Top 10 Schools in MoCo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your boasts are easily dismissed simply by looking at the Great Schools website.

Whitman's test scores rank it as GS 4
https://www.greatschools.org/maryland/bethesda/970-Walt-Whitman-High-School?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=Permalink#Test_scores

BCC's Test Scores get it a GS 7
https://www.greatschools.org/maryland/bethesda/861-Bethesda-Chevy-Chase-High-School?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=Permalink#Test_scores

4 for test scores ...

Wow I'm gonna call my real estate agent!

Just found out my Northwood high school district is as good as the Walt Whitman district!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you are all idiots believing stupid rankings.

yes, we should all believe you instead, the "genius" who calls names and uses no data whatsoever.

Sometimes "no data" is better than "wrong data"

Can you articulate why the data is wrong? Otherwise you're just showing your ignorance. Two ranking methodologies were posted, based upon publicly available outcome data, and all you can do is call names.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the Niche rankings:

https://www.niche.com/k12/search/best-public-high-schools/s/maryland/
1. Poolesville
2. Churchill
3. Whitman
4. Wootton
5. Richard Montgomery
6. Walter Johnson
7. BCC
8. Blair
9. Quince Orchard
10. Northwest

Oh but you have to remember that W parents dismiss anything that puts upcounty schools before their schools, so they generally reject Niche as unreliable. If it ranked all the W schools above all the other MCPS HS's, they'd say Niche was super reliable.

Ok, here's the same schools as rated by GreatSchools. Now you've got two sets of rankings, which at least have some objective criteria behind them (even if you disagree with the methodology).
Churchill-10
BCC-9
Poolesville-9
Walter Johnson-9
Wootton-9
Whitman-8
Quince Orchard-8
Northwest-8
Richard Montgomery-7
Montgomery Blair-6

+1 Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you are all idiots believing stupid rankings.

yes, we should all believe you instead, the "genius" who calls names and uses no data whatsoever.

Sometimes "no data" is better than "wrong data"

Can you articulate why the data is wrong? Otherwise you're just showing your ignorance. Two ranking methodologies were posted, based upon publicly available outcome data, and all you can do is call names.

when you have no data, it forces you to do research and try to find out. when you have wrong data, it takes you down the wrong path. ranking is as good or as bad as the criteria and weight they use. do you even know what criteria/wt they put on each?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you are all idiots believing stupid rankings.

yes, we should all believe you instead, the "genius" who calls names and uses no data whatsoever.

Sometimes "no data" is better than "wrong data"

Can you articulate why the data is wrong? Otherwise you're just showing your ignorance. Two ranking methodologies were posted, based upon publicly available outcome data, and all you can do is call names.

when you have no data, it forces you to do research and try to find out. when you have wrong data, it takes you down the wrong path. ranking is as good or as bad as the criteria and weight they use. do you even know what criteria/wt they put on each?

yes, the criteria are publicly posted on the Great Schools and Niche websites. For the third time, why do you think they're "wrong data"? Have you ever looked at the data?

[Anonymous]

^ also, ranking means nothing unless your value system is completely in sync with person who ranks. for example, how important is diversity or test score to you? it may be the most important (or least important) aspect. if the publisher used different value system as yours, it serves you no good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ also, ranking means nothing unless your value system is completely in sync with person who ranks. for example, how important is diversity or test score to you? it may be the most important (or least important) aspect. if the publisher used different value system as yours, it serves you no good.

So then put together a ranking that comports with your "value system" and show it to us. Until then, you just look like you're pushing back against the published rankings because they don't say what you want them to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ also, ranking means nothing unless your value system is completely in sync with person who ranks. for example, how important is diversity or test score to you? it may be the most important (or least important) aspect. if the publisher used different value system as yours, it serves you no good.

So then put together a ranking that comports with your "value system" and show it to us. Until then, you just look like you're pushing back against the published rankings because they don't say what you want them to say.

+1. Data isn’t bad just because it doesn’t have the outcome you predicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ also, ranking means nothing unless your value system is completely in sync with person who ranks. for example, how important is diversity or test score to you? it may be the most important (or least important) aspect. if the publisher used different value system as yours, it serves you no good.

