Posts by wanderingbadger44

I find myself nodding along with this sentiment.
It feels like a much-needed shift toward balance, ensuring elementary teachers carry a workload comparable to subject specialists, all while maintaining the invaluable advantage of working with small, intimate classes of about twenty students rather than being thrown into massive lecture halls of 120 to 300 kids depending on the schedule.

Bryan Wells11 said:If something is wrong, you should push back. I know, it sounds utopian, but that’s my stance. I will never understand why people just shrug their shoulders and swallow whatever garbage is served to them. As if the geniuses sitting in that Department of Education are some kind of visionaries or messiahs. And then you have all those Fuksić types, Mamić types, Lovrić types, Piletić types—intellectual giants, clearly. And we’re supposed to let them force their project on us? A project that will impact generations of children and thousands of professionals in education? Please.
When I graduated with my English degree and started looking for work within the system (and mind you, I’ve worked in the private sector too; I didn't take the easy path from college straight to a permanent teaching job through some connection), I entered this profession knowing exactly what it looked like—what was expected of me, and both its pros and cons. I’ve said it a hundred times: what provides an advantage to a specialist in this field (not to be modest, I'm tired of this submissive attitude that we are all just "poor little teachers") is the schedule. It offers enough freedom to either work on school projects, grade a mountain of papers (which is always the case with language arts), or dedicate time to one's own family, provided you're organized. I calculated that the peanuts they pay for my knowledge and expertise are somewhat compensated by the flexibility of my non-standard working hours (though when I work afternoons, I lose the whole day and don't see my kids until evening, but whatever...). Now, some bureaucrat is going to calculate my "active hours" and conclude that I just have to accept being paid peanuts while simultaneously handing over my knowledge, experience, enthusiasm, and motivation overnight—all while stripping away the one perk this job actually offers? I guess they could have started by talking about salaries, comparing them to the US average or those high-end systems we claim we want to emulate, before moving on to these other whims.

Thank you so much for posting this. Truly, from the bottom of my heart.

I am completely fed up with people talking about "three months of summer vacation" or comparing us to retail cashiers whenever we mention our salary.

I remember the first lecture by the late Professor Anić back at the liberal arts college. He told us all that he congratulated us for choosing such a noble profession, but noted that it has always been underpaid and that no teacher has ever become wealthy through teaching.

I remember thinking to myself then—even if the pay is just average (or even below average for someone with a Master's degree), the job itself is decent because the hours are flexible and it can be done remotely. I won't be stuck in an office for eight hours a day tethered to people I don't necessarily have to like, nor will I be stuck commuting during rush hour every single day...

Over time, every single one of those perks has vanished. All that's left is the peanuts for pay and an ever-increasing, crushing workload of administrative duties.

And now, while other professionals enjoy remote work and flexible schedules, I’m expected to sit in a classroom for eight hours straight amidst the constant noise and chaos of teenagers, all for that same meager paycheck?

And yes, I am a professor. My diploma says I earned that title, even though my own parents address me with "Ma'am." They can't even bring themselves to say "Ms. Perzić," and I suppose their convictions prevent them from calling me Professor.

I studied back when a college degree actually meant something.
Nowadays, even that isn't clearly stated on many diplomas; instead, young colleagues are labeled as "Masters of Education," which is basically just a fancy Latin way of saying "teacher."

The benefits, the flexibility, and the social prestige have all crumbled.
The pay has remained stagnant for decades—barely hitting the average.
The responsibilities and obligations are growing, and soon, even the hours will increase.

My heartfelt support goes out to all my colleagues fighting to maintain full-day instruction. 👍 As for me, I won't let them trap me; I'll look out for myself.

