Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Folks, it seems like there's a lot of consensus on this thread about whether Blake or Breck is the stronger school, and I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to remark on this most recent comment below....yes, totally unnecessary, but why not? I just need to say that it's truly unfortunate to see someone who is so unbelievably insecure take so much time to try and convince herself that private school wouldn't have helped her children. The most telling quote from her is, "In summary, Breck and Blake would have added zero benefit for our family. But we parent."
I think you'll find that plenty of parents within the private schools "parent" as well, and do an extremely good job of it. Her post suggests that private schools lead to more Ivy League connections, so one must assume that Ivy League parents probably do a great job of parenting. I'm not agreeing with the poster but, rather just pointing out the flaw in her insecure logic. Bottom line is that ignorance is bliss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
Sorry for reviving an old thread. I scanned it and found it interesting.
Here is how I'd roll it up "elite" privates.
1. Breck and Blake have a lot of educated and passionate parents! AND with education, comes a thicker wallet.
2. Both schools hire passionate teachers that have high expectations.
3. Both shed the coaster students that can be disruptive to others.
4. Both schools have counselors that are well connected into tier 1 colleges.
5. For some, it's worth it. For others even when they have the means, it's not.
6. Parents who are "sold" on the concept, often assume they have a superior product. Some of which are soooo proud to tell you why they would NEVER send their kids to a public school. They assume they teach core classes better. I categorically disagree.
My take on the public schools:
1. Motivated parents are represented in most high schools across MN. Generally speaking, their kids accomplish the same.
2. PSEO [url]http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/fam/dual/pseo/[/url] is by definition, college caliber curilium. IMHO, "superior" to paying $xx,xxx.00 more for an inferior elite HS. That's the path we took.
3. I actually see value for students to be surrounded by unmotivated students. It's called being well rounded and they gain a level of "street smarts". That too is educational. BUT, motivated families and students are not taking classes with the coasters. So the negative impact is zero if you know how to parent.
4. Passionate parents are involved in their schools. So they not-so-mysteriously know who the better teachers are and get their Johnny or Jane with those teachers. We did that from K-12.
5. Most MN schools are well funded and have motivated teachers. Not all teachers are created equal. So you need to sort.
The end result (caliber of education) will be the same. BUT, the college admission process that is place DOES look at where student went to HS. Hence, where you go to HS will have an influence as to where you can more easily attend. So Blake and Breck will have a leg-up to get in an Ivy simply be admission relationships and that where their fellow students attended college. The system is partially gamed and it is why some people who want a political leg up in getting into an Ivy (for instance) peruse a Blake of Breck. Hey, money buys influence. There is nothing new here.
We chose a public HS. Looking at the statistics, I predict a Breck or Blake parent would fret over Anoka HS by looking at the AVERAGES. Forget Anoka for a moment, 20% of Edina schools don't meet the minimum standards [url]https://www.schooldigger.com/go/MN/schools/1125000510/school.aspx[/url] . But the reality is, our kids (as well as the higher performers at Edina) have some impressive accolades. On a personal level, I would be proud to compare notes on how they did in HS and college. i.e. Where they went, awards, and what they are doing now. In summary, Breck and Blake would have added zero benefit for our family. But we parent.
I guess I'm all ears as to how I got short changed by NOT going to Breck or Blake. For those coasting parents who are too busy to be involved and outsource parenting, I suppose I get it. I'm not faulting people for sending their kids to an "elite" HS. If I was closer and I wasn't so cheap, I might have done the same thing. But staring at the statistics can be misleading.
Folks, it seems like there's a lot of consensus on this thread about whether Blake or Breck is the stronger school, and I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to remark on this most recent comment below....yes, totally unnecessary, but why not? I just need to say that it's truly unfortunate to see someone who is so unbelievably insecure take so much time to try and convince herself that private school wouldn't have helped her children. The most telling quote from her is, "In summary, Breck and Blake would have added zero benefit for our family. But we parent."
I think you'll find that plenty of parents within the private schools "parent" as well, and do an extremely good job of it. Her post suggests that private schools lead to more Ivy League connections, so one must assume that Ivy League parents probably do a great job of parenting. I'm not agreeing with the poster but, rather just pointing out the flaw in her insecure logic. Bottom line is that ignorance is bliss.
By the way, I'm a him.
You misread my POV. More specifically, when I said, "In summary, Breck and Blake would have added zero benefit for our family. But we parent." I should had added "but we parent too". Off course most Breck and Blake parent. I gave them props in my 1st bullets.
