High School Guide: Admissions, reviews, and advice

northerntiger9 said:Regarding sports—it’s not exactly straightforward, and honestly, this whole scoring system should just be scrapped. It has nothing to do with being an elite athlete or how hard you work—unless, of course, luck is on your side.

The way the rules work is that they only recognize competitions organized by school athletic clubs. To put it bluntly: you could train track all you want and break a national record, but if your school doesn't have a coach willing to send you to the state qualifiers, you might as well be barking at the moon. On top of that, some sports only offer team events rather than individual ones, which means besides having a coach, you also need a handful of teammates who are actually good enough to win something that counts toward points.

Take our school, for instance—we have several kids who are national champions in their respective sports, yet the only ones sent to school competitions are the table tennis players or the soccer team. 😬

Actual club competitions are only considered for admission into specialized sports academies, and even then, you have to be highly ranked in the season standings with national-level success just to get a look-in. And because of the pandemic, it's been a mess for certain sports since competitions were canceled entirely—leaving them with zero results to show for it—while other sports managed to keep going.

So... yeah.

Edit: I see only one comment above, so let me clarify once more—kids who compete in state-organized events through official bodies (like US Ski & Snowboard, United States Tennis Association, USA Track & Field, etc.) do NOT receive any points.

I was just about to get upset, but then I remembered I already knew this.😂
It completely slipped my mind because it's so illogical that my brain just refuses to process it.😂

hiddendriver34 said:My take? Most of them will stay that way, except for the ones that have already jumped on the bandwagon and started testing. 🤷

Personally, I’m actually hoping they expand this a bit more—maybe even make it standard for all high schools. It feels completely absurd how high the GPA requirements have become just to get into any decent prep school these days. A B average should be considered quite good! I really don't know when it became the norm that students are expected to be walking encyclopedias in every single subject just to qualify for enrollment.

mellowskipper said:My little girl is stuck in this exact predicament right now. She wants to apply for a sports academy, but she plays a sport where there haven't been any sanctioned competitions since the pandemic started, which means she has no points to her name. I was told there's nothing we can do except file a formal petition to try and transfer her mid-year.

Sent from my PRA-LX1 using Reddit

Just another one of those classic American paradoxes, right? Shouldn't actually being great at a sport and crushing it in high-level competitions automatically earn you credits for a sports-focused high school? It just doesn't make sense.

The way things are set up, you could have an elite wrestler getting into a prep school for languages, while some kid who wins national science fairs or crushes Portuguese classes gets dumped into the athletics program.

I'm exaggerating a bit, sure, but you get the idea.

Michelle Nelson4 said:Personally, I’m actually hoping they expand this a bit more—maybe even make it standard for all high schools. It feels completely absurd how high the GPA requirements have become just to get into any decent prep school these days. A B average should be considered quite good! I really don't know when it became the norm that students are expected to be walking encyclopedias in every single subject just to qualify for enrollment.

Since everything is being left up to whatever leadership happens to be running the local school districts—and we all know how "organized" some of those folks can be—I highly doubt things will change much. The only real difference might be that schools already holding entrance exams will bump their weight from 5 points to 10.
If they go that route, my guess is maybe two more schools in the Washington, D.C. area would join the fray.
But hey, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Do you think they won't roll this out to everyone, at least not to those who are really eager to jump on board?

northerntiger9 said:Regarding sports—it’s not exactly straightforward, and honestly, this whole scoring system should just be scrapped. It has nothing to do with being an elite athlete or how hard you work—unless, of course, luck is on your side.

The way the rules work is that they only recognize competitions organized by school athletic clubs. To put it bluntly: you could train track all you want and break a national record, but if your school doesn't have a coach willing to send you to the state qualifiers, you might as well be barking at the moon. On top of that, some sports only offer team events rather than individual ones, which means besides having a coach, you also need a handful of teammates who are actually good enough to win something that counts toward points.

Take our school, for instance—we have several kids who are national champions in their respective sports, yet the only ones sent to school competitions are the table tennis players or the soccer team. 😬

Actual club competitions are only considered for admission into specialized sports academies, and even then, you have to be highly ranked in the season standings with national-level success just to get a look-in. And because of the pandemic, it's been a mess for certain sports since competitions were canceled entirely—leaving them with zero results to show for it—while other sports managed to keep going.

So... yeah.

