High School Guide: Admissions, reviews, and advice

I don't think we should be shutting things down; instead, we should be bringing them together. For instance, why shouldn't tile layers and painters work side-by-side? Maybe they could both brush up on their American history and math classes.🤷

But look, if students don't want to enroll in those specific schools, what’s the alternative? Are we just going to keep paying teachers to sit in classrooms meant for 25,000 non-existent students? We can't exactly force them in at gunpoint or pass some federal decree mandating enrollment in schools nobody actually wants to attend, right?

Now, scholarships are a great tool—if someone wants to go to a certain school, a little financial incentive might nudge them in that direction. But if the scholarship amount doesn't even cover the cost of a decent cup of coffee, then honestly, there's no point in offering them at all.
I think a better approach would be for schools to optimize their curricula. They could create joint departments where the core subjects are nearly identical, minimizing the differences while keeping things efficient... various other tweaks like that could work wonders.

At the end of the day, we have plenty of teachers to cover the current student population across the country; the issue isn't a shortage of educators, it's just that they are incredibly poorly distributed.

Susan James said:So, does it make more sense to increase the number of academic high schools when there's clearly an interest? Especially the STEM tracks? 🤔
🤣
Everyone thinks they're going to be software engineers or doctors at least. 🧐
Oops. Not really.

Some will finish high school and then go study something obscure just for fun on the taxpayer's dime, creating endless lines of economists and lawyers. Others will end up working in retail, while we'll be stuck importing labor for essential trade jobs that are practically disappearing.
(I personally don't have an issue with immigrants from anywhere, but what worries me is seeing them get exploited for low wages, while here in the States, we're letting untapped talent sit on unemployment because they were too embarrassed to even consider a career in the trades.)

In my opinion, we absolutely need vocational schools for plumbers, electricians, and tinsmiths. Kids should be getting scholarships because those specific skills are in such short supply...
I mean, you can probably learn how to be a painter via YouTube or on your own, but I still think it's beneficial for them to go through formal training and an apprenticeship without being bogged down by unnecessary subjects.

SIGNED!!

Michelle Nelson4 said:But look, if students don't want to enroll in those specific schools, what’s the alternative? Are we just going to keep paying teachers to sit in classrooms meant for 25,000 non-existent students? We can't exactly force them in at gunpoint or pass some federal decree mandating enrollment in schools nobody actually wants to attend, right?

Now, scholarships are a great tool—if someone wants to go to a certain school, a little financial incentive might nudge them in that direction. But if the scholarship amount doesn't even cover the cost of a decent cup of coffee, then honestly, there's no point in offering them at all.
I think a better approach would be for schools to optimize their curricula. They could create joint departments where the core subjects are nearly identical, minimizing the differences while keeping things efficient... various other tweaks like that could work wonders.

At the end of the day, we have plenty of teachers to cover the current student population across the country; the issue isn't a shortage of educators, it's just that they are incredibly poorly distributed.

Combining classes like that is actually a great idea. I really hope they're already working on implementing it.

Besides, you can't just move teachers around like chess pieces within a single city. You can't expect someone living in Smalltown, USA or Maui to just suddenly teleport to Washington, D.C. for work.

Michelle Nelson4 said:I honestly feel there ought to be a minimum enrollment threshold required to actually form a class. We shouldn't be dipping below a certain number; if a specific program doesn't have more than, say, 10 students interested, they should probably just pivot to a different track. At the end of the day, resources are finite, and we really need to be using them rationally.

Of course, we also need to be regularly auditing the actual potential and market demand for these various programs. It would be incredibly simple to implement if the Department of Education actually had any initiative, but instead, it’s much easier for them to just spend every year begging the federal government for higher enrollment quotas—even when the population has dropped by, say, 20%—rather than actually conducting surveys in local middle schools to see what kids are genuinely interested in. You can't have a specialized program enrolling only three or five students for ten years straight and just pretend everything is fine. Meanwhile, on the flip side, we're seeing classrooms where teachers are stretched thin with 25 or more students.

They end up mashing different programs together. Like, you'll have five butcherry students and five bakery students—plus maybe two other tiny groups of five—all sitting in one room taking their general education classes together. Even if the class hits 20 students, they'd still end up splitting off into smaller groups for their actual specialized training anyway.

Susan James said:So, does it make more sense to increase the number of academic high schools when there's clearly an interest? Especially the STEM tracks? 🤔
🤣
Everyone thinks they're going to be software engineers or doctors at least. 🧐
Oops. Not really.

Some will finish high school and then go study something obscure just for fun on the taxpayer's dime, creating endless lines of economists and lawyers. Others will end up working in retail, while we'll be stuck importing labor for essential trade jobs that are practically disappearing.
(I personally don't have an issue with immigrants from anywhere, but what worries me is seeing them get exploited for low wages, while here in the States, we're letting untapped talent sit on unemployment because they were too embarrassed to even consider a career in the trades.)

