Top 10 Schools in MoCo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, Blair booster, by your metric Stuyvesant beats Blair because it’s had more Intel winners and finalists.

Where do you get that. The top three schools in the country for the last 20 years are
1. Blair (40 finalists). 2. Stuyvesant (22 finalists). 3. TJ (15 finalists)

[Anonymous]

No one is denying Blair has a superb SMACs program. But overall the school is horrible so... Poolesville on the other hand has just as good magnet programs and doesn't have gangs but just the nice citizens of Poolesville. Poolesville and Blair are honestly not comparable. Blair parents need to calm down. Why does poolesville always rank at the top with the Ws, though blair never does?

[Anonymous]

Poolesville is a better overall school because it has a higher number of magnet students and not as many local non-magnet students as Blair. Blair overall has less magnet students and a large non-magnet population.

This is Blair.
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04757.pdf

This is Poolesville.
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04152.pdf

Poolesville non-magnet population is mainly White. Blair non-magnet population is mainly colored. Poolesville FARMS rates are very low. Blair is almost 50% FARMS. So, Poolesville average student performance looks better because the students SES are better overall. In US - low SES falls along racial lines. White and Asians are more educated and more affluent. African-Americans and Hispanics are not. Nothing to do with the intelligence of the races as amply demonstrated by the educated and affluent Blacks who immigrate from Africa and Caribbean and make use of Affirmative Action to get ahead.

Overall Poolesville has only a handful of Blacks and Hispanics and they tend to be the affluent and educated recent immigrant Blacks whose kids come in through the magnet program into the school.

NOW, if you look at how Blair SMACS students do as compared to Poolesville SMACS students - Blair SMACS is higher performing than Poolesville SMACS, mainly because of three things 1) More connected W parents in Blair vs. less connected UpCounty parents in Poolesville, 2) Blair has more experienced teachers than Poolesville and 3) Blair trains a select group of SMACS students to excel and participate in all kinds of scholastic competitions unlike Poolesville that leaves it all the students and parents.

Blair has institutional knowledge about all types of competitions and contests, have a great understanding of how and when to prepare for it and it takes pride in winning these competition.

If we did not compare entire schools and only the magnet programs, I would rank Blair SMACS over RMIB and Poolesville SMACS. Poolesville SMACS and RMIB are in the same category of rigor. Blair SMACS is a bit more harder because some of the students (after a rigorous audition) are in the Math and Science Teams and they are trained to participate in these contests and competitions.

This is not apples to apples comparison. Magnet schools and programs will automatically do better than other schools because of academically stronger students who also are higher SES and have more parental involvement.

There is a reason why the magnet schools are better than the W schools and Private schools. It is the magnet kids. When SES is high and parents are equally involved in all three types of schools - magnet program, W schools, private schools - eventually, the difference between very bright kids and the highly gifted magnet kids is made very clear.

When there is a need to rank the schools in MoCo, the magnet schools should be removed from the list because that is a very high level of student capability and excellence we are talking about. And since these students are handpicked by the program and tested for their knowledge and ability, even before they come to the program - it is an advantage to the school. These magnet students make the schools look very good. These schools may be just average for the non-magnet students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly, more people means a higher number of them are gifted.

Yes, the top 1% of 4000 is superior to the top 1% of 300. This is more or less the situation.

No that's not the situation.
A) Families or students choose to apply to NYC magnets. It's not auto-process.
B) Stuyvesant, etc choose who is admitted based on ranking test scores, not putting a bar where 1000s reach it and then choosing 2% by discretion of the political central office or superintendent.

Either way, beating out the scores of 10000s peers is more impressive than 200. Full stop.

And EARNING better scores, grades and transcript than someone with >5% worse scores (statistically significant) given a spot due to politics will always be more impressive as well. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly, more people means a higher number of them are gifted.

Yes, the top 1% of 4000 is superior to the top 1% of 300. This is more or less the situation.