Edit: I see only one comment above, so let me clarify once more—kids who compete in state-organized events through official bodies (like US Ski & Snowboard, United States Tennis Association, USA Track & Field, etc.) do NOT receive any points.

It feels like they’re just trying to prevent a total free-for-all where hundreds of random little leagues could start hosting their own tournaments and claiming points, regardless of how many kids actually show up.

That’s my gut feeling anyway, because my little one participates in these niche subject-based competitions within a single league—which doesn't count for anything—but then goes to the standard city, county, or national meets where you actually rack up the credits.

Susan James said:I personally feel there should be a way to value extra achievements and competitions, regardless of who organizes them or where they take place.
I'm no expert here, but I truly believe that kids who excel in these competitions won't view the entrance testing for their dream schools as a source of stress...

Using table tennis scores or school swimming meets (especially in schools without a pool!) as criteria for getting into a specialized language academy just doesn't make sense. For a language academy, it would be much more logical to test proficiency in two foreign languages or offer bonus points for studying both at school or through a language institute—essentially giving priority to students who have mastered both at an advanced level.
for example...

I'm sorry to see the points increasing from 5 to 10, though I suppose it's something.
I'm still against a standardized national exit exam; I think individual school admissions are much more objective and tailored to the student than a "one size fits all" national test.
plus, schools can still choose not to hold entrance exams at all.
And I'm sure we'll still see plenty of schools doing exactly that.

I'm not super deep into the whole high school admissions thing yet since my kid is only in 6th grade, but where are you guys finding these specific enrollment regulations that say national sports achievements earn points for every single school?

I managed to find the guidelines for enrolling in a language academy, which says they only count national competitions in a few subjects relevant to the curriculum, and I also dug up the high school enrollment regulations, which include a section on "Evaluating Success for Athlete Enrollment."

It's a bummer that it's only bumping up from 5 to 10 points right now, but hey, I guess it's something.
I'm still against the idea of a standardized national exam; I honestly think individual school entrance exams are much more objective and tailored to the student than some one-size-fits-all national test.
Plus, schools can still choose not to hold entrance exams at all,
and I'm pretty sure we'll still see plenty of those types of schools.

Honestly, I don't even know what to think anymore. Everything depends so heavily on the specific teachers working with them, and it seems like some people have all this freedom to just be lazy or play favorites, and as a society, we always seem to find some loophole or way to cheat the system. It makes me feel like there's really no way our education system is ever going to actually get better.

rowdypanther12 said:Do you think they won't roll this out to everyone, at least not to those who are really eager to jump on board?

I'm pretty sure they will.
The ones who aren't seeing a massive influx probably won't bother changing anything.

From what I can see, their biggest headache right now was just setting the deadlines for requests and figuring out all the requirements people had to meet.

rowdypanther12 said:Do you think they won't roll this out to everyone, at least not to those who are really eager to jump on board?

Honestly, I think this will only be a thing for those schools where the entry bar is a perfect 5.0, and those places have already jumped on it.

Putting together, organizing, and actually running entrance exams is a massive undertaking. It takes serious initiative, a lot of grit, top-tier organizational skills from the school administration, and a handful of highly motivated teachers who are willing to go the extra mile.

To address what everyone is saying—enrolling in sports-focused tracks follows specific high school enrollment regulations, where they judge you on actual athletic achievements. Just being active in a sport isn't enough; you have to be hitting elite milestones. It might be slightly easier in a massive hub like Chicago since there’s an entire school dedicated to that kind of talent, whereas in a place like San Francisco, there are only maybe two specialized classes—one of which is at a Salesian school where you also have to meet certain religious requirements. Getting in is honestly a long shot.

And one more thing—if you actually make it into one of those programs, you have to submit proof every single year that you're still training. You can't just quit after freshman year and call it a day.

I brought this up because it’s something we’ll likely be dealing with in a few years, and most people I talk to agree that it's better to just stick with a standard high school rather than fighting for one of twenty available spots in a specialized program.

northerntiger9 said:To address what everyone is saying—enrolling in sports-focused tracks follows specific high school enrollment regulations, where they judge you on actual athletic achievements. Just being active in a sport isn't enough; you have to be hitting elite milestones. It might be slightly easier in a massive hub like Chicago since there’s an entire school dedicated to that kind of talent, whereas in a place like San Francisco, there are only maybe two specialized classes—one of which is at a Salesian school where you also have to meet certain religious requirements. Getting in is honestly a long shot.