Bryan Wells11 said:Violence prevention is happening constantly, but what people wearing rose-colored glasses fail to grasp—perhaps because they don't work with children in an American society quite like ours—is that some behaviors are unfixable, at least within the scope of what a school can provide. Quite a shock, isn't it? As a homeroom teacher, I spend roughly 70% of my advisory hours working on some form of violence prevention, whether it's physical, emotional, or that incredibly pervasive cyberbullying (which is nearly impossible to prevent unless a parent is 100% involved and knows exactly what their child is typing and sending in group chats). There are endless discussions, workshops, role-playing exercises, educational content, and films, yet it doesn't matter—some kids will always be bullies, and some will unfortunately remain victims. And I am "just" an English teacher; my job isn't solely the rehabilitation of lost causes, you know? Nor is it limited to that one specific class where I also serve as the advisor. If we had actual, fully equipped professional teams in our schools, if we had social services that actually took action, if we had synergy between institutions, and if we had draconian pedagogical measures (which I strongly advocate for, given my years of experience), then we might actually have something to talk about.
What kind of surveys or theories are you talking about? I'm telling you how it works on the ground, among the kids. Why didn't he speak up? Good grief. What if the other kid threatened him with something we can't even imagine? Or do you honestly think kids aren't capable of being that malicious? Do you really think two workshops at school on the topic of bullying would make a bully suddenly see the light and repent? Not a chance.

We just need actual punishments for bullies, plain and simple.

Why didn't the kid being extorted speak up?
It's not like he was blind or stupid. He's likely wondering what would actually happen if he did. Would some CIA agent pull him aside and say, "Oh, now, that wasn't very nice! You should apologize!"? We all know how that goes.

Carl Bishop2 said:Honestly, the easiest way to prevent kids from being bullied would just be to pull them out of school entirely—it’s certainly simpler than actually doing the hard work of preventing violence in the first place.
I mean, regarding that little kid this person wasn't even extorting—and let's assume he wasn't lending him money at some predatory interest rate, but rather using blackmail instead—why didn't anyone come forward? Maybe he didn't know who to turn to, maybe home doesn't feel like a safe haven, or maybe he just held onto hope that the bullying would magically stop on its own... perhaps none of this would be happening if we actually focused on real prevention. Even now, certain behaviors are still brushed off as "just kids being kids" rather than being identified as actual bullying. And who is actually conducting these school violence surveys among the students? Is anyone? What do we really know about how often this happens or what the different forms of violence look like? All we know is that physical abuse is down compared to before, and that’s about it.
None of this has anything to do with the daily curriculum. I'm not talking specifically about Fuchs's CN, just speaking generally.
Fuchs is running an experiment right now, and I suspect we'll see some changes depending on how things progress.

But what does "the right way" actually look like? Go ahead, walk us through it.

I mean, if you can clearly see exactly where we’re missing the mark and how the current approach is failing, then surely you must have a vision for how it should be done.

Carl Bishop2 said:The whole all-day school model mostly benefits students who don't have anyone at home to help them with homework—or those who might not even have a quiet desk to work at. Kids of teachers usually have all that support waiting for them at home.

I hear you, but what’s the solution there? If that's the case, then we should specifically design programs tailored to support those students. It doesn't seem fair to force everyone to stay late just because Mary and Mark lack the right environment at home.

Andrew Doyle said:Raised standards? Are you talking about JPMorgan Chase, the Ministry, and the rest of them? Because under these rules, IT teachers are the ones getting screwed. Even homeroom duties are being lumped into "other tasks." I honestly wonder how many people will actually volunteer for this job now—it’s the kind of work that used to make people want to shoot themselves just to get out of it. Some guy from the Department showed up at the last meeting to answer questions for principals, and when asked who would be teaching the new subject, he just shrugged and said, "Well, IT teachers can do it then." Real smooth.
When you ask when music schools will finally get their turn, it feels like they expect us to work a third shift and basically travel to the kids' schools ourselves, rather than the kids coming to us.

At this point, the Secretary doesn't even matter; children are clearly the absolute last priority for these people. I wish they’d just tell us what kind of hallucinogenic trip they were on when they drafted this curriculum. Better yet, send the syllabus over to us so we can fully immerse ourselves in this absolute nebula of nonsense.

Higher salaries? Caring about kids and families? Give me a break. Who the hell are they trying to fool with that garbage?

