zephyr88 said:I didn't know who out valedictorian was either... I was too busy enjoying life in the early 80's.Martin Q. Blank said:I have no idea who the valedictorian of my HS was. I think some asian chick.Quote:
Can you imagine the valedictorian of your HS class being a complete stanger to everyone??
Back then, high school wasn't a 'job'.
You are saying the same thing I did.dude95 said:
Not normally over here - but my kid is affected by this.
No one is happy about it no matter the outcome and the problem is not at all what you guys are thinking. It's all about the academy's. My son goes to the international business academy - he was bussing over an hour to get to Travis HS each way for an opportunity he wanted in a 'GT' type academy (I dropped him at the bus stop at 5:45 each morning, getting back at the house at 4). Most kids doing this are at the top of the class.
Here is the real controversy. The academy's are generally located in schools that don't have the greatest academics and are used by the schools to boost accreditation scores. The kids are promised additional education opportunities.
Problem is, those academy schools don't want their entire top 10% to be dominated by kids that are bussed in. I understand those parents. After years of those parent's complaining, the school board relented and changed the policy to ranking against your home school instead of the school you went to.
In the international business academy, the business class are not counted as AP and so they don't get the grade bump. This change will lower his ranking significantly against kids who were in more AP classes. Same for all of the kids at that academy.
Not only that - his high school transcripts shows a ranking for one school and a high school profile of a different school. We're trying to contact the colleges he is applying from to work it out up front because most are going to assume fraud and throw out the application otherwise. All of the kids are trying to figure out how to navigate this.
So for the guys pointing to 'Indians and Chinese' in the academy trying to force this, you are wrong on so many levels. One - I've got a white boy. Two - no one - no matter the race - wants to be ranked at their home school. Three - if they did go to the home school they would be ranked way higher than the currently would be.
So there are some kids who have to go to graduation at a place they never went to school, sitting by kids they don't know. For the tip top - there may be a valedictorian having to make a speech to a massive audience who are as misguided as some of this thread is and kids resentful of them being there. It won't be my kid - he's trying to get in the top 10% when he would have been in the top 5% at Travis.
MD1993 said:
Who even comes up with that type of ranking system? So weird.
What's wrong with Texas Tech or UH?Buck Turgidson said:
Try to enjoy HS now and start making grades below an A and you'll wind up at Tech or UH. The world of college admissions (at the top 75-100 universities anyway) is super unforgiving now if you are white or Asian.
In Fort Bend, it is mostly immigrants who game the system for their children's benefit, i.e. renting one apartment in a particular school zone and then having four or five families claim it as their residence. Or often, they use a relative's address.evestor1 said:
i love this chaos. Houston is probably as bad as it gets with kids going to incorrectly zoned schools.
It is one of the few places where suburban schools are so diverse with race ... and white people try to scheme around it.
In Fort Bend, it was 100 percent about the academy kids taking the top spots at the low-performing schools where the academies were placed.ABATTBQ11 said:MD1993 said:
Who even comes up with that type of ranking system? So weird.
The purpose was to stop parents from trying to move their kids into less competitive schools their last semester or senior year in order to bump up their ranking. They basically instituted a policy that you are ranked based on where your supposed to attend, not where you actually attend, so moving within the district would be pointless. I think they didn't quite think it through and should have determined it by where you spent the most time enrolled as a student prior to your last semester.
dude95 said:You realize you are the one pulling in CRT/DEI into the conversation - the school board, the news, etc - no one is stating that's an objective or part of the conversation. You realize what the R in CRT is, right?Agthatbuilds said:
I'm not trying to make this a race thing in any way. I'm correctly pointing out that when decisions are made within the framework of crt/dei, ot will inevitably lead to unnecessarily complicated and unfair results.
I know nothing of ftbisd racial make up. That's why said underperforming.
