High School Guide: Admissions, reviews, and advice

Dana Diaz8 said:🙂

They were screwed over by our visionary Secretary of Education by making high school mandatory for everyone, even when kids have no clear goals and end up just repeating the same grade. Why are you suddenly dragging three-year vocational programs through the mud?

😂 What three-year vocational school...? Where did I even mention three years?
What are you even talking about... or like, what's your deal?

Dana Diaz8 said:Fine

Kids can start high school at fourteen. And if you tell people you're going to a prestigious prep school, the general consensus is that you're some kind of genius.

We can save the debates about faith and belief for another thread.

Why should every prep school student feel forced into college if they already know finding a job after graduation will be an uphill battle? And why should a kid from a four-year vocational program, who wants to continue studying their trade, be pushed aside by the prep school crowd?

Look, at the end of the day, the whole debate really boils down to one thing: are we talking about 14, maybe 14.5, or a full 15 years?

If you head to prep school, everyone starts acting like they're some kind of genius, right?

Wait, seriously? Where... who... what "people" are we even talking about?

Why should every high school grad feel forced into college if they already know the job market is a total grind? And why does a kid from a vocational school, who actually wants to study their craft, always have to take a backseat to the academic crowd?

What was the author actually getting at?
Why would he have to? Well, simply because he knew it was the right move. Plus, it’d be a huge help since he doesn't have the credentials yet and really wants to go back to school.
What does it even mean to "lecture" high schoolers? Like, what’s the actual vibe there? 😕 🤷

swiftbear86 said:Just finishing up middle school music programs was enough to qualify.
Completing a formal music conservatory program (not just a weekend workshop) is a real achievement. Think about it: classes meet four times a week, you’ve got theory exams, and you have to pass practical performance tests every single year. As for the cost—in New York City, you're looking at about $40 a month for music school. Honestly, most families spend way more than that on stuff like dining out or entertainment, so saying this is only available to the "elite" just isn't true.

Here is the old (but still relevant) set of guidelines:

So why compare that to athletic credits then? (It feels like it's being used in a negative way here.) 🤷
Do athletes get points just because they trained 4 or 5 times a week for years?
If points are only for winning major championships, wouldn't there be tons of those kids everywhere?

Completing music school—not just some random class—is an achievement. You're in class four times a week, dealing with ear training tests, and taking performance exams at the end of every year.

Success is also about sticking with something for years, training every day and playing games on weekends—whether it's soccer or anything else. I don't know about specific exams, but surely things like belt rankings in karate exist?
In sports, you have to show grit and dedication... if you don't, you're out. So if someone sticks with a club for years and keeps showing up, why isn't that worth something?
And honestly, if they actually win big at competitions, that should count for points just as much as any musical achievement, regardless of special awards.
Personally, I don't think these points should matter at all unless you're applying to a specialized arts or sports academy.

Nicholas King said:Well, if we're being strictly accurate, completing just four out of the six grades in elementary music school would have been plenty.

They should probably give credit for all six. Back in my day, they didn't just count four years; you did the whole thing. I failed the fifth year, so apparently, I never even showed up. I poured six years of my life into that—not counting the preparatory year at the start.

Jessica Chavez4 said:They should probably give credit for all six. Back in my day, they didn't just count four years; you did the whole thing. I failed the fifth year, so apparently, I never even showed up. I poured six years of my life into that—not counting the preparatory year at the start.

Back-to-back? Why go through all that trouble? Did you join that music program just for the extra credit?
Why didn't you keep going if you failed one year? Is there a rule that says you can't continue? 😕

Rachel Jones8 said:😂 What three-year vocational school...? Where did I even mention three years?
What are you even talking about... or like, what's your deal?

Look, at the end of the day, the whole debate really boils down to one thing: are we talking about 14, maybe 14.5, or a full 15 years?

If you head to prep school, everyone starts acting like they're some kind of genius, right?

Wait, seriously? Where... who... what "people" are we even talking about?

Why should every high school grad feel forced into college if they already know the job market is a total grind? And why does a kid from a vocational school, who actually wants to study their craft, always have to take a backseat to the academic crowd?

