<p>That’s crazy easy: Recruit all swimmers! :D</p>
<p>You have to be a god to find the ones who will forever be best swimmers as the water keeps getting deep 
( no still can’t do it)</p>
<p>A thought I had over the weekend: Does academic/intellectual rigor necessarily come with some degree of stress? Does a nurturing environment necessarily come with a degree of laissez-faire?</p>
<p>academic rigor and some stress are inevitable, I think. I don’t think the converse is true, though; how many of us would see laissez faire parenting as nurturing?</p>
<p>At Andover Day last year (for prospective students), the Director of Admissions made it clear to parents that Andover was not for kids who had potential but who hadn’t showed it yet. He went on to say they are looking for kids who have demonstrated their potential.</p>
<p>In my mind, I equated it with the “nurturing” schools are the ones who “help” kids realize their potential, maybe the so-called tier 2 schools or B list. Kids who attend those schools are maybe the ones who didn’t have such good scores on SSATs or are maybe “B” students, who with the right amount of supervision and support and teaching how to study, might rise to A level.</p>
<p>I don’t think it depends on the size of the school. It reminded me of the college in Putney Vt which advertizes to families with kids who are disappointed in their grades and feel they could do better, the kids with ADD who need a more hands-on approach.</p>
<p>The A-list schools here I think regardless of size are the ones who make teachers available for students who are self motivated to seek them out.</p>
<p>To me, nurturing is more a function of not letting a student’s gifts or problems go unnoticed. </p>
<p>It’s my opinion that the “quieter” student who has latent gifts or challenges is more likely to make it through four years of an Andover, Exeter, SPS etc. without bringing good or bad attention to herself, leaving in place those same challenges and gifts heading into college. At a small boarding school, slipping through the cracks, blending in with the background, is almost impossible. If I were a betting man, I’d bet that a quieter child has a better chance of blossoming in a smaller environment where he or she is genuinely known by faculty and peers.</p>
<p>The extroverts seem to do well in any environment, nurturing or not.</p>
<p>@classicalmama: Perhaps “Laissez-faire” was the wrong choice of words…</p>
<p>Based on our visits this Fall, some of the more nurturing type schools (and I don’t necessarily mean the smaller schools) also feel “softer”. </p>
<p>Which brings back the question of “fit”. To be honest, I am not looking for a school for my daughter to be too “soft”…mostly because I can find that locally. Somewhere in the middle feels right to me.</p>
<p>Seven - that’s an interesting thing to say, that “some of the more nurturing type schools … also feel softer.” I honestly don’t know any schools among the top 20-30 in the U.S. that I would call “softer.” I wonder if you mean personal vs. impersonal? Intimate vs. Arms Length?</p>
<p>SevenDad, We also have similar school considerations for our children. Which schools in your experience fall in the too soft/medium/too hard bins?</p>
<p>@rebel: Personal is just a part of it. </p>
<p>At the very far end on my made-up scale of “softness” would be something like a Waldorf school philosophy — and something like West Point/Annapolis would be at the opposite end of the scale.</p>
<p>I don’t know if the schools I have in mind would qualify for “top 20-30” status, btw…</p>
<p>The problem lies with abstract words like nurturing I think.</p>
<p>I have one kid who is best nurtured by parents who hang in the background and don’t do much day to day–just provide the scaffolding and structure and brace themselves for rare but colossal earthquakes.</p>
<p>I have another kids who needs to have parents sitting right there in the room at all times for minute-by-minute feedback on everything.</p>
<p>I would never send those kids to the same bs. The first kid would be absolutely smothered and miserable in the second kid’s environment. The second kid would be absolutely lost in the sea in which the first kid swims. </p>
<p>It’s best, I think, to lay aside the gerneralities and identify as specifically as possible what the kid needs to thrive: </p>
<p>Lots of room for independent growth? An adult checking on work and personal health once a week–or once a day? </p>
<p>Peers available for help? Teachers or tutors on call? </p>
<p>Lots of tests/essays? More emphasis on daily work? </p>
<p>Dorm faculty that have students in their homes regularly? Dorm faculty who give kids space and privacy?</p>
<p>I’d pin down as many of those specific factors as I could and then ask lots of specific questions. But I wouldn’t label schools as soft or rigorous based on size or first impressions. As someone pointed out earlier, all schools have small class sizes, strong connections to faculty, and close dorms. And some schools provide different environments for different kids–dorms, for example, that are more attentive and structured, others that are looser and more independent.</p>
