Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

If this were truly an advantage, more UMC would look at buying in low performing school districts so their kids could stand out. Instead, they conclude that their kids benefit, both academically and in terms of college admissions, by being surrounded by more high achieving peers.

Why? Because the hypothetical “same kid” generally ends up aiming lower and achieving less at a lower performing school. The kids who do well at low performing schools, in turn, will do even better at a high performing school.

You can claim otherwise, but you’re tilting at windmills.

This where the UMC parent involvement makes a huge difference. Those kids can get support outside of the classroom, and won’t have to work after school.

I do know families who are house poor because they sacrficed so much to buy into a highly rated school pyramid. Do they have the extra cash to afford tutoring for their kids, to keep up with their higher achieving peers?

My kid went to, what I have heard called here “a gang infested high school”. Well now they are at a big in-state school, and most of their friends are Madison, Langley and Mclean grads, along with a few out of state kids from the Northeast (who need higher stats and $$$ to attend). My kid is keeping up just fine, no academic and/or social issues. They only had some SAT prep during high school. 5s on most AP exams as well. High school is what you make of it. That “gang infested school” worked out just fine.

Re: the bolded - no you don't. You know nothing about other people's finances. Are you the Herndon poster who always posts these incredibly defensive rants?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

If this were truly an advantage, more UMC would look at buying in low performing school districts so their kids could stand out. Instead, they conclude that their kids benefit, both academically and in terms of college admissions, by being surrounded by more high achieving peers.

Why? Because the hypothetical “same kid” generally ends up aiming lower and achieving less at a lower performing school. The kids who do well at low performing schools, in turn, will do even better at a high performing school.

You can claim otherwise, but you’re tilting at windmills.

This where the UMC parent involvement makes a huge difference. Those kids can get support outside of the classroom, and won’t have to work after school.

I do know families who are house poor because they sacrficed so much to buy into a highly rated school pyramid. Do they have the extra cash to afford tutoring for their kids, to keep up with their higher achieving peers?

My kid went to, what I have heard called here “a gang infested high school”. Well now they are at a big in-state school, and most of their friends are Madison, Langley and Mclean grads, along with a few out of state kids from the Northeast (who need higher stats and $$$ to attend). My kid is keeping up just fine, no academic and/or social issues. They only had some SAT prep during high school. 5s on most AP exams as well. High school is what you make of it. That “gang infested school” worked out just fine.

Anonymous wrote:Super vague question. Way too many schools. Way too many non TJ HS!! Literally hundreds! How can this be useful or relevant to anyone or anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

If this were truly an advantage, more UMC would look at buying in low performing school districts so their kids could stand out. Instead, they conclude that their kids benefit, both academically and in terms of college admissions, by being surrounded by more high achieving peers.

Why? Because the hypothetical “same kid” generally ends up aiming lower and achieving less at a lower performing school. The kids who do well at low performing schools, in turn, will do even better at a high performing school.

You can claim otherwise, but you’re tilting at windmills.

Unfortunately their conclusion is wrong. I'm assuming you have no teaching or classroom experience. I taught AP at a high-SES school and always felt sympathy for the kids who were clearly forced by their parents to enroll in AP courses. The majority of kids who are not ready for AP will remain in the shadows of high achievers. The common notion that intelligence and motivation rubs off on weaker students is not real. It's quite the opposite as it is demoralizing for the academically weaker kids to see how glaring the discrepancy is between them and their stronger peers.

I'm not advocating that deliberately placing those kids in weaker cohorts is better either. Rather, let kids land where they may. But the hyperfocus to surround average kids (and UMC parents can definitely have perfectly average kids) with advanced peers generally will not make any difference in outcomes. Paid tutoring services will make far more of a difference.

Sorry, but this is one of those areas where the behavior of many thousands of parents over the years is more persuasive than the anecdote of someone trying to push the "big fish/small pond" agenda.

