<p>Momsdream, having a collaborative husband who gives more than lipservice to sharing in childcare & development responsibilities helps. (Not for nothing was I voted an "honorary ballet mom" at the ballet studio.) If both TheMom and I had had traditional 9-6 jobs, it would have been problematic. One of the several reasons I wound up in real estate was the flexible hours. TheMom would take D to school (I am <em>not</em> a morning person) and I would be responsible for the rest of the day, including fixing dinner if TheMom was working late, doing the clean-up otherwise. (Okay, let's get on the table that my standards of "cleaned up" and TheMom's weren't exactly equivalent and sparked some frank and comradely discussions as Tass would say.) I also think that UCLA is better than most as a work environment in that "I can't do that Saturday, it's my daughter's ballet performance" will generally fly for all but the most uniquely excruciating situations.</p>
<p>Everybody makes different decisons. For us, nanny tracking wasn't a philsophical option. Nor financial for many years. Heck, we squirm just having someone come into to do cleaning every couple of weeks.</p>
<p>[Of course, I'll stipulate that TheMom was not in full-throated private sector, either, though many of her jobs at UCLA have been private sector-like. She's done very well and I think she's still got a shot at wearing a robe striped with the imperial purple before she retires though she'll probably fall one rung short.]</p>
<p>One thing that hasn't been mentionned here is that many people wnat their kids at prestigious colleges and universities to mix and mingle with the offspring of the rich and powerful.....It's not PC to say this (and I'm not saying I think this way) but many parents feel this way and are more than willing to pay for it. If your kids' roommate's father is a CEO of a Fortune 500 company he may get a leg up on a job opportunity that he may not get somewhere else....No flames, please.</p>
<p>Momsdream, the last 21 years have required creative planning. The first few years I worked 80 plus hour weeks. When my second was born and we could afford it, I worked about half time for several years. I would go in at 5AM most mornings to be free later in the day to do activities with kids and work again when they went to sleep. As my committments were not totally predictable, a live in nanny was long a part of the household, she has been with us for 14 years! When I divorced 4 years ago and we went to one week off, one week on, I began to work like a dog my week off and work more moderately from home my week on. I've taken several entire summers off and almost always take vacations during school holidays. I work for an especially enlightened organization that made me a partner despite 4 kids being my priority. All of that said, when I'm needed at work I'm there.</p>
<p>Dke, I wonder have many rich and famous are still at ivies. Certainly back in the day. I know so many connected people whose kids, often with legacy status, are not getting in.</p>
<p>Texdad, the lawyers I have worked with that do education work focus on large class action cases against school districts. Mostly, they went to top law schools. In fact, I'd say these folks are way more likely to be wealthy, have a high earning spouse in many cases, to afford to do this.</p>
<p>And while your family's flex schedule doesn't work for everyone, your D is lucky that it did operate for her benefit. She's been richly rewarded more than $$$ can buy, i.m.o. (And I imagine, so have you.)</p>
<p>dke, I've heard that, too. I wonder, however, how that, or if that, "works" for a student not bound for corporate life, such as my thoughtful & quiet humanities-oriented D, for whom "connections" may or may not be helpful. It is quite unlikely that she will end up in the corporate or big-business arena. And as kirmum hinted at, I wonder if connections are as sure a thing in the Ivies now as they once were.</p>
<p>I can't speak for the opportunities and connections that it takes to succeed in corporate in huge markets like NYC and LA. Other than people like Bill gates I have never even met anyone who was in what I would call big business. I am much more impressed by creative thinkers inc scientists and artists who don't necessarily follow expected paths.
Most mvers and shakers in Seattle attended the UW or other schools in Wa. Top people in sciences attended ivies for grad degrees but their undergrad was often lesser known schools. People in the arts/dance/music often did time in NYC/LA but not necessarily degreed. The top lawyers in this area often went to Seattle University or UPS.
What I have seen is that families are very interested in kids attending certain K-12 schools- that is where it seems they feel they can exert most control. Yes the big names often do have their children at these schools as well but not always. I don't have the impression that families choose these schools for who they will see there but for the controlled environment.
However when it is time for college, most allow their children to largely determine criteria and fit and don't insist on a certain school including ivies.
They may end up attending Ivies, but that is because of the fit, not the name.</p>
<p>One thing that hasn't been mentionned here is that many people want their kids at prestigious colleges and universities to mix and mingle with the offspring of the rich and powerful</p>
<p>
[quote]
One thing that hasn't been mentionned here is that many people want their kids at prestigious colleges and universities to mix and mingle with the offspring of the rich and powerful
[/quote]
With all the financial aid and affirmative action at the prestigious schools, they are no longer the preserve of the rich, so I think that's a myth.You could have met a Bush daughetr at as easily at Yale or at UT, if that's the way your tastes run.</p>
<p>I agree with Mensa160 about the Ivies not being the preserve of the rich and powerful anymore.</p>
<p>Somehow, the way this discussion is going reminds me of an earlier thread about kids of the rich and the powerful going to their state university (eg. Alabama) rather than out-of-state. I got the feeling that there are more Porsches and BMW in those parking lots than at HYP.</p>
<p>Prestige depends on the field. For economics, Chicago is hard to beat; if you want a real core curriculum, then you should choose Chicago and Columbia over HYP, or St Johns'. Reed is well-known for its highly intellectual atmosphere and its biology program. And as posters have found, musical theater is a world unto itself. If you want engineering, you probably won't be choosing H over CMU or Georgia Tech, let alone Caltech or MIT.</p>
<br>
<blockquote>
<p>They may end up attending Ivies, but that is because of the fit, not the name.>> EK, you've got my S pegged.</p>
</blockquote>