<p>My opinion is that she will get a better education at the more rigorous / gifted school. However, I think it will actually hamper her ability to get into the most completive colleges. Many colleges today would rather have the 1st in their class sub-par public school graduate than a comparable student who is ranked lower but at a very good gifted school. That being said I think her overall education will be better at her gifted school and then only at a very good University as opposed to the most competitive University.</p>
<p>DS attended a selective-enrollment college prep HS that accepts about 1/3 of its applicants. Whereas our local public HS placed him in honors classes (automatic admission placement thru public elementary school), the college prep HS placed him in non-honors classes. Eventually he took several honors and AP classes as an upperclassman, and managed to graduate with honors (not highest honors). He was absolutely “average” student there.</p>
<p>When we toured Midwest LACs and universities, and talked to admissions reps, everyone knew of his HS, and stated “we like its kids; they’re well-prepared”. Though DS’ GPA was lower than “avg GPA incoming freshmen” for those schools, adm staff indicated that his HS gave his application a “bump”. I think both the rigorous experience and the reputation of DS’ HS helped.</p>
<p>I attended a pretty competitive high school in NYC that regularly sends the top 25% of the class to the top 25 colleges and universities.I graduated my high school in the top 30% (not very impressive - I was lazy). However, I was accepted into a handful of the top 30 colleges and universities, and even a few with some merit aid!</p>
<p>In a challenging and competitive high school, I think students eventually begin to realize that it is what they’re currently learning that is most important, not the college that they will attend in a few years. That ‘live in the now’ mentality was definitely present in my high school.</p>
<p>The students who graduated the top 10% or so in my year were all accepted into at least one Ivy or Ivy-like school (MIT, Stanford, etc.). From the guys that I keep in touch with, they all maintain at least a 3.5 GPA at some of the best colleges in the world, and they contribute their successes in academics to the rigorous prep that their high school had them do.</p>
<p>Bottom line is that sure, you may get into a top college if you attend the easier high school, but you will struggle a lot more than your peers who attended a harder high school. For graduate schools, professional schools, and employers, what matters more? Your high school GPA or your college GPA?</p>
<p>I think what triplenick said is exactly correct. It is a shame that in order to supposedly be politically, morally or socially correct - top institutions are sacrificing the quality of their student bodies.</p>
<p>Both of my kids went to private boarding schools and both were accepted at Harvard and MIT but they were # 1 in there class. They went to two different high schools but they are very strong students and they work really hard. I agree that if you rank in the top of your class then you have a chance for the top colleges but if you rank lower then your chances are not so good. Also they need to have EC that they care about and a well rounded profile. I am so surprised and feel very lucky that my children have accomplished getting into Harvard and MIT. That said the whole process is a roll of the dice.</p>
<p>I have read (and agree,in specific cases I am familiar with) that professors say they prefer teaching students who did not have the rigorous education in high school (assuming a certain level of competency). Students from rigorous high schools are sometimes jaded and burned out; students who did not go to rigorous high schools may not do as well at first, but catch up or overtake because the learning is fresh for them and they are excited by it. </p>
<p>At Harvard, we know many students who are certainly burned out, or for whom admissions was a goal rather then the work of learning once there. Once they get in, the experience of actually being there is empty. </p>
<p>My kids went to a low quality, small local high school and did fine with admissions. Their lives were low stress and they were able to read books they wanted to read (rather than only required assignments), and really explore other interests, whether extracurriculars at school or activities entirely outside of school. I feel that without hours and hours of homework each night, they were better able to know themselves during these important years of development, and our family life was better too.</p>
<p>The college admissions for their school was no different than admissions for top private schools in the area, for academically oriented kids. The difference was that noone from the private schools went to community or state college, schools which were very popular for the local high school classes.</p>
<p>I don’t think a low quality, low stress, no homework environment where the students spend time getting to know themselves is the best preparation for University nor life. The fact that grade inflation is rampant and many of these type students still get all A’s is what is wrong with the system. Kids working their tails off in a rigorous academic environment and getting B’s are considered inferior students. We seem to have a very broken system.</p>
<p>It was in my kids’ case. And others. They have done fine at Ivy League Schools. Everyone is different. I see the stress suffered by kids in high pressure private- and public- schools, and wonder if there isn’t a better way. Admissions at top schools are not all about grades and stats, so there is no use in worrying about an A at one school versus a B at another, harder school, honestly. They are looking at the whole person, and having some time to really explore and delve into outside interests can make a big difference w/admissions- not that that is the best reason for doing so.</p>