And here is the kicker: this kind of crap passes through easily, just like everything else happening in this country. And what are we supposed to do? File formal complaints? Too bad, the deadline for that has already passed. They’ll "take it under consideration" while they swallow yet another delusional idea, laughing at the moronic programs they serve us, while the only thing that ever truly matters to them is the money.

Fixing up schools, building gyms, setting up cafeterias? Sure, why not. It’s not like it’s a church. This is a school—a place designed to breed obedient little followers for the Republican Party, brainless drones who will one day enthusiastically circle "YES" without question and suffer a total bout of amnesia every time they need to remember how much they’ve been robbed or lied to. It's a farce.

Which schools would even want to participate in this four-year circus? Based on what I know so far, it’s mostly the ones where the principal is a member of the Republican Party. I suspect there are others, but that’s just my observation thus far.

When principals get a 25% raise, you can bet your life there will always be schools eager to play along.

So where does that leave us? If the public and parents don't step up to stop this, our only option is to accept reality and realize we're witnessing the final stage of turning teachers into glorified babysitters—a shift that’s been creeping up on us for years and is now reaching its inevitable conclusion.

We basically have to swallow our pride, settle into the routine, perform eight hours of childcare, bring zero paperwork home, take the bigger paycheck, and call it a day.

Teaching becomes an afterthought, almost like nobody even cares anymore; why should we bother when the system doesn't?

I can already see myself in my classroom—handing them a stack of printed worksheets and letting them figure it out while they try to learn on their own. Meanwhile, I'll be busy with administrative tasks, grading tests that I used to take home, doing paperwork, and making sure my spreadsheets look pretty and colorful. If they ask a question, I'll toss them an answer. Honestly, I'll probably have way more free time than I do now, since I won't be lugging work home to design lesson plans, individualize instruction, or create custom assignments.

You just have to make a mental pivot and tell yourself: "Look, wanderingbadger44, nobody cares if you actually teach them to read; they just need you to watch them until 3:00 PM. And hey, that's why they're paying you more. Accept it—you aren't a professor anymore, you're a sitter. If your ego can handle it, you might as well profit from it."

Sarah Hall53 said:but seriously, please... just PLEASE!

I actually got so worked up that I let a typo slip right past me. I won't tell you which one it was. 😬

It’s honestly fascinating how much people love to cling to this idealized image of those who have passed, almost as if they're handing their children over to some spiritualist group in hopes of hearing a voice or getting a sign from the great beyond.

I wasn't home when the call came in. ☕

northerntiger9 said:Nobody seems to be addressing the fact that you simply cannot fix a bad staff. As long as they show up just to do the absolute bare minimum—if that—you can’t exactly swap them out for people who actually take pride in their work. To be clear: spending all day in a classroom with people like that is a disaster on every level. They'll mentally drain the kids, and by the time students have slogged through a 9 or 10-hour school day, they won't have any energy left for extracurriculars, tutoring, or anything else. It creates massive disparities between schools depending on how lucky you get with the district's hiring—and in an all-day school setting, those gaps become impossible to ignore.

A person who is genuinely driven, capable, and deserving of this kind of paycheck and social standing (honestly, even more than this...) isn't going to spend their life working this job with any sense of resentment.

If someone is actually miserable because they feel underpaid or undervalued, then they probably aren't seeing things clearly.

John Palmer9 said:Maybe we should lower the requirements for teachers—not necessarily needing those advanced degrees. I guess personality and mental readiness matter more than having a PhD or a Master's. It feels a bit redundant to require a specialized engineer just to teach basic math or chemistry.
If the goal is to turn full-day schooling into glorified babysitting, then I guess that's what it is. That should probably be strictly voluntary and limited to elementary school kids.

It feels a bit like watching a slow-motion storm roll in over the coast, where you can see the clouds gathering on the horizon and realize there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop the rain from coming. kaže:
I can see where you're coming from, especially when it comes to elementary school. Honestly, the curriculum there could easily be leveled up to match a Bachelor’s degree or even an Associate's program with just a bit more focus on the core subjects.
I’d say we should probably cap the maximum at around 4.

