High School Guide: Admissions, reviews, and advice

What I was actually getting at—and maybe I wasn't clear enough before—was the enrollment process for those specialized sports academies. I wasn't talking about that single extra credit point; I meant the maximum of 80 additional points students can rack up through their competition rankings. Basically, I’m referring to the specific schools and programs designed specifically for student-athletes.

Sent from my PRA-LX1 via Reddit

wanderingbadger44 said: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.

That whole setup with sports is actually a very American thing, and we seem to be leaning toward adopting those American ways—everything from oversimplifying curriculum to using athletic prowess as a gateway for high school admissions.
The main difference is that since American schools are private, being a star athlete can actually turn into a financial perk through scholarships. If I remember correctly, the original idea was to ensure athletes still get an education and stay motivated to stick with the school system despite their busy training schedules (which is why they get perks like extra time on exams, modified testing, or even specialized classes/schools designed specifically for student-athletes).

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with someone who excels both academically and athletically getting a bit of an edge during enrollment or when deciding on future studies. My issue is that here, "athletic success" seems to include just about anything. It feels like a huge injustice happened about ten years ago when school competitions were kept alive while other things were cut. Sports federations managed to lobby for extra credit points, yet art programs or foreign language electives didn't, all under the guise of making sure kids have "equal opportunities."
But I have to wonder, where is the equality in giving an extra point or three to a few kids who won a relay swim meet at a school that doesn't even have a pool or organized team practices? In that case, the PE teacher just went out of his way to gather a group of swimmers from different classes to lead them to a competition, and they happened to win. They were just lucky there were enough interested kids... and a dedicated teacher.
To me, having that kind of luck and opportunity feels like a much bigger privilege than not having the option to take a second foreign language at school—which, as far as I know, most schools offer anyway (and some even offer three).

You want to hear something truly ironic? If you look back about ten years ago, you could practically count on one hand the number of schools that didn't offer a second foreign language or computer science. Fast forward to today, and those days are long gone—you can basically walk into any school in the country and pick those two electives if you want to. And honestly, it’s about time, too... there aren't even any extra credit points being handed out for kids who spent four years stuck in the late afternoon shift just because they had to grind through an extra subject compared to everyone else.

Sarah Hall53 said:You want to hear something truly ironic? If you look back about ten years ago, you could practically count on one hand the number of schools that didn't offer a second foreign language or computer science. Fast forward to today, and those days are long gone—you can basically walk into any school in the country and pick those two electives if you want to. And honestly, it’s about time, too... there aren't even any extra credit points being handed out for kids who spent four years stuck in the late afternoon shift just because they had to grind through an extra subject compared to everyone else.

I mean, honestly, some schools even offer three now! 😬

Sarah Hall53 said:You want to hear something truly ironic? If you look back about ten years ago, you could practically count on one hand the number of schools that didn't offer a second foreign language or computer science. Fast forward to today, and those days are long gone—you can basically walk into any school in the country and pick those two electives if you want to. And honestly, it’s about time, too... there aren't even any extra credit points being handed out for kids who spent four years stuck in the late afternoon shift just because they had to grind through an extra subject compared to everyone else.

The biggest irony here is that some students who finish with a solid B in an elective actually have a harder time getting into certain schools than a kid with the exact same grades who didn't take any electives at all and just stuck to the mandatory curriculum.

I don't have a definitive stance on the whole "extra points" debate.
On one hand, I really respect it when a kid shows genuine passion for something. I truly believe that students who go out of their way to develop diverse skills—whether that's sports or picking up a new language—should have an edge over the kids who just do the bare minimum required by the state and spend every spare second playing video games or hanging out in the woods.
On the other hand, I personally know at least two families who simply can't afford club sports, and like wanderingbadger44 mentioned, in many rural parts of the country, those kinds of programs don't even exist.
If we use those points, it basically becomes a reward for privileged kids, so I'm honestly stumped on what the right move is. 🤷

Actually, I do know the fix. Once they switch everyone to full-day schooling, let's just build an extra gym, a pool, and a music hall in every single school. Hire the staff and offer free activities tailored to whatever the kids are actually interested in. 😁

Regarding GPA and elective courses, I honestly don't get why they don't just mandate that the average is calculated solely based on core subjects, while electives stay separate. The way things are set up now, it feels like we're just demotivating kids who take those elective classes by letting it mess with their overall standing.

As for the sports credits, I think it’s pretty pointless that they only focus on school-sanctioned athletics. To be honest, schools shouldn't really care if a student spends three hours a day training at a local gym or just playing PlayStation. In my opinion, they should just stick to the core curriculum for 7th and 8th grade, and maybe offer extra credit toward high school entrance exams or graduation requirements. At the end of the day, there isn't really any reason to reward or penalize how someone chooses to spend their free time.

