If you are wealthy would you send your kids to a W school over private?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And LOL at you all claiming these schools are diverse. They’re as diverse as a box of milk toast with a bag of rice next to it.

Which schools are "these schools"? My kid's MCPS high school, in Ganglandia, is diverse by any measure of diversity, except I guess maybe kids from super-rich families are underrepresented.

The post is literally about W schools. Keep up.

W schools have a lack of diversity. Hence why the Board of Education raises the issue of redrawing boundaries once in a while.

W schools do have students who have a sense of entitlement and break rules without a fear of consequences. There’s a large percentage of students with cash to spend on drugs.

Compared to many other schools in MCPS. Whitman, Wootton, Churchill, and WJ are less diverse than many other schools in MCPS. In the bigger picture, though, there is no school in MCPS that is not diverse. Certainly far more diverse than the public schools I went to, growing up.

Define “diverse.” <5% FARMS isn’t exactly diverse in my book.

There are many aspects of diversity. Household income (poor/not-poor) is one of them. It is not the only one.

So then tell me how W schools are so diverse.

Even Whitman, which is the whitest high school in MCPS, is 40% non-white.

And top private schools are typically 40-50% non-white.

Hmm.... I'm skeptical. How is my white hispanic family classified? How about our family friend who is literally African-American- mom is white South African and dad is white American - is she white or African-American (she's both).

What exactly is "non-white"? Which shade exactly is the cut-off? I mean, I see very few albinos around town, so there must be a cut off...

If we are classifying Hispanics appropriately, it is an ethnicity. Jews are an ethnicity too - are jews appropriately boxed, like "non-white"? What about the white jews?

I'm so confused. I thought we were a just humans!

Shade? You think they look at people and make a determination? No. It’s done through self-reporting, just like all demographic tracking is done.

Oh?!

Then which shade is the most advantageous for me and my family? I'm that shade.

WTH are you talking about?

Well, if we "self-report" than I identify as whatever give us the biggest advantage.

Today does being blue, green, jagged, straight, white, rich, poor, etc give me an advantage? Then I'm that. Tomorrow, I could be something different if the tide changes.

It's consistently most advantageous to be rich and white.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF both W schools and privates were free, what would you choose?

I am a new poster and have not been able to read all 46 pages of this thread but I did skim through a it and approached our choice much like you posed this question. We are in a W cluster but had considered private. Particularly Bullis. We decided to stick with our W cluster for many reasons but mostly because the diversity that you speak of at Bullis turned us off. We went to a football game and all the kids they bussed in were playing and the remaining student section was not diverse at all. I also truly believe that the math curriculm in our W cluster is leaps and bounds ahead of Bullis. Other factors lead to our decision as well but in the end even if it was free we decided to pass on private. In my opinion Private is worth it if you go for name recognition which is therefore only worth it when looking for single sex schools and that was not appealing for us.

Students who play sports are also students who are in the classroom. The Bulls football program is one of the best high school football program in the US. It has phenomenal athletes that earn the attention of D1 schools for college scholarship opportunities. Same for other athletic programs at the school.

A better measurement of the academic atmosphere is a tour of the school during the school day. Unlike public schools, athletes wear the same uniform as all other students. There’s nothing on them that represents themselves as a football player.

For math, child left Churchill for Bullis specifically for their STEM program. There were more advanced classes at Bullis for math and electives not offered at Churchill. The peer group for advanced math was around 12 students to Churchill’s 2 (hence why my son, if he stayed at Churchill, wouldn’t have a math class past 11th grade). The top math, science, and AP economics classes were taught by university professors. The quality of instruction and availability for help during office hours was also a huge benefit at Bullis.

Finally, help with the college search process was another benefit of private. Counselors at Bullis have a small fraction of students compared to their MCPS counterparts. Bullis counselors actually have several meetings with students to help them come up with a list of colleges, read essays, and provide feedback. They also help students chunk out the deadlines. At Churchill there was zero help with navigating the college process.

dp.. I call BS. It's a simple numbers game. Public schools like the Ws have way more students than Bullis, and many are also UMC. There are way more high achieving students in public schools than there are at Bullis simply because there are more public school students than private schools.

if your DS was that advanced in math he could've gone to Blair STEM, but it seems to me that he is probably not intuitively advanced as much as he is coached to be advanced. And yes, a lot of public school students are also tutored and coached to be advanced in math, as well, but they don't send their kids to private because they think private is much more advanced in STEM than Blair, for example.

BS meter is showing all the way to the right.

PP - this thread is asking if money wasn’t a factor, would you send your child to a W school or private. Blair is not a W school nor do most people in Potomac wish to put their child on a 45 minute bus ride to Silver Spring for access to a challenging math class and a segregated school within a school.

