Posts by Carol Kelly3

wanderingbadger77 said:If a kid is doing fine in school—no behavioral issues or developmental red flags—then paying for private school is just throwing money down the drain.
The only time private makes sense is for vocational stuff, like training to be a dental tech or something, when you don't have the grades and your old man is willing to bankroll your laziness. But for anyone else, it’s too early to even think about private school because the public system actually provides better resources and a stronger foundation.
Look at the SAT scores; they're pathetic. It’s not even a debate. If Dad pays for private high school, he’s just going to pay for a private college later, whether that’s some local state school or some random half-baked university in Denmark or the Netherlands. That’s the big trend in Miami right now.
When you can't make the cut for a decent state university, you just brag about how you're "studying abroad" in the Netherlands. Nobody ever asks what the actual degree is even in.
It sounds fancy, studying overseas.

I feel like there would be a ton of insults thrown at students if things worked this way. Calling someone an underachiever just because they pass with decent grades without being handed them—or because they can't get into a top-tier public high school in New York City due to a broken admissions system—is just mean. But hey, feel free to keep acting like you're better than them.🤦

Susan James said:

I noticed you mentioned proab. I'm not quite sure what you meant by that, but if you were trying to start a conversation or ask a question, please feel free to elaborate! I'm always happy to chat or help out however I can. kaže:
That's coming from someone who spends half their time spreading urban legends themselves!

What's the point of this? ovog Are you guys thinking about enrolling? 😕
Selective reading and nitpicking posts without actually offering any constructive feedback? That’s a tough way to engage.

I wrote this.:

I still stand by everything that was said...

u postu If you look at my previous post from earlier today, I laid out exactly how people start building these myths about whether a school is "too hard" or "too easy." It’s a pattern I see all the time.

At the end of the day, if you know how to read between the lines, you'll understand this post

I always love hearing how kids perceive the world... and I truly just take it all with a smile (and I'm always surprised at first by how much they differ from us, which is actually a great thing for the future).

I mean, I thought the whole point of what they wrote was just pointing out how hypocritical you're being. You mentioned Harvard and then talked about studying like crazy day and night all in the same breath. 🤮

silentmason4 said:How absurd is that? 🤦

In what sense did they blossom?
I mean, I could totally agree that it's great when kids who struggle in public schools get a way out through private education if their family can afford it—it definitely takes some pressure off the public system—but I feel like socialization is actually more important. And I don't just mean for that one individual (because, let's be real, if they have money and family support, they'll probably be fine regardless), but for the sake of society as a whole.

How long is this place going to allow people to spit on and insult students and parents?

Where did you get the idea that kids actually working hard for those A's wouldn't fare better in public schools than the kids getting passing grades just because teachers feel bad for them? Because of how broken the system is, only certain people even have access to the good high schools in New York City.

Kate Jackson4 said:In my opinion, the worst part is how active this thread is—high school discussions happening on a parenting subforum... that says everything we need to know.
I’ve tried asking questions in high school threads where actual students or alumni post, but there's absolutely nobody there...

It used to be that parents barely knew which school their kid was heading to, and most kids handled the whole process themselves... nowadays, we're fighting their battles for them, obsessing over GPA and admissions... that's why this isn't working.😢

Maybe it's because teachers used to actually do their jobs without making everything about themselves. Nowadays, parents end up doing the teaching and stepping into territory they shouldn't be in. It's kind of sad, really.

Susan James said:The whole thing became a mess because parents were putting so much pressure on schools to get their kids into specific programs. Honestly, the specialized sports tracks are just as ridiculous—especially when kids drop out of them halfway through middle school—and some of those medical diagnoses feel a bit exaggerated too. When you take the massive population of Washington, D.C., and add everyone commuting in from the suburbs, those spots fill up incredibly fast...
We were actually debating the other day whether transit authorities should raise ticket prices for commuters coming from outside the city. Personally, I don't think that's the answer, since that would just drive more people to drive cars and create even worse traffic jams. But, following that logic, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to implement a residency preference point system, similar to how they handle preschool placements (since high school isn't mandatory anyway)....

Go ahead and keep repeating that if you want, maybe someone will actually buy it. 🤣 I mean, sure, there's pressure on parents, but the real reason grades are being handed out like candy is mostly just lazy teachers.

