Why High School Rankings are Meaningless .... and Harmful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

B-CC is a highly ranked neighborhood HS like New Trier (IL), Shaker Heights (OH), etc. that send students to elite colleges and even
to state schools, like where you went.

I'm guessing that you meant this as an insult. I don't perceive it as an insult, though. If "elite colleges" teach their graduates to type gratuitous (and incorrectly-punctuated) insults to imaginary people on an Internet message board, that's a future opportunity I'd like my children to do without.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think they are meaningless or harmful... i think they are misnomers b/c they purport to be ranking the teaching quality of the school when really, they are ranking the intellectual quality (or economic quality) of the kids. I hate that at least half of the schools in this state are labelled as "bad schools" because they have an overall test pass rate of average or less than average. It doesn't mean that the teachers are bad or the school is bad. It means that there are larger groups of kids who aren't at the top... and there may still be groups of kids who are doing fabulously (but they are lost in a label that averages everythign out.).

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

B-CC is a highly ranked neighborhood HS like New Trier (IL), Shaker Heights (OH), etc. that send students to elite colleges and even
to state schools, like where you went.

I'm guessing that you meant this as an insult. I don't perceive it as an insult, though. If "elite colleges" teach their graduates to type gratuitous (and incorrectly-punctuated) insults to imaginary people on an Internet message board, that's a future opportunity I'd like my children to do without.

NP here: Check out Bethesda Magazine (this sumer's education issue). Every year it publishes the college acceptances for all the Bethesda and Silver Spring high schools. Around 30 B-CC students are accepted to the ivies every year (out of a class size of about 450). So percentage-wise not as impressive as STA but still very respectable.

BCC is a pretty diverse school, economically. Not all the kids can afford $60K/year for an ivy, although many families earn enough to be disqualified for financial aid. Contrast that to STA where every single kid is applying to college and most families already have a track record of paying $35K/year, more if they have more than one kid in private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

B-CC is a highly ranked neighborhood HS like New Trier (IL), Shaker Heights (OH), etc. that send students to elite colleges and even
to state schools, like where you went.

I'm guessing that you meant this as an insult. I don't perceive it as an insult, though. If "elite colleges" teach their graduates to type gratuitous (and incorrectly-punctuated) insults to imaginary people on an Internet message board, that's a future opportunity I'd like my children to do without.

NP here: Check out Bethesda Magazine (this sumer's education issue). Every year it publishes the college acceptances for all the Bethesda and Silver Spring high schools. Around 30 B-CC students are accepted to the ivies every year (out of a class size of about 450). So percentage-wise not as impressive as STA but still very respectable.

BCC is a pretty diverse school, economically. Not all the kids can afford $60K/year for an ivy, although many families earn enough to be disqualified for financial aid. Contrast that to STA where every single kid is applying to college and most families already have a track record of paying $35K/year, more if they have more than one kid in private.

Exactly. My guess is anywhere between 5-15 graduating seniors actually choose to attend one of the ivies every year, much less than the acceptance rate.

[Anonymous]

I am someone that looks at high school rankings.

Not because I think the schools are inherently better than the others, but because of the types of children that these schools attract. I'm a big believer that at that age, there is more of a gang mentality. Teenagers in general follow their peers, and are very affected by what others are doing. Children in the better ranked schools tend to be more inclined towards education, their parents are more inclined towards education, and my kids will be surrounded by people that want to do well.

I would definitely not rule out a lower ranked school, but I definitely would not look at a bottom tiered school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am someone that looks at high school rankings.

Not because I think the schools are inherently better than the others, but because of the types of children that these schools attract. I'm a big believer that at that age, there is more of a gang mentality. Teenagers in general follow their peers, and are very affected by what others are doing. Children in the better ranked schools tend to be more inclined towards education, their parents are more inclined towards education, and my kids will be surrounded by people that want to do well.

I would definitely not rule out a lower ranked school, but I definitely would not look at a bottom tiered school.

I agree. I would also add that I would stay away from top tiered because the culture of the school is usually unbalanced. The peers also have negative influences in another way.

[Anonymous]

I wish the rankings would include some sort of improvement measure. From kids starting at the beginning of the year to the end. Factor that into test scores and you have an idea of how well the school is doing. I also think the variety of classes offered is important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am someone that looks at high school rankings.

Not because I think the schools are inherently better than the others, but because of the types of children that these schools attract. I'm a big believer that at that age, there is more of a gang mentality. Teenagers in general follow their peers, and are very affected by what others are doing. Children in the better ranked schools tend to be more inclined towards education, their parents are more inclined towards education, and my kids will be surrounded by people that want to do well.

I would definitely not rule out a lower ranked school, but I definitely would not look at a bottom tiered school.