You may not agree with our choice, however, Bullis was a wonderful experience for my son. Bullis met his needs and provided a more challenging curriculum than Churchill. Bullis was also only 10 minutes from our house.

How did Bullis provide a more challenging math curriculum than your W school?

I’m not the person you’re responding to, but we’ve posted course catalogs for private schools repeatedly and compared them to W schools. The course offerings at private schools on the high school level are just as advanced if not more than the W schools.

Course offerings in catalogs are marketing brochures. It doesn't mean that the courses are taught every year. It will depend on if there are enough students who want or have the ability to take those classes. Works the same way in public schools and colleges. There are course offerings in catalogues that aren't always offered every year at that particular school.

That’s your excuse? Ok, so post proof that private schools don’t actually offer the advanced courses as much as public schools do. Otherwise it’s just obvious you’re grasping at straws to crap on private schools.

? not an excuse. Just stating the way it is. Colleges do the same.

But to use it as a way to argue private schools are weaker in math, you’d have to prove that the advanced courses are offered less often than at public schools.

ok, then maybe the Bullis parent could tell which advanced math course their kid took at Bullis that a W school didn't have, and also how many kids were in that advanced math class?

The kids in the advanced math classes in public are getting outside enrichment for math. It’s not from the teachings of public.

Nonsense. My kid at a W took multivariable calculus and I can assure that neither he nor his peers used tutors or outside help. We moved our kids from private to public for lots of reasons, and more advanced math and science classes was very much one of those reasons. The schools may be larger, but within each of those W schools there is a very significant cohort of smart, disciplined, and motivated students who do not need the coddling that so many private school kids do. No regrets.

Not sure which private school you came from or what anonymous W school your children attended. However, not all W high schools offer math beyond Calculus BC. We were in this situation and either my child had to transfer to a public school other than our neighborhood W school or not have an opportunity to participate in after school athletics so he could travel to Montgomery College for math. Transportation to the other school or to Montgomery College had to be supplied by our family. MCPS said that because there were not enough students in our school to take multi variable so it wasn’t being offered.

How recently?

Wootton, Whitman, and WJ all advertise it in their catalog currently.

And virtual academy is being deployed more since COVID, avoiding commute.

The school was Wootton and it was Pre-COVID. The catalog doesn’t guarantee that the class will be available for your child. They need a minimum number of students and a qualified teacher for the class to exist. It’s easier for MCPS to require students to go to other locations or simply say anything above Calculus BC is an elective. They also suggested that my child not take math his Junior and Senior year of high school.

You must be a troll. Maryland requires 4 years of math. No school would ever suggest that. They would instead encourage your child to take AP Stats or other math elective or slow down the Calc sequence by taking Calc AB first and then Calc BC.

Thank you for the name calling. Real classy.

I received that response from a Director at Central Office. The regulation doesn’t apply to math electives. When a child has exceeded Calculus BC, they are not required to take a math class all four years of high school and a school is not required to provide options for math.

Call Central Office and ask. Also ask if all W schools teach Multivariable or any other math beyond Calculus BC every year.

DP but you're wrong. They are required to take 4 years of HS math.

Troll is what you call people who are posting false information online in order to mislead people for the fun of it, for political gain or other reason.

Fact: Everyone is required to take four years of math in high school in order to graduate. You cannot be exempt from that even if you finish Calc BC. MCPS will give you a choice of Montgomery College or going to another MCPS HS that has "higher" math. You are also welcome to take math electives to fulfill that 4 year requirement. Every school knows this. Every counselor knows this. Everyone in MCPS central should know this but it's possible they do not.

This was before COVID and the answer came from a Director who is now in an even higher position in public education. I agree were probably given misinformation and few options given the lack of transportation offered by MCPS. The solution for us was to transfer my son to a close by private where they had peers and classes to continue to progress forward with math.

I guess the moral of this example is don’t trust what Central Officials tells you. I also wonder why all MCPS public schools don’t offer math courses beyond Calculus BC.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a college accept a kid from a school with very few advanced classes?

Legacy
Money
Sports
Special talents.

The same reasons these kids are accepted at private schools

Ah ok. Got it. So none of them are actually any good at teaching kids anything. Rich people just choose mediocrity for their kids.

We don't need anything more academically. The kids get the advantages in the soft skills and colleges rank them higher because of this.

Huh?

There have been so many studies on this, especially since the college admissions scandle. Just Google "private school advantage in college admissions" or something of that nature. The advantage will never go away (unfortunately). The UC are really good at helping and insulating themselves for centuries if not millenia. The categories for college admissions will change with time, but there will always be a way to give slight advantage to already advantaged folks. It's always been that way.

Remember, women began entering the workforce in droves in the 70s and still are represented at 3% in top jobs, have unequal pay in almost every industry, and still take on the lions share of work at home. White men however still have the advantage in every category.

