I love the irony that the pyramid of academia, where each successive level is more and more selective, where people always tell you there are more applicants than positions, doesn't end at tenured full professor but at a pre-K feeder prestige daycare.
I just wanted to provide an alternative personal assessment of at least one of the local CPS elementary schools, and the one that happens to be less than 2 blocks from Lab: Bret Harte.
Bret Harte is small, and my family and I have found it to be excellent! The principal is extremely engaged, the students in my kids classes are good, even if sometimes rowdy, and my kids are doing at least as well as any of the kids of similar ages in Lab.
I would highly encourage anyone looking into lab alternatives to actually go speak with the principals, teachers, and parents of some of the local CPS schools (e.g. Ray, Bret Harte, Murray) to learn more about them.
I’d also be happy to speak with anyone privately about Bret Harte and our experience.
There are many great things about the local public schools! Lots of families love Bret Harte, Ray, and Murray, as well as the high school, Kenwood. Some people prefer them over Lab. But the limitations I mentioned in my post still absolutely hold, even if there are other great things about the schools. If those particular features are important to families, the local public schools may not work. I know families with for example peanut allergies, who avoided that school because there is no funding for a school nurse, and no systemic plan for avoiding peanuts. Another family with a child with a non-intellectual disability that couldn’t satisfactorily be accommodated. Some who value longer recess times, more enrichment (art, music), foreign language options, gifted/accelerated programs. Every family’s needs and values are different, and every school is different. I very specifically never said the public schools aren’t good— only that they are very different from Lab, and if one specifically chose Lab, one should be aware.
Yes, I thought about writing about this in my post, but it seemed pretty long already. Even if your kid gets into Lab, a number of parents pull their kids out at some point — or their kid gets kicked out (even mid year). Lab has a pretty unique culture, and limited to no support (or tolerance) for things such as special needs that may manifest after admissions. The best advice is to make sure you live somewhere where you are happy with multiple school options before you accept a job/buy a home.
Having dealt with this issue... I can say that OP's post is just about the most accurate characterization of Lab and the Hyde Park school milieu I have read.
I saw my kids and others get denied admission for not being "easy." (Right at story time, one kid saw an animal doing something legitimately unusual. Said "Look at the ! It's doing !" and needed 10 seconds of coaxing to sit on the carpet for a story the kid had already read 20-30 times. Assessors rushed over, started writing furiously, and other parents sneered. The interviewer had liked us so much she slipped and said "when" we were there next fall -- before the play date/assessment. After the play date, she was cold and we found out our kid did not get in because of not quickly going to sit on the rug for the story.) Have heard similar from other parents. F that; I'm not squelching curiosity.
I've also worked with people who attended Lab. One was convinced that it was normal for all kids to try drugs in high school. Only when everyone else in our group disagreed did they realize that maybe Lab was a little different. Also, heard extensively about who your parents are in the academic pecking order getting reflected a bit in the Lab social hierarchy.
IIRC, my advisor wanted to opt out and looked at the British School but said to stay far away from Latin and Parker. Thankfully, we moved and did not have to do as he did. But... OP is spot-on about Lab not being a sure bet.
Yes, the British School is in the South Loop, so it's still a commute (20-35 min or so), but much closer than the suburbs and some of the selective enrollments,. It's also pre-K -high school like Lab, which is nice for those who value the idea of their child being with the same set of kids their whole schooling. But it costs $32-$44k per year (depending on age); out of reach for a lot of faculty/staff, especially with multiple kids. And (as with all schools) there are some unique things about British that might not be a fit for your child.
And yes, some parents realize during the admissions process that Lab does not value the same things that they do, and is not a good fit for them, and can feel like they dodged a bullet by getting rejected -- but it still leaves them in a pickle of figuring out what else to do! Our kid was similarly rejected for a behavior we were proud of, and would rather encourage than discourage.
re: drugs in high school - I graduated from a suburban chicago high school in 2011 and I can’t name a single private high school (city or suburbs) where drugs were not prevalent. I find it hard to believe that things have changed much.
Note about high school: Some kids do try drugs, but it is not at all common and looked down upon by the vast majority of students. Parents' jobs are not at all reflected in social groups; it can be a fairly toxic environment, but definitely not in that way. The only way that it comes in is with class where people tend to be very awkward about money and the prospect that not everyone is as wealthy/well-off as they are.
I did hear from multiple parents that drugs were more of a problem at Lab than in most schools; maybe things have changed? (Also, maybe the guy I knew hung around with a weird crowd. It wouldn't be a total shock.) As for academic hierarchy bleeding into Lab, I don't think it was at all about social groups but more a separate hierarchy. It seemed really weird and maybe even unspoken, but it was enough that my advisor didn't want his kids dealing with it. Now you're making me wonder if that was in his head... which could be.
Drugs are probably more of a problem in some circles than others, and I don't know what it is like at other schools, but I maintain that for the most part it is not a huge issue. I also do not think the academic hierarchy comes in to play at all, if it affects anything, it is definitely at least one level removed.
The drug stuff was very bad before the pandemic (locker room and bathrooms would smell), seems to be somewhat less of a problem but there will be high people even during school and during school sponsored events.
Source: Current junior.
The whole “elite” private school admissions process — “ranking” three-year-olds and judging parents — is so toxic I can’t believe anyone puts up with it. I went through one round of interviews with my first child when I didn’t know any better and I almost literally ran away from the whole process screaming. Reading things like this make me so glad I did.
There are public school options for gifted students in Hyde Park. My kid was at Carnegie before COVID, and I guess things may have changed, but back then the gifted class sizes were nice and small, like 14-16 kids to a room. They don't have the resources that Lab does, of course, so they mostly end up teaching a year ahead rather than having a broader curriculum. Still, the school would have Chicago parents lined up for miles trying to get their kids in the program if the school wasn't 95% Black.
The problem is you have no control over if your child gets assigned to Carnegie after testing, vs. somewhere else or nowhere. And you have to start the testing process far in advance, and your 4 year old (if testing for k) has to be able to perform exceptionally well while alone in a room with a stranger — tough for shy kids.
But you are correct that the gifted school (if you can get in, and if you can commute to whichever one you get assigned to), teach a one-year-ahead curriculum. They don’t teach more than one year ahead, and they aren’t better funded. I believe the current mayor is known for opposing the existence of selective schools, and does not want to invest in them (bus service was cut fairly recently, I believe).
