Tell me about Albert Einstein HS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many creative excuses! Keep'em coming. I love it.

+1

I still don't understand -- creative excuses for what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post similar data for E?

I bet not too many will get it. Einstein's average SAT score for Math and Reading combined is 1035 which is more than 200 points lower than bottom 25%tile of accepted student (1260-1420, mid 50%tile). Only about 50% of kids took the test which shows not enough kids are college bound.

What does this mean?

Not the PP, but I presume "it" should be "in"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post similar data for E?

I bet not too many will get it. Einstein's average SAT score for Math and Reading combined is 1035 which is more than 200 points lower than bottom 25%tile of accepted student (1260-1420, mid 50%tile). Only about 50% of kids took the test which shows not enough kids are college bound.

Where can one find this information?

[Anonymous]

The piece of information that we're missing, and that would be most helpful to the OP, is this: How do middle-class English-speaking kids with stable home lives and involved parents fare at Einstein versus any other school in MCPS?

My anecdotal experience is that those kids do just fine, and their outcomes are pretty similar to kids who check those same boxes at other public high schools.

It's hard to get proper data to support that anecdotal impression, since most data isn't tracked by SES in MCPS, but the Schools at a Glance does show roughly equal AP/IB/Honors enrollment among white* kids at Einstein and BCC, and roughly equal performance on the statewide tests.

So, for the OP, I'd say to wait and see. Household income, parents with college degrees, stable home life - these things are ultimately much closer correlated with academic success than where a kid goes to high school.

*Unfortunately, there's no data by SES or HHI, so we're left using race as a proxy for middle-class, which is problematic, I'll admit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post similar data for E?

I bet not too many will get it. Einstein's average SAT score for Math and Reading combined is 1035 which is more than 200 points lower than bottom 25%tile of accepted student (1260-1420, mid 50%tile). Only about 50% of kids took the test which shows not enough kids are college bound.

Where can one find this information?

here. Page 2.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04789.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post similar data for E?

I bet not too many will get it. Einstein's average SAT score for Math and Reading combined is 1035 which is more than 200 points lower than bottom 25%tile of accepted student (1260-1420, mid 50%tile). Only about 50% of kids took the test which shows not enough kids are college bound.

What does this mean?

Not the PP, but I presume "it" should be "in"

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post similar data for E?

I bet not too many will get it. Einstein's average SAT score for Math and Reading combined is 1035 which is more than 200 points lower than bottom 25%tile of accepted student (1260-1420, mid 50%tile). Only about 50% of kids took the test which shows not enough kids are college bound.

This is a misleading statistic, most of the poor kids you quote don't actually take the SAT. It isn't only the higher FARMs rate that explain Einstein's poor SAT performance but so has to go to the school it's self. The 50% percent who took it are mostly the middle class kids and that is part of the problem. Einstein can't possible foster the level of college preparedness that say a Whitman can (90%) because of college simply isn't in the picture for so many of it's students. Then you create gaps for those kids to fall through and then other kids start taking the path of least resistance too. A mediocre peer group is the worst thing an involved parent can expose their kids too IMO and it is selfish of parents to justify sending the kids to places like that so they can get 500 extra SqFt and a driveway.

But maybe if the parents did a little better they could get the schools and the driveway so maybe the kids are simply reflections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is a misleading statistic, most of the poor kids you quote don't actually take the SAT. It isn't only the higher FARMs rate that explain Einstein's poor SAT performance but so has to go to the school it's self. The 50% percent who took it are mostly the middle class kids and that is part of the problem. Einstein can't possible foster the level of college preparedness that say a Whitman can (90%) because of college simply isn't in the picture for so many of it's students. Then you create gaps for those kids to fall through and then other kids start taking the path of least resistance too. A mediocre peer group is the worst thing an involved parent can expose their kids too IMO and it is selfish of parents to justify sending the kids to places like that so they can get 500 extra SqFt and a driveway.

But maybe if the parents did a little better they could get the schools and the driveway so maybe the kids are simply reflections.