Why do you think public vs private schools is somehow going to magically escape human psychology and be fair?

I'm from the UMC and slightly pierce into UC circles. Of course, I see the advantages and want my kids to have them. I will likely never be UC, but my kids definitely have a chance. And they do have the mannerisms, peer group, and education to support it.

My Father-in-Law grew up poor and is now pretty wealthy. He has been encouraging us to send our kids to private school (especially high school) because in life, it's truly who you know and not what you know that makes a difference. This is how life works for the most part, whether we like it or not.

Exactly. The quality of education sucks. But that doesn’t matter.

Well.... no really.

It's a different type of education. If you want them to learn multi-variable Calculus (or difficult math in public school), I have to question why. I am a scientist and the last time I used it was to pass the AP exam in HS. On the other hand, if you want them to learn soft skills (learned in private schools), the last time I used that was today dealing with some colleagues. So which skills are more relevant? What exactly is an "education" to you?

In Spanish the phrase "mala educación" or "bad education" literally means poor manners. This idea of soft skills/ private school advantage transcends cultural boundaries and time. You can find similar things the world over.

You’re making it seem that public schools graduate only cave dwellers that only communicate through grunting, while private schools are graduating only smooth talker, peace prize material. Of course there’s no basis for this assumption.

The post doesn't sound like that. Of course there is some overlap between the two.

But what’s the basis to assert that privates teach soft skills but publics don’t? In my view soft skills depend more on personality and the values taught at home.l, have less to do with the high school the kid goes to.

The basis is that colleges give higher scores for private school kids based in soft skills or other metrics aside from scores and grades. The fact that these skills might be learned or practiced elsewhere is irrelevant. If you read the posts it was mentioned that there are tons of studies on this. Here is a link to an article posted last week-ish on this forum, although there are so many.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/private-schools-competitive-college-advantage-problems.html

It's not what all the hard core public school parents want to hear, but it's the truth. The perception from college admissions is that private school kids are wealthier and pre-screened by the private school. So many studies on this!

I mean, yes? Also, water is wet? If your argument is that kids from wealthy families have advantages that kids from non-wealthy families don't have, I wouldn't think there are many people will disagree with you. Them that has, gets.

Yes. That is the point. So to keep it relevant to this topic - would one send their kids to a private school or a well regarded public when the advantage is clear? If one can afford it, private. If not, public. If in the middle - go with child needs and schools' pros and cons.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And LOL at you all claiming these schools are diverse. They’re as diverse as a box of milk toast with a bag of rice next to it.

Which schools are "these schools"? My kid's MCPS high school, in Ganglandia, is diverse by any measure of diversity, except I guess maybe kids from super-rich families are underrepresented.

The post is literally about W schools. Keep up.

W schools have a lack of diversity. Hence why the Board of Education raises the issue of redrawing boundaries once in a while.

W schools do have students who have a sense of entitlement and break rules without a fear of consequences. There’s a large percentage of students with cash to spend on drugs.

Compared to many other schools in MCPS. Whitman, Wootton, Churchill, and WJ are less diverse than many other schools in MCPS. In the bigger picture, though, there is no school in MCPS that is not diverse. Certainly far more diverse than the public schools I went to, growing up.

Define “diverse.” <5% FARMS isn’t exactly diverse in my book.

There are many aspects of diversity. Household income (poor/not-poor) is one of them. It is not the only one.

So then tell me how W schools are so diverse.

Even Whitman, which is the whitest high school in MCPS, is 40% non-white.

And top private schools are typically 40-50% non-white.

Hmm.... I'm skeptical. How is my white hispanic family classified? How about our family friend who is literally African-American- mom is white South African and dad is white American - is she white or African-American (she's both).

What exactly is "non-white"? Which shade exactly is the cut-off? I mean, I see very few albinos around town, so there must be a cut off...

If we are classifying Hispanics appropriately, it is an ethnicity. Jews are an ethnicity too - are jews appropriately boxed, like "non-white"? What about the white jews?

I'm so confused. I thought we were a just humans!

Shade? You think they look at people and make a determination? No. It’s done through self-reporting, just like all demographic tracking is done.

Oh?!

Then which shade is the most advantageous for me and my family? I'm that shade.

WTH are you talking about?

Well, if we "self-report" than I identify as whatever give us the biggest advantage.

Today does being blue, green, jagged, straight, white, rich, poor, etc give me an advantage? Then I'm that. Tomorrow, I could be something different if the tide changes.

It's consistently most advantageous to be rich and white.

Except when you have to compete with the other rich white people. Then it's better to be different and offer the diversity card.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a college accept a kid from a school with very few advanced classes?

Legacy
Money
Sports
Special talents.

The same reasons these kids are accepted at private schools

Ah ok. Got it. So none of them are actually any good at teaching kids anything. Rich people just choose mediocrity for their kids.