I have both classroom experience and experience as a parent in both AP and IB schools with different demographics. At a low-achieving school, students tend to aim lower. The top kids get a false sense of comfort that they are high achievers because they stand out in the small pond, but then fare comparatively worse if and when they are finally in an environment with more high-achieving peers. At a high-achieving school, kids are not demoralized, but they are also less likely to come away with an inflated sense of their own abilities. Rather, they are challenged to perform to the best of those abilities. If attending a high-achieving school leads their parents to get them tutoring, that's OK, so long as it contributes to their overall academic development.

Ironically, IB suffers from all the flaws you ascribe to kids taking AP courses at high-SES schools - and more. You have some parents pushing their kids to do the full IB diploma, in some cases because they've been misled into believing that it's a golden ticket to college admissions. In some cases, the kids aren't up to that challenge. In other cases, the kids are up to the challenge, but still resent having to jump through all the prescriptive IB hoops. Further, the IB program is also marketed to families as a "school within a school," which is demoralizing to the vast majority of kids who aren't on the IB diploma track and often end up treated as second-class citizens at their own schools. In comparison, at the top AP schools, there's no artificial distinction between kids on an "AP diploma" track and everyone else, and kids can adjust their schedules to take AP courses in the areas that interest them the most or where they have the greatest aptitude.

I see the inevitable IB hater troll has returned.

My DS graduated from a "low achieving" IB school. I did not see the IB kids "aiming lower" or relaxing because they were big fish in a small pond. Being intelligent, they were well aware that they were competing not with the non-IB low-achievers at their school, but with the many kids in this area who attend "better" public schools as well as private schools. Did not know a single IB kid whose parents pushed them into it or who thought IB was a golden ticket.

The IB program at my son's school was not marketed as a school within a school. The IB kids did not think they were elite, and the non-IB kids did not resent them. There were plenty of non-IB kids who took IB courses in areas that interested them, or where they had aptitude, and therefore the supposed greater flexibility of AP is a myth.

My son and plenty of other IB kids got into top colleges.

+1 to above. Our kids were in the same boat.

+2 IB was an excellent experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

If this were truly an advantage, more UMC would look at buying in low performing school districts so their kids could stand out. Instead, they conclude that their kids benefit, both academically and in terms of college admissions, by being surrounded by more high achieving peers.

Why? Because the hypothetical “same kid” generally ends up aiming lower and achieving less at a lower performing school. The kids who do well at low performing schools, in turn, will do even better at a high performing school.

You can claim otherwise, but you’re tilting at windmills.

Unfortunately their conclusion is wrong. I'm assuming you have no teaching or classroom experience. I taught AP at a high-SES school and always felt sympathy for the kids who were clearly forced by their parents to enroll in AP courses. The majority of kids who are not ready for AP will remain in the shadows of high achievers. The common notion that intelligence and motivation rubs off on weaker students is not real. It's quite the opposite as it is demoralizing for the academically weaker kids to see how glaring the discrepancy is between them and their stronger peers.

I'm not advocating that deliberately placing those kids in weaker cohorts is better either. Rather, let kids land where they may. But the hyperfocus to surround average kids (and UMC parents can definitely have perfectly average kids) with advanced peers generally will not make any difference in outcomes. Paid tutoring services will make far more of a difference.

Sorry, but this is one of those areas where the behavior of many thousands of parents over the years is more persuasive than the anecdote of someone trying to push the "big fish/small pond" agenda.

I have both classroom experience and experience as a parent in both AP and IB schools with different demographics. At a low-achieving school, students tend to aim lower. The top kids get a false sense of comfort that they are high achievers because they stand out in the small pond, but then fare comparatively worse if and when they are finally in an environment with more high-achieving peers. At a high-achieving school, kids are not demoralized, but they are also less likely to come away with an inflated sense of their own abilities. Rather, they are challenged to perform to the best of those abilities. If attending a high-achieving school leads their parents to get them tutoring, that's OK, so long as it contributes to their overall academic development.

Ironically, IB suffers from all the flaws you ascribe to kids taking AP courses at high-SES schools - and more. You have some parents pushing their kids to do the full IB diploma, in some cases because they've been misled into believing that it's a golden ticket to college admissions. In some cases, the kids aren't up to that challenge. In other cases, the kids are up to the challenge, but still resent having to jump through all the prescriptive IB hoops. Further, the IB program is also marketed to families as a "school within a school," which is demoralizing to the vast majority of kids who aren't on the IB diploma track and often end up treated as second-class citizens at their own schools. In comparison, at the top AP schools, there's no artificial distinction between kids on an "AP diploma" track and everyone else, and kids can adjust their schedules to take AP courses in the areas that interest them the most or where they have the greatest aptitude.

