Anonymous wrote:So many creative excuses! Keep'em coming. I love it.

Can you elaborate on that?

Excuses for what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People are full of excuses for poor performance, but when I saw how low the percentage of Einstein students even bothering to take the SATs was a few years ago, I ruled it out as an option. I'd have been OK with lower scores and higher participation rates, but not a school where so many kids aren't being prepared for much beyond a counter at McDonald's. Sorry if that's not PC enough for you, but being around high-achieving peers is more important in my opinion to letting kids know what they're facing in a global economy. The only good thing I hear about Einstein is that you can be a big fish in a small pond, and the pond is getting bigger all the time.

Why should you bother to take the SATs if you don't need to? UMCP doesn't require the SAT. Lots of other universities and colleges also don't. And taking the SAT costs money.

UMDCP not only requires SAT/ACT, they require students to send in ALL test scores so they can super-score. See this year's freshman profile. UMD's mid-50%tile has been going up every year. Scores on the web link is for CR and Math. UMD doesn't use W portion of SAT.

https://www.admissions.umd.edu/counselor/FreshmanProfile.php

They require the SAT or the ACT, as far as I can tell. Not both. Am I wrong, and they require both? If so, that's ridiculous.

11:49 here. No, you are correct. SAT/ACT meant SAT or ACT... Sorry didn't make it clear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People are full of excuses for poor performance, but when I saw how low the percentage of Einstein students even bothering to take the SATs was a few years ago, I ruled it out as an option. I'd have been OK with lower scores and higher participation rates, but not a school where so many kids aren't being prepared for much beyond a counter at McDonald's. Sorry if that's not PC enough for you, but being around high-achieving peers is more important in my opinion to letting kids know what they're facing in a global economy. The only good thing I hear about Einstein is that you can be a big fish in a small pond, and the pond is getting bigger all the time.

Why should you bother to take the SATs if you don't need to? UMCP doesn't require the SAT. Lots of other universities and colleges also don't. And taking the SAT costs money.

UMDCP not only requires SAT/ACT, they require students to send in ALL test scores so they can super-score. See this year's freshman profile. UMD's mid-50%tile has been going up every year. Scores on the web link is for CR and Math. UMD doesn't use W portion of SAT.

https://www.admissions.umd.edu/counselor/FreshmanProfile.php

They require the SAT or the ACT, as far as I can tell. Not both. Am I wrong, and they require both? If so, that's ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People are full of excuses for poor performance, but when I saw how low the percentage of Einstein students even bothering to take the SATs was a few years ago, I ruled it out as an option. I'd have been OK with lower scores and higher participation rates, but not a school where so many kids aren't being prepared for much beyond a counter at McDonald's. Sorry if that's not PC enough for you, but being around high-achieving peers is more important in my opinion to letting kids know what they're facing in a global economy. The only good thing I hear about Einstein is that you can be a big fish in a small pond, and the pond is getting bigger all the time.

Why should you bother to take the SATs if you don't need to? UMCP doesn't require the SAT. Lots of other universities and colleges also don't. And taking the SAT costs money.

UMDCP not only requires SAT/ACT, they require students to send in ALL test scores so they can super-score. See this year's freshman profile. UMD's mid-50%tile has been going up every year. Scores on the web link is for CR and Math. UMD doesn't use W portion of SAT.

https://www.admissions.umd.edu/counselor/FreshmanProfile.php

Anonymous wrote:

People are full of excuses for poor performance, but when I saw how low the percentage of Einstein students even bothering to take the SATs was a few years ago, I ruled it out as an option. I'd have been OK with lower scores and higher participation rates, but not a school where so many kids aren't being prepared for much beyond a counter at McDonald's. Sorry if that's not PC enough for you, but being around high-achieving peers is more important in my opinion to letting kids know what they're facing in a global economy. The only good thing I hear about Einstein is that you can be a big fish in a small pond, and the pond is getting bigger all the time.

Why should you bother to take the SATs if you don't need to? UMCP doesn't require the SAT. Lots of other universities and colleges also don't. And taking the SAT costs money.

So many creative excuses! Keep'em coming. I love it.

Anonymous wrote:

This is mix of facts/fictions... First (high SES yielding high test scores) is true. It's well documented fact. The second re. National merit is false. The third ("the PP would... needs of our children), sadly that's how colleges will evaluate your kids and the last one re proxy is just silly. I don't think anyone is saying "presence of rich kids" determines whether a school is good fit or not. The stats (avg SAT, national merit...etc.) show rigor and performance of kids as well as how well kids are prepared for colleges.

Actually what they mainly show is the SES of the students -- because, as you say, there is a well-documented correlation between high SES and high test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

My DH and I are both physicians. We were never forced into sending our kids to Silver Spring schools. We chose to do so. I have no regrets at all about that.

Meaning what?

Meaning we have enough HHI to live and send our children to "better" schools ("better" as defined by some in these threads).