I get what you're saying—it feels like we've reached a point where basic literacy and numeracy are enough to get through elementary school, yet suddenly everything else requires a massive degree. You have preschool teachers who insist on being called "educators" because they feel their credentials put them on the same level as a college professor, even though they're just working with toddlers. Then there's nursing, which now demands a full university degree just to function. It seems like we're overcomplicating the professional requirements for everyone, while anyone could probably step in as a teacher if we stopped requiring such formal signatures or official certifications for every little thing.

Sarah Hall53 said:Honestly, if you look at the polls running through various teacher unions, about 80% of us are already planning our exit strategies if this thing passes as it stands—because, let's be real, we’re all pretty much certain that’s what will happen. If everything else falls apart, we’ll just end up stuck with a massive increase in workload four years from now, all for the same pay or even less.
Oh yeah, I’m sure this reform is going to totally skyrocket the quality of education 😍

Whatever. It’s a simple case of you get what you pay for; if they want babysitters, that's exactly what they'll end up with. Where in the current policy does it actually mandate high-quality instruction or meaningful student engagement? You have eight hours in the classroom and zero expectations for homework.

It isn't like everyone can just walk away, though; not everyone is a math whiz or a computer science specialist. Where is a history teacher or an English major supposed to go?

mellowskipper said:Here is my daughter's schedule, she's in 8th grade:
In the morning: four 6-hour blocks, one 5-hour block, plus a computer science block during the afternoon shift.
Afternoon: same thing, four 6-hour blocks, one 5-hour block, plus that computer science block in the afternoon.
The extra math tutoring was also scheduled for the afternoon, but she dropped out—it was just too much for her, I guess.
Tutoring sessions usually run for about 6 or 7 hours, which is essentially an extra period.
Then there's sports in the evening, maybe 5 or 6 times a week for about an hour and a half.

And if you factor in a second elective language, or joining the choir, volleyball, or an art club—how much more could you possibly add to that load?

If you ask me, it's way too much.

It’s like a runaway train; even the high achievers are drowning under four different advanced placements—parents are practically fighting over them or guilt-tripping them into staying enrolled—while the kids struggling with grades are stuck taking four remedial classes just to keep up, and everyone is constantly hovering over them, making them feel miserable if they miss a single session.

Michelle Nelson4 said:I’m just looking over the schedule in the planner again to be absolutely certain, so let me double-check my math here:
5th grade—that’s 5 sessions of 5 hours each per week.
7th grade—it’s 2 sessions of 6 hours and 3 sessions of 5 hours weekly.
That is the mandatory requirement. Period. It isn’t some marathon where they're stuck in class for 7 or 8 hours "every single day."

Honestly, when I come across claims like that, it really makes me wonder how much truth there actually is behind the other "facts" being tossed around by these same forum users...

Well, look at your situation: you've only got the core required subjects. There isn't a single elective, no extra tutoring, no remedial help, and zero participation in clubs or after-school activities.

It feels like every kid follows this pattern because, based on your child's specific schedule, that's basically the entire world they inhabit.

On top of that, you're being rude by insulting me and implying I'm making things up while questioning everyone else's honesty. Honestly, your claims are just as questionable as the one you just critiqued.

If a student is taking religion, a second language, and computer lab in 7th and 8th grade, that's only an extra six hours a week. Where are all these supposed extra sessions and study groups coming from?

Are we talking about the students?
It feels genuinely inhumane to expect a thirteen-year-old to grind through six hours of standard classes, only to immediately jump into elective language blocks or computer science labs, followed by extra tutoring or remedial sessions, and then somehow find the energy for extracurriculars.

I don't know much about the specific after-school programs, but plenty of kids end up heading straight to those too.

Think about it—not a single adult out there can maintain peak concentration for eight full hours at a job. Yet, we expect a child to be fully dialed in, active, and engaged during every single period of the school day.

