<p>My kids have many more projects than I ever did. Also, many more group work projects. One supposedly “fun” project reduced my middle schooler practically to tears as she had to fill a complex paper shape with information about herself. Being an English project, the information had to be presented in complete sentences. The spaces on which she was to write these sentences were each about the size of a postage stamp. She was having trouble fitting her beautifully crafted sentences into these spaces, kept running out of room, and it became a mess. In another “fun” project, the kids were meant to make facebook pages for historical figures. There was a small amount of actual learning involved in that one. But many hours were spent researching and crafting the facebook page (on posterboard). (The amount of research on their actual topic was negligible). Since the kids in this class were all techincally too young to be facebook users, many of them didn’t know what a facebook page was meant to be like. I didn’t feel requiring underage students to get on facebook was an appopriate project, and I know that my daughter would have learned much more about history if she’d put in half that amount of time writing a paper.</p>
<p>@mathyone D had the exact same two projects in junior high…with the same less-than-stellar results. </p>
<p>Gawd, QM, you really want to engage me in these discussions. You know I know far more than where my kids and neighbors or cousins or cobrat went to hs. I just never saw the mole project. (D2 knew what Mole Day is, but said her hs didn’t do it. Otoh, they did CSI type things- and loved it.) Frankly, from what little I’ve learned, so far I can’t fathom how a stuffed mole or mole coloring book encourages kids in chemistry. And, I do not deride kids. I do, however, point out that all this “oh poor them” is silly. When it comes to high performing kids, high energy and vision, they can and do fit lots into their time. No need to lower the bar for highly selective admissions because some of them spent a few hours on some dumb projects. </p>
<p>Just in case it might be useful for someone reading, here is what I did. First I talked to the other parents, all of whom were just as exasperated as I was, and suggested we meet together with the teachers to share our concerns. No one was willing to do that because of fear of retribution. So I went by myself and requested students be given a research paper option whenever a project was assigned. This was agreed upon. It was a huge surprise to the teachers when a majority of students opted for the research paper. </p>
<p>I guess the teachers are getting this stuff off some website of “Fun” projects for middle schoolers. What my kids would find fun is to use the time in school well to learn a lot of interesting things, not fluff, then to be given manageable amounts of meaningful homework that allows them plenty of time outside of school to do what they, not the teacher, consider to be fun.</p>
<p>In general, the things designed to make learning “fun” make it less fun for those that already like the subject. If I want to learn chemistry, I want to hear about the subject, not someone cracking lame science jokes. </p>
<p>National Mole Day is embarrassing. It has no connection to chemistry, nor to zoology. </p>
<p>It’s a total, insulting waste of time. High school teachers should have common sense and a respect for their subject.</p>
<p>There is a National Mole Day Foundation. The theme for 2014 is Mole-O’Ween. I kid you not. Buy your orange fleece fabric now. No doubt you’d get extra points for a Vampir-O-Mole. </p>
<p>Given the grading standards, I’d expect rank in class at that school to have little relationship to academics. If such practices are widespread, it does explain how so many straight-A students do poorly on standardized tests. They’ve been busy with creative projects, with extra points given for wasted time. </p>
<p>You couldn’t make this up. Thank you, QuantMech, for inspiring my husband’s facial expression of puzzled revulsion at the thought that this sort of tripe would take place in a high school chemistry class.</p>
<p>@alh, I love your idea of allowing the kids to do something as mundane as a research paper. And yes, it’s very difficult to organize parents around academic issues. I’m sure some parents support the mole concept.</p>
<p>Well, derision is probably in the eyes of the reader.</p>
<p>I still don’t think you have grasped the magnitude of the problem with projects in some of the schools, lookingforward. It’s not a question of “a few hours.” I invite you to come up with a clever idea for a mole, purchase the supplies for it, and actually carry out the project. Hope you have a fancy sewing machine! It’s already “a few hours” just shopping for the supplies, counting the driving time to and from the stores. Then this time needs to be multiplied by abut 3 per semester times the number of classes that the student is taking. Then you need to throw in the time required to actually learn some chemistry/history/literature/mathematics/whatever.</p>
