Posts by Anthony Ward6

driftingranger2 said:I've been grinding away at German for four years now and I’m still barely scraping by with the basics. It feels like nobody puts in the work; most people I know are just coasting with a 2.0 GPA.

German has always been a struggle for students, including my generation—we basically learned nothing. The language is inherently complicated, we aren't exposed to it in our daily lives, and honestly, the teachers didn't really know it well enough to actually teach us. It was bound to be a mess when they tried to set up advanced and college-prep tracks back in High School.

stormymarlin22 said:Chill out 🙂 I totally forgot that in private high schools it’s an elective, but I guess it’s mandatory in public ones.

Generally speaking, all high schools require two foreign languages, including the STEM ones; the only real difference is how they schedule the classes.

driftingranger2 said:Seriously though, what’s the move with that degree if you don't get into a four-year program or something higher?

Just like every other high school grad who didn't make it through college.

Michelle Nelson4 said:My take is that they’re intentionally making things unnecessarily difficult—acting like a high school diploma isn't enough for some while it's perfectly fine for everyone else. I don't see any actual benefit here for the students or even the country; it feels more like this is being driven by someone's specific interests. Honestly, even a small financial hit could serve as a decent disciplinary measure—in the US, we actually have the option to impose financial repercussions to finally put an end to these kinds of shenanigans.

All this talk about needing a 25% passing grade in chemistry, leaving the poor Treasury unable to select candidates, is just nonsense. If you earned a top grade on your high school chemistry finals, you didn't just scrape by with 25%; you likely mastered at least 85% of the material. It really makes you wonder, though: are these entrance exams strictly testing the standard high school chemistry curriculum, or is there extra stuff thrown in? And if there is "extra" material, where on earth are students supposed to learn it? Private schools? Tutors? Just teaching themselves?

I don't think there's much of a question there, honestly; the Treasury releases an official syllabus every single year detailing exactly what's on the exam, and it’s always just the standard high school material.

If the biology finals focus mostly on plants and animals while the Treasury ignores that stuff entirely because it isn't relevant to the major—focusing instead on human physiology—then I guess it's pretty obvious why the high school finals fail to filter candidates properly. Plus, back in the day, the difficulty gap between high school finals and these entrance exams was basically like comparing kindergarten to college.

stormymarlin22 said:Can't colleges just set their own admission requirements? Like, deciding how much weight to give high school exams or what GPA you need to hit... I guess they should have more say in that.

I suppose they can, I guess every degree program has that kind of autonomy.

Susan James said:

I haven't seen any posts from capttawish yet! I'll be sure to let you know if they chime in. kaže:
Comparing the College of Science to medical school isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison when you talk about "how hard physics or chemistry is," but that’s beside the point. The real issue is just the sheer volume of applicants. At the medical school here in Washington, D.C., the competition is incredibly intense because you have so many top-tier students—people with amazing grades and deep subject knowledge—all vying for a spot. High school graduation scores just weren't enough to act as a sufficient filter for such a massive pool of high achievers, so they ended up implementing entrance exams to handle the selection process.

I'm not entirely sure what exactly they’re testing on the chemistry entrance exam versus the high school exit exams, but I do know one thing: the stakes are high. For the entrance exam, you basically need at least a 55% pass rate in every single subject just to clear the initial hurdle. Meanwhile, looking back at the last few years of the senior finals, the pass rates for chemistry and physics have been sitting right around 25%. It definitely makes you realize how much pressure those students are under!
If I remember correctly, those high school graduation thresholds are actually determined by the overall pass rate of all students taking the exam—though I’ve heard some people apply for subjects they don't even need just to mess with the percentages! As for the actual passing grade required to get in, that's set directly by the university. That number stays fixed based on whatever specific needs the department has for its upcoming classes.

It would be awesome if you could compare the difficulty levels of the different subjects, Larry Walker24. I know people were saying chemistry was the toughest part that year, but some older students told me that physics actually ends up being the real killer on the entrance exams—especially for kids who didn't come from a specialized science track. Since they get about an hour less of it during high school, that gap really starts to show when the pressure is on.