I was suggesting that the playing field is level when you parent (we did too) and take advantage of the public school opportunities. After all, if a Blake or Breck HS student took advanced college courses at the UofMN (PSCO), I propose for many of the students, their education would be superior versus staying back in HS. So sorry, I would argue (like Anoka 11th and 12th grade), or even Breck and Blake are inferior for some students.
My writing wasn't as much of an insecurity but rather a PSA for those parents who assume that Blake or Breck are "superior". Again, I can point to plenty of high performance students all across the metro area. The parents parent and they too are passionate. My tone comes from hearing private school parents who literally comment how they would never send their kids to ________ HS. For us, it would have added zero value other than a thinner wallet. YMMV. But you just made my earlier point by suggesting that "the bottom line is that ignorance is bliss." As in, we missed out on something because you think it is superior. That's the elitist attitude that I was writing about.
You misread my POV. More specifically, when I said, "In summary, Breck and Blake would have added zero benefit for our family. But we parent." I should had added "but we parent too". Off course most Breck and Blake parent. I gave them props in my 1st bullets.
I was suggesting that the playing field is level when you parent (we did too) and take advantage of the public school opportunities. After all, if a Blake or Breck HS student took advanced college courses at the UofMN (PSCO), I propose for many of the students, their education would be superior versus staying back in HS. So sorry, I would argue (like Anoka 11th and 12th grade), or even Breck and Blake are inferior for some students.
My writing wasn't as much of an insecurity but rather a PSA for those parents who assume that Blake or Breck are "superior". Again, I can point to plenty of high performance students all across the metro area. The parents parent and they too are passionate. My tone comes from hearing private school parents who literally comment how they would never send their kids to ________ HS. For us, it would have added zero value other than a thinner wallet. YMMV. But you just made my earlier point by suggesting that "the bottom line is that ignorance is bliss." As in, we missed out on something because you think it is superior. That's the elitist attitude that I was writing about.
She didn’t misread it— you made a mistake in what you wrote. It’s really no big deal but don’t put your error off on your readers. I read it the same way because that is what you wrote.
And you really don’t know whether or not Blake or Breck would have benefited your children. It’s a hypothetical situation so while you may be of the opinion that it would have been of zero value, you err in stating it as a fact. Obviously, a great number of smart people have thought about it just as hard as you have— many even harder— and reached the opposite conclusion.
Last edited by Glenfield; 03-06-2018 at 06:39 AM..
She didn’t misread it— you made a mistake in what you wrote. It’s really no big deal but don’t put your error off on your readers. I read it the same way because that is what you wrote.
Your right. I forgot a word. But if she read my text entirely, I said "Breck and Blake have a lot of educated and passionate parents!" a.k.a., (most) know how to parent too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield
And you really don’t know whether or not Blake or Breck would have benefited your children. It’s a hypothetical situation so while you may be of the opinion that it would have been of zero value, you err in stating it as a fact. Obviously, a great number of smart people have thought about it just as hard as you have— many even harder— and reached the opposite conclusion.
You are right. No one can prove that they got a superior education at Blake or Breck. Nor can Mrs. "ignorance is Bliss" claim that they got a superior education.
I'm not taking away from anyone for sending their kids to Blake or Breck. Have at it! Maybe the parents want to send their kids to a private education for religious teachings (I'm agnostic), the desire of NOT hanging around unmotivated students (I wanted them to experience society as a whole), to dodge SOME less unmotivated teachers (we all do), etc.
Then how would you like to benchmark of a quality education? With test scores?? I'm ready for the comparison with our kids.
In short, I'm wondering what that private would have done for us? Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. But as I said, I'm tickled with the end results. They had motivated teachers (we helped chose them) and were in advanced classes and had an abundant opportunities. I sincerely don't see how they could have done any better. I've concluded they both maxed out to their full potential. If you knew their stories, you would agree. Hence, I'd be happy to compare them with Blake or Breck's top grads over the past decade.
So to reiterate the PSA. Those who assume public education in MN (in well funded districts) are inferior, I completely disagree. Now if I'm missing something, please do share.
Sorry to jump in here but Glenfield is dead on right. Ultimately private schools have better teacher/student ratios and vastly more resources than public choices. I'm pretty confident that an average reader here will agree with the opinion that MN-Born-n-Raised was, admittedly, too "cheap" to send his kids to private school and now is speaking with absurd superlatives in order to make himself feel better. It wouldn't be surprising to read a follow up post from him which reads something like, "my children were guaranteed to be the next presidents of the United States." How do you argue with such a person?