What was the author actually getting at?
Why would he have to? Well, simply because he knew it was the right move. Plus, it’d be a huge help since he doesn't have the credentials yet and really wants to go back to school.
What does it even mean to "lecture" high schoolers? Like, what’s the actual vibe there? 😕 🤷

You didn't mention three years anywhere, but you did bring up mechanics, hairstylists, and stuff like that...☕

Rachel Jones8 said:😂 What three-year vocational school...? Where did I even mention three years?
What are you even talking about... or like, what's your deal?

Look, at the end of the day, the whole debate really boils down to one thing: are we talking about 14, maybe 14.5, or a full 15 years?

If you head to prep school, everyone starts acting like they're some kind of genius, right?

Wait, seriously? Where... who... what "people" are we even talking about?

Why should every high school grad feel forced into college if they already know the job market is a total grind? And why does a kid from a vocational school, who actually wants to study their craft, always have to take a backseat to the academic crowd?

What was the author actually getting at?
Why would he have to? Well, simply because he knew it was the right move. Plus, it’d be a huge help since he doesn't have the credentials yet and really wants to go back to school.
What does it even mean to "lecture" high schoolers? Like, what’s the actual vibe there? 😕 🤷

I'm clearly not up to speed with today's youth slang... Right now I'm sipping white, but occasionally I'll go for a red!

Rachel Jones8 said:😂 What three-year vocational school...? Where did I even mention three years?
What are you even talking about... or like, what's your deal?

Look, at the end of the day, the whole debate really boils down to one thing: are we talking about 14, maybe 14.5, or a full 15 years?

If you head to prep school, everyone starts acting like they're some kind of genius, right?

Wait, seriously? Where... who... what "people" are we even talking about?

Why should every high school grad feel forced into college if they already know the job market is a total grind? And why does a kid from a vocational school, who actually wants to study their craft, always have to take a backseat to the academic crowd?

What was the author actually getting at?
Why would he have to? Well, simply because he knew it was the right move. Plus, it’d be a huge help since he doesn't have the credentials yet and really wants to go back to school.
What does it even mean to "lecture" high schoolers? Like, what’s the actual vibe there? 😕 🤷

We could even break it down by hours, minutes, and seconds if we really want to get pedantic!

Rachel Jones8 said:😂 What three-year vocational school...? Where did I even mention three years?
What are you even talking about... or like, what's your deal?

Look, at the end of the day, the whole debate really boils down to one thing: are we talking about 14, maybe 14.5, or a full 15 years?

If you head to prep school, everyone starts acting like they're some kind of genius, right?

Wait, seriously? Where... who... what "people" are we even talking about?

Why should every high school grad feel forced into college if they already know the job market is a total grind? And why does a kid from a vocational school, who actually wants to study their craft, always have to take a backseat to the academic crowd?

What was the author actually getting at?
Why would he have to? Well, simply because he knew it was the right move. Plus, it’d be a huge help since he doesn't have the credentials yet and really wants to go back to school.
What does it even mean to "lecture" high schoolers? Like, what’s the actual vibe there? 😕 🤷

Aha. Americans, Mexicans, Canadians, Italians, Slovaks, Canadians, and the other national minorities living in the US.

Rachel Jones8 said:😂 What three-year vocational school...? Where did I even mention three years?
What are you even talking about... or like, what's your deal?

Look, at the end of the day, the whole debate really boils down to one thing: are we talking about 14, maybe 14.5, or a full 15 years?

If you head to prep school, everyone starts acting like they're some kind of genius, right?

Wait, seriously? Where... who... what "people" are we even talking about?

Why should every high school grad feel forced into college if they already know the job market is a total grind? And why does a kid from a vocational school, who actually wants to study their craft, always have to take a backseat to the academic crowd?

What was the author actually getting at?
Why would he have to? Well, simply because he knew it was the right move. Plus, it’d be a huge help since he doesn't have the credentials yet and really wants to go back to school.
What does it even mean to "lecture" high schoolers? Like, what’s the actual vibe there? 😕 🤷

Exactly what they wrote.

Rachel Jones8 said:😂 What three-year vocational school...? Where did I even mention three years?
What are you even talking about... or like, what's your deal?

