My major source of stress right now is whether DD will end up with any choices that are financially feasible. I am not really worried about admittance. DD is looking for very specific programs in the health sciences, and the schools that offer these programs are mostly all within her reach academically. But, only one of them is a school that meets full need, and that school is a reach for her academically. In state cost at our state university is $28,000. My great fear is that we will not have options that are less than the $25,000-$30,000 yearly price tag. We have saved enough to cover about $15,000 a year. I am just wrapping my head around coming up with the remainder for the next 5-6 years. And DD is our first child to go to college. Yikes! I am trying hard to ignore all the nonsense about school rankings etc. In DD's case, it is the quality of the specific programs that matter, not the ranking of the whole school.

Thanks! I needed this right now.

The ob/gyn practice where my DD went had a great younger midwife/nurse practitioner that saw many of the younger patients. So you might call around and ask if there is anyone who has a good reputation with younger women.

Definitely a gynecologist. We had a similar situation with DD 17 and her pediatrician agreed it is best handled by a gyn.

The short answer is lots of documentation and an equal amount of persistence, and definitely start early. The College Board has streamlined their process for public school students with formal school plans, but so far they feel absolutely no obligation to follow their own streamlined policies when reviewing requests for accommodations for homeschooled or even private school students. I ended up contacting my senator and filing an ADA complaint with the Department of Justice because of the 3 year long process it took to get simple extended time accommodations for my dyslexic dd. We needed two complete neuropsychological evaluations (age 13 and age 16), a very detailed academic history (this included discussion of her reading issues from the time she was in kindergarten throughout her school career, listing of all the curricula we used, how often she was tutored and for how long, and any and all accommodations we made for schoolwork at home), multiple letters from her teachers (she was homeschooled through middle school and is now in private high school), a letter from the school detailing her current school accommodations, and letter from her therapist describing her anxiety diagnosis. Even with all this, it took three years (I applied originally as a homeschooler and subsequently through the high school). First she was not approved because they wanted additional documentation (hence the second evaluation). Then she approved for extended time, but only for math. And, finally she was approved for extended time for all standardized testing. I spent many, many hours on the phone with the College Board. I consulted a lawyer. I had to learn all the details of the requirements myself (the SSD representatives at the College Board were no help at all). The College Board has streamlined their policies for public school students, but they are not applying those policies to homeschooled students (their requirements are listed on their website, which is not easy to navigate). The DOJ has a document describing how the testing entities should act with regard to accommodations in order to be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The College Board consistently violates those requirements. I would encourage all homeschooled students who are repeatedly denied by the College Board or ACT to file complaints with the DOJ.

Wasn't there a new lawsuit filed against the ACT just a week or so ago for flagging scores of students who took the test with accommodations? I expect as the ACT becomes more popular the scandals will increase there as well.

I have already filed one discrimination complaint against the College Board with the DOJ this year. I had great help from my Senator's office. The tweet in the article says it all: Why do private companies, accountable to no one, have so much power over students' futures?

Honestly, I think it's fine. I think learning something like cooking is useful if he is interested, but I didn't really learn to cook much until I was an adult. Most of the things we think of as chores are not really all that complicated. You don't need 18 years to learn how to do dishes or make a bed or clean a bathroom. The hardest part of household management is the managing, and, frankly, when we are telling them what to do, they are not learning the managing part. Also, the youngest kid always has an experience that is different from the other kids. That's just part of being the youngest. You spend more of your childhood living with grown up or almost grown up people. I find the whole "they will never learn it" idea to be completely unsupported. Kids have all kinds of responsibilities today that I did not have. They are supposed to be super good at something, they are supposed to study for SATs and ACTs and take them multiple times(I never did more than eat a good breakfast and get a good night's sleep), they take as many AP courses in one year as my high school even offered, volunteering is not even optional. I guess I just don't think there is a window for human growth and change that closes at 18 and our kids will be doomed to be who they are at that moment for the rest of their lives. Even people over 50 (gasp) can learn new things, as I remind my kids all the time. So, I say do what works and feels comfortable for you now and don't worry that you will ruin them for life. You are not the same, your kids are not the same and your household is not the same as it was when your olders were younger, so I would be ok with just letting it go unless it is not working for you. Recent research tells us we (parents) have a lot less influence than we think we do anyway ?