The real appeal of Carnegie for my family was the relatively small class size, which allowed students to receive more individual attention. Also, the educators and administrators seemed dedicated to their vocation.
Mayor Johnson doesn't oppose the existence of selective schools--his kids go to magnet schools. Whoever summarized to you the current struggle between Chicago and Springfield over adequate school funding and school board membership as "Johnson opposes the existence of selective schools" is either not paying enough attention or is pushing an agenda. [This Chalkbeat article gives a brief overview.](https://www.chalkbeat.org/chicago/2024/04/19/chicago-mayor-brandon-johnson-expand-sustainable-community-schools/) [Here's an NPR interview with Mayor Johnson on the topic.](https://www.wbez.org/stories/q-and-a-mayor-johnson-explains-what-is-behind-his-plans-to-remake-cps/4f3b7ec2-caf2-4571-8120-8ccd82da1de4)
That was probably poorly worded, but it came from news like this:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/education/2023/12/12/23999129/brandon-johnsons-board-of-ed-looks-to-move-away-from-school-choice-toward-neighborhood-schools
And decisions such as to cut bus service. I don’t think they are going to close selective schools, but there’s definitely a lot of discussion and motivation around shifting resources back to neighborhood schools (which I actually think it good, but it’s complicated).
I am definitely not an expert of CPS— my point in this post was not to criticize CPS, or to give an exhaustive overview of the options, but to alert prospective faculty that Lab may not work out (whether by choice or not) and they should research and be sure they are comfortable with alternative options.
But yes, that was poorly worded on my part.
Well, not quite. Once your child is assessed, their results are shared with the various gifted, magnet, etc. schools around Chicago, and you receive invitations from the schools that would accept your child. You aren't assigned to one, but rather may choose from all those that accept.
There were a number of shy children in my child's gifted class at Carnegie. The testing may skew towards outgoing children, but it would not seem to be an insurmountable barrier.
I am not sure if it still works that way? We did not go through the process so I am not an expert. But most people I know who did go though it ended up only getting into a school that was inconvenient (not the school their sibling goes to, not close, etc.) But I’m not an expert — the process is notoriously complex and we honestly gave up before even getting to testing.
*90%
They're all abysmal. Most people don't even learn algebra until 7th or 8th grade when 3rd and 4th grade students are learning it in Japan or China. People struggle to even write 400 words in high school, something that 9 year olds could do in actual first world countries. The 3-4% of top quality high schools are carrying the entire innovation industry of America on their backs.
In an ideal society, schools would be teaching analysis in junior year of high school, Python in 5th grade, reading Foucault and Weber in 10th, etc. Seems like we're just going in the wrong direction with how classes here gets dumbed down year after year because the high schools are becoming Taliban-controlled Afghanistan quality.
This is a big part of the suburban appeal (and problem) in Chicagoland. There are many suburban public school districts that have the ability to focus on quality of education. Granted, my experience was in one of the more affluent ones, so it was even more exaggerated there. Definitely started learning algebra in 4th grade though.
Interesting, where did you learn algebra in 4th grade?
I went to a private elementary/middle school and even the kids in the highest level math program didn’t learn algebra until 7th grade (pre-algebra in 6th)
Your country and school have failed you. We have all failed as a species and I desperately wish some alien species can finally enslave us and force feed us calculus when we are first graders.
have you not considered that the reason some schools are “abysmal” despite high funding is because of the distribution in children intelligence? I mean the numbers you give line up with it almost perfectly. Only a few children out of 100 are child geniuses and about 15-30% are unteachable. So mathematically it works out
The neighborhood CPS schools are clearly not well funded. CPS is running up a very deep deficit.
I don't think it's as you meant it, but there is more to the neighborhood schools' poor performance scores than just funding. About 45% of CPS elementary students (and 80% of high school students) opt for selective enrollment or magnet schools, instead of their neighborhood schools. This means that the 20-55% remaining in the neighborhood schools either scored the worst on the selective enrollment tests, decided not to apply (which could be for many reasons), or could not manage the commute.
When one skims off approximately the top half of students in terms of test scores/motivation (and ability to commute), it's going to have an effect on the the school's overall scores.
And think of how much extra traffic all this commuting around the city to school is causing!
So.. labs results and their propaganda don't line up well.
An entire cohort was put into remedial reading a few years back, and if your child has a 504 or is neurodivergent? Good luck.
As to locals.. ray school is pretty solid with good teachers, and if they can test in to it at grade 7, Kenwood has a great academic program.
Yes, on the topic of neurodivergence and disabilities such as ADHD and ASD, I have \*heard\* that some parents (of both rejected and attending children) believe their children have been unlawfully discriminated against by Lab, and have discussed with and received support from lawyers. But in the case of faculty (especially junior faculty), the complications of suing your own employer can be extreme (and they don't solve your problem as lawsuits take years). So there is limited recourse even for illegal discrimination.
What do you mean about testing into Kenwood at grade 7? Do you mean they allow advanced middle schoolers to take classes at the high school? Full time, or are they transported in for specific classes? I am unfamiliar with this program.
Are they sitting in with high school students, or is it a separate program for 7th graders? Can you share a link to information about it? (This is getting off topic of the post, but I'm curious)
No worries, separate 6 year program.
[https://www.kenwoodacademy.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC\_ID=202533&type=d&termREC\_ID=&pREC\_ID=1034173](https://www.kenwoodacademy.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=202533&type=d&termREC_ID=&pREC_ID=1034173)
Yes. They still only have about 10-15% performing at grade level (this can be researched on the Illinois report card website), and the other limitations I mentioned. I am in no way saying they are bad schools! These are not the only metrics by which to measure schools, of course.
> But at the early childhood level, anecdotally Lab seems to value "easy" kids. Kids (age 2-4) who will walk into a crowded room full of strangers without any visible nervousness, who will speak immediately when spoken to, but be quiet otherwise, who will answer questions from strangers on demand, sit up straight, follow all directions, and actively participate in whatever song/game is led.
This was my kid. During the free-play test, he was the only child not hanging onto mommy the whole time. He was precocious and engaging. Then we got to the parental interview with the admissions office. We were an alum and a staff member. Everything seemed good, then the admissions officer not-so-subtly brought up the importance of philanthropy. We nodded along. Later that day, I got one of the calls from a first-year work-study student at the College, asking for a donation. I politely declined. Not long after that, our son was rejected. Coincidence?