It’s honestly no wonder so many kids just hit a wall and give up; trying to sustain that level of intensity is practically impossible.

Every single day, middle schoolers are stuck dealing with seven or eight hours of various lessons.

On days when I leave right after the main six-hour stretch, I see them still sitting there, waiting for their coding clubs, foreign language electives, geography groups, or extra help... and my heart just breaks for them.

And just like that, the old saying about the school of hard knocks has flipped entirely on its head, where life itself becomes the classroom. 🍿

shadowtiger0 said:

I suppose I should probably mention that I finally made it to see the symphony performance last night—and honestly, after all the buildup, I wasn't entirely sure if I was in for a masterpiece or just a very expensive nap. It was one of those high-brow evenings where you feel slightly underdressed just by breathing the air in the concert hall. But, despite my usual skepticism about these things, the orchestra actually delivered. There’s something about the way a full ensemble hits those swelling crescendos that makes you forget, just for a second, how much you paid for the ticket. It was grand, it was loud, and it was—dare I say—actually quite moving. Not that I'd admit that to anyone who prefers blasting pop music in their car, but there was definitely a moment where the room went completely silent, and even my cynical brain couldn't find anything to complain about. kaže:
Look, it’s been happening in the United Kingdom for a few years now—this massive exodus of teachers because of those "wonderful" working conditions. People are literally packing up and moving to Thailand to teach English, just so they can actually afford to live. It turns out you can have a decent life with a much lower cost of living over there than what you're dealing with back home in the UK.

I’m a tenured professor—currently working in an elementary school—and honestly, I feel like I’ve been blindsided by a constant stream of absolute nonsense ever since I entered the education field. It is genuinely depressing to watch how idiotic policies can just completely strip away the motivation and passion of people who actually chose this profession because they cared. If you teach one of the core subjects—one of the big three—you are absolutely buried in work. And that’s not even counting the physical presence required on campus. Take a foreign language teacher, for example; their required hours alone can hit 23 per week, which is one of the highest loads out there. Then, you go home and drag yourself through a mountain of 130 exams, the same amount of essays, and an endless pile of other written assessments... not to mention all the extra grading. All of this is done on top of the actual classroom time, usually while trying to find a single quiet corner at the school to get anything done—which, let's be real, doesn't exist. And don't even get me started on the nightmare of being a homeroom teacher. The sheer amount of extra labor expected from people for what amounts to a measly two hours of official credit is a special kind of madness that I’d rather not even dive into.

Edit: Honestly, if you’re actually feeling overwhelmed by your workload—I mean, really, truly burnt out—I honestly wouldn't even know how to respond to that. It's pretty obvious you aren't exactly breaking a sweat over there.

Look, you’re clearly a fellow linguistics nerd—and honestly, my heart goes out to you. It’s tough out here. You put in all this grueling work, pouring your soul into the nuances of language, only for it to go completely unnoticed. Most people don't give a damn about the mechanics behind how we communicate; they’d much rather spend their energy obsessing over the scenery or some random sunset than the actual structure of a sentence. It’s a thankless grind, really.

Look, I mentioned the United Kingdom because I actually know how things work over there—and trust me, burnout isn't just a possibility for my colleagues in the UK, it’s practically a standard job requirement at this point. My whole point was that most of them would probably swallow a hell of a lot more misery if they could just land an above-average salary. And honestly? We actually have that here—I mean, I personally have coworkers pulling in much more than that... $333 I get a little extra bump in my paycheck from the principal because of things like mentoring and years of seniority—it all adds up eventually, you know how it goes. 😉 ).

