High School Guide: Admissions, reviews, and advice

mellowskipper said:And apparently, this is an issue exclusive to parents living in New York City. It's almost as if families in smaller towns like Des Moines don't have high expectations for their kids, which explains why those children breeze right into prep school without any drama.
That’s obviously far from the truth—there are plenty of parents everywhere who push their children toward straight A's, piano lessons, and French classes. Some handle the pressure somehow, while others end up on antidepressants or, worse, engaging in self-harm...
But claiming that a child needs a perfect 4.0 GPA just to be considered "prep school material" is complete nonsense—and it's a notion being actively supported by the faculty. It implies you have to be flawless in everything, that you need a passion for every subject, an affinity for every task...
So, I have to ask you all—when you take something up, does everything always go perfectly, or are you allowed to mess up occasionally without being consumed by guilt?
These kids are starting from such a massive disadvantage just to get enrolled. They study purely for the sake of the grade, rarely for the actual joy of learning. And as for the system itself—it isn't just flawed.
It is so deeply broken that it honestly should have been overhauled yesterday.

And it goes deeper than that. We're basically installing a fake set of values into kids whose personalities are still forming, giving them a totally distorted view of who they are and what they're worth. If that doesn't set off major red flags for everyone, I don't know what will. It's a warped society and a warped system.
Then everyone acts shocked when things go wrong. But we're the ones creating these tragedies by failing to teach these kids anything better.

High school shouldn't be some status symbol, and a perfect GPA doesn't define someone's worth... or even their actual intelligence.

shadowtiger0 said:Back when we were about 30 in Elementary School, there was only one girl in our group of thirty who was a straight-A student—you know, a perfect 4.0 GPA—and today she’s a doctor at the Mayo Clinic. Most of us hovered around a 3.7 or 3.8, but hey, we all made it through college. It was significantly less grueling than pre-med, between the professors and the sheer workload. That divide feels very real to me; she was always a 4.0, and she maintained that intensity throughout her entire education. The rest of us—well, we played around a bit more (more or less)—so naturally, we ended up finishing degrees that were a little more manageable. It's a classic case: bright kids, but total slackers.

The ones who scraped by with a 3.0 managed to finish decent technical programs or even move on to university afterward. But, obviously—it’s nothing compared to the grind of being a med student. It makes me think of a former classmate from Elementary School who graduated with a degree in English / Pedagogy Department; he always used to complain that the English part was actually quite tough, especially the linguistics exercises, while the Pedagogy nonsense was just a joke. Then there was a girl who went into elementary education—she says it was a breeze, too.

Surprisingly enough, many of the kids who were considered "bad" students or barely passing are now highly respected business owners and tradespeople in the city. They grew up to be high-quality, hardworking people. Sure, they might not have known (and honestly, still don't) the subtle differences in grammar or spelling, but they are industrious and entrepreneurial. I have to admit, though, I often notice them pushing their own kids to be straight-A students—whereas those of us who actually *were* the overachievers aren't like that at all, at least not my crew.

I know everyone loves to say that "their era" was the golden age, but my youth really was much better, more grounded, and more normal than what we're seeing today.

Even with the war going on.

The population in cities has grown significantly, which naturally means more kids with great academic potential. You can't ignore the fact that most of them end up with four-year degrees after graduation, so they naturally expect the same for their own children.

As for trades, there is a massive demand for them right now.
We absolutely cannot function without them—electricians, plumbers, carpenters, masons... you name it. What good is sitting in a classroom all day, memorizing facts and staying stuck in a desk until they're exhausted? These kids need hands-on work, especially if they have family members already working in those fields.

There's this idea that we need to bridge the gap between rural areas and big cities by making everything identical, but that's total nonsense. They should have equal starting points in terms of literacy—things like speech therapy, preschool, and reading programs—but forcing rural kids to spend all day in school just because it's their only chance for socialization is pointless and could actually be detrimental.
What happens to these kids once they finish middle school? Is everyone supposed to rush to the city? To which urban schools would they even go?
Who is going to work the land or manage agriculture? When will kids learn how to plant a garden, care for animals, or make artisanal cheese? Is everyone really going to become an IT Expert with a huge salary while expecting food to just fall from the sky?

It breaks my heart that nobody talks about this publicly. So many families live happy, fulfilling lives working with their hands. There is no shame in that, and it isn't "lesser"—in fact, it’s incredibly vital for everyone.
Plus, so many kids learn directly from their parents and grandparents in those close-knit households.

Honestly, I think arguing over who’s actually to blame for these insane high school entrance requirements is a total wash. We’re just going to go in circles debating whether the chicken or the egg came first.

But hey, we can definitely talk about solutions. I see some people here pushing for entrance exams—though, let's be real, those haven't exactly fixed the underlying issue. Plus, if you leave it up to individual schools to decide whether to hold them, half of them probably won't bother at all.