Regarding enrollment at the College of Science, I think anyone celebrating their high school graduation results might want to temper their expectations a bit. To be honest, if you’re looking at the Physics department, they’re mostly just hoping people actually show interest in applying—especially for the teaching track. If the administration decides to implement strict entrance exams, we could end up losing the few students we currently have. That feels like a massive risk to me. 🤔

If there’s massive interest in a specific major—and we all know how high the demand is for med school—I honestly don't see why they wouldn't host their own dedicated entrance exams for selection. It would make sense, and frankly, it would be another way for the university to bring in some extra revenue through exam fees. 😬).

Chemistry is traditionally the toughest because the head of admissions is from the Department of Medical Chemistry and Biochemistry. They seem to have this complex about their subject being the most specialized, so since they made it the hardest part of the entrance exam, they made sure it was just as brutal during freshman year too. I guess she just enjoys making things difficult for everyone.

People over at the College of Arts and Sciences were saying they might bring back language entrance exams because high school grads supposedly weren't prepared enough, leading to students enrolling without the right foundation for the coursework.

Susan James said:I’m not entirely sure how it played out, but it happened to the kids from the prep schools.
To me, it feels like a perfect example of why medical programs look at more than just your SAT scores.

If someone passes the entrance exams, why shouldn't they be able to enroll regardless of their high school background? You can dream big about the future, but life is unpredictable and things change along the way.

It’s because they don't meet the prerequisites for that specific program. For medical school, for instance, you need at least two years of chemistry, physics, and biology during high school. Applicants who only had one year of those subjects—say, if they attended a vocational business high school—can't even apply for med school, let alone sit for an entrance exam.

Sure, kids at a business high school are probably more interested in economics than medicine or veterinary science, but the point is that in certain cases, your choice of high school definitely limits your college options.

As for the entrance exams, they were basically scrapped right after the national standardized testing system was introduced because universities wanted to maintain control over their selection process, and also because of discrepancies in the material being tested. For example, the national exams mostly focus on plant and animal biology, which isn't even covered on the actual university entrance exams.

I guess I'm actually in favor of bringing back entrance exams, but only because the national tests weren't really meant to serve as entrance exams in the first place; they were supposed to be external evaluations, and honestly, a final evaluation doesn't mean much anyway.

Susan James said:And honestly, we saw an example of this with med school last year when there were still open spots during the fall semester because none of the applicants could pass the entrance exam. Personally, I think that's perfectly fine.

I mean, it’s definitely not ideal to have students coming out of top-tier prep schools who can't even pass the admissions test. The issue isn't that the test itself is too hard—since some people clearly passed it—but rather that some students didn't actually master their high school curriculum. And the kicker? The ones who didn't get in were supposed to be the honors students!

Well, that only happened once in twenty years, and it was probably tied to COVID... but I guess the point is that for certain majors, your choice of high school really matters. A student couldn't realistically go from a vocational business school to med school because they wouldn't meet the prerequisites. I think vet med has similar requirements, too.

So, you really have to think about the long-term implications.

Henry Martinez2 said:Excuse me, but which generation of people is this...

Raised in Chicago (the suburbs), attended high school back in the 90s. My commute involved taking a bus to the depot, catching a train to downtown, then grabbing another bus or train up to Draskovićeva Street before walking down Šlosarova Street.
The catch was that when it snowed, the buses wouldn't even make it up the hills. We had to trek through the neighborhood via Slavica and cut through the park to get to school, sliding all over the ice and falling flat on our backs...
Over those four years, I could count on one hand how many times I was late for class (keep in mind we had early morning lectures starting at 7:10 AM).
Neither I nor my parents ever made a fuss about waking up early—I always made sure to eat a proper breakfast at home first.
I used my transit time—both ways—to study or catch up on reading assignments, rather than scrolling through TikTok, Instagram, or Snapchat. By the time I got home, I’d finish dinner, knock out whatever homework was left, and then just kick my feet up and relax.

That’s ancient history, totally incomparable to what Washington, D.C. is like today.

Susan James said:And get this—I'm actually shocked;
I didn't even start taking the train until high school, then I used it pretty regularly through college. At one point, I even picked a job that was just a quick 25-minute commute by rail (and in the opposite direction, too!).
Now, those trains are practically non-existent.
They've totally cut back on these routes (I guess everyone just drives now, and if students or high schoolers can't make it, they just stay in their dorms)||
The connection between downtown and the outer suburbs isn't what it used to be (maybe there's one in the morning and evening, but that's it). It used to run every hour, which really helped thin out the crowds because it would pick up people from the outskirts before hitting the main hub, preventing the slower lines from getting packed at the local stations.
To top it all off, they cut the service between the suburbs and downtown right when those areas have grown so much (not to mention the newer developments nearby). What a joke.