Look, at the end of the day, the whole debate really boils down to one thing: are we talking about 14, maybe 14.5, or a full 15 years?

If you head to prep school, everyone starts acting like they're some kind of genius, right?

Wait, seriously? Where... who... what "people" are we even talking about?

Why should every high school grad feel forced into college if they already know the job market is a total grind? And why does a kid from a vocational school, who actually wants to study their craft, always have to take a backseat to the academic crowd?

What was the author actually getting at?
Why would he have to? Well, simply because he knew it was the right move. Plus, it’d be a huge help since he doesn't have the credentials yet and really wants to go back to school.
What does it even mean to "lecture" high schoolers? Like, what’s the actual vibe there? 😕 🤷

But weren't you just arguing in your earlier posts that some high schoolers are completely lost when it comes to their future? 😕

Rachel Jones8 said:😂 What three-year vocational school...? Where did I even mention three years?
What are you even talking about... or like, what's your deal?

Look, at the end of the day, the whole debate really boils down to one thing: are we talking about 14, maybe 14.5, or a full 15 years?

If you head to prep school, everyone starts acting like they're some kind of genius, right?

Wait, seriously? Where... who... what "people" are we even talking about?

Why should every high school grad feel forced into college if they already know the job market is a total grind? And why does a kid from a vocational school, who actually wants to study their craft, always have to take a backseat to the academic crowd?

What was the author actually getting at?
Why would he have to? Well, simply because he knew it was the right move. Plus, it’d be a huge help since he doesn't have the credentials yet and really wants to go back to school.
What does it even mean to "lecture" high schoolers? Like, what’s the actual vibe there? 😕 🤷

A picture is worth a thousand words; maybe this will make things a bit clearer for you.
🙂

Rachel Jones8 said:Back-to-back? Why go through all that trouble? Did you join that music program just for the extra credit?
Why didn't you keep going if you failed one year? Is there a rule that says you can't continue? 😕

Because I didn't want to go anymore. Honestly, I only did it because my parents were bored, so they bought a piano. It looks classy, and it’s considered high status when your kid takes music lessons. Makes her look refined, smart, and like she'll land a great spouse. You wouldn't get it.

But seriously, after all those years, I didn't even get the credit. Looking at it now, it seems like the number of extra points available has skyrocketed since I was in school. Even back then, we dealt with massive grade inflation and vague criteria. I can't even imagine how much worse it's gotten over the last fifteen years, considering how messy it already was. I remember having about fifty-seven points, and my parents were practically pulling their hair out trying to make sure I got into prep school—they were borderline panicking. But they were always like that. Personally, I regret getting into that specific school; if it had been more laid back, I could have actually caused some trouble there. But, yeah. 🤷

Jessica Chavez4 said:Because I didn't want to go anymore. Honestly, I only did it because my parents were bored, so they bought a piano. It looks classy, and it’s considered high status when your kid takes music lessons. Makes her look refined, smart, and like she'll land a great spouse. You wouldn't get it.

But seriously, after all those years, I didn't even get the credit. Looking at it now, it seems like the number of extra points available has skyrocketed since I was in school. Even back then, we dealt with massive grade inflation and vague criteria. I can't even imagine how much worse it's gotten over the last fifteen years, considering how messy it already was. I remember having about fifty-seven points, and my parents were practically pulling their hair out trying to make sure I got into prep school—they were borderline panicking. But they were always like that. Personally, I regret getting into that specific school; if it had been more laid back, I could have actually caused some trouble there. But, yeah. 🤷

Which school would you pick now, and why?
Why wouldn't a prep school be a good choice if you plan on going to college later?

Rachel Jones8 said:So why compare that to athletic credits then? (It feels like it's being used in a negative way here.) 🤷
Do athletes get points just because they trained 4 or 5 times a week for years?
If points are only for winning major championships, wouldn't there be tons of those kids everywhere?

Completing music school—not just some random class—is an achievement. You're in class four times a week, dealing with ear training tests, and taking performance exams at the end of every year.