We don't need anything more academically. The kids get the advantages in the soft skills and colleges rank them higher because of this.

Huh?

There have been so many studies on this, especially since the college admissions scandle. Just Google "private school advantage in college admissions" or something of that nature. The advantage will never go away (unfortunately). The UC are really good at helping and insulating themselves for centuries if not millenia. The categories for college admissions will change with time, but there will always be a way to give slight advantage to already advantaged folks. It's always been that way.

Remember, women began entering the workforce in droves in the 70s and still are represented at 3% in top jobs, have unequal pay in almost every industry, and still take on the lions share of work at home. White men however still have the advantage in every category.

Why do you think public vs private schools is somehow going to magically escape human psychology and be fair?

I'm from the UMC and slightly pierce into UC circles. Of course, I see the advantages and want my kids to have them. I will likely never be UC, but my kids definitely have a chance. And they do have the mannerisms, peer group, and education to support it.

My Father-in-Law grew up poor and is now pretty wealthy. He has been encouraging us to send our kids to private school (especially high school) because in life, it's truly who you know and not what you know that makes a difference. This is how life works for the most part, whether we like it or not.

Exactly. The quality of education sucks. But that doesn’t matter.

Well.... no really.

It's a different type of education. If you want them to learn multi-variable Calculus (or difficult math in public school), I have to question why. I am a scientist and the last time I used it was to pass the AP exam in HS. On the other hand, if you want them to learn soft skills (learned in private schools), the last time I used that was today dealing with some colleagues. So which skills are more relevant? What exactly is an "education" to you?

In Spanish the phrase "mala educación" or "bad education" literally means poor manners. This idea of soft skills/ private school advantage transcends cultural boundaries and time. You can find similar things the world over.

You’re making it seem that public schools graduate only cave dwellers that only communicate through grunting, while private schools are graduating only smooth talker, peace prize material. Of course there’s no basis for this assumption.

The post doesn't sound like that. Of course there is some overlap between the two.

But what’s the basis to assert that privates teach soft skills but publics don’t? In my view soft skills depend more on personality and the values taught at home.l, have less to do with the high school the kid goes to.

The basis is that colleges give higher scores for private school kids based in soft skills or other metrics aside from scores and grades. The fact that these skills might be learned or practiced elsewhere is irrelevant. If you read the posts it was mentioned that there are tons of studies on this. Here is a link to an article posted last week-ish on this forum, although there are so many.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/private-schools-competitive-college-advantage-problems.html

It's not what all the hard core public school parents want to hear, but it's the truth. The perception from college admissions is that private school kids are wealthier and pre-screened by the private school. So many studies on this!

OK but it’s not clear what you mean by soft skills; that article simply points out the difference in connections and wealth. Don’t think I’ve seen anyone argue that on here.

Defined above. Soft skills are anything not measurable with numbers - grades, test scores, etc.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a college accept a kid from a school with very few advanced classes?

Legacy
Money
Sports
Special talents.

The same reasons these kids are accepted at private schools

Ah ok. Got it. So none of them are actually any good at teaching kids anything. Rich people just choose mediocrity for their kids.

We don't need anything more academically. The kids get the advantages in the soft skills and colleges rank them higher because of this.

Huh?

There have been so many studies on this, especially since the college admissions scandle. Just Google "private school advantage in college admissions" or something of that nature. The advantage will never go away (unfortunately). The UC are really good at helping and insulating themselves for centuries if not millenia. The categories for college admissions will change with time, but there will always be a way to give slight advantage to already advantaged folks. It's always been that way.

Remember, women began entering the workforce in droves in the 70s and still are represented at 3% in top jobs, have unequal pay in almost every industry, and still take on the lions share of work at home. White men however still have the advantage in every category.

Why do you think public vs private schools is somehow going to magically escape human psychology and be fair?

I'm from the UMC and slightly pierce into UC circles. Of course, I see the advantages and want my kids to have them. I will likely never be UC, but my kids definitely have a chance. And they do have the mannerisms, peer group, and education to support it.

My Father-in-Law grew up poor and is now pretty wealthy. He has been encouraging us to send our kids to private school (especially high school) because in life, it's truly who you know and not what you know that makes a difference. This is how life works for the most part, whether we like it or not.

Exactly. The quality of education sucks. But that doesn’t matter.

Well.... no really.

It's a different type of education. If you want them to learn multi-variable Calculus (or difficult math in public school), I have to question why. I am a scientist and the last time I used it was to pass the AP exam in HS. On the other hand, if you want them to learn soft skills (learned in private schools), the last time I used that was today dealing with some colleagues. So which skills are more relevant? What exactly is an "education" to you?

In Spanish the phrase "mala educación" or "bad education" literally means poor manners. This idea of soft skills/ private school advantage transcends cultural boundaries and time. You can find similar things the world over.

