High School Guide: Admissions, reviews, and advice

You should really head over to the neighboring thread. It’s fascinating to watch those same self-proclaimed experts fighting tooth and nail against any kind of independent third-party testing of their "expertise," all while claiming such audits are just a massive waste of money.😉

nimblelynx7 said:We wanted grades, and we got them. Only problem is, they’ve got professors showing up at the dorm entrance flanked by two security guards, grilling anyone who secured housing before they even move in.

If you don't know Kazakhstan's GDP by heart, can recite the casualty lists from WWII, and haven't memorized everything about prehistoric settlements, you aren't getting a room.

You're using reductio ad absurdum.

I guess grades are just a metric for now, mostly because we haven't come up with anything better yet. Is it a fair way to measure things? Well, maybe not always. Especially if there's a chance to use a better metric—like when actual knowledge is what really matters in a certain situation.

I guess that's why nobody really gives a damn about your GPA during a job interview. Instead, they just throw a technical skills test at you.

The point was really more about how kids sometimes value an easy A over actual knowledge. But honestly, if someone’s personal cost-benefit analysis says a better grade is worth more than potentially deeper understanding, that’s nothing new. I've seen it happen a million times. Take elective courses at college, for example—the easiest, least demanding ones are always the most popular and get picked every single time, regardless of whether a harder, more rigorous course offers much more useful, real-world skills.

When actual competence—not just a fancy GPA on paper—becomes valued, then kids and adults will finally start prioritizing learning over grades. Let’s be real: what does society actually value right now?

The second issue is defining what "knowledge" even means anymore. We spend eight years drilling kids through elementary school until they "know" everything, scoring straight A's, yet if the power goes out for five days, they’re completely helpless.

Then they graduate high school, and you have vocational students who can't even figure out how to fill out a basic check or a bank deposit slip.
You can't let an electrician out of your sight or they'll end up dead, and once you actually hand them a tool, it's like handing a toddler a loaded handgun.
If you don't supervise a locksmith, they'll find a way to shove their hands into some moving machinery.
If I started listing the disasters involving college grads, I wouldn't stop until tonight.

And this isn't some exaggeration for effect; it's the truth, and I'm willing to swear to it under oath. Every single person involved is still out there working today—though I wouldn't say they earned it.

I suppose I should probably weigh in on this, though I’m not entirely sure if my perspective carries much weight here, or if I'm just adding to the noise. It feels like we’ve been circling this same drain for a while now, doesn't it? I was thinking about what Michelle Nelson4 mentioned earlier—not that she's wrong, mind you, but there's a certain nuance to these things that seems to get lost when everyone starts shouting at once. Maybe it’s just me, or maybe I’m just overthinking the whole situation, but I can't help but feel like we're missing the forest for the trees. It’s easy to get caught up in the immediate friction of a debate, I guess, but if you step back—just a little bit—you start to see these patterns emerging, almost like how an electrician might look at a messy circuit board and realize the problem isn't the wires themselves, but the way the load is being distributed across the whole system. Anyway, I don't mean to ramble, but I think we ought to be a bit more deliberate in how we approach this, rather than just reacting to every single spark. It’s probably better to wait and see how things settle before we jump to any massive conclusions. kaže:
I suppose I should probably drift over to that other thread, where those same self-proclaimed experts are currently busy fighting against any kind of independent third-party verification of their own claims—all while loudly insisting that such oversight is just a massive waste of money. 😉