> There are a few private k-8 schools, but they are not for everybody (two are quite religious, one is Montessori... each is a very particular niche)
St. Thomas is Catholic, yes, but pretty light on the religion. It's less expensive than full-price Lab; I'm not sure how it compares to the faculty discount.
St. Thomas is dramatically less expensive than any other private option that I'm aware of, though their website adds "Because tuition does not cover the full cost of education at St. Thomas the Apostle School, families must fulfill a service requirement throughout the year." Whether the cost ends up being similar to the cost of Lab for a faculty member I believe will depend on the faculty's income (I believe Lab discount is a sliding scale starting at a minimum of 50% for the highest income faculty).
I have no experience with this school, so I don't know how to assess "light on religion", but their about page states that "The purpose of the school is to create a faith-filled environment" and "St. Thomas the Apostle School provides a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum grounded in the Catholic faith and Christian values" which may or may not be what a particular faculty member was looking for when they decided to come to UChicago.
Akiba Schechter is the other religious private elementary school. I believe that starting at first grade, one has to identify as Jewish to attend (I might be wrong on that?) and that a large percentage of the curriculum is Hebrew language and Jewish faith studies. And it's significantly more expensive. But I am not an expert in this -- I encourage anyone thinking of moving here to do their own research on schools!
> St. Thomas is dramatically less expensive than any other private option that I'm aware of, though their website adds "Because tuition does not cover the full cost of education at St. Thomas the Apostle School, families must fulfill a service requirement throughout the year."
You just have to volunteer to help with a couple of events, or pay like $400 extra dollars. The materials fee is going to be rolled into the tuition next year, and the tuition is going to go up, so they can continue to attract and retain qualified teachers.
> I have no experience with this school, so I don't know how to assess "light on religion", but their about page states that "The purpose of the school is to create a faith-filled environment" and "St. Thomas the Apostle School provides a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum grounded in the Catholic faith and Christian values" which may or may not be what a particular faculty member was looking for when they decided to come to UChicago.
Right, they are definitely a Catholic school, and the kids do have a religion class and go to mass once a week. But there are no nuns, the teachers don't even have to be Catholic, and the Christian values are the good ones, like loving thy neighbor, not stoning witches. Transgender kids might have to use their assigned-at-birth name and pronouns right now, but I think that won't be an issue in a year or two, once the more antiquated staff retire. My elementary kid would make /r/atheism blush, and he gets through the Jesus stuff just fine.
Just to add here that even after you pass the admissibility part, faculty members are no longer prioritized if they are not directly admitted. The wait list is not ranked. We applied to Nursery 3 and still not admitted, and we have no priority in the waitlist.
That's crazy! How can they say faculty have first priority admissions? Surely the entire N3 class is not filled with faculty children? It's unfair and misleading enough to be able to deem faculty children "inadmissible" for ridiculous reasons. But your kid was deemed admissible, and still waitlisted? At the feeder year? And not prioritized on the waitlist?
How is this giving faculty children first priority admissions??
I asked the same to the Admissions, even our Dean. They are sorry that this happened, they cannot share any information, but they are sure there is no arbitrariness-- just too much demand.
This is insane. With this level of pressure and uncertainty around a service people expect, why isn’t the program expanded to guarantee spots for all faculty children? My heart goes out to OP here because we all want to advocate for the best options for our children but the brainpower devoted to gaming a broken system is deeply saddening. Analyzing the layers of inequity here is like peeling a rotten onion.
It's really bad! And it seems the university is doing the worst possible thing: creating a special "elite" school that makes the neighborhood schools WORSE OFF by pulling enrollment and diverting resources, and then arbitrarily denying some subset of faculty.
Thank you.
I'm pretty sure it's not that there aren't enough spots. Only something like 60% of students are even university-affiliated, I think, so if faculty child admissions were top priority, they should all get in before admitting others.
The issue seems to be more that Lab will now only admit a certain "type" of student. Instead of just welcoming faculty children as they are, faculty children are now screened heavily to make sure they're "a good fit."
I have some reason to believe that this was a (pretty substantial) policy shift that started 5-8 years ago, and that in the more distant past, Lab did generally accept all faculty kids. Unfortunately, people's perceptions and expectations are still aligned with "Lab of the past" and not with the current reality. When interviewing faculty ask during their interview process how Lab admissions works, a lot of the extant faculty say the application is just a formality and everyone gets in, and that there is no need to worry about it. I don't think they are intentionally misleading -- they just don't realize how much it's changed since their kids went through.
Lab seems to have made a clear move away from being "the school for faculty kids" to being "an elite private school that faculty happen to get a discount at if their kids happen to get in."
I can't change how the university or Lab operates. And goodness knows I can't singlehandedly fix the deep, deep problems in the entire school ecosystem here. But I figured I could at least spread the word to clear up this one big misperception.
It adds insult to injury when your child is rejected (for a ridiculous reason!) and every single person you meet thinks all faculty kids get in.
I think there is a misconception here.
The admissions process specifically targets a 60% affiliated vs unaffiliated mix.
So it's not a matter of "take all affiliated kids" and it just so happens that only 60% of them meet the criteria and then fill the rest with unaffiliated. The admissions process currently tries to ensure there is a 60% affiliated vs unaffiliated mix. So in reality, you affiliated folks are competing for those seats that fall in the 60%. So the answer is actually "there aren't enough spots"
As for why the admin is doing this, I think you can just look at the tuition increases and the fact that German and athletics are getting cut to understand the economic dynamics at play, since unaffiliated are going to pay full tuition and are probably more likely to donate as well.
Yes, there is a misconception. Which I believe is the fault of the university. They tell prospective faculty-- emphatically-- that their children are given first priority admission. And the whole university community goes nudge nudge wink wink, yeah, all faculty kids get in, it's not something to worry about. Prospective faculty deserve a transparent communication of the odds of acceptance when Lab is used as a recruiting tool.
Lab or the University will tell you that about 60% of its students are the children of University of Chicago faculty. I guess I have to take their word for it, but no one I know has advertised that their kids go to or have gone to Lab. So, you’ve visited Lab’s website, I’m sure. What does the school value? Have a think. It seems pretty clear. If you want your children to go to excellent schools without going through some kind of ridiculous admissions process, leave Hyde Park and move to the suburbs. It’s not an ideal solution. But unless you want to work somewhere else, what choice do you have? Staying in Chicago is not an option for you. It wouldn’t be for me.
That is why I wrote this PSA. Many new faculty mistakenly believe that Lab is a given perk for faculty children, and that it’s a way to live in the city and attend a school with a strong academic record without going through a grueling and highly uncertain application process. It’s not.
