@Adam Diaz67, honestly, back when I was in school, the teachers didn't change nearly as much as people claim; we’d joke around when the mood allowed, but if they called for silence, you actually got silence. It’s funny how things work out, isn't it? I remember getting my first microscope—the kind with a built-in camera and imaging capabilities—from my dad right around the time I was finishing middle school and starting at Phillips Academy, and that little device opened up an entire universe of things I never would have even dreamed of seeing on my own. Then, you layer that on top of having teachers who constantly feed you fresh ideas and challenging assignments, and you just find yourself gradually evolving into whatever it is you love... you explore things at a pace that fits your age and your growing skillset, which really shapes who you become. Because of that environment, I genuinely enjoyed my time in school, and it made the transition to college feel pretty seamless. If I had to say, I think for most people, those specific years in school act as the ultimate compass for where they go next in life.
Betty Wood54 said:Limits, derivatives, and integrals are the very last things covered in the senior year of high school (for any track with four years of math). Integrals are literally the final unit in the curriculum; if those aren't covered, it doesn't necessarily mean nothing else was missed later on.
Why all that isn't finished, I honestly haven't a clue. I went to a specialized math prep school, so we had extra hours and we got through all of it. But kids in general education tracks have fewer hours, so maybe teachers just focus on other things and end up skipping the rest.
But, speaking as someone with quite a bit of experience with university-level math, whether those specific topics were covered in high school isn't actually that critical for college math. At almost any university, if you're studying integrals (at least nowadays), you basically start from scratch and learn them from the ground up.
And that isn't because of "poor high school preparation." It's more because university mathematics (for the 90% of people who weren't math competition kids) represents a shift toward a completely different way of thinking, specifically regarding proofs. That's where most people struggle. The problems are harder, they require more work, and they demand a deeper level of understanding—you really have to grasp the definitions and the proofs themselves.
And that's not just an issue in the former America; it's everywhere. In the US, you have the famous Calculus, which covers the basics of derivatives and integrals, mostly at a computational level (we even did some integral definitions via limits back in high school). Then you have Mathematical Analysis, which is the true mathematical approach to it. In our universities, we jump straight into Mathematical Analysis.
Personally, I think your approach of using "random topic X" is just silly. First off, when I looked up what that was, I couldn't see any connection to college prep. Something you can read a definition for in ten seconds and immediately understand shouldn't be considered a major pillar of college readiness.
Nobody is actually out here studying "random topic X," but hey, if that's how you want to play it...
Betty Wood54 said:I find it somewhat funny that you are asking about the Hesse normal form. Honestly, that specific term isn't really used in the States at all—I mean, when I searched online, I could barely find anything besides one obscure lecture note mentioning the Hesse normal form for line equations. It seems just a little too niche, so I guess I don't quite understand why anyone would remember it using that exact phrasing.
But really, who is supposed to remember what, exactly? The Hessian normal form is just standard material covered back in 11th or 12th grade high school... I just assumed it was part of the curriculum here too, so I didn't bother looking it up because I simply took it for granted. Besides, how does any of this even relate to the point I was making about my enrollment? There was mention of how some schools don't even get around to covering integrals, so I just figured if they're skipping those, there's probably a whole laundry list of other things left untouched or unmastered in the classroom. And what does that have to do with anything you're saying? You could swap out "Hessian normal form" for pretty much any other topic taught in an American high school and the logic remains identical: if vocational schools clearly aren't covering certain topics—which seems obvious based on various forum posts regarding enrollment—then there is undoubtedly more missing, which ultimately leads to poor preparation for college. I certainly can't be expected to know the entire contents of every single high school curriculum in advance, regardless of the subject.
Betty Wood54 said:I graduated from MIT, and even as I'm finishing up my math studies, this is the first time I've ever even heard of the Hess normal form. ☕
Right... Honestly, I’m not quite sure how one would even begin to comment on that, given how much there is to unpack, 🤷 but maybe looking at it this way might make things click for you: https://ibb.co/YQznxw8 And if you want to dive deeper into the weeds, here is this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesse_normal_form
Susan James said:Medical schools require more than just a high school diploma—they have entrance exams too. They want students to arrive with a solid foundation so they can actually build on it, which makes total sense to me. It’s surprising that other programs don't demand the same thing. But if a topic is officially part of the curriculum and the professor is assigned specific hours and pay for that course, they really should teach it exactly as it's laid out in the syllabus. I imagine it's pretty exhausting when you're trying to lecture to students who are just staring at you blankly because they lack the necessary background knowledge.