I agree. I would also add that I would stay away from top tiered because the culture of the school is usually unbalanced. The peers also have negative influences in another way.

The top-tiered schools in the suburbs are not always in super-wealthy areas, but they rarely have many poor students. They are generally in the most desirable neighborhoods. Whether the neighborhoods are desirable because of the schools, or vice versa, can be debated. When push comes to shove, people who can afford to do so typically will seek to live in an area with top-tiered schools, rather than in areas with middle-tiered schools, because (1) they think the larger cohort of academically motivated students will be more of a positive than a negative, (2) they are not convinced there is a clear benefit to having their kids share a facility with lower-income kids, who often take different classes in any event, and (3) it sends a social message to sport a Langley or B-CC decal on your car, together with the "26.2" and "OBX" stickers.

Now that more upper-income people are choosing to live in urban and close-in suburban areas that recently have not been known for the quality of their public schools, it's inevitable that the traditional rankings that favor suburban schools will come under attack, at least until the demographics change enough that those schools would be highly ranked. At that point, Atlantic Monthly will publish new pieces on suburban poverty and how some urban schools are now highly ranked.

[Anonymous]

Nice mention of Shaker Heights. What's up fellow Buckeye? Too bad Shaker probably has too many FARMs students from the North and West borders to satisfy the snobby DCUM crowd. That said, the DCUM crowd would also have a heart attack if they saw the low prices on the historic mansions there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am someone that looks at high school rankings.

Not because I think the schools are inherently better than the others, but because of the types of children that these schools attract. I'm a big believer that at that age, there is more of a gang mentality. Teenagers in general follow their peers, and are very affected by what others are doing. Children in the better ranked schools tend to be more inclined towards education, their parents are more inclined towards education, and my kids will be surrounded by people that want to do well.

I would definitely not rule out a lower ranked school, but I definitely would not look at a bottom tiered school.

I agree. I would also add that I would stay away from top tiered because the culture of the school is usually unbalanced. The peers also have negative influences in another way.

The top-tiered schools in the suburbs are not always in super-wealthy areas, but they rarely have many poor students. They are generally in the most desirable neighborhoods. Whether the neighborhoods are desirable because of the schools, or vice versa, can be debated. When push comes to shove, people who can afford to do so typically will seek to live in an area with top-tiered schools, rather than in areas with middle-tiered schools, because (1) they think the larger cohort of academically motivated students will be more of a positive than a negative, (2) they are not convinced there is a clear benefit to having their kids share a facility with lower-income kids, who often take different classes in any event, and (3) it sends a social message to sport a Langley or B-CC decal on your car, together with the "26.2" and "OBX" stickers.

Now that more upper-income people are choosing to live in urban and close-in suburban areas that recently have not been known for the quality of their public schools, it's inevitable that the traditional rankings that favor suburban schools will come under attack, at least until the demographics change enough that those schools would be highly ranked. At that point, Atlantic Monthly will publish new pieces on suburban poverty and how some urban schools are now highly ranked.

1) academically motivated is found in the "average" schools in this area without the "take no prisoners" approach to some "elite" schools.
2) I am not talking about lower-income, I am talking about motivated kids that are academically successful (no matter their income) who don't slit their wrist at the though of a B or going to UMCP. They outnumber the "elite" by definition.

Mostly people with money did not go to a top tier school and did not go to HPY yet they are very, very successful and find all this hype about top tier ridiculous. They make sure their kids are in a good school (not necessarily top tier), work hard, make sure they have a good support system, make sure they have interests out of school that keep them well rounded and are confident that their child will be successful.

I find the HPY people believe that is what made them successful instead of hard work and determination and are running scared at the thought that their kids will not do as well as them. I don't desire to be a part of that atmosphere though, in this area, it is hard to avoid. My kids get the benefit of seeing their "elite" friends never happy at their successes because it is never enough for their parents.

I think when you are in the city or close-in suburbs you lose clarity, you believe everybody thinks "elite" this and "elite" that. Guess what - there are doctors and lawers and indian chiefs in the exburbs too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
1) academically motivated is found in the "average" schools in this area without the "take no prisoners" approach to some "elite" schools.
2) I am not talking about lower-income, I am talking about motivated kids that are academically successful (no matter their income) who don't slit their wrist at the though of a B or going to UMCP. They outnumber the "elite" by definition.

Mostly people with money did not go to a top tier school and did not go to HPY yet they are very, very successful and find all this hype about top tier ridiculous. They make sure their kids are in a good school (not necessarily top tier), work hard, make sure they have a good support system, make sure they have interests out of school that keep them well rounded and are confident that their child will be successful.

I find the HPY people believe that is what made them successful instead of hard work and determination and are running scared at the thought that their kids will not do as well as them. I don't desire to be a part of that atmosphere though, in this area, it is hard to avoid. My kids get the benefit of seeing their "elite" friends never happy at their successes because it is never enough for their parents.