Does religious studies count toward the curriculum? 🤔

rowdypanther12 said:Does religious studies count toward the curriculum? 🤔

Right now? Oh, absolutely. Every single subject counts.
I mean, even if they didn't, those grades would still end up in the official average, but when you're looking at high school admissions, it feels like they should really only be looking at the core requirements. Especially since everything comes down to those tiny decimal points nowadays. It's crazy how much an hour of coding can swing things...

My daughter actually got a C in computer science. It was a total breeze during 5th and 6th grade, but she ended up dropping it in 7th because it just kept clashing with her other commitments. And honestly, when the schedule is already this packed, what are you supposed to do? On the bright side, she now gets to start her day at 8:50 twice a week because religious studies is her first period. 🙂

I wanted to ask, does religion class count toward the GPA for high school?

Regarding second languages, isn't there an advantage to enrolling in a class where the instruction is actually in that language?
🤔

Sarah Hall53 said:First off, we really need to clear up the terminology here:
An IEP is an Individualized Education Program—you know, the stuff we do to make sure these kids actually succeed.
A 504 plan is an accommodation plan. Those are strictly limited to three students per classroom, regardless of how big the total class size is.

Now, 28 students is basically the absolute maximum number allowed in any standard American classroom.
Technically, for every student with a 504 plan, the total headcount in the room should drop by two. So, a class with one 504 student shouldn't exceed 26 kids, two 504s means a max of 24, and three 504s means the class cap hits 21.
But with IEPs? They can just cram in as many as they want because they play these little legal games to get around the rules. ☕

So, who's actually enforcing this?
Take my preschool here, for example. I think the group should have topped out at 24 kids. There was me and one other little one with special needs. Most of the time we were sitting at 24, but honestly, I've seen it hit 27 before.
Nobody gives a damn about these rules.

Michelle Nelson4 said:Regarding GPA and elective courses, I honestly don't get why they don't just mandate that the average is calculated solely based on core subjects, while electives stay separate. The way things are set up now, it feels like we're just demotivating kids who take those elective classes by letting it mess with their overall standing.

As for the sports credits, I think it’s pretty pointless that they only focus on school-sanctioned athletics. To be honest, schools shouldn't really care if a student spends three hours a day training at a local gym or just playing PlayStation. In my opinion, they should just stick to the core curriculum for 7th and 8th grade, and maybe offer extra credit toward high school entrance exams or graduation requirements. At the end of the day, there isn't really any reason to reward or penalize how someone chooses to spend their free time.

Now, if someone is pursuing extra education—whether it's sports, languages, music, or anything else—that *should* matter to schools, but only if every single student actually has an equal shot at accessing those opportunities.

rowdypanther12 said:I wanted to ask, does religion class count toward the GPA for high school?

Regarding second languages, isn't there an advantage to enrolling in a class where the instruction is actually in that language?
🤔

Everything counts.

It’s a weak incentive, though. They should at least allow students to take that extra language without it being graded for credit, so kids can learn purely for the love of it, letting teachers teach without all that intense academic pressure.

rowdypanther12 said:I wanted to ask, does religion class count toward the GPA for high school?

Regarding second languages, isn't there an advantage to enrolling in a class where the instruction is actually in that language?
🤔

What kind of "benefit" are we even talking about here? Honestly—after spending five years in school—they just end up enrolling in basic introductory courses just to snag an easy passing grade. It’s almost funny, really... though maybe more sad than funny. They breeze through those first two years with flying colors, but then suddenly, by year three, they're stuck in summer school because they didn't realize the workload actually shifted. Like, you can't just coast forever and expect things to stay easy. 😵 ).

The logic behind these extra credit points feels completely broken to me—you get points for school sports or choir placement, yet if you make it to a national competition for something like piano, it counts for nothing. You can't claim everyone's effort is being rewarded equally when the sheer skill required for a national piano solo is worlds apart from singing in a school choir—yet it’s the choir kid who gets the boost. It's the same deal with sports; you get points if a school team happens to be good, but then the school won't even bother entering students who train privately because the coach simply doesn't have the time or interest.

We should (again) find a way to reward both groups by setting clear rules on which schools or clubs are actually accredited and recognized. Or, honestly, just scrap the whole thing.