Shorter PP: the poor kids at Einstein make the middle-class kids at Einstein dumber. It's the infectious disease model of SAT scores and college attendance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a misleading statistic, most of the poor kids you quote don't actually take the SAT. It isn't only the higher FARMs rate that explain Einstein's poor SAT performance but so has to go to the school it's self. The 50% percent who took it are mostly the middle class kids and that is part of the problem. Einstein can't possible foster the level of college preparedness that say a Whitman can (90%) because of college simply isn't in the picture for so many of it's students. Then you create gaps for those kids to fall through and then other kids start taking the path of least resistance too. A mediocre peer group is the worst thing an involved parent can expose their kids too IMO and it is selfish of parents to justify sending the kids to places like that so they can get 500 extra SqFt and a driveway.

But maybe if the parents did a little better they could get the schools and the driveway so maybe the kids are simply reflections.

Shorter PP: the poor kids at Einstein make the middle-class kids at Einstein dumber. It's the infectious disease model of SAT scores and college attendance.

No, the poor kids cap the level of curriculum that can be offered lower by not only their comprehension due to previous poor schooling but also by being a resource suck for the school who must then offer lower level classes and focus on greater levels of discipline and failure remediation. If a teacher spends the who class trying to help a kid with a E he isn't pushing the rest of the class forward. And if room 203 is used 5 times a day for Senior level basics of math it isn't being used for AP biology or does your school have an abundance of space and resources?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post similar data for E?

I bet not too many will get it. Einstein's average SAT score for Math and Reading combined is 1035 which is more than 200 points lower than bottom 25%tile of accepted student (1260-1420, mid 50%tile). Only about 50% of kids took the test which shows not enough kids are college bound.

This is a misleading statistic, most of the poor kids you quote don't actually take the SAT. It isn't only the higher FARMs rate that explain Einstein's poor SAT performance but so has to go to the school it's self. The 50% percent who took it are mostly the middle class kids and that is part of the problem. Einstein can't possible foster the level of college preparedness that say a Whitman can (90%) because of college simply isn't in the picture for so many of it's students. Then you create gaps for those kids to fall through and then other kids start taking the path of least resistance too. A mediocre peer group is the worst thing an involved parent can expose their kids too IMO and it is selfish of parents to justify sending the kids to places like that so they can get 500 extra SqFt and a driveway.

But maybe if the parents did a little better they could get the schools and the driveway so maybe the kids are simply reflections.

I hope your child/ren attend MCPS and not your School of the Dining Room Table, particularly for language arts purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post similar data for E?

I bet not too many will get it. Einstein's average SAT score for Math and Reading combined is 1035 which is more than 200 points lower than bottom 25%tile of accepted student (1260-1420, mid 50%tile). Only about 50% of kids took the test which shows not enough kids are college bound.

This is a misleading statistic, most of the poor kids you quote don't actually take the SAT. It isn't only the higher FARMs rate that explain Einstein's poor SAT performance but so has to go to the school it's self. The 50% percent who took it are mostly the middle class kids and that is part of the problem. Einstein can't possible foster the level of college preparedness that say a Whitman can (90%) because of college simply isn't in the picture for so many of it's students. Then you create gaps for those kids to fall through and then other kids start taking the path of least resistance too. A mediocre peer group is the worst thing an involved parent can expose their kids too IMO and it is selfish of parents to justify sending the kids to places like that so they can get 500 extra SqFt and a driveway.

But maybe if the parents did a little better they could get the schools and the driveway so maybe the kids are simply reflections.

Hmmm. I don't know. Somehow, the kids in this video are ending up at the very same SLAC's (Smith, Oberlin, Scripps, Skidmore, etc etc etc) as their W counterparts despite Einstein's obviously impoverished curriculum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=B3zkywiukNQ&app=desktop

And these kids are the artists. There's another sizable group of kids pursuing the more academically focused IB curriculum that are achieving similar outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, the poor kids cap the level of curriculum that can be offered lower by not only their comprehension due to previous poor schooling but also by being a resource suck for the school who must then offer lower level classes and focus on greater levels of discipline and failure remediation. If a teacher spends the who class trying to help a kid with a E he isn't pushing the rest of the class forward. And if room 203 is used 5 times a day for Senior level basics of math it isn't being used for AP biology or does your school have an abundance of space and resources?