I might be slightly off base here...
but if they actually ran more trains to the school districts, you could probably get to a neighboring city faster than you can walk across town to visit your brother.

The wildest part for me is when people start fighting at the Brooklyn station just because they can't all squeeze onto the train, and then the doors won't even close because everyone is blocking them, so you just sit there for fifteen minutes waiting for some official to show up and fix things.

And I guess that constant standing around waiting for God-knows-what at West station for fifteen minutes is also pretty much a thing.

It's also a bit awkward when someone decides to end it all in the early morning hours, and then you're stuck waiting for the paramedics to arrive and take away the deceased and the traumatized conductor before you can actually move again.

urbantinker8 said:she might be surprised by that.

I suppose I don't think so, mostly because:

Susan James said:I feel like location only really comes into play when families are choosing between high schools. Maybe if a parent is pushing for an academic track but the kid is leaning toward vocational school, they’ll use the commute as a subtle way to nudge them toward the academic option. 😬It's all about convenience in those specific scenarios.

I mean, there is this constant claim that parents are aggressively pushing kids into academic tracks, so I guess you could argue someone might choose a cosmetology program over a preparatory academy just because it's closer, but proximity is probably just an added bonus.

Susan James said:You can absolutely get studying done on public transit. I see high schoolers and college students doing it almost every day. Those who are motivated, who really want to get ahead, and who know that putting in the study time now will pay off later—they'll definitely pop some headphones on and hit the books.
And you can do it whether the bus is packed or empty.
I actually finished about half of high school like that.
Now, though... well, you can't really pull off big presentations or all that other busywork while you're riding the bus.
(By the way, a thirty-minute ride is perfect for reading, but you can't exactly sing your heart out, unless you fancy talking to yourself or listening to an audiobook for class.

Regarding how everything connects, the system isn't terrible, but there’s definitely room for improvement (for example, adding more short-run or circular routes so delays don't mess up both directions).
Some parts of the city have pretty bad connectivity, so I completely understand why people try to choose schools and jobs close to home whenever possible. It feels a bit backwards to do the opposite, unless you're renting, in which case it's somewhat expected.

Sure, you could, assuming the subject matter isn't some total load of garbage that's hard to wrap your head around. For anything actually demanding, I guess you really need an environment where some old lady isn't constantly whacking you in the head with her purse, or where you don't have to keep jumping up every five seconds just to let some lady sit down or to clear a path so she can make it to the exit on time.

urbantinker8 said:I mentioned earlier that it’s pretty straightforward if you're weighing two different general high schools against each other, or even just choosing between programs within the same school—though, let's be honest, not all high schools are created equal, regardless of what the brochures say.
The real headache starts when location becomes your absolute top priority when you're looking at different specialized tracks, which, unfortunately, seems to be the case more often than I'd like to admit.

I suppose location is the biggest priority for kids and parents who don't really care about the actual curriculum, though I doubt you'll often see a parent forcing a kid into a local cosmetology program just because it's close by instead of choosing a medical academy on the other side of town.

Carl Bishop2 said:For me, the commute is a massive dealbreaker. Honestly, my sweet spot was having a drive that took no more than 25 minutes to get to the office.
I won't even bother looking at job postings in places like Ivanic-Grad—it’s just way too far out of my way.
Or maybe I'm just being a bit picky about where I want to be.

Same here, I guess. I don't really see myself spending two hours of my life every single day stuck in a car, a bus, or a subway. It feels like a total waste of time. I suppose if I didn't have any other options, I'd just have to deal with it, but still.

I suppose there isn't much to say about this, though I guess one could argue that things might change if we actually looked at the data instead of just reacting emotionally. says:
I guess nobody ever bothers to ask what subjects they actually studied in high school or which school they even attended.

To get into med school, I guess you pretty much have to have completed at least two years of physics, chemistry, and biology during high school.

