Larry Walker24 said:He could've easily skipped a grade.
In my experience here in the States, that’s pretty rare. Even compared to when kids get held back in elementary school—which doesn't happen all that much anyway—skipping a grade is an even rarer occurrence...
Look, there’s a massive difference between delaying school because a child has specific developmental needs—though, honestly, I always wonder if extra time actually helps. If their struggles weren't caught early enough in preschool, what is an extra year of just playing really going to achieve instead of targeted intervention? But then you have people online literally saying, "just delay them if you can," treating the idea of a six-and-a-half-year-old starting kindergarten like it's some kind of systemic cruelty or a punishment from above. To me, that's just total nonsense.
On a different note, I definitely know kids who were absolutely miserable because they were bored out of their minds, especially during after-school programs. If you combine that boredom with a teacher who isn't particularly engaging, those first couple of grades can be a pretty rough experience. I remember one little guy I know—his older sister used to constantly have to pick him up early from daycare because he couldn't stand sitting there for an hour doing homework. He usually finished everything during class time anyway since he could already read, write, and do math better than what they were teaching, having mastered most of it two years before he even started. He didn't actually start school until he was seven and a half because of his late birthday. Whenever his sister would ask how school was, he’d just roll his eyes and laugh about how "hard" it was because they were "already working on the number 5." He had this incredibly sharp sense of sarcasm and irony for such a little kid.
Both of my kids started school right around age six, and honestly, I don’t regret it one bit. If I had the choice—and looking back, maybe I even did have it, though I never really checked the fine print—I wouldn't have kept them in preschool for an extra year if I could have helped it. I mean, what more would they even be doing there? Once they hit elementary school, they were finally with kids their own age, diving into subjects they actually felt ready to tackle. In fact, if my daughter hadn't been on the wrong side of the cutoff date by just two months, I probably would have enrolled her even earlier. Preschool had become such a bore for her, whereas she was breezing through those first four grades like it was nothing.
Carl Bishop2 said:How is it even possible to justify holding a kid back if they aren't actually struggling? Maybe some people find it a little easier to say, "We decided to give them more time to just be a kid," rather than admitting, "Our child is having a hard time."
It’s definitely doable; there are plenty of ways to make it happen. You really just need to find a pediatrician who is willing to be flexible... people can get quite creative when they set their minds to something. It's especially common if the child is right on the age cutoff. In fact, looking at this thread, you can see a few folks here who share that same sentiment—thinking "there's no harm in waiting" or suggesting "if you can delay it, go for it." Some of the moms mentioned they held their kids back for specific developmental reasons, while others were very candid about what I just noted, even chuckling about how they managed to navigate around the official rules. People tend to be surprisingly open during these conversations when they feel they're doing what's best for their family, even if it means bending the system. There's almost a sense of, "We beat the bureaucracy, hooray!" ☕
I can’t help but think back to a situation with my youngest. At the beginning of the school year, during one of those parent meetings, we found out that about four kids had been "held back" a grade. Some of the moms were actually being quite open about it, saying they wanted them held back just "so they could play a little longer." By the end of that preschool year, I actually witnessed one of those kids crying in the locker room because he didn't want to go into the classroom. His mom was right there, pleading with him, telling him he just had to hang in there a bit longer until summer and then he'd finally be in "real" school...
I just find myself picturing that child—now seven and a half years old, completely unfazed, having already gone through the pre-K curriculum twice. He already knows his letters, how to read, and his numbers up to 100. Can you imagine him walking into a first-grade classroom, only to spend another entire year on fine motor skills and "re-learning" printed letters that he mastered ages ago?
Sure, there’s definitely less playtime in elementary school compared to preschool, I'll give you that. But honestly, in those early grades, I don't think the drop-off is so drastic that it justifies keeping a kid in daycare for an extra year just to cling to that playtime. From what I've seen, they still find plenty of ways to stay active and have fun even once they're officially in school. Take my fifth grader, for example—things are starting to get a bit more serious now. We're seeing more hours dedicated to studying, and they're actually starting to skip out on time at the playground because they feel like they "have to study for a test."
If I break down how those 8 to 10-hour daycare schedules actually look... my kiddos usually rolled in around 8:30 AM, so we’d spend at least 20 minutes on breakfast. After that, there was a minimum of an hour dedicated to group activities in the morning, followed by lunch—which took more than half an hour—then getting everyone settled for nap time, which lasted about 2.5 hours. In the afternoons, my group would have an hour of organized sports or maybe some English lessons, wrapping things up around 4:30 PM. If you include playtime, everything basically runs until 5:00 PM.