My DH and I are both physicians. We were never forced into sending our kids to Silver Spring schools. We chose to do so. I have no regrets at all about that.

Meaning what?

^^^PP here. I should add, my kids know how very privileged they are, and that was/is very important to me. They have friends from their middle and high school days who struggled to make their lives work - who worked 20 hours/week in order to save money for college. Who had to pass up internships in favor of paying jobs for much-needed money. Who started at Montgomery College and later transferred to U.Md for financial reasons only. My kids are deeply grateful for the many privileges and opportunities we have given them, because they have seen firsthand how much more difficult it is for many teenagers.

This understanding is one of the many benefits of their having attended a socioeconomically diverse school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me respectfully disagree with the pp in that this is NOT how you evaluate a school. You should not be interested as much in the average performance of a school (SAT scores, National Merit, etc.) as you should be in how YOUR student will do there. The truth is that a relatively larger number of first-generation Americans are in the school and are taking the SAT and are the 1st generation to go to college, sometimes at less prestigious places. This brings down the average. But there are also students from educated families with a lot of resources who know about and can afford to go to fancy schools. Averages don't mean much, though I will admit it is much easier to look at a page of statistics than ask people, visit, go to Einstein events, etc.

Yes, this. SAT scores, in particular, are heavily correlated with family income. These four charts from the Washington Post lay it out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/05/these-four-charts-show-how-the-sat-favors-the-rich-educated-families/

Similarly, many colleges have stopped participating in the National Merit Scholarship program because of the degree to which family income and test scores are linked.

So, the PP would have us look at SAT scores, PSAT scores, and elite college admissions to determine whether Einstein meets the educational needs of our children. But all those things tell us is that Einstein families tend to, on average, be less rich than the families at other schools in the area. She is literally listing things are are purely a proxy for wealth.

If your main proxy for whether a high school is a good fit for your family is "presence of rich kids," then Einstein will fail. But that's a very shallow rationale for choosing a high school.

People are full of excuses for poor performance, but when I saw how low the percentage of Einstein students even bothering to take the SATs was a few years ago, I ruled it out as an option. I'd have been OK with lower scores and higher participation rates, but not a school where so many kids aren't being prepared for much beyond a counter at McDonald's. Sorry if that's not PC enough for you, but being around high-achieving peers is more important in my opinion to letting kids know what they're facing in a global economy. The only good thing I hear about Einstein is that you can be a big fish in a small pond, and the pond is getting bigger all the time.

Many of us in eastern MoCo are sufficiently confident in our parenting choices that we do not feel the need to surround our children with affluent peers. We know that the family, community, and school choices we make will position our kids for success.

I no longer have kids in MCPS, but my two went to Woodlin, Sligo MS, and Einstein HS. My older child is now in medical school, and will begin her residency at an excellent teaching hospital in the fall. My second is a rising senior at a highly competitive college, considering whether to work for a few years, or continue on to grad school.

When my kids attended Einstein, it had many more problems than it does now. Their high-achieving cohort/peers were far fewer in number, and the administration had a difficult time grappling with the many social problems other students brought to school. But my kids' peer group was large enough in number, and supported enough at home and in our community that we never felt that their success was in jeopardy by virtue of our school choice. I understand from neighbors that Einstein has improved exponentially in the last several years, and fwiw I only know one family whose child attends private school.

My DH and I are both physicians. We were never forced into sending our kids to Silver Spring schools. We chose to do so. I have no regrets at all about that.

The article talks about 9 schools. There are over 3000 4-year colleges in US. I doubt 9 schools changing their policy can be described as "many colleges". It should also be noted that for some top tier schools (e.g., NYU), the NMF scholarship is not necessary because they attract enough high performing kids without the college sponsored NMF. It's not the same as they don't believe in scores, they just don't have the need. No NMF kids who want to apply to NYU will say "oh, I am not going because they don't offer 2000/year scholarship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me respectfully disagree with the pp in that this is NOT how you evaluate a school. You should not be interested as much in the average performance of a school (SAT scores, National Merit, etc.) as you should be in how YOUR student will do there. The truth is that a relatively larger number of first-generation Americans are in the school and are taking the SAT and are the 1st generation to go to college, sometimes at less prestigious places. This brings down the average. But there are also students from educated families with a lot of resources who know about and can afford to go to fancy schools. Averages don't mean much, though I will admit it is much easier to look at a page of statistics than ask people, visit, go to Einstein events, etc.

Yes, this. SAT scores, in particular, are heavily correlated with family income. These four charts from the Washington Post lay it out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/05/these-four-charts-show-how-the-sat-favors-the-rich-educated-families/

Similarly, many colleges have stopped participating in the National Merit Scholarship program because of the degree to which family income and test scores are linked.

