High School Guide: Admissions, reviews, and advice

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

Michelle Nelson4 said:Oh, I am very well acquainted with what a management contract looks like and those kinds of paychecks. Honestly, for every one of those roles out there, there are probably a hundred equally talented people just waiting in the wings, ready to jump in and kill themselves for that exact same money.

A senior developer can pull in that kind of salary while maintaining a normal 9-to-5, and companies will practically roll out the red carpet for them because they know a guy like that could easily jump ship to a massive tech firm or start his own freelance consultancy tomorrow. And finding a replacement? Forget about it. Any decent candidate could land the same—or even better—pay elsewhere right now. Add in the lack of niche expertise and that classic, frustrating "everything is documented in his head" situation, and you see the whole picture.

It’s a completely different league, though I suppose that’s a bit of a tangent...

If you don't know, then there's really no point in getting worked up about it.

Of course a top-tier manager isn't replaceable, let alone having a hundred backups ready to go.

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

I guess switching from teaching to engineering just isn't feasible; you can only really move from engineering back into teaching, if you want to be technical about it.

Haha, that gave me a good laugh!

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

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

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

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

You really need to tell the labor market to stop inflating the demand for developers while simultaneously capping their salaries at what a physics professor makes. I mean, think about it—to become a physics professor, you’re looking at five years of intensive graduate school plus a license, yet you have senior developers who basically just watched a few YouTube tutorials and decided they were experts 👍

And while you're at it, maybe let the corporations know they shouldn't be swapping out managers like they're on an assembly line. Those people are actually quite hard to come by once you find someone decent

Regarding teacher education: the more educated the instructor, the worse the students.

It used to be that a two-year associate degree was plenty for teachers. Then they bumped it to four years so they could hold a bachelor's. Now, under the new standards, they’re demanding five years of university.

Sent from my Galaxy S21 using Reddit

Anthony Ward6 said:Teaching is a regulated profession, which means having a degree or license is a legal requirement for the job. So, if you want to be a math professor, you have to go to college and pass certain exams.

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

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

It isn't quite that simple; nobody is going to hire you as a senior developer without a substantial number of years of actual, hands-on experience. You can't exactly watch a few YT videos and suddenly become a senior developer. Sure, you can start out as a junior developer—the demand is high enough that if you have talent and put in the effort, you can find a foot in the door—but believe me, a college degree remains a worthwhile investment for that career path.
On the other hand, it is, in a sense, an unregulated profession—though it is unregulated by the government, which is actually a great thing. The less involvement from the state, the better!

And honestly, if everyone just keeps playing this game, we’re going to end up commissioning some massive five-year integrated study to decide whether middle schoolers should be learning basic physics through friction and torque, or just solving two simple algebraic equations for a couple of bucks. Then, everyone will act shocked when there aren't enough teachers left in the country. But there’s no other way to do it because being an educator is a regulated profession, and those regulations are about as unchangeable as the laws of gravity.

On top of that, there is this fascinating psychological aspect at play here: people love to talk down to and belittle those who didn't need some lecture from an ivory tower academic to master a craft and perform it at a world-class level.

I suppose there’s a bit of info floating around regarding this year's enrollment numbers.

It’s going to be a grueling stretch: trying to stay focused for five straight days while tackling six out of seven final exams for high school entrance prep.
The one silver lining? They really only need to nail just one of those tests to make it happen.

Scott Booth said:It’s going to be a grueling stretch: trying to stay focused for five straight days while tackling six out of seven final exams for high school entrance prep.
The one silver lining? They really only need to nail just one of those tests to make it happen.

That doesn't seem right. I honestly think most students only end up taking one or two entrance exams.
First off, not all high schools have the same curriculum. Even when looking at specialized STEM academies, it's unlikely a kid would want to sit for every single one—especially since some programs are way more math-heavy than others.
Plus, the locations are pretty spread out; traveling between a school on the north side and one downtown can be a huge hassle.

But I agree with the sentiment. If they can't manage to stay focused for a week of exams, they probably aren't ready for the intensity of high school, where they'll be living this routine for the next four years.