I see the inevitable IB hater troll has returned.

My DS graduated from a "low achieving" IB school. I did not see the IB kids "aiming lower" or relaxing because they were big fish in a small pond. Being intelligent, they were well aware that they were competing not with the non-IB low-achievers at their school, but with the many kids in this area who attend "better" public schools as well as private schools. Did not know a single IB kid whose parents pushed them into it or who thought IB was a golden ticket.

The IB program at my son's school was not marketed as a school within a school. The IB kids did not think they were elite, and the non-IB kids did not resent them. There were plenty of non-IB kids who took IB courses in areas that interested them, or where they had aptitude, and therefore the supposed greater flexibility of AP is a myth.

My son and plenty of other IB kids got into top colleges.

+1 to above. Our kids were in the same boat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

If this were truly an advantage, more UMC would look at buying in low performing school districts so their kids could stand out. Instead, they conclude that their kids benefit, both academically and in terms of college admissions, by being surrounded by more high achieving peers.

Why? Because the hypothetical “same kid” generally ends up aiming lower and achieving less at a lower performing school. The kids who do well at low performing schools, in turn, will do even better at a high performing school.

You can claim otherwise, but you’re tilting at windmills.

Anonymous wrote:If your kid isn’t at TJ then you need to aim for a state school. A few go higher but not many.

Anonymous wrote:If your kid isn’t at TJ then you need to aim for a state school. A few go higher but not many.

My kid attends a school that many on DCUM think is less than. It offers 30 AP classes & definitely has a cohort of smart, motivated kids. It also has a lot of low income kids, kids who just want to graduate, etc. The kids in the AP classes aren’t complacent/shooting low like you want to think. People often insist on scenarios being true if that will validate/justify the choices they’ve made and make the choices of others seem inferior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

If this were truly an advantage, more UMC would look at buying in low performing school districts so their kids could stand out. Instead, they conclude that their kids benefit, both academically and in terms of college admissions, by being surrounded by more high achieving peers.

Why? Because the hypothetical “same kid” generally ends up aiming lower and achieving less at a lower performing school. The kids who do well at low performing schools, in turn, will do even better at a high performing school.

You can claim otherwise, but you’re tilting at windmills.

Unfortunately their conclusion is wrong. I'm assuming you have no teaching or classroom experience. I taught AP at a high-SES school and always felt sympathy for the kids who were clearly forced by their parents to enroll in AP courses. The majority of kids who are not ready for AP will remain in the shadows of high achievers. The common notion that intelligence and motivation rubs off on weaker students is not real. It's quite the opposite as it is demoralizing for the academically weaker kids to see how glaring the discrepancy is between them and their stronger peers.

I'm not advocating that deliberately placing those kids in weaker cohorts is better either. Rather, let kids land where they may. But the hyperfocus to surround average kids (and UMC parents can definitely have perfectly average kids) with advanced peers generally will not make any difference in outcomes. Paid tutoring services will make far more of a difference.

Sorry, but this is one of those areas where the behavior of many thousands of parents over the years is more persuasive than the anecdote of someone trying to push the "big fish/small pond" agenda.

I have both classroom experience and experience as a parent in both AP and IB schools with different demographics. At a low-achieving school, students tend to aim lower. The top kids get a false sense of comfort that they are high achievers because they stand out in the small pond, but then fare comparatively worse if and when they are finally in an environment with more high-achieving peers. At a high-achieving school, kids are not demoralized, but they are also less likely to come away with an inflated sense of their own abilities. Rather, they are challenged to perform to the best of those abilities. If attending a high-achieving school leads their parents to get them tutoring, that's OK, so long as it contributes to their overall academic development.

