Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I wasn't rude, I was asking questions.

I used the schools mentioned in the prior post and you told me I had "mediocre cognitive skills" for doing so. Apologize if you want, double down if you want, but don't play dumb.

Look, as for "selectively chosen data," SAT scores, AP test results, college admissions, dropout rates, crime rates in the local community didn't seem selectively chosen to me. I'm sure Silver Spring is a fine place to live, and if my housing budget was $500k, that's where I would live too. But it wasn't and so I didn't. I went to very selective schools, and I want my kids to be an environment where a critical mass (e.g., 10-25%) of kids have the ability, work ethic and desire to accomplish the same thing. It's lonely to be the only kid shooting for Harvard at Wheaton High School.

As for the "it's actually harder to get in to a top college from a top high school" argument, it doesn't bother me. I had a friend from prep school who got wait-listed from top colleges and then "only" went to UMD. Where he got a 4.0 in the honors program. The reality is that the intense preparation in these competitive schools is beneficial regardless of what college the kid gets into. And yeah, it's stressful, but life can be stressful and learning to manage stress and make friends in a competitive environment is an important skill set. Whether they get in or not is actually less important that they are formed at an early age into being committed to maximizing their talents and abilities and find a peer group in which that behavior is normative.

We need people to be mechanics and hair dressers and cheerful front desk receptionists. That's all great and well and good. I wish them all the best. But my kids are capable of more and I have no shame at all in working hard and laying the groundwork to help them accomplish that. If you really think every MCPS high school is the same as every other for accomplishing that goal, give us your best arguments for why that's true. But if your question boils down to "what's wrong with being mediocre anyways" the answer is "nothing... if you are mediocre, but if you are capable of more it's a waste of your talent and one life on this earth."

Thank you for your perspective. I’m sorry your child had such a hard time at Wheaton and I hope they are doing better at their current school, whichever one it is. Best of luck with the Harvard application.

Anonymous wrote:My tenants are not brown. Why not? I guess they were born that way. I was just making a point that you can invest in the places you turn your nose up at, you know -- like Kensington -- and help your child succeed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I wasn't rude, I was asking questions.

I used the schools mentioned in the prior post and you told me I had "mediocre cognitive skills" for doing so. Apologize if you want, double down if you want, but don't play dumb.

Look, as for "selectively chosen data," SAT scores, AP test results, college admissions, dropout rates, crime rates in the local community didn't seem selectively chosen to me. I'm sure Silver Spring is a fine place to live, and if my housing budget was $500k, that's where I would live too. But it wasn't and so I didn't. I went to very selective schools, and I want my kids to be an environment where a critical mass (e.g., 10-25%) of kids have the ability, work ethic and desire to accomplish the same thing. It's lonely to be the only kid shooting for Harvard at Wheaton High School.

As for the "it's actually harder to get in to a top college from a top high school" argument, it doesn't bother me. I had a friend from prep school who got wait-listed from top colleges and then "only" went to UMD. Where he got a 4.0 in the honors program. The reality is that the intense preparation in these competitive schools is beneficial regardless of what college the kid gets into. And yeah, it's stressful, but life can be stressful and learning to manage stress and make friends in a competitive environment is an important skill set. Whether they get in or not is actually less important that they are formed at an early age into being committed to maximizing their talents and abilities and find a peer group in which that behavior is normative.

We need people to be mechanics and hair dressers and cheerful front desk receptionists. That's all great and well and good. I wish them all the best. But my kids are capable of more and I have no shame at all in working hard and laying the groundwork to help them accomplish that. If you really think every MCPS high school is the same as every other for accomplishing that goal, give us your best arguments for why that's true. But if your question boils down to "what's wrong with being mediocre anyways" the answer is "nothing... if you are mediocre, but if you are capable of more it's a waste of your talent and one life on this earth."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I wasn't rude, I was asking questions.

I used the schools mentioned in the prior post and you told me I had "mediocre cognitive skills" for doing so. Apologize if you want, double down if you want, but don't play dumb.

Look, as for "selectively chosen data," SAT scores, AP test results, college admissions, dropout rates, crime rates in the local community didn't seem selectively chosen to me. I'm sure Silver Spring is a fine place to live, and if my housing budget was $500k, that's where I would live too. But it wasn't and so I didn't. I went to very selective schools, and I want my kids to be an environment where a critical mass (e.g., 10-25%) of kids have the ability, work ethic and desire to accomplish the same thing. It's lonely to be the only kid shooting for Harvard at Wheaton High School.

As for the "it's actually harder to get in to a top college from a top high school" argument, it doesn't bother me. I had a friend from prep school who got wait-listed from top colleges and then "only" went to UMD. Where he got a 4.0 in the honors program. The reality is that the intense preparation in these competitive schools is beneficial regardless of what college the kid gets into. And yeah, it's stressful, but life can be stressful and learning to manage stress and make friends in a competitive environment is an important skill set. Whether they get in or not is actually less important that they are formed at an early age into being committed to maximizing their talents and abilities and find a peer group in which that behavior is normative.

