It’s a mathematical certainty that there will be more interested parties than actual available seats when everyone has the option to apply to six different schools. Essentially, every single student is theoretically generating six separate applications.
Just like that previous article I shared, we're looking at about 40,000 students eligible for high school, yet there are nearly 50,000 spots available. It’s all because if you open up 20 seats but only 5 people apply, those extra spots stay on the books. And of course, the administration still acts as if they need to hire enough teachers to cover 50,000 imaginary students in classrooms of 20 each.
I honestly can't wrap my head around who approved those two classes in that example from Aspen when there were just enough kids for one... it really goes to show that we're essentially paying for instruction for students who don't even exist. For instance, in Aspen, we're footing the bill for 26 phantom students plus the 14 actual ones.
But look, if students don't want to enroll in those specific schools, what’s the alternative? Are we just going to keep paying teachers to sit in classrooms meant for 25,000 non-existent students? We can't exactly force them in at gunpoint or pass some federal decree mandating enrollment in schools nobody actually wants to attend, right?
Now, scholarships are a great tool—if someone wants to go to a certain school, a little financial incentive might nudge them in that direction. But if the scholarship amount doesn't even cover the cost of a decent cup of coffee, then honestly, there's no point in offering them at all. I think a better approach would be for schools to optimize their curricula. They could create joint departments where the core subjects are nearly identical, minimizing the differences while keeping things efficient... various other tweaks like that could work wonders.
At the end of the day, we have plenty of teachers to cover the current student population across the country; the issue isn't a shortage of educators, it's just that they are incredibly poorly distributed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
At the end of the day, the system itself is always responsible for its own rules and whatever messy consequences they trigger.
In the actual business world, you don't see companies pointing fingers at their management because they designed a brilliant product and a flawless marketing campaign only to have "mean" customers refuse to buy it. Instead, they realize the fault lies within. It’s only in this upside-down version of the education system where everyone involved claims they are perfectly righteous, while blaming the rest of the universe for everything that goes wrong. ☕
Sarah Hall53 said:Look, if you literally have to kill yourself just to hit the GPA needed for enrollment—whether that's a 3.2, a 3.5, or a perfect 4.0—then honestly, you probably aren't a good fit for that track to begin with. Does that make sense?
Plus, nobody is stopping New Yorkers from just applying to a high school in a different city where the GPA requirements are lower—since everyone seems so incredibly bitter about the cities where you need a perfect 4.0 just to get in. ☕
And thirdly, I still haven't had anyone explain to me how high school admissions are somehow responsible for all the hysteria regarding GPAs and those "honor roll" certificates people obsess over during the first four years of middle school.
Actually, I disagree. If someone is struggling just to maintain an A or a B+ in their core subjects, they likely aren't a good fit for a high-pressure preparatory academy. Expecting a seamless 4.0 suggests either a total lack of standards or the misguided belief that only polymath geniuses should attend—people who can effortlessly sing, paint, play sports, ace calculus, write award-winning essays, and master English all at once. That’s simply unrealistic. Besides, this expectation of perfection is being voiced by someone who is part of the very system being criticized, yet suddenly, you don't seem to see the issue. Interesting.
Plus, no one is stopping New Yorkers from applying to prep schools in smaller towns where the entry requirements might be lower, especially since everyone seems so upset about the cities where a 4.0 is mandatory. ☕
Exactly! It's like we just quit our jobs and move to Des Moines, while everyone else from the suburbs flocks to New York City because I hear them complaining about having no options for their kids. Oops! Haven't all those people from out of town already protested against using extracurriculars like music for admissions? They got what they wanted when those credits were removed, but nobody told them that if they still want those extra points, they should just move closer to the city.
And a third point: I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the current admissions process is actually responsible for all this hysteria regarding GPAs and getting straight A's throughout middle school.
I'm not sure if that was your specific point. Personally, I don't know anyone who is obsessively pushing for a perfect 4.0 during the first four years of school. You might want to check with your friends on Facebook or look at their posted report cards. ☕
Edit: Your colleague was the one who introduced the term "ease." I am genuinely curious, though... how exactly does an admissions board evaluate the "ease" with which a certain GPA was achieved?
