Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


It is so weird that schools cannot provide problem-solving-oriented and project-based instruction on ALL subjects.

Perhaps with different levels of challenge, so that students could pick a challenging course, say, in math and latin, and a slightly easier one in physics and literature, according to their interests.

The notion that STEM and Humanities need to be separated has been debunked decades ago. There are so many that excel in both, since the best students are the creative/critical thinking ones, and those are skills needed for all subjects.

Having challenging courses shouldn't mean a ton of homework either!

Getting off soapbox now.

- scientist, who knows we need problem-solvers instead of formula-appliers.

DC got a dual degree - BA in English and BS in Engineering - and is very close to getting his PhD in engineering from MIT. It is definitely possible for some kids.

Blair SMAC kid? RM kid? or else??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am not sure why people seem to be being willfully obtuse about your question. I suspect that the magnets developed as they did so that the magnet kids would necessarily have a significant number of classes with the home school kids. People think that is beneficial academically at least for the home school kids, and socially perhaps for everyone. It might have been a political compromise to get magnets at all. In high school, kids who are good all around can go to the Richard Montgomery IB magnet.

RMIB is a great program, but does not address the needs of a highly-able math student. So, it doesn't really cover kids who are truly "good all around."

I think comparing IB kids with Blair kids is a fools errand. But I also think it depends on how you define a "highly-able" math student or truly "good all around." If your definition is kids who may get the Fields Medal one of these days, yes, I agree. But, most, if not all, of these kids are just high performing kids - for IB and Blair. Nothing more, nothing less. So much can and will change after HS.

I agree. But having had kids at both Blair SMAC and RMIB, it seems pretty clear to me that for a kid who is a high-performer in math, RMIB would not suffice.

it depends. you don't want your kid to be one dimensional. they are, after all, only 15-17 year old kids. let them experience/expose to different things. don't "define" them too early. if my child finishes AP Calc BC as a junior and MV as a senior, i would not consider that "not suffice."

To the person who said they feel sorry for the kid who excels at both, I don't even understand. The original poster asked a question about kids who do well 'all around' and different people were answering. They slammed no school (said RM, Poolesville & Blair all good), I don't get why that parent 'is a loser'?
I also know people at 3 schools & it's a mix. The kid has to pick what's best for them, but there are many kids qualified in all area just as there are many who are not. That one poster was just rude.

This is very close to the SMAC. As freshmen they have the "chem research and experimentation project" as sophomores a couple of self designed projects, more as juniors and of course the research experience between junior and senior year.

Every one of these projects cover the complete process from idea generation to proposal writing to long written and presented versions of the final results. By adding AP courses in English, foreign language and history it can be a well rounded experience.

This is why the above poster says SMAC is the place for the top kids.

The thing is the most capable students in the RMIB can carve out a similar experience by loading up on the math and science AND aiming their extended essay in a math/science direction. In addition, the RM robotics team while not as deep as Blair, has lots of potential for the right kids. This doesn't happen as much as it could or as much as it happens at Blair. Why?

From what I can tell, it happens less because the culture of the RMIB is much more focused on theater and truly high level humanities. This may start to change as the amazing theater teacher retired last year.

Frankly, in both programs the top kids are more motivated to become pointy rather than become rounded.

"It is so weird that schools cannot provide problem-solving-oriented and project-based instruction on ALL subjects.

Perhaps with different levels of challenge, so that students could pick a challenging course, say, in math and latin, and a slightly easier one in physics and literature, according to their interests.

The notion that STEM and Humanities need to be separated has been debunked decades ago. There are so many that excel in both, since the best students are the creative/critical thinking ones, and those are skills needed for all subjects.

Having challenging courses shouldn't mean a ton of homework either!

Getting off soapbox now.

- scientist, who knows we need problem-solvers instead of formula-appliers."

Anonymous wrote:


It is so weird that schools cannot provide problem-solving-oriented and project-based instruction on ALL subjects.

Perhaps with different levels of challenge, so that students could pick a challenging course, say, in math and latin, and a slightly easier one in physics and literature, according to their interests.

The notion that STEM and Humanities need to be separated has been debunked decades ago. There are so many that excel in both, since the best students are the creative/critical thinking ones, and those are skills needed for all subjects.

Having challenging courses shouldn't mean a ton of homework either!

Getting off soapbox now.

- scientist, who knows we need problem-solvers instead of formula-appliers.

DC got a dual degree - BA in English and BS in Engineering - and is very close to getting his PhD in engineering from MIT. It is definitely possible for some kids.

It is so weird that schools cannot provide problem-solving-oriented and project-based instruction on ALL subjects.

Perhaps with different levels of challenge, so that students could pick a challenging course, say, in math and latin, and a slightly easier one in physics and literature, according to their interests.

The notion that STEM and Humanities need to be separated has been debunked decades ago. There are so many that excel in both, since the best students are the creative/critical thinking ones, and those are skills needed for all subjects.

Having challenging courses shouldn't mean a ton of homework either!

Getting off soapbox now.

- scientist, who knows we need problem-solvers instead of formula-appliers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ maybe but they can't write sh*t. lol

To that person I say you are wrong. My SMAC kid got a perfect score on English PARCC in 10th, a perfect English score on PSAT's, and missed one on the SATs. They got into both RMIB & blair and chose the math route. All A's. Analysis in 9th, etc.... all 5's on all English, math, history AP's... and many kids are like that. You have no idea. Also, my kid got one of the English Dept/Collegiate Book Awards (given to 5 juniors at the senior awards ceremony) this past year. Know many at RM and some at Poolesville. All good schools.

