Boston is without a doubt the worst place I have ever lived. (public school, pharmacists)

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by dwinkler93

If you're going to compare UMass/Amherst to UT/Austin, let's be honest, and I say this as someone who moved to the Boston area 3 years ago after 13 years in Austin: UT/Austin is an awesome school, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to get in to. Sure it's not as bad as MIT as far as acceptance rates go, but you must rank in the top 8% in your class to get in. And that causes all sorts of problems. It's their answer to affirmative action, but it ensures that high achieving students in really good school districts are forced to go to other state schools or even out of state (Texas A&M also is very selective). Selectivity is good, but kids with 4.0 grade averages and loads of AP and IB classes under their belt aren't getting in. I'm just saying, the grass is always greener.

Some of the reasons popular support has eroded in some states like TX, WI, MI, etc with top flagship state schools is because few people can get in. It's a double edged sword. Good school, people can't see their kids, nieces, neighbors, etc get in despite being good students and they're less likely to want to see it keep being funded with public dollars.

[Guineas]

Originally Posted by dwinkler93

If you're going to compare UMass/Amherst to UT/Austin, let's be honest, and I say this as someone who moved to the Boston area 3 years ago after 13 years in Austin: UT/Austin is an awesome school, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to get in to. Sure it's not as bad as MIT as far as acceptance rates go, but you must rank in the top 8% in your class to get in. And that causes all sorts of problems. It's their answer to affirmative action, but it ensures that high achieving students in really good school districts are forced to go to other state schools or even out of state (Texas A&M also is very selective). Selectivity is good, but kids with 4.0 grade averages and loads of AP and IB classes under their belt aren't getting in. I'm just saying, the grass is always greener.

Couple that with the constant chipping away at public education spending in Texas thanks to a Tea Party led state legislature, and the explosive population growth in the state, and you have a perfect storm. My husband and I were all but convinced the goal of the Republican led senate and house was to create a permanent underclass. So as much as the cost of living is higher in the Boston area - you know what? It's a better place to live with more of a social safety net. And the prices wouldn't be so sky high if people weren't clamoring to live here and jobs weren't being created. Prices go down when demand goes down.

Trust me, you do NOT want to live in Texas. Unless you love Fox News and Ted Cruz. In that case, please move there and join the fun. Your kid probably won't get into UT/Austin though!

Hyperbole much?

UT Austin has a 47% acceptance rate. And everyone in Texas applies to it, so there's not much of self-selection there. Practically every Texas family member I know have gotten into UT Austin. And even if you didn't get in because of some oversight, there's always the opportunity of proving your mettle in another school for year and then transferring. Texas A&M has a 67% acceptance rate (not exactly what I call "very selective"). If your kid can't get into either, it's probably time to self-reflect than bash Texas.

And you got it all wrong, people aren't really clamoring to live here in MA, they're actually moving to Texas (which along with NC has the highest number of in-migration among US residents). It's just Texas builds new construction to accommodate new arrivals, while MA does not.

[kingeorge]

I think that when it comes to investment in public education, in general as well as gifted and talented, MA is not spending as much as some other states. But, it should be noted that overall investment in public education is being reduced, slowly but surely, across the US.

We in MA, have plenty of citizens interested in great public education, so hopefully we will not erase middle class completely away, with the insane COL.

I think that unfortunately, very well to do, are less interested or maybe inclined to support public education and public service that made our country best place in the world. Everything is for sale now, and so is education (more than ever before).

What would all of this practically mean for the future of our kids and this country is worrisome, but I personally hope that common sense and common good, will ultimately prevail over unrestrained greed and selfishness.

Boston is not exempt from all of this and especially with COL.

[Guineas]

Places like Jamaica Plain are mostly gentrified, full of white yuppies living in $400k 2 bdrm condos with toddlers and elementary school kids, yet why is it that white enrollment in BPS continue to trend down? I see these kids in the JP playgrounds, so they do exist. BPS elementary schools are not at all seeing the anticipated rise in enrollment, and in fact having record low enrollment. Are these parents sending their kids to private or parochial schools? Again, more $$$$ and crowding out of any normal middle class.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Guineas

Places like Jamaica Plain are mostly gentrified, full of white yuppies living in $400k 2 bdrm condos with toddlers and elementary school kids, yet why is it that white enrollment in BPS continue to trend down? BPS elementary schools are not at all seeing the anticipated increased in enrollment, and in fact having record low enrollment. Are these parents sending their kids to private or parochial schools?