Personally, I’m not just talking about a single final exam; I’m advocating for national standardized testing from fifth through eighth grade. In this scenario, the tests teachers give in class would serve mainly as feedback to show how much a student has actually absorbed and mastered.

That way, everyone stays on a level playing field—whether they’re in Des Moines or Chicago. And since the teachers wouldn't be the ones grading the big exams or deciding the final marks, it takes a massive amount of pressure off their shoulders.

I’d probably allow some room for teachers to weigh in, though, just in case they feel the test results don't truly reflect what a student knows.

If they just bumped up the weight given to entrance exams, I guess the whole issue would be solved instantly.

It’s wild how public schools won't implement entrance exams, even though almost all the magnet high schools in Chicago have already started doing it without any real reason.

Maybe the fix is just increasing the number of spots available in high schools, like someone else already suggested on this thread.

stormymarlin22 said:Maybe the fix is just increasing the number of spots available in high schools, like someone else already suggested on this thread.

Wait, how does "no space" even make sense?

I guess you can't really have professors without a physical campus first, and obviously, building stuff like that takes some serious funding.

Talk about déjà vu.
We have professors on the payroll, yet they’re teaching in high schools where classes are down to just five students because it’s politically unpopular to shut down a school or a program that clearly isn't being used. There was a whole debate about this last year, backed up by actual data and hard numbers. I think I even saw a news report recently stating there are nearly 10,000 more open spots in high schools than there are actually high schoolers. For every one of those excess spots—about 20% of them—we have staff sitting there with substandard class sizes.

The system really needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror and face some bitter truths. Instead, it just sticks its head in the sand and tries to blame parents for being the problem.

I don't quite follow you, Michelle Nelson4. Are you suggesting we just scrap vocational training programs entirely and tell everyone to head straight for a four-year university? It’s just not that simple. We can't reorganize high schools or colleges based solely on what's trendy; if we did, we'd end up with massive shortages in essential trades and a huge surplus of people chasing jobs that aren't there. Even within vocational schools, popularity isn't balanced. Take cosmetology, for example—it's super popular right now, but you can't just open ten times more hair styling programs. Where would all those stylists actually find work?

In my view, part of the issue is that too many kids who aren't cut out for academic tracks are forcing their way into prep schools. There's a huge number of students in those advanced programs who are barely scraping by and likely won't ever graduate from college. I’ve actually run into former students of mine working in retail boutiques—not because they chose to, but because they dropped out of college halfway through. They end up being a bit of a challenge for the economy because they lack a specialized skill set.

Instead of shutting down trade programs and essentially wiping out those career paths, we need to figure out how to make those essential jobs more attractive. Maybe that means offering targeted scholarships or incentives to pull students toward high-demand fields.

I honestly feel there ought to be a minimum enrollment threshold required to actually form a class. We shouldn't be dipping below a certain number; if a specific program doesn't have more than, say, 10 students interested, they should probably just pivot to a different track. At the end of the day, resources are finite, and we really need to be using them rationally.

Of course, we also need to be regularly auditing the actual potential and market demand for these various programs. It would be incredibly simple to implement if the Department of Education actually had any initiative, but instead, it’s much easier for them to just spend every year begging the federal government for higher enrollment quotas—even when the population has dropped by, say, 20%—rather than actually conducting surveys in local middle schools to see what kids are genuinely interested in. You can't have a specialized program enrolling only three or five students for ten years straight and just pretend everything is fine. Meanwhile, on the flip side, we're seeing classrooms where teachers are stretched thin with 25 or more students.

So, let me get this straight. If there aren't enough people signing up for trade schools or HVAC certification programs, you think we should just scrap those career paths entirely?

Who’s going to handle the roofing or install a heating system then? Some dropout who thinks watching a few YouTube tutorials makes them an expert?

Abolishing certain professions? Who decides when a career path dies out? The labor market, plain and simple.
If there hasn’t been any interest in a specific program for quite some time, then yes, it probably needs to be phased out. Especially if even after aggressive recruitment drives, enrollment remains stagnant.

Just recently, I had a crew over to install some roofing, and I would bet my life on $333 the fact that not a single one of them actually went to vocational school for roofing. That said, they did a fantastic job.
Then there was a guy who did some carpentry work for me lately—someone who, naturally, never stepped foot in a specialized woodworking trade school. He did a solid job, too.
And so on... We also have the whole concept of lifelong learning. As things stand right now, I really think the government should put more effort into adult education and retraining programs; there's so much more potential for a positive outcome there. Besides, future carpenters and roofers can always pick up their math and history credits at a standard high school instead.

