<p>Cur:</p>
<p>My S did not know about Plato or NATO, either. But he knew about Pay-doh and Legoes. When I think of it, he was soooo backward, I have to shudder.
Still no interest in either engineering or business. What’s with him? :(</p>
<p>Upon reflection (and rereading the original post) I think many of us were rude and cruel in mocking the OP. The quotes that you took out of context could merely be the mother’s impression of her son, ie he is good at math and builds things with his erector set and has a lemonade stand, so SHE says he likes engineering and business. It doesn’t mean he reads the Wall Street Journal every morning. Also, when she says “he knows a lot of their (Princeton) alumni,” she could mean that her 7 year old son knows that Bill Bradley went to Princeton, or some other famous person went there. She is not necessarily saying that her son regularly has lunch with R Sheldon Huxley III, Princeton class of '32. </p>
<p>Some parents fantasize about their child going to Harvard while they are pregnant, so no I don’t think 7 years old is too early to start thinking about these things, if that is what you want to think about. And this is supposed to be exactly the right place to ask this type of question. I would rather be tricked into giving a serious reply to a ■■■■■ than making false accusations and running off a noob.</p>
<p>But who, at 7, likes HPM alums’ “overview of courses”? Has Bill Bradley talked about which courses he took in college? Jon Stewart? </p>
<p>And all that in aid of asking whether the kid should be held back one year or not.</p>
<p>overview of courses</p>
<p>Some really bright kids want something to look forward to, “the light at the end of a dark tunnel” where people will finally understand what they’re talking about. They could very well talk with alums, like friends of parents, for example, and ask questions of them about what kinds of things are taught in colleges.</p>
<p>My son didn’t have the social skills at that age to chat with non-family adults, but if he had, I think he’d have been excited to hear about taking classes in 6 different languages or being able to study Japanese theatre or Indian religions or Irish literature.</p>
<p>I’m not saying I know this is a non-■■■■■ post, but it could be. A lot of people aren’t honest enough to say they’re angling for Harvard when their kid is 7, but we know a lot of parents are thinking it.</p>
<p>Marite, check your private messages.</p>
<p>Curm wrote:
</p>
<p>I think you missed my point in my most recent posts. I wasn’t judging whether ANYONE who is a parent of seven year old should be talking about college, let alone certain Ivies. I was ONLY talking about the accusation and mockery that the OP was a ■■■■■. She could be but I feel she most likely is not. I just think if someone is ■■■■■■■■ the forums, they can be reported. Otherwise ignore them. But I think there was a rush to assume she was a ■■■■■ and I have observed some indications that might point otherwise, that’s all. My recent posts were ONLY addressing that point not the subject matter of her post. If you look back on the first page, I did respond about the topic of her post and how her thinking is misguided at this point in time and what the issues are now for deciding on the appropriate developmental placement for her son. It so happens that my background is in child development and I have also been a teacher of children her son’s age. So, I surely agree with you about the inappropriateness of planning for a seven year old which college trajectory he should be on. I dealt with that in my initial post on the thread. </p>
<p>I just am disappointed with the assumption she is a ■■■■■. Even her posting name is not what most ■■■■■■ would use. There are aspects to her writing and some other things I won’t get into that lead me to believe she may have been for real. I think there is a quick assumption that such a question is a ■■■■■ OR an assumption of that way of thinking that would be DIFFERENT from the context of someone in an upwardly mobile community where people tend to talk this way…which preschool will get their toddler into Harvard, etc. The folks on CC are an educated bunch and so I can only tell you that I come in contact with folks from other walks of life in my community and I just think this poster may have been on a wavelength that others here can’t identify with because she is not like many of us. Sure, there are “issues” with what she expressed but I tried to address those initially and wish the thread and stayed on THAT topic. Instead, there are accusations of a poster being a ■■■■■ (it is always possible) and mockery. And she really may not be a ■■■■■ at all. I’m not convinced the OP “planted” a posts like a ■■■■■ would do. If I were her, I’d likely not return after this “reception.”</p>
<p>I agree 100% with soozievt. I am relatively new to this forum, and am a bit puzzled about this ■■■■■ phobia. As Soozie posted, there are set procedures as to how to report a suspected ■■■■■. (It took me a while to figure out what the heck a ■■■■■ even is.) Also, as an older mom with 5 boys, 4 in or finished with the teen years, I certainly believe that there are far better things to do with a child than trying to hone his chances for an ivy league college, major league sport, big time show biz, etc. It’s one thing to encourage interest and excellence in a discipline, another to make such a narrow,specific goal. I believe that parents should widen a child’s horizons, and options not make life a tunnel vision to so specific a goal as a small number of colleges that share an athletic league. But parents do dream of these things. Their graceful dancer as a prima ballerina, their fabulous pianist playing at Carnegie Hall, their child, the natural leader someday becoming the president of the US and yes, their 7 year old someday graduating from Harvard. Nothing wrong with dreaming, and nothing wrong with doing things do increase the odds of it happening as long as it does not become harmful. Certainly no harm in asking.</p>
<p>StickerShock,
My kids did Odyssey of the Mind (before it split off into DI; one continued with DI) and that was a terrific opportunity to learn about engineering. When one of my kids was in 3rd grade (he was still 7 at the time), he was helping to build a self-propelling catapault-like device for their OM solution. He explained to one of the parents about potential and kinetic energy and blew her away. I think he got it from Magic School Bus or some other science book that was on the floor at the time.</p>
<p>We also had a major collection of K’nex (the motors were VERY popular), Legos and construction videos. I still mangle my feet on the K’nex and Legos from time to time, and the guys are teenagers now! Neither is planning on enginering, but they were both fascinated with how things worked, and absorbing all that science was a huge deal to them. </p>