Back when they were in preschool, they didn't take naps anymore, but we still ran a preschool program. It wasn't quite two hours, but we definitely did at least an hour of structured programming every day.
I should clarify that these daycare activities aren't "school" in the formal sense, but kids are still sitting at tables, listening to instructions, and working on specific tasks.
rowdypanther12 said:Michelle Nelson4, man, my kids will sit quietly for four hours straight, then they eat (takes a while to settle them down again), head outside for an hour, and then get right back to sitting and finishing their homework. If they power through the work quickly and my parents come over, they might squeeze in another half hour or so of playtime. So, we're looking at maybe two or three hours of play compared to the whole day at preschool? How do you even compare the two? I mean, they’ll still play, obviously, but they definitely have way less freedom than they did before starting school.
Well, I don't think they're just sitting calmly for four hours straight—where did that idea come from? In our experience, they had about three hours of physical activity, either all at once or spread out through the day, plus homeroom time where they’d often head out to the playground. My kid also had a break at least twice a week during class because of religious studies, which he usually spent playing soccer outside with his buddies (with the teacher keeping an eye on them), so his day was basically split into two blocks with a gap in between. They’d finish up around 11:25 or 12:15, grab lunch, play until 2:00, and then tackle about an hour and a half of homework. BUT, at our school, the rule was that if you finished your work early, you could go play outside or just hang out quietly in the classroom. So, he was actually getting at least 3 to 4 hours of play every single day. Plus, learning new material is its own kind of intellectual stimulation—it isn't just about physical play...
In my view, the biggest upside to preschool is the sheer consistency; you know your kid has a safe place to be all year long, complete with four guaranteed meals a day. School is a different story entirely—it feels like there's a holiday every other week, and finding reliable after-school care can be such a headache. I really do empathize with parents who decide to keep their child in daycare for an extra year just to manage the logistics of a six-year-old being home alone during all those school breaks. It’s a tough spot to be in, though I don't think keeping them back is necessarily the best move for their development. Honestly, we really need to find a real solution where children up to age eight have access to some kind of organized childcare during school holidays. Most working parents in America simply don't have three months of vacation time to bridge those gaps.
Well, you can play outside while the sun is actually up! It’s not quite the same level of chaotic fun as being at daycare, especially when you're trying to squeeze in some weekend playtime at 5:30 PM in the middle of winter. On weekdays, from about 8 to 5, it's pretty much a routine similar to a school schedule; after that, it really just comes down to how much parents can actually pull together. For my little one, as soon as his after-school program wrapped up—around three o'clock—his availability for playing shot up significantly. I honestly think that might have been his golden era; he didn't have many heavy school assignments yet, had a ton of free time, and enjoyed that sense of freedom just wandering around the neighborhood on his own. But then again, even during those first two years, he got more than enough playtime and socializing to go around...
I’ve never really understood this whole concept of kids "missing out on playtime" once they start school. In my experience, my kid just kept playing with friends every single day and weekend for years afterward. It’s just that the *way* they play changes—it’s less about organized games and more about hanging out outside with the crew, kicking a soccer ball around at the local park, or just cruising around on their bikes. A kid who is naturally social and loves being active isn't going to suddenly stop being that way just because they have a backpack now. Honestly, I don't see any real benefit in keeping a child in preschool just for the sake of extra playtime.
hiddendriver34 said:Man, my kid actually gave up on computer science back in seventh grade. Back in fifth grade, they had this amazing teacher who kept things super engaging—they were doing really cool, hands-on stuff like programming in Python. It was easily his favorite subject in school.
But then sixth grade rolled around, and they got this new teacher who pushed an "advanced" curriculum that was basically the exact opposite of fun. He spent the whole year complaining because it became mind-numbingly boring. They were just rehashing everything he already knew, and if he hit a topic he hadn't seen before, they’d spend the entire class period dragging out a concept that should have taken him three minutes to grasp.
Even though he was cruising through with easy A's, it felt like such a massive waste of time and mental energy that he just checked out completely. Honestly, I don't blame him. My only worry is that schools shouldn't suddenly make passing computer science in seventh or eighth grade a strict requirement for getting into high school. 😬
Exactly. My daughter dropped it in seventh grade too because it just wasn't stimulating enough. Plus, she was training for her sport five days a week, often right during the computer science block. The school didn't really make a fuss about it either, mostly because finding good tech teachers is such a struggle in the US that they just accommodate whatever schedules work for them. ☕
I guess we'll see how it goes with my son. His current teacher is... well, just okay, nothing special. But they have moved on to using Python now, so perhaps things will pick up and get a bit more interesting.
