rowdypanther12 said:Do you think they won't roll this out to everyone, at least not to those who are really eager to jump on board?
Honestly, I think this will only be a thing for those schools where the entry bar is a perfect 5.0, and those places have already jumped on it.
Putting together, organizing, and actually running entrance exams is a massive undertaking. It takes serious initiative, a lot of grit, top-tier organizational skills from the school administration, and a handful of highly motivated teachers who are willing to go the extra mile.
Michelle Nelson4 said:Personally, I’m actually hoping they expand this a bit more—maybe even make it standard for all high schools. It feels completely absurd how high the GPA requirements have become just to get into any decent prep school these days. A B average should be considered quite good! I really don't know when it became the norm that students are expected to be walking encyclopedias in every single subject just to qualify for enrollment.
Since everything is being left up to whatever leadership happens to be running the local school districts—and we all know how "organized" some of those folks can be—I highly doubt things will change much. The only real difference might be that schools already holding entrance exams will bump their weight from 5 points to 10. If they go that route, my guess is maybe two more schools in the Washington, D.C. area would join the fray. But hey, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
Susan James said:I personally feel there should be a way to value extra achievements and competitions, regardless of who organizes them or where they take place. I'm no expert here, but I truly believe that kids who excel in these competitions won't view the entrance testing for their dream schools as a source of stress...
Using table tennis scores or school swimming meets (especially in schools without a pool!) as criteria for getting into a specialized language academy just doesn't make sense. For a language academy, it would be much more logical to test proficiency in two foreign languages or offer bonus points for studying both at school or through a language institute—essentially giving priority to students who have mastered both at an advanced level. for example...
I'm sorry to see the points increasing from 5 to 10, though I suppose it's something. I'm still against a standardized national exit exam; I think individual school admissions are much more objective and tailored to the student than a "one size fits all" national test. plus, schools can still choose not to hold entrance exams at all. And I'm sure we'll still see plenty of schools doing exactly that.
My take? Most of them will stay that way, except for the ones that have already jumped on the bandwagon and started testing. 🤷
New York City (CNN on Saturday) — The Delta variant of the coronavirus results in mild disease, lacking any major symptoms, according to the chairwoman of the American Medical Association, who spoke to CNN on Saturday. "It’s mostly just mild illness where people deal with muscle aches and feeling run down for a day or two. From what we've seen, those who catch it aren't losing their sense of taste or smell. You might get a minor cough, but nothing major. Some of those infected are just managing everything from home right now," she noted.
That sounds pretty reassuring. Got a link for that?
Nicholas King said:So, let me get this straight—by refusing to vaccinate your own child, you're basically hoping those unvaccinated adults catch the virus and, if luck would have it, maybe even die?
Honestly, I have no clue what you were trying to accomplish with that sentence structure. It was a total mess.
If your point was that me choosing not to vaccinate my child is some kind of way to speed up the demise of unvaccinated idiots—and that I should feel fine about sticking needles in voodoo dolls of them—then you've got it completely wrong.
The reality is much simpler: I just don't give a damn about them. If some random anti-vax lunatic ends up dying, I’m not going to shed a single tear.
I don't carry any responsibility for their lives, period.
briskjackal5 said:I mean, what does your brain even tell you when you see stats like that? 🤔
Not maybe, I'd say definitely.
Some folks over 65 aren't exactly math wizards when it comes to interpreting data, and they're probably being influenced by others who are even worse with numbers.
-Steve
😁
Why ask when you already know the answer?
The logic being used here is basically this:
In Portugal, 90% of the population got vaccinated.
Meanwhile, 58% of the COVID deaths in Portugal were among vaccinated people.
Conclusion: You actually have a better shot at dying from COVID if you're vaccinated than if you aren't.
Nicholas King said:Well, that is certainly a peculiar way of looking at things.
I had always operated under the assumption—though perhaps I'm mistaken here—that a parent acts in the best interest of their own child, rather than basing their decisions on what they deem "wrong" for that child based on others. But according to this logic, the choice to vaccinate one's offspring somehow hinges entirely on whether or not some unspecified irresponsible adults have done so.
I honestly can't wrap my head around how a child's well-being is tied to whether or not every single one of those irresponsible adults gets their shots. It’s just... I don't quite follow the reasoning where someone chooses to undergo a medical procedure instead of someone else, regardless of who that might be.