Lots of them aren't having kids. I know lots of couples in the JP, Roslindale, etc areas (I'm in Somerville myself) and most decided not to have children.

The few that did moved out those places when the kids were getting out of elementary school... but there weren't many of those.

[Guineas]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Lots of them aren't having kids. I know lots of couples in the JP, Roslindale, etc areas (I'm in Somerville myself) and most decided not to have children.

The few that did moved out those places when the kids were getting out of elementary school... but there weren't many of those.

The irony is that the real estate agents in the area make a big deal about the many playgrounds in JP. But I do see a lot of strollers and kids in JP. I also assumed these kids would boost the enrollment of BPS and maybe start improving the area schools a bit. Having more involved parents who are active in the schools and their kids' education never hurt. I was also hoping to see a gradual transition to Brookline in terms of school quality. But that hasn't materialized at all.

But given the COL in JP and the early career demands of youngish two-earner households, I can't imagine too many of these households being able to support daycare for any more than 1 kid either.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Guineas

But given the COL in JP and the early career demands of youngish two-earner households, I can't imagine too many of these households being able to support daycare for any more than 1 kid either.

Well, again, we might be talking about different demographics. I'm not friends with anyone around here that had kids pre 35. People wanted to finish school, get established, and be able to afford it... so they weren't really the youngish demographic you might be referring to.

[Guineas]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Well, again, we might be talking about different demographics. I'm not friends with anyone around here that had kids pre 35. People wanted to finish school, get established, and be able to afford it... so they weren't really the youngish demographic you might be referring to.

That kind of alone makes Boston a crappy place to live given fertility drops precipitously past 35 and chromosomal abnormalities skyrocket.

There's a huge difference between not wanting children and not wanting children because you can't afford it until you're near middle aged.

By youngish I was thinking late twenties and early thirties when much of the rest of the country's professionals start having children. Most people even with high falutin careers have had two kids by 35.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Guineas

That kind of alone makes Boston a crappy place to live given fertility drops precipitously past 35.

There's a huge difference between not wanting children and not wanting children because you can't afford it until you're near middle aged.

Well, I would disagree. I think it is pretty irresponsible to have kids early before you have your education and economic stability. Most people I know don't meet someone until theirs 30s anyway when they're done grad school and into their careers. And of course you want to date for awhile, then marry, then have some time together before having kids.

Oh, where I lived in the Midwest people had kids earlier, often out of high school, or right out of college, and across the board they suffered for it. They weren't mentally, emotionally, or financially in a situation to support a child.

[Guineas]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Well, I would disagree. I think it is pretty irresponsible to have kids early before you have your education and economic stability. Most people I know don't meet someone until theirs 30s anyway when they're done grad school and into their careers. And of course you want to date for awhile, then marry, then have some time together before having kids.

Oh, where I lived in the Midwest people had kids earlier, often out of high school, or right out of college, and across the board they suffered for it. They weren't mentally, emotionally, or financially in a situation to support a child.

While I agree with you in theory, there's a limit you can take that. Basic economic stability to have a kid shouldn't be so onerous that it takes two people past 35 to achieve. If it does, I don't associate that as a sign of a reasonable standard of living. Being able to afford a 2 bedroom JP condo at $400k, but not able to afford a child and therefore keep putting it off is not normal or wise for the future of this country.

Getting an education before marriage is important, in no way would I advocate doing so before college. But it's ridiculous to assert that ALL your ducks had to be lined up before you have your first kid. Life happens. There's nothing wrong with meeting up in grad school and having kids then either. That alone gives you a 5-10 year lead with kids.

My wife and I got married in medical school and we had our first kid in residency. Talk about hard. We definitely slummed it and got babysitting help from extended family when we can and paid out of our nose for daycare. But we now have three kids and I'm just over 35. I don't think we were irresponsible, in fact it was one of our best decisions. We have a big, loud, warm family. And I won't be a senior citizen when the oldest gets married or has children. I also wouldn't be struck with extreme guilt should one of our kids been born with a chromosomal abnormality or autism because I was 40 years old when having them.

Personally I think 26-32 is a good sweet spot to start having kids. It's terrifying to me to think about being a first time parent at age 37. My view in life is the younger you are, the more crap and sleepless nights you can put up with. This is why medical residency eventually ends. You also don't want to be too young.