Just think of it this way - if you had a high performing school would you be happy if they bussed really smart kids from an hour away to be including in your class ranking? Or would you prefer that your kids were only ranked against the locals and not have spots taken by someone else.Agthatbuilds said:dude95 said:You realize you are the one pulling in CRT/DEI into the conversation - the school board, the news, etc - no one is stating that's an objective or part of the conversation. You realize what the R in CRT is, right?Agthatbuilds said:
I'm not trying to make this a race thing in any way. I'm correctly pointing out that when decisions are made within the framework of crt/dei, ot will inevitably lead to unnecessarily complicated and unfair results.
I know nothing of ftbisd racial make up. That's why said underperforming.
Obviously. Fine, just critical theory. It's not necessarily simply just about race. It's about power.
But go on. Policies like putting such magnet programs inside of underperforming schools is a consequence of such Critical theory.
Quote:
I don't know that the programs are done well enough to warrant the 2 hours a day commute for 4 years.
zephyr88 said:I didn't know who out valedictorian was either... I was too busy enjoying life in the early 80's.Martin Q. Blank said:I have no idea who the valedictorian of my HS was. I think some asian chick.Quote:
Can you imagine the valedictorian of your HS class being a complete stanger to everyone??
Back then, high school wasn't a 'job'.
Someone opposed to school vouchers, usually a school employee.deddog said:ts5641 said:
My nearly daily "public education is broke" post.
I saw a sticker on a car , just yesterday that said "Don't mess with Public Schools" and though what kind of idiot puts that sticker
(SWAustin )
Then there is one kid from among a group of the district's best students who is valedictorian for the academy, and another far less qualified valedictorian of Hightower High School, while 40+ other, more qualified kids at the academy get screwed.cecil77 said:
We're talking about ceremonies and rankings.
Deem the academies as a separate school. They have their own ranking and their own ceremony.
Nah...Id rather go class ranking. The top kids at any school (even if the schools is full of Blacks and Mexicans) deserve a shot at admission to Big State University. This also goes for rural white kids at a school out in the sticks.Buck Turgidson said:Then there is one kid from among a group of the district's best students who is valedictorian for the academy, and another far less qualified valedictorian of Hightower High School, while 40+ other, more qualified kids at the academy get screwed.cecil77 said:
We're talking about ceremonies and rankings.
Deem the academies as a separate school. They have their own ranking and their own ceremony.
Also, while most of the kids at the academy are more deserving of auto admission to the flagships, they'd instead bump the top kids from Hightower ahead of them. There's no good solution when you use class ranking. Schools ought to admit based upon SAT/ACT score, course rigor and GPA. Class ranking for the purposes of auto-admissions is a bad idea.
and?combat wombat said:
My niece graduated in the top 5% at her high school, would have gotten into A&M and UT. And she would have failed out. She performed poorly at UH. She did manage to turn things around and get a degree from UH downtown but it was difficult for her. Her high school? Ball High in Galveston. That school did a piss poor job preparing her for college. The was very little academic rigor. She did her work and studied but the bar was set very, very low. Sadly, top 10% is not meaningful.
combat wombat said:
My niece graduated in the top 5% at her high school, would have gotten into A&M and UT. And she would have failed out. She performed poorly at UH. She did manage to turn things around and get a degree from UH downtown but it was difficult for her. Her high school? Ball High in Galveston. That school did a piss poor job preparing her for college. The was very little academic rigor. She did her work and studied but the bar was set very, very low. Sadly, top 10% is not meaningful.
Kellso said:and?combat wombat said:
My niece graduated in the top 5% at her high school, would have gotten into A&M and UT. And she would have failed out. She performed poorly at UH. She did manage to turn things around and get a degree from UH downtown but it was difficult for her. Her high school? Ball High in Galveston. That school did a piss poor job preparing her for college. The was very little academic rigor. She did her work and studied but the bar was set very, very low. Sadly, top 10% is not meaningful.
There are also kids from affluent high schools that fail out of college. Individual antidotes mean little to me.
The kid I'm not impressed with is the upper middle class kid who did average in school, but has a 1300 SAT.
Typically these folks are underachievers...and its usually their parents squealing the loudest about non whites taking "their" spots in school.
