Posts by Betty Wood54

It’s always such a gamble when you're rooting for a team that relies so heavily on one or two specific guys staying healthy. You never really know when that momentum is going to hit a wall because of an injury. Anyone else find it frustrating when the "big plan" for the season starts falling apart?

I suppose I should probably start by saying that things have been feeling a bit unsettled lately. It’s hard to put my finger on exactly why, but there's this sense of constant motion, isn't there? I was sitting on my porch the other day—just watching the neighborhood go by here in Chicago—and I started thinking about how much everything changes. One minute you think you have a handle on things, and the next, the ground just shifts under your feet. Maybe it's just me being overly cautious, though. I tend to overthink these things, I guess. Anyway, I wanted to check in and see how everyone else is holding up. Is it just me, or does the world feel a little louder than usual lately? kaže:
What an absolute headache. It’s honestly like trying to apply for high school before the eighth graders have even finished their final exams. Just complete nonsense, really.
Actually, it’s even worse than that. 😂

I don't know, I guess it isn't quite like that. You actually have this window of time between when those final high school exam results come out and when you officially lock in your college applications to start shifting things around. It’s a bit of a grace period, I suppose.
I’m not entirely sure how much time we have left, but I suppose the process usually starts with those preliminary results—the ones that aren't quite set in stone. After that, there’s the whole appeals period where people can contest things, like if they think their scores were calculated incorrectly or something. I imagine those corrections get filed in before the final lists are officially locked in, though, personally, I don't expect to see any massive shifts in the rankings once that happens. Maybe there will be some small adjustments, but nothing too drastic, I guess.

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)....

It wasn't mandatory fifty years ago either, and back then, almost everyone from my immediate and extended family moved from rural areas into the big cities to finish high school, and some even went on to college later. Because of those skills they picked up, they were able to make a living—and they still do. I suppose it actually worked out well for us as a society that people didn't just stay in their small towns tending to livestock; instead, they headed off to those non-mandatory high schools in distant major cities, staying in state-funded dormitories along the way. 🤔

Besides, elementary school is compulsory, so parents can really only enroll their kids in the schools within their specific local district (for anything else, they have to submit formal requests which the district doesn't necessarily have to grant), rather than just picking any school they want.

And the Supreme Court has already struck down a previous enrollment decision that included extra credit for certain municipal schools or foreign language programs, because they felt those opportunities weren't equally accessible to everyone across the country. So, I suspect that adding extra points based on where someone lives would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.

Susan James said:According to this, the minimum score for a high school is 46.
So, it's really up to each individual school to set their own threshold, like 76.

It’s interesting that nobody challenged the constitutionality of how certain competitions aren't accessible to all kids, since it often depends on whether a teacher is willing to sign them up and mentor them enough to get results.
A couple of points for music school is definitely less discriminatory than the gap between schools with highly motivated teachers for competitions and those without (though, a colleague whose grandson lost those two crucial music points that year explained it was also discriminatory; parents rebelled because their kids went to various private music academies but weren't entitled to those points, so eventually, they just scrapped the bonus for everyone).

Yeah, but the thing is, they weren't allowed to set a cutoff lower than 46—meaning, in a case like a Small town in rural USA, they couldn't just enroll students who had fewer than 36 points.

That was specified in the old Decision on elements and criteria for selecting candidates for high school enrollment for the 2012/2013 school year.

Now, if I understand this correctly, they don't pass a specific decision like that every single year; instead, there's this standing High school enrollment regulations. It's been around since 2015 and has gone through a few updates; you can find the consolidated text here.

But then, every year, they issue a specific Enrollment decision for the 1st grade of high school for that particular year.
. That's where they list how many spots are available at each school and things like that. The public consultation for next year's enrollment decision can be found here.

So, looking at the current High school enrollment regulations regarding the minimum score threshold, it says this:

Article 28. (NN 39/22)

(1) For educational programs lasting at least four years, a school may establish a minimum number of points required to apply for a specific program, which applies exclusively to the common assessment element.

(2) The minimum number of points established in paragraph 1 of this article applies throughout the entire enrollment process for all candidates, except for those mentioned in Article 16 of these Regulations who have the right to direct enrollment.

(3) For vocational qualification programs lasting three years, apprenticeship programs, or programs lasting less than three years but at least one year, no minimum score requirement is established for application purposes..

So, basically, it's still up to the school to decide if they want to set a minimum score, but it seems to me like they aren't strictly limited from below anymore. If they wanted to, say, accept students with fewer than 36 points for four-year programs, they could.