Oh, come on, don't even get me started on Caltech 🤣 I mean, seriously, some students from Caltech land high-paying jobs in their field a full year before they even toss their caps at graduation—we're talking six figures, sometimes way more. You’d think they’d need someone like Blanche to hand them those roles on a silver platter 😵
But hey, we all know who's really to blame for everything 🤦
Chemistry isn't really the issue here, but when they were forced to pick three more subjects... Regarding physics instruction, from what I gather, the quality varies wildly depending on which school district you're in. In my local high school, for instance, the curriculum is actually quite rigorous and demanding—just recently, we were tackling complex circuit problems, calculating resistances, and working through series and parallel voltages. Last year, our school even produced state champions in physics! But then I hear stories about other schools where kids just memorize a handful of definitions and call it a day.
At the end of the day, though, you can't blame the students if the teaching they're receiving is subpar. ☕
Kate Jackson4 said:Computer science is a massive draw right now. If I recall correctly, last year you couldn't even dream of getting into a program in a major city like Chicago with fewer than 70 points... maybe 72 at least, and if you were aiming for a top-tier school like MIT, you'd need even more to account for the decimals.
I don't think they've released last year's official cutoff tables yet; I can't find them anywhere online.
The scoring is based on American History, a foreign language, the MAT, Chemistry, Physics, and technical subjects.
Well, it looks like the cutoff for the Computer Technology track in the Electrical Engineering Department was actually 69.55. This means it’s likely mostly students passing with straight A's, though maybe someone with a B average could squeeze in if they aced all those core science and math classes. Back in my day, those were the kind of averages you'd see for "top-tier" schools, not for a place like General Electric. But hey, there might still be a spot left for someone with a few B's in those specific subjects, though I wouldn't count on it lasting long.
rowdypanther12 said:Traditionalists have always kept their standards incredibly low 🤷
Honestly, even these "standard" programs have relatively low average scores compared to the rest of our top-tier prep schools. It's not just that the classicist approach isn't trendy anymore; it’s been true for at least a decade now—these are some of the easiest high-level academies to get into, provided you aren't looking at the ones out in the suburbs or those private Catholic schools that take anyone with a decent attitude.
Parents often try to "sneak" classical languages into their kids' schedules by enrolling them in specialized private academies where class sizes are smaller and the pressure feels a bit more manageable. They figure, "Hey, it won't hurt them," and they just get used to it.
And of course, the entry scores look lower because they’re pulling from a disproportionately tiny pool of students, which ends up stretching that grading scale from a perfect 4.0 all the way down to a passing grade. Given how many kids are hitting those minimum requirements at local three-year vocational schools, I suspect there are still plenty of them out there 😁
Honestly, all this outrage about needing such high scores to get into an elite school like Isaac Newton is kind of ridiculous. It's the perfectly predictable outcome of a policy that decides admissions should be based solely on classroom grades and absolutely nothing else. Any time you make a one-sided decision like that, you're going to see these kinds of anomalies. This isn't a new problem; the current system has been fundamentally flawed for decades, and this is just one more symptom of that deep-rooted issue.
If they actually implemented standardized testing for the specific subjects these schools care about, then a kid's history grade wouldn't matter nearly as much. That would give students the actual power to choose between a STEM-focused academy or somewhere like Isaac Newton.
Why on earth would it be considered wrong if a computer technician program required more points for entry than a standard high school diploma track? To me, that makes perfect sense.
What I find truly shocking, though, are the minimum score requirements for STEM-focused academies in smaller US towns. It would be fascinating to conduct a full socioeconomic study on those local populations and their specific educational preferences.
I had this incredible English teacher back in high school, so... if you hadn't actually read the assigned books, there was absolutely no way you were walking away with an A or even a B. Personally, I’d usually land a B myself, but I was totally fine with that because my teacher was so tough yet brilliant—she was easily the most popular person on campus. A total legend.
She still shows up at every single one of our high school reunions! 👍
copperpuma11 said:I forced myself to give it another read in my thirties. I made it halfway through. I still have this intense urge to hit the author with an axe.
🤣 I definitely felt that same impulse during my very first read. To me, the book is just a living, breathing snooze-fest. You know, some of those epistolary novels actually managed to have a decent plot ☕
My main memory of studying it back in school was just pushing through to the final page, purely out of fear that some random detail might pop up on a midterm exam...