2 best friends and tale of two cities.
- Thread starter irvinehomeshopper
- Start date
- Status
homer_simpson
Well-known member
qwerty said:
Golf clap!!
The good news is that it's truly not the end of the world if your kid misses out on an Ivy -- or even a UC.
Plucking Holly out of her home high school to maneuver for Yale may seem brilliant from here, but who knows what damage that may have done in the long run.
Show your kids the importance of doing their best, be a good example, have fun with them - then let the chips fall.
https://www.linkedin.com/today/post...-well-being-if-you-went-to-harvard-or-state-u
Plucking Holly out of her home high school to maneuver for Yale may seem brilliant from here, but who knows what damage that may have done in the long run.
Show your kids the importance of doing their best, be a good example, have fun with them - then let the chips fall.
Moral Bankruptcy by Tom Sowell
If you want to get some idea of the moral bankruptcy of our educational system, read an article in the May 4th issue of the New York Times Magazine titled, "The Tale of Two Schools."
The article is not about moral bankruptcy. But it is itself an example of the moral bankruptcy behind the many failures of American education today.
Someone had the bright idea of pairing public high school kids from a low-income neighborhood in the Bronx with kids from a private high school that charges $43,000 a year.
When the low-income youngsters visited the posh private school, "they were just overwhelmed" by it, according to the New York Times. "One kid ran crying off campus." Apparently others felt "so disheartened about their own circumstances."
What earthly good did that do for these young people? Thank heaven no one was calloused enough to take me on a tour of a posh private school when I was growing up in Harlem.
No doubt those adults who believe in envy and resentment get their jollies from doing things like this ? and from feeling that they are creating future envy and resentment voters to forward the ideological agenda of the big government left.
But at the expense of kids?
There was a time when common sense and common decency counted for something. Educators felt a responsibility to equip students with solid skills that could take them anywhere they wanted to go in later life ? enable them to become doctors, engineers or whatever they wanted to be.
Too many of today's "educators" see students as a captive audience for them to manipulate and propagandize.
These young people do not yet have enough experience to know that posh surroundings are neither necessary nor sufficient for a good education. Is anyone foolish enough to think that making poor kids feel disheartened is doing them a favor?
This school visit was not just an isolated event. It was part of a whole program of pairing individual youngsters from a poverty-stricken neighborhood with youngsters from families that can pay 43 grand a year for their schooling.
What do these kids do? They tell each other stories based on their young lives' unripened judgment.
They go to a big park in the Bronx together and take part in a garden project there. They talk about issues like gun violence and race relations.
They have a whole lifetime ahead of them to talk about such issues. But poor kids, especially, have just one time, during their school years, to equip their minds with math, science and other solid skills that will give them a shot at a better life.
To squander their time on rap sessions and navel-gazing is unconscionable.
This is just one of many programs dreamed up by "educators" who seem determined to do anything except educate. They see school children as guinea pigs for their pet notions.
The New York Times is doing these youngsters no favor by publishing page after page of their photographs and snippets of things they said. More than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke lamented "everything which takes a man from his house and sets him on a stage."
Setting adolescents on a stage is even more ill-advised, at a time of life when they do not yet have the experience to see what an inconsequential distraction such activities and such publicity are.
At a time when American youngsters are consistently outperformed on international tests by youngsters in other countries, do we have the luxury of spending our children's time on things that will do absolutely nothing for them in the years ahead? Are children just playthings for adults?
Maybe the affluent kids can afford to waste their time this way, because they will be taken care of, one way or another, in later life.
But to squander the time of poor kids, for whom education is often their only hope of escaping poverty, is truly an irresponsible self-indulgence by adults who should know better, and it is one more sign of the moral bankruptcy of too many people in our schools.
If you want to get some idea of the moral bankruptcy of our educational system, read an article in the May 4th issue of the New York Times Magazine titled, "The Tale of Two Schools."
The article is not about moral bankruptcy. But it is itself an example of the moral bankruptcy behind the many failures of American education today.
Someone had the bright idea of pairing public high school kids from a low-income neighborhood in the Bronx with kids from a private high school that charges $43,000 a year.