So, the PP would have us look at SAT scores, PSAT scores, and elite college admissions to determine whether Einstein meets the educational needs of our children. But all those things tell us is that Einstein families tend to, on average, be less rich than the families at other schools in the area. She is literally listing things are are purely a proxy for wealth.

If your main proxy for whether a high school is a good fit for your family is "presence of rich kids," then Einstein will fail. But that's a very shallow rationale for choosing a high school.

People are full of excuses for poor performance, but when I saw how low the percentage of Einstein students even bothering to take the SATs was a few years ago, I ruled it out as an option. I'd have been OK with lower scores and higher participation rates, but not a school where so many kids aren't being prepared for much beyond a counter at McDonald's. Sorry if that's not PC enough for you, but being around high-achieving peers is more important in my opinion to letting kids know what they're facing in a global economy. The only good thing I hear about Einstein is that you can be a big fish in a small pond, and the pond is getting bigger all the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me respectfully disagree with the pp in that this is NOT how you evaluate a school. You should not be interested as much in the average performance of a school (SAT scores, National Merit, etc.) as you should be in how YOUR student will do there. The truth is that a relatively larger number of first-generation Americans are in the school and are taking the SAT and are the 1st generation to go to college, sometimes at less prestigious places. This brings down the average. But there are also students from educated families with a lot of resources who know about and can afford to go to fancy schools. Averages don't mean much, though I will admit it is much easier to look at a page of statistics than ask people, visit, go to Einstein events, etc.

Yes, this. SAT scores, in particular, are heavily correlated with family income. These four charts from the Washington Post lay it out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/05/these-four-charts-show-how-the-sat-favors-the-rich-educated-families/

Similarly, many colleges have stopped participating in the National Merit Scholarship program because of the degree to which family income and test scores are linked.

So, the PP would have us look at SAT scores, PSAT scores, and elite college admissions to determine whether Einstein meets the educational needs of our children. But all those things tell us is that Einstein families tend to, on average, be less rich than the families at other schools in the area. She is literally listing things are are purely a proxy for wealth.

If your main proxy for whether a high school is a good fit for your family is "presence of rich kids," then Einstein will fail. But that's a very shallow rationale for choosing a high school.

This is mix of facts/fictions... First (high SES yielding high test scores) is true. It's well documented fact. The second re. National merit is false. The third ("the PP would... needs of our children), sadly that's how colleges will evaluate your kids and the last one re proxy is just silly. I don't think anyone is saying "presence of rich kids" determines whether a school is good fit or not. The stats (avg SAT, national merit...etc.) show rigor and performance of kids as well as how well kids are prepared for colleges.

Here is an article from a few years ago about schools withdrawing from the National Merit Scholarship Process. The numbers are higher now: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-10-21/nyu-exiting-national-merit-scholarship-citing-test-process

SAT and National Merit Scholarships are both based on standardized test scores, which we know are tightly correlated to both race and family income. No, poor people are not less intelligent - but test prep and ability to retake the exam are both tied to success and to family income. There are also ongoing concerns about cultural issues with the tests.

Finally, there's actually not much of a link between performance on the SAT and college success, so using the average SAT score at a school as a way to determine whether it's a "good" high school is problematic both because the test is so heavily correlated with wealth AND because the test doesn't tell you much about how well a student will do in college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me respectfully disagree with the pp in that this is NOT how you evaluate a school. You should not be interested as much in the average performance of a school (SAT scores, National Merit, etc.) as you should be in how YOUR student will do there. The truth is that a relatively larger number of first-generation Americans are in the school and are taking the SAT and are the 1st generation to go to college, sometimes at less prestigious places. This brings down the average. But there are also students from educated families with a lot of resources who know about and can afford to go to fancy schools. Averages don't mean much, though I will admit it is much easier to look at a page of statistics than ask people, visit, go to Einstein events, etc.

Yes, this. SAT scores, in particular, are heavily correlated with family income. These four charts from the Washington Post lay it out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/05/these-four-charts-show-how-the-sat-favors-the-rich-educated-families/

Similarly, many colleges have stopped participating in the National Merit Scholarship program because of the degree to which family income and test scores are linked.

So, the PP would have us look at SAT scores, PSAT scores, and elite college admissions to determine whether Einstein meets the educational needs of our children. But all those things tell us is that Einstein families tend to, on average, be less rich than the families at other schools in the area. She is literally listing things are are purely a proxy for wealth.

If your main proxy for whether a high school is a good fit for your family is "presence of rich kids," then Einstein will fail. But that's a very shallow rationale for choosing a high school.

This is mix of facts/fictions... First (high SES yielding high test scores) is true. It's well documented fact. The second re. National merit is false. The third ("the PP would... needs of our children), sadly that's how colleges will evaluate your kids and the last one re proxy is just silly. I don't think anyone is saying "presence of rich kids" determines whether a school is good fit or not. The stats (avg SAT, national merit...etc.) show rigor and performance of kids as well as how well kids are prepared for colleges.