Stay at TT or Retire to Suburbs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

Most of the suburban publics I'm familiar with do track, a friend just recently pulled his kid out of a private school that didn't put him in a public school that did.

"entirely run by less about six people on campus" "2254 people in central administration" these are not the same thing; I assume that your private K-12 employs more than 6 people in some administrative capacity.

"10 to 12" that's not what other people here are saying.

AP classes geared towards the test: there are optional and kids at high-performing schools are eager to get into them, also while I agree that AP humanities tests are pretty cruddy I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with gearing your math curriculum towards AB or BC Calculus (indeed many private school course catalogs advertise that a course will prepare you to take one of those exams).

"every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc" - I don't view a shared core curriculum as a bad thing if they choose well, frankly my experience with teachers both private and public is that they're very hit-or-miss and you want consistency so that each year can pick up on the previous one, particularly at a big school or in a big district; if 2/3 of the kids learn set theory and 1/3 don't then that's going to be a problem for the next year's teachers. But public school teachers do have a lot of flexibility outside of that core, my middle schooler is constantly comparing notes with friends in different houses and there are frequently entire projects that only one class or the other gets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

It's life in a rich affluent bubble. It is one kind of education and it's very nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, "HM students have good GPAs because they're smart, suburban public school kids have good GPAs because of grade inflation" is a textbook No True Scotsman argument

The median SAT at our private is about 200 pts higher than our wealthy suburban public.

Scarsdale average SAT is 1385, Horace Mann is 1426.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, "HM students have good GPAs because they're smart, suburban public school kids have good GPAs because of grade inflation" is a textbook No True Scotsman argument

The median SAT at our private is about 200 pts higher than our wealthy suburban public.

Scarsdale average SAT is 1385, Horace Mann is 1426.

Scarsdale public schools are like going to private school. Obviously you could get an excellent education in Scarsdale public schools, probably better than plenty of private schools. And with the high real estate taxes to pay for it, you're going to end up spending the same amount of money anyway. So pick your poison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

The "best people in the world send their students to private school" poster is ridiculous. Plenty of students cannot get what they want out of private school even with some masters of the universe parent. They might want a higher level stem focus, or better Athletics, or more diversity , or a larger class, or a different geographic location, or 50 other things unavailable from their private school selection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

The "best people in the world send their students to private school" poster is ridiculous. Plenty of students cannot get what they want out of private school even with some masters of the universe parent. They might want a higher level stem focus, or better Athletics, or more diversity , or a larger class, or a different geographic location, or 50 other things unavailable from their private school selection.

Exactly. Different strokes for different folks. Each has its relative merits and everyone has their unique needs. But there are many pathways to HYPS, which is what everyone here seems obsessed with. And life in suburbia isn't as miserable and boring as some who have never left Manhattan (except perhaps to go "out east") think it is.

[Anonymous]

Trevor hater has now gone back to bashing suburbs. The “160 pound wife” comment is quite telling.

I would’ve liked to live in suburbs but my biggest problem is commute. If, however, I no longer have to worry about making my way to the office 5 days a week, suburban life suddenly becomes much more attractive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

Yes, I went through public school system in Princeton. I got a very good education. Even so, inferior to what my kids got in private school in every respect. I also sent my kids to a wealthy suburban public elementary (rated 10/10 on best schools). Saw first hand that they were abandoning tracking, which is also happening in DC area schools and discussed frequently on this board (and being implemented by Mamdani in NY). Heard teachers complaining about curriculum being scripted by central office that they could not deviate from. Saw my kids spend lots of classroom time preparing for yearly state proficiency tests, even doing mock questions on a regular basis. Neither my kids or I had a class size smaller than 25 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trevor hater has now gone back to bashing suburbs. The “160 pound wife” comment is quite telling.

I would’ve liked to live in suburbs but my biggest problem is commute. If, however, I no longer have to worry about making my way to the office 5 days a week, suburban life suddenly becomes much more attractive.