Count me in the bad attitude, don't really want to do this group. I am in my fifties. I, and 75% of generation X, have parents in their eighties and children still in elementary school. My parents both grew up dirt poor, but thanks to a myriad of government programs they (or at least my Dad was) went to state college for practically nothing, worked for one company most of his life, has a full pension and substantial retirement savings, not to mention social security and medicare. He sent 4 kids to college for much less than it will cost me to send just one of mine. He had full heath benefits from his employer and a mortgage interest deduction that helped him to amass a good amount of wealth (and has inflated housing prices) on a solidly middle/upper middle class income. He and rest of the "greatest generation" and the boomers cut their own taxes during their prime earning years of the 80s and 90s while borrowing heavily from the SS trust fund to finance government spending while simultaneously slashing government spending for all sorts of social welfare, health, transportation, and education programs. My mother cared for her parents, but we kids were all through college and out of the house by then. I often feel guilty about my feelings on this topic, but perhaps that is just a reflection of the economic reality. I don't know how we are going to pay for college or health care. We have minimal retirement savings and no home to retire in (we live in faculty housing). We are squeezed and they are wealthier than we are. I think the inter-generational commitment was greater when families lived closer and grandparents helped out with the grandkids. We do not live close to either my parents or my in-laws. Neither of them has ever been physically present to help us balance careers and children. My in-laws especially have spent their retirement traveling and enjoying themselves. I shudder to think of what we are going to do when they are no longer able to live alone and care for themselves and want us to provide care so they can stay at home. I sound like a terrible person, but, as Lucy Stoner so cogently points out, none of this is free and nobody wants to talk about what it all really costs.

My DD17 went on Lexapro two years ago for anxiety and panic attacks. She too was dealing with some very stressful circumstances. I was worried about side effects and very anxious about her taking it, but it has worked wonders for her. She did not experience any noticeable side effects. She is now tapering off the medication and feels much better able to deal with her stresses and anxiety. I know this is just our one experience, but I hope it helps.

This is becoming an increasingly dated way of understanding "giftedness." Scientists especially are moving away from static measures of IQ to understand intelligence. These sorts of cut offs are primarily used by educational bureaucracies today and are under increasing challenge. If you are interested in the history of IQ tests Scott Barry Kauffman does a great job of chronicling them in his book Ungifted. I totally get the OP's frustration with a term that seems to suggest some people get to be "twice" exceptional, even though, as others have pointed out the term was actually developed to capture the idea of exceptionalities both positive and negative. I am dissatisfied with the term 2E for another reason. The use of the term to identify children who might be "gifted," (ie awesome) but also "disabled" (ie not good, or deficient), furthers the paradigm of certain learning "disabilities" as deficiencies. I really appreciate the work of people like the Eides, in The Dyslexic Advantage or Gail Saltz in The Power of Different, who are trying to reframe the discussion of LDs like dyslexia or ADD as different brain structures and ways of processing (which reflects the latest research on brain function). These kids are not "twice exceptional," meaning that they hit the lottery of rarity or unusualness twice, but rather the things that have been understood as deficits are structurally related to their gifts.They are "gifted" in the myriad of ways that they are gifted (fluid reasoning, visual spatial, verbal comprehension etc) precisely because of the brain stuctures that make them "deficient" in decoding or fluency or processing speed. It's looking more like 20-30% of the human population has this alternative brain structure and way of processing. That's not doubly rare, that's normal. It's just our educational system that is deficient and has made this type of processing a "disability."

There are definitely tasks in life that demand speed and quick thinking, but these are certainly far from the primary skills necessary to do well in college. SAT and ACT scores are such weak predictors of both college success and life success that there is a level of absurdity to the way they have been over emphasized. And, the stinginess of these testing monopolies in granting accommodations is inexplicable to me. I often wonder what the rationale is for that stinginess. I haven't figured it out yet.

Here is a link to one literature review. It's long, but there is a discussion of research on extended time starting on p. 16, and some charts summarizing the research on pp.46-47.

Ok, on some level you all are all right, but the research on this is complicated and incomplete (my statement didn't reflect that complexity). When there is not enough time allotted to complete the questions then everyone benefits from extra time, so the ACT would be a good example of this. But, it is also pretty clear that kids with learning disabilities benefit much more significantly than students without learning disabilities. But, even here the research is complicated. It also depends on the difficulty of the task and the student taking the test. So, for example, if you compare students with reading difficulties or slow processing on simple fluency tasks, the differences between neurotypical and LD kids when given extra time are less than when you compare the effects of extra time on more difficult reading passages as you might find on AP or SAT tests. Also, the benefits of extra time are much more significant for students who are 2E, meaning otherwise highly intelligent but also slow processors or reading disabled. These students seem to benefit from extra time much more significantly than students or more average intelligence (using convention measures of intelligence) or ADHD students (I think I am remembering this part correctly). So it's complicated and the research here is ongoing. Also, most neurotypical kids don't want to spend another 2 hours in test if they don't really need it, and that is certainly a problem for ADHD kids as well. In fact, the whole idea that extended time confers this massive advantage really misunderstands what is going on in the mind of dyslexic kids. It's a really imperfect solution. The brains of these kids are working so much harder on the same tasks that they are way more exhausted by a 4 hour test than a neurotypical kid. To then have to keep up that same level of energy for two more hours might explain why there are diminishing returns to extra time. Nevertheless, it is the only solution we now have, so imperfect or not we are stuck with it. On tests like the ACT, I think the real question is what is being measured? If speededness is part of the test's design then, I believe, that ought to be justified. I have a summary of the existing research somewhere...I'll see if I can find it.