Susan James said:That doesn't seem right. I honestly think most students only end up taking one or two entrance exams.
First off, not all high schools have the same curriculum. Even when looking at specialized STEM academies, it's unlikely a kid would want to sit for every single one—especially since some programs are way more math-heavy than others.
Plus, the locations are pretty spread out; traveling between a school on the north side and one downtown can be a huge hassle.

But I agree with the sentiment. If they can't manage to stay focused for a week of exams, they probably aren't ready for the intensity of high school, where they'll be living this routine for the next four years.

Exactly. That's the heart of it.

So, what’s the actual point of high school anyway? Is it about actually soaking up a broad range of knowledge, or is it just some way to grind kids down—basically making them bleed just to prove they're worthy of graduating from an "elite" prep school?

Jason Ortiz5 said:So, what’s the actual point of high school anyway? Is it about actually soaking up a broad range of knowledge, or is it just some way to grind kids down—basically making them bleed just to prove they're worthy of graduating from an "elite" prep school?

And honestly, what’s the point of your question?
Entrance exams exist so students can see exactly what they need to know before they even step foot in the building (and maybe pick up some extra credit points along the way).
From what I’ve looked up, schools with an advanced math track have slightly tougher entrance tests than those with a standard curriculum, and I think that makes total sense. If the exams were so brutal that they couldn't even fill their classes, the schools wouldn't bother with them. But clearly, they aren't that extreme.
The high schools holding entrance exams this year cover all sorts of different programs and are spread out across various parts of the city. It’s totally expected that a student might end up taking two different exams, if they even do that—most will probably just pick a school with an exam and use the others as backups.
You might have some kids who end up with slightly lower scores—maybe because they struggled a bit in middle school or their GPA took a hit—but they still have enough to meet the threshold. They might end up sitting for all seven exams to try and make up those 10 missing points. But hey, that’s also a bit of a litmus test to see if they’re actually cut out for a rigorous high school environment and if they can handle the pressure of having multiple tests in a single week. Because once they get into high school, they’ll be dealing with that kind of workload for four years straight.
(Which, by the way, is exactly what you're saying here)

Jason Ortiz5 said:So, what’s the actual point of high school anyway? Is it about actually soaking up a broad range of knowledge, or is it just some way to grind kids down—basically making them bleed just to prove they're worthy of graduating from an "elite" prep school?

The first part is de jure. The second is de facto.
I see this at a local high school near me all the time. Certain teachers constantly belittle their students by comparing them to kids at a vocational school, using that as some sort of insult. They don't even realize how little distance there actually is between their classroom and a retail job at a Target.

Susan James said:And honestly, what’s the point of your question?
Entrance exams exist so students can see exactly what they need to know before they even step foot in the building (and maybe pick up some extra credit points along the way).
From what I’ve looked up, schools with an advanced math track have slightly tougher entrance tests than those with a standard curriculum, and I think that makes total sense. If the exams were so brutal that they couldn't even fill their classes, the schools wouldn't bother with them. But clearly, they aren't that extreme.
The high schools holding entrance exams this year cover all sorts of different programs and are spread out across various parts of the city. It’s totally expected that a student might end up taking two different exams, if they even do that—most will probably just pick a school with an exam and use the others as backups.
You might have some kids who end up with slightly lower scores—maybe because they struggled a bit in middle school or their GPA took a hit—but they still have enough to meet the threshold. They might end up sitting for all seven exams to try and make up those 10 missing points. But hey, that’s also a bit of a litmus test to see if they’re actually cut out for a rigorous high school environment and if they can handle the pressure of having multiple tests in a single week. Because once they get into high school, they’ll be dealing with that kind of workload for four years straight.
(Which, by the way, is exactly what you're saying here)

You totally missed the point. I know exactly what entrance exams are all about, and my post wasn't even about that. It was actually about what you said:

Susan James said:That doesn't seem right. I honestly think most students only end up taking one or two entrance exams.
First off, not all high schools have the same curriculum. Even when looking at specialized STEM academies, it's unlikely a kid would want to sit for every single one—especially since some programs are way more math-heavy than others.
Plus, the locations are pretty spread out; traveling between a school on the north side and one downtown can be a huge hassle.