So then put together a ranking that comports with your "value system" and show it to us. Until then, you just look like you're pushing back against the published rankings because they don't say what you want them to say.

What if your value system is: school rankings are dumb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ also, ranking means nothing unless your value system is completely in sync with person who ranks. for example, how important is diversity or test score to you? it may be the most important (or least important) aspect. if the publisher used different value system as yours, it serves you no good.

So then put together a ranking that comports with your "value system" and show it to us. Until then, you just look like you're pushing back against the published rankings because they don't say what you want them to say.

What if your value system is: school rankings are dumb?

If you think all school rankings are dumb, then it means you value posting ignorantly on DCUM rather than analyzing issues more thoughtfully and also that you're probably not very good with numbers, since you haven't been able to point out a single thing that's wrong with either ranking posted on this site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ also, ranking means nothing unless your value system is completely in sync with person who ranks. for example, how important is diversity or test score to you? it may be the most important (or least important) aspect. if the publisher used different value system as yours, it serves you no good.

So then put together a ranking that comports with your "value system" and show it to us. Until then, you just look like you're pushing back against the published rankings because they don't say what you want them to say.

What if your value system is: school rankings are dumb?

If you think all school rankings are dumb, then it means you value posting ignorantly on DCUM rather than analyzing issues more thoughtfully and also that you're probably not very good with numbers, since you haven't been able to point out a single thing that's wrong with either ranking posted on this site.

Exactly. You can't just throw your arms up and say "rankings are dumb" and also implicitly rank schools by saying "this one is better than that one." Can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. You can't just throw your arms up and say "rankings are dumb" and also implicitly rank schools by saying "this one is better than that one." Can't have it both ways.

You're responding to multiple posters. Some posters are saying that this ranking system is better than that ranking system. Other posters are saying that school rankings in general are dumb.

If I were going to say that this school is better than that school, I would mean: a given kid will learn better/learn more/be happier learning in this school than in that school. And learning would include non-academic learning as well as academic learning. What kind of ranking system would reflect that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. You can't just throw your arms up and say "rankings are dumb" and also implicitly rank schools by saying "this one is better than that one." Can't have it both ways.

You're responding to multiple posters. Some posters are saying that this ranking system is better than that ranking system. Other posters are saying that school rankings in general are dumb.

If I were going to say that this school is better than that school, I would mean: a given kid will learn better/learn more/be happier learning in this school than in that school. And learning would include non-academic learning as well as academic learning. What kind of ranking system would reflect that?

An extremely subjective ranking that would be vulnerable to bias. But if you can define a way to quantify happiness, please share your data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. You can't just throw your arms up and say "rankings are dumb" and also implicitly rank schools by saying "this one is better than that one." Can't have it both ways.

You're responding to multiple posters. Some posters are saying that this ranking system is better than that ranking system. Other posters are saying that school rankings in general are dumb.

If I were going to say that this school is better than that school, I would mean: a given kid will learn better/learn more/be happier learning in this school than in that school. And learning would include non-academic learning as well as academic learning. What kind of ranking system would reflect that?

An extremely subjective ranking that would be vulnerable to bias. But if you can define a way to quantify happiness, please share your data.

Keep on ranking schools by test scores, then. It doesn't tell you which schools are better, but it's objective!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. You can't just throw your arms up and say "rankings are dumb" and also implicitly rank schools by saying "this one is better than that one." Can't have it both ways.

You're responding to multiple posters. Some posters are saying that this ranking system is better than that ranking system. Other posters are saying that school rankings in general are dumb.

If I were going to say that this school is better than that school, I would mean: a given kid will learn better/learn more/be happier learning in this school than in that school. And learning would include non-academic learning as well as academic learning. What kind of ranking system would reflect that?

An extremely subjective ranking that would be vulnerable to bias. But if you can define a way to quantify happiness, please share your data.

Keep on ranking schools by test scores, then. It doesn't tell you which schools are better, but it's objective!

If you reject the current rankings and can’t come up with your own, then you have no business saying what schools are better than others.