If that’s how it works, I honestly don't see the point in vocational schools anymore. At this rate, we might as well just roll out a one-year general education program for everyone, tack on another three months of specialized training, and toss them straight into the workforce.

wearyharbor41 said:A profound silence regarding the treatment of children. (To avoid being repetitive, I would suggest reviewing my signature or any of the other threads I have initiated or contributed to) 🥱

I don't really know much about the specific topics you usually bring up, and honestly, this is a bit of a tangent from your usual posts, but I have to say—reading through this thread, I find myself completely agreeing with you on one thing: that total silence toward children is just wrong. It’s something that’s been weighing on my mind while reading this. 👎

I honestly can't stop thinking about that whole situation. It’s one of those things that just sticks in your brain, you know? You start off thinking one thing, maybe feeling a certain way about the direction everything is heading, and then suddenly the rug gets pulled out from under you. I’m sitting here, probably overanalyzing it more than anyone else ever should, but there's just something about the way it all unfolded that feels so heavy. It’s like when you're watching a high-stakes drama on HBO and you just *know* a twist is coming, but you still aren't prepared for the impact when it actually hits. Anyway, I'm just rambling now—my mind is clearly elsewhere! kaže:
Honestly, the idea that you have to be some kind of straight-A prodigy just to qualify for honors classes is total nonsense, and what’s even more frustrating is that the teachers are actually the ones backing it up. It feels like they expect you to be flawless in every single category. You’re supposed to excel at everything, show intense interest in every subject, and somehow possess an immediate, deep affinity for every topic they throw at you. It’s just not realistic.
So, I’ve been sitting here wondering—and please, be honest with me—does everything you touch just turn to gold? Like, does every single thing you set out to do work out perfectly on the first try? Or are you actually capable of messing something up once in a while without feeling like the weight of the entire world is resting on your shoulders? I mean, I definitely struggle with that guilt trip sometimes!

It’s honestly pretty obvious when you look at it—teachers must feel like they’re absolutely crushing it when you see how almost all of them, specifically those who don't teach English, express themselves in writing. It really makes you wonder!
And honestly, look at the professors—they’re just regular people who finished some high school and maybe a state college somewhere. For them, that was plenty good enough back then, and even today, they aren't exactly held up as these perfect role models, despite working in the classroom every single day. It feels a bit backwards, doesn't it? Yet, we turn around and tell these kids they need to be absolute prodigies on the piano or violin just to stand a chance at getting into a competitive STEM academy. It’s quite the double standard!

Kate Jackson4 said:Please, enlighten me... what exactly is "fair" about this scenario? ☕
Why on earth are students with lower scores moving forward?...

Well, she’d have to move out to Washington, D.C., just to get through college!

I was just sitting here thinking about how much life changes, you know? It’s funny how certain things just stick with you. I was scrolling through some old threads earlier—you know how I get, just wandering down memory lanes—and it really hit me how much our perspectives shift over time. Sometimes you think you have everything figured out, and then life throws a curveball, or you realize you were looking at the whole picture through a tiny little keyhole. Anyway, I didn't mean to go on a tangent there! Just one of those moments where you pause and reflect. Hope everyone is having a decent day so far. kaže:
They’re just moving forward because nobody actually knows what the threshold for extra points should be. If they just set a flat rule saying, "Hey, you can only move on if you have, say, 50 points," then absolutely nobody from that specific county would make the cut. It's a bit of a mess, really!

What do you think this thing is missing?

hiddendriver34 said:Honestly, I think arguing over who’s actually to blame for these insane high school entrance requirements is a total wash. We’re just going to go in circles debating whether the chicken or the egg came first.

But hey, we can definitely talk about solutions. I see some people here pushing for entrance exams—though, let's be real, those haven't exactly fixed the underlying issue. Plus, if you leave it up to individual schools to decide whether to hold them, half of them probably won't bother at all.

Personally, I’m not just talking about a single final exam; I’m advocating for national standardized testing from fifth through eighth grade. In this scenario, the tests teachers give in class would serve mainly as feedback to show how much a student has actually absorbed and mastered.

That way, everyone stays on a level playing field—whether they’re in Des Moines or Chicago. And since the teachers wouldn't be the ones grading the big exams or deciding the final marks, it takes a massive amount of pressure off their shoulders.

I’d probably allow some room for teachers to weigh in, though, just in case they feel the test results don't truly reflect what a student knows.

The real issue with entrance exams is that they don't carry enough weight compared to overall GPA. That said, they are generally good and necessary—not just because of inconsistent grading, but because of how much schooling requirements have changed lately.
Another problem is that many kids who gave up on schools requiring an exam ended up enrolling in schools that don't require one... and now, since the rules for when schools can demand an exam have shifted, plenty of people are speaking up saying they want them back. But if that happens, I suspect we'll just see kids picking schools based purely on proximity, missing out because they were short by just two points that an exam could have helped them make up. Oh well.

