Which private high schools have significant cohorts of gifted kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption that a STEM career is the only/most desirable path?

Look at the starting and mid career pay for those with just undergrads, and compare it to other undergrads

I didn’t major in a STEM field and will have $285,000 in stock vest tomorrow. That’s after tax. My income is $1.4 million this year.

But sure.

That's nice. Your job must not involve data analysis.

Hilarious.This tool seems to think that $1.4 million is an income to boast about.

It’s more than you make. And don’t lie and say it isn’t.

dp.. regardless, you still don't understand data analysis, or statistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption that a STEM career is the only/most desirable path?

Look at the starting and mid career pay for those with just undergrads, and compare it to other undergrads

I didn’t major in a STEM field and will have $285,000 in stock vest tomorrow. That’s after tax. My income is $1.4 million this year.

But sure.

Lol. So gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption that a STEM career is the only/most desirable path?

Look at the starting and mid career pay for those with just undergrads, and compare it to other undergrads

I didn’t major in a STEM field and will have $285,000 in stock vest tomorrow. That’s after tax. My income is $1.4 million this year.

But sure.

Lol. So gross.

You find wealth to be gross?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption that a STEM career is the only/most desirable path?

Look at the starting and mid career pay for those with just undergrads, and compare it to other undergrads

I didn’t major in a STEM field and will have $285,000 in stock vest tomorrow. That’s after tax. My income is $1.4 million this year.

But sure.

That's nice. Your job must not involve data analysis.

Hilarious.This tool seems to think that $1.4 million is an income to boast about.

It’s more than you make. And don’t lie and say it isn’t.

dp.. regardless, you still don't understand data analysis, or statistics.

Yeah, and what evidence do you have of that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption that a STEM career is the only/most desirable path?

Look at the starting and mid career pay for those with just undergrads, and compare it to other undergrads

I didn’t major in a STEM field and will have $285,000 in stock vest tomorrow. That’s after tax. My income is $1.4 million this year.

But sure.

Lol. So gross.

You find wealth to be gross?

No. You are gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption that a STEM career is the only/most desirable path?

Look at the starting and mid career pay for those with just undergrads, and compare it to other undergrads

I didn’t major in a STEM field and will have $285,000 in stock vest tomorrow. That’s after tax. My income is $1.4 million this year.

But sure.

That's nice. Your job must not involve data analysis.

Hilarious.This tool seems to think that $1.4 million is an income to boast about.

It’s more than you make. And don’t lie and say it isn’t.

dp.. regardless, you still don't understand data analysis, or statistics.

Yeah, and what evidence do you have of that?

92.47% of your comments are dumb and uninformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption that a STEM career is the only/most desirable path?

Look at the starting and mid career pay for those with just undergrads, and compare it to other undergrads

I didn’t major in a STEM field and will have $285,000 in stock vest tomorrow. That’s after tax. My income is $1.4 million this year.

But sure.

Lol. So gross.

agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption that a STEM career is the only/most desirable path?

Look at the starting and mid career pay for those with just undergrads, and compare it to other undergrads

I didn’t major in a STEM field and will have $285,000 in stock vest tomorrow. That’s after tax. My income is $1.4 million this year.

But sure.

That's nice. Your job must not involve data analysis.

Hilarious.This tool seems to think that $1.4 million is an income to boast about.

It’s more than you make. And don’t lie and say it isn’t.

dp.. regardless, you still don't understand data analysis, or statistics.

Yeah, and what evidence do you have of that?

92.47% of your comments are dumb and uninformed.

I’d love for you to quote all the comments you think are mine. Go ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption that a STEM career is the only/most desirable path?

Look at the starting and mid career pay for those with just undergrads, and compare it to other undergrads

I didn’t major in a STEM field and will have $285,000 in stock vest tomorrow. That’s after tax. My income is $1.4 million this year.

But sure.

Lol. So gross.

You find wealth to be gross?

No. You are gross.

Because I make money? lol ok

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is DC -they are at every school.

FFS Lake woebegone again. You realize that kids in the DMV are not inherently smarter than kids elsewhere?

The high concentration of wealthy, credentialed people around here suggests that they are.

Since when did your bank account measure your intelligence?

How wide a range of people have you met in your life? I mean, if you only hang out with fairly bright people, you will see that they have a range of outcomes... but those outcomes will be more positive, on average, then a dumber cohort, and worse, on average, than geniuses.

Here, have a metanalysis:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289606001127

"Decades of research on human mental abilities have demonstrated that the scores of intelligence tests are positively correlated with several desirable outcomes and negatively correlated with several undesirable outcomes. One of the central and personally most relevant desirable outcomes is socioeconomic success (or career success), which is usually measured by the educational level, occupational prestige, and income of an individual in adulthood. Although it is sometimes claimed in popular press and textbooks that intelligence has no relationship to important real-life outcomes (see Barrett & Depinet, 1991, for a review of such claims), the scientific research on the topic leaves little doubt that people with higher scores on IQ tests are better educated, hold more prestigious occupations, and earn higher incomes than people with lower scores (Gottfredson, 1997, Gottfredson, 2003, Jensen, 1980, Jensen, 1998, Schmidt and Hunter, 2004).

Thus, the existence of an overall positive correlation between intelligence and socioeconomic success is beyond doubt. "

I will backtrack the summary a bit: it should say "little doubt that people with higher scores on IQ tests are better educated, hold more prestigious occupations, and earn [ON AVERAGE] higher incomes than people with lower scores", because there are certainly are dumb people who are well-off (e.g. a baseball player) and smart people who are dirt poor (that schizophrenic ranting on a street corner did drugs at Yale), but by the numbers, high IQ are disproportionately high income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can students be better served in public schools when their class sizes are significantly larger (even the classes in the magnet programs)?