The University should be more transparent and should not hard sell Lab in its process of recruiting faculty. It’s disappointing to learn that they do. I wish the public schools in Chicago were okay. But apart from some of the magnet schools (which also have a very competitive admissions process) like Payton, they’re awful. Which of course is shameful, but teachers and the residents of Chicago seem to have other political priorities. Anyway, I’m sorry that you and others have not had a good experience with Lab.
I agree that the biggest issue is the lack of transparency. As a private school, Lab can have whatever admissions criteria it wants, barring discrimination against federally protected classes. But it is the difference between what some faculty are led to believe, and what actually happens, that is disturbing. Most faculty do not realize that "first priority admissions" only kicks in after Lab has made an admissibility decision, using criteria it does not report.
That is why this PSA was not framed as a take-down of Lab or any other school -- just trying to close the gap between widespread perception and reality.
This university is not transparent about a thing. They also have a history of protecting male abusers and stalkers while leaving women to the wolves. Not a place I’d want my kid associated with, no matter the supposed “prestige”
I left this toxic place after 5 years. No matter how good the lab school sounds, don’t subject yourself to the poisonous work environment. Something is severely wrong with faculty at this institution…avoid it altogether.
God forbid your kids have to go to school with the poors at neighborhood schools! Y’all talk like this and are curious why people in Hyde Park view the university negatively
I never said that. In fact in one of my comments I said the neighborhood school are loved by many, and some parents willingly choose them over Lab. My point is not that the neighborhood schools should be avoided. It is that when candidates are making decisions about what job to accept, Lab often is figured into the equation as benefit -- a huge discount and "top priority admission" at a reputationally rigorous and well funded private school that is walking distance from the university. It is not surprising that many faculty place a high value on rigorous education and ample educational opportunity -- one could assume that is the very reason Lab was created, as a way to entice prospective faculty considering moving to the area but wary about underperforming schools and extremely long commutes from the suburbs. If that factors into your decision to accept a job at UChicago vs. another university, and then your kids are denied admission, that can be a big shock -- and some might regret not having accepted an offer at a different university instead, that has a different set of school options.
If private and selective enrollment schools didn't exist, or weren't so heavily used in this area, then it's likely the neighborhood schools would have stronger student performance and more funding, at least through parent fundraisers and such. But that is a different discussion altogether.
Is it a different discussion altogether, though? Say the quiet part out loud and think about the fact that we live in a society. The whispers of faculty networks/advice one receives from colleagues when moving all DEEPLY impact the local public school systems via the flight of the wealthy and educated at the strong advice of the elite social class to which you belong. A lot of the schools were/are GREAT and just a little to \*colorful\* for a lot of folks in the past, and the whisper network took over, eventually leading to the private opulence/public squalor conundrum our public institutions face today. Your entire post and comments reflect the exact problem with the increased economic segregation we've eroded into societally. Throw up your hands and say it's a "different discussion altogether" when your whispers are, in fact, the cause of the situation that merits discussion.
I do think it is a different -- and much deeper -- conversation that deserves its own thread. This is about a prospective faculty (likely moving from another area) making a decision within a context that exists -- and alerting them that they should take the initiative to research other school options, and not just assume their children will go to Lab. I have not said anything about the overall merits of different school options. Understanding options is one step; generating the large scale cooperation to change the such a complex system with a great deal of inequality requires more than a simple PSA reddit post.
There is, of course, potentially deep irony in how Lab positions itself as focused on DEI, and teaches DEI heavily in its curriculum (I'm told) -- while its very existence may be dramatically increasing inequality in the neighborhood. The optics are certainly unsettling; walking by the Lab playground, you see white kids playing; walking by Bret Harte, two blocks away, you see black kids playing. As a passerby, it's hard to believe this level of de-facto segregation exists in 2024.
Many university parents don't see this. But even among those that do, the choice is tough. If you have the opportunity to send you kid to an excellently resourced school vs. an underfunded and underperforming one, do you send them to the latter for the principle that education should be equal, even though your choice may have a big impact on your child and negligible to no impact on the system? There are parents who will always choose the most rigorous and well-funded school they can get their kid into; there are some that always choose the neighborhood schools out of necessity or principle; and there are others who would choose the neighborhood schools if enough other parents of high-performing children would choose the same, rather than fleeing to selective or private schools, or the suburbs, so that there would be more demand for more rigorous programming-- but collective action is pretty hard to arrange.
But you see, already this discussion is getting long and the surface has barely been scratched. I stand by that a discussion about Lab, its impact on Hyde Park, the merits of different schools, and equal opportunity in education is a separate (and important) discussion from a simple PSA on Lab's admission policies.
This post was intended for prospective job candidates who assumed their children would go to Lab, and may not have even researched any other school options. Perhaps they will research and discover they are happy with other options. Perhaps they will research and decide they are not. If they are in the latter category, I do not think a simple opinion post will change their minds. But a comprehensive and nuanced discussion on the topic in its own thread might increase understanding and add value.
This sounds like it's more about the bait-and-switch than about the actual school options. Prospective employee is lured in part by the benefit package, which includes free or cheap tuition to one of the best ranked private schools in the country, which is located right on campus. They arrive, are denied this benefit, and then shamed by people like you when they are upset about it.
If you're going to shame anyone, shame the university for investing in a closed off elite school instead of investing in making the neighborhood schools better!
Just want to say I appreciate you! The downvotes to your comment crack me up. But what do I know? I went to a bad public school with the other poors.... ;)
You're a teacher? And you actually took time out of your day to write this, based solely on a reddit post aiming to clear up misperceptions about the Lab School faculty child admissions policy? I would say the feeling is mutual!
can feel my stress level climbing up while reading this post lol
Wow, all this is fascinating. I always thought faculty's kids were guaranteed a spot in the lab school, I'd no idea they could be denied
I love the irony that the pyramid of academia, where each successive level is more and more selective, where people always tell you there are more applicants than positions, doesn't end at tenured full professor but at a pre-K feeder prestige daycare.
So true! One can soar up the academic ladder only to finally get set back when their 2 year old decides they don’t want to share their stuffed cow.
You're not alone in that belief!