I guess you're just going to keep posting this nonsense again. You're doing it on purpose, obviously.
I suppose I’m just out here wrestling with... well, everything, I guess. It feels like a constant, quiet struggle against the tide, though I can't quite put my finger on why it all feels so heavy lately. Maybe it's just one of those things where you find yourself fighting an uphill battle without even realizing you've started climbing. I suppose one might describe it as being somewhat like that. It feels like we’re stuck in this cycle of external valuations that just seem to get more and more absurd with every passing year, I guess. It’s almost hard to keep track of how much they drift from reality lately.
I mean, you probably wouldn't get it, though—not that I'm judging, but you likely haven't had any real experience with what those American high school exit exams actually look like.
I guess you might not realize that there comes a point where you don't actually need much to scrape by; maybe having something like a 30% success rate on a math exam is technically enough to land a passing grade, if that's even how they calculate it these days.
I guess I didn't quite realize that for the American literature exam, you're expected to tackle like three and a half different titles from the reading list—which makes me wonder, honestly, what exactly are they even trying to measure after twelve years of schooling?!
I guess I’m starting to realize that some people on these task forces just don't get it—they seem to go out of their way to drag certain topics down with these incredibly stupid, totally pointless questions, maybe just to hear themselves talk or who knows really, but it feels like they're just trying to satisfy their own egos at everyone else's expense.
I guess I just don't quite get how they manage the difficulty scaling sometimes, because it feels like the levels are totally out of sync. You end up with an exam that’s way too easy for a higher tier, or maybe just unnecessarily brutal for a lower one, if you know what I mean. It just seems a bit disorganized, honestly.
I guess I’m just sitting here thinking that maybe the whole situation is a bit much, like we're all collectively pouring way too much affection into a beautiful little puppy that probably doesn't even realize how much drama it's causing.
I suppose it doesn’t really matter that this year's junior year standardized test results were essentially a total wash, though I guess millions of taxpayer dollars were still flushed down the drain for the sake of it. I mean, we have the money to waste, so I suppose there's no reason not to.
I guess people don't realize that last year they basically threw ten million dollars down the drain just so high schoolers could have their big prom celebrations, when honestly, anyone who actually cared about practicing could have just used those old vintage restaurants listed on that one website. But then again, they didn't want to do that, so I suppose there’s no point in complaining about wasting ten million dollars.
I mean, you clearly don't have the full picture on a lot of this, but I guess you're still out there throwing things at the wall to see what sticks anyway.
I guess you might just want to stick with that C# of yours after all... maybe it's for the best.🤔

It’s really important that you realize just how little I actually "know" about this.😂

But hey, thanks for doubling down on the fact that you aren't looking for "this kind of" external feedback—though, let's be honest, it's pretty much the only kind available right now.
Because, frankly, it's too expensive. And it isn't helpful.

I suppose it’s much easier to claim you have nothing at all and then write as if you possess some ultimate, master-level expertise...

Anything would be an improvement over this, honestly—especially without all this pointless🙂 overpriced third-party auditing.
I suppose if this is the only kind of external assessment we’re actually capable of pulling off, then maybe there really isn't anything better than this.

We just need to build a solid foundation in the right places and actually grade these finals fairly.

Nobody really fails the SATs. I mean, sure, maybe someone might fail once in a blue moon, but I have yet to meet a single person who didn't pass unless they skipped the test entirely or turned in a totally blank sheet.

The passing scores right now are a complete joke. Honestly, nothing under a 50% score should even be considered a pass. Period.

I was actually pretty shocked when I heard the pass rate was under 50% 😂

and I suppose the cutoff changes every single year depending on how they decide to grade the exam 🤦🤦🤦
I don’t think I ever heard of such blatant stupidity back when we were finishing high school.
it would be nice if we could actually try being a little innovative for once, wouldn't it?🙂🙂

So, that’s basically just how the American grading on a curve system works

So, I guess it turns out we aren't even innovative when it comes to being foolish. Not even in cookies🤣
It’s just honestly, terribly stupid and completely pointless.

I honestly don't get why everyone is making such a fuss about the standards being lowered. If they weren't this rigorous, the special interest groups would have already dismantled and shut down the only truly transparent and fair academic program left in the country.

Let everyone pass at a lower threshold if that's what people want. Then, they can try using those mediocre results to apply to their dream universities—assuming anyone will actually accept them. 🕺

wanderingbadger44 said:I honestly don't get why everyone is making such a fuss about the standards being lowered. If they weren't this rigorous, the special interest groups would have already dismantled and shut down the only truly transparent and fair academic program left in the country.

Let everyone pass at a lower threshold if that's what people want. Then, they can try using those mediocre results to apply to their dream universities—assuming anyone will actually accept them. 🕺

But then you have people passing at the higher level who really shouldn't be there either.

Setting a passing threshold at thirty percent—or even twenty-something—is just plain absurd. The real issue is that these students don't even realize when "good enough" isn't actually good enough. 🤷

hiddendriver34 said:But then you have people passing at the higher level who really shouldn't be there either.

Setting a passing threshold at thirty percent—or even twenty-something—is just plain absurd. The real issue is that these students don't even realize when "good enough" isn't actually good enough. 🤷

If a student manages a thirty percent success rate on a high-level exam, their performance on a lower-level one would likely be much higher, so it isn't necessarily a sign that they are totally clueless.