And one more thing—if you actually make it into one of those programs, you have to submit proof every single year that you're still training. You can't just quit after freshman year and call it a day.

I brought this up because it’s something we’ll likely be dealing with in a few years, and most people I talk to agree that it's better to just stick with a standard high school rather than fighting for one of twenty available spots in a specialized program.

From what I gather, this year saw the biggest rush ever for that specific program at the local athletic academy.

The logic seems to be: go for a solid vocational program first, and only then consider the more traditional academic tracks.

Everything definitely feels different out here in Seattle compared to how things operate in Washington, D.C.

That said, I’m not entirely sure what their current curriculum looks like, but back when I was in high school, the sports track had this reputation for being a bit more relaxed. It was like they understood these kids were spending basically all their free time at practice, so they didn't pile on as much heavy coursework as you'd find in the other honors programs.

But honestly, what you’re saying lines up with my own research—it looks like getting into those elite sports programs really comes down to having top-tier results from national championships.
It isn't like what shtefy mentioned, where you can rack up extra credit for athletic achievements to get into a general or language-focused academy.
Maybe that's just a quirk of that one specific school, because I've been digging through the official handbook for our local academies, and I just don't see anything about that.

Karen Richardson3 said:From what I gather, this year saw the biggest rush ever for that specific program at the local athletic academy.

The logic seems to be: go for a solid vocational program first, and only then consider the more traditional academic tracks.

Everything definitely feels different out here in Seattle compared to how things operate in Washington, D.C.

That said, I’m not entirely sure what their current curriculum looks like, but back when I was in high school, the sports track had this reputation for being a bit more relaxed. It was like they understood these kids were spending basically all their free time at practice, so they didn't pile on as much heavy coursework as you'd find in the other honors programs.

But honestly, what you’re saying lines up with my own research—it looks like getting into those elite sports programs really comes down to having top-tier results from national championships.
It isn't like what shtefy mentioned, where you can rack up extra credit for athletic achievements to get into a general or language-focused academy.
Maybe that's just a quirk of that one specific school, because I've been digging through the official handbook for our local academies, and I just don't see anything about that.

Well, the criteria are actually set at the state level, so you really ought to start by looking at the high school admissions policy (including all its recent amendments and updates). Specifically, you should check out Article 17.

In Washington, D.C., there’s a massive rush of students trying to get into the sports track, even in a small town in the Midwest. Then you have that specialized sports program at the high school—which isn't exactly famous, mind you—and I believe there's also a sports option over at the vocational school in the suburbs.

Regarding our friend from the local club, her athletic achievements are actually quite impressive; she just competed in the finals of the World Junior Championships. That seems to be the standard for most kids there—exceptionally successful athletes, often national champions, who also happen to be top-tier students. As for the curriculum, it doesn't differ much from a standard high school track, though they do offer more flexibility with testing and assignments to accommodate their training schedules (for instance, when they have to miss class for intensive prep sessions or competitions a few times a year). Word on the street is that the other two programs are "easier," though from what I understand, most kids from the club end up enrolling in regular high schools. Take this one boy from the club, for example—he was also at the World Juniors—and his school is usually pretty flexible with him because they realize the dedicated sports tracks just can't meet everyone's needs.

hiddendriver34 said:Honestly, I think this will only be a thing for those schools where the entry bar is a perfect 5.0, and those places have already jumped on it.

Putting together, organizing, and actually running entrance exams is a massive undertaking. It takes serious initiative, a lot of grit, top-tier organizational skills from the school administration, and a handful of highly motivated teachers who are willing to go the extra mile.

Honestly, this just feels really sad to me.
I really want to believe that in the high schools where kids are making these big life decisions, there are teachers who actually care about ensuring students walk in with a solid foundation—knowledge they’ll actually enjoy building upon.
I’d love to see them motivated enough to actually verify that knowledge before enrollment happens.

No matter how huge the workload is, I truly believe it pays off to check proficiency in subjects where the curriculum builds on itself;
It would mean less repetitive teaching, fewer gaps in student knowledge within the same classroom, and a much more productive environment for everyone involved.
It's just frustrating.

Susan James said:Honestly, this just feels really sad to me.
I really want to believe that in the high schools where kids are making these big life decisions, there are teachers who actually care about ensuring students walk in with a solid foundation—knowledge they’ll actually enjoy building upon.
I’d love to see them motivated enough to actually verify that knowledge before enrollment happens.