I'm also a bit confused by something mentioned earlier—some schools explicitly list which competitions they recognize during enrollment. Does that mean these extra credit rules aren't universal? Like, does a math academy ignore Lidrano, while a general high school ignores something like a coding competition? I'll admit, I don't quite follow. Or do students at those specific schools get even more bonus points on top of everything else for those particular events?

northerntiger9 said:The logic behind these extra credit points feels completely broken to me—you get points for school sports or choir placement, yet if you make it to a national competition for something like piano, it counts for nothing. You can't claim everyone's effort is being rewarded equally when the sheer skill required for a national piano solo is worlds apart from singing in a school choir—yet it’s the choir kid who gets the boost. It's the same deal with sports; you get points if a school team happens to be good, but then the school won't even bother entering students who train privately because the coach simply doesn't have the time or interest.

We should (again) find a way to reward both groups by setting clear rules on which schools or clubs are actually accredited and recognized. Or, honestly, just scrap the whole thing.

I'm also a bit confused by something mentioned earlier—some schools explicitly list which competitions they recognize during enrollment. Does that mean these extra credit rules aren't universal? Like, does a math academy ignore Lidrano, while a general high school ignores something like a coding competition? I'll admit, I don't quite follow. Or do students at those specific schools get even more bonus points on top of everything else for those particular events?

The regulations allow schools a certain amount of leeway, I suppose. Look at Article 16.

(1) Candidates qualify for direct admission or additional points based on results achieved in:

• knowledge competitions in core subjects: American English, Mathematics, and the first foreign language;

• knowledge competitions in two subjects specifically significant for enrollment, according to the List of Subjects Particularly Important for Enrollment;

• one knowledge competition independently determined by the high school from the Catalog of Competitions, which considers the interests of students in elementary and high schools within the United States of America, and which is organized by the Department of Education.

And then there's Article 7:

(4) For admitting candidates to high school programs and vocational qualification programs lasting at least four years, in addition to the elements in paragraph 1 of this article, final grades from the last two years of elementary education are evaluated for: American English, Mathematics, and the first foreign language, as well as three subjects important for continuing education in specific programs. Two of these are prescribed by the List of Subjects Particularly Important for Enrollment, which is part of these Regulations, and one is independently chosen by the high school from the mandatory subjects taught in elementary school. For programs conducted in the language and script of national minorities, this is, generally, the subject of the national minority language (mother tongue).

Regarding what was mentioned before, I think that was mostly about choosing the school, provided that the school met the requirements necessary to implement an entrance exam.

I suppose schools would list which subjects they count for admissions—basically all of them—just so it's clear right on the school's website (so someone doesn't have to go digging through the regulations and check the List of Subjects Particularly Important for Enrollment and such).

It seems like the regulations are changing this year. Someone posted a link to the public consultation above, so we don't really know yet exactly how things will be scored or how much freedom the schools will actually have regarding their selection criteria.

Susan James said: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. 🐔

I went back and reread that whole post, and honestly, it feels like most of those changes they rolled out ended up being pretty lousy.

The way they judge overall GPA based on just two decimal points starting from fifth grade... man, that is just awful. To be fair, I didn't even realize they were doing that until my little guy came home in a total panic during fifth grade because the other kids were talking about it—you know, the kids with older siblings who had already been through the ringer at home.

And I have no clue how they managed to let sports overtake music in importance. I wasn't even aware of half the stuff you guys are mentioning, but the whole thing just seems pointless and totally misguided to me.
I mean, why would success in a sport where only a tiny handful of kids actually compete—like table tennis, for instance, how many kids are really training for that, and how deep is that league even?—be treated the same as a sport where a massive number of kids participate, like football? And why on earth would being good at table tennis, football, or horse riding carry more weight for high school admissions than going to music school or winning music competitions?

To me, it makes sense if those extra credit points are viewed specifically through the lens of whatever high school program they're trying to get into. Like, focus on the subjects that actually matter; maybe look at the GPA from seventh and eighth grade, then the entrance exam scores, and then add the specific extracurricular credits that actually align with the high school curriculum. That's all there should be to it.

hiddendriver34 said:The biggest irony here is that some students who finish with a solid B in an elective actually have a harder time getting into certain schools than a kid with the exact same grades who didn't take any electives at all and just stuck to the mandatory curriculum.

I don't have a definitive stance on the whole "extra points" debate.
On one hand, I really respect it when a kid shows genuine passion for something. I truly believe that students who go out of their way to develop diverse skills—whether that's sports or picking up a new language—should have an edge over the kids who just do the bare minimum required by the state and spend every spare second playing video games or hanging out in the woods.
On the other hand, I personally know at least two families who simply can't afford club sports, and like wanderingbadger44 mentioned, in many rural parts of the country, those kinds of programs don't even exist.
If we use those points, it basically becomes a reward for privileged kids, so I'm honestly stumped on what the right move is. 🤷

Actually, I do know the fix. Once they switch everyone to full-day schooling, let's just build an extra gym, a pool, and a music hall in every single school. Hire the staff and offer free activities tailored to whatever the kids are actually interested in. 😁

Around here, everyone basically quit the Italian language program by sixth grade. The teacher was this old, super strict lady, and since not everyone was pulling straight As, people just dropped out. Even the few kids who were actually getting As didn't want to take the risk once they hit sixth grade.