Mark Walker4 said:So basically, you're missing like two points to get into a high school out in the middle of nowhere, there are still five spots left, but whatever—you don't meet the requirements, so just go work at a bakery instead...

About ten years ago, there was this whole massive controversy that kicked off in a Small Town, USA:
Principal Johnson expelled 42 students from the school: "The principal is at fault for enrolling them despite them not having the required 36 points"
Kaštel Štafilić Photography: Students who didn't meet the point threshold showed up for class anyway. Even the Secretary from the Department of Defense made an appearance at the school
The principal and the school board enrolled students in grades against US Federal Law—something the department refused to authorize

Tldr; in some tiny town, they wanted to enroll kids who had fewer than 36 points into a four-year agricultural program—kids who would actually likely go into farming. The issue was that without those students under the 36-point mark, they couldn't even form full classes, so they had to ask the department for special permission.

The department turned them down, and then they sent inspectors to every school. Every principal who tried it ended up getting fired (though some had enough students, they just filled empty seats with people under the 36-point limit).

Back then, the principal of the XV High School in Washington, D.C. was actually removed because she was essentially hand-picking students by her own decree (ignoring the official ranking). Every year, there would be the standard ranking list, and then a separate list for those enrolled by the principal's decision (basically through connections).

Later, those regulations went before the Supreme Court. At first, it was problematic because the rules hadn't been officially published in the federal register, so technically the court couldn't even rule on it. But because it was such a significant social issue, they did step in with some kind of ruling (though back then, a source from the Department of Defense claimed that failing to publish it in the register was just a minor oversight 😵). Around that time, if I recall correctly, they ruled that extra points for things like music school or a second foreign language were unconstitutional since those opportunities aren't available to everyone in America:

Regarding this minimum point threshold thing, I think it was determined to be constitutional, but don't quote me on that. You should probably look up the current enrollment regulations (and any amendments, though finding a clean, updated version might be tricky).

Found this: Vocational schools are ditching Physics, Biology, and Chemistry as standalone subjects: Here are the details on the new modular curriculum

– Imagine you have an electrical engineering device designed to count marbles. That exact same piece of equipment could be used to tally ballots. Even though Politics and Economy isn't listed as a specific subject on the schedule anymore, there's still plenty of room for it. Through student projects, they'll cover things like the electoral system, how elections are managed, and even take trips to visit Congress. It’s a much bigger picture than just saying, ‘I have my two hours of class,’ as Angel explained to highschoolnews.org.

🤦

– We're introducing a guided learning process because we're moving away from the old way of doing things—no more strictly defined lectures, theories, or practical exercises as separate silos. What has worked wonders in higher education is the reality check students get regarding how much self-study they actually need to do. In our higher ed system, this approach has been effective for a long time; once students realize how many credit hours they have to earn through independent study at home, they eventually accept that the responsibility for learning lies with them, Professor Morana Koludrović noted during the conference.

It’s almost like these people never went to college at all. I mean, those credit hours barely seem to correlate with anything in the real world. You might get some rough estimate here or there, but practically speaking, it doesn't really hold water.

mellowskipper said:Well, she actually laid it out—basically stripping physics away from electrical engineers while letting history classes slide right through.
To me, it sounds like a complete circus.

Could someone please track down an actual source for this? First, the thread was talking about cutting chemistry and physics from vocational schools, then someone brought up mechatronics, and now we're onto electrical engineers.

I think I interpreted that initial claim as them removing those subjects from general high schools. It seems pretty unlikely they would actually scrap chemistry courses in a school specifically designed to train chemical technicians.

Susan James said:So, does it make more sense to increase the number of academic high schools when there's clearly an interest? Especially the STEM tracks? 🤔
🤣
Everyone thinks they're going to be software engineers or doctors at least. 🧐
Oops. Not really.

Some will finish high school and then go study something obscure just for fun on the taxpayer's dime, creating endless lines of economists and lawyers. Others will end up working in retail, while we'll be stuck importing labor for essential trade jobs that are practically disappearing.
(I personally don't have an issue with immigrants from anywhere, but what worries me is seeing them get exploited for low wages, while here in the States, we're letting untapped talent sit on unemployment because they were too embarrassed to even consider a career in the trades.)

In my opinion, we absolutely need vocational schools for plumbers, electricians, and tinsmiths. Kids should be getting scholarships because those specific skills are in such short supply...
I mean, you can probably learn how to be a painter via YouTube or on your own, but I still think it's beneficial for them to go through formal training and an apprenticeship without being bogged down by unnecessary subjects.