When the low-income youngsters visited the posh private school, "they were just overwhelmed" by it, according to the New York Times. "One kid ran crying off campus." Apparently others felt "so disheartened about their own circumstances."
What earthly good did that do for these young people? Thank heaven no one was calloused enough to take me on a tour of a posh private school when I was growing up in Harlem.
No doubt those adults who believe in envy and resentment get their jollies from doing things like this ? and from feeling that they are creating future envy and resentment voters to forward the ideological agenda of the big government left.
But at the expense of kids?
There was a time when common sense and common decency counted for something. Educators felt a responsibility to equip students with solid skills that could take them anywhere they wanted to go in later life ? enable them to become doctors, engineers or whatever they wanted to be.
Too many of today's "educators" see students as a captive audience for them to manipulate and propagandize.
These young people do not yet have enough experience to know that posh surroundings are neither necessary nor sufficient for a good education. Is anyone foolish enough to think that making poor kids feel disheartened is doing them a favor?
This school visit was not just an isolated event. It was part of a whole program of pairing individual youngsters from a poverty-stricken neighborhood with youngsters from families that can pay 43 grand a year for their schooling.
What do these kids do? They tell each other stories based on their young lives' unripened judgment.
They go to a big park in the Bronx together and take part in a garden project there. They talk about issues like gun violence and race relations.
They have a whole lifetime ahead of them to talk about such issues. But poor kids, especially, have just one time, during their school years, to equip their minds with math, science and other solid skills that will give them a shot at a better life.
To squander their time on rap sessions and navel-gazing is unconscionable.
This is just one of many programs dreamed up by "educators" who seem determined to do anything except educate. They see school children as guinea pigs for their pet notions.
The New York Times is doing these youngsters no favor by publishing page after page of their photographs and snippets of things they said. More than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke lamented "everything which takes a man from his house and sets him on a stage."
Setting adolescents on a stage is even more ill-advised, at a time of life when they do not yet have the experience to see what an inconsequential distraction such activities and such publicity are.
At a time when American youngsters are consistently outperformed on international tests by youngsters in other countries, do we have the luxury of spending our children's time on things that will do absolutely nothing for them in the years ahead? Are children just playthings for adults?
Maybe the affluent kids can afford to waste their time this way, because they will be taken care of, one way or another, in later life.
But to squander the time of poor kids, for whom education is often their only hope of escaping poverty, is truly an irresponsible self-indulgence by adults who should know better, and it is one more sign of the moral bankruptcy of too many people in our schools.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
I get asked this question by relatives.nyc to oc said:
I think people don't realize that Irvine is not *just* the schools. It's centrality, safety, like-minded neighbors (Ivy-minded included), proximity to work, food, play... etc etc.
It's the same answer why people who live in cities with decent schools still choose to homeschool... they like where they live but may not like the public school system no matter what the reputation is.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Not really.thatOSguy said:
What about the single professional? Or the DINKs? Or the couple with kids who won't be going to Elem for 5 years? Or the family with college kids?
People pay the Unicorn Toll for a variety of reasons, IUSD is just one of them (and not the most important one for many).
irvinehomeowner said:
The toll is the toll. If no schools, then they are over-paying for the rest of the benefits.
That spend can be redirected to so many other GREAT areas. I agree with irvinehomeshopper on this -- Irvine is little more than a dormitory. Generally speaking, folks raise their kids here then get the hell out.
qwerty
Well-known member
thatOSguy said:
i would agree. this is why we chose the better value right next door in tustin. we are on the border of tustin/irvine but didnt have to pay the irvine premium. we get all the same benefits IHO mentioned, except for the local schools, but even that can be worked around. the local kids in columbus square either do private schools or attend the tustin ranch zoned schools. i paid high 700s for a 3,000 sq ft house with a 3 car garage on almost a 5,000 sq ft lot. high 700s in irvine right now gets you what, a 2,000 sq ft brand new house with a 3,000 sq ft lot?
if someone living in irvine is going to send their kids to private school, an excellent alternative would be the upcoming standard pacific homes just north of the district costco and from test's post, the mello roos is going to be very reasonable.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Again, I disagree.thatOSguy said:
Name an OC city as central as Irvine that has the safety, access to freeways, access to variety of shopping and food, mix of homes, proximity to the beach, proximity to the airport, proximity to a UC, proximity to jobs, large variety of churches, etc etc.