No matter how huge the workload is, I truly believe it pays off to check proficiency in subjects where the curriculum builds on itself;
It would mean less repetitive teaching, fewer gaps in student knowledge within the same classroom, and a much more productive environment for everyone involved.
It's just frustrating.

Totally. But look, there’s a whole side to this industry that people on the outside just don't get. For some teachers, it feels like they're carrying the entire weight of the school on their backs. They’re the ones teaching the core subjects that lead up to graduation, so everyone expects them to go the extra mile—more prep, more responsibility, more emotional labor. It’s constant. Meanwhile, you’ve got teachers on the complete opposite end of the spectrum who basically just clock in, do the bare minimum, and nobody ever asks anything extra of them.

hiddendriver34 said:Totally. But look, there’s a whole side to this industry that people on the outside just don't get. For some teachers, it feels like they're carrying the entire weight of the school on their backs. They’re the ones teaching the core subjects that lead up to graduation, so everyone expects them to go the extra mile—more prep, more responsibility, more emotional labor. It’s constant. Meanwhile, you’ve got teachers on the complete opposite end of the spectrum who basically just clock in, do the bare minimum, and nobody ever asks anything extra of them.

I honestly feel like some things just carry more weight than others. Not everything is created equal, you know? Some items have this way of being absolutely essential, while other stuff is just... there.🤷

You probably won't have an entrance exam for history anyway. If that's the case, does it really matter if the kid knows five major Middle Ages events right now? They’re going to be learning all of that at the start of the term regardless. It feels a little embarrassing for a future high schooler, I guess, but hey, what can you do?

Honestly, there is so much vital information in American literature classes that kids are supposed to master by the time they finish elementary school, but you know how it goes—they just don't show up with those skills. They walk into middle school without any real reading habits, leaving them with huge gaps in their knowledge. I really think we need to start having more honest conversations about motivation and actually getting kids interested in learning.

I’ve heard through the grapevine that one of the local high schools—you know, the one everyone started flocking to recently because of the morning shift schedule or its proximity to the local music academy—is actually making their entrance exam for English incredibly difficult. People haven't quite been able to pin down exactly why it's so tough, but I’m worried it might be overkill. It would be such a shame if kids ended up totally stressed out, sitting there sweating through exams in a stuffy classroom without any air conditioning or anything. Just seems like a lot of unnecessary pressure for them.
Besides the fact that this subject is basically the foundation for everything else, honestly, isn't it a bit embarrassing? If a kid has been pulling straight A's in English for four years straight, how can the entrance exam be considered "difficult" or "stressful"? Even if their goal is to play in a major symphony orchestra, they still need to be literate. Plus, we shouldn't be taking spots away from someone who actually worked harder or has more talent. If the main issue is just wanting to avoid the morning shift, then maybe put in the effort to earn that spot. Usually, professors are much more motivated when they only have one shift to manage, and they tend to give much more of themselves. Why shouldn't that knowledge go to someone who actually knows more and is genuinely driven to be there?

I’ve been thinking about one of those elite prep schools in Washington, D.C., and how much things have changed since they implemented their entrance exams. Even though they still end up enrolling some kids who didn't quite hit that perfect 5.0 GPA in middle school, I can't help but wonder about the workload for the math department. I’m sure designing and grading these entrance tests is a massive undertaking, but honestly, it seems like it would actually save them a headache in the long run. If they focus on students who are already fully prepared, the teachers don't have to spend their entire first year playing catch-up. They won't have to waste precious instructional time patching up fundamental knowledge gaps or sitting through intense meetings with parents trying to gently explain that their "math prodigy" isn't actually at that level yet. When you bring in students who are truly ready, the professors can actually do what they were hired to do: push the curriculum forward. They can set higher standards—even going beyond the standard textbooks—to ensure these kids are ready for top-tier universities. If you want someone to eventually thrive in a rigorous STEM program, they need to master these concepts now while they have the foundation to support it. It just seems more efficient for everyone involved.
Even though a former cabinet member is out there on Facebook claiming that elite prep schools don't actually exist...

