the "great schools" vs. the "avoid schools" -- education quality vs. college admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many African-American or Hispanic students are there at Langley?

Is that seriously your only benchmark for diversity? There are kids from probably every nation who attend Langley. I'd call that diversity.

np here. this is what bothers me about calls for diversity. We really should define it based on SES diversity and stop fixating on skin color.

Regardless of how you get there, a truly diverse school will have more than token representation from the two largest minority groups in the US. And yes, SES diversity is important as well.

Maybe to you, but the fact is that people pay a premium to live in the school districts with the highest test scores and top ratings, regardless of whether they happen to tick off your diversity criteria.

Wow. You mean some people pay extra money just to make sure their kids are completely and totally sequestered from poor brown kids?? Shocking! I had no idea!!

No, they just pay for good schools and don't fret about some arbitrary "diversity" quotas. Your post assumes schools with poor brown kids are bad, which may often be the case, but it suggests that perhaps you're not quite as enlightened as you like to think you are. Perhaps you have some regrets about where you bought, and trotting out the diversity card makes you feel better.

Actually it is you who made the leap that lower test scores automatically = "bad" schools. It has been well-established that test scores are a proxy for SES, and that a disproportionate share of poor kids in the DC area are brown or black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Actually it is you who made the leap that lower test scores automatically = "bad" schools. It has been well-established that test scores are a proxy for SES, and that a disproportionate share of poor kids in the DC area are brown or black.

When comparing SAT scores, number of AP classes, etc., those also tend to follow SES and/or demographic lines. If that's what you by well-established.

Is your larger point that SAT scores, number of AP classes, etc., are irrelevant, useless metrics? That parents should not investigate academic rigor when selecting a high school? Or that some other indicators would be more useful to parents? What would those be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many African-American or Hispanic students are there at Langley?

Is that seriously your only benchmark for diversity? There are kids from probably every nation who attend Langley. I'd call that diversity.

np here. this is what bothers me about calls for diversity. We really should define it based on SES diversity and stop fixating on skin color.

Regardless of how you get there, a truly diverse school will have more than token representation from the two largest minority groups in the US. And yes, SES diversity is important as well.

Maybe to you, but the fact is that people pay a premium to live in the school districts with the highest test scores and top ratings, regardless of whether they happen to tick off your diversity criteria.

Wow. You mean some people pay extra money just to make sure their kids are completely and totally sequestered from poor brown kids?? Shocking! I had no idea!!

No, they just pay for good schools and don't fret about some arbitrary "diversity" quotas. Your post assumes schools with poor brown kids are bad, which may often be the case, but it suggests that perhaps you're not quite as enlightened as you like to think you are. Perhaps you have some regrets about where you bought, and trotting out the diversity card makes you feel better.

Actually it is you who made the leap that lower test scores automatically = "bad" schools. It has been well-established that test scores are a proxy for SES, and that a disproportionate share of poor kids in the DC area are brown or black.

So now you're making stuff up. Nowhere did I say that say that schools with lower test scores are automatically bad. They may be doing the best they can under the circumstances, but that doesn't mean others need to send their kids to those schools. I did suggest schools with high test scores and ratings are generally good, which is what most people in the real world believe.

You've yet to explain why diversity is necessarily desirable, or why certain types of diversity count and others don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, keep in mind that ultra-wealthy kids and the schools that serve them often have their own set of issues. Maybe not the same issues as poor kids, but issues nonetheless. Think drugs, entitlement, lack of diversity, etc., etc.

What does lack of diversity do? Disrupt class, cause poor PTA involvement? Are the elementary school kids doing drugs wait that's in the poor kids schools.

Rich kids do a ton of drugs. They also usually have cars to get around to do them.

What defines a "rich kid"? We're very comfortable, with a net worth near $10 million. We usually take one vacation a year, sometimes abroad but usually to visit relatives. Our kids get a token allowance if they do their chores, and have no access to our bank, securities and retirement accounts. They share an older car, and are expected to fill it up with gas if it's close to empty. Their peers seem to have similar lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, keep in mind that ultra-wealthy kids and the schools that serve them often have their own set of issues. Maybe not the same issues as poor kids, but issues nonetheless. Think drugs, entitlement, lack of diversity, etc., etc.

