Anonymous wrote:

To get back to the original topic, parents who are concerned about excessive homework might be interested in the book "Brain Rules," by John Medina. It was recommended summer reading for parents of students at Maret School, and it offers a lot of interesting discussion of topics related to children and learning - specifically, the importance of reviewing information to aid retention (which presumably is the purpose of homework), the relationship of sleep to congnitive function (the brain functions poorly on little sleep), and the fact that excessive stress (as opposed to a small amount of stress) can inhibit learning. My takeaway from the book, as it applies to homework, is that some homework is useful, because it helps children retain information, but homework assignments that create enormous stress or eat into sleep are actually harming children's ability to learn.

This is not meant to be a comprehensive summary of the book, but just a suggestion that parents looking for ammunition in the battle for less homework may find this a useful tool.

Sounds like an interesting book. I can see the "diminishing returns" argument. The "homework to help retain information" argument seems most relevant, perhaps, to STEM subjects, and perhaps doesn't capture the subjects (like English) where the homework is to read the novel to facilitate in-class discussion or literary analysis or to provide the common template as the teachers work on the students' writing in class?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They are not innumerate; but you, sir, are a typical economist. They are just pointing out that it is pointless to hinge your analysis on a made-up number (the number of "golden tickets") when we have ACTUAL numbers to draw on.

I'm not a sir.

Made up numbers serve the purpose much better than the very limited figure from Harvard, that 30% of legacies get accepted. First, this 30% figure applies to legacies only, but not to athletic or arts recruits. Second, this 30% figure is from a single college that is well-known for treating legacies better than many other colleges.

It's hard to avoid concluding that you really don't understand the debate here, as another PP said. Go back to your law books.

Love the assumption that an economist must be a "sir." On the other hand, this lawyer is certainly upholding the stereotype of lawyers who will endlessly argue a losing position, even with incomplete information and understanding, and just don't know when to STFU.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you start with a really stupid metaphor ("The Golden Ticket"), dressing it up with hypothetical numerical examples doesn't make it any smarter.

These are empirical questions and various colleges have provided empirical answers in a variety of public contexts. See, e.g. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies/

Why multiple posters think this has anything to do with homework load is beyond me. It's not as if these colleges are conducting a nationwide (or international) search for the HS students who have spent the most hours doing homework.

Dear self-satisfied innumerate person (hope you're not the lawyer from above):

That was my numerical example. Also, I've linked to that Crimson article several times on DCUM, so you probably got it from me in the first place. Newsflash: Everybody here agrees that hooks or golden tickets, whichever you prefer, provide advantages in admissions to selective schools.

You seem to be stuck at first base. Everybody else here has moved on to (a) asking why kids are killing themselves with homework for what's really a mirage of Ivy acceptance, and (b) the nature of the advantage conferred by the hook or the golden ticket. I hope you will read the other posts, and my numerical example, and join the rest of us as this conversation evolves.

They are not innumerate; but you, sir, are a typical economist. They are just pointing out that it is pointless to hinge your analysis on a made-up number (the number of "golden tickets") when we have ACTUAL numbers to draw on.

I'm not a sir.

Made up numbers serve the purpose much better than the very limited figure from Harvard, that 30% of legacies get accepted. First, this 30% figure applies to legacies only, but not to athletic or arts recruits. Second, this 30% figure is from a single college that is well-known for treating legacies better than many other colleges.

It's hard to avoid concluding that you really don't understand the debate here, as another PP said. Go back to your law books.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you start with a really stupid metaphor ("The Golden Ticket"), dressing it up with hypothetical numerical examples doesn't make it any smarter.

These are empirical questions and various colleges have provided empirical answers in a variety of public contexts. See, e.g. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies/

Why multiple posters think this has anything to do with homework load is beyond me. It's not as if these colleges are conducting a nationwide (or international) search for the HS students who have spent the most hours doing homework.

Dear self-satisfied innumerate person (hope you're not the lawyer from above):

That was my numerical example. Also, I've linked to that Crimson article several times on DCUM, so you probably got it from me in the first place. Newsflash: Everybody here agrees that hooks or golden tickets, whichever you prefer, provide advantages in admissions to selective schools.

You seem to be stuck at first base. Everybody else here has moved on to (a) asking why kids are killing themselves with homework for what's really a mirage of Ivy acceptance, and (b) the nature of the advantage conferred by the hook or the golden ticket. I hope you will read the other posts, and my numerical example, and join the rest of us as this conversation evolves.