The Indology Department at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences is a double-major program that caps enrollment at maybe 16 students. It’s just one of many liberal arts programs at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and most of them don't even have huge numbers of students enrolled, so I really don't see the issue here. Following your logic—that they're doing this "at our expense"—we might as well just shut down the entire Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, since most people who finish social science degrees can't find direct work in the market (except perhaps teaching).

Actually, if you look at things like history or American studies, most of those people are also working in schools "at our expense" according to your reasoning. Maybe we should just scrap those subjects entirely since they can't do something "useful," like roofing or programming.

Personally, I think these types of studies (even that famous Indology program) are actually quite necessary for society.

Law and economics are completely different stories because they actually enroll a massive number of people, which is totally disproportionate to what the job market actually needs. On one hand, you have the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences covering a wide range of liberal arts with about 1,067 students (though that number is inflated because it includes double majors), and on the other hand, the Faculty of Economics enrolls 1,200 people just for Business Economics alone (and if you add the professional programs, you get over 2,200 spots).

Susan James said:So, does it make more sense to increase the number of academic high schools when there's clearly an interest? Especially the STEM tracks? 🤔
🤣
Everyone thinks they're going to be software engineers or doctors at least. 🧐
Oops. Not really.

Some will finish high school and then go study something obscure just for fun on the taxpayer's dime, creating endless lines of economists and lawyers. Others will end up working in retail, while we'll be stuck importing labor for essential trade jobs that are practically disappearing.
(I personally don't have an issue with immigrants from anywhere, but what worries me is seeing them get exploited for low wages, while here in the States, we're letting untapped talent sit on unemployment because they were too embarrassed to even consider a career in the trades.)

In my opinion, we absolutely need vocational schools for plumbers, electricians, and tinsmiths. Kids should be getting scholarships because those specific skills are in such short supply...
I mean, you can probably learn how to be a painter via YouTube or on your own, but I still think it's beneficial for them to go through formal training and an apprenticeship without being bogged down by unnecessary subjects.

Nepalese, Filipino, and others aren't imported to fill skilled trades or specialized roles; they're brought in for the jobs nobody wants because the working conditions are terrible. These are roles like delivering for Bolt or DoorDash, or various physical labor jobs. You either pay them a little, or you keep them in a sort of indentured servitude because of their situation.

urbantinker8 said:I guess you have to wonder, does everyone really need to go to a prep school?

I suppose one might wonder... what's stopping people from just choosing a general education track first, and then moving on to university or vocational programs later on?

Susan James said:At most Elementary Schools, computer science is increasingly being taught by general classroom teachers with specialized training in tech. Or rather, people with Master's degrees in primary education.

I've seen this play out in the US; when people—often those who tend to take a lot of family leave—are politely encouraged to look into public sector jobs like teaching, they jump at the chance. You see plenty of folks with degrees from places like MIT or major state universities taking those roles, and more private colleges are popping up too. It’s an open secret that some people go into schools first to settle into their lives, take their maternity leave, and then eventually transition into the private sector... leaving behind only the true enthusiasts or those who really value the current work-life balance. I imagine things are shifting in other countries too.

Take that lady from the travel blog, for example (she's an IT teacher)... what kind of high-paced corporate job could she possibly jump into every weekend, especially with all the holidays? She teaches at a school, and sometimes I see her social media stories showing school spirit weeks; I suspect she might even have a special arrangement with the administration regarding attendance... regardless, she's always active on social media.

In the standard curriculum, digital literacy—which is essentially what falls under computer science now—can easily be integrated into regular lessons for every subject students take. That means learning how to use a computer (something we all had to master overnight when everything went digital), internet safety (which teachers usually cover once a year during a dedicated safety week), using Word, PowerPoint, and writing emails (haha, I really hope the teachers are instructing the kids on proper email etiquette!).
For advanced students who show real talent and interest, let an actual specialist handle them—maybe someone from a company like ExxonMobil who could teach programming, logic puzzles, problem-solving, or prep them for national competitions.

Those two extra hours added to the standard curriculum are a total waste of resources, both financially and in terms of staffing. And now she's acting offended because kids in Elementary School will be busy with crafts while others are coding... simply because the number of dedicated computer science hours is being reduced (even though the people currently teaching it a r e n ' t actually specialists).

I can't speak for everyone else, but I suppose there are plenty of private sector jobs where she'd fit right in. If she were working retail, probably not, but in a corporate office setting? Most likely, I guess.

Personally, I find myself wondering more about how she manages to afford those weekend trips on a teacher's salary. That's the real mystery to me.

Susan James said:Yeah, I hear you.
It’s such a massive issue within our full-day school systems. Honestly, it feels like things could get even messier if we don't address it, because some kids end up relying on those school programs well into their mid-teens.