You claim I don't work hard enough—and honestly, you're not wrong. But look, I absolutely adore working with kids, and I’m constantly coming up with new ways to weave kinesiology and movement patterns into games; from what I can see, they’re having a blast. My days are split between working at both an elementary school and a high school. You also seem to be forgetting that I'm a man—and let's be real, most "normal" guys (and I am definitely not talking about those metrosexual types) would probably feel the same way. 😁 The kind of guys who can't just grab an axe and split a cord of firewood for the winter... honestly, the physical part of the job is easy. It’s all about testosterone, I guess.
Look, I’m not even joking around here—it’s just something I’ve started noticing by watching my wife. It becomes incredibly obvious that we men have it way easier when it comes to tackling certain things, simply because we don't deal with those massive, sweeping fluctuations in anabolic hormones—you know, the stuff that actually drives your strength and your sheer willpower. I realized this mostly because my own system got absolutely wrecked by post-COVID fatigue; back when I was going through it, I remember thinking, "Man, this is rough," but now that I've had some distance, I look at what women go through and realize I finally get it.

Secondly, when I see some people around here boasting over 10,000 posts, I can't help but wonder—what kind of grueling, high-stakes career must they have to find the time to rack up that many comments on a forum like this? It’s almost impressive, in a tragic sort of way. Clearly, they have an abundance of free time to dedicate to... well, let's call it "intellectual stimulation"—though we all know this place is mostly just a digital playground for nonsense. Seriously though, what kind of "hard work" are we actually talking about here? What are we even doing? 👎

Either you’re not hanging out with much educated company, or you’re just choosing to look the other way—but the reality is that most people with a four-year degree are grinding away for peanuts all day, dragging themselves home around 5:00 PM only to finish their actual work at the kitchen table. It’s a harsh truth. I’ve got an engineering degree myself, so I’ve been in those trenches—believe me, I know what it’s like pulling 10 or 12-hour shifts for basically the same pay you'd get with just a high school diploma. And unlike some sectors, there aren't any unions looking out for you. But, honestly, that’s not really the point here, so I won't go down that rabbit hole—I already know from experience that teachers don't really view things through that same lens.

Look, let’s be real here—for those of you in the room who are actually teachers or hold degrees in something like sociology: please, spare us the "I'll just quit and find a career in the private sector" act. Don't pull that nonsense. We all know the truth—both you and I—is that we aren't exactly in high demand out there in the corporate world. I could probably land a job at a Kroger or a Walmart tomorrow, and that's about it. If you're really feeling too dignified for the grind, then honestly, just step aside. Hand your desks over to the younger teachers or the fresh sociology grads—there are plenty of them sitting around waiting for a break through the unemployment office.
It’s a different ballgame compared to being a special ed specialist or a math teacher.

Those of us who studied subjects with actual utility in the workforce—you know, the scientists, the linguists, the social scientists—we actually put those skills to use out in the real world.

Unfortunately, there is money available for this project—I know this from firsthand experience—both for salaries and general overhead. Why am I saying "unfortunately"? Because I’m a parent, and I love my kids. By nature, I’m an active, high-energy person; I want to be outside playing with my children, riding bikes, hitting the weights, or just hanging at the park. If my kids are stuck in school until 5:00 PM, that becomes impossible. And frankly, I hate it.

It also feels pretty stupid to compare ourselves to Finland. We aren't nearly as developed as they are, nor do we share their mindset—we’re Southerners through and through, and we are fundamentally different from them.

Again, the current work system is just broken. What is one teacher supposed to accomplish in a classroom of twenty kids when three are on individualized programs, two are gifted, and you’ve got a few ADHD students thrown in there? Nothing. It’s impossible. These are the systemic issues that need fixing. Right now, the situation is failing both the gifted kids and the ones who are struggling. Realistically, it's unsustainable.

That’s why I admitted earlier that I’m no genius and that some kind of change is definitely overdue. Whether *this* is the right change? I have no clue.

P.S.

I received a couple of messages last night from a male colleague (probably, I can't be quite sure 😁) so I’ll just say it here publicly: stop running your mouth on the forums. And he should remember that social science majors are the tough, resilient ones that nobody messes with in school. 😒

A PE teacher? If that's actually what you do, please don't speak for the rest of us.

It’s pretty obvious why you aren't putting in the effort; you aren't grading a single exam, reviewing any homework, or even bothering to design a single lesson plan to accommodate different learning needs.

If you really are an American physical education instructor, you should feel a bit embarrassed writing something like this.