Beyond that, we still have to face the fact that this person is exposed as having less mastery, yet they might walk away with the same grade as someone who scored an eighty percent, leaving them unable to compete for the same spots in competitive programs.

Let those who don't meet the standard pass if they must; it doesn't hurt anyone. In fact, letting them through actually clears the way for the students who truly know their stuff, giving them the freedom to choose their colleges based on the actual knowledge they demonstrated on their SATs.

They’re just passing through, finishing up their faxes, and then—what? Nothing happens.
If the issue is a low threshold, we should probably just reset the receivers.
And a DM ex...

wanderingbadger44 said:If a student manages a thirty percent success rate on a high-level exam, their performance on a lower-level one would likely be much higher, so it isn't necessarily a sign that they are totally clueless.

Beyond that, we still have to face the fact that this person is exposed as having less mastery, yet they might walk away with the same grade as someone who scored an eighty percent, leaving them unable to compete for the same spots in competitive programs.

Let those who don't meet the standard pass if they must; it doesn't hurt anyone. In fact, letting them through actually clears the way for the students who truly know their stuff, giving them the freedom to choose their colleges based on the actual knowledge they demonstrated on their SATs.

I find it almost funny when the crowd that dreads the entrance exams is the same group that found the high school finals to be a total nightmare. In my experience, those college placement tests have consistently been way more intense than anything covered in high school, at least when you're looking at math and physics.

Sarah Hall53 said:So, that’s basically just how the American grading on a curve system works

A system like that used to be used at MIT. Using a Gaussian distribution. Then you'd end up with situations where someone gets a C with 50 points, but an A with 52 points. Just crazy fluctuations from year to year. I guess the intention is to be fair, but it actually turns out to be really unfair. If you happen to land in a super competitive cohort, you're screwed. But if you get a weaker group—or better yet, a coordinated one where enough people agree to fail the exam to drive the average down—it becomes way easier to pass.


Here's a 5-minute clip where an MIT legend explains why that whole Gaussian idea was a bad move.

It's simpler to just use fixed standards. That way, you can actually measure the quality of knowledge across different cohorts. You have more data points, so you can build better statistics. For example, if a huge number of students from a specific high school can't hit the 50% mark, maybe it's worth looking into how they mesh with a certain professor. Plus, it would give a much clearer picture of how high-quality each school actually is.

Betty Wood54 said:I find it almost funny when the crowd that dreads the entrance exams is the same group that found the high school finals to be a total nightmare. In my experience, those college placement tests have consistently been way more intense than anything covered in high school, at least when you're looking at math and physics.

Maybe they were tougher, but there were fewer subjects to worry about. Like at MIT, for example—you just had to nail math and physics (and sometimes, honestly, math was enough)

stormymarlin22 said:Maybe they were tougher, but there were fewer subjects to worry about. Like at MIT, for example—you just had to nail math and physics (and sometimes, honestly, math was enough)

If you weren't performing at an elite level all four years of high school, you’d basically take your final exams right at the end of senior year. Nowadays, to get into MIT, you have to pass three mandatory subjects. You can take English and a foreign language at a lower level, but you really need to nail math at the advanced level along with physics. Honestly, I think passing English and a second language is pretty straightforward for anyone serious about higher education, and the entrance exams at MIT aren't even in the same league as those high school graduation exams for math and physics.

Just grab an old entrance exam and compare the difficulty of the problems to standard high school finals; it's night and day. Though, I should mention, back when you took the MIT entrance exam, they actually used negative marking if you circled the wrong answer.

Yeah. The FBI had some negative feedback during their interviews too. Math, physics, and technical drawing. Their main issue was that they didn't want people just memorizing answers without actually understanding them. It’s basically about the number of subjects. Looking back at SAT prep over the years, I constantly get bugged by family or friends asking for tutoring. My American English and history skills are still pretty sharp, even though high school was nearly two decades ago. Honestly, advanced math isn't even that hard, especially if you're aiming for a major that requires it, much like physics.

The SAT is actually a great system. I just find it funny that it's possible to pass with less than 50%. They should just set fixed percentages and call it a day. If you can't pull at least a 50% on a standardized test for a subject that serves as your foundation for college, maybe you should question if that specific university is the right fit for you.