Posts by Nicholas King

Dana Diaz8 said:🙂 (p.s. check my signature)

But our Secretary of Education has such brilliant ideas; I guess it doesn't matter if they're just some high school overachiever.

A kid who gets handed easy A's is just a straight-A student.

I couldn't care less.

Those are the ones who should be fast-tracked!

So what, are vocational schools just filled with delinquents while prep schools are populated exclusively by angels?

If you're a functional human being who actually knows how to study, it isn't a huge hurdle. But then again, you can also have a incredibly shallow memory where you cram everything in just to forget it all ten minutes after the test is over.

For some people—the actually bright ones—it isn't a choice. But then you have the overachievers who push themselves into prep school purely for the status. They have no idea what they want to do with their lives, so they figure, "Hey, let's go to a prestigious academy so everyone thinks, 'Wow, look at that genius.'"

Out of the absolute mountain of questionable takes floating around here—and I’ll admit, the idea that "anyone who gets good grades is a nerd" actually made the shortlist for me—I want to zero in on this one.

Let’s keep some perspective here, shall we? We are talking about fifteen-year-olds. Who, exactly, are they trying to impress, and why? Do you honestly believe there is some social circle out there where a teenager announcing, "Oh, I go to an elite prep school," is going to cause an immediate wave of hormonal frenzy or... well, anything remotely scandalous? It's just not happening.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with kids choosing a prep school even if they haven't figured out their entire career path yet. Choosing a high school is really just about selecting a specific track of study, and then, eventually, during those years, they will settle on a specific major.

silentridge3 said:And this is just blatant misandry:

No, honestly, that’s just standard-issue internet trolling. trollis domesticus vulgaris. It's pretty much the same vibe as most of what you’ve so meticulously quoted there. If you’re going to throw around the "misandry" card, I suppose you should actually back it up—prove that this entire targeted reaction is happening solely because you happen to be a man and they happen to be women. You'd need to show that if you had approached the topic with the same level of personal intensity regarding, say, the best way to grow pansies, you wouldn't be facing this exact same backlash.

What do you think, Sean Cook2? Are you on the same side as people like this?

Look, if you didn't insist on using this constant combat terminology—this whole "if you don't support the Great Leader, then you're basically a Nazi" mindset that creates an artificial "us versus them" divide—we might actually be able to have a civil conversation about instances where men face inequality. For starters, look at how child custody is handled in American divorce courts.

But, let's be real—to use your own logic—it’s nearly impossible to "be on the same side" as someone like that.

I suppose I should probably start by saying that I don't usually take to these forums to air my grievances—it’s just not really my style—but lately, I’ve found myself feeling rather compelled to address certain... let's call them "unfortunate developments" regarding the current state of things. It feels like every time I turn around, there is some new attempt to chip away at the fundamental principles laid out in our Constitution—which, if we are being honest, is the only thing keeping this whole chaotic experiment from falling apart entirely. It's frustrating, really. I mean, I know everyone has an opinion, but there seems to be a growing trend of people just ignoring the actual framework we agreed upon. It’s almost as if the rules only apply when they are convenient for one side or the other—which, I guess, is exactly what we were warned about. I find myself constantly hedging my bets on whether we can actually course-correct, or if we are simply drifting toward something much more disorganized. Maybe I'm being too cynical? Perhaps. But looking at the way institutions are being handled lately, it’s hard not to feel a bit heated about the lack of consistency. kaže:
The Constitution—specifically Article 65, if I’m reading my memory correctly—lays it out pretty clearly: everyone is entitled to free education. It's supposed to be mandatory at the elementary level, accessible to everyone, and... well, it's meant to be equitable. If we were operating under a level playing field... The way they’re handling vocational tracking—starting kids at 14—is one thing, but pushing that age down to 10 or 11? It just doesn't sit right with me. Honestly, I don't think it even meets the basic standards set by our Constitution.