My kid’s entrance exam was structured differently; it wasn't about accumulating points, but rather a simple pass/fail hurdle... Once that was cleared, they would compile a list based on their elementary school GPA, though quite a few students who had stellar academic records ended up getting cut because they tripped up on the entrance test, which actually gave those with slightly lower scores a fighting chance.

hiddendriver34 said:Now, if someone is pursuing extra education—whether it's sports, languages, music, or anything else—that *should* matter to schools, but only if every single student actually has an equal shot at accessing those opportunities.

Everything counts.

It’s a weak incentive, though. They should at least allow students to take that extra language without it being graded for credit, so kids can learn purely for the love of it, letting teachers teach without all that intense academic pressure.

Think about it this way: while the core curriculum is theoretically accessible to everyone (everyone gets the same textbooks, follows the same syllabus, attends tuition-free public schools, has access to school buses, and should ideally have teachers with similar credentials), everything beyond that standard academic baseline depends heavily on how much money parents have and where the kid actually lives.

Maybe there's a way to award points to absolutely everyone based on their dedication rather than just their trophies, but then you'd have to expand the criteria massively. For instance, how would you grade someone who is obsessed with cooking? Someone who spends an hour or two every single day experimenting with new recipes and perfecting their technique at home? That’s a massive investment of time and effort toward self-education, but it isn't an "official" activity. Even if we stick strictly to sports, youth athletics in smaller towns aren't just underdeveloped; once a kid starts getting serious, the financial burden on the family skyrockets. Between funding travel for tournaments and all the other extras, the list goes on and on.

Take tennis, for example. It’s such a wonderful sport, and once you learn it, you can play it for the rest of your life, which is a great long-term investment in your health. But if you're aiming to be a national junior champion in the U.S., the costs are so astronomical that very few families could even dream of affording it. And that's a sport with courts all over the country! At a recreational level, it's fine, but the moment you aim for elite results, the expenses explode. Or look at soccer. On the surface, it seems cheap and accessible to everyone, right? But if you want your child to be a top-tier player or make a major academy squad, they need to be scouted by one of "the" big clubs. This often means parents are paying for private coaches on top of club fees just to get their ten-year-old noticed. Then you have tournament fees and those long weekend trips where you spend the whole day traveling... it adds up. In smaller, niche sports, the situation is often even worse. Depending on your luck, if you're in a local club, you either have some wealthy benefactor sponsoring you, or you're stuck relying on league fees that barely cover the lights, rent, and basic coaching.

And don't even get me started on what happens if a kid needs a physiotherapist or a sports psychologist. 😲

It’s just a fact—kids from wealthy families have more choices and better opportunities than kids from lower-income backgrounds.
Naturally, a kid living in a major hub like Washington, D.C. or Miami is going to have way more extracurricular options than some kid growing up in a tiny rural town out near Clayton.
And, I suppose, it's safe to say children in Sweden likely benefit from a more robust educational system than those in the United States.
But honestly, most of this isn't just about the school system itself—it involves a whole laundry list of other factors, not to mention individual priorities and how much a family is willing to sacrifice.
Regarding those regulations—personally, I think that specific credit should be awarded to anyone involved in verified extracurricular activities who actually achieves results in competitions. You know, sports, arts, science... or, if they can't make that work, they should just scrap the category entirely.

@Michelle Nelson4, I’m right there with you on everything you said. That extra credit system is honestly such a headache because of that exact reason. If we actually lived in a wealthy nation where schools could afford all those programs I mentioned earlier—and if coaches actually had the budget to run hour-long sessions twice a week out in Key West or up on the Upper East Side—then maybe we could have a real conversation about whether those extra points are fair.

What you’re looking for is basically a pipe dream. Even in wealthy nations like the US, poverty exists—it’s an reality. Things are never perfectly equal or accessible to everyone, no matter how hard we try. Kids from affluent families simply have a head start. That’s just the way it is from day one. Beyond that, there are a million other variables at play.
And let’s be honest: poverty usually just breeds more poverty, and only a tiny fraction of people actually manage to break that cycle. Because of that, I don't even mind if kids from disadvantaged neighborhoods get a couple extra points for school admissions, or if everyone gets some kind of affirmative action. In fact, if the government wants to pay a coach to travel out to a Small town in the Midwest two or three times a week, then fine—more power to them.

Sent from my JNY-LX1 via Reddit