High School Guide: Admissions, reviews, and advice

Susan James said:And honestly, there are already way too many honor students... if we really "must" have this kind of pressure regarding grades, then let it start in 5th grade. We shouldn't have a situation where Pero wakes up from a long winter nap in 7th grade and tries to cram three years of missed material into three months just because he realizes he needs those points for high school admissions.
(I want to believe that there are still some teachers out there—the ones who aren't easily swayed—who will step in during 8th grade and give a fair grade, though I doubt they'll be handing out A's all year long...)

Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but I truly believe that if a student starts focusing on building their academic profile in 5th grade, they'll actually learn how to read critically, master study habits, memorize multiplication tables, and nail all those fundamentals. Instead, they'll end up relying on intense tutoring sessions by the time they hit 7th grade.🥳

It wouldn't work even under the current system.🤷
From what I've seen over the last few years, places like MIOC were mostly filled by kids who participated in competitions or kids from "broken homes" (meaning families with higher social status who could leverage extra points).

This isn't just about high school admissions; it's a systemic issue within our entire K-12 education system.
It's also about parents who are perfectly happy with an A (or a D) without ever bothering to check if their child actually understands the material or not...

I’d go as far as to say that you can tell which schools a kid comes from based on the gaps in their knowledge. Some teachers leave such huge holes in certain subjects that it's hard to take the grading seriously at all.

Christian Lee13
- elective courses should only be taken if you're expecting an A; otherwise, there's really no point in letting them drag down your GPA.

That’s actually how things work right now.
The only exception is religion class, which basically gets added automatically.
And honestly, it's just plain silly to think you can even grade someone's "faith."

Yeah, this is a huge injustice.
At the same time, I feel like giving points for any extra school, sport, or activity is also unfair. No matter how much time and effort it takes, or how much it shows a kid is motivated and hardworking, it always comes down to having the money to afford it. It puts all the focus on the final "achievement" rather than the actual journey. I know some parents just can't afford to enroll their kids in fancy dance academies or prestigious music conservatories. Some kids are incredibly creative and independent—they teach themselves to code, build amazing things, or start their own bands—but they won't get any credit because they don't have a certificate from some big-name instructor.

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.

Man, I really wonder who came up with these "new" criteria and which "experts" they were actually consulting. The fact that athletes get extra points for any high school application, while artists only get credit if they're applying to an arts academy, pretty much shows—and honestly, we’ve known this for ages—how the government views "important" extracurriculars... I mean, sure, I'm down with the idea of entrance exams for high school, or maybe just weighting certain subjects more heavily depending on the school. Middle school should be general ed, obviously, but let's face it—most kids aren't interested in every single subject, and not everyone is a genius at everything. We shouldn't treat that like it's some kind of failure. I don't think middle school should just be about cramming "essential" info—you know, that whole "general knowledge" thing—into kids' heads. It should be about helping them figure out who they are and encouraging their actual interests so they can kill it once they move into a specialized track that actually fits them... And don't even get me started on how subjective teachers are when grading—it's such a mess, and grades aren't even a good predictor of success anyway. Honestly, if you ever read one of those official handbooks from the Department of Education... Well, based on what I've gathered from chatting with a few people who actually work there, I'm pretty sure they can't even read—well, not "with comprehension," at least in the academic sense—so nothing of 😁

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.

Nicholas King said: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.

I remember one student who got a D in an elective back in middle school. As soon as they turned in their application, the administration basically told them there was no point in even bothering. But, after the parents stepped in and had a serious sit-down with the principal, the kid ended up getting enrolled with exactly 61 points.

They ended up enrolling nine different classes with 33 students each, and every single one of them had at least 61 points.

I’ve been lurking here for a bit just thinking... where do kids with a 4.0 GPA actually end up applying?
Like, I don't mean someone with a 3.6, but more like a 4.2 or something?

rowdypanther12 said:I’ve been lurking here for a bit just thinking... where do kids with a 4.0 GPA actually end up applying?
Like, I don't mean someone with a 3.6, but more like a 4.2 or something?

Business school, pre-med tracks, hospitality management, logistics... you get the idea.

Word is, lately there's been a decent number of high achievers heading into culinary programs over in Newport.

rowdypanther12 said:I’ve been lurking here for a bit just thinking... where do kids with a 4.0 GPA actually end up applying?
Like, I don't mean someone with a 3.6, but more like a 4.2 or something?

In Washington, D.C., you could get into some solid high schools. Not necessarily elite ones like Harvard Kennedy School, but there are plenty of great prep schools that take students with top scores.

rowdypanther12 said:I’ve been lurking here for a bit just thinking... where do kids with a 4.0 GPA actually end up applying?
Like, I don't mean someone with a 3.6, but more like a 4.2 or something?

Do people like that even exist? 😕🤣
That’s just a few grade points difference, which puts you right at a 4.5. 😬

They usually head toward various vocational or trade schools,
maybe a good local high school,
or even private academies...

Susan James said:Do people like that even exist? 😕🤣
That’s just a few grade points difference, which puts you right at a 4.5. 😬

They usually head toward various vocational or trade schools,
maybe a good local high school,
or even private academies...