You’re making it seem that public schools graduate only cave dwellers that only communicate through grunting, while private schools are graduating only smooth talker, peace prize material. Of course there’s no basis for this assumption.

The post doesn't sound like that. Of course there is some overlap between the two.

But what’s the basis to assert that privates teach soft skills but publics don’t? In my view soft skills depend more on personality and the values taught at home.l, have less to do with the high school the kid goes to.

The basis is that colleges give higher scores for private school kids based in soft skills or other metrics aside from scores and grades. The fact that these skills might be learned or practiced elsewhere is irrelevant. If you read the posts it was mentioned that there are tons of studies on this. Here is a link to an article posted last week-ish on this forum, although there are so many.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/private-schools-competitive-college-advantage-problems.html

It's not what all the hard core public school parents want to hear, but it's the truth. The perception from college admissions is that private school kids are wealthier and pre-screened by the private school. So many studies on this!

I mean, yes? Also, water is wet? If your argument is that kids from wealthy families have advantages that kids from non-wealthy families don't have, I wouldn't think there are many people will disagree with you. Them that has, gets.

Yes. That is the point. So to keep it relevant to this topic - would one send their kids to a private school or a well regarded public when the advantage is clear? If one can afford it, private. If not, public. If in the middle - go with child needs and schools' pros and cons.

full circle argument.. there are a lot of pretty wealthy parents in the W clusters who could afford private but choose to send their kids to public for whatever reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And LOL at you all claiming these schools are diverse. They’re as diverse as a box of milk toast with a bag of rice next to it.

Which schools are "these schools"? My kid's MCPS high school, in Ganglandia, is diverse by any measure of diversity, except I guess maybe kids from super-rich families are underrepresented.

The post is literally about W schools. Keep up.

W schools have a lack of diversity. Hence why the Board of Education raises the issue of redrawing boundaries once in a while.

W schools do have students who have a sense of entitlement and break rules without a fear of consequences. There’s a large percentage of students with cash to spend on drugs.

Compared to many other schools in MCPS. Whitman, Wootton, Churchill, and WJ are less diverse than many other schools in MCPS. In the bigger picture, though, there is no school in MCPS that is not diverse. Certainly far more diverse than the public schools I went to, growing up.

Define “diverse.” <5% FARMS isn’t exactly diverse in my book.

There are many aspects of diversity. Household income (poor/not-poor) is one of them. It is not the only one.

So then tell me how W schools are so diverse.

Even Whitman, which is the whitest high school in MCPS, is 40% non-white.

Non-White doesn’t mean diversity if the remaining 60% is Asian.

I'm much darker than paper and much lighter than my wooden desk. Non-white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And LOL at you all claiming these schools are diverse. They’re as diverse as a box of milk toast with a bag of rice next to it.

Which schools are "these schools"? My kid's MCPS high school, in Ganglandia, is diverse by any measure of diversity, except I guess maybe kids from super-rich families are underrepresented.

The post is literally about W schools. Keep up.

W schools have a lack of diversity. Hence why the Board of Education raises the issue of redrawing boundaries once in a while.

W schools do have students who have a sense of entitlement and break rules without a fear of consequences. There’s a large percentage of students with cash to spend on drugs.

Compared to many other schools in MCPS. Whitman, Wootton, Churchill, and WJ are less diverse than many other schools in MCPS. In the bigger picture, though, there is no school in MCPS that is not diverse. Certainly far more diverse than the public schools I went to, growing up.

Define “diverse.” <5% FARMS isn’t exactly diverse in my book.

There are many aspects of diversity. Household income (poor/not-poor) is one of them. It is not the only one.

So then tell me how W schools are so diverse.

Even Whitman, which is the whitest high school in MCPS, is 40% non-white.

Non-White doesn’t mean diversity if the remaining 60% is Asian.

But, it's not. Whitman Asian population is 15% ; Hispanic 12%. Fair number of biracial - 8%.

The Black population is tiny, though.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04427.pdf

[Anonymous]

Put area into perspective. MCPS consistently has 20% of its population in the top 5% of students nationally. This is why they have to locally norm MAP test scores, for example.

MCPS education locally is likely equivalent to private school education anywhere else in the country.

It offers more services and provide a broad range of support for the diverse student population. It is also the largest school district in MD.

All bad things about MCPS aside, if you look at the whole, it's not a bad bet.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a college accept a kid from a school with very few advanced classes?

Legacy
Money
Sports
Special talents.

The same reasons these kids are accepted at private schools

Ah ok. Got it. So none of them are actually any good at teaching kids anything. Rich people just choose mediocrity for their kids.

We don't need anything more academically. The kids get the advantages in the soft skills and colleges rank them higher because of this.

Huh?