We need people to be mechanics and hair dressers and cheerful front desk receptionists. That's all great and well and good. I wish them all the best. But my kids are capable of more and I have no shame at all in working hard and laying the groundwork to help them accomplish that. If you really think every MCPS high school is the same as every other for accomplishing that goal, give us your best arguments for why that's true. But if your question boils down to "what's wrong with being mediocre anyways" the answer is "nothing... if you are mediocre, but if you are capable of more it's a waste of your talent and one life on this earth."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I wasn't rude, I was asking questions.

I used the schools mentioned in the prior post and you told me I had "mediocre cognitive skills" for doing so. Apologize if you want, double down if you want, but don't play dumb.

Look, as for "selectively chosen data," SAT scores, AP test results, college admissions, dropout rates, crime rates in the local community didn't seem selectively chosen to me. I'm sure Silver Spring is a fine place to live, and if my housing budget was $500k, that's where I would live too. But it wasn't and so I didn't. I went to very selective schools, and I want my kids to be an environment where a critical mass (e.g., 10-25%) of kids have the ability, work ethic and desire to accomplish the same thing. It's lonely to be the only kid shooting for Harvard at Wheaton High School.

As for the "it's actually harder to get in to a top college from a top high school" argument, it doesn't bother me. I had a friend from prep school who got wait-listed from top colleges and then "only" went to UMD. Where he got a 4.0 in the honors program. The reality is that the intense preparation in these competitive schools is beneficial regardless of what college the kid gets into. And yeah, it's stressful, but life can be stressful and learning to manage stress and make friends in a competitive environment is an important skill set. Whether they get in or not is actually less important that they are formed at an early age into being committed to maximizing their talents and abilities and find a peer group in which that behavior is normative.

We need people to be mechanics and hair dressers and cheerful front desk receptionists. That's all great and well and good. I wish them all the best. But my kids are capable of more and I have no shame at all in working hard and laying the groundwork to help them accomplish that. If you really think every MCPS high school is the same as every other for accomplishing that goal, give us your best arguments for why that's true. But if your question boils down to "what's wrong with being mediocre anyways" the answer is "nothing... if you are mediocre, but if you are capable of more it's a waste of your talent and one life on this earth."

Anonymous wrote: I wasn't rude, I was asking questions.

Anonymous wrote:
1) Very intelligent children will have a better shot at maximizing their potential in a place where they can be appropriately challenged. Having a critical mass of peers with the same level of commitment is important to that end. (I'm not interested in whether it's better to be bottom 25% at WJ or average at Einstein -- I'll leave that to others to debate).

2) It's important to work towards accomplishments in as many domains as possible. So obviously focusing solely on career and damaging health is not strategic in the long run. Better to be as competent as possible in as many domains as possible.

3) I used the schools mentioned in the prior post. Did you get your reading comprehension skills from your years at Einstein? (Sorry, couldn't resist. If you are rude, expect rudeness back).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1) Very intelligent children will have a better shot at maximizing their potential in a place where they can be appropriately challenged. Having a critical mass of peers with the same level of commitment is important to that end. (I'm not interested in whether it's better to be bottom 25% at WJ or average at Einstein -- I'll leave that to others to debate).

2) It's important to work towards accomplishments in as many domains as possible. So obviously focusing solely on career and damaging health is not strategic in the long run. Better to be as competent as possible in as many domains as possible.

3) I used the schools mentioned in the prior post. Did you get your reading comprehension skills from your years at Einstein? (Sorry, couldn't resist. If you are rude, expect rudeness back).

Smart peers who raise their hands and participate in class, like being in and going to class, etc. all very important to my high schooler as expressed by him.

Every high school has a critical mass of "smart peers."

Anonymous wrote:
1) Very intelligent children will have a better shot at maximizing their potential in a place where they can be appropriately challenged. Having a critical mass of peers with the same level of commitment is important to that end. (I'm not interested in whether it's better to be bottom 25% at WJ or average at Einstein -- I'll leave that to others to debate).

2) It's important to work towards accomplishments in as many domains as possible. So obviously focusing solely on career and damaging health is not strategic in the long run. Better to be as competent as possible in as many domains as possible.

3) I used the schools mentioned in the prior post. Did you get your reading comprehension skills from your years at Einstein? (Sorry, couldn't resist. If you are rude, expect rudeness back).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1) Very intelligent children will have a better shot at maximizing their potential in a place where they can be appropriately challenged. Having a critical mass of peers with the same level of commitment is important to that end. (I'm not interested in whether it's better to be bottom 25% at WJ or average at Einstein -- I'll leave that to others to debate).

2) It's important to work towards accomplishments in as many domains as possible. So obviously focusing solely on career and damaging health is not strategic in the long run. Better to be as competent as possible in as many domains as possible.

3) I used the schools mentioned in the prior post. Did you get your reading comprehension skills from your years at Einstein? (Sorry, couldn't resist. If you are rude, expect rudeness back).

Smart peers who raise their hands and participate in class, like being in and going to class, etc. all very important to my high schooler as expressed by him.