And, sure, you're "tickled" with your decision. You have the right to want your kids to hang around with "unmotivated students," have at it! And, certainly, you have the right to not want your kids to study religion (while Breck is Episcopal, students learn equally about all major religions). If you feel that your kids, who apparently are very book smart, won't benefit from learning about the major religions of the world in 2018 then, OF COURSE, that's your right - see how they do in the long run. And, wow, you got to pick the teachers who would teach your children, and in a public school! Can I assume that they only had 5-10 students in their classes, each class with a teacher and teaching assistant?
Your grandiose statement that your children have "maxed out their potential" is absurd. And I'm confident that the more competent parents in both public and private schools would never make such a ridiculous statement. Book smart means little these days, particularly when it sounds like your kids had quite a grading curve.
The bottom line is that kids get more attention in private schools and, as a result, often end up to be better rounded and have more opportunities. Their classmates challenge them more to get them to a completely different level, and there is never a shortage of connections made at private schools.
I have no dog in this debate, but can't resist calling out obvious bs when I read it. In this case, it's a waste of my time, as I'm confident that I'm not enlightening other readers. I just wanted you to have a bit more of a sense that your statements are quite transparent and, at this rate, it may be worth biting your tongue before making yourself sound even more silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
Your right. I forgot a word. But if she read my text entirely, I said "Breck and Blake have a lot of educated and passionate parents!" a.k.a., (most) know how to parent too.
You are right. No one can prove that they got a superior education at Blake or Breck. Nor can Mrs. "ignorance is Bliss" claim that they got a superior education.
I'm not taking away from anyone for sending their kids to Blake or Breck. Have at it! Maybe the parents want to send their kids to a private education for religious teachings (I'm agnostic), the desire of NOT hanging around unmotivated students (I wanted them to experience society as a whole), to dodge SOME less unmotivated teachers (we all do), etc.
Then how would you like to benchmark of a quality education? With test scores?? I'm ready for the comparison with our kids.
In short, I'm wondering what that private would have done for us? Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. But as I said, I'm tickled with the end results. They had motivated teachers (we helped chose them) and were in advanced classes and had an abundant opportunities. I sincerely don't see how they could have done any better. I've concluded they both maxed out to their full potential. If you knew their stories, you would agree. Hence, I'd be happy to compare them with Blake or Breck's top grads over the past decade.
So to reiterate the PSA. Those who assume public education in MN (in well funded districts) are inferior, I completely disagree. Now if I'm missing something, please do share.
Sorry to jump in here but Glenfield is dead on right. Ultimately private schools have better teacher/student ratios and vastly more resources than public choices. I'm pretty confident that an average reader here will agree with the opinion that MN-Born-n-Raised was, admittedly, too "cheap" to send his kids to private school and now is speaking with absurd superlatives in order to make himself feel better. It wouldn't be surprising to read a follow up post from him which reads something like, "my children were guaranteed to be the next presidents of the United States." How do you argue with such a person?
You are right, I am cheap and proud of it (a.k.a. financially secure because I didn't waste $$'s).
As I said, I'd be happy to compare the results with your kids. It could be standardized test scores, colleges attended, where they are now, etc. Simply pick your metric of choice.
Creeper alert! Don't get baited into responding this poster. It's risky to exchange personal information here, and this poster is clearly willing to exaggerate as needed to make himself feel better. Not to mention the fact that this poster NEEDED to be cheap in order to be financially secure. Not frugal, "cheap." In other words, sending his kids to private school would have meant that he wouldn't have remained financially secure. Ok.
The only thing worse that an elitist attitude from a private school parent is a embarrassingly insecure attitude from a parent who couldn't afford to give his or her child the best education. From hanging out with hooligans to Harvard...sure pal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
You are right, I am cheap and proud of it (a.k.a. financially secure because I didn't waste $$'s).
As I said, I'd be happy to compare the results with your kids. It could be standardized test scores, colleges attended, where they are now, etc. Simply pick your metric of choice.
Creeper alert! Don't get baited into responding this poster. It's risky to exchange personal information here, and this poster is clearly willing to exaggerate as needed to make himself feel better. Not to mention the fact that this poster NEEDED to be cheap in order to be financially secure. Not frugal, "cheap." In other words, sending his kids to private school would have meant that he wouldn't have remained financially secure. Ok.
The only thing worse that an elitist attitude from a private school parent is a embarrassingly insecure attitude from a parent who couldn't afford to give his or her child the best education. From hanging out with hooligans to Harvard...sure pal.