Success is also about sticking with something for years, training every day and playing games on weekends—whether it's soccer or anything else. I don't know about specific exams, but surely things like belt rankings in karate exist?
In sports, you have to show grit and dedication... if you don't, you're out. So if someone sticks with a club for years and keeps showing up, why isn't that worth something?
And honestly, if they actually win big at competitions, that should count for points just as much as any musical achievement, regardless of special awards.
Personally, I don't think these points should matter at all unless you're applying to a specialized arts or sports academy.

I’m with you on that.
If I were setting the rules, the only thing worth giving extra credit for would be making it to a national competition in a core subject. Maybe one point for participating, and then a little bump for the top three finishers at the state level or the regional level.
The problem is, even those competitions aren't always fair.
Right now, getting to the nationals depends on whether you rank at the very top of your specific region, rather than just having a high enough score overall.
That might have changed recently, but just a few years ago, you could have a student in Washington, D.C. with way higher scores than someone in another state, yet they wouldn't even get an invite to the national stage because of how the regional cutoffs worked.
In my book, the only metric that should count is pure merit—basically, your actual score.

swiftbear86 said:Which school would you pick now, and why?
Why wouldn't a prep school be a good choice if you plan on going to college later?

applied.

A prep school isn't necessarily the right fit for every degree path. Especially those language-focused tracks—you might find yourself stuck working a dead-end janitorial job at a liberal arts college. 😬

swiftbear86 said:I’m with you on that.
If I were setting the rules, the only thing worth giving extra credit for would be making it to a national competition in a core subject. Maybe one point for participating, and then a little bump for the top three finishers at the state level or the regional level.
The problem is, even those competitions aren't always fair.
Right now, getting to the nationals depends on whether you rank at the very top of your specific region, rather than just having a high enough score overall.
That might have changed recently, but just a few years ago, you could have a student in Washington, D.C. with way higher scores than someone in another state, yet they wouldn't even get an invite to the national stage because of how the regional cutoffs worked.
In my book, the only metric that should count is pure merit—basically, your actual score.

When it comes to math, computer science, and physics, at least during my era, advancement was strictly based on scores. So, that system was entirely fair. (Granted, there were times with physics where they’d mess around with scoring or non-public results, but generally, the best performers moved forward; complications only really cropped up for those right on the bubble.) As for chemistry, biology, English, or American literature, I can't say for certain.

Regardless, the national math and computer science competitions are undoubtedly the gold standard for admission into a specialized STEM academy. I fail to see what could theoretically demonstrate aptitude for a STEM-focused high school better than performing well in national math and CS contests. Physics is a bit more hit-or-miss, but it’s likely still a better indicator than mere classroom grades.

As for language academies and the national English or American literature exams, I am less informed. Some might argue that the same logic applies as it does for math schools, but I can't say that with any certainty because I don't know how those specific competitions are structured or the true caliber of the participants. Unfortunately, nobody seems to actually know; people just philosophize blindly and make decisions without having the slightest clue about the actual level of competition.

That is the fundamental issue we face here in America. Decisions ought to be made by people who are actually well-versed in the subject matter. Are people aware that in North America, participation in the European Championships is often a much more significant factor for university admissions than it is here, where it's treated as practically irrelevant? There seems to be a general mentality like that here; even you all on this forum are attempting to estimate how many points certain competitions should yield without knowing anything about them. But well, I won't get bogged down in a deep analysis now...

swiftbear86 said:I’m with you on that.
If I were setting the rules, the only thing worth giving extra credit for would be making it to a national competition in a core subject. Maybe one point for participating, and then a little bump for the top three finishers at the state level or the regional level.
The problem is, even those competitions aren't always fair.
Right now, getting to the nationals depends on whether you rank at the very top of your specific region, rather than just having a high enough score overall.
That might have changed recently, but just a few years ago, you could have a student in Washington, D.C. with way higher scores than someone in another state, yet they wouldn't even get an invite to the national stage because of how the regional cutoffs worked.
In my book, the only metric that should count is pure merit—basically, your actual score.

I am all for recognizing achievements at both the regional and national levels, provided they occur within any activity where the organizing institution holds a legitimate certification for working with children and youth.

