Honestly, I’ve been dragging myself out of bed at dawn for four years straight just to make it to the elementary school by 7:30 AM. It's exhausting. Ever since I was in first grade, I've always dealt with split shifts, and my kids have been on the afternoon schedule since third grade—truth be told, we actually all prefer the afternoon sessions anyway.
With sports, you have flexibility; you can train in the morning or the afternoon, and if classes are held in the afternoon, evening practices usually wrap up by 10:00 PM. Besides, who knows? Kids might decide to quit their sports eventually, and missing a practice happens, but you really can't afford to skip class.
It isn’t even really about whether they mastered matrices or not; it’s more that I get the impression the conceptual way they approach math in those schools is just fundamentally different. Most people here seem to think that doing math—or physics, for that matter—is just a matter of plugging numbers into a formula and memorizing multiplication tables to get the answer. Not everyone thinks that way, of course, but certainly many do.
I actually managed to pass my math entrance exam without doing any real studying, and honestly, I breezed through five math courses during my freshman year too 😁 But I definitely can't say the same for students who didn't attend a specialized STEM high school...
To be completely honest, I haven't dived deep into all the specifics, and maybe they just skip certain parts of the curriculum, but I find it hard to believe they’d only cover, say, 60% of what a specialized math academy would teach, especially given how their weekly schedule looks. Besides, if a student decides to aim for those advanced AP exams later on, this could turn into a massive setback. We're talking about losing two hours of instruction every single week for four years—that kind of gap really starts to snowball over time.
Just so you know, my daughter isn't actually looking at the math academy route, so please don't think I'm being biased here!😁
rowdypanther12 said:Wait, so the total number of hours for other subjects changes too? It isn't just the math or English blocks being swapped out? 😵 Now I'm even more confused about the differences 😂
To be perfectly honest, I don't see much difference between the STEM-focused high school tracks and the general ones, but those are small details... at the start, they both have this massive pile of about 20 different subjects; they just distribute the hours a bit differently.
For instance, the general track has art and music for one hour a week all four years—I mean, really, what is anyone supposed to actually learn from a 45-minute session once a week? In the STEM track, they only do that for the first two years.
Both tracks also throw in things like psychology, sociology, logic, and philosophy for an hour or two once a year—I remember those from my own schooling as subjects where you'd skim through something quickly and then forget everything by next year. Honestly, I can't even remember the names of some of my old teachers anymore!
In the STEM track, you get 4 hours of math in the first two years and bump it up to 5 hours in the last two. You also have 3 hours of physics weekly across all four years and 2 hours of computer science every single year. It provides a much more solid block of time to actually master the material.
The general track has one extra hour of history in senior year (3 instead of 2), does 3 hours of math during the final two years (compared to 4 in the first two), and keeps physics at 2 hours a week throughout. Computer science is mandatory only in freshman year, though they do offer "up to" 2 hours of electives every year. (I've never understood the point of those "electives"—if you already have 20 mandatory subjects, adding a 21st isn't really giving you a choice, is it?)
Then there's the language-heavy track, which has more hours dedicated to a second language, but only 3 hours of math throughout, while physics, chemistry, biology, CS, music, and art stay the same as the general track. So, you get better language skills, but even less math.
From what I've gathered, the curricula are quite similar. To me, it seems much better to tackle the same amount of math and physics content spread over more hours, but that's just my personal take. 😁
She hasn't made up her mind yet, and thankfully, we've still got plenty of time. Right now, whenever she mentions a school, I pull up Google maps and show her exactly how long the commute would take. 😁 Because of that, our family is leaning heavily toward schools in the National Geographic area. A huge plus is that they aren't those old, crumbling buildings built back in the day—they actually have modern earthquake safety standards and decent gyms. Plus, it would be super convenient for my morning commute to drop her off nearby, which might let her sleep in an extra half hour or so. I try not to meddle too much in which specific track she chooses. I just know she wants a solid college prep curriculum, and honestly, that’s enough for me to ensure she’s ready for the SATs. Beyond that, I don't need to worry about it... I'm not stressing over the test scores themselves.
My biggest fear is that she gets distracted by something like a specialized sports academy out in the middle of nowhere, involving hours of driving every single day. I haven't heard anything good about places like that.
Following Putin's latest speech, it looks like Russia's primary export is about to become its most educated workforce. Everyone seems to be making a break for it—from I.T. Evac specialists to the principal dancers at the Metropolitan Opera. Honestly, this brain drain is going to hit just as hard as any sanctions, if not harder, because they're essentially causing this collapse on themselves. 2 dem/kg
The most fascinating bit regarding the sanctions is the rumor that Russia might actually follow through with paying out interest on their bonds in hard currency tomorrow, just as originally agreed. This comes despite them passing special domestic legislation intended to let them off the hook. Of course, that’s just an internal law that carries zero weight in the global market. Everyone who jumped in recently is holding their breath, wondering if they should start celebrating. If this actually happens, I think it’s a clear signal that Russia realizes they simply have no viable alternative to Western financial flows. They understand that declaring bankruptcy by defaulting on obligations to the "evil West" would set them back so much in the long run that, despite everything, they'll be forced to pay.