There have been so many studies on this, especially since the college admissions scandle. Just Google "private school advantage in college admissions" or something of that nature. The advantage will never go away (unfortunately). The UC are really good at helping and insulating themselves for centuries if not millenia. The categories for college admissions will change with time, but there will always be a way to give slight advantage to already advantaged folks. It's always been that way.

Remember, women began entering the workforce in droves in the 70s and still are represented at 3% in top jobs, have unequal pay in almost every industry, and still take on the lions share of work at home. White men however still have the advantage in every category.

Why do you think public vs private schools is somehow going to magically escape human psychology and be fair?

I'm from the UMC and slightly pierce into UC circles. Of course, I see the advantages and want my kids to have them. I will likely never be UC, but my kids definitely have a chance. And they do have the mannerisms, peer group, and education to support it.

My Father-in-Law grew up poor and is now pretty wealthy. He has been encouraging us to send our kids to private school (especially high school) because in life, it's truly who you know and not what you know that makes a difference. This is how life works for the most part, whether we like it or not.

Exactly. The quality of education sucks. But that doesn’t matter.

Well.... no really.

It's a different type of education. If you want them to learn multi-variable Calculus (or difficult math in public school), I have to question why. I am a scientist and the last time I used it was to pass the AP exam in HS. On the other hand, if you want them to learn soft skills (learned in private schools), the last time I used that was today dealing with some colleagues. So which skills are more relevant? What exactly is an "education" to you?

In Spanish the phrase "mala educación" or "bad education" literally means poor manners. This idea of soft skills/ private school advantage transcends cultural boundaries and time. You can find similar things the world over.

You’re making it seem that public schools graduate only cave dwellers that only communicate through grunting, while private schools are graduating only smooth talker, peace prize material. Of course there’s no basis for this assumption.

The post doesn't sound like that. Of course there is some overlap between the two.

But what’s the basis to assert that privates teach soft skills but publics don’t? In my view soft skills depend more on personality and the values taught at home.l, have less to do with the high school the kid goes to.

The basis is that colleges give higher scores for private school kids based in soft skills or other metrics aside from scores and grades. The fact that these skills might be learned or practiced elsewhere is irrelevant. If you read the posts it was mentioned that there are tons of studies on this. Here is a link to an article posted last week-ish on this forum, although there are so many.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/private-schools-competitive-college-advantage-problems.html

It's not what all the hard core public school parents want to hear, but it's the truth. The perception from college admissions is that private school kids are wealthier and pre-screened by the private school. So many studies on this!

OK but it’s not clear what you mean by soft skills; that article simply points out the difference in connections and wealth. Don’t think I’ve seen anyone argue that on here.

Defined above. Soft skills are anything not measurable with numbers - grades, test scores, etc.

Can you define it in a positive way referring to something you DO mean, not what you don’t?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a college accept a kid from a school with very few advanced classes?

Legacy
Money
Sports
Special talents.

The same reasons these kids are accepted at private schools

Ah ok. Got it. So none of them are actually any good at teaching kids anything. Rich people just choose mediocrity for their kids.

We don't need anything more academically. The kids get the advantages in the soft skills and colleges rank them higher because of this.

Huh?

There have been so many studies on this, especially since the college admissions scandle. Just Google "private school advantage in college admissions" or something of that nature. The advantage will never go away (unfortunately). The UC are really good at helping and insulating themselves for centuries if not millenia. The categories for college admissions will change with time, but there will always be a way to give slight advantage to already advantaged folks. It's always been that way.

Remember, women began entering the workforce in droves in the 70s and still are represented at 3% in top jobs, have unequal pay in almost every industry, and still take on the lions share of work at home. White men however still have the advantage in every category.

Why do you think public vs private schools is somehow going to magically escape human psychology and be fair?

I'm from the UMC and slightly pierce into UC circles. Of course, I see the advantages and want my kids to have them. I will likely never be UC, but my kids definitely have a chance. And they do have the mannerisms, peer group, and education to support it.

My Father-in-Law grew up poor and is now pretty wealthy. He has been encouraging us to send our kids to private school (especially high school) because in life, it's truly who you know and not what you know that makes a difference. This is how life works for the most part, whether we like it or not.

Exactly. The quality of education sucks. But that doesn’t matter.

Well.... no really.

It's a different type of education. If you want them to learn multi-variable Calculus (or difficult math in public school), I have to question why. I am a scientist and the last time I used it was to pass the AP exam in HS. On the other hand, if you want them to learn soft skills (learned in private schools), the last time I used that was today dealing with some colleagues. So which skills are more relevant? What exactly is an "education" to you?

In Spanish the phrase "mala educación" or "bad education" literally means poor manners. This idea of soft skills/ private school advantage transcends cultural boundaries and time. You can find similar things the world over.

