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: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

Most of the white people are not white btw. Lot of foreigners who identify as white. For instance three of my neighbors look white, but they literall are like Borat

[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: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.

I agree. I’ve got no issue with private schools but the “soft skills” argument is bizarre.

Not sure why this is confusing. There is a lot of effort in private schools to make sure kids are well mannered and cultured. They practice public speaking in virtually every subject, engage in developing negotiation and moderation skills and participate as a school in many academic competitions. Generally, they are more comfortable in professional settings and find it easier to engage with adults. Having behavior and attire/uniform requirements so help to set the tone for being civil, presentable and engaging.

[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: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

Most of the white people are not white btw. Lot of foreigners who identify as white. For instance three of my neighbors look white, but they literall are like Borat

Wow you’re racist.

[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.

Bingo.

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.

[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.

I agree. I’ve got no issue with private schools but the “soft skills” argument is bizarre.

Not sure why this is confusing. There is a lot of effort in private schools to make sure kids are well mannered and cultured. They practice public speaking in virtually every subject, engage in developing negotiation and moderation skills and participate as a school in many academic competitions. Generally, they are more comfortable in professional settings and find it easier to engage with adults. Having behavior and attire/uniform requirements so help to set the tone for being civil, presentable and engaging.

I accept public speaking gets a bigger emphasis in many private schools but the rest is so subjective. Obviously wealthy well connected kids will always rise to the top but does private school itself really better prepare kids for professional settings? I particularly struggle with the idea that these kids are better prepared to be “civil, presentable, and engaging.” Not to mention, as PPs have pointed out much of this is strongly influenced by settings outside of school, such as at home.

I actually do think private has a lot of pluses but this particular argument quickly starts to get offensive imho. Not to mention it’s an area where always being surrounded by other rich people/ living in a bit of a bubble could be more of a hindrance than anything else. It’s super easy to relate to people who are like you….

[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.

I agree. I’ve got no issue with private schools but the “soft skills” argument is bizarre.

Not sure why this is confusing. There is a lot of effort in private schools to make sure kids are well mannered and cultured. They practice public speaking in virtually every subject, engage in developing negotiation and moderation skills and participate as a school in many academic competitions. Generally, they are more comfortable in professional settings and find it easier to engage with adults. Having behavior and attire/uniform requirements so help to set the tone for being civil, presentable and engaging.

I accept public speaking gets a bigger emphasis in many private schools but the rest is so subjective. Obviously wealthy well connected kids will always rise to the top but does private school itself really better prepare kids for professional settings? I particularly struggle with the idea that these kids are better prepared to be “civil, presentable, and engaging.” Not to mention, as PPs have pointed out much of this is strongly influenced by settings outside of school, such as at home.

I actually do think private has a lot of pluses but this particular argument quickly starts to get offensive imho. Not to mention it’s an area where always being surrounded by other rich people/ living in a bit of a bubble could be more of a hindrance than anything else. It’s super easy to relate to people who are like you….

This. Totally agree with these points.

There are some pluses for privates, but often the argument is taken beyond what is reasonable.

Some see uniforms as setting the tone for being civil and presentable, I particularly dislike them.

Private schools developing negotiation and moderation skills is really stretching it.

[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.

I agree. I’ve got no issue with private schools but the “soft skills” argument is bizarre.

Not sure why this is confusing. There is a lot of effort in private schools to make sure kids are well mannered and cultured. They practice public speaking in virtually every subject, engage in developing negotiation and moderation skills and participate as a school in many academic competitions. Generally, they are more comfortable in professional settings and find it easier to engage with adults. Having behavior and attire/uniform requirements so help to set the tone for being civil, presentable and engaging.

I accept public speaking gets a bigger emphasis in many private schools but the rest is so subjective. Obviously wealthy well connected kids will always rise to the top but does private school itself really better prepare kids for professional settings? I particularly struggle with the idea that these kids are better prepared to be “civil, presentable, and engaging.” Not to mention, as PPs have pointed out much of this is strongly influenced by settings outside of school, such as at home.

I actually do think private has a lot of pluses but this particular argument quickly starts to get offensive imho. Not to mention it’s an area where always being surrounded by other rich people/ living in a bit of a bubble could be more of a hindrance than anything else. It’s super easy to relate to people who are like you….

I am not saying public school kids are Neanderthals. I’m just saying there is an intentional focus in private school to cultivate these traits and these schools are generally small enough to do this in an effective and meaningful way. Nowhere did I say that private school kids were more successful; however, having these particular attributes lends a student to be perceived as having leadership skills, academic acumen and strong communication skills.

[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.

I would no gamble with my kids education.

[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.

I agree. I’ve got no issue with private schools but the “soft skills” argument is bizarre.

Not sure why this is confusing. There is a lot of effort in private schools to make sure kids are well mannered and cultured. They practice public speaking in virtually every subject, engage in developing negotiation and moderation skills and participate as a school in many academic competitions. Generally, they are more comfortable in professional settings and find it easier to engage with adults. Having behavior and attire/uniform requirements so help to set the tone for being civil, presentable and engaging.

I accept public speaking gets a bigger emphasis in many private schools but the rest is so subjective. Obviously wealthy well connected kids will always rise to the top but does private school itself really better prepare kids for professional settings? I particularly struggle with the idea that these kids are better prepared to be “civil, presentable, and engaging.” Not to mention, as PPs have pointed out much of this is strongly influenced by settings outside of school, such as at home.

I actually do think private has a lot of pluses but this particular argument quickly starts to get offensive imho. Not to mention it’s an area where always being surrounded by other rich people/ living in a bit of a bubble could be more of a hindrance than anything else. It’s super easy to relate to people who are like you….

