For AP US History, I just borrowed my boyfriends old textbook from when he took the course in school the year before.</p>
<p>Im sorry this has become rather lengthy, and I dont mean to just list off everything I did or bought during my education. All I want to do is explain that, while I am extremely lucky to have been able to afford a French tutor and some musical instruments, I believe that my hard work was more important than money in everything Ive done. Im deeply sorry if the article gave the impression that my college admissions were somehow more important than anybody elses, because that is definitely not my belief. Everybody who works hard to achieve their goals deserves at least as much credit as I do, and I have huge respect for those students who have overcome challenges that I never had to deal with. Fortunately, college admissions officers always say that they judge their applicants not just by the things theyve done, but by what theyve done with the resources available to them. And I want to make it clear that I am not seeking media attention, but only allowing it in order to make things a little easier for future home schoolers than they were for me.</p>
<p>"Why would the home schooled harp-playing girl's parents encourage this sort of publicity? I honestly wouldn't want to be in their daughter's shoes going into Harvard or Yale this fall, with so much scrutiny, so many expectations, so much attention. But everyone is different . . ."</p>
<p>Mammall, you are right. Everyone is different. For example, if I read an article about your daughter's impressive achievements, I would probably post something congratulating you on a job obviously well done, not something that cast aspersions on your daughter's character, called your parenting motives into question, and made dire prognostications about your daughter's prospects this fall. But, as you say, everyone is different.</p>
<p>Indeed, why would we encourage this publicity about Chelsea? Clearly, watching one's child, one's self and one's music room ripped to shreds by people who know absolutely nothing about you, your child (or your music room) as I have seen happening in this thread should be a deterrent. </p>
<p>I'll tell you why we agreed to the interview. Two people contacted the Chicago Tribune thinking this would make an inspiring story. The Trib contacted us, not the other way around. In the 13 years I have been home schooling, I have read one negative article about home schooling after another, portraying home schoolers as losers, wackos, fringe-of-society people who border on child abusers. We hoped an article about a high-achieving, normal home schooled student who had rich and varied social experiences and worked hard for her community might help dispel some myths about home schooling. We also hoped it would be encouraging to other bright home schoolers to learn of the admissions success Chelsea had this year, and that entrance to these types of schools was possible, even in today's uber-competitive climate, with a home schooled background. That's why we agreed to the interview.</p>
<p>It is a surreal experience to go to College Confidential and find a 7 page thread about your child, reading all manner of speculation and opinion about your and your child's lives. I have many responses to make to a lot of posters here, and hope to do so later today, but at the moment, I just couldn't let mammall's question go unanswered.</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom - I'll be back to discuss my music room with you in a bit. :)</p>
<p>"I felt like I was burdened with something most kids aren't: proving my normality/competence/independence."</p>
<p>LOL, Chelsea: You've discovered how "journalists" often try to make their subjects appear as <em>ab</em>normal as possible, purely for the sensationalistic slant.</p>
<p>I was once written up in a local paper myself. Four or five major facts were misreported about me, despite my own accurate retelling. But the more annoying part was how --for want of a better word-- 'ditzy' (fluffy & cutesy) the story sounded. (Written by airheads? Or written <em>for</em> airheads, perhaps?) Really, the media often assumes the worst of the American reading public. Then they often get what they asked for: superficial readers instead of careful ones, who depart to more dignifed rags. It's the one reason I decided not to go into journalism. I could not handle dumbing-down stories.</p>
<p>Welcome Chelsea, and congratulations on your maturity, wisdom and accomplishments and the perseverance and hard work that went into achieving them! I hope you and your mom will continue to contribute to CC!</p>
<p>Chelsea:</p>
<p>You go, girl!! You've just demonstrated many of the qualities that impressed adcoms.</p>
<p>And what did we learn today? Speculation about things that we don't know for sure makes us look silly...</p>
<p>Congratulations Chelsea. Have a blast with college.</p>
<p>I am glad to hear Chelsea speaking. And I like her statement:
[quote]
money doesn’t buy test scores. Perhaps it could be used to hire private test prep tutors, but I didn’t have one. All the money that went into preparing me for the SAT was about $10 or $15 to buy the 10 Real SATs book of released exams for practice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, like I said in post #4, congrats, Chelsea! Much luck in the future. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
... money doesn’t buy test scores. Perhaps it could be used to hire private test prep tutors, but I didn’t have one. All the money that went into preparing me for the SAT was about $10 or $15 to buy the 10 Real SATs book of released exams for practice. Or maybe you’d also count our internet bills, which have allowed me to receive Merriam Webster’s word of the day for several years. (I think our local library offers free internet access on their computers, though.) </p>
<p>and</p>
<p>Fortunately, college admissions officers always say that they judge their applicants not just by the things they’ve done, but by what they’ve done with the resources available to them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Chelsea, thank you for reminding everyone of something that is often misunderstood or ignored. And, thank you for being such a wonderful example and model. </p>
<p>After all, there is hope for the next generations.</p>
<p>"All the money that went into preparing me for the SAT was about $10 or $15 to buy the 10 Real SATs book of released exams for practice"
Chelsea followed the "Xiggi" method of preparing for the SAT!</p>