Sarah Hall53 said:Yeah, absolutely.

Kudos to Google, though! At least they interpreted "stand" as "stop."

The way I actually heard it was more like this:

If you could call me by a song, I wouldn't just be standing there; I'd be singing my heart out.😁

And honestly, I’ve always thought to myself—if it’s that hard for you to stay on your feet, just sit down already; someone get this man a chair.

Michelle Nelson4 said:When it comes to math and high school graduation exams, honestly, it doesn't matter much who scored what on their final tests. If they don't actually grasp the material, they won't be able to pass a single college course anyway. That means the chances of us ending up with a "mathematician" who doesn't actually understand math are practically zero.

The real issue is that none of the economics programs here in the US require advanced calculus, nor do they set any real threshold for standard algebra. We should really be asking ourselves what kind of economists are graduating from these institutions instead... that's what costs our economy so much more than those few students who struggle with math (though, let’s be real, who would choose to major in math if they weren't naturally good at it? It's one of the least popular subjects and majors in the country, right up there with physics and stuff like 😁).

I couldn't agree more.

Betty Williams29 said:I honestly don't get why people are pushing to turn the SAT into some basic pass/fail thing where you just need a 50% to move on. That would basically make the whole exam useless—if everyone is hitting the same mediocre score, you can't actually rank anyone for those top-tier universities because the scoring range would be way too narrow.

Look, I'm all for having an easier section that proves you've hit the bare minimum requirements to even stay in the running.
But at the same time, you need that brutal, high-level section—the kind where it’s nearly impossible to finish everything perfectly within the time limit. That's the only way to actually separate the geniuses from the rest of the pack.

I honestly find myself envying you right now for how beautifully and articulately you put that all together. 👍

The outcry against lowering these standards really just boils down to people wanting to make the SATs easier, which is a mistake if you ask me. We need someone, an actual institution, to finally look out for those true high achievers whose discernment actually matters in the real world. It would be such a relief to see our brightest minds stop getting drowned out by this massive wave of students who have been coasting on easy grades since middle school.

stormymarlin22 said:Maybe they were tougher, but there were fewer subjects to worry about. Like at MIT, for example—you just had to nail math and physics (and sometimes, honestly, math was enough)

It feels like we're looking at yet another believer in the widely held misconception that you can be a brilliant, illiterate mathematician or a linguistic genius who can't solve a basic linear equation with integers.

In my experience, reality works quite differently; if someone lacks intellect or drive, those deficits will show up whether they're studying linguistics, calculus, or geography, much like how a fundamental lack of discipline in one area tends to bleed into every other pursuit. If a person is sharp and hardworking, that clarity and work ethic tend to carry them through math, languages, and social sciences alike.

Besides, it’s not like modern college admissions look at more than two subjects from your high school exams anyway; you basically just need to clear the mandatory hurdles and then your score is calculated based solely on the specific electives required for that major.

Betty Wood54 said:I find it almost funny when the crowd that dreads the entrance exams is the same group that found the high school finals to be a total nightmare. In my experience, those college placement tests have consistently been way more intense than anything covered in high school, at least when you're looking at math and physics.

Exactly, I couldn't agree more! 👍

hiddendriver34 said:But then you have people passing at the higher level who really shouldn't be there either.

Setting a passing threshold at thirty percent—or even twenty-something—is just plain absurd. The real issue is that these students don't even realize when "good enough" isn't actually good enough. 🤷

If a student manages a thirty percent success rate on a high-level exam, their performance on a lower-level one would likely be much higher, so it isn't necessarily a sign that they are totally clueless.

Beyond that, we still have to face the fact that this person is exposed as having less mastery, yet they might walk away with the same grade as someone who scored an eighty percent, leaving them unable to compete for the same spots in competitive programs.

Let those who don't meet the standard pass if they must; it doesn't hurt anyone. In fact, letting them through actually clears the way for the students who truly know their stuff, giving them the freedom to choose their colleges based on the actual knowledge they demonstrated on their SATs.