I think when you are in the city or close-in suburbs you lose clarity, you believe everybody thinks "elite" this and "elite" that. Guess what - there are doctors and lawers and indian chiefs in the exburbs too.

You seem to have a certain image of "elite" schools (sic), which you then stereotype in order to validate your preference for "average" schools. Which is OK, and if you're happy with your "average" school, so much the better.

But don't pretend that you're not engaging in stereotyping of your own, and don't think that the preference in this area for higher-ranked schools is limited to "the HPY people" (it's "HYP").

And, goodness gracious, people don't necessarily avoid the exurbs because they aren't "elite" enough. They simply rule them out because they are far away from where they work, and they have no desire to spend 3 hours in a car every day just so they can claim that they live in a "down-to-earth" area.

[Anonymous]

(There are "HYP people" who live in the exurbs. There are also people who live in the exurbs who don't commute by car. There is even at least one "HYP person" who lives in the exurbs and doesn't commute by car. I know this for a fact!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1) academically motivated is found in the "average" schools in this area without the "take no prisoners" approach to some "elite" schools.
2) I am not talking about lower-income, I am talking about motivated kids that are academically successful (no matter their income) who don't slit their wrist at the though of a B or going to UMCP. They outnumber the "elite" by definition.

Mostly people with money did not go to a top tier school and did not go to HPY yet they are very, very successful and find all this hype about top tier ridiculous. They make sure their kids are in a good school (not necessarily top tier), work hard, make sure they have a good support system, make sure they have interests out of school that keep them well rounded and are confident that their child will be successful.

I find the HPY people believe that is what made them successful instead of hard work and determination and are running scared at the thought that their kids will not do as well as them. I don't desire to be a part of that atmosphere though, in this area, it is hard to avoid. My kids get the benefit of seeing their "elite" friends never happy at their successes because it is never enough for their parents.

I think when you are in the city or close-in suburbs you lose clarity, you believe everybody thinks "elite" this and "elite" that. Guess what - there are doctors and lawers and indian chiefs in the exburbs too.

You seem to have a certain image of "elite" schools (sic), which you then stereotype in order to validate your preference for "average" schools. Which is OK, and if you're happy with your "average" school, so much the better.

But don't pretend that you're not engaging in stereotyping of your own, and don't think that the preference in this area for higher-ranked schools is limited to "the HPY people" (it's "HYP").

And, goodness gracious, people don't necessarily avoid the exurbs because they aren't "elite" enough. They simply rule them out because they are far away from where they work, and they have no desire to spend 3 hours in a car every day just so they can claim that they live in a "down-to-earth" area.

I put "average" in quotes because I don't think they are average, many people on this post seem to think they are. I am happy with my "average" school. Like 13:38 says, most exburbians don't commute to the city and are quite happy to only have to go there when realtives want to see the monuments.

I know only a few who commute to the city and they only do that because they are young and not established in their career.

I actually did not stereotype. You called them elite, I am not convinced which is why I call them "elite". Each school has a personality that leave a little bit to be desired. I only pointed out one of those personalities. The perfect school has yet to be created... but some think they have found it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I put "average" in quotes because I don't think they are average, many people on this post seem to think they are. I am happy with my "average" school. Like 13:38 says, most exburbians don't commute to the city and are quite happy to only have to go there when realtives want to see the monuments.

I know only a few who commute to the city and they only do that because they are young and not established in their career.

I actually did not stereotype. You called them elite, I am not convinced which is why I call them "elite". Each school has a personality that leave a little bit to be desired. I only pointed out one of those personalities. The perfect school has yet to be created... but some think they have found it.

Too many messages getting crossed. I didn't call any public schools "elite" on this thread, except in response to your previously having done so. I think one could call TJ "elite" since it's a selective magnet, but otherwise calling public schools in this area "elite" seems odd to me. On average, the kids who attend them may have wealthier parents and score higher on standardized tests, but otherwise they attend these schools due to accident of birth.

In any event, while I think there's some merit to the idea that rankings can get in the way of education, I also think that some of the attacks on rankings come from people moving to areas where the schools are less highly ranked and ultimately not really liking that. It seems to me that, as long as the limitations of rankings are acknowledged and they are taken with a grain of salt, they can serve a useful purpose, particularly when people are moving to large metropolitan areas with large school systems.

[Anonymous]

My criticism on ranking comes from a background in math and statistics.

I believe I probably "know too much" to be anything but critical both in my opinion and my analysis.

As for magnets I am not convinced the school makes the kids, I believe the kids make the school. I also think they would have been just as successful in their home school.

They also do not provide benefit to the education of the community as a whole. Their purpose are to benefits the real estate market.