The really useful "soft" skill is being able to collaborate effectively with people who are NOT like you.

[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.

I would no gamble with my kids education.

Then you shouldn't have kids. Everything about kids is a gamble. And everything about the future is a gamble.

[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: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

Most of the white people are not white btw. Lot of foreigners who identify as white. For instance three of my neighbors look white, but they literall are like Borat

Wow you’re racist.

DP.

That's not racist. "White" and "non white" is confusing like was previously stated. Unless we have a definition of "white" we don't know what the form means - especially to those of us who don't come from such racist countries that make people state a race. I'm Hispanic. We come in black, white, brown, and literally every shade in between - sometimes in the same family. If you are white Hispanic are you expected to deny your culture? Do you have some sort of advantage to your less blonde sibling? The whole concept is strange.

[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: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

Most of the white people are not white btw. Lot of foreigners who identify as white. For instance three of my neighbors look white, but they literall are like Borat

Wow you’re racist.

DP.

That's not racist. "White" and "non white" is confusing like was previously stated. Unless we have a definition of "white" we don't know what the form means - especially to those of us who don't come from such racist countries that make people state a race. I'm Hispanic. We come in black, white, brown, and literally every shade in between - sometimes in the same family. If you are white Hispanic are you expected to deny your culture? Do you have some sort of advantage to your less blonde sibling? The whole concept is strange.

Just because a country doesn't formally classify people by race, doesn't mean it's not racist.

[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.

I agree. I’ve got no issue with private schools but the “soft skills” argument is bizarre.

Not sure why this is confusing. There is a lot of effort in private schools to make sure kids are well mannered and cultured. They practice public speaking in virtually every subject, engage in developing negotiation and moderation skills and participate as a school in many academic competitions. Generally, they are more comfortable in professional settings and find it easier to engage with adults. Having behavior and attire/uniform requirements so help to set the tone for being civil, presentable and engaging.

I accept public speaking gets a bigger emphasis in many private schools but the rest is so subjective. Obviously wealthy well connected kids will always rise to the top but does private school itself really better prepare kids for professional settings? I particularly struggle with the idea that these kids are better prepared to be “civil, presentable, and engaging.” Not to mention, as PPs have pointed out much of this is strongly influenced by settings outside of school, such as at home.

I actually do think private has a lot of pluses but this particular argument quickly starts to get offensive imho. Not to mention it’s an area where always being surrounded by other rich people/ living in a bit of a bubble could be more of a hindrance than anything else. It’s super easy to relate to people who are like you….

Is it offensive because it hits too close to the bone?

Why exactly does it trigger you?

It is were just ridiculous you would just roll your eyes and laugh to yourself or write it off and not respond. It triggers you for a reason, probably because there's a grain of truth in it that your personal insecurity just won't let you bypass.

[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: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.

I agree. I’ve got no issue with private schools but the “soft skills” argument is bizarre.

Not sure why this is confusing. There is a lot of effort in private schools to make sure kids are well mannered and cultured. They practice public speaking in virtually every subject, engage in developing negotiation and moderation skills and participate as a school in many academic competitions. Generally, they are more comfortable in professional settings and find it easier to engage with adults. Having behavior and attire/uniform requirements so help to set the tone for being civil, presentable and engaging.

I accept public speaking gets a bigger emphasis in many private schools but the rest is so subjective. Obviously wealthy well connected kids will always rise to the top but does private school itself really better prepare kids for professional settings? I particularly struggle with the idea that these kids are better prepared to be “civil, presentable, and engaging.” Not to mention, as PPs have pointed out much of this is strongly influenced by settings outside of school, such as at home.

I actually do think private has a lot of pluses but this particular argument quickly starts to get offensive imho. Not to mention it’s an area where always being surrounded by other rich people/ living in a bit of a bubble could be more of a hindrance than anything else. It’s super easy to relate to people who are like you….

The really useful "soft" skill is being able to collaborate effectively with people who are NOT like you.

Why? Most of them won’t have to. This will just help them on the golf course and the tennis court.

[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: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.

I agree. I’ve got no issue with private schools but the “soft skills” argument is bizarre.

Not sure why this is confusing. There is a lot of effort in private schools to make sure kids are well mannered and cultured. They practice public speaking in virtually every subject, engage in developing negotiation and moderation skills and participate as a school in many academic competitions. Generally, they are more comfortable in professional settings and find it easier to engage with adults. Having behavior and attire/uniform requirements so help to set the tone for being civil, presentable and engaging.

I accept public speaking gets a bigger emphasis in many private schools but the rest is so subjective. Obviously wealthy well connected kids will always rise to the top but does private school itself really better prepare kids for professional settings? I particularly struggle with the idea that these kids are better prepared to be “civil, presentable, and engaging.” Not to mention, as PPs have pointed out much of this is strongly influenced by settings outside of school, such as at home.

I actually do think private has a lot of pluses but this particular argument quickly starts to get offensive imho. Not to mention it’s an area where always being surrounded by other rich people/ living in a bit of a bubble could be more of a hindrance than anything else. It’s super easy to relate to people who are like you….

Is it offensive because it hits too close to the bone?

Why exactly does it trigger you?

It is were just ridiculous you would just roll your eyes and laugh to yourself or write it off and not respond. It triggers you for a reason, probably because there's a grain of truth in it that your personal insecurity just won't let you bypass.

"triggered"

-"Oh look, they have pineapple as a topping on their pizza menu."
-"WHY EXACTLY DOES PINEAPPLE TRIGGER YOU?!?!?!"