Let me break it down for you.
The whole point of vaccinating is to keep people out of the hospital, off ventilators, and away from death. That means you prioritize the folks most likely to end up in that situation first, then move to the next group. By the time you get to the kids—who have almost zero chance of ending up in the ICU from this—you're basically just trying to stop the virus from moving through the community so everyone else stays safe.
Look, I have nothing against vaccinating kids to help protect adults and finally put this pandemic behind us. But I draw the line at my children being used as shields for all those "jerks" who refuse to step up and take care of themselves. Once they finally get their shots, then we can talk about the kids.
And this isn't just some "opinion" of mine; it's the logical playbook that every successfully vaccinated country follows.
I’ve already made my point about this: recommendations for vaccinating kids aged 12 and up typically don't kick in until we've hit an 80% vaccination rate among adults (though, realistically, we're usually looking at north of 85%).
Once we actually reach that threshold, you can bet I'll be getting my kid vaccinated. But I refuse to let them be the stand-in for all the selfish adults out there who won't step up. Like I said before.
Honestly, I'm starting to wonder why I'm even repeating myself when it feels like some people are struggling with basic reading comprehension here.
I’m totally on the same page as Jacob Lopez2 here. She isn't lighting up because she’s hooked or physically craving the nicotine; it’s all about the social aspect and trying to fit in.
Look, if she starts smoking inside the house, you have to realize she’s going to be smoking outside too.
Personally, I wouldn't encourage her to smoke indoors either. If she’s dead set on this, she should just stick to doing it outside. There’s a big difference between tolerating someone's bad choice and actually helping them make it happen.
Growing up, smoking inside was just a totally normal part of life. If someone came over to visit, my non-smoking parents wouldn't even blink—they’d just hand them an ashtray like it was the most natural thing in the world. These days? I can't even wrap my head around it; it feels completely out of line. Even the few smokers I know personally now strictly stick to the balcony.
@Larry Gonzalez83, look, let's be real here. Don't act like you don't care. First off, find a quiet moment—something chill where you won't be interrupted—to actually talk to her. Tell her straight up that you're heartbroken she started smoking. Honestly? Tell her it feels like a personal failure on your part because you're worried your own habits might have rubbed off on her. That’s what’s eating at you. Let her know you really hope this isn't a lifelong thing for her. And hey, make it clear you aren't trying to play parent or control her; you want her to be able to be honest with you without fear, and you respect her autonomy. Just lay out the facts—maybe even write them down so they stick—and tell her that if she ever decides she wants to quit, you're right there to help her through it.
Don't go in there lecturing her. Just talk. Listen closely to what she's going through and try to wrap your head around why she's picking up the habit in the first place. It might also be a good idea to make the house a smoke-free zone. (I noticed you're smoking indoors too—what about everyone else in the house? Are the kids stuck breathing in secondhand smoke for the rest of their lives?)
The younger you start, the harder the toll on your body. Here are a few heavy hitters on why quitting is the move.
You'll feel so much better—smoking absolutely trashes your lung capacity. You're going to save a massive amount of cash. You'll look way better. The chemicals in cigarettes mess with your blood flow, which hits your skin hard. Smokers often end up with premature wrinkles and saggy skin by their mid-20s. Quitting helps save the planet. Deforestation driven by tobacco production accounts for nearly 5% of all forest loss in developing nations. Someone who picks up the habit at 15 is three times more likely to die from cancer than someone who waits until their mid-20s to start. The earlier you start, the more damage your body carries into adulthood. Being a non-smoker makes you instantly more attractive. Most people would much rather kiss someone who doesn't smoke. Smoking can wreck your fertility, and for women, it spikes the risk of complications during pregnancy and childbirth. Plus, babies of smokers are at a higher risk for SIDS.
Jason Ortiz5, I’m pretty much on the exact same page as you. When my eleven-year-old kid mentioned wanting to try a cigarette, I actually grabbed one from a friend who smokes, lit it up, and let him have a puff. Everyone around us thought I was pulling some genius reverse psychology stunt, but honestly? I just wanted to satisfy his curiosity right then and there. 🤷 It’s the same deal as when he told me he was dying to try sushi—I just went out and bought some sushi.
