I don’t understand the fascination with accelerating the learning process to a point where intellectual development exceeds emotional and physical development. In some cases there’s a distinct possibility of doing more harm than good. I’m sure there are exceptions where challenging a very special mind in that way is the right path, but I suspect those are very rare exceptions.
@privatebanker
The key message in that article for me was “explore outside the parameters of a prescribed curriculum.”
My kids already finished high school but their curriculum included 4 hours of homework whereas mine had 2 hours or less (makes one wonder what they use classroom time for or are they teaching too much). Yet, with my own experience, our classes included music and art, and more generally a history of cultural developments. The kids definitely did not have these things. How many graduating high school students “know” Beethoven or Jazz or the history of Rock, and how many of the AFI best 100 movies do they “understand” with any perspective or context. Many kids who have gone some way to explore these things are richer for it, even if they are not essential.
Post 3336 by @privatebanker hits the nail on the head.
I would only add that, in my view, it seems the number of students in category B increases each year such that colleges rely more and more on category C to differentiate between otherwise similarly-situated applicants, leaving ever more “highly qualified” applicants each year wondering why they were denied admission to a particular college.
On whether that is fair, I’m not smart enough to figure that out, but I think privatebanker’s view aligns well with what sometimes seems to inform such assessments.
USC is still doing illegal stuff. It is up to parents at the high school level who know these students have low GPAs to uncover the cheating going on. We know who has low GPAs since these students do not show up on the hono
“USC is still doing illegal stuff”
PROOF please- not just conjecture
@privatebanker That should be framed and put on a wall somewhere.
Some of us do feel stretch is an equally important part of chilldhood. I’ve never been obnoxious about it, but my own mother said, “If we never try new things, we’d still be eating pablum.” Maybe a synonym would be “expansion.” My kids rode bikes, wandered, and did more. It was the experience with testing themselves in new ways that led to more choices on their own. And the confidence to try.
Ironically, when they applied to pre-school/k, the form asked about our goals. It was this “build a basis to pursue later choices” that mattered to me and still does.
Any many kids do thrive on challenges. They may be in advanced school classes, but have friends, have hobbies, etc.
So, part of the issue here- and maybe some schadensfreude- is some things came too easily to these scandal kids. Some by birthright (OJ didn’t really make it as an online entrepreneur all on her own) and some by paying off influencers.
@RandyErika Well this case was brought about because one parent was caught up in a securities fraud investigation so…There’s one.
I gett your point, but that’s kind of a stretch. IF ONLY the Manson family had stuck to cheating in “business dealings, tax filings, auditioning,” etc. There’s a whole lot of ground between Manson Family antics and serial dishonesty.
@Nrdsb4 You’re right of course and I obviously meant is as a stretch! LOL.
It’s was a half hearted joke to keep it in perspective. Yes the families did some really bad, dumb and criminal stuff here. I was only thinking of keeping some level of proportionality here.
Not being on the honor roll is not necessarily an indication of being a poor student. It is an indication of not meeting the specific requirements. My daughter has missed the honor roll several times because of a C in one class - yet by taking all honors and AP classes her GPA is one of the highest in her class - higher than several of the students only taking college prep classes who are always on the honor roll.
Among my two friends who went to MIT, there was a big gulf in brilliance in math and engineering. One would have been top 5% at any school, while the other would have done around top 30% at a good public college ranked 70th. Getting 800 in math does not measure brilliance because all of the math problems can be solved by a good math person if given more time. SAT/ ACT tests speed in doing easy problems. You can be a great writer and get 500 in SAT English, and get 800 in English and be a very mediocre writer. I rather be a the former obviously.
GPA also does not measure brilliance. I know plenty of kids who are brilliant in one area who cannot get better than 3.7 gpa.
Responding to the Elite College Admissions Scandal…
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/responding-elite-college-admissions-scandal
I do think that kids who get high GPAs and test scores and have good ECs do tend to demonstrate one quality: time management skills, discipline, motivation and hard work. In some sense, these qualities, along with other qualities, are more indicative of how one will turn out. Therefore, it is only right that colleges should for the most part accept this type of students. In this vein, I think people who discount kids’ achievement in getting high GPAs and high test scores do not see the power of habits: kids who are used to getting things done tend to get things done and follow through. They talk as if these things don’t mean anything but oh, they do; they do not show that the kids are brilliant but they show the kids worked hard and were persistent and consistent.
Now, one uncertain thing is the timing: the most lazy kid in high school will suddenly become motivated in college or at work or in the business world and start doing some amazing things. I really think the key is to teach each kid how to recognize his or her own strong points and instill the willingness to work hard and get along with others.
However, it does seem that some do not believe that a “late bloomer” will be successful, as evidenced by those who judge college graduates by the college attended (which is mainly based on high school achievement and family support/money), or who, when hiring college graduates, ask for their SAT/ACT scores from when they were in high school.
Re: #3352 and https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/responding-elite-college-admissions-scandal
Legacy preference, which adds unearned privilege to (usually) existing advantage, appears to be widely supported around these forums for some reason (perhaps because the forum demographic is most likely to benefit from it). Even 30% of public universities consider legacy, which seems to be counter to the mission of a public university to make the opportunity to earn higher education more accessible to all of the state’s residents.
@websensation habits, yes. But i see it as “conforming.” They conform to the established goals, buy in, act accordingly. A high SAT tells me they valued the goal, worked toward it. (Not always, some just test well.) But it’s similar to when we tell CC kids to do what it takes to bring a vital grade up. The ones who get it, do pull out their gins.
Not cheating.
College admissions scandal: Education Department launches investigation into universities
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/25/devos-investigation-college-admissions-scandal-1293495
I’m confused about what the Education Department thinks they might find and why it’s potentially actionable.
Also reported in Politico:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/25/devos-investigation-college-admissions-scandal-1293495