What you mentioned regarding the competitions organized by the Department of Education is actually quite far from the truth. Quite the opposite, in fact. Scores are compared, and students qualify for national competitions based on their total points, not merely their rank within a single state. It is precisely the inverse of what you described: take an English exam, for instance, where there was a year when absolutely no one from Washington, D.C. was invited. Either we were simply incompetent along with our students, or perhaps certain regions were leaking test questions beforehand, resulting in five or six students from the same area walking away with perfect scores at the regional level.

There are so many fundamental issues that need to be straightened out before we can even begin to discuss "reform"—though I wonder which order we should address them in.

My oldest "test subject" is fortunately navigating college life, and my youngest still has baby teeth, but I truly feel for my former eighth-grade "test subjects." These were kids who were counting on points earned through sports or through music and dance schools—where they spent upwards of twelve hours a week practicing—only to see those efforts rendered useless because they let a 'C' slip onto their report cards.

Applying changes retroactively? That is absolutely unacceptable.

swiftbear86 said:I’m with you on that.
If I were setting the rules, the only thing worth giving extra credit for would be making it to a national competition in a core subject. Maybe one point for participating, and then a little bump for the top three finishers at the state level or the regional level.
The problem is, even those competitions aren't always fair.
Right now, getting to the nationals depends on whether you rank at the very top of your specific region, rather than just having a high enough score overall.
That might have changed recently, but just a few years ago, you could have a student in Washington, D.C. with way higher scores than someone in another state, yet they wouldn't even get an invite to the national stage because of how the regional cutoffs worked.
In my book, the only metric that should count is pure merit—basically, your actual score.

Actually, I have to disagree.
Back when I was in school (about 15 years ago), qualifying for the national math, physics, or chemistry competitions was based strictly on your total score from the regional rounds, not your rank.

So why didn't any of us make it further? 😬

We competed quite a bit because our coach and the B-class teacher were math pros, so it was mostly about pride—not wanting to lose to the local nerds. But I don't recall anyone making it past the county level. Not even the district stage. I just remember those competitions being crowded enough that finishing in the top twenty felt like an achievement in itself.

wanderinggardener12 said:I am all for recognizing achievements at both the regional and national levels, provided they occur within any activity where the organizing institution holds a legitimate certification for working with children and youth.

What you mentioned regarding the competitions organized by the Department of Education is actually quite far from the truth. Quite the opposite, in fact. Scores are compared, and students qualify for national competitions based on their total points, not merely their rank within a single state. It is precisely the inverse of what you described: take an English exam, for instance, where there was a year when absolutely no one from Washington, D.C. was invited. Either we were simply incompetent along with our students, or perhaps certain regions were leaking test questions beforehand, resulting in five or six students from the same area walking away with perfect scores at the regional level.

There are so many fundamental issues that need to be straightened out before we can even begin to discuss "reform"—though I wonder which order we should address them in.

My oldest "test subject" is fortunately navigating college life, and my youngest still has baby teeth, but I truly feel for my former eighth-grade "test subjects." These were kids who were counting on points earned through sports or through music and dance schools—where they spent upwards of twelve hours a week practicing—only to see those efforts rendered useless because they let a 'C' slip onto their report cards.

Applying changes retroactively? That is absolutely unacceptable.

What I wrote is absolutely correct; I just didn't specify which year I was talking about.
Back in 2009, for the English competition, the key factor was regional placement, which is why I mentioned Azoo specifically. Students from Washington, D.C. had lower scores than students from Pittsburgh, who had 61 points, or Oakhurst, who had 59. Back then, there was a lot of pushback against the Agency because the criteria for English were different, whereas for every other subject, it was strictly based on raw scores.
The Agency's response was basically that's just how it works for English, but they wouldn't rule out changing it later. (I was teaching 7th grade back then).
I don't have the energy to go digging through old records right now. (I can't remember which Washington, D.C. Elementary School hosted the regional competition).
If I recall, the gap was about 10 points, so the kids from Washington, D.C. definitely got the short end of the stick.
Clearly, things have changed since then—I haven't kept up closely enough to know for sure.

That’s exactly why I think it's so vital to show up to public forums and write to the Department and the Agency if the rules aren't being applied fairly.☕

Wait, I found the year! Now I just need to find where the regional was held, but I'm wiped out for the day...