If you read my post, I complemented passionate parents who send their kids off to privates. My specific issue was with people who assume that well-funded public's are “inferior”. More specifically, people with an elitist attitude. You just proved my point. �� In actuality, you exhibited the insecurity by signing up (twice now under two usernames) to let me know just how it is impossible it is for passionate parents to get a top notch K-12 education.
I kind of agree with Born-n-bread. Its kind of like if you are a great athlete with great natural ability....does it really matter what school you go to for your talent to manifest? If you are a great basketball player in high school, do you need to go to the "Hopkins", "Delasalles" or one of the other perennial powerhouses to get a good DI scholarship? Would you then need to go to Duke, Kentucky or Kansas to get drafted into the NBA? Why does one then need to go to the Ivies, Cal Tech, or any of these other schools to make it big in business? Is it not true that many famous business people dropped out of college or did not even attend? Their natural talent and drive propelled them, not schools.
If you have talent and drive....its that talent and drive, above anything else, that is will determine how far you go, not so much the schools you attend. In essence the talented athlete or student is probably doing the school they attend a bigger service than the school is doing the talented student/athlete, as the schools can market themselves based upon all the famous/successful alumni (and their donations) that attended their schools, which helps them attract more talented people and increases their prestige. Are the schools creating the talent....our simply showcasing the talented?
I tend to think, and I maybe wrong, that rich people often seek things with status, like executive neighborhoods and elite schools. Rich people seem to like to have membership in the exclusive and their kids are often pawns in that desire. I mean, overall, as a parent, I just want my kids to be....HAPPY and I don't link that happiness to membership in exclusive clubs, neighborhoods, schools, etc. You can live a VERY happy and fulfilled existence without any of those things.
If you have talent and drive......you can make it regardless of the schools you do or do not attend. I agree that it is a waste of Money to send your kids to private school, unless you can use MONEY and influence to mask a deficit in talent and thus allow the student to get ahead off the reputation of the school, as opposed to their level of talent.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 03-12-2018 at 02:51 PM..
Agree with much of this for sure. Not quite sure how "Blake or Breck school" turned into parents trying to divulge their children's personal information, e.g.test scores etc. IMHO that's an example of some frightening parenting. If my children went to the best schools, had the best test scores and were doing the greatest things (not claiming that they are), I positively wouldn't be offering to compare their personal details with unknown parents of other children, particularly online. It seems unlikely that the parent of such high achievers is also responsible for thousands of posts on this forum, many of which are off-topic, as is the case here.
Kids of any upbringing can be successful in this country. No doubt about it. My grandfather came to the US with a 5th grade education and did very well for himself. Generally speaking, private schools are certainly better funded than public schools, and parents opinions are probably taken more seriously generally speaking. Lots of kids from public schools, obviously, go on to do great things as well.
To validate my topic as at least being on topic, I would just share that I've heard great things about Breck. I have hired several kids from there as interns and they were all kind and extremely bright. I haven't heard the greatest things about Blake, but I've also never hired anyone from there. One other data point: a good friend who went to Blake, and who sends his boys to Blake, told me recently that all of his old Blake friends now send their kids to Breck - he's trying to figure that one out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant
I kind of agree with Born-n-bread. Its kind of like if you are a great athlete with great natural ability....does it really matter what school you go to for your talent to manifest? If you are a great basketball player in high school, do you need to go to the "Hopkins", "Delasalles" or one of the other perennial powerhouses to get a good DI scholarship? Would you then need to go to Duke, Kentucky or Kansas to get drafted into the NBA? Why does one then need to go to the Ivies, Cal Tech, or any of these other schools to make it big in business? Is it not true that many famous business people dropped out of college or did not even attend? Their natural talent and drive propelled them, not schools.
If you have talent and drive....its that talent and drive, above anything else, that is will determine how far you go, not so much the schools you attend. In essence the talented athlete or student is probably doing the school they attend a bigger service than the school is doing the talented student/athlete, as they schools can market themselves based upon all the famous/successful people that attended their schools, which helps them attract more talented people.
I tend to think, and I maybe wrong, that rich people often seek things with status, like executive neighborhoods and elite schools. Rich people seem to like to have membership in the exclusive and their kids are often pawns in that desire. I mean, overall, as a parent, I just want my kids to be....HAPPY and I don't link that happiness to membership in exclusive clubs, neighborhoods, schools, etc. You can live a VERY happy and fulfilled existence without any of those things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BUT, motivated families and students are not taking classes with the coasters. So the negative impact is zero if you know how to parent.
I'm not faulting people for sending their kids to an "elite" HS. If I was closer and I wasn't so cheap, I might have done the same thing. But staring at the statistics can be misleading.