You’re making it seem that public schools graduate only cave dwellers that only communicate through grunting, while private schools are graduating only smooth talker, peace prize material. Of course there’s no basis for this assumption.

The post doesn't sound like that. Of course there is some overlap between the two.

But what’s the basis to assert that privates teach soft skills but publics don’t? In my view soft skills depend more on personality and the values taught at home.l, have less to do with the high school the kid goes to.

The basis is that colleges give higher scores for private school kids based in soft skills or other metrics aside from scores and grades. The fact that these skills might be learned or practiced elsewhere is irrelevant. If you read the posts it was mentioned that there are tons of studies on this. Here is a link to an article posted last week-ish on this forum, although there are so many.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/private-schools-competitive-college-advantage-problems.html

It's not what all the hard core public school parents want to hear, but it's the truth. The perception from college admissions is that private school kids are wealthier and pre-screened by the private school. So many studies on this!

OK but it’s not clear what you mean by soft skills; that article simply points out the difference in connections and wealth. Don’t think I’ve seen anyone argue that on here.

Defined above. Soft skills are anything not measurable with numbers - grades, test scores, etc.

No, that’s not what soft skills mean. Most understand soft skills as ability to work with others, leadership, critical thinking, decision making, etc. Often they are developed in extracurricular activities, it’s ridiculous to claim that they are developed better in private than in public. In reality it varies widely, it depends more on the student himself rather than the high school he attends.

Regarding the benefits of privates for admission to selective universities, using Slate as a reference for making your point is not the most compelling. Then you don’t seem to understand the difference between correlation and causation. Just because 40% of Harvard students go to private doesn’t mean you’re more likely to go to Harvard if you go to private. It just means that Harvard preferentially admits rich kids that are more likely to go to private schools. There’s also the argument that by going to private the middle class student will compete with the kids of rich and powerful and is actually at a disadvantage compared to the public school peers.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And LOL at you all claiming these schools are diverse. They’re as diverse as a box of milk toast with a bag of rice next to it.

Which schools are "these schools"? My kid's MCPS high school, in Ganglandia, is diverse by any measure of diversity, except I guess maybe kids from super-rich families are underrepresented.

The post is literally about W schools. Keep up.

W schools have a lack of diversity. Hence why the Board of Education raises the issue of redrawing boundaries once in a while.

W schools do have students who have a sense of entitlement and break rules without a fear of consequences. There’s a large percentage of students with cash to spend on drugs.

Compared to many other schools in MCPS. Whitman, Wootton, Churchill, and WJ are less diverse than many other schools in MCPS. In the bigger picture, though, there is no school in MCPS that is not diverse. Certainly far more diverse than the public schools I went to, growing up.

Define “diverse.” <5% FARMS isn’t exactly diverse in my book.

There are many aspects of diversity. Household income (poor/not-poor) is one of them. It is not the only one.

So then tell me how W schools are so diverse.

Even Whitman, which is the whitest high school in MCPS, is 40% non-white.

And top private schools are typically 40-50% non-white.

Hmm.... I'm skeptical. How is my white hispanic family classified? How about our family friend who is literally African-American- mom is white South African and dad is white American - is she white or African-American (she's both).

What exactly is "non-white"? Which shade exactly is the cut-off? I mean, I see very few albinos around town, so there must be a cut off...

If we are classifying Hispanics appropriately, it is an ethnicity. Jews are an ethnicity too - are jews appropriately boxed, like "non-white"? What about the white jews?

I'm so confused. I thought we were a just humans!

Shade? You think they look at people and make a determination? No. It’s done through self-reporting, just like all demographic tracking is done.

Oh?!

Then which shade is the most advantageous for me and my family? I'm that shade.

WTH are you talking about?

Well, if we "self-report" than I identify as whatever give us the biggest advantage.

Today does being blue, green, jagged, straight, white, rich, poor, etc give me an advantage? Then I'm that. Tomorrow, I could be something different if the tide changes.

It's consistently most advantageous to be rich and white.

Except when you have to compete with the other rich white people. Then it's better to be different and offer the diversity card.

Nah, it's always most advantageous to be rich and white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Put area into perspective. MCPS consistently has 20% of its population in the top 5% of students nationally. This is why they have to locally norm MAP test scores, for example.

MCPS education locally is likely equivalent to private school education anywhere else in the country.

It offers more services and provide a broad range of support for the diverse student population. It is also the largest school district in MD.

All bad things about MCPS aside, if you look at the whole, it's not a bad bet.

Anywhere else? No way. Not comparable to top private schools in any major city.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a college accept a kid from a school with very few advanced classes?

Legacy
Money
Sports
Special talents.

The same reasons these kids are accepted at private schools

Ah ok. Got it. So none of them are actually any good at teaching kids anything. Rich people just choose mediocrity for their kids.