Could you possibly walk me through the specific components that make up an admissions policy—and, if I’m being honest, which one actually carries the most weight? And yet—this applies to absolutely every single child.From the specific selection criteria all the way down to how the tender was actually publicized—does this whole mess violate the cited section of the Constitution? 😕 "Equal educational opportunities" doesn't mean that everyone gets a free pass into a top-tier prep school or a prestigious university—it’s just not that simple, I suppose. What it actually means—if we are being precise about it—is that everyone should be standing on the same starting line, facing the exact same set of rules and hurdles when they compete for those spots. It's about fairness in the competition itself, not a guarantee of the outcome.

The only thing truly undermining the sense of equality here—and I really mean this—is how certain people are framing parental connections. They aren't just presenting them as standard family ties; they’re going so far as to suggest they are some sort of miraculous, life-saving remedy for children who are struggling. It's a bit much, I guess, and it honestly skews the entire debate.

Ultimately, this falls squarely on their own shoulders—and honestly, on the shoulders of their parents—rather than being some massive obligation for the federal government to step in and fix.

Doesn’t it feel like this entire sentence is at war with the idea that the government should be stepping in to fix the mess left by lazy, entitled kids? It’s—if I’m being honest—a total joke to act as if we can just ignore the fact that responsibility lies squarely with the parents, yet somehow expect the state (which, let’s be clear, is actually just the taxpayers) to foot the bill for parental negligence.

rowdypanther12 said:I’m being completely serious here. Go ahead and enroll—if you can keep up with the curriculum, great; if not, you can always switch to a less demanding school.
The same goes for universities.
Education should be accessible to anyone who actually wants it.

So, let's just have everyone enroll in whatever they feel like, shall we? And the taxpayers will foot the bill for all of it—right up until the moment it becomes painfully obvious to everyone involved that those enrollments were a complete waste of time. And that realization? It usually takes years upon years upon years...

I suppose if I were to ask where the funding for this particular brand of "education" comes from—given that its entire foundation rests on waiting for people to eventually realize they are either incompetent, lazy, or simply unsuited for schooling—I would just be met with the usual collection of tired platitudes about how there is plenty of money out there, it's just being mismanaged.

In my view, there is no more egregious waste of taxpayer dollars than indulging every whim, every little daydream, and every academic utopia dreamt up by students and their parents. We can blame Coelho for all of this, I guess: the idea that if you just wish hard enough for an education, the whole world will somehow conspire to make it happen... as if that's how reality works.

Why is it such an insurmountable challenge to simply admit the truth? There are foolish kids, there are lazy kids, and there are kids who simply aren't cut out for certain paths—no matter how much they, or perhaps even more so, their parents might want them to be.

rowdypanther12 said:What about the three-year programs? And do you honestly think a 15 or 16-year-old is capable of teaching themselves advanced placement material? 😕Especially subjects their specific school doesn't even offer. 🤷
We shouldn't just ignore the problem, but we shouldn't create a barrier that almost nobody can overcome either.
And why couldn't everyone go to a preparatory academy if they wanted to? 🤷
That’s how it used to be a long time ago. If someone wants to try, let them, and if they can't hack it, they can switch to a less demanding school later.
Besides, not everyone wants to aim for a top-tier academy anyway. 🤷

And why on earth should the "community" foot the bill for some "15 or 16-year-old" who—let's be honest here—spent middle school messing around, only to suddenly decide, just when it’s too late, to start grinding away at prep work like a scholar? Even if funding for these things were unlimited—which it isn't—where is the logic in that?

How many of these "hidden geniuses" exist—kids who played around way too much during their elementary years? What percentage of the total population are we even talking about here?

and why can't everyone go to prep school? everyone who wants to? 🤷

Are you joking?

Since when was that ever the case? Since when did high-tier prep schools have unlimited enrollment quotas?

Even now, with strict enrollment caps and high GPA requirements, barely three months into the semester, heaps of kids and their parents are starting to realize they simply aren't cut out for it—yet you seem to think it's wise to let every single child—and especially every self-important parent—just "give it a shot" at an elite academy, and then what happens when they fail???