Bilingual programs have been around for ages—back in my day, they were actually quite common—and art schools have always offered them too. Honestly, I don’t quite get why people think it adds extra stress to other schools. It just seems like a great way to learn!
I’ve been thinking about how we handle electives in our science programs. Wouldn't it be great if they offered courses specifically designed to boost a student's GPA? It could be a win-win: students get a chance to pull their grades up, and schools might actually see more interest in competitive academic contests. It shouldn't just be limited to math, either. We could offer advanced STEM subjects or even specialized language tracks. For instance, many kids take two foreign languages, especially those in language academies. If that second language felt meaningful during middle school rather than being a burden that drags down their overall average, more students would stick with it. Right now, I see so many kids dropping classes because they're worried about their GPA, which ends up leaving teachers with awkward gaps in their schedules. It feels like such a missed opportunity for everyone involved.

While I don't have strong feelings about the entrance exams themselves, I actually think it's a great idea to scrap the whole circus surrounding extra credit points. You know, those bonuses given out for things like asthma, divorce settlements, or other social and health issues. It might seem trivial, but when everyone else is sitting at an 80, the kid whose mom happens to remember to grab some old medical records from a checkup years ago—maybe citing some random allergy to tree pollen—suddenly gets a massive leg up. Especially since the school they're applying to has a row of large oak trees right out front 🥳

Betty Wood54 said:Well, the criteria are actually set at the state level, so you really ought to start by looking at the high school admissions policy (including all its recent amendments and updates). Specifically, you should check out Article 17.

Thanks so much!
Honestly, I totally checked out after reading Article 14, so I completely missed over this part. 😁

Is this specific regulation actually undergoing revisions right now?
Is there some kind of e-consultation process currently underway?

Sent from my PRA-LX1 via Reddit

mellowskipper said:Is this specific regulation actually undergoing revisions right now?
Is there some kind of e-consultation process currently underway?

Sent from my PRA-LX1 via Reddit

Yes,
here is

I was just looking back at the date on the original post (November 26, 2012)—it’s been almost ten years! It really makes me think about how prophetic this all turned out to be. 🐔

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.

northerntiger9 said:Regarding sports—it’s not exactly straightforward, and honestly, this whole scoring system should just be scrapped. It has nothing to do with being an elite athlete or how hard you work—unless, of course, luck is on your side.

The way the rules work is that they only recognize competitions organized by school athletic clubs. To put it bluntly: you could train track all you want and break a national record, but if your school doesn't have a coach willing to send you to the state qualifiers, you might as well be barking at the moon. On top of that, some sports only offer team events rather than individual ones, which means besides having a coach, you also need a handful of teammates who are actually good enough to win something that counts toward points.

Take our school, for instance—we have several kids who are national champions in their respective sports, yet the only ones sent to school competitions are the table tennis players or the soccer team. 😬

Actual club competitions are only considered for admission into specialized sports academies, and even then, you have to be highly ranked in the season standings with national-level success just to get a look-in. And because of the pandemic, it's been a mess for certain sports since competitions were canceled entirely—leaving them with zero results to show for it—while other sports managed to keep going.

So... yeah.

Edit: I see only one comment above, so let me clarify once more—kids who compete in state-organized events through official bodies (like US Ski & Snowboard, United States Tennis Association, USA Track & Field, etc.) do NOT receive any points.

And honestly, they shouldn't.
It’s just like how kids attending art, music, or dance schools on the side don't get an edge. It used to be that attending two different types of schools could earn you bonus points for enrollment, but that was scrapped because not every small town has access to those specialized academies. It would be unfair to penalize kids from rural areas just because they don't have an arts conservatory nearby—much like how it's unrealistic to assume every tiny town has its own dedicated track club, tennis academy, or ski resort.

While the musicians and dancers accepted this reality a long time ago, athletes just won't stop complaining and demanding special treatment or extra perks.

Even though the law clearly states that only athletes officially categorized by the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee are eligible for certain accommodations, we find ourselves constantly having to explain to the mother of a starter for New York City FC that her son doesn't qualify for those privileges.

They are constantly dropping off certificates for tournaments and achievements, asking for excused absences from both written and oral exams.

It makes me wonder if there's ever a student-athlete who brings their coach a straight-A report card or proof of academic excellence... and then uses those high grades to argue for a starting spot, a place in a competition they didn't actually qualify for based on performance, or at least some kind of exemption from training requirements.

In reality, it's usually the exact opposite. Success in sports leads to demands for school concessions.
They regularly show up with various papers regarding their athletic achievements, using them as leverage to ask for easier workloads or to be excused from their academic responsibilities.