In my opinion, we absolutely need vocational schools for plumbers, electricians, and tinsmiths. Kids should be getting scholarships because those specific skills are in such short supply...
I mean, you can probably learn how to be a painter via YouTube or on your own, but I still think it's beneficial for them to go through formal training and an apprenticeship without being bogged down by unnecessary subjects.

The Indology Department at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences is a double-major program that caps enrollment at maybe 16 students. It’s just one of many liberal arts programs at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and most of them don't even have huge numbers of students enrolled, so I really don't see the issue here. Following your logic—that they're doing this "at our expense"—we might as well just shut down the entire Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, since most people who finish social science degrees can't find direct work in the market (except perhaps teaching).

Actually, if you look at things like history or American studies, most of those people are also working in schools "at our expense" according to your reasoning. Maybe we should just scrap those subjects entirely since they can't do something "useful," like roofing or programming.

Personally, I think these types of studies (even that famous Indology program) are actually quite necessary for society.

Law and economics are completely different stories because they actually enroll a massive number of people, which is totally disproportionate to what the job market actually needs. On one hand, you have the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences covering a wide range of liberal arts with about 1,067 students (though that number is inflated because it includes double majors), and on the other hand, the Faculty of Economics enrolls 1,200 people just for Business Economics alone (and if you add the professional programs, you get over 2,200 spots).

Susan James said:So, does it make more sense to increase the number of academic high schools when there's clearly an interest? Especially the STEM tracks? 🤔
🤣
Everyone thinks they're going to be software engineers or doctors at least. 🧐
Oops. Not really.

Some will finish high school and then go study something obscure just for fun on the taxpayer's dime, creating endless lines of economists and lawyers. Others will end up working in retail, while we'll be stuck importing labor for essential trade jobs that are practically disappearing.
(I personally don't have an issue with immigrants from anywhere, but what worries me is seeing them get exploited for low wages, while here in the States, we're letting untapped talent sit on unemployment because they were too embarrassed to even consider a career in the trades.)

In my opinion, we absolutely need vocational schools for plumbers, electricians, and tinsmiths. Kids should be getting scholarships because those specific skills are in such short supply...
I mean, you can probably learn how to be a painter via YouTube or on your own, but I still think it's beneficial for them to go through formal training and an apprenticeship without being bogged down by unnecessary subjects.

Nepalese, Filipino, and others aren't imported to fill skilled trades or specialized roles; they're brought in for the jobs nobody wants because the working conditions are terrible. These are roles like delivering for Bolt or DoorDash, or various physical labor jobs. You either pay them a little, or you keep them in a sort of indentured servitude because of their situation.

I find myself increasingly preoccupied with the nuances of modern discourse, though perhaps that is merely a symptom of my own tendency toward over-analysis. One often wonders if we are truly communicating or simply exchanging polished fragments of thought that never quite coalesce into a meaningful whole. It is a curious thing, really—this persistent feeling that we are all just performing versions of ourselves for an audience that is just as lost as we are. I suppose I am being a bit dramatic, but then again, isn't that the essence of the human condition? We stumble through our observations, hoping to catch a glimmer of genuine connection amidst the noise. kaže:
But if they don't want to enroll in those specific schools, what exactly am I supposed to do? Am I expected to just keep footing the bill for teachers who are essentially babysitting twenty-five thousand non-existent students? Or should we just start rounding them up with rifles and forcing them into enrollment? Are we really at the point where we’re going to issue federal decrees to mandate that students attend schools they have absolutely no interest in attending?

It’s a rather peculiar predicament, really. Essentially, if there aren't any students actually enrolled in those specific subjects, the school simply doesn't pay the instructors. It creates this rather awkward situation where teachers lose out on their hourly rates, forcing them into part-time roles just to stay afloat. In short, an instructor only gets to work if there is an active classroom of children for them to teach.

Carl Bishop2 said:How should parents actually step up and take responsibility here? As a parent of a kid just starting first grade, I’m feeling a bit lost—what am I supposed to do right now, being stuck inside this broken system?

You really don't need to go around killing a child’s spirit by insisting they’re some kind of misunderstood genius who has to maintain a perfect 4.0 GPA just to be valid—or worse, acting like the entire world, from their teachers down to the local school board, is conspiring against them. It's unnecessary.

It looks like they’ve scheduled enough slots for two separate classes here, even though there are barely enough students to fill a single one.

https://www.smedlyhigh.edu/news/school...students/

Just like that previous article I shared, we're looking at about 40,000 students eligible for high school, yet there are nearly 50,000 spots available. It’s all because if you open up 20 seats but only 5 people apply, those extra spots stay on the books. And of course, the administration still acts as if they need to hire enough teachers to cover 50,000 imaginary students in classrooms of 20 each.

I honestly can't wrap my head around who approved those two classes in that example from Aspen when there were just enough kids for one... it really goes to show that we're essentially paying for instruction for students who don't even exist. For instance, in Aspen, we're footing the bill for 26 phantom students plus the 14 actual ones.