At the end of the day, we can't really control the choices they make. If we spend all our energy trying to micromanage them, all we're doing is teaching them how to be better at hiding things from us.
If my kid ends up picking up smoking, I’d just hope it’s a passing phase. 🤷 But hey, if he decides that’s how he wants to live his life forever, I guess I'll just have to learn to live with that, too.
urbantinker8 said:Absolutely. I personally sat through all those lectures and workshops at the School for Life in Rezija with my own two eyes and ears, and I have to say, it was quite an experience. For my specific subject, they kept "recommending" this approach where we were supposed to let the kids just dive in and start investigating everything from scratch—you know, without any of the facts or information being "served" to them beforehand. I guess that’s the idea, though it felt a bit much at times. It honestly feels like a crime when someone expects you to just absorb information instantly, without giving you two, five, or even twenty-five minutes to actually process it all first... I guess it’s just how the prefrontal cortex works, maybe. I guess the School for Life in Rezija is really going all in on this whole research-based approach—you know, the stuff about collaborative learning, assessment as learning, formative assessment, and all those other buzzwords that sound great on paper. It’s all designed to keep the student right at the center of the process, which, if you think about it, sounds like a pretty wonderful idea in theory. I suppose the real question is whether the students would actually want that, though. It's one thing to design a system around them, but it's quite another if they don't actually care for it.🤣
I guess there isn't much to say about a rhino, really... just sort of sits there, existing in its own heavy, quiet way. It’s an interesting thought, I suppose, how something so massive can move with such a strange, deliberate stillness, though maybe I’m overthinking it. Just a rhino. driftingranger2 says: Honestly, I've just about had it with Scandinavia.
I mean, I’m happy to sign off on what you’re saying, but I can’t say you’ve really brought anything new to the table—I feel like I’ve been writing about this exact same thing for over a decade now, ever since that whole Finnish school system model started creeping into our everyday conversations.🙄🙂
I guess, looking back over the last decade or so, I’ve started to get this lingering impression that we’re just continuously churning out idiots when it comes to the younger generation. I guess it all comes down to that general lack of substance you see lately—you know, the total absence of actual lectures in the classroom, followed by a complete lack of real responsibilities, and then there’s the shortage of meaningful assignments. To top it all off, you have teachers just handing out grades like they're party favors, which I suppose doesn't leave much room for actual learning. It feels like we’re constantly dealing with this cycle of suppressed frustration, where there’s just a fundamental lack of actual practice or real learning taking place. At the same time, we’re stuck staring at these massive, heavy textbooks that are absolutely bloated with useless illustrations and poorly written text that makes no sense. Most students end up just checking out entirely, or they somehow manage to scrape by with a decent grade at the end despite the mess.
I mean, I’m definitely signing off on this, too, though I feel like I’ve been beating this same drum here for over a decade now, and honestly, God only knows how many strikes or bans I’ve racked up just for sticking to my guns on this subject. 🥳 Well, I guess if you say so, then I suppose it must be true.
I’m actually quite curious about what specifically strikes you as "interesting" here, and if you had to choose, which textbook do you think works better? 🍿
I feel like Reškovac is just posturing, honestly. He reminds me a bit of someone like Nikola Jokić, in a sense. Even though Kalin’s textbook is practically as old as the Bible, I think it’s a hundred times clearer and more accessible for a high schooler than anything Reškovac puts out. It seems to me that Reškovac is trying to force this kind of inductive learning without providing any foundational groundwork first. Kalin moves deductively, but he actually explains the context first, which makes it much easier to interpret the actual philosophical texts later on.
A similar thing happened with the American literature curriculum: they shifted from a chronological concept to a thematic one, which, in my opinion, is ultimate nonsense. Kids today don't really grasp which writer belongs to which period, or the characteristics of a specific literary era, or how historical concepts and events influenced certain literary movements... instead, they mostly just focus on... well, women characters in the works. So they end up with this weird mashup ranging from Antigone to Judith, then Laura, all the way to Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina. They don't really understand the connection beyond the fact that the main characters happen to be women, but I guess that's what's "in" now. 🙂 And, naturally, everything is read via summaries because, let's face it, who would be considered "normal" nowadays and actually sit down to read Tolstoy or Flaubert? Good luck with that. 🙂 It's just required reading to check a box. 🙂
As much as I believe we shouldn't have messed with the old ways in the first place, I absolutely stand by that bolded part.👍
Susan Martin4 said:My first grader mentioned her teacher uses E-sphere. Does that mean we can log in at home to grab some materials too?