BTW, by that logic, should we also set unlimited quotas for universities "for anyone who wants to go"? If the answer is no, then what exactly is your solution for all those high school graduates who won't qualify for college?

rowdypanther12 said:Man, if I’d just been among those top four students with all those honor roll certificates and awards, things might have gone differently 😂
I'm mostly kidding, but honestly, back in high school, I saw firsthand what happens when you mess up at thirteen or fourteen. And while Nicholas King says he doesn't really know which kids end up ruining their own prospects, I actually know quite a few. Even more than that, I know plenty of people who had parents who made some poor life choices early on, leading them to enroll in schools they didn't even have the grades for—but then those kids actually pulled themselves together during high school and started working hard.

(I don't love the phrase "ruining your future" because life is about so much more than just a career or a job, but it definitely limits your options and narrows your path)

First off, we started this whole discussion talking about "ruining an entire generation's future," and somehow—I don't know how—we've drifted into much milder territory.

Secondly—and this is the part that actually matters—I still haven't received a straight answer to my simple question: what is the fair and just way to handle kids who, for one reason or another, completely slack off during middle school? Every single time someone gets into a high school they didn't earn through their own merit, it means some other kid—who actually earned that spot with their hard work—gets pushed out. But, well, let's be honest, not everyone has parents with deep pockets or political connections.

There are certain academies where you can get in with lower scores. There are vocational schools where a "reformed" student can independently prepare for the SATs. There are ways to fix this—it’s just that, more often than not, it seems people would rather just pretend the middle school screw-ups never happened and sweep them under the rug...

silentridge3 said:I mean, part of the whole feminist hypocrisy thing is definitely this manipulation of statistics.

It seems like the usual tactic is to have the media constantly churning out these "statistical estimates," you know, like saying "every single second in America, a million women are being beaten"...

...but honestly, what you're doing here, this constant "nitpicking," feels even more shameful to me, if that makes sense. Because, look, even if we actually sit down and go through your specific calculations and assumptions—and let's say we give you the absolute best-case scenario for women—out of those 31 crimes, 7 were actually committed by women against their male partners.

Is that a small amount, or are 7 male victims somehow unworthy of being mentioned? Does a 24:7 ratio really feel sufficient enough to you to push this whole narrative that "women are exclusively victims and men are exclusively criminals"?

And where is even one solitary instance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stepping in to address men as victims? Not one article, not one TV show, not one single seminar, action, or petition...?

Maybe it's the feminism itself that has manufactured this kind of omertà, I guess.

Honestly, this is a question you should be directing at someone who—despite those figures you claim "aren't small"—still feels the need to repeatedly spout entirely different, incorrect numbers. Oops, my bad—it turns out you're actually the one who keeps typing out the wrong data... 🙂

I truly cannot wrap my head around why you're incapable of discussing the very issue you're writing about without resorting to terms like "feminism" or falling back on these weird forum conspiracy theories (though, I suppose if you look around, there isn't a single man to be found on this entire board, not even among the admins or the moderators...)? Surely you don't think the problem is too insignificant, or that you aren't skilled enough at debating, to handle a standard, civil discussion on a forum?

rowdypanther12 said:I’m not sure if I’ve gone too far by advocating for universal education up to age 18. I haven't fully researched all the nuances, but it honestly feels wrong that a kid could potentially derail their entire future just during middle school.

"Ruin their entire future"? Really? Is that what we're doing now? I mean, apparently, if a kid isn't a straight-A student by fifth grade, it’s written in the stars that they’re destined to spend their life stocking shelves at a Walmart?

Where are all these kids who supposedly "ruined their lives" back in middle school? Are they being kept in some sort of basement somewhere so we don't have to look at them?

This whole idea—that a bit of childhood mischief or playing around effectively nukes your entire destiny—is everywhere, yet I have never once heard a single concrete example of a child who actually "found themselves" later in life. And I don't just mean someone who finally decided to stop slacking off; I mean someone who truly made up for lost ground (actually worked their way up through higher education), only to be systematically blocked from succeeding by some broken American educational system.

Sarah James4 said:Everything. It tracks you for life. That whole system carries too much baggage. We used to try steering kids starting at 15 and it didn't work then. Now we think using those exact same methods will somehow work on even younger kids...

