Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kids are really competing against the kids within their school. Therefore, if a school eliminates APs, it can be beneficial simply because admissions will base their decision on whether your child’s took the highest level courses offered. Even within public school, your greatest competition are your peers, not any other students in any other school. For example, they would never penalize a child for not taking AP in a lower ranked public school when there wasn’t an opportunity to take one.

It will however make admissions even more subjective amongst the kids within the same school. So, truthfully maybe colleges need to cut the crap they do for admissions. They should have a minimum bar and then do a plain simple lottery.

This is absolutely true. That is why I am so annoyed when public school parents think they have such advantage because their kid takes so many APs. My private school kid only took two APs so far as a rising senior, and he is going to be just fine. There wasn't even an opportunity to take APs in freshman and sophomore year. I have public school friends I saw this weekend talking about their rising freshman kid taking AP bio and more in freshman year. Sad.

They are doing what their kid needs to do to be competitive in their school. Why would you think it was about you and be annoyed? If their kids don't take those classes, they are screwed. So they do get an advantage within their peer group by going this route. Why would they care what classes your kid is taking in a different school system? Not sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The seven top private schools in the area issued a joint statement that they’re all eliminating AP. According to the Post, before “dropping AP, the schools surveyed nearly 150 colleges and universities about the potential impact. They said admission officers assured them the change would not hurt the chances of their students.”

Of course it won’t. Privilege begets privilege.

As a public school parent, this strikes me as privileged parents gaming the system so their children can never be compared directly to public school children. Colleges will just be told to trust them that their classes — and their children — are superior.

“As a public school parent, this strikes me as privileges parents ...”.

Is this a parody?

I believe PP was referring to the fact that a "public school parent" was referring to parents that send their kids to private schools as "privileged", as opposed to "hard working", "dedicated" or "people who made careful and responsible choices their entire lives". Hard work is not a privilege, not are the benefits derived therefrom.

If you chose to go to Florida for every spring break as opposed to staying back and studying, that's your problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The seven top private schools in the area issued a joint statement that they’re all eliminating AP. According to the Post, before “dropping AP, the schools surveyed nearly 150 colleges and universities about the potential impact. They said admission officers assured them the change would not hurt the chances of their students.”

Of course it won’t. Privilege begets privilege.

As a public school parent, this strikes me as privileged parents gaming the system so their children can never be compared directly to public school children. Colleges will just be told to trust them that their classes — and their children — are superior.

“As a public school parent, this strikes me as privileges parents ...”.

Is this a parody?

Why would it be? That's exactly what came to my mind. Our very expensive and top tier private school told parents after a terrible ERB year that it means nothing as the school doesn't teach to the test.

ITA. Private school for trust fund babies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The seven top private schools in the area issued a joint statement that they’re all eliminating AP. According to the Post, before “dropping AP, the schools surveyed nearly 150 colleges and universities about the potential impact. They said admission officers assured them the change would not hurt the chances of their students.”

Of course it won’t. Privilege begets privilege.

As a public school parent, this strikes me as privileged parents gaming the system so their children can never be compared directly to public school children. Colleges will just be told to trust them that their classes — and their children — are superior.

“As a public school parent, this strikes me as privileges parents ...”.

Is this a parody?

Why would it be? That's exactly what came to my mind. Our very expensive and top tier private school told parents after a terrible ERB year that it means nothing as the school doesn't teach to the test.

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a lot of paranoia and defensiveness behind some of these comments. There is no collusion with colleges. This is not an attempt to make classes easier. This is not an effort to be competitive or easier than publics. Nor is the public school approach of lots of AP classes necessarily wrong or worse. It is just different.

This decision is simply an extension of a private school's philosophy/ability to create its own curriculum. They would prefer to have their own faculty design the classes and not have them dictated by the college board. It is not all that different from what is already in place.

Aka let public school kids faint in the hamster wheel and private school kids ponder the world.
Great expansion of philosophy. We left after 5 years pondering. If your child doesn't have a trust fund waiting this is not a good choice of school, so we left. No complains yet to report. Good luck to everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The seven top private schools in the area issued a joint statement that they’re all eliminating AP. According to the Post, before “dropping AP, the schools surveyed nearly 150 colleges and universities about the potential impact. They said admission officers assured them the change would not hurt the chances of their students.”

Of course it won’t. Privilege begets privilege.

As a public school parent, this strikes me as privileged parents gaming the system so their children can never be compared directly to public school children. Colleges will just be told to trust them that their classes — and their children — are superior.

“As a public school parent, this strikes me as privileges parents ...”.

Is this a parody?

Anonymous wrote:Your kids are really competing against the kids within their school. Therefore, if a school eliminates APs, it can be beneficial simply because admissions will base their decision on whether your child’s took the highest level courses offered. Even within public school, your greatest competition are your peers, not any other students in any other school. For example, they would never penalize a child for not taking AP in a lower ranked public school when there wasn’t an opportunity to take one.

It will however make admissions even more subjective amongst the kids within the same school. So, truthfully maybe colleges need to cut the crap they do for admissions. They should have a minimum bar and then do a plain simple lottery.

This is absolutely true. That is why I am so annoyed when public school parents think they have such advantage because their kid takes so many APs. My private school kid only took two APs so far as a rising senior, and he is going to be just fine. There wasn't even an opportunity to take APs in freshman and sophomore year. I have public school friends I saw this weekend talking about their rising freshman kid taking AP bio and more in freshman year. Sad.