LOL. Your kid is a SUPER kid.

You pathetic parent.

I feel sorry for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ maybe but they can't write sh*t. lol

To that person I say you are wrong. My SMAC kid got a perfect score on English PARCC in 10th, a perfect English score on PSAT's, and missed one on the SATs. They got into both RMIB & blair and chose the math route. All A's. Analysis in 9th, etc.... all 5's on all English, math, history AP's... and many kids are like that. You have no idea. Also, my kid got one of the English Dept/Collegiate Book Awards (given to 5 juniors at the senior awards ceremony) this past year. Know many at RM and some at Poolesville. All good schools.

PP, Writing =/= perfect test score.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ maybe but they can't write sh*t. lol

To that person I say you are wrong. My SMAC kid got a perfect score on English PARCC in 10th, a perfect English score on PSAT's, and missed one on the SATs. They got into both RMIB & blair and chose the math route. All A's. Analysis in 9th, etc.... all 5's on all English, math, history AP's... and many kids are like that. You have no idea. Also, my kid got one of the English Dept/Collegiate Book Awards (given to 5 juniors at the senior awards ceremony) this past year. Know many at RM and some at Poolesville. All good schools.

My Blair SMAC has the same stats. PP has no idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ maybe but they can't write sh*t. lol

To that person I say you are wrong. My SMAC kid got a perfect score on English PARCC in 10th, a perfect English score on PSAT's, and missed one on the SATs. They got into both RMIB & blair and chose the math route. All A's. Analysis in 9th, etc.... all 5's on all English, math, history AP's... and many kids are like that. You have no idea. Also, my kid got one of the English Dept/Collegiate Book Awards (given to 5 juniors at the senior awards ceremony) this past year. Know many at RM and some at Poolesville. All good schools.

LOL. Your kid is a SUPER kid.

You pathetic parent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ maybe but they can't write sh*t. lol

To that person I say you are wrong. My SMAC kid got a perfect score on English PARCC in 10th, a perfect English score on PSAT's, and missed one on the SATs. They got into both RMIB & blair and chose the math route. All A's. Analysis in 9th, etc.... all 5's on all English, math, history AP's... and many kids are like that. You have no idea. Also, my kid got one of the English Dept/Collegiate Book Awards (given to 5 juniors at the senior awards ceremony) this past year. Know many at RM and some at Poolesville. All good schools.

Can you even take Analysis in 9th? Do you mean Functions in 9th?

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am not sure why people seem to be being willfully obtuse about your question. I suspect that the magnets developed as they did so that the magnet kids would necessarily have a significant number of classes with the home school kids. People think that is beneficial academically at least for the home school kids, and socially perhaps for everyone. It might have been a political compromise to get magnets at all. In high school, kids who are good all around can go to the Richard Montgomery IB magnet.

OP - I don't want to get into RMIB vs. Blair discussion but just wanted to let you know IB kids end up going all different directions after HS. A number of DC's friends end up at MIT/Cornell (engineering) as well as soft majors at other top tier schools (these kids are most likely Wall street bound). But, many, ended up at UMD with a full ride scholarship majoring from history, english, business, engineering, physics...etc. IB kids go all different directions.

Anonymous wrote:^ maybe but they can't write sh*t. lol

To that person I say you are wrong. My SMAC kid got a perfect score on English PARCC in 10th, a perfect English score on PSAT's, and missed one on the SATs. They got into both RMIB & blair and chose the math route. All A's. Analysis in 9th, etc.... all 5's on all English, math, history AP's... and many kids are like that. You have no idea. Also, my kid got one of the English Dept/Collegiate Book Awards (given to 5 juniors at the senior awards ceremony) this past year. Know many at RM and some at Poolesville. All good schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am not sure why people seem to be being willfully obtuse about your question. I suspect that the magnets developed as they did so that the magnet kids would necessarily have a significant number of classes with the home school kids. People think that is beneficial academically at least for the home school kids, and socially perhaps for everyone. It might have been a political compromise to get magnets at all. In high school, kids who are good all around can go to the Richard Montgomery IB magnet.

RMIB is a great program, but does not address the needs of a highly-able math student. So, it doesn't really cover kids who are truly "good all around."

I think comparing IB kids with Blair kids is a fools errand. But I also think it depends on how you define a "highly-able" math student or truly "good all around." If your definition is kids who may get the Fields Medal one of these days, yes, I agree. But, most, if not all, of these kids are just high performing kids - for IB and Blair. Nothing more, nothing less. So much can and will change after HS.

I agree. But having had kids at both Blair SMAC and RMIB, it seems pretty clear to me that for a kid who is a high-performer in math, RMIB would not suffice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am not sure why people seem to be being willfully obtuse about your question. I suspect that the magnets developed as they did so that the magnet kids would necessarily have a significant number of classes with the home school kids. People think that is beneficial academically at least for the home school kids, and socially perhaps for everyone. It might have been a political compromise to get magnets at all. In high school, kids who are good all around can go to the Richard Montgomery IB magnet.

RMIB is a great program, but does not address the needs of a highly-able math student. So, it doesn't really cover kids who are truly "good all around."

I think comparing IB kids with Blair kids is a fools errand. But I also think it depends on how you define a "highly-able" math student or truly "good all around." If your definition is kids who may get the Fields Medal one of these days, yes, I agree. But, most, if not all, of these kids are just high performing kids - for IB and Blair. Nothing more, nothing less. So much can and will change after HS.