Easily

For one math and science are 100 percent taught at higher levels in public there is no private in the DMV that compares

Mix in religious privates and the teachings not anywhere near the best education

We’ve already been through this. The magnet programs and the top private schools are equivalent when it comes to math and science.

No, they are not. The magnets run circles around the top privates when it comes to math and science

When we ask for evidence, are you going to show us those competitions again?

It was shown to you many many times. All the STEM competitions be it AMC8, AMC10, AMC12, Mathcounts, Science bowl, Math Olympiads, Science Olympiads, Intel/Regeneron Science etc.. they are all dominated by public schools. Private schools barely registered in the radar except for the Harker school in California.

I’m sure it’s irrelevant that only 10% of students in this country go to private schools to begin with.

And of those, only 24% went to nonsectarian schools. So the population of students who go to secular schools—which include the vast majority of top private schools that might compete in these competitions—is all of roughly 2% of the country‘s students.

So representation at these competitions is not the persuasive data point you think it is.

Most private schools don't enter. It's not a thing.

Yep. And it has nothing to do with the quality of their programs. PP needs a new argument.

The good, top ones do enter these competitions. They just cannot compete with the good publics.

Repeating it over and over doesn’t make it true. Can you give us actual examples? A list of competitions doesn’t count.

?????????
Google is your friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption that a STEM career is the only/most desirable path?

I am answered to the STEM question is because it's those STEM magnets that do tend to offer more satisfaction for gifted kids who want to dig deep and hard in that direction. A Big 3 private will not allow for that level of depth.

But the tradeoff is in breadth. It all depends on what you want and what best suits the child.

I do not think that the IB magnets or Humanities magnets will be any better than a Big X - I personally think the writing skills learned at the private and in a small classroom setting is better. But not everyone can afford that and kids who are at high performing magnets (and also neighborhood school) will still get a great education and be challenged. The main benefit in this case for the magnet is having more like-minded and smart go-getters.

The downside to all of these is often a toxic culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption that a STEM career is the only/most desirable path?

Look at the starting and mid career pay for those with just undergrads, and compare it to other undergrads

I didn’t major in a STEM field and will have $285,000 in stock vest tomorrow. That’s after tax. My income is $1.4 million this year.

But sure.

That's nice. Your job must not involve data analysis.

Hilarious.This tool seems to think that $1.4 million is an income to boast about.

It’s more than you make. And don’t lie and say it isn’t.

dp.. regardless, you still don't understand data analysis, or statistics.

Yeah, and what evidence do you have of that?

92.47% of your comments are dumb and uninformed.

+1 haha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the assumption that a STEM career is the only/most desirable path?

Look at the starting and mid career pay for those with just undergrads, and compare it to other undergrads

I didn’t major in a STEM field and will have $285,000 in stock vest tomorrow. That’s after tax. My income is $1.4 million this year.

But sure.

That's nice. Your job must not involve data analysis.

Hilarious.This tool seems to think that $1.4 million is an income to boast about.

It’s more than you make. And don’t lie and say it isn’t.

dp.. regardless, you still don't understand data analysis, or statistics.

Yeah, and what evidence do you have of that?

92.47% of your comments are dumb and uninformed.

I’d love for you to quote all the comments you think are mine. Go ahead.

Are you really that dumb.

Statistics: "Look at the starting and mid career pay for those with just undergrads, and compare it to other undergrads"

Anecdote: "I didn’t major in a STEM field and will have $285,000 in stock vest tomorrow. That’s after tax. My income is $1.4 million this year."

And I'm not a STEM major. You're super thick headed and slow. And we all know dumb people can be wealthy. Look at Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is DC -they are at every school.

FFS Lake woebegone again. You realize that kids in the DMV are not inherently smarter than kids elsewhere?

The high concentration of wealthy, credentialed people around here suggests that they are.

Since when did your bank account measure your intelligence?

How wide a range of people have you met in your life? I mean, if you only hang out with fairly bright people, you will see that they have a range of outcomes... but those outcomes will be more positive, on average, then a dumber cohort, and worse, on average, than geniuses.

Here, have a metanalysis:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289606001127

"Decades of research on human mental abilities have demonstrated that the scores of intelligence tests are positively correlated with several desirable outcomes and negatively correlated with several undesirable outcomes. One of the central and personally most relevant desirable outcomes is socioeconomic success (or career success), which is usually measured by the educational level, occupational prestige, and income of an individual in adulthood. Although it is sometimes claimed in popular press and textbooks that intelligence has no relationship to important real-life outcomes (see Barrett & Depinet, 1991, for a review of such claims), the scientific research on the topic leaves little doubt that people with higher scores on IQ tests are better educated, hold more prestigious occupations, and earn higher incomes than people with lower scores (Gottfredson, 1997, Gottfredson, 2003, Jensen, 1980, Jensen, 1998, Schmidt and Hunter, 2004).

Thus, the existence of an overall positive correlation between intelligence and socioeconomic success is beyond doubt. "

I will backtrack the summary a bit: it should say "little doubt that people with higher scores on IQ tests are better educated, hold more prestigious occupations, and earn [ON AVERAGE] higher incomes than people with lower scores", because there are certainly are dumb people who are well-off (e.g. a baseball player) and smart people who are dirt poor (that schizophrenic ranting on a street corner did drugs at Yale), but by the numbers, high IQ are disproportionately high income.

You spent a lot of effort to miss the point. Data shows that being smarter correlates to having more money, but that data doesn’t prove the reverse. Having money doesn’t necessarily correlate to being smarter.