Susan James said:Why don't we all just pack up and move to Washington, D.C.? Then we can really drive those standards through the roof! 🤣

The quality of a school really depends on the students being enrolled. The real issue is that schools, terrified of not having enough applicants, lower their entrance requirements right from the start. This ends up letting in kids who aren't quite ready for that specific environment.
Speaking of entrance exams, in this kind of climate, teachers and principals would jump at the chance to use them (even though they'd actually get much better candidates), but parents would fight it because "exams are too stressful for children." In reality, for kids who are actually interested and talented, it isn't just stress—it's a thrill to show what they can do. My own kids mentioned that when they were applying for arts programs, they always had entrance exams, and they loved it. I also know kids heading toward specialized STEM academies who found the entrance tests way easier than regular school tests or competitions—especially if you actually know your math.

Another problem is that certain career paths are "in" right now. Parents want that "good job" for their kids, so they push them toward specific fields even if they aren't a good fit. This creates massive overcrowding in certain programs—kind of like how everyone tries to rush into tech hubs like Silicon Valley.
In Washington, D.C., you see a huge influx of students from all the surrounding states and counties because we have the dormitories available and the transit links are pretty solid for daily commuters.

I’m from Washington, D.C., where teachers basically hand out easy grades instead of actually doing their jobs, which is why this whole enrollment mess is such a joke. It feels like they're pushing me out of the city, so you shouldn't be surprised that I'm annoyed by the lack of effort. I mean, sure, it probably happens elsewhere, but I think it's a much bigger issue here.

Kate Jackson4 said:Kate Jackson4, I feel your pain. It’s the same story here in NYC; take NASA, for instance. Last year, you needed a 76.11 just to qualify as a computer technician.

If we weren't living in NYC, 50 points would probably be plenty... 🤣

It’s honestly pretty sad that some of us actually have to consider moving just so our kids can attend the schools they deserve. But I suppose nobody cares about people like us. I bet those folks in New York City don't mind, since they probably use those inflated grades to hide the fact that they aren't doing any work anyway.

Susan James said:Where did you actually read that if you didn't have perfect grades for four years, you aren't cut out for a prep school?
I never said that. My point is that there are plenty of kids who pass with high marks but still aren't suited for that kind of academic environment:

-Any kid who can't just sit down and study on their own during middle school isn't ready for a rigorous prep school.
-A child who finds it incredibly stressful to handle just a few tests a week isn't built for that lifestyle.
-A kid who skips hanging out with friends or traveling with their parents on long weekends just to maintain an A average isn't meant for that path.
-A child whose entire grade depends on one final exam—not just in one subject, but in most of them—probably isn't ready for that pressure.
-A child whose parent has to take vacation days just to help them finish projects and reading assignments likely won't thrive in a standard academic track; they might be better suited for vocational paths, maybe working at a Coca-Cola plant or training as a chef or pastry artist.

Kids with a 3.8 or 3.9 GPA typically enroll in these schools quite normally.
In Washington, D.C.
Sure, they might not get into those ultra-elite private academies, but honestly, who actually wants their kid studying relentlessly from dawn to dusk? This is the age when they should be falling in love, going to concerts, hanging out in the park, or just being teenagers.
There’s only a tiny percentage of kids who are truly mature enough to know at age 12 that they want to be surgeons and therefore need those top-tier schools.
But those kids are fine; they usually breeze through middle school. They might struggle a bit with gym or art, but even then, they often excel because they're so focused on everything else.

I totally agree with you there. I mean, just explain to me why someone who coasted through middle school with unearned participation points should get priority for high school admission over a kid who pulled a 4.5 GPA entirely on their own? That kind of system, especially with all those extra comments and fluff, is exactly what you seem to be rooting for.

Susan James said:Where did you actually read that if you didn't have perfect grades for four years, you aren't cut out for a prep school?
I never said that. My point is that there are plenty of kids who pass with high marks but still aren't suited for that kind of academic environment:

-Any kid who can't just sit down and study on their own during middle school isn't ready for a rigorous prep school.
-A child who finds it incredibly stressful to handle just a few tests a week isn't built for that lifestyle.
-A kid who skips hanging out with friends or traveling with their parents on long weekends just to maintain an A average isn't meant for that path.
-A child whose entire grade depends on one final exam—not just in one subject, but in most of them—probably isn't ready for that pressure.
-A child whose parent has to take vacation days just to help them finish projects and reading assignments likely won't thrive in a standard academic track; they might be better suited for vocational paths, maybe working at a Coca-Cola plant or training as a chef or pastry artist.