Why shouldn't someone just decide for themselves at 17 or 18 if they want to be a mechanic or study American Studies?

So, if I'm understanding you correctly—and I might be wrong here, but I don't think I am—you’re essentially suggesting that kids should just drift through twelve years of some sort of generalized high school curriculum, only to finally start actual vocational training for their careers once they hit adulthood? It seems to me that someone who actually has the drive to be a mechanic wouldn't even get to start meaningful training until they're 21—and that's assuming they haven't already wasted years sitting through lectures on subjects they have zero interest in and, frankly, probably lack the aptitude to master in the first place...

Good grief.

Sarah James4 said:Unbelievable... and this is supposedly the best the Department of Education can come up with. It’s not just that the government is claiming the right to dictate someone's career path and interests—basically deciding what kids will be doing for the rest of their lives starting at age 15... but we're actually doubling down on this whole system of creating an "elite" class through high-scoring schools versus everyone else. Now, they want to start pigeonholing them even earlier, around 10 or 11 years old. 🤦 It’s chilling. The way people view education in this country hasn't really changed since the days when the working class just learned trades while the privileged or scholarship students went on to become lawyers or doctors.

Where on earth are you getting that from?

The government doesn't decide anyone's career or their interests—not really. The state simply puts out the application requirements, students apply, and those with the highest scores get in. The only thing actually up for debate is the specific criteria used to calculate those scores; but regardless of what those metrics might be, the competitive process remains, and the advantage still goes to the high achievers.

we are practically endorsing this whole system of manufacturing an "elite" class (via these high-scoring magnet schools) versus everyone else (those falling below, say, a 60% threshold)

Schools post their admissions requirements, and then students apply to them. I mean, how exactly would you go about *not* supporting a "system for creating elites"—whatever that vague concept is supposed to entail? 😕

The only way you could possibly prevent the "creation of elite schools" would be to mandate a quota system—forcing schools to accept a certain percentage of students with lower scores while simultaneously blocking high scorers from being admitted at equal rates—just to stop a concentration of top-tier students in one place.

Honestly, I’m struggling to find the right words to describe how utterly nonsensical such an idea truly is.

swiftbear86 said:At Nike, anyone with 61 points could get in, and if you're wondering how they reached that number, that's for the admissions board to explain.
Basically, having all five standard requirements plus good conduct (grades in 7th and 8th grade) landed you at 61 points.
The points from competitions and High School were really just bonuses.

We got in without any issues—no divorces, no special social status stuff, and no medical waivers needed.
Success + behavior + state exams + High School = 64 points.

Actually, you could have hit that 61-point mark without necessarily having a perfect GPA—say, if you had lower grades in electives that don't even count toward admissions, provided your overall average stayed high enough.

Christian Lee13 said:Well, for starters, there needs to be a solid way to filter people during the entrance exams for teaching programs, you know? And before that, the whole profession needs to actually be respected enough to attract decent candidates, and before that... yeah, the list goes on forever.
The issue isn't nearly as one-dimensional as you're making it out to be; good teachers don't just drop out of the sky like manna from heaven.

Edit: I actually agree with you regarding this whole "indispensable" thing. In the American education system, it is incredibly difficult to actually get fired, especially if the only reason is that you're simply a mediocre teacher (and that's not even counting things like showing up late or other more obvious stuff).

I would happily sign off on all of those suggestions as a blueprint for fixing our broken education system—but, I simply refuse to accept the notion that these things are necessary prerequisites to stop the current staff from handing out grades like they're candy at a parade.

Christian Lee13 said:But someone has to set the stage for all that to happen, right? You really have to dig deep into the history of the system if you want to find where things actually started going off the rails.

It’s that classic, feudalistic "someone must provide us with this and that" attitude—the typical enlightened persona where everything begins and ends with the current employees being indispensable.

Who exactly is supposed to "set the conditions" (and what kind of conditions are we even talking about here?) so that a teacher can actually do their job properly? 😕

We aren't out here discussing building intergalactic spacecraft; we are talking about the absolute basics of grading based on whether a student actually knows the material or doesn't.