Look, it’s the same deal we see in rural parts of the country—we end up paying to fund entire elementary schools in places like Key West where most of the student roster doesn't even exist, and there might only be three actual kids showing up. And honestly? We should be grateful that some teacher is actually willing to pack up and move out there. Nobody should be complaining about her getting a full salary just because she's teaching a tiny group of three or five students. I mean, what’s the alternative for those kids? By law, we have to guarantee an education for every single child, and making that happen in remote areas isn't exactly easy.

It’s the same logic: if our workforce is short on butchers or tinsmiths, the solution isn't to just shut down the vocational schools. You don't kill the program; you find ways to actually get kids interested in those trades.

rowdypanther12 said:Physics and chemistry are real subjects, but they honestly aren't necessary for vocational high schools.
They're fundamental sciences and more than enough to help kids understand the world, but at an economics high school, chemistry really isn't needed 🤷
Maybe one year would be okay, but honestly, we should probably just extend middle school instead.
A student at an economics school almost certainly won't end up going into medicine or a STEM field.🤷

Electrical engineers and computer technicians currently get four years of physics, and they enroll in good numbers at places like MIT, Georgia Tech, or various state engineering colleges.

What happens when physics is stripped away and replaced by some integrated module with three times fewer hours per year?

We might effectively block their path to higher education, or severely limit it, since they won't be able to pass the physics requirements on the SATs needed for those universities.

As long as they get two years of history, nothing changes... that stays untouched.😵

Everything here is backward. We have a shortage of physics, biology, and chemistry teachers, so let's just eliminate the subjects... meanwhile, we have plenty of history teachers to spare. Maybe teach history for three hours a week in every school just to keep them employed.🤣

The entire system is broken, from the way fifth graders are tracked to the enrollment quotas in high schools and universities alike.🍿

Heaven forbid a mechatronics technician tries to enroll in a mechatronics program through the engineering school—that’s strictly reserved for the high school kids with the honors diplomas
Well, I suppose that's just how the world works now. So, we might as well just scramble to get into one of those elite prep schools—fighting tooth and nail if necessary—since apparently that's the only way to actually open any doors worth walking through

Fortunately, Americans are enrolling this year; next year, the circus begins

Kate Jackson4 said:Fortunately, Americans are enrolling this year; next year, the circus begins

Which circus?

Jason Morgan said:Which circus?

Well, she actually laid it out—basically stripping physics away from electrical engineers while letting history classes slide right through.
To me, it sounds like a complete circus.

Maybe they'll end up studying the history of physics 😂

mellowskipper said:Well, she actually laid it out—basically stripping physics away from electrical engineers while letting history classes slide right through.
To me, it sounds like a complete circus.

Could someone please track down an actual source for this? First, the thread was talking about cutting chemistry and physics from vocational schools, then someone brought up mechatronics, and now we're onto electrical engineers.

I think I interpreted that initial claim as them removing those subjects from general high schools. It seems pretty unlikely they would actually scrap chemistry courses in a school specifically designed to train chemical technicians.

Found this: Vocational schools are ditching Physics, Biology, and Chemistry as standalone subjects: Here are the details on the new modular curriculum

– Imagine you have an electrical engineering device designed to count marbles. That exact same piece of equipment could be used to tally ballots. Even though Politics and Economy isn't listed as a specific subject on the schedule anymore, there's still plenty of room for it. Through student projects, they'll cover things like the electoral system, how elections are managed, and even take trips to visit Congress. It’s a much bigger picture than just saying, ‘I have my two hours of class,’ as Angel explained to highschoolnews.org.

🤦

– We're introducing a guided learning process because we're moving away from the old way of doing things—no more strictly defined lectures, theories, or practical exercises as separate silos. What has worked wonders in higher education is the reality check students get regarding how much self-study they actually need to do. In our higher ed system, this approach has been effective for a long time; once students realize how many credit hours they have to earn through independent study at home, they eventually accept that the responsibility for learning lies with them, Professor Morana Koludrović noted during the conference.

It’s almost like these people never went to college at all. I mean, those credit hours barely seem to correlate with anything in the real world. You might get some rough estimate here or there, but practically speaking, it doesn't really hold water.

mellowskipper said:Well, she actually laid it out—basically stripping physics away from electrical engineers while letting history classes slide right through.
To me, it sounds like a complete circus.

Aha, I didn't realize it was the same author.

I suspect this is all just due to pressure from the European Union to boost the number of highly educated citizens. The goal, apparently, is to funnel as many high schoolers as possible into universities. It feels like our entire American education system is being run by people who wouldn't know a classroom if they tripped over one; they churn out these illogical, deeply harmful decisions, and this particular brand of idiocy is perfectly logical to them.

History has no business being in vocational schools unless we're talking about the history of a specific trade—and even then, only if it’s actually relevant. You know, like fashion history for a designer, or perhaps something for architects or civil engineers.

Heads up for all the eighth graders out there—starting this year, they’re switching things up with a single entrance exam for those STEM high schools.

redmason4 said:Heads up for all the eighth graders out there—starting this year, they’re switching things up with a single entrance exam for those STEM high schools.

This applies to Washington, D.C. San Francisco hasn't implemented anything like this yet. We do have one STEM school and one math-focused academy here...