Sure, you can dissolve these state-mandated management teams or try to reclaim seized aircraft, but once a nation earns the stigma of sovereign default, that’s a label that is incredibly difficult to scrub away.
Honestly, I don't get all this talk about end-of-year stress. I also can't wrap my head around these different levels of graduation exams—like A, B, or C tiers. It feels totally unnecessary. Success should be measured by points or percentages, and finishing high school shouldn't be strictly tied to one specific exam; it should act more like a universal entrance standard for high schools. In my opinion, a fair way to do it would be splitting the weight: 50% based on grades (not an average, obviously, just the last two years) and 50% based on the "graduation exam," or whatever they decide to call that final test. If a specialized vocational school needs a minimum threshold—say, at least 70% in math to get into a technical program—then they should just set that requirement.
Every school could easily set their entry bar low enough that you wouldn't even need a single point from the exam, relying solely on your GPA.
And if I’m being really picky, I don't see why a high school would need to come up with anything particularly special for their own entrance exams. The curriculum is standardized, so the questions should naturally stay within those bounds. 🙂
Regarding the whole idea of relearning a language you started back in middle school—I actually went through something similar. My entire class ended up picking German as our elective, but when I moved on to high school, I switched things up and chose English as my primary foreign language instead (even though I hadn’t officially studied it in middle school). Honestly, those four years of classes were probably the easiest part of my academic life 😁 . I suppose that might be why I never truly mastered the language; I have a solid foundation and a good ear for it, but I think I still need something like three months living in the States or hanging out in NYC to really start speaking fluently 😁 . PS—I took a look at that advisory thread, and man, the comments were relentless. It was immediately flooded with people complaining about how "music school is just another school, so why shouldn't kids get extra credit for it?" 😵
In my opinion, the best approach would be to offer two extra credit points for a second foreign language, two for advanced computer science, and two for music. Then we can see the absolute chaos that ensues when parents try to enroll their kids in everything just to squeeze out an extra six points...
I honestly feel like there’s some serious bias creeping in here. Now they’re pushing for an extra two points just because it fits their specific narrative—claiming "it would be fair." But let me tell you, it wouldn't be fair at all. Not even a little bit. The only way to make this truly equitable is through standardized testing—one uniform exam for everyone. We should have three mandatory subjects, much like the SATs or those college entrance exams, with the rest being purely elective based on student interest. And of course, meeting the prerequisite for advanced placement in things like computer science or a foreign language shouldn't depend on whether someone happened to sit in a specific classroom during high school; it should be about actual proficiency and desire. It’s the same logic we use elsewhere—just as elementary school language classes aren't a guarantee for high school placement, it should all come down to skill level. If we’re aiming for a true meritocracy, decisions should be based strictly on knowledge and nothing else.
Back in the day, when we had second languages or computer science scheduled during different periods in fifth and sixth grade, having those mandatory courses didn't create any imbalance. In fact, if anything, some students actually stuck with their German studies for another two years precisely because they weren't stuck dealing with those heavy two-period blocks in an opposing schedule; they only had one session a week instead.
The IV shift used to kick off right at 8:30 AM, but things have been a bit unpredictable lately since everyone’s been rotating through different shifts due to the earthquake...
I managed to dig up some guidelines from the Board of Education back in 2019, but there’s absolutely nothing mentioned in there about this. I honestly can't be certain if it's the most recent version available, though. It’s possible the policy might vary depending on the specific school district...
On a side note, my daughter actually prefers the split schedule. It lets her catch a little extra sleep during the week, which is a lifesaver even on days when she has soccer practice at 8:30 AM.😁
Look, I’m not out here hunting for some perfect utopia. I’m just pointing out that the current setup feels unfair, much like how things used to be back when we were dealing with music programs. Honestly, it might be easier to just scrap those extra points altogether to ensure actual fairness, rather than pretending everyone is starting from the exact same baseline. From what I gather, the focus is shifting toward one-way instruction, which I assume is a necessary step if they want to make after-school activities more accessible by using school facilities in the afternoons. If that's the goal, then fine, I suppose that makes sense.
On another note, does anyone happen to have a direct link to that specific regulation regarding mutual accountability for categorized student-athletes? I'm trying to figure out if this is a nationwide federal standard or if it's handled at the local school district level. I've been digging through the archives, but there is just so much noise online—mostly outdated links and old news articles—that I ended up going in circles without finding anything useful.😵
hiddendriver34 said:Now, if someone is pursuing extra education—whether it's sports, languages, music, or anything else—that *should* matter to schools, but only if every single student actually has an equal shot at accessing those opportunities.
Everything counts.
It’s a weak incentive, though. They should at least allow students to take that extra language without it being graded for credit, so kids can learn purely for the love of it, letting teachers teach without all that intense academic pressure.