Christian Lee13 said:If you aren't exactly thrilled about the new proposed criteria for high school admissions, now is actually your chance to speak up. You just need to fill out the form, attach it to an email, and send it over to the address listed by December 4th.Send it to this address:

Here’s why I think these new requirements are a total mess:

- By factoring in grades from every single subject from 5th through 8th grade, we’re basically inviting a massive wave of GPA inflation. It’s going to put an absurd amount of unnecessary pressure on both the kids and the teachers trying to keep up with the curve.
- Think about the kid who is a literal math prodigy but happens to struggle with PE or Art. Under this system, they might get shut out of specialized programs like MIOC entirely just because their GPA took a hit in subjects that have nothing to do with their actual talent.
- There’s zero consistency here; schools don't have unified standards, and there isn't even any kind of external, standardized testing to balance things out.
- Elective courses become a trap; students will only bother taking them if they’re certain they can pull an A, otherwise, it’s just a calculated risk to tank their overall average.
- The proposal creates this weird, blatant inequality between student-athletes and kids who attended music or dance academies. Right now, winners of sports competitions get extra points that apply to enrollment in ANY high school, whereas musicians only get those perks when applying to an arts academy—and let’s be honest, those kids are already passing their entrance exams with ease because they’re specialists in their field. They wouldn't be state champions if they weren't already elite.

That line of reasoning reminds me of that old joke—you know the one—where a blonde walks down the street, sees a banana peel on the sidewalk, and thinks, "Oh my god, I'm gonna slip again!"

The only thing that actually causes honor roll inflation is teachers failing to do their jobs properly.

Bill Gates.

Jeffrey Morales4 said:I feel like I could say it for the millionth time that I absolutely love that hotel, and honestly, I’m not just trying to run an ad here.

It’s no different from when I mention on Moda kazati 200 put how much I adore Zarina's dresses, simply because I actually wear them all the time.

There really isn't any distinction there, other than perhaps your own subjective impression and the fact that we don't see eye to eye.

I suppose I'm still waiting on a response from the supermoderator whatever regarding the defamation of a moderator and the accusations leveled against licensed HKS instructors by calling them abusers.
You might be able to say things like that as just a regular forum member, I guess, but you can't act as a moderator and simultaneously abuse your authority by trying to stop other users from sharing their personal experiences.

Edit: The issue isn't really that you told me I shouldn't 'advertise' someone—when, in reality, I was just sharing my own lived experience—it's more about the fact that you said, 'for heaven's sake, just stop advertising that abuser already.'
If you had just said, "per the thread rules, a user isn't allowed to mention a specific dog boarding facility more than four times"—well, okay, fine. If I'm breaking the rules, I won't do it again.
But this, brisknomad6, is straight-up defamation.

I guess you don't quite grasp the definition of slander:

slander: a false rumor spread about someone with malicious intent.

So, which specific part of the sentence "Pero Perić is an animal abuser because he uses electricity during training" is actually false:

- Is it that Pero Perić doesn't use electricity?
- Or is there some official stance claiming that "using electricity" isn't abuse, so nobody is allowed to disagree?
- Or perhaps no action toward a dog qualifies as abuse as long as the owner gives their consent?

rowdyviper42 said:I kind of like the idea, though my kids aren't exactly in the prime demographic—one's already in high school and the youngest just started elementary school. I suppose the whole point is to encourage consistent effort rather than having everyone suddenly decide to actually study once they hit middle school graduation. Retroactive changes don't feel particularly fair, though; maybe waiting a couple of years before implementing this would be more reasonable. It might even be fairer that way. Pressure is always going to exist, unfortunately. But I guess it might at least make it easier for a parent to tell their kid they didn't earn that A, so they should probably try harder next year.

I suppose there’s probably some other law out there somewhere that would rule such retroactive application entirely illegal in the first place.

BTW, I honestly think cutting those credits for music school isn't just a massive blunder—it's a glaringly obvious window into the dominant value system currently in power. Honestly, anyone who genuinely believes that the entire point of attending music school is merely the technical ability to play a specific instrument shouldn't even be allowed anywhere near a position where they decide which brand of Procter & Gamble products to buy for public schools, let alone a position where they make actual, consequential decisions.