Preparation for college varies quite a bit. It isn't just about what was covered in high school; it depends on how much effort the student put in, their memory, their interests, and even just which teacher they happened to have. Think about it: a school might have something in its official curriculum, but if they run out of time, they might skip it entirely. You could end up with a specialist who taught themselves everything on the side and passed the entrance exam, while a traditional student walks away thinking they mastered a subject just because it was in the handbook, even though they never actually saw the professor teach it...
That's why having those entrance exams is such a good idea.
Every university should be requiring a strong prerequisite knowledge base. Of course, it ultimately comes down to the individual and their own capabilities, but a university can—and should—set certain standards... much like the medical school example you mentioned. If someone hasn't even mastered the high school level (whether through formal schooling or self-study), what hope do they have once they hit college? Similarly, high schools ought to be a bit more selective with their students to ensure everything actually gets covered and mastered, rather than letting struggling students hold back the entire group.
Adam Diaz67 said:Signed. Same here. I considered MIT or maybe studying under Isaac Newton, but I passed because I really didn't feel like trekking across town. On a Saturday morning when traffic is light, it’s a 45-minute bus ride. But during the weekday rush? If the subway or a bus gets stuck, that trip turns into over an hour one way. In the end, I just enrolled in the same local prep school that's only 15 minutes from my house. Instead of dragging myself out of bed at 6:00 AM, I can sleep until 7:15. And yeah, nobody dictated which school I had to go to either.
@Mart28
Yeah. You take the SATs. Some colleges require extra subjects, so if you didn't take them in high school, you're basically studying and testing on your own. For instance, if you want to move from, say, a technical high school to a major like Chemical Engineering, but you only took chemistry for one year, it’s going to be much harder than it is for someone coming from a traditional prep school—not just getting in, but surviving the coursework since you'll be missing foundational knowledge. I can give you an example from my own college experience. During freshman year, kids from tech or vocational high schools had a huge leg up in things like drafting or CAD because they’d already done it in class. Meanwhile, students from heavy math-focused prep schools had the edge in calculus and mechanics because some schools just don't cover derivatives and integrals thoroughly enough. By sophomore year, things usually even out. Theoretically, the system is set up so that someone with a cosmetology diploma who passes the equivalency exams could get into med school, or someone who never studied music could get into a conservatory. In practice, though, that rarely happens.
It’s hard for me to wrap my head around how that works in practice; if the whole point of high school is to prepare you for university, then shouldn't the curriculum be structured to ensure those topics are covered? If they're planned, then skipping them properly feels unfair. I mean, if they aren't teaching integrals correctly, how are students supposed to handle things like the Hess normal form and stuff like that? E: I see that some programs are starting from scratch with the material, and honestly, I'm glad to hear that med school applicants have to meet certain prerequisite requirements from their high school days.
So, you end up in this weird situation where you can supposedly take an elective on your high school graduation exams that you didn't even actually study during your senior year, assuming you just handle all the prep work entirely on your own—and it’s the same deal if a university decides to run those prerequisite entrance exams. It makes you wonder, though, how many applicants actually have the guts to pick a subject they’ve never even touched before? I mean, isn't it pretty much impossible to pull that off in the real world if the college explicitly demands certain prior knowledge, or if you walk into a major with zero background and immediately find yourself at a massive disadvantage compared to everyone else?
Sarah Hall53 said:Well, things work pretty much the same way here in the States—you can actually jump from any four-year vocational program straight into taking the SATs and heading off to a university. It’s also possible if you finish a three-year technical track to just tack on an extra fourth year to get that high school diploma, sit for the exams, and then move on to college. Actually, I think if you enroll in that fourth year immediately after finishing your third, it might even be free? But hey, don't quote me on that, I could be totally off.