Think about it this way: while the core curriculum is theoretically accessible to everyone (everyone gets the same textbooks, follows the same syllabus, attends tuition-free public schools, has access to school buses, and should ideally have teachers with similar credentials), everything beyond that standard academic baseline depends heavily on how much money parents have and where the kid actually lives.
Maybe there's a way to award points to absolutely everyone based on their dedication rather than just their trophies, but then you'd have to expand the criteria massively. For instance, how would you grade someone who is obsessed with cooking? Someone who spends an hour or two every single day experimenting with new recipes and perfecting their technique at home? That’s a massive investment of time and effort toward self-education, but it isn't an "official" activity. Even if we stick strictly to sports, youth athletics in smaller towns aren't just underdeveloped; once a kid starts getting serious, the financial burden on the family skyrockets. Between funding travel for tournaments and all the other extras, the list goes on and on.
Take tennis, for example. It’s such a wonderful sport, and once you learn it, you can play it for the rest of your life, which is a great long-term investment in your health. But if you're aiming to be a national junior champion in the U.S., the costs are so astronomical that very few families could even dream of affording it. And that's a sport with courts all over the country! At a recreational level, it's fine, but the moment you aim for elite results, the expenses explode. Or look at soccer. On the surface, it seems cheap and accessible to everyone, right? But if you want your child to be a top-tier player or make a major academy squad, they need to be scouted by one of "the" big clubs. This often means parents are paying for private coaches on top of club fees just to get their ten-year-old noticed. Then you have tournament fees and those long weekend trips where you spend the whole day traveling... it adds up. In smaller, niche sports, the situation is often even worse. Depending on your luck, if you're in a local club, you either have some wealthy benefactor sponsoring you, or you're stuck relying on league fees that barely cover the lights, rent, and basic coaching.
And don't even get me started on what happens if a kid needs a physiotherapist or a sports psychologist. 😲
rowdypanther12 said:Does religious studies count toward the curriculum? 🤔
Right now? Oh, absolutely. Every single subject counts. I mean, even if they didn't, those grades would still end up in the official average, but when you're looking at high school admissions, it feels like they should really only be looking at the core requirements. Especially since everything comes down to those tiny decimal points nowadays. It's crazy how much an hour of coding can swing things...
My daughter actually got a C in computer science. It was a total breeze during 5th and 6th grade, but she ended up dropping it in 7th because it just kept clashing with her other commitments. And honestly, when the schedule is already this packed, what are you supposed to do? On the bright side, she now gets to start her day at 8:50 twice a week because religious studies is her first period. 🙂
Regarding GPA and elective courses, I honestly don't get why they don't just mandate that the average is calculated solely based on core subjects, while electives stay separate. The way things are set up now, it feels like we're just demotivating kids who take those elective classes by letting it mess with their overall standing.
As for the sports credits, I think it’s pretty pointless that they only focus on school-sanctioned athletics. To be honest, schools shouldn't really care if a student spends three hours a day training at a local gym or just playing PlayStation. In my opinion, they should just stick to the core curriculum for 7th and 8th grade, and maybe offer extra credit toward high school entrance exams or graduation requirements. At the end of the day, there isn't really any reason to reward or penalize how someone chooses to spend their free time.
In Washington, D.C., there’s a massive rush of students trying to get into the sports track, even in a small town in the Midwest. Then you have that specialized sports program at the high school—which isn't exactly famous, mind you—and I believe there's also a sports option over at the vocational school in the suburbs.
Regarding our friend from the local club, her athletic achievements are actually quite impressive; she just competed in the finals of the World Junior Championships. That seems to be the standard for most kids there—exceptionally successful athletes, often national champions, who also happen to be top-tier students. As for the curriculum, it doesn't differ much from a standard high school track, though they do offer more flexibility with testing and assignments to accommodate their training schedules (for instance, when they have to miss class for intensive prep sessions or competitions a few times a year). Word on the street is that the other two programs are "easier," though from what I understand, most kids from the club end up enrolling in regular high schools. Take this one boy from the club, for example—he was also at the World Juniors—and his school is usually pretty flexible with him because they realize the dedicated sports tracks just can't meet everyone's needs.
hiddendriver34 said:My take? Most of them will stay that way, except for the ones that have already jumped on the bandwagon and started testing. 🤷
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.
Betty Wood54 said:Wow, jumping from five points all the way to TEN. And since grades make up 80% of the total... I guess they really did tighten the standards, didn't they?
Exactly. ☕
And then you have to factor in that all the "top-tier" schools in cities like Chicago or NYC will probably start holding their own entrance exams soon. It’s going to be a total headache trying to apply to more than three or four places because the testing dates will inevitably clash... Now, if they had just implemented a standardized national exam, you could just take one test for everything and call it a day. Who knows—it’s hard to say. But that would be almost too simple. Plus, when kids are taking specialized entrance exams for just a few schools, it becomes a bit of a joke when someone claims they pulled a 5 in math but can't even tackle two basic problems. If entire classrooms were pulling 5s but couldn't pass a standard high school exit exam, then we might actually see who's doing their job and who isn't...