We don't need anything more academically. The kids get the advantages in the soft skills and colleges rank them higher because of this.

Huh?

There have been so many studies on this, especially since the college admissions scandle. Just Google "private school advantage in college admissions" or something of that nature. The advantage will never go away (unfortunately). The UC are really good at helping and insulating themselves for centuries if not millenia. The categories for college admissions will change with time, but there will always be a way to give slight advantage to already advantaged folks. It's always been that way.

Remember, women began entering the workforce in droves in the 70s and still are represented at 3% in top jobs, have unequal pay in almost every industry, and still take on the lions share of work at home. White men however still have the advantage in every category.

Why do you think public vs private schools is somehow going to magically escape human psychology and be fair?

I'm from the UMC and slightly pierce into UC circles. Of course, I see the advantages and want my kids to have them. I will likely never be UC, but my kids definitely have a chance. And they do have the mannerisms, peer group, and education to support it.

My Father-in-Law grew up poor and is now pretty wealthy. He has been encouraging us to send our kids to private school (especially high school) because in life, it's truly who you know and not what you know that makes a difference. This is how life works for the most part, whether we like it or not.

Exactly. The quality of education sucks. But that doesn’t matter.

Well.... no really.

It's a different type of education. If you want them to learn multi-variable Calculus (or difficult math in public school), I have to question why. I am a scientist and the last time I used it was to pass the AP exam in HS. On the other hand, if you want them to learn soft skills (learned in private schools), the last time I used that was today dealing with some colleagues. So which skills are more relevant? What exactly is an "education" to you?

In Spanish the phrase "mala educación" or "bad education" literally means poor manners. This idea of soft skills/ private school advantage transcends cultural boundaries and time. You can find similar things the world over.

You’re making it seem that public schools graduate only cave dwellers that only communicate through grunting, while private schools are graduating only smooth talker, peace prize material. Of course there’s no basis for this assumption.

The post doesn't sound like that. Of course there is some overlap between the two.

But what’s the basis to assert that privates teach soft skills but publics don’t? In my view soft skills depend more on personality and the values taught at home.l, have less to do with the high school the kid goes to.

The basis is that colleges give higher scores for private school kids based in soft skills or other metrics aside from scores and grades. The fact that these skills might be learned or practiced elsewhere is irrelevant. If you read the posts it was mentioned that there are tons of studies on this. Here is a link to an article posted last week-ish on this forum, although there are so many.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/private-schools-competitive-college-advantage-problems.html

It's not what all the hard core public school parents want to hear, but it's the truth. The perception from college admissions is that private school kids are wealthier and pre-screened by the private school. So many studies on this!

I mean, yes? Also, water is wet? If your argument is that kids from wealthy families have advantages that kids from non-wealthy families don't have, I wouldn't think there are many people will disagree with you. Them that has, gets.

Yes. That is the point. So to keep it relevant to this topic - would one send their kids to a private school or a well regarded public when the advantage is clear? If one can afford it, private. If not, public. If in the middle - go with child needs and schools' pros and cons.

You make it seem that private schools are the pinnacle of high school education. First, it’s not true and second by what metric? How rich they are when they grow up, the university they go to? How do you decouple the outcome from other variables that are likely to play a stronger role like parent education and SES etc?

The answer is not as clear as you claim. One thing is sure, there are brilliant kids that thrive in public and in private schools who will have great accomplishments in their lifetime. Just leave it at that and say it made more sense for you and your family to go that route.

The problem is that often you see people going to privates they can’t afford, sacrifice a lot financially to make it work, and end up rationalizing it to themselves that it’s a huge leg up for success in life. It isn’t, but for some small subset of kids it can be a huge factor if the kid would do better in a smaller class, with more individual attention etc. if that’s worth the price of tuition to you, great, good luck you you and your child. But don’t claim the kids that are left in the public are just settling with second hand education and are starting life with a handicap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put area into perspective. MCPS consistently has 20% of its population in the top 5% of students nationally. This is why they have to locally norm MAP test scores, for example.

MCPS education locally is likely equivalent to private school education anywhere else in the country.

It offers more services and provide a broad range of support for the diverse student population. It is also the largest school district in MD.

All bad things about MCPS aside, if you look at the whole, it's not a bad bet.

Anywhere else? No way. Not comparable to top private schools in any major city.

DP.. you clearly don't know much about privates in other major cities.

My DC met some kids from another major city via discord during the pandemic. They were playing computer games together and got to talking about school.

One kid was from a private school in a major city and said they were having trouble with math. DC is a math whiz, and tutored this kid online.

This kid told my DC what their highest level math course was, and DC was floored. Our non W school has two math class higher than their most advanced math class.

I don't think you realize how advanced the math tracks in the DC area public schools are. I moved from out west, so I know a bit about other school districts.