Fair enough. But if someone finishes a three-year program and then (according to what I've seen online) has to put in two more years just to catch up to a standard four-year high school graduate so they can actually take the SATs, what does the curriculum for a four-year vocational school even look like... is it identical to a regular prep school? And what happens with all those specific subjects a university demands that aren't part of that particular trade... can those kids just sign up for them as electives? Or do they have to commit to an entire additional year if they want to be ready for college entrance exams? E: It's mostly an issue when a kid wants to go to college for something completely unrelated to their vocational training. Like, say, they finish a program focused on business or IT, but then decide they actually want to study chemistry at a major university.
Private schools are basically just a rounding error in these statistics at this point. Plus, they’re probably baked right into the data itself.
Yeah, from what I can gather, there aren't many of them. But this whole quota system just feels fundamentally skewed, especially when the private sector is such a minor player in the equation. I think I much prefer the idea of having more options after high school... you know, where everything stays open rather than being locked behind these rigid paths.
What percentage of kids actually enroll in high school prep programs after middle school, and what’s the breakdown of how many graduates actually head off to college each year? And does anyone know the actual percentage of highly educated people in America? So, I came across this data: In secondary schools managed by the federal government, local municipalities, or regional authorities, they’ve planned out enrollment spots for a total of 43,793 students across 1,988 classrooms for the upcoming freshman year:
1) academic high school tracks for 10,710 students in 447 classrooms, which is about 24.46%;
2) four-year vocational training programs for 18,438 students in 808 classrooms, or 42.1%;
3) three-year vocational qualification programs for 6,242 students in 284 classrooms, roughly 14.25%;
4) three-year apprenticeship-style programs for 4,858 students in 218 classrooms, at 11.09%;
5) five-year specialized medical assistant or nursing technician programs for 1,214 students in 50 classrooms, which is 2.77%;
6) lower-level technical certification programs for 124 students in 7 classrooms, or 0.28%;
7) adaptive and special education programs for 838 students in 97 classrooms, representing 1.91%;
8) performing arts and music academies for 1,369 students in 77 classrooms, at 3.13%.
Of course, I assume there are plenty of private schools out there too, right?
The capacity for abstract reasoning kicks in around age twelve, which means adolescents at that stage are actually capable of drawing logical conclusions from abstract premises; they can mentally test their own assumptions through systematic thought (for instance, what would happen if everyone in the country was unemployed?). If we were looking at a sort of orientation checklist for baseline competencies required before starting school, it might look something like this:
1. General Development: - the ability to listen, to speak in coherent, complete sentences, to answer a question and—just as importantly—know how to ask one, staying focused on a single task for maybe 10 to 20 minutes, holding a pencil correctly, knowing how to use scissors, possessing a certain level of frustrationstoleranz when things go wrong, and having a genuine curiosity or desire to learn. 2. Independence: - tying shoelaces, dressing and undressing oneself, using the restroom independently and leaving it clean, washing hands thoroughly for at least 30 seconds, knowing one's full name and home address, and being able to recognize one's own clothing. 3. Social Competencies: - being accustomed to being away from parents while in a group of other children, understanding and respecting group rules, knowing how to communicate with peers, being able to ask for help when necessary, helping other kids, participating in collaborative tasks, and resolving conflicts through verbal communication rather than outbursts.
4. Foundational Subject Skills: - counting to ten, having a basic grasp of numbers, recognizing shapes and colors, identifying their own written name and perhaps being able to write, knowing how to use brushes and paints, throwing and catching a ball, and following instructions during physical games.
These are just those bare minimum markers that a healthy, normally developing child should possess—though, in reality, many know far more, and entering school itself represents its own significant developmental milestone. I am not entirely sure what the specific mandates are here in the States, but typically, by the time a child hits the mandatory school age of six, they should have already mastered most of the aforementioned skills by age five. School isn't delayed without cause; the only reason to hold a child back would be if there are developmental delays for any given reason, which should then be addressed through a clear remedial program or perhaps through specialized education—I believe the term used in the US for programs tailored for children who won't catch up within a single year is special education. Healthy children who didn't attend preschool, or perhaps attended a particularly subpar daycare center, might face some hurdles, but staying home won't solve those issues, nor does it provide them with any actual service. I’m not talking about children with significant disabilities here, because for them, delaying school entry actually makes sense. Ultimately, how a healthy child develops and what they master depends heavily on how much engagement and support they receive along the way.
