High School Guide: Admissions, reviews, and advice

Sarah James4 said:And now they act like they don't exist...😁 meanwhile the government is paying for college tuition up to age 26.🙂

But let's be real—most of them are just kids from the major metros who have easy access to universities and campuses. Everyone else? They're grinding it out in dorms or renting cramped apartments (which, by the way, the government definitely isn't subsidizing). That’s exactly why I brought up my

what

I mentioned in my last post! At the end of the day, it's in the government's best interest to get these kids into the workforce as fast as possible so they can actually start paying taxes.

Dana Diaz8 said:But let's be real—most of them are just kids from the major metros who have easy access to universities and campuses. Everyone else? They're grinding it out in dorms or renting cramped apartments (which, by the way, the government definitely isn't subsidizing). That’s exactly why I brought up my

what

I mentioned in my last post! At the end of the day, it's in the government's best interest to get these kids into the workforce as fast as possible so they can actually start paying taxes.

Look, you aren't getting my point. Most 17 and 18-year-olds are still living at home anyway. They're in high school. Even if they go for trade school or a community college program, that takes maybe two or three years with work or internships. They'll eventually move out or find roommates later. As for the university students, most of them stay with their parents too... unless they're in a dorm or splitting an apartment. Nothing really changes. I think you misunderstood me.

By the way, there aren't even any dorms in my town. About 90% of the students here lived with their parents. The rest were students who had enough family money or scholarships to pay for a room, and most of them came from nearby suburbs. Generally speaking, nobody from my generation moved out the second they graduated high school. Most of us stayed put until much later.

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

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

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

Good grief.

So, if I've got this right, the plan in America is to raise the age limit to 16 or 17. They want to start guiding kids as early as 10 or 11. Honestly, that whole part about directing them at such a young age? It just doesn't sit right with me. It feels pretty weak.

So, yeah. Exactly.

Field reports and data from overseas show that general education levels are lagging and funding is way too low. We really need to extend the standard schooling years. Real research and global examples prove that keeping kids in school longer works much better than pushing Matthew and Anna into trade schools like mechanics or cosmetology when they're only 14.
One of the best moves in this current reform is the mandatory "small school" initiative. It's all about extending education. Good call.

Sarah James4 said:Look, you aren't getting my point. Most 17 and 18-year-olds are still living at home anyway. They're in high school. Even if they go for trade school or a community college program, that takes maybe two or three years with work or internships. They'll eventually move out or find roommates later. As for the university students, most of them stay with their parents too... unless they're in a dorm or splitting an apartment. Nothing really changes. I think you misunderstood me.

By the way, there aren't even any dorms in my town. About 90% of the students here lived with their parents. The rest were students who had enough family money or scholarships to pay for a room, and most of them came from nearby suburbs. Generally speaking, nobody from my generation moved out the second they graduated high school. Most of us stayed put until much later.

I heard exactly what you were saying. It just doesn't make any sense to me! At least, not to me.

Sarah James4 said:Look, you aren't getting my point. Most 17 and 18-year-olds are still living at home anyway. They're in high school. Even if they go for trade school or a community college program, that takes maybe two or three years with work or internships. They'll eventually move out or find roommates later. As for the university students, most of them stay with their parents too... unless they're in a dorm or splitting an apartment. Nothing really changes. I think you misunderstood me.

By the way, there aren't even any dorms in my town. About 90% of the students here lived with their parents. The rest were students who had enough family money or scholarships to pay for a room, and most of them came from nearby suburbs. Generally speaking, nobody from my generation moved out the second they graduated high school. Most of us stayed put until much later.

I'm convinced that the people who come to study in a place like St. Louis will stay there after graduation to look for work and start families. I agree that those living with their parents will probably stick around with them for a while.

Sarah James4 said:So, if I've got this right, the plan in America is to raise the age limit to 16 or 17. They want to start guiding kids as early as 10 or 11. Honestly, that whole part about directing them at such a young age? It just doesn't sit right with me. It feels pretty weak.

So, yeah. Exactly.