No that's not the situation.
A) Families or students choose to apply to NYC magnets. It's not auto-process.
B) Stuyvesant, etc choose who is admitted based on ranking test scores, not putting a bar where 1000s reach it and then choosing 2% by discretion of the political central office or superintendent.

Either way, beating out the scores of 10000s peers is more impressive than 200. Full stop.

And EARNING better scores, grades and transcript than someone with >5% worse scores (statistically significant) given a spot due to politics will always be more impressive as well. Full stop.

You have no evidence that the last part happened in MCPS. You’re just making a racist argument that assumes URM kids who got CES offers this year must have had lower scores than the white kids who didn’t get in.

[Anonymous]

wait a minute.
so the previous mcps had smart students elect to apply, with recommendations, and apply.

and the new mcps system is to nix recommendations, essays and enroll half of every ES. Plus added in a new, heavily weighted factor of "peer cohort", where if one existed you were less likely to get a CES or magnet seat?

what a bunch of noise. adding a bunch of average applicants is not going to drive anything up - not the scores, not the class quality, not the end results.

[Anonymous]

Yes, fuzzy admit factors is new PC thing to do in public school magnet programs. Enjoy!

[Anonymous]

Ahh, the resident racists found this thread. Hey guys!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly, more people means a higher number of them are gifted.

Yes, the top 1% of 4000 is superior to the top 1% of 300. This is more or less the situation.

It's true that the top 0.1% of 4000 is the same as the 1% of 400. This is exactly the situation despite the rantings of the tiger moms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly, more people means a higher number of them are gifted.

Yes, the top 1% of 4000 is superior to the top 1% of 300. This is more or less the situation.

It's true that the top 0.1% of 4000 is the same as the 1% of 400. This is exactly the situation despite the rantings of the tiger moms.

The only thing true there is the headcount.

I'd take 0.1% of the [4000] smart kids in NYC who chose to apply and then got admitted to Stuyvesant over 1% of the [400] robo-applicants who then MCPS mystery-picked to go to a MCPS magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly, more people means a higher number of them are gifted.

Yes, the top 1% of 4000 is superior to the top 1% of 300. This is more or less the situation.

It's true that the top 0.1% of 4000 is the same as the 1% of 400. This is exactly the situation despite the rantings of the tiger moms.

hey hey guys. I have a *new* way to define "top student." Instead of being a *top student* due to having the highest GPA, or MAP or PARCC or SSAT IQ test, you could be a *top student* because no one else in your neighborhood school is as smart as you! Cool beans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, Blair booster, by your metric Stuyvesant beats Blair because it’s had more Intel winners and finalists.

LOL
Are you blind or what?
Stuy has had 189 semi-finalists and 22 finalists
Blair has had 202 semi-finalists and 40 finalists.

Blair beats Stuy hands down, and remember with less magnet students.

See folks, facts are hard for some to swallow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, Blair booster, by your metric Stuyvesant beats Blair because it’s had more Intel winners and finalists.

LOL
Are you blind or what?
Stuy has had 189 semi-finalists and 22 finalists
Blair has had 202 semi-finalists and 40 finalists.

Blair beats Stuy hands down, and remember with less magnet students.

See folks, facts are hard for some to swallow.

Ok, but what do you have beyond that one competition?

Also, it’s “fewer.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, the resident racists found this thread. Hey guys!

It's something about Blair that draws them out of the woods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, Blair booster, by your metric Stuyvesant beats Blair because it’s had more Intel winners and finalists.

LOL
Are you blind or what?
Stuy has had 189 semi-finalists and 22 finalists
Blair has had 202 semi-finalists and 40 finalists.

Blair beats Stuy hands down, and remember with less magnet students.

See folks, facts are hard for some to swallow.

Ok, but what do you have beyond that one competition?

Also, it’s “fewer.”

Math and physics olympiads
Robotics
Or Siemens, which by the way, Blair was the grand and final winner of this competition this year.
Just to name a few...