Ethan Mitchell4 said:In my entire life, nobody ever bought a single book for me; I've bought about 300 of them myself. I’ve loved reading since I was a kid, practically inseparable from a book. I have a sister who's a year older than me, and she wouldn't even touch a newspaper. Out of my cousin's two daughters, there's a two-year age gap; one stays far away from books, while the other is actually studying to be a librarian (that's the term, right?). It's not an issue of parenting; it's a matter of temperament.
Someone mentioned something earlier regarding after-school programs. In those programs, they don't really focus on reading or working through school assignments. In fact, it's actually recommended that we handle things like English homework at home with our kids instead of leaving it to the staff at the center.
Honestly, I think it’s a mix of upbringing, personality, and just general lifestyle factors. The way a kid handles their schoolwork definitely ties back to how they were raised... though I might go as far as saying that's pure parenting right there. What a child—or any person, really—chooses to read comes down to their specific taste and character. But reading itself? That’s more than just looking at words on a page; it’s about imagination and so much more than that.
Hmm, where to begin? There’s the blatant lack of interest in the kid and what they’re actually going through, that refusal to sit down and just talk, and then there are those blunt commands issued without any context—because, honestly, isn't it much better to take a second and explain things a hundred times over rather than just barking orders? Then you have the hypocrisy of expecting one thing from a child while consistently doing the exact opposite yourself, taking your frustrations out on them, or piling on an exhausting schedule of activities and then acting like you deserve some grand trophy of gratitude just because I'm the one driving, waiting around, and footing the bill. And don't even get me started on the total absence of actual, relaxed quality time, like just reading a book together or singing a song before bed. I'm sure more will come to mind eventually. E: and then there's the whole "do whatever you want, however you want, since it's your life and I couldn't care less" attitude.
By the way, back in high school, I had this absolutely brilliant female teacher at HP. We didn't have to write essays in these massive notebooks or bring anything in to hand over for grading. Instead, we'd just have these deep discussions about the book in class (not necessarily "creative" writing, but you couldn't just fake it by reading a summary). She wouldn't waste our time with trivial stuff like what color someone's dress was, but she would push us to connect the themes to art movements, music, or literature... and she loved making connections to other books and even current events. 😍 (That was way back in the last century. Back before schools were all about "preparing you for life." It really all comes down to the professor.)
I wasn't a huge fan of reading only the required books either. Sometimes, after finishing an assignment, I'd jump straight into something else just to wash away that mindless feeling. 🤣
I did the exact same thing,😍 honestly, I’d always find myself rushing through whatever boring assignment was on my plate just so I could finally move on to something actually worth my time. But then again, there were those rare moments where a story would catch me completely off guard with its ending, wouldn't there?
Why does it seem like kids only ever touch the books assigned by their teachers? Growing up, my parents used to hand me all sorts of novels and stories, and honestly, they completely sucked me in—I was that kid who would be hiding a paperback under the desk during class just to keep going, or staying up way past my bedtime because the plot was just too intense to put down. Sure, I didn't enjoy every single school assignment, but I always finished them and got the work done. The real trick is fostering that genuine hunger for reading; some books are absolute masterpieces and others are just okay, but you really don't know until you've lived through the pages and actually sat with the ideas afterward. Because I'm such a bookworm, my kids are constantly asking what I'm reading, so I usually end up spinning a condensed version of the story into a little tale just for them so we have something to talk about; plus, we read books specifically geared toward their age where we’ll draw out the characters or map out the plot together. Most nights, we settle in for a reading session before bed. I tend to get excited about every new book I pick up and I make sure to tell them all about it, which eventually sparks that same curiosity in them. Most kids don't care for reading simply because they haven't discovered the massive, hidden universe tucked inside a cover yet; maybe they read too slowly to catch the momentum of the plot, or maybe their reading nook isn't cozy enough, or perhaps it’s just that reading isn't viewed as something fun at home, but rather seen as just another chore... like homework, or some tedious task that's just stealing their time.