Daniel Gomez10 said:Actually, I have to disagree.
Back when I was in school (about 15 years ago), qualifying for the national math, physics, or chemistry competitions was based strictly on your total score from the regional rounds, not your rank.

I was just clarifying how things work in America, and I mentioned the formal complaints sent to the Department of Education.
For all the other subjects, the deciding factor was always the raw score.

I wouldn't be saying this if I hadn't personally drafted and sent a letter of protest to the Department myself.

wanderinggardener12 said:I am all for recognizing achievements at both the regional and national levels, provided they occur within any activity where the organizing institution holds a legitimate certification for working with children and youth.

What you mentioned regarding the competitions organized by the Department of Education is actually quite far from the truth. Quite the opposite, in fact. Scores are compared, and students qualify for national competitions based on their total points, not merely their rank within a single state. It is precisely the inverse of what you described: take an English exam, for instance, where there was a year when absolutely no one from Washington, D.C. was invited. Either we were simply incompetent along with our students, or perhaps certain regions were leaking test questions beforehand, resulting in five or six students from the same area walking away with perfect scores at the regional level.

There are so many fundamental issues that need to be straightened out before we can even begin to discuss "reform"—though I wonder which order we should address them in.

My oldest "test subject" is fortunately navigating college life, and my youngest still has baby teeth, but I truly feel for my former eighth-grade "test subjects." These were kids who were counting on points earned through sports or through music and dance schools—where they spent upwards of twelve hours a week practicing—only to see those efforts rendered useless because they let a 'C' slip onto their report cards.

Applying changes retroactively? That is absolutely unacceptable.

Honestly, what a load of nonsense. Total injustice, too.

swiftbear86 said:What I wrote is absolutely correct; I just didn't specify which year I was talking about.
Back in 2009, for the English competition, the key factor was regional placement, which is why I mentioned Azoo specifically. Students from Washington, D.C. had lower scores than students from Pittsburgh, who had 61 points, or Oakhurst, who had 59. Back then, there was a lot of pushback against the Agency because the criteria for English were different, whereas for every other subject, it was strictly based on raw scores.
The Agency's response was basically that's just how it works for English, but they wouldn't rule out changing it later. (I was teaching 7th grade back then).
I don't have the energy to go digging through old records right now. (I can't remember which Washington, D.C. Elementary School hosted the regional competition).
If I recall, the gap was about 10 points, so the kids from Washington, D.C. definitely got the short end of the stick.
Clearly, things have changed since then—I haven't kept up closely enough to know for sure.

That’s exactly why I think it's so vital to show up to public forums and write to the Department and the Agency if the rules aren't being applied fairly.☕

Wait, I found the year! Now I just need to find where the regional was held, but I'm wiped out for the day...

It’s possible things were handled that way that particular year (I was on maternity leave, so I couldn't say for sure), but both before and after, it was based on points rather than ranking.

True, one should participate in the discussions, but does anyone actually value the opinion of the experts? Not even by a fraction of a percent.
When the infamous HNOS and the new NPIP (national plan and program) were being drafted, teachers worked tirelessly on them for nearly a year, only for their proposals to be presented. Then came the review process, yet almost none of those insights were integrated into the final versions. Perhaps if parents organized themselves—if they sent mass open letters and petitions, flooded the secretary's office, or perhaps even boycotted a truly idiotic decision... who knows. Maybe then a certain Secretary might start feeling the pressure of their seat.
As it stands, it creates this illusion where teachers are one side, parents are another, and the Secretary is a third party, when in reality, parents and teachers are more often on the same side than people realize.
Even the staff at the agency are powerless; they simply receive an order and are forced to carry it out.

It looks like almost every student is going to see their scores take a hit this year thanks to this new proposal. They’ve shifted the weight from just two grades to all four years—and they’re grading every single subject instead of just the core four plus a general GPA. Gone are the days of getting in through "connections," especially now that they've tightened the screws on those extra credit points. To put this in perspective: if last year's students who applied to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography were graded under this new system, their averages would have hovered around 59.27, rather than the usual 61 or higher...
I suspect we might see a slight dip in interest regarding prep schools, though since the threshold is now set by school type, the cutoff for a high school is sitting at 45 points right now.

