Wouldn't it be easier for your child to stand out in an average/low rated school vs a high rated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being at a lower rated school has worked well for my child. She's in middle school now and she's a hard worker but not naturally brilliant. She was put into advanced math in elementary and I have no doubt she would not have been if we lived in the world of tiger mothers. She got into honors band without private lessons, she's a standout in her classes, and has a great record heading into high school. If she were in a very competitive school, there is no doubt in my mind she would not have been selected for these things and would not have had great experiences.

Sure, a kid who was top of a highly rated school will be better prepared for college than a kid who was top of a lower rated school. But for a kid like mine, the alternative would have been being an average student at a top school, not getting into advanced classes, feeling like she's not smart enough. She may face an adjustment when she gets into a more competitive college, but at least she'll have the opportunity to get there.

No - she won’t be going to a more competitive college because her test scores will reflect the education that she has received. You can’t fake a good education.

You can certainly study for the test and get good scores.

No, you really can’t. You can fix a few easy to spot mistakes that you might be making but you can’t study your way to a great score.
If you want your kid to have more options in life send them to the better school. You really can’t catch up in college.

The kids receiving top scores on those tests are not even studying for the tests - it’s their education that gets them the great scores.
Sure, there are people who will sell you on studying extensively for the tests, but most people we know have not improved much even taking extremely pricey intense courses . And what would faking your way through a standardized test get you anyway even if you could do it? I guess you could then be a tutor to others trying to fake their way through a multiple choice test - not a great career imop. (Phil? Are you there Phil?).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And not even close to 50% ivy.

What school -- other than maybe traditional ivy-feeder prep schools -- end up with 50% of kids going to Ivy league schools? And, why would you want them to or expect them to? My kids' HS class has 500 kids. If half of them -- 250 -- all went to Ivys that would be about 30 kids going to each of the 8 colleges in the Ivy league. Do you actually think any one Ivy is going to accept 30 kids from just ONE HS? Or that a student ranked 250 out of 500 kids should even be accepted to some of the most selective colleges in the country?

Of course not you moron.
That was the point I was making about TJ not being at 50%. I wasn’t the idiot stating such myths to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Looks like the freaked out tiger moms found the thread.
Sorry guys, but there are no guarantees. It’s not a zero sum game, where you are promised success for your child if you buy a house zoned to a GS 8. Meanwhile all the kids at the 3 school will be taking out junior’s garbage.
There are children of more humble beginnings that will surpass your kid.
Kids that don’t cram.
Or take every AP.
Or get a perfect SAT score.
That’s life. It’ll be ok. Your kids will be fine.
Or they won’t.
No way to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being at a lower rated school has worked well for my child. She's in middle school now and she's a hard worker but not naturally brilliant. She was put into advanced math in elementary and I have no doubt she would not have been if we lived in the world of tiger mothers. She got into honors band without private lessons, she's a standout in her classes, and has a great record heading into high school. If she were in a very competitive school, there is no doubt in my mind she would not have been selected for these things and would not have had great experiences.

Sure, a kid who was top of a highly rated school will be better prepared for college than a kid who was top of a lower rated school. But for a kid like mine, the alternative would have been being an average student at a top school, not getting into advanced classes, feeling like she's not smart enough. She may face an adjustment when she gets into a more competitive college, but at least she'll have the opportunity to get there.

No - she won’t be going to a more competitive college because her test scores will reflect the education that she has received. You can’t fake a good education.

You can certainly study for the test and get good scores.

No, you really can’t. You can fix a few easy to spot mistakes that you might be making but you can’t study your way to a great score.
If you want your kid to have more options in life send them to the better school. You really can’t catch up in college.

The kids receiving top scores on those tests are not even studying for the tests - it’s their education that gets them the great scores.
Sure, there are people who will sell you on studying extensively for the tests, but most people we know have not improved much even taking extremely pricey intense courses . And what would faking your way through a standardized test get you anyway even if you could do it? I guess you could then be a tutor to others trying to fake their way through a multiple choice test - not a great career imop. (Phil? Are you there Phil?).

Incorrect. It's a combination of their education and the brains they were born with. Some are just wired better. Sending an average kid to a top school will not guarantee they get a higher score. They might, but probably not any higher than attending an expensive prep course would. And sending an exceptional student to a mediocre or even bad school won't negatively affect their ability to score highly.