goldeneagle36 said:I think it all really boils down to the teacher. For those first two years in after-school care, they had this incredible teacher that they absolutely adored. They were constantly putting on plays, building little hotels, filming movies—you name it. Then she went on maternity leave and they got a substitute, and the difference was night and day. I’m seeing something similar with my little one in preschool—we moved him to a different group this year and the change is just as obvious. I was actually terrified we were making a mistake, but in this case, I'm relieved we took the leap. My main worry now is how he'll handle elementary school since he's struggled before, especially with his fine motor skills, and hearing people say that if a kid can't use scissors by a certain age there's nothing more to be done... well, that isn't exactly comforting.
There are all sorts of different worksheets out there for practicing at home with your kid. I actually tried to upload a full set for you, but for some reason, they just won't upload properly. 🤷
hiddendriver34 said:Look, obviously it all comes down to the teacher—that’s always the deciding factor—but if you look at the last few pages of this thread, nobody is even talking about the instructors. The focus has been entirely on the actual assignments. Is a kid supposed to be drawing? Is a kid supposed to be cutting out shapes? What kind of nonsense is that?!!😠
A teacher assigns a task with a specific developmental purpose, but then the parent steps in and does the work for them. Eventually, the child falls behind, so the parent keeps doing the work just to hide the fact that they're struggling, and that’s where you get these intense reactions. It’s not really about the child anymore; it's about the parent who wants to finish the assignment and thinks the actual learning part is just a nuisance. It’s not a failure or a sin if a child struggles with something; what they need is positive motivation, encouragement, and a clear explanation when they don't understand. And look, I don't mean to offend anyone, but I keep seeing the same sentiment repeated over and over, so I felt compelled to weigh in.
hiddendriver34 said:Is that really supposed to be the only goal here?
I read somewhere recently that the skill sets being hunted for in the global business world have flipped completely upside down over the last decade. Apparently, "teamwork" has tanked in importance, and now creativity is sitting right at the top of the most desirable traits list. These days, companies want creative individuals; being a "team player" is practically old news.
If school is meant to prepare kids for life and the actual job market, shouldn't it be encouraging them to develop the very skill that's considered most vital right now? Do you think creative assignments should be limited to art class? Because right now, you don't see them anywhere in high school.
I constantly see parents getting all worked up whenever anyone mentions "creative tasks."
By the way, I have no clue what a "pizza assignment" is either. But honestly? It sounds pretty cool. 😁
Sports, physical movement, and play—which includes creative expression—all serve to stimulate the development of those executive functions mentioned earlier, so by blocking that kind of engagement, aren't you actually achieving the exact opposite effect? We learn better and more easily when things are fun, provided the child is given the freedom to be creative and just solve the problem on their own. The era where simply being a team player was enough has passed; it isn't that teamwork is undesirable, it's just no longer sufficient on its own. The pizza assignment is a perfect example of one of those beautiful, engaging, and creative tasks.
steelridge58 said:(it’s like being at a bar where nobody even knows who's buying the next round) 🤣
That was pretty much how we had it set up originally, but then Terry Martinez10 stepped in and said she’d actually prefer to let the people who haven't had a turn yet pick the questions—so, you know, casualtiger2 and Walnut, and so on and so forth...
I'm pretty sure they weren't, because it was obviously just a joke.
🤣 🙂)
Look, that was merely a suggestion; I certainly didn't intend to cause any unnecessary confusion or stir up a mess.
velveteagle8 said:But what happens if we end up with three top candidates, where one has already asked a question but the other two have never once? Lovely, I'll just say it: the only way to handle this properly is with some solid, official polling regulations.
In that case, why don't those two who haven't asked anything just hash it out and decide amongst themselves who gets the turn? I mean, I don't have a problem with people making deals, but isn't it just objectively better when you have a diverse range of voices actually putting questions on the table?