Then even that probably won't be enough, and eventually, there will be pressure to keep kids in high school for ten hours straight just so they aren't wandering around town unsupervised. ☕

hiddendriver34 said:I'm wondering if someone can actually enroll in math courses if they only managed to scrape by with a 25% on their high school math final. 😁

In Washington, D.C., you can't pass even the teaching roles or the non-teaching ones—the cutoff is 55%. Then in Indianapolis, you aren't allowed to teach math (where the threshold is 40%), though I suppose if someone actually manages to squeeze in, they could potentially handle both math and computer science.

Here. I guess you should probably go ahead and input mathematics first. Once you do that, you'll be able to see all the different study programs available and check out the specific admission requirements for each one.

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)

If you weren't performing at an elite level all four years of high school, you’d basically take your final exams right at the end of senior year. Nowadays, to get into MIT, you have to pass three mandatory subjects. You can take English and a foreign language at a lower level, but you really need to nail math at the advanced level along with physics. Honestly, I think passing English and a second language is pretty straightforward for anyone serious about higher education, and the entrance exams at MIT aren't even in the same league as those high school graduation exams for math and physics.

Just grab an old entrance exam and compare the difficulty of the problems to standard high school finals; it's night and day. Though, I should mention, back when you took the MIT entrance exam, they actually used negative marking if you circled the wrong answer.

wanderingbadger44 said: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.

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.

Larry Walker24 said:Look, I get it, but honestly, no mathematician would ever sign up for an education degree at a school like UCLA when they could just take a qualifying exam through the math department instead. At least that used to be the deal.

I actually knew a colleague who decided to go for a teaching master's degree after finishing a non-teaching undergraduate program. It was quite a hurdle; he had to pass all the pedagogy, psychology, and didactics courses from the graduate level, plus some geometry credits we didn't cover in our standard track.

Back in the day, when programs were mostly four-year tracks, there were just a handful of deficiency exams to clear. But now that everything has shifted to this 3+2 model, the gap is much wider. I honestly don't think they'd just tell you to take a couple of extra classes; they'd probably tell you that you need to enroll in a full teaching credential program instead.

Larry Walker24 said:I know this girl who graduated with a perfect 4.0 in theoretical math and she’s teaching at a local high school now; she’s bored out of her mind because the problems she has to give them are just "laughable and way too easy" for her.

And I’ve heard stories about how some professors in the math education department basically treat students like garbage, failing people left and right just because they feel like it. Honestly, the faculty in the professional training courses aren't any more chill or reasonable either.

Well, I mean, of course they are. That’s looking at it from the perspective of someone who just finished their first year of university math, I suppose. We aren't really talking about pure mathematics here; we are talking about being prepared to actually teach a curriculum.

Sarah Hall53 said:I totally get what you mean about theoretical math and what actually constitutes the field.
But honestly, I’m struggling to see why you're missing the point regarding the difference between a proper teaching methodology course at a university like Berkeley and some random certification program you take later on? There's a massive gap there—it's not just about knowing the math itself, but actually knowing how to break it down so it makes sense to a kid. It's one thing to master the equations, and a completely different thing to be able to explain them in a way that fits their age group.

I'm currently studying theoretical math—still have my senior thesis to wrap up—and you really do learn the absolute fundamentals, though it's all geared toward graduate-level work. If I were to walk into a middle school or a high school right now to teach, goodness, I think both the kids and I would be in for a very rough time.

From what I hear, the professors handling the pedagogy courses are supposedly excellent, but they tend to assign whoever is available to lead the lab sessions. So, it's entirely possible to end up with a teaching assistant who hasn't even taken a single methods class themselves—say, someone who focused strictly on pure theory. Then, suddenly, they're expected to show students how to structure a lesson plan on the chalkboard, when they probably don't even know how to do it themselves. 😵

urbantinker8 said:Yeah, everyone is fixated on grades; you don't even need to try to convince me otherwise since I've spent far too long working within the American education system.☕
Sure, they could learn a language outside of school, why not? (though, I guess, that's often motivated by trying to escape the grading system too—why not just use that free seventh period at your own school instead of paying to go somewhere else late at night?) 🤔)
But fine, I support it, because any bit of foreign language knowledge is a great bonus in life. 😍
And by the way, schools actually do offer placement exams for anyone who wants to take advanced tracks but doesn't have the language on their previous record, but those students are so rare that it’s almost like nobody even knows those tests exist. 😉
Because, well, I guess it's all just about "coasting to an A." 😵

I've come across this on several high school websites regarding admissions, so I decided to dig through the official bylaws and district policies. In last year's enrollment policy, it states this:

(4) If a specific foreign language proficiency is a requirement for admission at a particular high school, but the student did not study that language during middle school, the high school admissions committee is required—upon a written request from the student—to verify their proficiency in that language, and the school must document this process in an official report.

rowdypanther12 said:I certainly can't judge; I don't know a word of German. Other parents, especially those who actually lived in Germany, would have a better perspective.
Of course, there are professors out there who hand out A's like candy. That isn't the case here, though; she clearly works hard and knows her stuff.