<p>So could a seven year old be that interested in engineering? Absolutely. Did it make me think about the Ivy League then? Nah. But I know people who were thinking about it.</p>
<p>Completely irrelevant but my S absolutely loves OM! He’s been on teams since 3rd grade. I was a spontaneous judge one year…what an eye-opening experience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So did we. We gave away most of the K’Nex and Lego collections to some afterschool programs before he went to college. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We had a neighbor who flashed alphabet cards at her 3 month old. I don’t think she was thinking about HYPSM at the time; she’d just read it made babies smarter. We moved away so I don’t know how the kid turned out.</p>
<p>Funny, my only issue with soozievt’s post is her open assumption that the OP is uneducated and ignorant. Just as insulting as the open ridicule. Absolutely no room for her just having a different outlook than most here. </p>
<p>I thought the post was one I certainly couldn’t relate to so no reply was appropriate on my part.</p>
<p>
Just two short years ago, I sat incredulously staring at my computer screen watching a few people on this forum debate whether or not my son and I were “for real.” At that point, I came to the conclusion that “■■■■■■” inflict less harm to the forum than misguided (and paranoid?) posters do to those <em>real people</em> out there who, for whatever reason, have landed as a blip on someone’s “■■■■■ radar.” Best to err on the side of kindness and respect, IMHO. If someone “gets the better of you,” oh well. Better that than to be wrong and hurt a real person’s REAL feelings. <em>sigh</em> ~berurah</p>
<p>The reason for the ■■■■■ phobia is that no one likes to be played for a fool. And unfortunately the existence of plenty of real ■■■■■■ out there and here on CC causes many people to get suspicious when a post comes along that is rather over the top in some way.</p>
<p>
That’s the really cool thing about internet forums. You aren’t forced to answer those posts which you consider to be “suspicious.” You can simply ignore them. </p>
<p>No sense in running off potentially interesting posters before you even have the story on them. I like to think that had I chosen to leave after the ■■■■■ accusation, there would have been something lost on BOTH sides, MINE <em>and</em> the forum’s! ;)</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>Yup, and another really cool thing is that you are not forced to tolerate ■■■■■■ either.</p>
<p>
I <em>think</em> that’s what I just said, but thanks for reiterating. :)</p>
<p>Some of the best discussions were generated by suspected ■■■■■■. Even if the OP is a ■■■■■, if the discussion is valuable, lively, interesting, I certainly do not see anyone being played for a fool. It is when the ■■■■■ is exposed, shame on him, and he deserves castigation .</p>
<p>I am active on some childhood cancer sites, and every once in a while a fraud comes along generating much sympathy, advice and resources. Some of the posters become quite emotionally involved with these “■■■■■■” (they are not called that), as many of them have poignant stories even among the most poignant. I’ve never seen discussion about whether someone is real, even when some of the stories were outrageous. Until the proof is there, the poster is assumed to be telling the truth.<br>
College discussion is not anywhere close to the urgency of the subject of children with life threatening conditions. Many of us visit CC and post because the advise and insights of many of you “regulars” is truly valuable and heartening. That’s why I’m a little surprised at the reaction to this poster from some of wisest sages.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe spending many long sessions on a shrink’s couch?</p>
<p>Back in 1991, when d was born, there was a toy company that convinced parents that baby toys should be black & white. Neurological connections would be spreading like mushrooms if your baby had their line of expensive toys. Moms were attending toy parties, like Tupperware, and buying this hook, line, & sinker.</p>
<p>Countingdown: Did you spend a great deal of time standing around at contruction sites with you boys? One time, one of the construction workers yelled at my son, “Hey kid! Go to college! You don’t want to be stuck doing this.” I imagine construction workers sometimes feel like Paris Hilton or Brad Pitt, always having an audience.</p>
<p>Alot of moms flashed cards at their babies when I had my first one. I bought one of those “Teach Baby to Read” kits, but alas, my son had no interest. He did not learn to read until he was 6-7. But I did see some wee ones learn to read, and if it “took”, those babies were reading books at a very young age. None of the ones I know ended up any more messed up than those who never saw a flash card. But my son who was a late reader reads very well, and when he did learn to read, he caught up with most of the early birds. My second one learned to read very early but not with cards. He pretty much picked it up himself before anyone started to teach him, and I don’t even remember when the other 3 learned or how. Like potty training, it seems so important with the first one, and so difficult. I don’t remember potty training my last three later, and the second one who picked up reading himself, learned to use the toilet himself at about 2 years old, same age as the reading. </p>
<p>Yeah, I bought a lot of learning toys, but I bought Transformers and Sesame street too. Toys R Us was my store of choice with the first one. I rarely entered one by the time the 5th came along.</p>
<p>And I’ll admit every talent and success of the oldest would make my imagination dance, as I did not have the opportunities I gave him to learn skills, both physical and mental. I wasn’t as specific as Ivy league schools, but I know the dreams were there, they still are. I imagine the moms and dads of the little ones are still thinking about future successes for their little ones, and there will be some that will take it as a goal oriented strategy to raise their child to a very specific standard, ivy admissions being highly prized. I don’t think it is sick, but with anything if it turns into an obsession or something that starts to cause unhappiness and harm, it is a problem.</p>
<p>It may not be harmful, and nor is dreaming of Ivy when your child is still in the womb, but it’s all part of a trend to force children to achieve higher earlier.<br>
As a pediatrician once said: No child has ever attended kindergarten in diapers. And, as you experienced yourself, flashing cards at a baby did not really make baby learn to read earlier (maybe distinguish alphabet letters earlier).
But there are plenty of burnt out kids who drop music lessons as soon as they can, or students who, once they reach college, drop the ball in major ways because they’ve been pushed too hard in high school. Not to mention the kids whose parents pressure them to study majors they do not care for.</p>