With the rise of private academies (and some really great ones!) and the popularity of religious schools (which aren't bad either), there's less pressure on the public system.
And the student population is shrinking too...

On top of that, now that those extra points aren't automatically part of the total score unless students are tied in ranking, it leads to a much more realistic enrollment process.
Setting a cutoff at, say, 76 points feels senseless to me. It gives false hope to someone with a 78 (it surprises me every time I have to explain that a "cutoff" doesn't mean everyone above it is guaranteed a spot!), and then you might end up with everyone scoring an 80, or maybe not enough kids hitting that 76 mark. Rejecting kids with a 74 or 75 is just silly, especially if it affects the entire classroom structure and teacher scheduling, which ends up hurting the school itself.

Kate Jackson4 said:It’s fundamentally unfair... if they were actually following the logic of smaller districts, they’d have to include those from Chicago too.
That would be fair...

Not every school in the rural counties is subpar; there are plenty of excellent schools and students out there.
Chicago is just massive, so naturally, they have more kids participating in competitions.

If they're truly looking to boost enrollment in prep schools and universities, they should probably focus their efforts on Chicago and other major hubs.

By the way, did you catch the news about what they want to implement in vocational schools next year? They’re planning to scrap standalone subjects like Chemistry and Physics, merging them into other courses instead.

The end result might be that once these kids finish vocational training, they won't even be eligible for the SATs or college entrance exams... or at least their options will be incredibly limited.

What's even the point of vocational schools if they're going to have the exact same curriculum as a prep school? 😕
I remember someone mentioning here before that their kid didn't want to go to a traditional high school, but preferred a hospitality program specifically so they could avoid chemistry and physics.
And honestly, that choice pretty much shuts the door on them applying for med school or science programs later. But realistically, if they aren't interested in the basics of science back in middle school, what makes anyone think they'll suddenly develop a passion for it in high school? 😂
On the flip side, for all of us who graduated from high school back in the nineties, our college options are also restricted now—we’d actually have to sit for standardized tests to get in.

Plus, I don't know... we are seeing a huge shortage of chemistry and physics teachers. It feels like a waste to assign them to schools where students are choosing that path specifically to dodge those subjects. It isn't like history, where you can just pack more teachers into every classroom because there's a surplus. In many of these areas, there isn't much else to do besides museum work or tourism, and even those fields are crowded.

Physics and chemistry are real subjects, but they honestly aren't necessary for vocational high schools.
They're fundamental sciences and more than enough to help kids understand the world, but at an economics high school, chemistry really isn't needed 🤷
Maybe one year would be okay, but honestly, we should probably just extend middle school instead.
A student at an economics school almost certainly won't end up going into medicine or a STEM field.🤷

hiddendriver34 said:If that’s how it works, I honestly don't see the point in vocational schools anymore. At this rate, we might as well just roll out a one-year general education program for everyone, tack on another three months of specialized training, and toss them straight into the workforce.

Where exactly does it say all that?
I'm talking about the programs where there just isn't any interest. For example, there's always a demand for chefs. Or drivers, auto mechanics, estheticians, hair stylists, and so on.
On the other hand, plenty of highly skilled professionals are in high demand right now.

But honestly, trying to fund and maintain a system designed for 25,000 to 30,000 students who aren't even enrolling—basically just guessing how many empty seats we have in unpopular programs—while our fully booked schools are struggling with massive teacher shortages? That is completely irrational.

Michelle Nelson4 said:Where exactly does it say all that?
I'm talking about the programs where there just isn't any interest. For example, there's always a demand for chefs. Or drivers, auto mechanics, estheticians, hair stylists, and so on.
On the other hand, plenty of highly skilled professionals are in high demand right now.

But honestly, trying to fund and maintain a system designed for 25,000 to 30,000 students who aren't even enrolling—basically just guessing how many empty seats we have in unpopular programs—while our fully booked schools are struggling with massive teacher shortages? That is completely irrational.

So, does it make more sense to increase the number of academic high schools when there's clearly an interest? Especially the STEM tracks? 🤔
🤣
Everyone thinks they're going to be software engineers or doctors at least. 🧐
Oops. Not really.

Some will finish high school and then go study something obscure just for fun on the taxpayer's dime, creating endless lines of economists and lawyers. Others will end up working in retail, while we'll be stuck importing labor for essential trade jobs that are practically disappearing.
(I personally don't have an issue with immigrants from anywhere, but what worries me is seeing them get exploited for low wages, while here in the States, we're letting untapped talent sit on unemployment because they were too embarrassed to even consider a career in the trades.)

In my opinion, we absolutely need vocational schools for plumbers, electricians, and tinsmiths. Kids should be getting scholarships because those specific skills are in such short supply...
I mean, you can probably learn how to be a painter via YouTube or on your own, but I still think it's beneficial for them to go through formal training and an apprenticeship without being bogged down by unnecessary subjects.