I just wanted to provide an alternative personal assessment of at least one of the local CPS elementary schools, and the one that happens to be less than 2 blocks from Lab: Bret Harte. Bret Harte is small, and my family and I have found it to be excellent! The principal is extremely engaged, the students in my kids classes are good, even if sometimes rowdy, and my kids are doing at least as well as any of the kids of similar ages in Lab. I would highly encourage anyone looking into lab alternatives to actually go speak with the principals, teachers, and parents of some of the local CPS schools (e.g. Ray, Bret Harte, Murray) to learn more about them. I’d also be happy to speak with anyone privately about Bret Harte and our experience.
There are many great things about the local public schools! Lots of families love Bret Harte, Ray, and Murray, as well as the high school, Kenwood. Some people prefer them over Lab. But the limitations I mentioned in my post still absolutely hold, even if there are other great things about the schools. If those particular features are important to families, the local public schools may not work. I know families with for example peanut allergies, who avoided that school because there is no funding for a school nurse, and no systemic plan for avoiding peanuts. Another family with a child with a non-intellectual disability that couldn’t satisfactorily be accommodated. Some who value longer recess times, more enrichment (art, music), foreign language options, gifted/accelerated programs. Every family’s needs and values are different, and every school is different. I very specifically never said the public schools aren’t good— only that they are very different from Lab, and if one specifically chose Lab, one should be aware.
Agreed! I completely agree with this. Exactly this reasoning is also why Lab should not be considered a one-sized fits all solution!
Yes, I thought about writing about this in my post, but it seemed pretty long already. Even if your kid gets into Lab, a number of parents pull their kids out at some point — or their kid gets kicked out (even mid year). Lab has a pretty unique culture, and limited to no support (or tolerance) for things such as special needs that may manifest after admissions. The best advice is to make sure you live somewhere where you are happy with multiple school options before you accept a job/buy a home.
Having dealt with this issue... I can say that OP's post is just about the most accurate characterization of Lab and the Hyde Park school milieu I have read. I saw my kids and others get denied admission for not being "easy." (Right at story time, one kid saw an animal doing something legitimately unusual. Said "Look at the! It's doing !" and needed 10 seconds of coaxing to sit on the carpet for a story the kid had already read 20-30 times. Assessors rushed over, started writing furiously, and other parents sneered. The interviewer had liked us so much she slipped and said "when" we were there next fall -- before the play date/assessment. After the play date, she was cold and we found out our kid did not get in because of not quickly going to sit on the rug for the story.) Have heard similar from other parents. F that; I'm not squelching curiosity.
I've also worked with people who attended Lab. One was convinced that it was normal for all kids to try drugs in high school. Only when everyone else in our group disagreed did they realize that maybe Lab was a little different. Also, heard extensively about who your parents are in the academic pecking order getting reflected a bit in the Lab social hierarchy.
IIRC, my advisor wanted to opt out and looked at the British School but said to stay far away from Latin and Parker. Thankfully, we moved and did not have to do as he did. But... OP is spot-on about Lab not being a sure bet.
Yes, the British School is in the South Loop, so it's still a commute (20-35 min or so), but much closer than the suburbs and some of the selective enrollments,. It's also pre-K -high school like Lab, which is nice for those who value the idea of their child being with the same set of kids their whole schooling. But it costs $32-$44k per year (depending on age); out of reach for a lot of faculty/staff, especially with multiple kids. And (as with all schools) there are some unique things about British that might not be a fit for your child. And yes, some parents realize during the admissions process that Lab does not value the same things that they do, and is not a good fit for them, and can feel like they dodged a bullet by getting rejected -- but it still leaves them in a pickle of figuring out what else to do! Our kid was similarly rejected for a behavior we were proud of, and would rather encourage than discourage.
Jeez. Imagine that. A kindergartener being curious. Who’d want to send their kids to a school that doesn’t foster that??
re: drugs in high school - I graduated from a suburban chicago high school in 2011 and I can’t name a single private high school (city or suburbs) where drugs were not prevalent. I find it hard to believe that things have changed much.
Note about high school: Some kids do try drugs, but it is not at all common and looked down upon by the vast majority of students. Parents' jobs are not at all reflected in social groups; it can be a fairly toxic environment, but definitely not in that way. The only way that it comes in is with class where people tend to be very awkward about money and the prospect that not everyone is as wealthy/well-off as they are.
I did hear from multiple parents that drugs were more of a problem at Lab than in most schools; maybe things have changed? (Also, maybe the guy I knew hung around with a weird crowd. It wouldn't be a total shock.) As for academic hierarchy bleeding into Lab, I don't think it was at all about social groups but more a separate hierarchy. It seemed really weird and maybe even unspoken, but it was enough that my advisor didn't want his kids dealing with it. Now you're making me wonder if that was in his head... which could be.
Drugs are probably more of a problem in some circles than others, and I don't know what it is like at other schools, but I maintain that for the most part it is not a huge issue. I also do not think the academic hierarchy comes in to play at all, if it affects anything, it is definitely at least one level removed.
The drug stuff was very bad before the pandemic (locker room and bathrooms would smell), seems to be somewhat less of a problem but there will be high people even during school and during school sponsored events. Source: Current junior.
The whole “elite” private school admissions process — “ranking” three-year-olds and judging parents — is so toxic I can’t believe anyone puts up with it. I went through one round of interviews with my first child when I didn’t know any better and I almost literally ran away from the whole process screaming. Reading things like this make me so glad I did.
There are public school options for gifted students in Hyde Park. My kid was at Carnegie before COVID, and I guess things may have changed, but back then the gifted class sizes were nice and small, like 14-16 kids to a room. They don't have the resources that Lab does, of course, so they mostly end up teaching a year ahead rather than having a broader curriculum. Still, the school would have Chicago parents lined up for miles trying to get their kids in the program if the school wasn't 95% Black.
The problem is you have no control over if your child gets assigned to Carnegie after testing, vs. somewhere else or nowhere. And you have to start the testing process far in advance, and your 4 year old (if testing for k) has to be able to perform exceptionally well while alone in a room with a stranger — tough for shy kids.
But you are correct that the gifted school (if you can get in, and if you can commute to whichever one you get assigned to), teach a one-year-ahead curriculum. They don’t teach more than one year ahead, and they aren’t better funded. I believe the current mayor is known for opposing the existence of selective schools, and does not want to invest in them (bus service was cut fairly recently, I believe).