<p>I don’t in any way discount the time burdens on a student who needs to have an after-school/weekend job to help support the family. These projects are bordering on punitive for them.</p>
<p>At the same time, I’d like for people who are connected with admission to recognize that there are many different categories of demand on a student’s time. I think people “get it” that a student from a lower socio-economic group may not have many EC’s due to working. I am less sure that admissions people “get it” that some of the suburban high schools have so many project-based assignments.</p>
<p>In terms of the calculus of probabilities, a smart student who is in a high school of this type recognizes that the odds of admission to HYPSM are low–below 10% and probably going below 5% everywhere soon. So that is a total long-shot in any event. However, if the student is generally an A/A- student, there is a reliable chance of getting into the good state flagship (if there is one) or another good school. If the student has a B average, a good state flagship is out of the question, I’d think. And HYPSM is also out. So the “fun” projects are pretty much obligatory.</p>
<p>Seriously, thanks, Periwinkle. My husband’s take on all of this: It’s what makes boys dislike school.</p>
<p>I seem somehow to have activated the “strike-through” option. Please read over it.</p>
<p>In a school that requires lots of busy work, lots of time is needed to complete the work at an A level. At a certain point, there are literally no more hours in the day. None. If you have to roll a rock up a hill endlessly everyday, it doesn’t go any quicker just because you’re smarter. Those students should not be judged by the same standards as those with time for outside activities.</p>
<p>Anyone care to bet on whether they do the mole project at any high school academic powerhouse? Who thinks time for interesting ECs is built into those students schedules? I’m raising my hand here.</p>
<p>You don’t get it, QM. I say the same thing over and over and you change it a little here and a little there and plead confusion. Then ask me how I can hold such an view- the view you altered. </p>
<p>The top kids are not being disabled by the work they do, are not limited, crushed and unable to do more. I think you grossly underrate. And that’s not good.</p>
<p>And I keep saying, these top colleges are seeing low SES kids who do have jobs- and are still engaged in school clubs, often with leadership, plus community activities, plus write thoughtfully, took APs and have great gpa’s. And you go back to poor them, have a job, can’t do anything. Stereotype and very limited confidence in them.</p>
<p>I’d never heard of Mole Day until I read about it here. Thankfully none of the schools my kids have attended have celebrated it. On the other hand they’ve all required the kids to play after school sports.</p>
<p>My MS daughter’s school has a lot of creative projects but the kids are almost always given a choice of the creative vehicle they use. The teachers make it clear that the grade is based on how well they demonstrate their knowledge and to a lesser extent, how creatively they do so, but the grade is never based on how pretty the finished product is. So for instance if they were studying the rise of the Nazi party one kid might write a 1922 newspaper front page and another two might film a debate over Nationalism, playing post-WWI German citizens, and another might make a poster of Nazi symbols, explaining their origins and meanings, with a particular eye to the use of propaganda. My kids greatest problem is that she gets too caught up in the art part and I have to remind her that that isn’t what’s going to earn her a good grade.</p>
<p>I remember some horrid creative projects from my son’s elementary school. He was particularly challenged when it came to visual-spatial skills, so things like glueing something on a poster straight or writing neatly within a box were torture for him. I helped him learn how to use a paper cutter and straight edge, but at times I just pitched in and did some of the cutting and glueing stuff myself. I didn’t feel guilty because I figured it had nothing to do with what he was actually learning.</p>
<p>LF: A lot of us here have a really good sense of what “top kids” can and can’t accomplish under various circumstances. We really do get this issue. We have lived it.</p>
<p>For the purpose of this discussion I’m defining “top kid” as someone with almost unlimited academic potential, incredible perseverance, self-motivated, mature goal setter, and also a creative spark. An ability to not only problem solve but think up the problems that need solving. And the ability get by on less than 6 hours sleep a night while in high school.</p>