<p>@sunrise: I’ll send you a PM on this topic as I don’t want to show all our cards until April 10th.</p>
<p>@7D: Just my personal opinion - if I had good day school options locally, I’d explore boarding school options only when I believed that my child was ready and could benifit from something significantly different. I could be totally wrong, but the way you are so caring about “nurturing” and “moderation” makes me feel that she might be able to find what she needs in an excellent day school in your area?</p>
<p>@DA: We do have strong day options, including the school she currently attends. But it’s about an hour’s drive each way for us…which was the impetus to look into boarding schools in the first place. So she could get more engaged in all any school had to offer — including all those things that happen after school (hanging out with friends, sports, band, etc.)</p>
<p>But I think you’re misreading my comments today. I have taken schools off our apply-to list because I felt they were TOO soft. FWIW, I was brought up in a culture where “nurturing” is not really part of the equation, my wife is the voice of reason in our family, and my daughter is an academic ninja. ;-P</p>
<p>Nurture and rigor are not opposites. Rigor can exist without ruthless competition.
Hothouse academics are not a good thing.
Kids need time to relax, to play, to try new things. They need, like all of us, the space to feel free to fail, and to do something they are not particularly good at because they love it. The extreme competition at a lot of elite schools precludes this.</p>
<p>Kids need time to relax, to play, to try new things. They need, like all of us, the space to feel free to fail, and to do something they are not particularly good at because they love it. The extreme competition at a lot of elite schools precludes this.
– completely agree, but unfortunately we cant afford to let them do it, since they wont be able to “pick themselves up” after the fail, they’ll just be trampled on way up. Unfortunately the current culture of the past 15 yrs or so precludes this.</p>
<p>mhmm…wow, what a depressing conclusion you’ve reached. Lose your childhood but win the rat race. Yikes.</p>
<p>But they’re not really children any more, are they? Some kids work hard at prep school because they deeply desire to be better writers and thinkers, not because they want to win at the rat race. Their work is important to them. It feels demeaning to me to always assume they’re working too hard or are just buying in to the rat race or don’t act like “regular” kids or whatever. </p>
<p>My sense is that many kids at top schools feel an enormous sense of relief because they can finally be who they really are…that is intellectually curious and internally driven to do well. Why are we so quick to assume that that’s a bad thing, every time they complain a little. I complain about work-related stuff all the time–but it’s my vocation and I care about it deeply.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, re: competition inhibiting experimentation, my kids has tried two new sports so far at Exeter, new music lessons, and a different type musical ensemble. He’s now diving into some ec’s that wouldn’t have been possible at home.</p>
<p>They’re not children? They’re certainly not adults either. They are in that highly impressionable period where habits are being formed. Classical, you admire the hard path where brilliant gets to be brilliant, unencumbered, encouraged and challenged. If that goal can be achieved at the same time the child/young adult learns about perspective and happiness, then that’s great. </p>
<p>mmhms’s view, at the least way she articulated here: </p>
<p>but unfortunately we cant afford to let them do it, since they wont be able to “pick themselves up” after the fail, they’ll just be trampled on way up. Unfortunately the current culture of the past 15 yrs or so precludes this</p>
<p>sounds dark, depressed and unbalanced to me.</p>
<p>Classical I agree with you. My Ds were relieved to be in a peer group interested in academics. One D said that at PS it was weird to talk in class, in BS it is weird if you don’t talk in class. Also, they have downtime, a million friends on FB, hang out with friends in the dorm or on campus, go to dances, movies, both tried new sports, writing for the paper and ECs that they never would have had the chance to try in PS. They have each tried new things, some not successfully, and that has been just fine. It was perfectly OK to be on the thirds lacrosse team with a bunch of other girls who had never played before. </p>
<p>That isn’t to say they don’t sometimes complain about too much work, or feeling stressed, or even say I hate school. However, attending BS was their choice and each repeatedly reaffirm that it was the right place for them. Everything worth doing has a few rough spots.</p>