ABATTBQ11 said:
The SAT and ACT would love to have you and everyone else believe that, but ultimately they're formulaic in what they cover, how they ask and structure questions, and how they score. Like any standardized test, they can be gamed and studied for. That's not to say that any idiot can go get a great score, but they're more a mix of general aptitude measurement and how serious you take studying and going to college than general aptitude alone. The problem is there's no way to tell how much is aptitude and how much is studying and prep.
deddog said:ts5641 said:
My nearly daily "public education is broke" post.
I saw a sticker on a car , just yesterday that said "Don't mess with Public Schools" and though what kind of idiot puts that sticker
(SWAustin )
Agreed. But going by those metrics alone does not yield the racial diversity colleges wish to see. Thus the exceptions to meet quotas.Tom Fox said:ABATTBQ11 said:
The SAT and ACT would love to have you and everyone else believe that, but ultimately they're formulaic in what they cover, how they ask and structure questions, and how they score. Like any standardized test, they can be gamed and studied for. That's not to say that any idiot can go get a great score, but they're more a mix of general aptitude measurement and how serious you take studying and going to college than general aptitude alone. The problem is there's no way to tell how much is aptitude and how much is studying and prep.
Even if what you say it entirely accurate, it would still be a far superior metric for college admission than trying to determine if a 4.0 gpa at an inner city or rural high school is equivalent in determining the iq/college readiness of someone with a 4.0 from an elite private school.
I took the SAT without any prep other than a single practice test because I was poor and my family did not prioritize education. I went to law school in my late 30s and did decent prep for the LSAT. Essentially I scored in the same percentage for both tests. It would be extremely difficult for someone with a sub 120 IQ to score a 170+ on the LSAT. I was only able to improve my score 3 points with diligent practice.
Standardized testing should be the academic metric used college admission with gpa used to a far lesser degree to supplement.
Tom Fox said:ABATTBQ11 said:
The SAT and ACT would love to have you and everyone else believe that, but ultimately they're formulaic in what they cover, how they ask and structure questions, and how they score. Like any standardized test, they can be gamed and studied for. That's not to say that any idiot can go get a great score, but they're more a mix of general aptitude measurement and how serious you take studying and going to college than general aptitude alone. The problem is there's no way to tell how much is aptitude and how much is studying and prep.
I took the SAT without any prep other than a single practice test because I was poor and my family did not prioritize education.
Standardized testing should be the academic metric used college admission with gpa used to a far lesser degree to supplement.
Accommodations are different in college, though.Sq 17 said:Tom Fox said:ABATTBQ11 said:
The SAT and ACT would love to have you and everyone else believe that, but ultimately they're formulaic in what they cover, how they ask and structure questions, and how they score. Like any standardized test, they can be gamed and studied for. That's not to say that any idiot can go get a great score, but they're more a mix of general aptitude measurement and how serious you take studying and going to college than general aptitude alone. The problem is there's no way to tell how much is aptitude and how much is studying and prep.
I took the SAT without any prep other than a single practice test because I was poor and my family did not prioritize education.
Standardized testing should be the academic metric used college admission with gpa used to a far lesser degree to supplement.
Sorry your parents did not prioritize education it is more likely they did not really understand how things work
All the parents with adhd or dyslexic kids would disagree with you about standardized testing being the ultimate and best tool for evaluation
Sq 17 said:Tom Fox said:ABATTBQ11 said:
The SAT and ACT would love to have you and everyone else believe that, but ultimately they're formulaic in what they cover, how they ask and structure questions, and how they score. Like any standardized test, they can be gamed and studied for. That's not to say that any idiot can go get a great score, but they're more a mix of general aptitude measurement and how serious you take studying and going to college than general aptitude alone. The problem is there's no way to tell how much is aptitude and how much is studying and prep.
I took the SAT without any prep other than a single practice test because I was poor and my family did not prioritize education.
Standardized testing should be the academic metric used college admission with gpa used to a far lesser degree to supplement.
Sorry your parents did not prioritize education it is more likely they did not really understand how things work
All the parents with adhd or dyslexic kids would disagree with you about standardized testing being the ultimate and best tool for evaluation