<p>Alh, I believe it. But you know the gist of the long-running thing between QM and me is about admissions. Now she thinks I don’t get Mole projects. That I don’t know high schools (as well as she does?) and how demanding some things can be, perfectly ridiculous things. I do. (Remember my kids’ botany project. The kid who topped all the others in the teacher’s view is a brilliant artist, with a high tech genius dad- her presentation was a wow craft project, the sort most of us couldn’t envision or execute- and a ridiculous judge of her botanical learning or the project.)</p>
<p>The thread is what colleges want. How you or even most of CC defines top kids may not match what the most selective colleges look for. The most selectives can, with their thousand of apps, look for “show, not tell.” Given, say, 10k semi-finalists for Harvard’s 2000 seats, you really want them to say, “Let’s give this one a break, his hs had mandatory Mole day projects?” He’s bright but he dropped some balls? Really? When there are thousand of other candidates who managed- and more?</p>
<p>Sorry, this isn’t about any of our kids, it’s in general. A lot of hs is dumb. I worry more about the limited writing and critical thinking practice they get, than some time wasting projects. By all means, try to change things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they started requiring arts & crafts type projects where ornamentation is graded equally/greater than the actual academic content at my public magnet HS, most kids in my day would revolt and the PTA parents would be howling about busywork and watering down academic standards. </p>
<ul>
<li>Especially many in the hardcore engineering/CS set who tend to have little use for arts and aesthetics being mixed in with their STEM courses. Also, it’s it’s a school with a slight male majority when I attended.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>LF: While we wait for QM to have time to post again, and before I decide how to respond to that, could you share with us how selective the college is where you are on admissions? Do you think all admissions committees are operating essentially the same? Looking for the same kind of applicant?</p>
<p>I always assumed that the craft projects were intended to help those students with low grades - an opportunity to compete with the kids who always get 100s on the actual tests. Levels the playing field a bit. </p>
<p>I believe that the Dean of Admissions at Harvard remarked that he saw people Harvard admitted as the “dazed survivors of a lifelong boot camp.” I am not actually sure any more whether he was referring to the entering class, or to the 25th reunion group.</p>
<p>The top students around here have done what’s required + much more. Many of them have been involved in demanding EC’s while also accomplishing at top levels academically (e.g., Calc BC as a high school freshman, followed by 3 years of serious university math before leaving high school). And generally, they have been pretty successful in “top” school admissions–with an exception or two.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, I think that alh is spot on in writing about students’ getting less than 6 hours of sleep a night. I don’t really think that’s healthy in the long run. I agree entirely with alh’s recent posts. </p>
<p>I didn’t think that I was indicating any confusion–until now. I thought that the top schools did overlook a lack of EC’s for a student who had to work many hours a week to help support the family. Is that not the case? I certainly would do that. It’s not a case of thinking “poor them,” it’s a simple realism. </p>
<p>I also think that “top” kids who are overloaded generally won’t admit it, nor show signs of it outside of home. I think that the demands of high schools are quite different in terms of useless vs. useful assignments. If you write off the accumulation of mole-type projects as “a few hours,” I think that’s really not getting it. It’s not the moles per se–one project is neither here nor there–it’s the accumulation of them.</p>
<p>I guess where I fundamentally differ from some posters is that I have no belief in “magic people.” (Well, maybe Dick Zare and a Nobelist or two who are pretty exceptional. Plus Richard Feynman, though I never met him.) I have seen examples of top-level performance. But most people who appear to “do it all” are not actually doing it all, in my observation . . . or else they fall into the category mentioned by the Harvard Dean of Admissions.</p>
<p>You went to Stuyvesant, as I recall, cobrat? It is an example of a really good school with sensible assignments and an organization that enables meaningful participation outside of its walls. The teachers are also pretty strong, I would guess.</p>