What does lack of diversity do? Disrupt class, cause poor PTA involvement? Are the elementary school kids doing drugs wait that's in the poor kids schools.

Rich kids do a ton of drugs. They also usually have cars to get around to do them.

What defines a "rich kid"? We're very comfortable, with a net worth near $10 million. We usually take one vacation a year, sometimes abroad but usually to visit relatives. Our kids get a token allowance if they do their chores, and have no access to our bank, securities and retirement accounts. They share an older car, and are expected to fill it up with gas if it's close to empty. Their peers seem to have similar lives.

Are you saying your kids are not rich kids? Because they are, even if you are cheap rich parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, keep in mind that ultra-wealthy kids and the schools that serve them often have their own set of issues. Maybe not the same issues as poor kids, but issues nonetheless. Think drugs, entitlement, lack of diversity, etc., etc.

What does lack of diversity do? Disrupt class, cause poor PTA involvement? Are the elementary school kids doing drugs wait that's in the poor kids schools.

Rich kids do a ton of drugs. They also usually have cars to get around to do them.

What defines a "rich kid"? We're very comfortable, with a net worth near $10 million. We usually take one vacation a year, sometimes abroad but usually to visit relatives. Our kids get a token allowance if they do their chores, and have no access to our bank, securities and retirement accounts. They share an older car, and are expected to fill it up with gas if it's close to empty. Their peers seem to have similar lives.

Are you saying your kids are not rich kids? Because they are, even if you are cheap rich parents.

I'm saying they don't have access to the money to engage in stereotypical rich kid behavior, even though many like to paint all children of affluent parents with the same brush. It seems to make some posters feel better about their own circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, keep in mind that ultra-wealthy kids and the schools that serve them often have their own set of issues. Maybe not the same issues as poor kids, but issues nonetheless. Think drugs, entitlement, lack of diversity, etc., etc.

What does lack of diversity do? Disrupt class, cause poor PTA involvement? Are the elementary school kids doing drugs wait that's in the poor kids schools.

Rich kids do a ton of drugs. They also usually have cars to get around to do them.

What defines a "rich kid"? We're very comfortable, with a net worth near $10 million. We usually take one vacation a year, sometimes abroad but usually to visit relatives. Our kids get a token allowance if they do their chores, and have no access to our bank, securities and retirement accounts. They share an older car, and are expected to fill it up with gas if it's close to empty. Their peers seem to have similar lives.

Are you saying your kids are not rich kids? Because they are, even if you are cheap rich parents.

I'm saying they don't have access to the money to engage in stereotypical rich kid behavior, even though many like to paint all children of affluent parents with the same brush. It seems to make some posters feel better about their own circumstances.

Good for you. Do your kids go to Langley? Have you asked them if there are drugs there, and if they said no, did you believe them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Afford" is flexible. We can "afford" the better school, but it is $200K more than other zones. The question is: Is the end result actually better at the "avoid" schools b/c of less competition?

Let's assume the educational experience is better at the "great schools" --- is that more or less important than getting into a better college?

Just for an example -- is the educational experience/peer/teachers at a school like Madison/McLean important enough that you would take that over a school like Edison/Hayfield/Annandale if your child's likely to get into JMU coming from Madison/McLean but might have a better shot getting into WM/VT/UVA from the latter group of HSs?

We picked Lake Braddock/Robinson/West Springfield for exactly those reasons, among others.

You picked an area with great schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, keep in mind that ultra-wealthy kids and the schools that serve them often have their own set of issues. Maybe not the same issues as poor kids, but issues nonetheless. Think drugs, entitlement, lack of diversity, etc., etc.

What does lack of diversity do? Disrupt class, cause poor PTA involvement? Are the elementary school kids doing drugs wait that's in the poor kids schools.

Rich kids do a ton of drugs. They also usually have cars to get around to do them.

What defines a "rich kid"? We're very comfortable, with a net worth near $10 million. We usually take one vacation a year, sometimes abroad but usually to visit relatives. Our kids get a token allowance if they do their chores, and have no access to our bank, securities and retirement accounts. They share an older car, and are expected to fill it up with gas if it's close to empty. Their peers seem to have similar lives.