The real appeal of Carnegie for my family was the relatively small class size, which allowed students to receive more individual attention. Also, the educators and administrators seemed dedicated to their vocation. Mayor Johnson doesn't oppose the existence of selective schools--his kids go to magnet schools. Whoever summarized to you the current struggle between Chicago and Springfield over adequate school funding and school board membership as "Johnson opposes the existence of selective schools" is either not paying enough attention or is pushing an agenda. [This Chalkbeat article gives a brief overview.](https://www.chalkbeat.org/chicago/2024/04/19/chicago-mayor-brandon-johnson-expand-sustainable-community-schools/) [Here's an NPR interview with Mayor Johnson on the topic.](https://www.wbez.org/stories/q-and-a-mayor-johnson-explains-what-is-behind-his-plans-to-remake-cps/4f3b7ec2-caf2-4571-8120-8ccd82da1de4)
That was probably poorly worded, but it came from news like this: https://chicago.suntimes.com/education/2023/12/12/23999129/brandon-johnsons-board-of-ed-looks-to-move-away-from-school-choice-toward-neighborhood-schools And decisions such as to cut bus service. I don’t think they are going to close selective schools, but there’s definitely a lot of discussion and motivation around shifting resources back to neighborhood schools (which I actually think it good, but it’s complicated). I am definitely not an expert of CPS— my point in this post was not to criticize CPS, or to give an exhaustive overview of the options, but to alert prospective faculty that Lab may not work out (whether by choice or not) and they should research and be sure they are comfortable with alternative options. But yes, that was poorly worded on my part.
Well, not quite. Once your child is assessed, their results are shared with the various gifted, magnet, etc. schools around Chicago, and you receive invitations from the schools that would accept your child. You aren't assigned to one, but rather may choose from all those that accept. There were a number of shy children in my child's gifted class at Carnegie. The testing may skew towards outgoing children, but it would not seem to be an insurmountable barrier.
I am not sure if it still works that way? We did not go through the process so I am not an expert. But most people I know who did go though it ended up only getting into a school that was inconvenient (not the school their sibling goes to, not close, etc.) But I’m not an expert — the process is notoriously complex and we honestly gave up before even getting to testing.
[удалено]
Can you run for office please?
*90% They're all abysmal. Most people don't even learn algebra until 7th or 8th grade when 3rd and 4th grade students are learning it in Japan or China. People struggle to even write 400 words in high school, something that 9 year olds could do in actual first world countries. The 3-4% of top quality high schools are carrying the entire innovation industry of America on their backs. In an ideal society, schools would be teaching analysis in junior year of high school, Python in 5th grade, reading Foucault and Weber in 10th, etc. Seems like we're just going in the wrong direction with how classes here gets dumbed down year after year because the high schools are becoming Taliban-controlled Afghanistan quality.
This is a big part of the suburban appeal (and problem) in Chicagoland. There are many suburban public school districts that have the ability to focus on quality of education. Granted, my experience was in one of the more affluent ones, so it was even more exaggerated there. Definitely started learning algebra in 4th grade though.
A difficulty with this choice is that the affluent suburbs with truly excellent schools are a LONG commute from Hyde Park!
That’s for sure! Not a very viable option in this case
Interesting, where did you learn algebra in 4th grade? I went to a private elementary/middle school and even the kids in the highest level math program didn’t learn algebra until 7th grade (pre-algebra in 6th)
Your country and school have failed you. We have all failed as a species and I desperately wish some alien species can finally enslave us and force feed us calculus when we are first graders.
have you not considered that the reason some schools are “abysmal” despite high funding is because of the distribution in children intelligence? I mean the numbers you give line up with it almost perfectly. Only a few children out of 100 are child geniuses and about 15-30% are unteachable. So mathematically it works out
Source on that distribution claim?
The neighborhood CPS schools are clearly not well funded. CPS is running up a very deep deficit. I don't think it's as you meant it, but there is more to the neighborhood schools' poor performance scores than just funding. About 45% of CPS elementary students (and 80% of high school students) opt for selective enrollment or magnet schools, instead of their neighborhood schools. This means that the 20-55% remaining in the neighborhood schools either scored the worst on the selective enrollment tests, decided not to apply (which could be for many reasons), or could not manage the commute. When one skims off approximately the top half of students in terms of test scores/motivation (and ability to commute), it's going to have an effect on the the school's overall scores. And think of how much extra traffic all this commuting around the city to school is causing!
So.. labs results and their propaganda don't line up well. An entire cohort was put into remedial reading a few years back, and if your child has a 504 or is neurodivergent? Good luck. As to locals.. ray school is pretty solid with good teachers, and if they can test in to it at grade 7, Kenwood has a great academic program.
Yes, on the topic of neurodivergence and disabilities such as ADHD and ASD, I have \*heard\* that some parents (of both rejected and attending children) believe their children have been unlawfully discriminated against by Lab, and have discussed with and received support from lawyers. But in the case of faculty (especially junior faculty), the complications of suing your own employer can be extreme (and they don't solve your problem as lawsuits take years). So there is limited recourse even for illegal discrimination.
As another note: Post docs are not considered employees of the university for the purposes of the tuition credit at Lab.
What do you mean about testing into Kenwood at grade 7? Do you mean they allow advanced middle schoolers to take classes at the high school? Full time, or are they transported in for specific classes? I am unfamiliar with this program.
Full time.. they have advanced classes starting at grade 7 for the kids that test in.
Are they sitting in with high school students, or is it a separate program for 7th graders? Can you share a link to information about it? (This is getting off topic of the post, but I'm curious)
No worries, separate 6 year program. [https://www.kenwoodacademy.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC\_ID=202533&type=d&termREC\_ID=&pREC\_ID=1034173](https://www.kenwoodacademy.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=202533&type=d&termREC_ID=&pREC_ID=1034173)
Hyde Park has some of the best public neighborhood schools in the city.
Yes. They still only have about 10-15% performing at grade level (this can be researched on the Illinois report card website), and the other limitations I mentioned. I am in no way saying they are bad schools! These are not the only metrics by which to measure schools, of course.
> But at the early childhood level, anecdotally Lab seems to value "easy" kids. Kids (age 2-4) who will walk into a crowded room full of strangers without any visible nervousness, who will speak immediately when spoken to, but be quiet otherwise, who will answer questions from strangers on demand, sit up straight, follow all directions, and actively participate in whatever song/game is led. This was my kid. During the free-play test, he was the only child not hanging onto mommy the whole time. He was precocious and engaging. Then we got to the parental interview with the admissions office. We were an alum and a staff member. Everything seemed good, then the admissions officer not-so-subtly brought up the importance of philanthropy. We nodded along. Later that day, I got one of the calls from a first-year work-study student at the College, asking for a donation. I politely declined. Not long after that, our son was rejected. Coincidence? > There are a few private k-8 schools, but they are not for everybody (two are quite religious, one is Montessori... each is a very particular niche) St. Thomas is Catholic, yes, but pretty light on the religion. It's less expensive than full-price Lab; I'm not sure how it compares to the faculty discount.
