Nursery University

If you think the nursery school admissions process is tough, just wait until kindergarten rolls around.

Nursery University

Director: Marc Simon, Matthew Makar
Distributor: Docurama
Rated: not rated
Year: 2008
US DVD release date: 2009-07-09

If they ever have an “Only in New York City” type exhibit at the Smithsonian, Nursery University would make a worthy entry. A breezy, good humored look at the singular, cutthroat world of nursery school admissions, the film does a fairly good, if predictable, job of making a rather ridiculous milieu and process relatable, and at times even sympathetic.

It also inadvertently doubles as a “frozen in time” type portrait of a certain breed of (mostly) white, upper middle class, urban parents – their insecurities, their myopia, their insufferableness, but also, on the flipside, their deep love for their children, and reasonable anxieties about their future.

So those expecting a gawk-fest can tune out. Nary a hint is to be found of the cartoonish grotesquerie of “reality TV” parents, and there are no real villains here at all (well, except for one family, who seem right in line as heirs to Jon and Kate Plus Eight in terms of sheer obnoxiousness). The film offers us five (mostly) sympathetic families, from somewhat different backgrounds, all trying to navigate the byzantine exigencies of trying to find the best nursery school for their children.

Of course only in the amplified, overheated, overcrowded hothouse of New York City would getting in to the “right” nursery school (which can cost upwards of $20,000 a year!) even be seen as so integral to one’s child’s future prospects. It’s hard to figure out the origin of the thinking that traces a direct line from finger painting and learning the alphabet to graduation from an Ivy League university, but it’s the reality now, at least to Manhanttanites of a certain age cohort and socio-economic status. Nowhere else would nursery school admissions be so brutal and stressing a process, mostly because I can’t think of anywhere else it would be.

But since that’s the elephant in the room, it must be dealt with (simple avoidance is just not an option). The film follows a year in the process of the attempt to gain admission to the most “exclusive” of preschools. And yes, exclusive as in the “rich, WASPy, New England boarding school” sense of the word, as in “Ivy League” exclusive. And due to the high demand, combined with the low number of openings in these schools, the competition to get in is a contentious and exhausting, time- and money-consuming effort that is all out of proportion with the end result (which, honestly, is little more than glorified day care).

The schools, and their administrators, to their credit, don’t seem to really know just how this beast turned out the way that it did, and also do not seem all that enthusiastic about taking advantage of the situation (at least, on the surface). They combat favoritism, politics and bribery as best they can, with an admissions’ system that is pretty much the worst – except for all the others.

What happens is that, on the day after Labor Day, the nursery schools start taking calls for applications (and only calls – heaven forbid you actually knock at their door asking for one). They mail out applications (in the 250-500 range for each school) until they run out, which is usually about two hours after the phone lines open. From these piles of applications, they are looking to fill between eight to ten slots per year.

The ensuing vetting process involves essays, interviews, playdates, stuff of that nature, and during each round the list is whittled down more and more, until the winning applicants are picked. The criteria, when the nursery school directors make it explicit, seems almost wholly arbitrary and whimsical, with applications being tossed out for reasons as slight as a choice of clothes, or one parent missing an interview because she went in to labor. But while it’s not exactly equitable, it all does seem to be the best that they can do.

But again, what is the whole point, here? What is it they, the parents, are hoping to find in these exclusive school that isn’t available in a public school (oh, the horror!), or daycare? It’s tough to say. It seems to be some vague notion of assurance and security, and illusion of promised future success.

Actual education is the least of the concerns here – the “right” school is the one that positions one best for connections of future “right” schools, onwards up the chain. And as so often is the case with stories of this kind involving overbearing, overzealous parents, this is really about them and their concerns. The children seem just so many pawns in an elaborate chess match of social brinkmanship.

The children featured in the film– God love ‘em – are all blissfully unaware of all the turmoil and fuss going on around them. Then again, they are mostly all toddlers, so what could they know about what’s at stake (ha!). Though the preschools are mostly for three- to four-year-olds, since the actual application process begins sometimes two years in advance, most of the kids here are two.

And like most kids their age, they really just want to run around, crash in to things, sing, dance, and make a mess. And really, you can do that anywhere, right? In any old school, even (GASP!) public preschool (and one couple, sick of the rat race, does go that route in the end).

But pity these kids, because once they start to become more cognizant of just what’s going on, it’ll be time for subsequent rounds of applications and admissions. As one school director quips towards the end, if you think the nursery school admissions process is tough, just wait until kindergarten rolls around.

Nursery University comes bundled with a few extras. The bevy of deleted scenes are hogged by the aforementioned Jon and Kate-type parents, who are really really horrible people, really (I think at one point they reduce their poor son down to “keywords”, the better to sell him in applications and essays).

A few Q+A sessions from various film festivals fills in some of the motivations for making the film (for the directors) and participating in it (parents and administrators). A short “how to” guide for parents interested in diving into the nursery school battle royale, and a decent commentary track, round out the platter.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.