If Einstein didn't offer AP Biology because there was no classroom space, then yes, that would be a concern. However, good news! Einstein does offer AP Biology! http://apps.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/coursebulletin/CourseDetails/Index/3651

Now, if you want to say that AP Biology is a better class at Whitman than at Einstein because the kids are better at Whitman than at Einstein, well, I don't suppose there's any way to argue with that. But we're back to the circular logic again: Whitman is better because Whitman is better. Einstein is worse than Whitman because Einstein is worse than Whitman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Hmmm. I don't know. Somehow, the kids in this video are ending up at the very same SLAC's (Smith, Oberlin, Scripps, Skidmore, etc etc etc) as their W counterparts despite Einstein's obviously impoverished curriculum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=B3zkywiukNQ&app=desktop

And these kids are the artists. There's another sizable group of kids pursuing the more academically focused IB curriculum that are achieving similar outcomes.

Ah, but are they equally qualified while at the very same SLACs? Of course not! We know this because the Whitman kids went to Whitman, whereas the Einstein kids went to Einstein. Or, um, something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post similar data for E?

I bet not too many will get it. Einstein's average SAT score for Math and Reading combined is 1035 which is more than 200 points lower than bottom 25%tile of accepted student (1260-1420, mid 50%tile). Only about 50% of kids took the test which shows not enough kids are college bound.

This is a misleading statistic, most of the poor kids you quote don't actually take the SAT. It isn't only the higher FARMs rate that explain Einstein's poor SAT performance but so has to go to the school it's self. The 50% percent who took it are mostly the middle class kids and that is part of the problem. Einstein can't possible foster the level of college preparedness that say a Whitman can (90%) because of college simply isn't in the picture for so many of it's students. Then you create gaps for those kids to fall through and then other kids start taking the path of least resistance too. A mediocre peer group is the worst thing an involved parent can expose their kids too IMO and it is selfish of parents to justify sending the kids to places like that so they can get 500 extra SqFt and a driveway.

But maybe if the parents did a little better they could get the schools and the driveway so maybe the kids are simply reflections.

Maybe if intelligence and hard work directly correlated to income you would have a point, but guess what? They don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post similar data for E?

I bet not too many will get it. Einstein's average SAT score for Math and Reading combined is 1035 which is more than 200 points lower than bottom 25%tile of accepted student (1260-1420, mid 50%tile). Only about 50% of kids took the test which shows not enough kids are college bound.

This is a misleading statistic, most of the poor kids you quote don't actually take the SAT. It isn't only the higher FARMs rate that explain Einstein's poor SAT performance but so has to go to the school it's self. The 50% percent who took it are mostly the middle class kids and that is part of the problem. Einstein can't possible foster the level of college preparedness that say a Whitman can (90%) because of college simply isn't in the picture for so many of it's students. Then you create gaps for those kids to fall through and then other kids start taking the path of least resistance too. A mediocre peer group is the worst thing an involved parent can expose their kids too IMO and it is selfish of parents to justify sending the kids to places like that so they can get 500 extra SqFt and a driveway.

But maybe if the parents did a little better they could get the schools and the driveway so maybe the kids are simply reflections.

I don't actually know why only 53% of Einstein's class of 2014 took the SAT, but maybe it has to do with college options. Many kids must start their college careers at community college because of finances. Community colleges don't require SAT/ACT scores for admissions. This may explain some of the low SAT rate.

Here is a link to more detailed SAT data for each high school broken down by race (pages 10-12):
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/SATBOEMemo10614.pdf

FYI, referring to kids who don't take the SAT as a mediocre peer group makes you sound like a horrible person.