<p>There’s no one right answer for everyone.</p>
<p>It depends on the community, the individual student, and the family, and even seemingly simple (but sometimes dealbreaking) practical issues such as transportation. </p>
<p>In our school system, there are several selective academic magnet programs. In eighth grade, students who might conceivably be qualified are invited to apply.</p>
<p>When my son got the invitation, he refused to apply. (“Why would I want to do THAT? It’s much more work than regular high school,” he said.)</p>
<p>When my daughter got the invitation, she decided to apply to one of the programs. And when accepted, she decided to go to the special program, over her father’s objections. (“Why would you want to do THAT? It’s much more work than regular high school,” her dad said.)</p>
<p>Things worked out fine for both of them. But if you had put my son in the magnet and my daughter in the regular high school, it would have been a very different story.</p>
<p>
Thanks Compmom. That’s encouraging to hear, as we begin this process of applying to schools. Still trying to whittle down the list, but we are hoping that the large variety of schooling situations as well as maintaining very high scores throughout while developing interests (even if there were a couple of B’s last semester at this super-hard school) won’t be a problem. We shall see. </p>
<p>She’s really like to go international though, if not for undergrad, then later.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I fear you may be correct, though I must confess that the reasoning seems illogical to me. Wouldn’t the student who challenged herself be more desirable than the one who breezed through an easy school with straight A’s? I would think the latter would be more likely to need remediation when the workload started abruptly ramping up in the higher level colleges. My daughter could have easily been number one in her former “top” school, but it was too easy, and there was lots of remediation of other students already going on from the beginning. In her current school, you had to quickly learn to sink or swim and get your problems solved yourself, without parental help, since it was residential. If you didn’t, you ended up being asked to leave, and they lose about a third of every class. How is that not more like college - and the real world? It concerns me that colleges wouldn’t analyze it this way.</p>
<p>It is a shame when some of our Country’s top institutions are looking for candidates who have not experienced stress, haven’t been challenged academically, and haven’t learned that they need to work hard. I think many of these schools would be better served by looking into the work ethic of the student instead of their grade inflated transcripts.</p>
<p>I have seem many “bright” but “lazy” kids get into top schools - the problem is that when they get out they are still bright and lazy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That certainly is another way to look at it, and I actually will have different experiences with my kids as well. The one coming up next is an athlete and attends a rigorous but two-day-a-week school, so that his long weekends are free for his travel sport. He can sleep in on Monday morning, while still maintaining a high GPA. I think it will work well for this one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not everyone a choice between a super difficult high school and an easy school.</p>
<p>Tranquil</p>
<p>I agree - the logic is bizarre. However you have a State like Texas that has a law where anyone in the top 10% of their HS class is admitted to the Texas College or University of their choice. I guess it doesn’t matter if a student who is 15/100 at a rigorous HS is denied but a 5/100 student from a stress free low quality school is admitted. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, in order to be politically and socially correct, many other private and public institutions are following the same model.</p>
<p>Interesting Article - “Top 10% Rule”</p>
<p>[Is</a> The “Top 10” Plan Unfair? - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-649704.html]Is”>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-649704.html)</p>
<p>IDK. The top ten % students at a less competitive school probably had significant socio-economic challenges to overcome. </p>
<p>If Texas schools weren’t so segregated economically it wouldn’t put rich kids at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>Only “rich” kids go to rigorous schools? That is ridiculous.</p>
<p>No, but the more rigorous schools tend to be those in areas with greater resources. Magnets may be somewhat an exception. In our state schools are funded primarily by local property taxes and wealthy areas have better schools. Poorer areas have less good schools, fewer APs offered, pay-to-play sports and music, etc. </p>
<p>Is this not the case in your state?</p>
<p>Not true. In Ohio the 3rd best public High School was Indian Hill near Cincinnati - per pupil expenditure of $15,209. That was less than the East Cleveland City Schools at $16,842 per pupil. The Cleveland City Schools also spend more than most all the surrounding suburban and Catholic Schools with much poorer results.</p>
<p>[See</a> How Much Each Ohio School District Spends Per Student | StateImpact Ohio](<a href=“http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/01/17/see-how-much-each-ohio-school-district-spends-per-student/]See”>http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/01/17/see-how-much-each-ohio-school-district-spends-per-student/)</p>