I got that garbage deleted. Thanks to the management for being responsive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

Yes, I went through public school system in Princeton. I got a very good education. Even so, inferior to what my kids got in private school in every respect. I also sent my kids to a wealthy suburban public elementary (rated 10/10 on best schools). Saw first hand that they were abandoning tracking, which is also happening in DC area schools and discussed frequently on this board (and being implemented by Mamdani in NY). Heard teachers complaining about curriculum being scripted by central office that they could not deviate from. Saw my kids spend lots of classroom time preparing for yearly state proficiency tests, even doing mock questions on a regular basis. Neither my kids or I had a class size smaller than 25 kids.

I guess it depends. Near me, at the private school options are inferior in stem offerings and some of the suburban publics are strong in stem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

Yes, I went through public school system in Princeton. I got a very good education. Even so, inferior to what my kids got in private school in every respect. I also sent my kids to a wealthy suburban public elementary (rated 10/10 on best schools). Saw first hand that they were abandoning tracking, which is also happening in DC area schools and discussed frequently on this board (and being implemented by Mamdani in NY). Heard teachers complaining about curriculum being scripted by central office that they could not deviate from. Saw my kids spend lots of classroom time preparing for yearly state proficiency tests, even doing mock questions on a regular basis. Neither my kids or I had a class size smaller than 25 kids.

OP here, thank you so much for sharing this. I believe your experience is probably the most instructive to the choice we're evaluating (Princeton public vs. NYC TT). I just have two questions: 1. Do you feel that the educational experience in Princeton publics would have materially changed since you had attended (e.g. less tracking, more ESL / special needs, etc.)? 2. Do you feel that the degree to which your children's experience in private school has been better than public (in learning environment, learned material, network benefits, etc.) is dramatic enough to lead to definitively different life outcomes?

We're really struggling with the decision. We (but not the kids) prefer the suburban lifestyle but it'd really kill us to know that we sacrificed something that could have been very positively significant for their life trajectory, especially since we can comfortable afford the tuition.

[Anonymous]

I think you are asking good questions and some of the feedback here is helpful (though a lot of it is awful). That being said, I think that the decision comes down more to overall lifestyle than schools.

A smart kid who is engaged, willing to participate and has no issues of note can thrive in either environment. I know many people who chose between SHSAT schools (Stuy, Bronx Science). A suburban public is more like a private than those schools, with the only major difference being that at suburban publics you get a decent number of kids who are not tracking towards top colleges. But in a town like Princeton, though it has diversified, it is a more homogeneous environment than SHSAT schools, and a calmer learning environment.

I think the question to ask is confirming how the public schools do tracking at different ages. This could always change, but it is helpful. In elementary school it is not critical (I would actually argue against it in the earliest grades). Middle school it is a nice to have. High school it is a need to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

Yes, I went through public school system in Princeton. I got a very good education. Even so, inferior to what my kids got in private school in every respect. I also sent my kids to a wealthy suburban public elementary (rated 10/10 on best schools). Saw first hand that they were abandoning tracking, which is also happening in DC area schools and discussed frequently on this board (and being implemented by Mamdani in NY). Heard teachers complaining about curriculum being scripted by central office that they could not deviate from. Saw my kids spend lots of classroom time preparing for yearly state proficiency tests, even doing mock questions on a regular basis. Neither my kids or I had a class size smaller than 25 kids.

I don't know where this notion that Mamdani is abandoning tracking is coming from; he's said nothing about it recently, nor has his schools chancellor, and he is himself a happy Bronx Science graduate and has explicitly disavowed the idea of eliminating the SHSAT. Even if he showed any inclination to do this, unlike BDB he's clearly smart enough to pick his battles - leaving Jessica Tisch to her own devices, e.g., and only backing a handful of primary challenges this year, and nipping and tucking his way around budget cuts to avoid making the state legislature vote for a tax increase in an election year - and I doubt he'd waste political capital on some naive attempt to slightly democratize schools when there are so many easier targets like housing and transit and bike lanes and the damn grocery stores.