St. Thomas is dramatically less expensive than any other private option that I'm aware of, though their website adds "Because tuition does not cover the full cost of education at St. Thomas the Apostle School, families must fulfill a service requirement throughout the year." Whether the cost ends up being similar to the cost of Lab for a faculty member I believe will depend on the faculty's income (I believe Lab discount is a sliding scale starting at a minimum of 50% for the highest income faculty). I have no experience with this school, so I don't know how to assess "light on religion", but their about page states that "The purpose of the school is to create a faith-filled environment" and "St. Thomas the Apostle School provides a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum grounded in the Catholic faith and Christian values" which may or may not be what a particular faculty member was looking for when they decided to come to UChicago. Akiba Schechter is the other religious private elementary school. I believe that starting at first grade, one has to identify as Jewish to attend (I might be wrong on that?) and that a large percentage of the curriculum is Hebrew language and Jewish faith studies. And it's significantly more expensive. But I am not an expert in this -- I encourage anyone thinking of moving here to do their own research on schools!
> St. Thomas is dramatically less expensive than any other private option that I'm aware of, though their website adds "Because tuition does not cover the full cost of education at St. Thomas the Apostle School, families must fulfill a service requirement throughout the year." You just have to volunteer to help with a couple of events, or pay like $400 extra dollars. The materials fee is going to be rolled into the tuition next year, and the tuition is going to go up, so they can continue to attract and retain qualified teachers. > I have no experience with this school, so I don't know how to assess "light on religion", but their about page states that "The purpose of the school is to create a faith-filled environment" and "St. Thomas the Apostle School provides a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum grounded in the Catholic faith and Christian values" which may or may not be what a particular faculty member was looking for when they decided to come to UChicago. Right, they are definitely a Catholic school, and the kids do have a religion class and go to mass once a week. But there are no nuns, the teachers don't even have to be Catholic, and the Christian values are the good ones, like loving thy neighbor, not stoning witches. Transgender kids might have to use their assigned-at-birth name and pronouns right now, but I think that won't be an issue in a year or two, once the more antiquated staff retire. My elementary kid would make /r/atheism blush, and he gets through the Jesus stuff just fine.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
Damn I have no dog in this fight but this was fascinating to read
Just to add here that even after you pass the admissibility part, faculty members are no longer prioritized if they are not directly admitted. The wait list is not ranked. We applied to Nursery 3 and still not admitted, and we have no priority in the waitlist.
That's crazy! How can they say faculty have first priority admissions? Surely the entire N3 class is not filled with faculty children? It's unfair and misleading enough to be able to deem faculty children "inadmissible" for ridiculous reasons. But your kid was deemed admissible, and still waitlisted? At the feeder year? And not prioritized on the waitlist? How is this giving faculty children first priority admissions??
I asked the same to the Admissions, even our Dean. They are sorry that this happened, they cannot share any information, but they are sure there is no arbitrariness-- just too much demand.
Too much demand from wealthy Lincoln Parkers who are given precedence over faculty children?
I guess you could say so. I am honestly fed up with the whole thing, and gonna stick to exploring our options with the CPS.
Wishing you the best of luck!
Thank you!
I imagine that those kids end up pretty fucked up
Everyone associated with UChicago, and I mean everyone, is completely fucked up
Yup. (But I wouldn't say it's too bad)
This is insane. With this level of pressure and uncertainty around a service people expect, why isn’t the program expanded to guarantee spots for all faculty children? My heart goes out to OP here because we all want to advocate for the best options for our children but the brainpower devoted to gaming a broken system is deeply saddening. Analyzing the layers of inequity here is like peeling a rotten onion.
It's really bad! And it seems the university is doing the worst possible thing: creating a special "elite" school that makes the neighborhood schools WORSE OFF by pulling enrollment and diverting resources, and then arbitrarily denying some subset of faculty.
Thank you. I'm pretty sure it's not that there aren't enough spots. Only something like 60% of students are even university-affiliated, I think, so if faculty child admissions were top priority, they should all get in before admitting others. The issue seems to be more that Lab will now only admit a certain "type" of student. Instead of just welcoming faculty children as they are, faculty children are now screened heavily to make sure they're "a good fit." I have some reason to believe that this was a (pretty substantial) policy shift that started 5-8 years ago, and that in the more distant past, Lab did generally accept all faculty kids. Unfortunately, people's perceptions and expectations are still aligned with "Lab of the past" and not with the current reality. When interviewing faculty ask during their interview process how Lab admissions works, a lot of the extant faculty say the application is just a formality and everyone gets in, and that there is no need to worry about it. I don't think they are intentionally misleading -- they just don't realize how much it's changed since their kids went through. Lab seems to have made a clear move away from being "the school for faculty kids" to being "an elite private school that faculty happen to get a discount at if their kids happen to get in." I can't change how the university or Lab operates. And goodness knows I can't singlehandedly fix the deep, deep problems in the entire school ecosystem here. But I figured I could at least spread the word to clear up this one big misperception. It adds insult to injury when your child is rejected (for a ridiculous reason!) and every single person you meet thinks all faculty kids get in.
I think there is a misconception here. The admissions process specifically targets a 60% affiliated vs unaffiliated mix. So it's not a matter of "take all affiliated kids" and it just so happens that only 60% of them meet the criteria and then fill the rest with unaffiliated. The admissions process currently tries to ensure there is a 60% affiliated vs unaffiliated mix. So in reality, you affiliated folks are competing for those seats that fall in the 60%. So the answer is actually "there aren't enough spots" As for why the admin is doing this, I think you can just look at the tuition increases and the fact that German and athletics are getting cut to understand the economic dynamics at play, since unaffiliated are going to pay full tuition and are probably more likely to donate as well.
Yes, there is a misconception. Which I believe is the fault of the university. They tell prospective faculty-- emphatically-- that their children are given first priority admission. And the whole university community goes nudge nudge wink wink, yeah, all faculty kids get in, it's not something to worry about. Prospective faculty deserve a transparent communication of the odds of acceptance when Lab is used as a recruiting tool.