Re Harvard: their own internal study concluded racial bias against Asians. It doesn’t get more damning than that.

Your kids are really competing against the kids within their school. Therefore, if a school eliminates APs, it can be beneficial simply because admissions will base their decision on whether your child’s took the highest level courses offered. Even within public school, your greatest competition are your peers, not any other students in any other school. For example, they would never penalize a child for not taking AP in a lower ranked public school when there wasn’t an opportunity to take one.

It will however make admissions even more subjective amongst the kids within the same school. So, truthfully maybe colleges need to cut the crap they do for admissions. They should have a minimum bar and then do a plain simple lottery.

Anonymous wrote:Sure, drop anything quantitative so COLLEGE AdComs can work more of their magic when crafting bespoke (IE DEMOGRAPHICALLY DIVERSE) classes each year.
Brilliant!

Meanwhile, any rigorous private school Admits can repeat their same classes again there for 4 of the 8 semesters whilst paying $70,000 twice.
Brilliant model again!

**

agree, brilliant. well-played into the pockets of college admission committees and tuition coffers.

Some people value learning for the sake of learning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of these comments suggest many people have reading comprehension problems. Students at these privates schools will no longer be able to take AP classes; however, many of these students will still sit for the AP exams in the spring and will receive college credit if they perform well (provided their prospective colleges actually give them credit). The fact is that most class sizes in private schools are smaller (18 or fewer students versus 30 or 35 in public school) and allow for deeper engagement with the material, something the AP curriculum does not allow. Does that mean these private school students are privileged when compared to public school kids? Absolutely. But the point remains: smaller class sizes allow for this kind of change.

The AP curriculum does "allow" greater depth as long as you also cover all the material so the kids are prepared for the tests. Using an AP approved syllabus that you create (not all of them are identical btw) does not preclude you from teaching more than the syllabus if you have so much extra time due to your small class.

Another approach is to not cover all the material (which topics do you plan to leave out?) and not call it an AP class and get parents to pay for AP prep classes to be ready for the test.

Some students feel obligated to take AP classes over more interesting classes because they think colleges will notice a lack of APs on their transcript. No APs = No problem.

Why don’t you make the case that they aren’t, defining your terms and citing examples? I might end up agreeing with you, but I don’t have to take that extreme a position to make the claim that if what you wanted to figure out was who would excel at elite colleges, then the SAT is not the kind of test you’d construct for that purpose.

Anonymous wrote:I think that’s inherently definitional and, in this case, would depend on the assumption that the students most deserving of an elite college education are those who will be most capable of producing (and/or most likely to produce) consistently excellent work of the type required by the college.

Why speculate when you can look at actual entrance exams used in the real world? In what way are they "truly meritocratic"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if it were designed to be truly meritocratic, entrance exams for elite colleges would look nothing like the SATs.

What's your evidence that entrance exams of any kind are "truly meritocratic"?

I think that’s inherently definitional and, in this case, would depend on the assumption that the students most deserving of an elite college education are those who will be most capable of producing (and/or most likely to produce) consistently excellent work of the type required by the college. This assumption could certainly be persuasively challenged. But, for those who start from that assumption, it’s ludicrous to insist that SATs are an effective way of identifying such students (even though SATs are probably a relatively efficient way of disqualifying the weakest applicants).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elite colleges, in many cases, are private colleges and need money. And the tuition they charge means, inevitably, people with wealth will be significantly over-represented in these schools. To the extent that private school kids get preference over rich public school kids, that’s because (a) their parents have demonstrated willingness/ability to pay for education and/or (b) the particular school has a track record of providing well-prepared students who do well at the college, contribute $, encourage others to attend.

I’m not saying it’s fair. Just pointing out that the system is more capitalistic than meritocratic. And if it were designed to be truly meritocratic, entrance exams for elite colleges would look nothing like the SATs.

The part that is bolded above (well prepared students), while may be true it doesn't negate that some public school students are also at least equally well prepared. Unless students from those public schools are recruited in sufficient numbers consistently year after year, those public schools have no way of producing track record. Also, only the bolded part (well prepared students) has something to do with holistic approach touted by Harvard and other elite colleges. So either Harvard and other elite colleges drop the mask of holistic approach and come out clean as to how biased their admission process truly is or make the process as unbiased as it can be. The courts will certainly give their verdict in time and we shall see how that will affect the composition of incoming students to these elite universities.

There’s no mask. These schools have a variety of different goals ($, diversity, access to power, advancing knowledge, their own prestige, alumni loyalty, high retention rates) and choose kids whom they expect to further some combination of those objectives. Different kids get in for different reasons. There’s no formula — each kid comes as a package/bundle of attributes and the decisive factor in one case won’t prove decisive in another. That’s why/the sense in which the process is holistic. It’s also subjective and time-pressured. That doesn’t mean anything goes, but it does mean that, in the absence of clear evidence of intent, it’s hard to prove racial discrimination, especially against a group whose representation in the undergraduate population meets or exceeds that of its representation in the country’s population. Which doesn't mean the system is unbiased, but nor does it mean that the system is designed to hide some nefarious intent. I take your point that, in the absence of such intent, an institution acting in good faith should take steps to ensure that its approach is unbiased. What, in this context, do you think Harvard should do?