🤣🤣

I don't know, this all feels a little strange to me. It's fine to strive for excellence and all that, but looking back at my middle school, we maybe had 4 or 5 students in our entire grade who actually maintained straight A's from 6th through 8th grade. That really was something special.
Sure, we were a tough school that loved to brag about that reputation 🙄, but most kids got by with B's. Only the truly exceptional ones were pulling 4.5s or higher; there might have been maybe ten of them per class at most. And everyone with B's could pretty much enroll in the high schools they wanted, provided they had an A in the specific subjects required.
It feels like things aren't like that anymore—like it's just assumed kids will get A's and the standards for what counts as an A have just shot way up.
Maybe I'm wrong. 🤷

rowdypanther12 said:🤣🤣

I don't know, this all feels a little strange to me. It's fine to strive for excellence and all that, but looking back at my middle school, we maybe had 4 or 5 students in our entire grade who actually maintained straight A's from 6th through 8th grade. That really was something special.
Sure, we were a tough school that loved to brag about that reputation 🙄, but most kids got by with B's. Only the truly exceptional ones were pulling 4.5s or higher; there might have been maybe ten of them per class at most. And everyone with B's could pretty much enroll in the high schools they wanted, provided they had an A in the specific subjects required.
It feels like things aren't like that anymore—like it's just assumed kids will get A's and the standards for what counts as an A have just shot way up.
Maybe I'm wrong. 🤷

Our school has about 300 students enrolled (all honor roll students).
If you look at the total number of students in the whole county, I don't think having that many honor roll kids is actually an indicator of "grade inflation."

Believe it or not, the Department of Defense actually sent me a "thank you" note for participating in the public discussion regarding the new enrollment criteria.
And hey, if any of my comments actually make an impact, I can tell you that putting my full name out there felt worth it.

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.

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.

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.

What kind of criteria do you think should be used for high school admissions?

I finished college a long time ago, and I didn't have any special help—not through money or connections.
I just studied hard, got into the high school I wanted, and later made it through university based on my own merit (without needing fancy prep courses for entrance exams).
I don't consider myself part of some "elite" class.
But I truly believe that academic success—and more importantly, actual knowledge—should be the standard for getting into any school or college.
The responsibility lies with the teachers to remain objective. They shouldn't let a student's charm or a parent's influence sway their grading, nor should they hand out high marks just to be nice when the student clearly hasn't mastered the material.
Of course, in a society like ours, fighting against those windmills takes a lot of energy.

Nicholas King said: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.

The government sets the education system... right now we have a system based on what I described... streaming kids at age 15... now they want to do it at 10 or 11... I'm not against streaming itself... some people will always grasp concepts faster than others... but applying these methods so rigidly...🤷
I don't think this is something unique to Rhode Island; plenty of European countries work the same way... and they're trying to change it too... there's documented criticism of these systems... many Eastern European and former Soviet republics are in the same boat...

The solution is becoming obvious: equal educational opportunities for everyone... extending general education until age 17... then letting kids focus on their own interests and market needs... countries like Singapore use similar systems... technical colleges or universities... depending on ability and demand.

swiftbear86 said:What kind of criteria do you think should be used for high school admissions?

I finished college a long time ago, and I didn't have any special help—not through money or connections.
I just studied hard, got into the high school I wanted, and later made it through university based on my own merit (without needing fancy prep courses for entrance exams).
I don't consider myself part of some "elite" class.
But I truly believe that academic success—and more importantly, actual knowledge—should be the standard for getting into any school or college.
The responsibility lies with the teachers to remain objective. They shouldn't let a student's charm or a parent's influence sway their grading, nor should they hand out high marks just to be nice when the student clearly hasn't mastered the material.
Of course, in a society like ours, fighting against those windmills takes a lot of energy.

The system itself just sorts kids into "capable" groups based on points for prep schools versus everything else... you're an outlier who proves the rule. There will always be driven people who make the best of what life gives them.

And as for teachers and their grading habits... I won't even go there.🙄

Sarah James4 said:The government sets the education system... right now we have a system based on what I described... streaming kids at age 15... now they want to do it at 10 or 11... I'm not against streaming itself... some people will always grasp concepts faster than others... but applying these methods so rigidly...🤷
I don't think this is something unique to Rhode Island; plenty of European countries work the same way... and they're trying to change it too... there's documented criticism of these systems... many Eastern European and former Soviet republics are in the same boat...

The solution is becoming obvious: equal educational opportunities for everyone... extending general education until age 17... then letting kids focus on their own interests and market needs... countries like Singapore use similar systems... technical colleges or universities... depending on ability and demand.

But what's wrong with having some career guidance in high school? 🙂

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.

It is absolute chaos right now; a colleague of mine just spent four hours glued to her screen, frantically hitting F5 over and over.

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.

That’s exactly what happened to the college students.

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.

Honestly, it feels like they're trying to force a German or Austrian model onto us. In those countries, kids have to decide their path—vocational vs. academic—as early as fifth grade, and the curriculum is adjusted accordingly.

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.

We’re seeing more and more "straight-A" students who, frankly, don't know anything. That 'A' is practically worth a failing grade. It's pathetic.

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.

Honestly, that might be the single most idiotic move he could have made.

Chloe Rodriguez74 said:But what's wrong with having some career guidance in high school? 🙂

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?

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?

It’s because this would just mean kids are stuck living under their parents' roof until they're 22. For what? I mean, fine, maybe push the legal age to 21, but this? It makes absolutely no sense.

And now they act like they don't exist...😁 meanwhile the government is paying for college tuition up to age 26.🙂