Ironically, IB suffers from all the flaws you ascribe to kids taking AP courses at high-SES schools - and more. You have some parents pushing their kids to do the full IB diploma, in some cases because they've been misled into believing that it's a golden ticket to college admissions. In some cases, the kids aren't up to that challenge. In other cases, the kids are up to the challenge, but still resent having to jump through all the prescriptive IB hoops. Further, the IB program is also marketed to families as a "school within a school," which is demoralizing to the vast majority of kids who aren't on the IB diploma track and often end up treated as second-class citizens at their own schools. In comparison, at the top AP schools, there's no artificial distinction between kids on an "AP diploma" track and everyone else, and kids can adjust their schedules to take AP courses in the areas that interest them the most or where they have the greatest aptitude.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

If this were truly an advantage, more UMC would look at buying in low performing school districts so their kids could stand out. Instead, they conclude that their kids benefit, both academically and in terms of college admissions, by being surrounded by more high achieving peers.

Why? Because the hypothetical “same kid” generally ends up aiming lower and achieving less at a lower performing school. The kids who do well at low performing schools, in turn, will do even better at a high performing school.

You can claim otherwise, but you’re tilting at windmills.

Unfortunately their conclusion is wrong. I'm assuming you have no teaching or classroom experience. I taught AP at a high-SES school and always felt sympathy for the kids who were clearly forced by their parents to enroll in AP courses. The majority of kids who are not ready for AP will remain in the shadows of high achievers. The common notion that intelligence and motivation rubs off on weaker students is not real. It's quite the opposite as it is demoralizing for the academically weaker kids to see how glaring the discrepancy is between them and their stronger peers.

I'm not advocating that deliberately placing those kids in weaker cohorts is better either. Rather, let kids land where they may. But the hyperfocus to surround average kids (and UMC parents can definitely have perfectly average kids) with advanced peers generally will not make any difference in outcomes. Paid tutoring services will make far more of a difference.

Sorry, but this is one of those areas where the behavior of many thousands of parents over the years is more persuasive than the anecdote of someone trying to push the "big fish/small pond" agenda.

I have both classroom experience and experience as a parent in both AP and IB schools with different demographics. At a low-achieving school, students tend to aim lower. The top kids get a false sense of comfort that they are high achievers because they stand out in the small pond, but then fare comparatively worse if and when they are finally in an environment with more high-achieving peers. At a high-achieving school, kids are not demoralized, but they are also less likely to come away with an inflated sense of their own abilities. Rather, they are challenged to perform to the best of those abilities. If attending a high-achieving school leads their parents to get them tutoring, that's OK, so long as it contributes to their overall academic development.

Ironically, IB suffers from all the flaws you ascribe to kids taking AP courses at high-SES schools - and more. You have some parents pushing their kids to do the full IB diploma, in some cases because they've been misled into believing that it's a golden ticket to college admissions. In some cases, the kids aren't up to that challenge. In other cases, the kids are up to the challenge, but still resent having to jump through all the prescriptive IB hoops. Further, the IB program is also marketed to families as a "school within a school," which is demoralizing to the vast majority of kids who aren't on the IB diploma track and often end up treated as second-class citizens at their own schools. In comparison, at the top AP schools, there's no artificial distinction between kids on an "AP diploma" track and everyone else, and kids can adjust their schedules to take AP courses in the areas that interest them the most or where they have the greatest aptitude.

I see the inevitable IB hater troll has returned.

My DS graduated from a "low achieving" IB school. I did not see the IB kids "aiming lower" or relaxing because they were big fish in a small pond. Being intelligent, they were well aware that they were competing not with the non-IB low-achievers at their school, but with the many kids in this area who attend "better" public schools as well as private schools. Did not know a single IB kid whose parents pushed them into it or who thought IB was a golden ticket.

The IB program at my son's school was not marketed as a school within a school. The IB kids did not think they were elite, and the non-IB kids did not resent them. There were plenty of non-IB kids who took IB courses in areas that interested them, or where they had aptitude, and therefore the supposed greater flexibility of AP is a myth.

My son and plenty of other IB kids got into top colleges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

If this were truly an advantage, more UMC would look at buying in low performing school districts so their kids could stand out. Instead, they conclude that their kids benefit, both academically and in terms of college admissions, by being surrounded by more high achieving peers.