They are not innumerate; but you, sir, are a typical economist. They are just pointing out that it is pointless to hinge your analysis on a made-up number (the number of "golden tickets") when we have ACTUAL numbers to draw on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YESYESYESYES. TOO MUCH HOMEWORK. Private and public in DC/MD/VA area. My child (now in college) did not have a life because of the illogical amounts of homework dumped on these poor kids. If I had to do it over, I would have moved away and tried to create a "normal" lifestyle for child which would have involved walking down the street to hang out with a girl friend, scouting, athletics, piano lessons, anything but the mounds of homework we all suffered through not to mention the lack of sleep during these critical formative years.

Honey, that lack of sleep is often due to a significant amount of masturbation.

^ go do your homework!

Grow up and contribute to the conversation or leave.

Anonymous wrote:10:16 understands the discussion and thinks it's stupid.

Nope, you don't understand the discussion. Or you wouldn't have posted the Crimson link as if it were somehow brand new info.

To get back to the original topic, parents who are concerned about excessive homework might be interested in the book "Brain Rules," by John Medina. It was recommended summer reading for parents of students at Maret School, and it offers a lot of interesting discussion of topics related to children and learning - specifically, the importance of reviewing information to aid retention (which presumably is the purpose of homework), the relationship of sleep to congnitive function (the brain functions poorly on little sleep), and the fact that excessive stress (as opposed to a small amount of stress) can inhibit learning. My takeaway from the book, as it applies to homework, is that some homework is useful, because it helps children retain information, but homework assignments that create enormous stress or eat into sleep are actually harming children's ability to learn.

This is not meant to be a comprehensive summary of the book, but just a suggestion that parents looking for ammunition in the battle for less homework may find this a useful tool.

Anonymous wrote:10:16 understands the discussion and thinks it's stupid.

Then why don't you leave, instead of staying here and making irrelevant snide remarks? What's stupid is you staying here.

10:16 understands the discussion and thinks it's stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you start with a really stupid metaphor ("The Golden Ticket"), dressing it up with hypothetical numerical examples doesn't make it any smarter.

These are empirical questions and various colleges have provided empirical answers in a variety of public contexts. See, e.g. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies/

Why multiple posters think this has anything to do with homework load is beyond me. It's not as if these colleges are conducting a nationwide (or international) search for the HS students who have spent the most hours doing homework.

Dear self-satisfied innumerate person (hope you're not the lawyer from above):

That was my numerical example. Also, I've linked to that Crimson article several times on DCUM, so you probably got it from me in the first place. Newsflash: Everybody here agrees that hooks or golden tickets, whichever you prefer, provide advantages in admissions to selective schools.

You seem to be stuck at first base. Everybody else here has moved on to (a) asking why kids are killing themselves with homework for what's really a mirage of Ivy acceptance, and (b) the nature of the advantage conferred by the hook or the golden ticket. I hope you will read the other posts, and my numerical example, and join the rest of us as this conversation evolves.

Agreed. 10:16 really doesn't understand the discussion.

Anonymous wrote:If you start with a really stupid metaphor ("The Golden Ticket"), dressing it up with hypothetical numerical examples doesn't make it any smarter.

These are empirical questions and various colleges have provided empirical answers in a variety of public contexts. See, e.g. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies/

Why multiple posters think this has anything to do with homework load is beyond me. It's not as if these colleges are conducting a nationwide (or international) search for the HS students who have spent the most hours doing homework.

Dear self-satisfied innumerate person (hope you're not the lawyer from above):

That was my numerical example. Also, I've linked to that Crimson article several times on DCUM, so you probably got it from me in the first place. Newsflash: Everybody here agrees that hooks or golden tickets, whichever you prefer, provide advantages in admissions to selective schools.

You seem to be stuck at first base. Everybody else here has moved on to (a) asking why kids are killing themselves with homework for what's really a mirage of Ivy acceptance, and (b) the nature of the advantage conferred by the hook or the golden ticket. I hope you will read the other posts, and my numerical example, and join the rest of us as this conversation evolves.

If you start with a really stupid metaphor ("The Golden Ticket"), dressing it up with hypothetical numerical examples doesn't make it any smarter.

These are empirical questions and various colleges have provided empirical answers in a variety of public contexts. See, e.g. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies/

Why multiple posters think this has anything to do with homework load is beyond me. It's not as if these colleges are conducting a nationwide (or international) search for the HS students who have spent the most hours doing homework.

Mathematically, all we can say is that golden tickets have much better acceptance rates than general applicants. The first PP is right. But, without a whole lot more information, like what percent of the original applicant pool of 100 kids have golden tickets, we cannot say what the relative acceptance rates are between golden tickets and general applicants.

But let's do an example. It might also be instructive for admissions to DC area private schools--where some families have golden tickets in the form of siblings, great wealth, or great political jobs.