It’s funny—every five years or so, I catch up with my old teachers from high school (which, by the way, I managed to get into even without a perfect 4.0 GPA), and honestly, it’s such a relief. They don't look at us as just another set of numbers or kids with perfect transcripts. Not even close. They aren't happy about how the system works, either, and they certainly don't think the current setup is normal. And this was supposedly one of those "elite" prep schools... you know, one of those prestigious institutions that actually led to the government changing the rules to look at a student's GPA rather than just a single entrance exam score because they had more applicants with 80% scores than they had actual desks in the classrooms. Which, if you think about it, just added an insane amount of pressure to every single grade over all four years. It’s like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it. Truly a broken system.
Let's see how this debate usually plays out "Sick parents bullying their kids because a 3.8 GPA isn't quite high enough for them." "But isn't it actually the school system itself that sets these insane grade requirements just to get into a standard high school? That's what’s actually putting all this pressure on the students, right?" "Well, if you can't maintain a perfect 4.0, then maybe you aren't cut out for a prep school anyway." It's pure madness...
Check out this headline—it’s a total shocker.🤣 It just goes to show how broken our entire education system really is when you see posts like this from actual school staff.
Basically, if you look at the entry threshold, it’s sitting around 76—which, by the way, means having four top grades puts you out of the running entirely, even though realistically you should only be allowed one "essential" item across both the seventh and eighth grades combined. Then you see someone with a score like 78.83 for just some run-of-the-mill, nothing special public high school, and suddenly everyone starts spinning this narrative that it's all about overbearing parents putting undue pressure on their kids rather than acknowledging the flaws in the actual school system ☕
The idea that certain GPA scores are required for high school admission isn't actually part of the American school system; honestly, it just seems like parental delusion to me.☕
Susan James said:They won't follow Cleveland's lead because the entire proposal doesn't mention them at all. It’s the same way people forget about the old America era and all those cities and schools that used CNo.
It’s honestly a shame that everything is being pinned on Fuchs, when Divjak was actually the one who tried to introduce the idea back in 2020 and wrote the original project. He just inherited it and tacked on a 25% pay raise to make it look better. So, he'll likely just be remembered for trying to get a massive raise for 50 principals. He’ll probably just be remembered as another typical Republican, and personally, I don't think that's a question worthy of a game show.
And poor little Mickey, just collateral damage along with his entire team! It was all personally dreamed up and meticulously prepared by that malicious Divjakica, who is apparently responsible for every single problem in the American education system from the seventh century until the very end of time or the existence of Americans themselves (though she's certainly made a hundred appearances before now). 🤣
She laid it out for you pretty clearly: posting those pathetic "kids are prisoners" rants on these forums isn't doing anyone any favors. It’s just not constructive. If you actually had a specific suggestion for how to change the way things are run—I mean, there was a public forum for exactly that. Anyone who wanted to contribute something meaningful could have stepped up and written something coherent then.
Casey Cook10 said:When were you actually pulling those funds, and which bank were you using? Back when those loans were exploding, it was almost impossible to tell how your interest rate was actually calculated or what benchmark it was pegged to. It felt like it just changed "because the bank said so." Honestly, even five years into my payments, I couldn't get a straight answer from anyone. They didn't even bother coming up with a clear formula for new loans until around 2011.
It’s like everyone just rushed into the hype, listing rates as some kind of Swiss Franc LIBOR plus a fixed margin, then they'd just unilaterally tear up contracts once the Swiss Franc LIBOR hit basically zero.
There was actually a discussion about this earlier in this thread...
With Hypo, it was actually for a car—more like a lease if we're being technical about the loan type—back in 2007. The Swiss Franc Loan offer was tied to LIBOR, offering a better rate, but I turned it down. At that time, I also had a mortgage from 2005, also through Hypo, but it was in Euros and tied to EURIBOR. They didn't terminate my contracts. My interest rate fluctuated now and then, and the exchange rate was just what it was. Unilateral termination sounds like something that would definitely be grounds for a lawsuit.
I'm not saying it was easy to find an offer where the interest rate was defined that way, but the main point is that people were publicly warned about the risks of the Swiss Franc multiple times—it wasn't just buried in some obscure corner of a Federal Reserve bulletin. Since most people didn't have a choice in how the interest was structured, they at least got to choose the currency. And you could certainly find competitive rates.
And honestly, I don't see any fundamental difference in the principle of a loan tied to the Swiss Franc versus any other foreign currency. It's like how for a long time, huge amounts of savings weren't kept in Dollars, but specifically in foreign currencies. Does anyone really think banks are smarter than the general public?