I agree this article is complete BS. If anyone is really worried about the system being abused then they should focus on the fact that the College Board is still discriminating against students with disabilities by denying accommodations to students in violation of their own new 2017 policies and the 2016 DOJ rule on testing accommodations. There are too few accommodations, not too many. Up to 20% of the population is dyslexic. The CDC estimates that up to 11% of the population has ADHD. There is a real epidemic of anxiety among teens (that's not fake). It is still not always easy to get accommodations, even when your student has a formal school plan (just ask me how I know this). Extra time accommodations turn a 3 hour test into a 4.5 hour test. I know absolutely no one who is doing that if it is not necessary. Extra time has no demonstrable benefit for students who don't need it. It has significant benefit for students who do. It still requires a great deal of time, effort and often money to secure legitimate accommodations at school and for standardized testing. Yes, there is discrimination, but it is definitely not against neurotypical kids.

Puppies bite - it's what they do. We have German Shepherds and they can be crazy puppy biters. We always have something appropriate around to put in the mouth instead of us or clothing. If the puppy is too excited/crazy then leave (it's good to have some sort of gated area where you can leave the puppy and get away ). Once they have their adult teeth the biting diminishes anyway. I have never used any extraordinary methods, just redirecting and leaving, and all of my dogs have turned into civilized adults.

That's awesome! And, he told you about it, which is also awesome. Sounds like a great kid - in your words "outgoing, charming and mature." I'd let him know that you have confidence in him to make good decisions and count your blessings that he is open to talking.

Total slacker parent here! I don't even stay for games. Often I am too busy driving someone else to stay, but even when I am not I am just not interested. My kids play rec soccer and basketball, and I always feel like I am sneaking away (these are not even competitive teams, just rec teams). Way too many parents hanging around watching everything. We have a couple ASD kids, and I think the coaches are happy to have those parents around to help out if needed, but otherwise I think they should all just go away. If I had my druthers, I'd ban parents from the games as well....Too much cheering and groaning and yelling at the refs. It's just yucky.

I have had 4 female GSDs, so I guess I have a preference for females :). All of my females have been awesome, but good breeding makes a huge difference. My first GSD was a rescue and she was my hardest to train and she was aggressive with some other dogs. My current puppy comes from a wonderful breeder and she has a completely solid, stable temperament just like her parents and siblings. I think my next GSD will be a male. In my experience, when you have a skilled, experienced breeder you should let the breeder pick the puppy for you. Actually, with a good, purposeful breeding, there shouldn't be too much difference between the pups. They should basically have drives and personalities similar to their parents

This really struck me. It is hard to have multiple kids with learning issues. I have three dyslexics. All three! Sometimes I still wonder how that is possible. I so wanted my middle DD to not be dyslexic. She was my easiest early on. I taught her to read on a relatively normal schedule. But, by middle school I could not deny that she was the classic stealth dyslexic. Her spelling and handwriting and comprehension issues were impossible to ignore. And she too is the dreamy, inattentive ADD type. Love these types of kids though. She has the highest tested IQ of all my kids, but you would never know it because she is often in her own little world. Forget worrying about being the crazy mom and just focus on helping her as best you can. Nobody else is going to do it, so I guess we have to be a bit crazy. I think you will learn much from the neuropsych exam.

It never ceases to amaze me how people who are admitted to and attend these "elite" universities can publish pieces that say absolutely nothing new or interesting.

But that's true for everybody, right? I think it has become typical that college costs about the same as your mortgage. I agree that's too much, but merit aid only alleviates the problem for a small few. I don't think anyone would argue with the notion that college is too expensive.

EFC will take into account the number of children in college at the same time. Your EFC would be the same each year, just split between the children in college.

I don't think I said the bolded. As for full pay, I was referring to people who are full pay at selective private colleges (I think you must have an income of around $200,000 to be full pay at Harvard). A student with an EFC of $25,000 would get lots of need based aid at Harvard and such. Overall, it is all ridiculously expensive. And that's why I support debt free public education. I am not unsympathetic. I think the medical debt issue is seriously relevant. Universal healthcare would help.

Well I guess I'll reveal my ideological leaning here, but I suppose I would consider debt free public education for all to be fair - so some form of "freeish" higher education. I am never sure what people mean when they say they cannot afford something. I have had people whose income is $400,000 a year tell me they cannot afford the $65,000 tuition and they need merit aid because they are full pay. If folks receiving need based aid pay $25,000 out of a $100,000 income, then someone at $400,000 ought to easily be able to pay $100,000. Seems to me it is much easier to afford that than to afford $12,000 on a $50,000 income. What am I missing here? Who exactly are these people who are full pay but cannot afford college? Many kids don't get to attend the most selective schools. That's doesn't mean they don't have lots of options.