Strange Question, not too OT

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

GoofeeGyrl - 12 Jul 2004 23:43 GMT

We are planning to take Sophie to Disneyland for her 4th birthday/my mom's 66th
birthday next March. Really, I just can't stand not going now that we are back
in CA, and it's just an excuse.

I was looking at a list of rides this morning with height requirements. One
said you must be a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 35 inches. Please tell
me this has got to be a misprint! I know Sophie was 41 inches when she turned
3, and Eva, just today at the doctor was 31 inches at 10 months! I know I have
tall kids, so maybe it just seems strange to me, but how many kids are both
over 3 years and under 35 inches?

Linda
Mommy to Sophie, 3
and Eva, 10 months

Reply to this Message

UnchainedZulu - 12 Jul 2004 23:59 GMT

im really curious about what the ride is now....

we dont' really use inches here, but from what you have said, it sounds a
bit off!! i'd be asking some more questions, or just avoiding that ride, as
they obviously dont know what they're doing.. LOL

> We are planning to take Sophie to Disneyland for her 4th birthday/my mom's 66th
> birthday next March. Really, I just can't stand not going now that we are back
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Mommy to Sophie, 3
> and Eva, 10 months

Reply to this Message

Tracey - 13 Jul 2004 01:50 GMT

Hmm...the Maelstrom? As far as I know, thats the only one that mentioned
any age requirement last time I went. If the child is tall enough, I would
think the age thing is irrelevant on that ride (though it is very dark and
might be frightening for a lot of kids).

Tracey

Reply to this Message

Cheryl S. - 13 Jul 2004 02:15 GMT

> I know I have tall kids, so maybe it just seems strange to
> me, but how many kids are both over 3 years and under 35 inches?

That sounds wrong to me. Julie is on the small side and she was 37" at
her 3 year check up, IIRC. No kids would be able to go on those rides!

Signature

Cheryl S.
Mom to Julie, 3, and Jaden, 10 months

Reply to this Message

dragonlady - 13 Jul 2004 02:17 GMT

> > I know I have tall kids, so maybe it just seems strange to
> > me, but how many kids are both over 3 years and under 35 inches?
>
> That sounds wrong to me. Julie is on the small side and she was 37" at
> her 3 year check up, IIRC. No kids would be able to go on those rides!

Maybe a typo?

Signature

Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Reply to this Message

Elizabeth King - 13 Jul 2004 04:17 GMT

A quick glance at the growth chart for girls at

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/growthcharts/set1clinical/cj41c022.pdf

shows 35 inches being right at 10th percentile at 3 years-- so around 5
of every 100 just turned 3 year old girls are under 35 inches, less as
the year goes on. This is far less unusual than your 41 inch 3 year old
(by looking at the chart).

I think maybe your perspective of average is off. People come in a wide
variety of sizes :-).

liz

Reply to this Message

Elizabeth King - 13 Jul 2004 04:51 GMT

> A quick glance at the growth chart for girls at

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/growthcharts/set1clinical/cj41c022.pdf

> shows 35 inches being right at 10th percentile at 3 years-- so around 5
> of every 100 just turned 3 year old girls are under 35 inches,

Ooops, that should be 10 out of 100. I was having a hard time tracking
the lines on my monitor, and changed my reading of the chart, but didn't
quite update my reply... sorry about that.

liz

Reply to this Message

GoofeeGyrl - 13 Jul 2004 16:04 GMT

<< http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/growthcharts/set1clinical/cj41c022.pdf

shows 35 inches being right at 10th percentile at 3 years-- so around 5
of every 100 just turned 3 year old girls are under 35 inches, less as
the year goes on. This is far less unusual than your 41 inch 3 year old
(by looking at the chart).

I think maybe your perspective of average is off. People come in a wide
variety of sizes :-).>>

I don't recall ever staing that was my daughter was average :) That just
reinforces what I said in my OP, that it must be a misprint--

Linda

liz

Reply to this Message

Tina - 13 Jul 2004 06:15 GMT

> I was looking at a list of rides this morning with height requirements. One
> said you must be a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 35 inches. Please tell
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Mommy to Sophie, 3
> and Eva, 10 months

My kids are pretty small, and my younger just turned three in May, but
she's been 36 inches tall since her last checkup, in December, so
since about 2 and a half.

That is a weird requirement. Hopefully it's a misprint, but of all
places, you'd think Disney would make it so more, not fewer kids could
ride. The way that reads, it looks like 5% of three year olds could
ride, maybe a couple of tiny 4 year olds, and that's it. Really odd.

Tina.

Reply to this Message

Kate Rambo - 13 Jul 2004 12:31 GMT

> I was looking at a list of rides this morning with height requirements. One
> said you must be a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 35 inches. Please tell
> me this has got to be a misprint! I know Sophie was 41 inches when she turned
> 3, and Eva, just today at the doctor was 31 inches at 10 months! I know I have
> tall kids, so maybe it just seems strange to me, but how many kids are both
> over 3 years and under 35 inches?

My son Lucas is *very* small and at 3 he is 35 inches tall. However, I've
never seen anyone
as small or smaller than him.

It must be a misprint. Or maybe Disneyland has added rides for the very
tiny ones. ; )

Kate
(who's been very busy--moving, closings, new job, new diagnosis for L,
stress for M)

Reply to this Message

Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / July 2004

Strange Question, not too OT