The simple truth is that not all kids are born with the same ability. Moving to Hollywood won't make you more beautiful or more talented. Moving to a certain school zone won't make your child smarter. Effort improves what you're born with, but you don't need a certain geographic location to put in that effort.

[Anonymous]

Wow, I'm the one with the daughter. If you've just posted maligning her and blithely asserting that she'll never amount to anything, please consider the lessons about internet bullying that we're trying to teach our children.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Wow. Looks like there are many pros and cons but ultimately it depends on each individual child. We decided to choose an elementary school rated a 6 on GS. Hope the average score will be the best decision we make for our kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I'm the one with the daughter. If you've just posted maligning her and blithely asserting that she'll never amount to anything, please consider the lessons about internet bullying that we're trying to teach our children.

Don’t even bother pp. There are some deeply disturbed and unhappy people posting about this topic. Always. Sounds like your kid is doing great and you like your school. That’s all that matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Incorrect. It's a combination of their education and the brains they were born with. Some are just wired better. Sending an average kid to a top school will not guarantee they get a higher score. They might, but probably not any higher than attending an expensive prep course would. And sending an exceptional student to a mediocre or even bad school won't negatively affect their ability to score highly.

The simple truth is that not all kids are born with the same ability. Moving to Hollywood won't make you more beautiful or more talented. Moving to a certain school zone won't make your child smarter. Effort improves what you're born with, but you don't need a certain geographic location to put in that effort.

This post doesn't malign anybody. Nature matters. Nurture matters. Effort matters. And educational success does not guarantee a successful life.
Try to use logic and not be so damned defensive.

[Anonymous]

How do you think these college students are going to fare

http://www.wusa9.com/mobile/article/news/local/dc/ballou-hs-principal-removed-during-graduation-scandal-investigation/496803888

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you think these college students are going to fare

http://www.wusa9.com/mobile/article/news/local/dc/ballou-hs-principal-removed-during-graduation-scandal-investigation/496803888

Irrelevant to a discussion focused on nova public schools.

[Anonymous]

The answer to the question is ...

Yes. It is easier to stand out among a smaller group of high achievers.

Great for some kids, not for others. Should be weighed when making decisions on what is best for your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The answer to the question is ...

Yes. It is easier to stand out among a smaller group of high achievers.

Great for some kids, not for others. Should be weighed when making decisions on what is best for your kid.

Kids are also more likely to be high achievers with a stronger peer group where the expectations are higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer to the question is ...

Yes. It is easier to stand out among a smaller group of high achievers.

Great for some kids, not for others. Should be weighed when making decisions on what is best for your kid.

Kids are also more likely to be high achievers with a stronger peer group where the expectations are higher.

Not all kids.
You have to decide what is best for your child. You aren’t raising a cohort... unless you are a Duggar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer to the question is ...

Yes. It is easier to stand out among a smaller group of high achievers.

Great for some kids, not for others. Should be weighed when making decisions on what is best for your kid.

Kids are also more likely to be high achievers with a stronger peer group where the expectations are higher.

Not all kids.
You have to decide what is best for your child. You aren’t raising a cohort... unless you are a Duggar.

Sorry, no idea what a “Duggar” is, but do know that most DCUM posters want their children to be challenged in school, not sliding by in an environment where average is the norm or the focus is on getting the kids who struggle with English to demonstrate minimal competency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer to the question is ...

Yes. It is easier to stand out among a smaller group of high achievers.

Great for some kids, not for others. Should be weighed when making decisions on what is best for your kid.

Kids are also more likely to be high achievers with a stronger peer group where the expectations are higher.

Not all kids.
You have to decide what is best for your child. You aren’t raising a cohort... unless you are a Duggar.

Sorry, no idea what a “Duggar” is, but do know that most DCUM posters want their children to be challenged in school, not sliding by in an environment where average is the norm or the focus is on getting the kids who struggle with English to demonstrate minimal competency.

Do you truly not know what a Duggar is? Fascinating.
Do you typically find yourself at a loss when popular culture is being discussed? I’ve never watched their show, but I’m certainly aware of who they are. Quick litmus test: Are you familiar with the Kardashians?
Either way, you are not correct in your assessment that all DCUM wants their kids pushed through the academic meat grinder. Most want to see their children thrive. It can happen in AP English at Edison as well as Woodson.
I went to one of the big competitive high achieving high schools and had a wonderful experience, but I wouldn’t pretend it’s for all kids. I have a lovely co worker who did the full IB diploma at Edison. She’s fabulous and has had great success. Every kid is different.