Mind you, all these debates inevitably lead to one single conclusion, which could be summed up in three simple words: the government's "little graduation."

wanderinggardener12 said:It seems nobody is talking about this latest proposal from the Secretary of Education and the rest of the administration, which makes me wonder if I should even bother starting a thread on it—especially since I don’t have a child directly impacted by these changes right now.
The proposal is headed for debate soon, yet amidst all the chaos currently facing our country, it seems to be slipping through the cracks, barely making a headline.
The Secretary wants to move enrollment entirely online, much like the system they implemented for college students three years ago. On paper, it’s supposed to make life easier for everyone—the kids, the parents, and the high schools themselves.
Under this plan, students can apply for ten different programs across a maximum of five schools. It sounds like a genuine improvement, provided the entire digital infrastructure doesn't collapse under the weight of 50,000 candidates hitting those servers at the exact same moment.
Then there’s the other side of the coin: the overhaul of the grading criteria. They aren't just looking at 7th and 8th-grade marks anymore; they’re pulling in data from 5th and 6th grade too. Previously, it was based on five subjects depending on the school and general GPA, but now they want five subjects plus GPAs calculated down to two decimal places. Furthermore, music and dance school credentials won't grant extra points anymore, and points earned from competitions will be scaled back.
In my view, these shifts could be excellent, provided they aren't applied retroactively. Families and students often develop specific strategies; they calculate their moves carefully. A parent might decide that those extra points from music school are more vital than an average grade in, say, shop class or art, or perhaps they aim for a specialized language academy where a mediocre science grade in 5th grade matters far less than maintaining straight As in history and social studies.
Ultimately, these new regulations will only ramp up the pressure on elementary school teachers. Everyone will be chasing perfect scores in every single subject, which will inevitably lead to even greater grade inflation and a sense of enrollment panic—if not outright hysteria—starting as early as 5th grade.
While the Secretary talks about reducing stress levels by eliminating mid-term grades, he seems to be charging headlong into disaster with an idea that is clearly unprepared or, at the very least, poorly thought out.

But I have to wonder—why shouldn't these middle school teachers simply do their jobs properly and refuse to cave to that kind of pressure in the first place?

Jack Hayes said:For most of my work, I tend to stick with Microsoft Office 2003—though I do find myself reaching for LibreOffice every now and then, mostly when someone insists on sending over a docx file or something similar.

You really don't have to.

Sam Green73 said:It would be wise to actually familiarize yourself with the topic before chiming in.
Don't just parachute in without a clue.

I didn't just parachute in, I swear.

What exactly is the issue with an ad that says, "No princesses, please"? Is it really that hard to grasp the idea that the very act of writing the ad conveys information? It’s like how there are certain guidelines regarding listing livestock on a farm—you wouldn't want to mess up and claim it’s just a suggestion, right?

Regarding being "familiar with the topic": I don't have the time to go hunting for examples (edit: okay, maybe I'm lying a little bit here), but there was once an ad posted that consisted of nothing but a single smiley face (🍿)—are you suggesting that one is also devoid of substance? Or perhaps this one? On the contrary, it's far more meaningful and intriguing than the endless pile of "funny, charming, supposedly good-looking guy" ads out there. Honestly, if I were to post an ad, mine would consist of just one single word (no, I won't say which one; no, it isn't "liquid"; no, it has nothing to do with books 😬).

An ad saying "no princesses" tells you a great deal about who the author *doesn't* want—which, by extension, tells you exactly who they *do* want.

Edit: looking at the ad in terms of rules, semantics, and everything else (just so we're clear, my ad is perfectly fine):

24 years old, Savannah, part of the Georgia Tech inventory, tall, once hunted a rat in a very dangerous part of town so I consider myself a man.

Looking for a woman for some innocent frolicking through meadows, running alongside herds of wild deer,
long, awkward silences over coffee, and heavy procrastination.

Members of the Hades club and Newt Gingrich, please stop responding to this ad (we tried, guys, it just didn't work)

PM me