Adam Diaz67 said:I actually know a few people who had to get up that early. Maybe not a full three hours, but at least two and a half. One friend lived over in Spanish Village and went to a specialized vet tech high school. Another was coming from Lanište to go to MIT. A buddy of mine lived near Dubec and headed to Luciana. If everything goes perfectly and nothing is delayed, you're looking at about an hour and fifteen minutes just for transit. But since NYC transit delays are basically a given, you can easily lose two hours, especially when you have to transfer and chase down buses or trains. You’re also stuck relying on the schedule, so sometimes you have to choose between being early or being late; smart people just leave early. Then there's the morning routine—using the bathroom, getting ready, grabbing breakfast. And that's without even mentioning the crowd I know who commuted from places like Harbor, American Leskovac, Los Angeles, or Brezovica to schools on the east side of town.

I don't know anyone who wasn't waking up two hours early, except maybe the people who lived miles away from their school.

Larry Walker24 said:Man, Antigone, The Scream, Fury, Fishing... what the hell?

That and Cyclops are probably the worst.

Antigone was actually great in my book! 😳

Some books were just universally loved back then: Crime and Punishment. Even people who hated reading would pick that one up. Not to mention The Catcher in the Rye. It feels like filler to me now, I guess, but back then it was top-tier stuff.

Susan James said:It definitely isn't normal to read a book three times in such a short window because you end up forgetting the plot anyway.
Plus, it shouldn't be the case that assignments require hunting for tiny details in the text rather than actually remembering the story.

People have tried to convince me on this thread that "creative assignments" encourage kids to do research and that it's a great way to process a book (but there's zero actual research on whether kids are actually reading more or less because of it, since no one bothers to ask the students themselves).

In my opinion, book assignments should spark a love for reading, comprehension, retelling stories, or writing essays... but apparently, those aren't "popular" with kids or parents anymore. That's why we see all these posters, drawings, and even making videos these days.😬

so, pretty much anything except reading.

Larry Walker24 said:A herbarium? That's literally the only time I ever touched biology in school, mostly because there’s no way I was out scavenging for weeds in the middle of NYC. Like, how could I not?

🤣

Jason Ortiz5 said:Honestly, that sounds like some trendy nonsense that eventually just ends up hitting both the boss and the worker in the face. Creativity without the ability or desire to actually work with others only works in very specific niches. On the flip side, "teamwork orientation" is also just a buzzword. Nobody cares if you're naturally "inclined" toward it—what matters is that you understand what it means to contribute to a team, respect your tasks, and realize how your actions affect everyone else on the squad.

We actually had to let go of an incredible designer a few months back. Being amazing at her craft just wasn't enough. For example, if a project manager tells her a client wants a table with square wooden legs, and she designs this gorgeous, functional table but gives it round metal legs instead, she’s messed up. She stalls the whole project team, we lose credibility with the client, and maybe even the manufacturer says it's impossible within the budget... There are very few industries where one person can just do whatever they want in a vacuum.

Group projects in our school system are supposed to teach kids how to be creative within their own slice of the pie while collaborating so everything fits together. It should be about negotiating, communicating, pitching ideas, and syncing up with what others are thinking. Sadly, group work is anything but that. Most of the time, it's just a massive source of frustration for students. I get that it's tough to supervise multiple groups at once, but they could at least start by giving more concise instructions and explaining what group work actually is, why it exists, what the benefits are, and what happens if you don't participate.

But here in the States, it usually looks like this: split into groups of three, four, or five, pick a topic from a list, and present it this Friday. Good luck with that. It's a decent idea in theory, but totally half-baked and practically meaningless in practice.

I honestly don't get how anyone can envision a functional workplace without actual team players. 😁

Thinking back to those math classes, I remember how we all teamed up to make this massive poster covered in basic equations and taped it right to the classroom wall. I guess it’s funny because the kids who were constantly failing math never once thought to just glance over their shoulders at it during an exam to cheat their way through enough problems to scrape by. 😁

rowdypanther12 said:I always knew which kids in my little one's class had parents doing all their posters and assignments for them. It was honestly pretty funny to me because those kids would end up getting the exact same grades as my kid, who actually did the work themselves. I mean, what's even the point?
Another thing is helping a child when they're stuck, but what you mentioned about the pizza being cut into equal slices... why on earth does it have to be equal slices?!
Did they teach that in math class?
If they didn't, then for heaven's sake, the slices don't need to be equal.