Kids with a 3.8 or 3.9 GPA typically enroll in these schools quite normally.
In Washington, D.C.
Sure, they might not get into those ultra-elite private academies, but honestly, who actually wants their kid studying relentlessly from dawn to dusk? This is the age when they should be falling in love, going to concerts, hanging out in the park, or just being teenagers.
There’s only a tiny percentage of kids who are truly mature enough to know at age 12 that they want to be surgeons and therefore need those top-tier schools.
But those kids are fine; they usually breeze through middle school. They might struggle a bit with gym or art, but even then, they often excel because they're so focused on everything else.

The person who mentioned taking time off was pretty clear about why they had to do it. In this specific case, it’s really just down to the responsibility of teachers who aren't pulling their weight. So, I think it would be nice if you could maybe stop with those rude comments about someone not being cut out for high school. I guess I'm just wondering where that kind of arrogance comes from.

Susan James said:Where did you actually read that if you didn't have perfect grades for four years, you aren't cut out for a prep school?
I never said that. My point is that there are plenty of kids who pass with high marks but still aren't suited for that kind of academic environment:

-Any kid who can't just sit down and study on their own during middle school isn't ready for a rigorous prep school.
-A child who finds it incredibly stressful to handle just a few tests a week isn't built for that lifestyle.
-A kid who skips hanging out with friends or traveling with their parents on long weekends just to maintain an A average isn't meant for that path.
-A child whose entire grade depends on one final exam—not just in one subject, but in most of them—probably isn't ready for that pressure.
-A child whose parent has to take vacation days just to help them finish projects and reading assignments likely won't thrive in a standard academic track; they might be better suited for vocational paths, maybe working at a Coca-Cola plant or training as a chef or pastry artist.

Kids with a 3.8 or 3.9 GPA typically enroll in these schools quite normally.
In Washington, D.C.
Sure, they might not get into those ultra-elite private academies, but honestly, who actually wants their kid studying relentlessly from dawn to dusk? This is the age when they should be falling in love, going to concerts, hanging out in the park, or just being teenagers.
There’s only a tiny percentage of kids who are truly mature enough to know at age 12 that they want to be surgeons and therefore need those top-tier schools.
But those kids are fine; they usually breeze through middle school. They might struggle a bit with gym or art, but even then, they often excel because they're so focused on everything else.

Well, you didn't actually write that yourself, but looking at your posts, it seems like you're backing up those people who act all arrogant about their views. There are plenty of them here, mostly folks claiming to work in the school system. I think they're actually the ones putting all this pressure on the kids, and then they turn around and blame the parents for not doing enough.

Susan James said:If an entrance exam for a dream school is too hard for a kid, then they just aren't ready for that specific school.
And I really stand by that.
I totally get the nerves, the lack of focus, or that crushing realization that one or two silly mistakes could ruin everything... but if the material is genuinely too difficult and they fail, then they aren't a fit for that program (regardless of whether they covered it in middle school or not). If they haven't covered it, that’s a much bigger issue within our education system, but from what I see, parents go to great lengths to prep their kids for these tests—whether through self-study or private tutors—often starting as early as 8th grade. I remember being in a used bookstore around October, and I saw a woman buying textbooks from decades ago to try and teach her child the fundamentals for a top-tier High School. She was listening to stories about rotating teachers, unqualified substitutes, bad classroom environments, and online schooling... and honestly, at the end of the day, all that matters is the knowledge the kid needs for that advanced curriculum. I don't judge her for it, though it did surprise me to see someone hunting for old textbooks like that.

Unfortunately, even now that the weight of the entrance exam score has been bumped up from 5% to 10%, it still doesn't carry nearly enough weight compared to GPA.

It's also really tough to comment on the whole "strict vs. easy" school debate. Kids vary so much in terms of talent, knowledge, and work ethic when they walk through the door. Some breeze through while others struggle, which eventually leads to these urban legends about how "hard" certain schools are.