Field reports and data from overseas show that general education levels are lagging and funding is way too low. We really need to extend the standard schooling years. Real research and global examples prove that keeping kids in school longer works much better than pushing Matthew and Anna into trade schools like mechanics or cosmetology when they're only 14.
One of the best moves in this current reform is the mandatory "small school" initiative. It's all about extending education. Good call.

Let's be real: pre-K has always been mandatory for any kid who didn't attend daycare. So, what exactly is changing here? Nothing.

To me, directed education just doesn't make sense (I'm not saying people who want to be tradespeople or specialists can't succeed, they'd just need different paths and standards)...the rest is just some outdated system from the old industrial era...

Dana Diaz8 said:Let's be real: pre-K has always been mandatory for any kid who didn't attend daycare. So, what exactly is changing here? Nothing.

From what I know, preschool used to be optional and only lasted for a few hours. The change is that it's longer now and required for everyone. Some kids just never had the chance to attend before.

Sarah James4 said:To me, directed education just doesn't make sense (I'm not saying people who want to be tradespeople or specialists can't succeed, they'd just need different paths and standards)...the rest is just some outdated system from the old industrial era...

So, you're telling me that pushing general education until age 18 is the magic fix that solves everything? 😕

Sarah James4 said:To me, directed education just doesn't make sense (I'm not saying people who want to be tradespeople or specialists can't succeed, they'd just need different paths and standards)...the rest is just some outdated system from the old industrial era...

What "insiders" and "outsiders" are we even talking about here?

Sarah James4 said:From what I know, preschool used to be optional and only lasted for a few hours. The change is that it's longer now and required for everyone. Some kids just never had the chance to attend before.

When it comes to the actual scheduling, you've got a point!

Dana Diaz8 said:So, you're telling me that pushing general education until age 18 is the magic fix that solves everything? 😕

What "insiders" and "outsiders" are we even talking about here?

General schooling through age 16 or 17... I don't see how that hurt places like Finland or Singapore at all. They still have their vocational schools and universities too.
As I mentioned, based on all the latest recommendations, the USA is slowly moving in that direction.

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

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

In what way? From what I've seen, you could already mess things up in plenty of ways back then. I don't think these new rules actually change much. It isn't a massive step forward, unless you count the shift in how they handle digital applications.

Things might actually be looking up now. A bad grade back in middle school doesn't weigh nearly as much as it used to—it’s more like a small bump in the road rather than half of your entire GPA.

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

Look, if a child has parents who actually prioritize their education, it is quite difficult for them to ruin their entire life prospects while still in elementary school.

That said, we must also account for those hyper-ambitious parents who are capable of sabotaging their child's future through sheer overbearing pressure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, if my mom hadn't been able to afford community college, I would've been one of those cases.
The system makes it so tough because balancing work and college while trying to be independent is brutal. And now, let's say the way credits transfer makes working while studying almost impossible. 🤷
Sure, anything is possible—if a girl living on the streets managed to get into Harvard, then hey, we can all major in molecular biology while working a shift at Target.
But let's be real: a kid who falls behind in elementary school—whether it’s due to puberty, being too playful, bullying, or any other reason under the sun—faces massive, often insurmountable obstacles.

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

It feels like everything in this country happens all at once, doesn't it? One year we’re promised a total revolution that'll fix everything overnight, only to realize it was a dud, so then they pivot to some other "genius" idea the next year. Rinse and repeat.
I don't think we're quite ready for those kinds of shifts yet. Honestly, looking back, the idea itself isn't half bad. But if things actually go according to plan—which is where most people usually trip up—we might still not even reach what you're talking about. It all depends on whether this idea actually catches on before the next one takes over.

rowdypanther12 said:Well, if my mom hadn't been able to afford community college, I would've been one of those cases.
The system makes it so tough because balancing work and college while trying to be independent is brutal. And now, let's say the way credits transfer makes working while studying almost impossible. 🤷
Sure, anything is possible—if a girl living on the streets managed to get into Harvard, then hey, we can all major in molecular biology while working a shift at Target.
But let's be real: a kid who falls behind in elementary school—whether it’s due to puberty, being too playful, bullying, or any other reason under the sun—faces massive, often insurmountable obstacles.