Let's say the school has 35,000 applicants for 2,100 spots (which makes for a 6% acceptance rate, and isn't far from reality for some of these schools, but I'm using round numbers). Let's say that 25% of applicant pool have golden tickets (the golden ticket applicant pool is 8750 kids) and 75% are general applicants (the applicant pool of regular kids is 26,250). (I'm making these ratios up, but you get the point.) Of these 2100 kids who are accepted, earlier posters have been assuming that half (1,050 kids) will be golden tickets and the other half (1,050 kids) of accepted kids will be from the regular applicant pool. So what are the relative acceptance rates for these two pools of kids?
o acceptance rate for golden tickets = 1,050/8,750 = 12%
o acceptance rate for regular kids = 1,050/26,250 = 4%
o overall acceptance rate = accepted kids / total applicant pool = (1050 golden tickets + 1050 regular acceptance pool) / (8,750 + 26,250) = 2,100 / 35,000 = 6%

So yes, as the original PP said, golden tickets face better than average acceptance rates to the Ivies (12% acceptance rate, versus the overall acceptance rate of 6%). And regular applicant kids face lower than average acceptance odds at the Ivies (4% acceptance rate versus the overall acceptance rate of 6%).

Yes I'm a nerd, but I hope this helps. And before some of you launch the usual charges of sour grapes, my kid was a golden ticket to an ivy for one of the arts. FWIW, the athletic recruits that I know who are going to this same Ivy are from TJ and the Blair magnet - so they're hardly academic slouches.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But be honest. Aren't many of you lamenting the loss of free time for exploration, family, chores, etc also the same ones who will be wringing your hands if your kids don't have the grades to get into Harvard or Williams?

Maybe you can't have it both ways. My kid isn't getting into Harvard or Williams. But he'll get into a second tier college and likely do very well for himself. And in the meantime, he has time to read, researching things that interest him, help out around the house, AND he gets a solid 9 hours of sleep a night. I honestly don't think Harvard could serve him better, but obviously YMMV.

No. I think the parents trying to get eir kids into an Ivy think it is a good amount of homework. I suspect their lives are out of balance too.

Exactly. It is a choice. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford accept fewer than 6 % of their applicants. Of those, 3 % have some sort of " Golden Ticket" ( they are athletes, talented musicians, wealthy legacies, etc). That leaves about 3% of spots for the general applicants. Therefore, only the truly brilliant kids will get those spots. Lots of straight A, great kids will be denied. Therefore, this dream of the Ivies is unrealistic for most people. They should calm down and set their sites on more realistic schools for their kids. 50 years ago, practically the only people who went to these schools were white males from one of the top prep schools. Now, people form all over the world are applying. Unless you have a golden ticket or your kid is truly exceptional ( and they likely are not), give up the dream and let your kids enjoy high school a little.

Your math here is faulty. If 3% of their spots are reserved for general applicants, then the other 97% of their spots are for your so-called "Golden Tickets." You are conflating the applicant pool with the accepted pool.

No you are wrong. The poster says that 6% of the applicants are accepted. Therefore 94 % of applicants are rejected. Of the 6% accepted, 3 % are the Golden ticketed ones. leaving 3 % of acceptances for general applicants. You have poor reading comprehension skills. You should have done more homework in high school.

I am a lawyer not a mathematician but I think YOU should be doing your homework. What the PP meant to say was that 50% of those accepted (or 3% of the applicant pool) have a golden ticket, and 50% (or 3% of the pool) are "regular." What you are implying is that only 3% of the accepted pool are "regular" and 97% have a golden ticket.

Allow me to try to clarify for everyone what the pp's original point probably was. Assume 100 people apply. 94 are rejected. 6 are accepted. 3 of those accepted are golden ticket holders and three are not. Yes, that means that half of accepted students are ticket holders and half are not. It does not mean that 97% of acceptances are reserved for general applicants, 50 % are. The original point is that 94 % of applicants are outright rejects, 3% of applicants are admitted due to special talents/influence and 3% of applicants get in without a golden ticket. Simple to understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YESYESYESYES. TOO MUCH HOMEWORK. Private and public in DC/MD/VA area. My child (now in college) did not have a life because of the illogical amounts of homework dumped on these poor kids. If I had to do it over, I would have moved away and tried to create a "normal" lifestyle for child which would have involved walking down the street to hang out with a girl friend, scouting, athletics, piano lessons, anything but the mounds of homework we all suffered through not to mention the lack of sleep during these critical formative years.

Honey, that lack of sleep is often due to a significant amount of masturbation.

^ go do your homework!