This has been hashed and re-hashed a number of times, Irvine is not just about the schools. While that may be your opinion, it's not something shared by many long term Irvinites (like myself who bought in Irvine before I even had kids) or new Irvinites who are moving to Irvine and don't have kids.
If you bought in Irvine just for the schools, then maybe you're the exception not the rule.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
While I agree with qwerty that the particular area may share some of the benefits of Irvine, there is still a premium to be paid for it, the savings is not as significant if you compare apples to apples.
Back when he bought, there were resale homes with the same features for the same price and no Mello Roos. Now, if you were to buy in his area, not only are you paying close to $1m, but you also pay for the Mello Roos and you don't get the added value of IUSD (and you get a perception detractor of the former land use).
For the price of a Tustin Columbus Square 3CWG with no driveway, personally, I would buy a Northwood resale for the same price that has a driveway, larger lot and no Mello Roos. Or pay over $1m for a 3CWG in Woodbridge, Westpark II or TRock.
But that's beside the point. IHS didn't live in Irvine but sent his kid to Irvine-like schools (since Beckman is technically TUSD with an Irvine address)... why? Was he concerned about things beyond education? With hindsight, maybe he would have done things differently but again, it's more than just the schools.
I agree it's a factor, for some a major factor, but not the only factor and not the only premium in Irvine.
Back when he bought, there were resale homes with the same features for the same price and no Mello Roos. Now, if you were to buy in his area, not only are you paying close to $1m, but you also pay for the Mello Roos and you don't get the added value of IUSD (and you get a perception detractor of the former land use).
For the price of a Tustin Columbus Square 3CWG with no driveway, personally, I would buy a Northwood resale for the same price that has a driveway, larger lot and no Mello Roos. Or pay over $1m for a 3CWG in Woodbridge, Westpark II or TRock.
But that's beside the point. IHS didn't live in Irvine but sent his kid to Irvine-like schools (since Beckman is technically TUSD with an Irvine address)... why? Was he concerned about things beyond education? With hindsight, maybe he would have done things differently but again, it's more than just the schools.
I agree it's a factor, for some a major factor, but not the only factor and not the only premium in Irvine.
homer_simpson
Well-known member
qwerty said:
I think the best bang for the buck was the Augusta plan 3 we picked up Qwerty, high $700k for a 3k sqft home was a no brainer.. especially with a 3CG.
I do agree with IHO though, not everyone that buys in Irvine do it for the schools (I'm sure a majority do though)... Irvine is centrally located, freeways, restaurants, shopping and especially jobs. Irvine also has a lot of good biking and walking trails that my wife and I did enjoy during our time there. Although you do pay a premium and get less for your money in Irvine, the "feeling" of living in Irvine feels a lot different then any other city besides Johns Creek. Only thing I enjoy about Johns Creek now is the view, exclusivity, lack of FCBs and running into the real house wives from time to time...
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
I had this conversation with some younger people who recently moved to Irvine (they used to live in a nearby OC city).nyc to oc said:
I asked them why they chose Irvine and not somewhere near the beach and their answers ranged from safety, closeness to friends/relatives, food, near their job etc etc. I was strange to me because one of them thinks the TIC apartments are so awesome compared to apartment complexes in other cities.
Personally, I chose to live in Irvine because of availability of pick-up basketball games without having to worry about getting stabbed.
J
jmoney74
Guest
The tale of two friends
Me and Homer went to Woodbridge HS... now we are both cosmetic surgeons after graduating from Yale. Homie now resides in the CREEK and I am still in Irvine. Irvine just pumps out successful people. Just sayin.
Me and Homer went to Woodbridge HS... now we are both cosmetic surgeons after graduating from Yale. Homie now resides in the CREEK and I am still in Irvine. Irvine just pumps out successful people. Just sayin.
- Status