Up until now, everything has revolved around middle school, but during fifth and sixth grade, parents don't really sweat the grades—mostly because most kids aren't even trying anyway. Then suddenly, everyone loses their minds. Parents start "pushing" the kids, kids go on this massive hunt for straight A's, and teachers start handing out prizes just to keep them happy. It’s all just a frantic race to get into the top-tier prep schools, regardless of whether the kids actually have the talent for it. Is that even good for them?
Early tracking systems—like the ones they run over in Germany or Switzerland—where you’re basically funneled into specific schools by the sixth grade? Honestly, maybe that whole "life-defining stress" thing isn't even as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be.
You can't just suddenly start breathing down a kid's neck and demanding more from them just because they need to enroll somewhere, right?
It’s pretty obvious from day one of school—well, maybe starting around second grade since the little ones are basically still in daycare—who’s got what it takes. You can just tell who’s going to breeze through and who’s going to struggle. Who ends up with all the A's? It’s clear right from the jump who's actually sharp and who isn't.
Doesn't seem like there’s much hype around enrollment, right? And honestly, your entire future shouldn't be decided by how you performed during one or two random years in middle school. It all depends on what path you take. Some kids head to prep schools and go on to college, while others choose vocational tracks to become auto mechanics or something similar. Once they finish, they get to work, earn a paycheck—which can be a struggle here in the States—and everyone lives happily ever after.
I don't think most people even bother worrying about this... I mean, why didn't I spend my first six years of school training to be a neurosurgeon? It just happens naturally, right? It’s not like kids are making life-altering career choices at eight years old; they just kind of drift into the schools that match their actual talents. If there's an outlier out there whose potential is way higher than what showed up during those early years, I'm sure they'll find a way to pivot later on.
I guess the system just lets him get away with it somehow?
If admissions don't depend on those final grades from middle school—where a kid can be a total rockstar but then hits a slump right at the end of eighth grade—it’s a much better system. Why punish someone for one bad semester when you're looking at their entire academic history? It’s almost impossible to fake being smart for six years straight if you aren't, right?
I'm not really sure how things play out after sixth grade. I'm guessing you don't just wake up one day and decide if you want to be a stylist or an auto mechanic, right? It feels more like you're just entering a school with a lighter workload than a traditional prep school... and then you actually specialize in a career later on.🤷

That’s actually why I think this approach works better—having one bad year only account for 25% instead of 50% feels much fairer.
Personally, I would have preferred being judged on my junior and senior years, where I barely scraped by with a C, rather than just looking at my freshman year and my later grades where I really struggled.😂

But honestly, there should be a way for students to pivot whenever they want. If they realize their current path isn't working, they should be able to switch majors and head in a new direction if they have the drive.
It used to feel like there was more flexibility here to balance school with a job, which gave people a real chance to pursue an education or change careers even into their 30s, no matter how tough things got.
With the way the current credit system is set up, that kind of work-study balance is pretty much gone.

rowdypanther12 said:That’s actually why I think this approach works better—having one bad year only account for 25% instead of 50% feels much fairer.
Personally, I would have preferred being judged on my junior and senior years, where I barely scraped by with a C, rather than just looking at my freshman year and my later grades where I really struggled.😂

But honestly, there should be a way for students to pivot whenever they want. If they realize their current path isn't working, they should be able to switch majors and head in a new direction if they have the drive.
It used to feel like there was more flexibility here to balance school with a job, which gave people a real chance to pursue an education or change careers even into their 30s, no matter how tough things got.
With the way the current credit system is set up, that kind of work-study balance is pretty much gone.

A 4.2 or 4.3🤔

He mentioned that it’s definitely better for a high school to see all four years of schooling rather than just two.
If you’re looking strictly at GPA (rather than actual knowledge), a school gets a much more realistic view of a student's progress over time if they look beyond just the last two years.

On one hand, kids can totally hit a wall during their teenage years and let everything they worked hard for slide, while others might finally find their footing just as high school applications are due.

There are so many students who arrive for tutoring in 7th or 8th grade without even knowing the basics, like reading comprehension or multiplication tables, just to try and save their grade and boost their average.
I really want to believe that kids will start waking up earlier and making up for those "lost" moments before it's too late.