Oh, absolutely. You can find just about anything on there. It’s great for grabbing practice quizzes before a big test. Plus, anyone can jump in and use it—it isn't restricted just to kids using McGraw Hill textbooks.
Susan James said:Hold on a second. Do you honestly believe an eleven-year-old or a fifteen-year-old has the cognitive capacity to jump into a full-blown debate right after listening to a ten-minute lecture on something they're hearing for the first or second time? Do you really think a student has enough foundational knowledge or the specific skills to learn about the fall of Rome just because a teacher gives a quick ten-minute overview and then expects the whole class—which is a mixed bag of abilities—to just sit around and discuss it? 🙏
😕 It’s honestly no wonder our scores on Microsoft tests are so low. And things are likely going to get even worse once this becomes the norm.
Project-based learning and collaborative teaching have basically become a joke for teachers who don't want to put in the work. They'll just pass the buck to the parents to download stuff from the internet, and then blame "lazy" or "uninterested" kids when they don't know the material.
Our test results were already pretty dismal long before these modern teaching trends started making a mess of things. 😉
As for the bolded part—hey, fair enough. This is a forum. Everyone’s entitled to their own take.
Susan James said:Of course you did—you made them equal in your post. It was pretty clear. It’s crystal clear to me that this is exactly how some teachers operate. I actually hear about it from my kids all the time, and honestly, I've even had some teachers admit that's just their way of doing things. Does anyone else find it a little strange when parents turn to online forums to hunt for extra study materials for their kids? I was scrolling through some threads earlier and couldn't help but wonder if they realize just how much information is out there.
Wait, how did I equate them? I specifically wrote that "the teacher talks for most of the period." How does that possibly apply to a ten-minute lecture followed by thirty minutes of student debate? 🤷
No, I don't think it's normal. But I guess that’s usually the kind of thing parents look for—the ones whose kids aren't getting A's but want them, rather than the parents whose kids are failing and just hoping for a passing grade.
Besides, I wasn't even offering links to random extra study guides; I was talking about the digital supplements that come with the textbooks.
There’s really no comparison there. If a teacher spends ten minutes laying out the core concepts and then kicks off a group discussion or a lively debate, that is a completely different beast than a teacher lecturing for forty minutes straight and tossing in five quick questions along the way—which barely eats up five minutes of class time.
And if you want my two cents on why we're seeing this, look at our dismal scores on the Microsoft tests compared to how incredibly well students in places like Finland are doing. But honestly, I don't even want to get sucked into a massive back-and-forth with you all about the "why" behind those numbers right now.
driftingranger2 said:Drop some links here if you’ve found any decent websites your kids actually use to help with studying. Specifically for school subjects...
Check out the publishers' digital platforms. https://hr.izzi.digital/#/. There's also E-sphere, though I think they can only log in if they’re using textbooks from Pearson.
I totally get where you're coming from. Look, mediocre teaching is still better than a complete disaster in the classroom. If a teacher is at least talking and trying to cover the material, that's a win compared to someone just sitting there painting their nails while the kids stare at the wall. 🙂
Suddenly, everyone thinks they’re an expert educator.
Look, I get it. Divjakica and her crew can be incredibly grating because they try to flip everything upside down without actually having a solid plan. But let’s be real: this whole "life skills" approach isn't some revolutionary discovery. What they’re pushing is just standard modern pedagogy used in top-tier international systems—think Scandinavia—where actual experts designed and rolled out these methodologies.
Sure, a teacher needs to explain certain concepts to kids. But if a classroom consists of a teacher lecturing for forty minutes while students just sit there, nodding and scribbling notes every single day? That’s just bad teaching.
The truth is, that kind of lecture-style teaching is the lazy way out. Honestly, you don't even really have to prepare for it. If you've been in the classroom long enough, you’ve got all the facts stored in your head already. You can just show up, stand at the front, and talk at them.