Why? Because the hypothetical “same kid” generally ends up aiming lower and achieving less at a lower performing school. The kids who do well at low performing schools, in turn, will do even better at a high performing school.

You can claim otherwise, but you’re tilting at windmills.

Unfortunately their conclusion is wrong. I'm assuming you have no teaching or classroom experience. I taught AP at a high-SES school and always felt sympathy for the kids who were clearly forced by their parents to enroll in AP courses. The majority of kids who are not ready for AP will remain in the shadows of high achievers. The common notion that intelligence and motivation rubs off on weaker students is not real. It's quite the opposite as it is demoralizing for the academically weaker kids to see how glaring the discrepancy is between them and their stronger peers.

I'm not advocating that deliberately placing those kids in weaker cohorts is better either. Rather, let kids land where they may. But the hyperfocus to surround average kids (and UMC parents can definitely have perfectly average kids) with advanced peers generally will not make any difference in outcomes. Paid tutoring services will make far more of a difference.

Sorry, but this is one of those areas where the behavior of many thousands of parents over the years is more persuasive than the anecdote of someone trying to push the "big fish/small pond" agenda.

I have both classroom experience and experience as a parent in both AP and IB schools with different demographics. At a low-achieving school, students tend to aim lower. The top kids get a false sense of comfort that they are high achievers because they stand out in the small pond, but then fare comparatively worse if and when they are finally in an environment with more high-achieving peers. At a high-achieving school, kids are not demoralized, but they are also less likely to come away with an inflated sense of their own abilities. Rather, they are challenged to perform to the best of those abilities. If attending a high-achieving school leads their parents to get them tutoring, that's OK, so long as it contributes to their overall academic development.

Ironically, IB suffers from all the flaws you ascribe to kids taking AP courses at high-SES schools - and more. You have some parents pushing their kids to do the full IB diploma, in some cases because they've been misled into believing that it's a golden ticket to college admissions. In some cases, the kids aren't up to that challenge. In other cases, the kids are up to the challenge, but still resent having to jump through all the prescriptive IB hoops. Further, the IB program is also marketed to families as a "school within a school," which is demoralizing to the vast majority of kids who aren't on the IB diploma track and often end up treated as second-class citizens at their own schools. In comparison, at the top AP schools, there's no artificial distinction between kids on an "AP diploma" track and everyone else, and kids can adjust their schedules to take AP courses in the areas that interest them the most or where they have the greatest aptitude.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually kids from wealthier households, with engaged parents, do well in college admissions, no matter the high school.

Higher income/wealth correlates with the catchment areas for McLean, Langley, and Oakton (and N. Arlington).

Agree, but there are also pockets of UMC households scattered around in other pyramids. Students from these families also tend to do well, despite attending a lower rated high school. On top of that, they usually have an easier time leading clubs, getting leads in plays and making athletic teams. These schools may not offer all the AP courses, but that usually doesn’t limit them in the admissions game.

If this were truly an advantage, more UMC would look at buying in low performing school districts so their kids could stand out. Instead, they conclude that their kids benefit, both academically and in terms of college admissions, by being surrounded by more high achieving peers.

Why? Because the hypothetical “same kid” generally ends up aiming lower and achieving less at a lower performing school. The kids who do well at low performing schools, in turn, will do even better at a high performing school.

You can claim otherwise, but you’re tilting at windmills.

Unfortunately their conclusion is wrong. I'm assuming you have no teaching or classroom experience. I taught AP at a high-SES school and always felt sympathy for the kids who were clearly forced by their parents to enroll in AP courses. The majority of kids who are not ready for AP will remain in the shadows of high achievers. The common notion that intelligence and motivation rubs off on weaker students is not real. It's quite the opposite as it is demoralizing for the academically weaker kids to see how glaring the discrepancy is between them and their stronger peers.

I'm not advocating that deliberately placing those kids in weaker cohorts is better either. Rather, let kids land where they may. But the hyperfocus to surround average kids (and UMC parents can definitely have perfectly average kids) with advanced peers generally will not make any difference in outcomes. Paid tutoring services will make far more of a difference.