It's the same deal with middle schools; some hand out grades like candy, some simplify the curriculum just to boost the number of A's, and others maintain such high standards that they simply seem "tougher."
But even with maintaining standards, you have to ask: what is the actual capacity and potential of the child?

By the way, I think we should scrap the "optional success" metrics entirely, especially the stuff with decimals. Just use grades from the core required subjects.
I'm sure the enrollment process would be way less stressful for everyone involved.

Even though you're using softer language now and backing off the insults toward parents—which is good—it's still unclear what someone meant by being arrogant when they say failing an entrance exam means you aren't fit for that school. In my case, someone could ace the exam with 100%, but due to inflated GPAs from other students, they might still lose out to someone who only got a 7 out of 10 on the exam. Are you suggesting, like some others, that the person who got 100% isn't right for the school, while the person with 70% is, just because the first one "failed" to hit a certain threshold?

stormymarlin22 said:The entrance exams for all the STEM-focused academies cap out at 10 points. I think they mentioned that this year the exams will be standardized for all those schools, too. So kids just take one test at their top choice, and the score counts for any of those STEM programs they apply to.

So, things are actually worse than I thought. I don't really get why people aren't calling out those arrogant, insulting comments claiming someone isn't "cut out" for a specific school just because they don't ace the entrance exam.

Based on how this works, a student who is a straight-A student—someone going to a school where teachers don't just hand out easy grades—might end up with, say, 75 points if they have a couple of B's. On the other hand, you have someone who was an A-student only because of grade inflation, maybe sitting at a 3.7 GPA, and they walk in with 80 points. Now, if the entrance exam actually reflects real knowledge and the score ratio ends up being 9 to 7 in favor of that first student... well, according to some of the arrogant folks out there, that first student is just proving they don't belong in that school, while the second one is the one who truly deserves to be enrolled 🤣

Michael Lee75 said:Don't take this the wrong way, but look, if she doesn't pass the entrance exam for some specific high school, it just means it isn't the right fit for her, and honestly, it's better that way because enrolling would just mean she'd be miserable the whole time.

My kid was applying to high schools last year and went for an entrance exam at a specialized prep academy—he's actually decent at math, though God knows why he even bothered applying there in the first place—and he didn't make the cut. In my view, that's a perfectly clear sign that the school wasn't meant for him, and I've seen plenty of cases where kids who were straight-A students signed up for these elite academies only to end up struggling through a nightmare of a curriculum.

As for the enrollment process itself, based on everything I read in the news, browsing various forums, and listening to people vent, I had prepared myself for this to be a massive, soul-crushing ordeal filled with disappointment, especially since my son was a top student in middle school, even if he wasn't quite at the very top of the class, so I expected getting into a prestigious prep school to be a total struggle, but in the end, things turned out to be completely fine.

He handled the whole thing himself, from filling out the applications and showing up for the exams to dealing with the final enrollment steps. I only really hopped onto the application portal after the results were being shuffled around just to see what the interface looked like. And don't even get me started on the fact that I certainly wasn't sitting there studying, writing papers, or prepping him during eighth grade, or any other year for that matter. I truly have no idea what parents who micromanage every single assignment for their kids during middle school think will happen when they hit high school. 🤷 You're all just going to burn out together.

When you're looking at high school options, I'd suggest considering some of those less intense, more standard public high schools; if a specific elite academy is the goal, I suspect any top-tier student will find a place somewhere, but you really have to remember that your kid needs a social life, they need time to themselves, and they need time to actually rest instead of just living in a constant state of academic burnout.

I guess that might be true if you didn't have all those people getting a head start because of grades they were basically handed. These exams only account for a tiny percentage of the total score anyway. If it were split 50/50 between grades and the exam, then maybe your arrogant take would actually make sense.

Ronald Chavez2 said:But how are we supposed to ignore the reality that most people don't even need this vaccine, given that the statistics clearly show their health isn't at risk from the virus?

Furthermore, does this mean we just suspend an individual's right to bodily autonomy whenever the government decides they've been manipulated into making a "wrong" choice? If we set such a precedent, what happens when a different administration takes power and decides that women seeking abortions are merely victims of modern decadence? Will their right to control their own bodies be stripped away too, even though, much like vaccination, the consequences of these decisions fall primarily on the individuals themselves while the broader impact remains marginal?

