Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from low income low education level families would be better off in separate schools, where they would have their needs met (lots of basic enrichment, year round schooling, enough time for learning the basics in reading and math, free meals, outside time, character building).
Kids from UMC and MC home would be better off in more experiential schools with less time for direct instruction and more time for more advanced (possibly few based) enrichment and less strict attendance policies.

i agree with the first part -- i believe schools in high poverty neighborhoods should provide wrap around services to kids who need it. i think it is more effective than trying for socioeconomic diversity in all schools, which almost always requires some kids going far away from their comfort zone, cohort, community, etc.

Kids from low income low education level families would be better off in separate schools, where they would have their needs met (lots of basic enrichment, year round schooling, enough time for learning the basics in reading and math, free meals, outside time, character building).
Kids from UMC and MC home would be better off in more experiential schools with less time for direct instruction and more time for more advanced (possibly few based) enrichment and less strict attendance policies.

Anonymous wrote:In general, Asians are better at parenting. I am basing this theory on years of experience in the classroom. I've had intelligent and not-so-intelligent Asian students, but ALL of them have been hard working, disciplined, polite kids who never cried, whined, or suffered bouts of inattentive antics in the classroom. I don't think this is due to genetics, but to whatever cultural mores and values these kids' parents instill in them. The parents are demanding of their children, and of the teachers, but they are respectful and don't tolerate nonsense, and their kids are a delight to teach.

Anonymous wrote:Kids from low income low education level families would be better off in separate schools, where they would have their needs met (lots of basic enrichment, year round schooling, enough time for learning the basics in reading and math, free meals, outside time, character building).
Kids from UMC and MC home would be better off in more experiential schools with less time for direct instruction and more time for more advanced (possibly few based) enrichment and less strict attendance policies.

Anonymous wrote:Kids from low income low education level families would be better off in separate schools, where they would have their needs met (lots of basic enrichment, year round schooling, enough time for learning the basics in reading and math, free meals, outside time, character building).
Kids from UMC and MC home would be better off in more experiential schools with less time for direct instruction and more time for more advanced (possibly few based) enrichment and less strict attendance policies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AI is going to make much of the STEM field obsolete. Sorry guys.

Who is going to create and manage all of the apps and tools to make AI possible, genius??!! Your STEM counterparts.

Anonymous wrote:AI is going to make much of the STEM field obsolete. Sorry guys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My hot take: The long-term returns to taking above grade-level math (eventually going beyond calculus BC while in high school) are minimal relative to simply being good at math and taking whatever grade-level class the smart kids usually take. There simply aren't many college majors or career paths where it makes a difference. It's almost entirely a college application padding contest.

Agreed. I went to summer school during H.S. to get ahead in math and take AP calc. to look good on college apps. I have never once used calculus since.

Anonymous wrote:My hot take: The long-term returns to taking above grade-level math (eventually going beyond calculus BC while in high school) are minimal relative to simply being good at math and taking whatever grade-level class the smart kids usually take. There simply aren't many college majors or career paths where it makes a difference. It's almost entirely a college application padding contest.

Anonymous wrote:I've sent my DS to public and private. All schools are different but there are pros and cons. My "real" experience however, is that the insanely smart kids- the genius kids- are concentrated in the public schools.
My DS did math competitions and the "out there" kids headed to nationals were in the public school districts. DS went to state, not nationals, and his private school math curriculum couldn't handle him. We had to pay for outside enrichment on top of private tuition. No thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The majority of kids diagnosed with ADHD don't have ADHD. Their true issue is that they just aren't very bright.

This is not true.

I do agree that it may be overdiagnosed and that it may also be overtreated medically. But, "just aren't very bright"--that has not been my observation.

I have been a teacher and think that some parents-and teachers--are too quick to use this as a cop-out when a kid is not behaving. And, yes, some of these may have parents who need a little more consistency. But, there are plenty of parents with good parenting skills whose kids have ADHD.

And, FWIW, I have known many ADHD kids who were EXTREMELY bright.

Ever read the story the emperor's new clothes?


"My kid is really bright... but she doesn't do well in school. Or test well. And we're the only ones who can see it. But she is, we swear."

Intelligence shines through

Anonymous wrote:My hot take: The long-term returns to taking above grade-level math (eventually going beyond calculus BC while in high school) are minimal relative to simply being good at math and taking whatever grade-level class the smart kids usually take. There simply aren't many college majors or career paths where it makes a difference. It's almost entirely a college application padding contest.