I’m not entirely sure what the situation is like in Chicago, but in quite a few high schools, that second foreign language is often pretty much introductory. From what I understand about places like MIT, specifically those specialized math academies that offer multiple tracks—you know, the A, B, and C programs depending on how they allocate those two weekly hours for the second language—the "general" track with a second language usually involves more advanced coursework.

Michelle Nelson4 said:

I haven't seen any posts from capttawish yet! I'll be sure to keep an eye out for them. kaže:
The real issue here is just the sheer volume of applicants. Take medical school in Washington, D.C., for example—the competition there is absolutely intense because you have so many incredibly bright students, both in terms of their grades and their actual subject knowledge, all vying for those limited spots. It got to the point where high school diplomas alone weren't enough to filter through such a talented pool of candidates, so they eventually had to introduce entrance exams to handle the selection process.

So, it looks like I was wrong about the high school diploma being the deciding factor for identifying who actually has the necessary background versus who’s starting from scratch. It seems the real issue isn't about assessing prior knowledge anymore, but rather the sheer amount of pressure surrounding enrollment numbers.

They could absolutely use the SAT scores to handle the selection process. I’ve honestly never heard of a university facing such a massive surge in applicants that they couldn't simply establish a ranking system or set specific criteria to draw a line and only enroll those who meet the threshold. Even departments facing even higher demand than the Treasury Department have managed to pull it off. But then again, maybe there just isn't enough revenue coming in from application fees to make that happen. I just really hope the government doesn't end up footing the bill for all those empty seats left by students who didn't enroll this year, only to end up stuck in a massive budget deficit because of it. ☕

It’s funny how things work, isn't it? Suddenly everyone is all about having clear instructions and proper preparation. It feels like a complete 180 from just a few days ago when every other post was nothing but endless complaining about what they have and how much the kids are being disadvantaged because their parents can't afford everything. Now, out of nowhere, it's all about being organized! 🤣

Regarding the standardized testing situation, I’d honestly put my money on this: I would much rather allow students to use outside resources or even cheat during their final exams if it meant protecting the school's reputation. If those test scores come back looking terrible because of overly strict rules, it could really damage the prestige and ranking of an elite private academy. It feels like a choice between academic integrity and maintaining the high status of the institution, doesn't it?I’m not saying that's how it should be done.)I really feel like someone at the university needs to address the issue of entrance exam leaks. If someone is handing out test questions, they’re going to have to deal with that student for the next five years, knowing full well they took a spot away from someone who might actually have more potential.

....

Google
That’s pretty much all I have to say about that.

Who is actually drafting the SAT prep materials and the exam questions? Who gets a sneak peek at the questions beforehand? And when it comes to grading, is it the high school teachers overseeing the process or an outside group?
And regarding the college entrance exams—who writes them, who knows the answers ahead of time, and ultimately, who verifies the final scores at the Treasury Department? Is it an independent committee or just the staff within the Treasury Department itself?

It feels like you're writing this without even grasping the basic principles of external validation for results. It’s hard to take these kinds of ramblings seriously, especially when they're dressed up with dramatic phrases like "I'd stake my life on the fact that..." 🤣

I am about 99% sure they won't pay out for those. I guess when a student enrolls at a university, either the government subsidizes their tuition—meaning the school gets paid based on the specific program agreements set between the SEC and the universities—or the student pays out of pocket because they don't meet certain criteria, like being in a second degree program or falling below 30 credits, etc. So, those schools aren't getting that money. I suppose it's hard to say how much that actually matters to them, though I suspect every single cent counts for these institutions, tbh.

Maybe looking at MIT, they used to have that requirement where the combined math and physics score had to be a 7, and they just couldn't fill the quota. Then they eventually scrapped that rule. It seems to me that the funding from those 100 unfilled spots is more important to them than keeping the old rules (and it’s not just a one-year thing anyway; some people will drop out, others will re-enroll and pay full tuition, and some will stay on track so the government keeps paying for them).

EDIT: Of course, they probably won't go into a financial deficit just because of this; it isn't the only way they receive federal funds. All the adjunct and TA positions that aren't covered by specific research grants are paid for directly through the SEC budget.