But I agree with the sentiment. If they can't manage to stay focused for a week of exams, they probably aren't ready for the intensity of high school, where they'll be living this routine for the next four years.

I have a daughter in high school. She goes to one of those schools people call "elite"—which is such a nasty way to put it, honestly. We should be teaching kids to respect everyone who earns it, instead of just hammering them with this elitist nonsense through the whole school system.

They are just buried under coursework, tests, and teachers who constantly nag them with stuff like, "You're in an elite school, so you need to know way more than just the syllabus." Some weeks they end up with double the amount of exams they're supposed to have, not to mention a mountain of research papers, presentations, projects... it's just too much. When parents tried to complain once, the school basically just told them, "Well, they knew what they were signing up for."

Actual knowledge? At this pace, they're just cramming for tests, and who knows if any of it will actually stick. Is the whole point of high school to actually learn something, or just to prove you can survive the drill?

It’s hardly a breakthrough when entrance exams still have such impossibly high cutoffs. With scores hovering around 76-77, you basically need a perfect GPA just to be considered...

Jason Ortiz5 said:You totally missed the point. I know exactly what entrance exams are all about, and my post wasn't even about that. It was actually about what you said:

I have a daughter in high school. She goes to one of those schools people call "elite"—which is such a nasty way to put it, honestly. We should be teaching kids to respect everyone who earns it, instead of just hammering them with this elitist nonsense through the whole school system.

They are just buried under coursework, tests, and teachers who constantly nag them with stuff like, "You're in an elite school, so you need to know way more than just the syllabus." Some weeks they end up with double the amount of exams they're supposed to have, not to mention a mountain of research papers, presentations, projects... it's just too much. When parents tried to complain once, the school basically just told them, "Well, they knew what they were signing up for."

Actual knowledge? At this pace, they're just cramming for tests, and who knows if any of it will actually stick. Is the whole point of high school to actually learn something, or just to prove you can survive the drill?

Speaking as a former prep school student myself—the whole point is to endure the drill, pass the tests, and then dump all those useless details into some void in your memory, because the next time you might actually need them is when you're trying to impress a Millionaire.
But typically, kids go to these schools when they aren't sure what's next but have decent grades. That was me.
Luckily, my kid knows what she wants, and I'm glad she chose a solid vocational track instead; she can still go to college easily if she decides to later on.

mellowskipper said:Speaking as a former prep school student myself—the whole point is to endure the drill, pass the tests, and then dump all those useless details into some void in your memory, because the next time you might actually need them is when you're trying to impress a Millionaire.
But typically, kids go to these schools when they aren't sure what's next but have decent grades. That was me.
Luckily, my kid knows what she wants, and I'm glad she chose a solid vocational track instead; she can still go to college easily if she decides to later on.

My girl has been obsessed with languages since she was in 5th or 6th grade. Her big dream is to be an interpreter. The only real debate was whether to go the language-heavy or the bilingual track. Guess What, both of them basically require prep school. The language track only has slightly fewer science classes—maybe an hour or two less, I think—to make room for more linguistics. So, it’s pretty much the same headache.

Since she wanted to study things like English, German, French, or whatever combo she picks, she really didn't have any choice but to aim for a prep school. She had to endure that whole G. I. Jane drill with a mountain of material that's mostly just meant to be forgotten.

Personally, I'm a believer that all knowledge is valuable and you should never shy away from learning or seeking out info... But there's such a thing as too much of a good thing. This isn't even learning at this point; it's just splitting hairs.

Honestly, if she wants to get into simultaneous interpreting, she’s going to need an incredibly broad knowledge base—it really just depends on whatever topic or field she happens to stumble into—plus this crazy ability to rapidly memorize massive amounts of data and facts (not to mention the vocabulary) when you're trying to prep for those high-pressure gigs.
I mean, an interpreter basically has to master the fundamentals of a subject and a mountain of technical jargon in both languages, all within a tiny window of time.
In a way, her time in high school was actually great training for the kind of professional skills she'll eventually need for a job like that.