If you ask me, there's a main reason for these mandates, and I think the governments implementing them are actually doing the right thing. Maybe they're just dragging their feet because they're scared. I don't think rights will be suspended, and everything will probably stay voluntary, but I guess some kind of pressure needs to exist for the sake of the whole country—and for those people themselves, too.

Ronald Chavez2 said:And what is the actual objective here, other than just flexing political muscle and forcing people into compliance simply because they have the power to do so?

I guess the point is trying to get more people vaccinated, which is really about looking out for public health. It’s kind of hard when people don't know—and it's not even their fault—what the best move is. I'm not talking about that 1% who clearly know what they're doing and are choosing to opt out. I mean the other 99% who actually want to get vaccinated but have been totally messed with by fear-mongering propaganda. Those people should be allowed to get their shots since that's what they want. In a free country like the US, people should probably have that choice, but it feels like the other side has really messed that up so far.

fadedtrucker said:They basically extended the validity of those certificates for a year just as a bureaucratic move to force people into getting shots. That whole call is totally arbitrary and authoritarian; it isn't based on any actual medical or epidemiological data.

Basically, it's a reward for the rule-followers and a slap in the face to anyone pushing back. No authority figure ever backs down from their agenda, no matter how much it hurts the people they're trying to control.

Think about it: when you realize some toxic, selfish, narcissistic parent is trying to break a kid's will based on something that has zero BASIS, what happens? They don't apologize. They just get worse, more aggressive, and way more arrogant. That's exactly how the government acts. Exactly like that. Total psychopaths.

That’s just not true. I mean, a clearance proves someone was vaccinated, recovered, or recently tested—it confirms actual facts, and it lasts as long as it lasts. How the government chooses to use it is a different story. I’ve said before that it shouldn't be used for anything essential. If the people in power weren't such cowards—which seems to be the case everywhere in the West, I suppose—they could have used it as a work requirement. Then we'd see how brave those "experts" actually are.

fadedtrucker said:They basically extended the validity of those certificates for a year just as a bureaucratic move to force people into getting shots. That whole call is totally arbitrary and authoritarian; it isn't based on any actual medical or epidemiological data.

Basically, it's a reward for the rule-followers and a slap in the face to anyone pushing back. No authority figure ever backs down from their agenda, no matter how much it hurts the people they're trying to control.

Think about it: when you realize some toxic, selfish, narcissistic parent is trying to break a kid's will based on something that has zero BASIS, what happens? They don't apologize. They just get worse, more aggressive, and way more arrogant. That's exactly how the government acts. Exactly like that. Total psychopaths.

Introductory remarks, maybe. You call the only people trying to help us out "psychopaths," but you don't seem to notice the actual aggressors and real sociopaths on the other side. 😵It’s probably going to take us a really long time to recover from this, especially since we've swallowed so much propaganda.

swiftpanther522 said:Between my English assignment and trying to wrap my head around literary devices, I think I totally garbled my point. I wasn't being clear enough—I am NOT in favor of forcing anyone to get vaccinated, especially not kids. That was the whole point...

Nobody is being forced to get vaccinated, and nobody wants to be, so there isn't much point in arguing about that part. The whole question is just about voluntary vaccination for kids—whether parents decide to go through with it or not.

Carol Kelly3 said:your opinion doesn't really matter since it isn't actually yours anyway 😁
but I guess you're trying..

And you and your colleagues think you're just sharing an opinion? If that's true, maybe you guys are more naive than I thought. It’s probably going to be way harder to move past this pandemic. You'd think people would at least get some kickback for all this propaganda to keep things from going back to normal.

Bryan Gray91 said:Honestly, for kids, COVID is such a minor thing that it’s almost negligible, and just hearing people bring up vaccination makes me feel physically ill.

It’s honestly pretty sad that you fell for all that propaganda.

mellownomad7 said:You're typing too fast—I missed the point. Try again.

Later.

Well, obviously you didn't, mostly because you don't want to. Honestly, this kind of trolling when people are actually trying to answer you... it might lead to some pretty serious consequences beyond just being banned from this forum.

northernmason10 said:There you go. The Economist says so, and that’s enough reason for you... because clearly, The Economist knows everything...

I tried giving you a real reason, but I guess it wasn't enough for you (not that you have to go out and vaccinate kids right now, obviously), and it seems like this could just turn into endless arguing and baiting if we aren't careful.