Hi everyone! Since this decision hits home for me, I thought I’d weigh in with my perspective. Right now, I’m sitting at a straight-A average—from first grade all the way through. I tend to stand out, both in my classroom and among my entire grade level. My goal is to get into a top-tier STEM high school, and honestly, I fully expect to make the cut. In my view, students like me should have a distinct advantage over those who didn't maintain perfect marks in fifth or sixth grade; if they missed those marks, it simply means they haven't fully mastered the material yet. On top of academics, I’ve got points from playing handball at the state level, and I might even pick up some extra credit this year through science fairs or English competitions. I see a lot of heated arguments here regarding "equality." Forgive me if I'm being blunt, but a kid who is barely scraping by and I are technically under the same set of rules. If he chooses not to take advantage of certain opportunities, that’s his call, and it shouldn't be the government's problem to balance the budget because of it. What kind of reward would that actually be for me? To work my tail off for years, only to end up in the exact same position as someone who couldn't be bothered to try? To me, that isn't equality. As for the vocational students—two guys in my class are incredibly sharp. They’ve really got that spark, you know? Their report cards don't look like mine, but if they put their minds to it, I truly believe hitting a straight-A average is well within their reach. Both are heading toward technical schools; one plans on going to a university, the other doesn't. At no point have I looked down on them as a future honors student, nor do I consider them any less valuable. I believe even a student who is just passing is just as worthy of respect. However, I am going to prove my value in one arena, while he will prove his in another. That is exactly what I worked for—and it’s why others (or lack thereof) didn't succeed. We can become whatever we set our minds to, but it requires effort. And effort? That has nothing to do with equality. A truly great student will demonstrate that through almost any admissions system. At the end of the day, some sort of standardized entrance process has to exist.

Paul Miller8 said:Hi everyone! Since this decision hits home for me, I thought I’d weigh in with my perspective. Right now, I’m sitting at a straight-A average—from first grade all the way through. I tend to stand out, both in my classroom and among my entire grade level. My goal is to get into a top-tier STEM high school, and honestly, I fully expect to make the cut. In my view, students like me should have a distinct advantage over those who didn't maintain perfect marks in fifth or sixth grade; if they missed those marks, it simply means they haven't fully mastered the material yet. On top of academics, I’ve got points from playing handball at the state level, and I might even pick up some extra credit this year through science fairs or English competitions. I see a lot of heated arguments here regarding "equality." Forgive me if I'm being blunt, but a kid who is barely scraping by and I are technically under the same set of rules. If he chooses not to take advantage of certain opportunities, that’s his call, and it shouldn't be the government's problem to balance the budget because of it. What kind of reward would that actually be for me? To work my tail off for years, only to end up in the exact same position as someone who couldn't be bothered to try? To me, that isn't equality. As for the vocational students—two guys in my class are incredibly sharp. They’ve really got that spark, you know? Their report cards don't look like mine, but if they put their minds to it, I truly believe hitting a straight-A average is well within their reach. Both are heading toward technical schools; one plans on going to a university, the other doesn't. At no point have I looked down on them as a future honors student, nor do I consider them any less valuable. I believe even a student who is just passing is just as worthy of respect. However, I am going to prove my value in one arena, while he will prove his in another. That is exactly what I worked for—and it’s why others (or lack thereof) didn't succeed. We can become whatever we set our minds to, but it requires effort. And effort? That has nothing to do with equality. A truly great student will demonstrate that through almost any admissions system. At the end of the day, some sort of standardized entrance process has to exist.

I am genuinely stunned by the mindset of an eighth grader! Both your reasoning and your way of expressing yourself (not to mention your literacy) are remarkable.
I find myself wondering where children like you disappear to during their later schooling and how they eventually become entirely mediocre. I truly hope this educational system doesn't stifle you the way it has many others, and that by the time you are twenty-five or thirty, you can still articulate your thoughts clearly, precisely, and with substance.
I also wonder what today's politicians were thinking when they were fifteen, and if they were actually thinking at all.