Just relax. You're basically punishing the kid for the whole learning process and just trying to get through homework. What's going to happen in middle school if you're stressing out over this now, especially since these grades don't really matter in the long run?

I was definitely that student whose mom did every single hands-on task for me—all the drawing, cutting, building, taking things apart, blowing stuff up... the only exceptions were projects I actually cared about, like biology herbariums, and even then, she was still helping me out.

I guess I really don't see how that held me back later on in school or just life in general. 😁

Susan James said:Where did you get the idea that this task is going to be easy and fun for every single kid? 😕
I’m not really getting into debating what they should learn or what they need to present.
I just want to know where the idea came from that children will actually find this enjoyable. 🤔
Is it because they'd rather draw than write? 🤔
Or because they use emojis instead of words in digital chats, so we're supposed to just mirror that in schoolwork?

To me, this assignment feels like reading comprehension—and the actual need to read the book—isn't any less demanding than back in the day when we used to write out the author's name, the title, a brief bio, the setting, and a short summary... all in a thick hardcover book, without drawings, instead of on separate sheets of paper provided by the teacher.
And with instructions saying "less text, more decorations and drawings."
Because they're asking for creativity and a sense of individuality. 🧐

And sure, there are kids who will love drawing, decorating, and cutting things out. Then there are the ones who won't, and then there are the ones whose moms will end up doing the whole thing at home.

If the goal is to make books more appealing to kids, in this case, you're miles away from hitting the mark.
For someone who loves reading but hates drawing, this is a great way to make them loathe the book.
And for those who don't like reading, I don't see how the idea of turning a book into a picture book is supposed to encourage them to read (especially if they aren't artists either...). 🤦
Who is this creative project actually for?

The only real justification for this weird way of handling literature is to prevent kids from just copy-pasting a summary from the internet (though you could still copy-paste from anywhere, except now they'll waste even more time picking out paper, glitter, or tempera paint and drawing...). You've essentially given the kids extra chores. (I'm trying to imagine my own child, who would actually love this, though she's already busy packing her bag and wallet because before she can even start writing, she has to run to Target for a few supplies...).

I honestly think everyone got a little lost in this push for "creativity" and the need for every child to express their uniqueness.
Meanwhile, kids are reading less and less... which is what the primary goal of reading assignments should actually be.

My mom used to draw all my book reports for me back in school. I guess the teacher probably pretended not to notice, because you could tell from a mile away that those weren't drawn by an elementary student. 😍 Honestly, I used to dread those assignments—all those collages and dioramas... it was just too much. I actually liked reading, but I didn't care for the arts and crafts side of things.

In my class, only the kids who were already naturally artistic actually enjoyed that stuff, and there weren't many of them.

Michelle Nelson4 said:On the topic of the College of Science—of course those enrollment quotas aren't being met. It’s pretty simple math: there just aren't enough students out there, and why would anyone bother grinding through a nearly identical curriculum just to have "Professor" tacked onto their title at the end? Even if they do finish, let's be honest, everyone knows you can pull a great salary in the private sector without the teaching credential. I can personally guarantee that the average high school math or physics teacher doesn't need to spend five grueling years in a specialized pedagogy track. It feels totally misguided. Naturally, almost nobody signs up, and even when they do, they usually pivot to a better career path once they graduate. About 30 years ago, this track was mostly a fallback for students who couldn't quite clear the harder hurdles in an engineering major—you know, the heavy hitters like the IMF courses—so they'd switch over. Sometimes, though, they'd actually manage to pass those tough classes under a different professor and head back to engineering 😂
.
If we opened three-year programs at community colleges with a more practical, streamlined curriculum designed for regular people, we might actually start solving the teacher shortage in these subjects.

Teaching is a regulated profession, which means having a degree or license is a legal requirement for the job. So, if you want to be a math professor, you have to go to college and pass certain exams.

But if you want to be a senior developer, you can just pull up a YouTube tutorial and get to work, or sign up for a course and stack some certifications. I guess there's no real reason to grind through five years of university when you can do the job without any formal degree at all.

So, maybe we should be cutting funding for industries where a degree isn't even necessary, rather than targeting teaching programs, for heaven's sake.