Are you saying your kids are not rich kids? Because they are, even if you are cheap rich parents.

I'm saying they don't have access to the money to engage in stereotypical rich kid behavior, even though many like to paint all children of affluent parents with the same brush. It seems to make some posters feel better about their own circumstances.

Good for you. Do your kids go to Langley? Have you asked them if there are drugs there, and if they said no, did you believe them?

I'm sure there are, just as there are at TC Williams, Mount Vernon and Lee. Have you checked to see how many National Merit Semifinalists there are from Lee, or how many kids from Mount Vernon get into William & Mary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, keep in mind that ultra-wealthy kids and the schools that serve them often have their own set of issues. Maybe not the same issues as poor kids, but issues nonetheless. Think drugs, entitlement, lack of diversity, etc., etc.

What does lack of diversity do? Disrupt class, cause poor PTA involvement? Are the elementary school kids doing drugs wait that's in the poor kids schools.

It helps to foster prejudice, like yours. Too bad your parents didn't care about that aspect of your development and now you're permanently stunted.

Exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, keep in mind that ultra-wealthy kids and the schools that serve them often have their own set of issues. Maybe not the same issues as poor kids, but issues nonetheless. Think drugs, entitlement, lack of diversity, etc., etc.

What does lack of diversity do? Disrupt class, cause poor PTA involvement? Are the elementary school kids doing drugs wait that's in the poor kids schools.

It helps to foster prejudice, like yours. Too bad your parents didn't care about that aspect of your development and now you're permanently stunted.

Exactly

Meh, you both seem to have your heads stuck firmly up your asses.

[Anonymous]

Clifton was closed because it was small, not code-compliant, and projected to lose students. Rather than spend money to renovate it, FCPS took the suggestion of the School Board member who represented Clifton at the time to close the school and use the savings to renovate West Springfield HS earlier. I don't hear a lot of WSHS parents complaining about that decision.

There was lots going on behind people's backs. I was not involved, but I followed it. The SB member was not forthright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, keep in mind that ultra-wealthy kids and the schools that serve them often have their own set of issues. Maybe not the same issues as poor kids, but issues nonetheless. Think drugs, entitlement, lack of diversity, etc., etc.

What does lack of diversity do? Disrupt class, cause poor PTA involvement? Are the elementary school kids doing drugs wait that's in the poor kids schools.

Rich kids do a ton of drugs. They also usually have cars to get around to do them.

What defines a "rich kid"? We're very comfortable, with a net worth near $10 million. We usually take one vacation a year, sometimes abroad but usually to visit relatives. Our kids get a token allowance if they do their chores, and have no access to our bank, securities and retirement accounts. They share an older car, and are expected to fill it up with gas if it's close to empty. Their peers seem to have similar lives.

Are you saying your kids are not rich kids? Because they are, even if you are cheap rich parents.

I'm saying they don't have access to the money to engage in stereotypical rich kid behavior, even though many like to paint all children of affluent parents with the same brush. It seems to make some posters feel better about their own circumstances.

Good for you. Do your kids go to Langley? Have you asked them if there are drugs there, and if they said no, did you believe them?

I'm sure there are, just as there are at TC Williams, Mount Vernon and Lee. Have you checked to see how many National Merit Semifinalists there are from Lee, or how many kids from Mount Vernon get into William & Mary?

How many kids from Lee and mount Vernon get into UVA/wm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quotas.

I was a victim of this in the late 80s from a Fairfax Co. HS.

Top SATs, 4.2 gpA, class officer, varsity soccer and state HS Va champ since Freshman year, volunteer and wait-listed at UVA and William & Mary.

Better to be big fish in small pond.

Colleges will cap a certain number from each HS.

This is not believable. Even if there was a "quota", your supposed credentials would have easily put you at the front of the line. Your school/guidance counselor would have been up in arms about this. A state school would almost if not certainly be obligated to admit you. There's more to this than you're telling us.

[Anonymous]

This is not believable. Even if there was a "quota", your supposed credentials would have easily put you at the front of the line. Your school/guidance counselor would have been up in arms about this. A state school would almost if not certainly be obligated to admit you. There's more to this than you're telling us.

Maybe now--but certainly not in the late eighties. I totally agree. Even now, it would be a stretch.