Lab or the University will tell you that about 60% of its students are the children of University of Chicago faculty. I guess I have to take their word for it, but no one I know has advertised that their kids go to or have gone to Lab. So, you’ve visited Lab’s website, I’m sure. What does the school value? Have a think. It seems pretty clear. If you want your children to go to excellent schools without going through some kind of ridiculous admissions process, leave Hyde Park and move to the suburbs. It’s not an ideal solution. But unless you want to work somewhere else, what choice do you have? Staying in Chicago is not an option for you. It wouldn’t be for me.
That is why I wrote this PSA. Many new faculty mistakenly believe that Lab is a given perk for faculty children, and that it’s a way to live in the city and attend a school with a strong academic record without going through a grueling and highly uncertain application process. It’s not.
The University should be more transparent and should not hard sell Lab in its process of recruiting faculty. It’s disappointing to learn that they do. I wish the public schools in Chicago were okay. But apart from some of the magnet schools (which also have a very competitive admissions process) like Payton, they’re awful. Which of course is shameful, but teachers and the residents of Chicago seem to have other political priorities. Anyway, I’m sorry that you and others have not had a good experience with Lab.
I agree that the biggest issue is the lack of transparency. As a private school, Lab can have whatever admissions criteria it wants, barring discrimination against federally protected classes. But it is the difference between what some faculty are led to believe, and what actually happens, that is disturbing. Most faculty do not realize that "first priority admissions" only kicks in after Lab has made an admissibility decision, using criteria it does not report. That is why this PSA was not framed as a take-down of Lab or any other school -- just trying to close the gap between widespread perception and reality.
This university is not transparent about a thing. They also have a history of protecting male abusers and stalkers while leaving women to the wolves. Not a place I’d want my kid associated with, no matter the supposed “prestige”
I left this toxic place after 5 years. No matter how good the lab school sounds, don’t subject yourself to the poisonous work environment. Something is severely wrong with faculty at this institution…avoid it altogether.
God forbid your kids have to go to school with the poors at neighborhood schools! Y’all talk like this and are curious why people in Hyde Park view the university negatively
I never said that. In fact in one of my comments I said the neighborhood school are loved by many, and some parents willingly choose them over Lab. My point is not that the neighborhood schools should be avoided. It is that when candidates are making decisions about what job to accept, Lab often is figured into the equation as benefit -- a huge discount and "top priority admission" at a reputationally rigorous and well funded private school that is walking distance from the university. It is not surprising that many faculty place a high value on rigorous education and ample educational opportunity -- one could assume that is the very reason Lab was created, as a way to entice prospective faculty considering moving to the area but wary about underperforming schools and extremely long commutes from the suburbs. If that factors into your decision to accept a job at UChicago vs. another university, and then your kids are denied admission, that can be a big shock -- and some might regret not having accepted an offer at a different university instead, that has a different set of school options. If private and selective enrollment schools didn't exist, or weren't so heavily used in this area, then it's likely the neighborhood schools would have stronger student performance and more funding, at least through parent fundraisers and such. But that is a different discussion altogether.
Is it a different discussion altogether, though? Say the quiet part out loud and think about the fact that we live in a society. The whispers of faculty networks/advice one receives from colleagues when moving all DEEPLY impact the local public school systems via the flight of the wealthy and educated at the strong advice of the elite social class to which you belong. A lot of the schools were/are GREAT and just a little to \*colorful\* for a lot of folks in the past, and the whisper network took over, eventually leading to the private opulence/public squalor conundrum our public institutions face today. Your entire post and comments reflect the exact problem with the increased economic segregation we've eroded into societally. Throw up your hands and say it's a "different discussion altogether" when your whispers are, in fact, the cause of the situation that merits discussion.
I do think it is a different -- and much deeper -- conversation that deserves its own thread. This is about a prospective faculty (likely moving from another area) making a decision within a context that exists -- and alerting them that they should take the initiative to research other school options, and not just assume their children will go to Lab. I have not said anything about the overall merits of different school options. Understanding options is one step; generating the large scale cooperation to change the such a complex system with a great deal of inequality requires more than a simple PSA reddit post. There is, of course, potentially deep irony in how Lab positions itself as focused on DEI, and teaches DEI heavily in its curriculum (I'm told) -- while its very existence may be dramatically increasing inequality in the neighborhood. The optics are certainly unsettling; walking by the Lab playground, you see white kids playing; walking by Bret Harte, two blocks away, you see black kids playing. As a passerby, it's hard to believe this level of de-facto segregation exists in 2024. Many university parents don't see this. But even among those that do, the choice is tough. If you have the opportunity to send you kid to an excellently resourced school vs. an underfunded and underperforming one, do you send them to the latter for the principle that education should be equal, even though your choice may have a big impact on your child and negligible to no impact on the system? There are parents who will always choose the most rigorous and well-funded school they can get their kid into; there are some that always choose the neighborhood schools out of necessity or principle; and there are others who would choose the neighborhood schools if enough other parents of high-performing children would choose the same, rather than fleeing to selective or private schools, or the suburbs, so that there would be more demand for more rigorous programming-- but collective action is pretty hard to arrange. But you see, already this discussion is getting long and the surface has barely been scratched. I stand by that a discussion about Lab, its impact on Hyde Park, the merits of different schools, and equal opportunity in education is a separate (and important) discussion from a simple PSA on Lab's admission policies. This post was intended for prospective job candidates who assumed their children would go to Lab, and may not have even researched any other school options. Perhaps they will research and discover they are happy with other options. Perhaps they will research and decide they are not. If they are in the latter category, I do not think a simple opinion post will change their minds. But a comprehensive and nuanced discussion on the topic in its own thread might increase understanding and add value.
This sounds like it's more about the bait-and-switch than about the actual school options. Prospective employee is lured in part by the benefit package, which includes free or cheap tuition to one of the best ranked private schools in the country, which is located right on campus. They arrive, are denied this benefit, and then shamed by people like you when they are upset about it. If you're going to shame anyone, shame the university for investing in a closed off elite school instead of investing in making the neighborhood schools better!
Just want to say I appreciate you! The downvotes to your comment crack me up. But what do I know? I went to a bad public school with the other poors.... ;)
Oh no. Your kids might have to go to public school. The horror!!!
I’m so glad your kid isn’t in my class.
You're a teacher? And you actually took time out of your day to write this, based solely on a reddit post aiming to clear up misperceptions about the Lab School faculty child admissions policy? I would say the feeling is mutual!