<p>
</p>
<p>Except that homeschooled students and students with no diploma are put into the same “academic ghetto”. Anyone who thinks that a college is perfectly okay with them not having graduated just because they don’t REQUIRE a diploma is sadly mistaken.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He might be an aspiring law student. I’ve heard that particular odious phrasing pretty frequently from kids in college planning to go to law school to refer to any school that’s lower ranked than, say, UVA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Because I go to an online high school and last I checked, I did very well academically and am going to Stanford - certainly more than can be said of any single student in my county.</p>
<p>applicannot:
Congrats to you. You should be very proud.
But not knowing anything about you, I would bet that you have one or more hooks. A garden variety applicant with an on-line diploma (regardless of great grades) is not getting into Stamford.</p>
<p>There must be more to your story than simply a kid with an online diploma.</p>
<p>Any student who gets into a top school has more of a story than just any diploma, period - public, private, distance learning, GED, or homeschool. Of course, I’m not the least bit surprised that you would boil down my accomplishments to any hooks I may or may not have. </p>
<p>P.S. - I don’t think it’s that difficult to get into Stamford, but I hear Stanford is pretty tough these days.</p>
<p>soze – this is what I’m talking about. Stanford is an extremely prestigious and selective university; the fact that the masses assume that some “online school ghetto” kid can’t get in reflects poorer on them than it does on Stanford or the higher educational system in the United States.</p>
<p>Bedouin:
The vast majority of on-line diploma kids don’t have a prayer at Stanford or any similar school.
I’m saying that this kid clearly must have had a very compelling story in order to get in. I don’t see how that’s in any way controversial.</p>
<p>The vast majority of ANY diploma kids don’t have a prayer at Stanford. Why is online schooling any different?</p>
<p>Exactly. There is nothing wrong with going to online high school. Sure, it might be tough to go from there to Stanford, but as applicannot said it’s no tougher than going to a regular high school, than being homeschooled, or early graduating.</p>
<p>Bedouin:
Wrong.
Being without a HS classroom experience puts you at a disadvantage. Now it’s a disadvantage that some kids can overcome (as applicannot has proven), but it’s a disadvantage nonetheless. If you have a choice, I would think the the reasonable path would be to chose not to put yourself at a disadvantage, but hey that’s just me.</p>
<p>Do you think that my underfunded, underperforming high school would have offered me a more beneficial experience than my online high school? Out of curiosity, what is it about the “classroom experience” that puts online high schooling at a disadvantage?</p>
<p>People. 10char</p>
<p>How much better “funded” is your for-profit online HS?
How much better qualified are the “instructors” at the online HS than your “underperforming” public school?</p>
<p>There are some people who will thrive and be successful regardless of the circumstances they are placed into. At least consider the possibility that you might be one of them and don’t give misplaced credit to your online school.</p>
<p>As far as the advantages that a classroom experience provides… well you are about to find out… big time. I’m not going to spoil the surprise for you!</p>
<p>That last remark seemed a bit arrogant soze. The fact that he got in and beat tens of thousands of kids with “a classroom experience” means something. There is no surprise in store for him if he has already passed the trial of getting in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With my online high school, I interact with people all over the world. I also meet plenty of people through work, volunteering, and extracurricular activities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s the right question. At my new high school, I have textbooks for every class, online curriculum, access to teachers, etc. That’s a lot more than my old high school - or most schools in the country - can say.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, they’re all “highly qualified,” they have to be. My current instructors have 20-30 students a year; at my old school, it was 30-40 per class. My guidance counselor had only fifteen students, compared to almost 300 at my old school. That says something for personal attention. Not to mention that 75% of the time I was my own teacher, which was preferable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not giving misplaced credit anywhere. I just don’t understand why online schools would be any less successful than brick and mortar schools. There are diploma mills for sure, but there are also plenty of really great online high schools. Likewise, there are some great brick and mortar schools, and then there are schools that graduate students who can’t read.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ahh I see, you can’t even pinpoint an advantage of the classroom experience. I did “experience” that for k-10 and I can assure you there’s nothing special about it. Attending a class at Stanford is very different from attending class at any local public high school. Surely you realize that there are schools outside of Exeter and the Boston suburbs.</p>
<p>Like with all college admissions (and for that matter, applications for everything), what matters is emphatically not the objective benefits of something. It may well be that online high schools better prepare their students; I don’t know of any evidence to the contrary (or any evidence at all for that matter). But what matters is that the average admissions officer will open your file, see that your diploma is not from a brick and mortar school, and subconsciously go “ewwwww”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, I see you’ve aced “Hubris 305”. Might I suggest you enroll in “Humility 101” while at Stanford?</p>
<p>Why, soze? I’m a linguistic learner. I learn best when I’m reading and writing. I don’t need a teacher to stand around and help me read and write, at least, I haven’t in many years. I learn far more from a textbook than I could from a lecture or a group project; that’s just the way I am. That’s not hubris. That’s understanding my learning style. In fact, everyone has a different learning style. Why should we shove them all in one over-crowded classroom and expect them to all be on the same level, learning the same way?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is something I can agree with, actually. Diploma mills have given distance learning a bad name. But public online charters, Stanford’s EPGY, Florida’s Virtual School, and several other online programs are just as or are more rigorous than public or private brick-and-mortar schools. Any person in charge of applications would know that. I’m sure admissions counselors at Stanford open up applications with 1800s and subconsciously go EWWWW but there are more things in life than SAT scores.</p>
<p>There are some subjects that absolutely cannot be learned properly without engaging in a group discussion: Literary Criticism, Philosophy, Political Science, History, Economics, etc.</p>
<p>You can’t “teach yourself” these subjects in any meaningful way. But you are going to find this out for yourself very soon, so you really don’t need to take my word for it.</p>
<p>This thread has really gone downhill. The sniping and generalizing are not productive. I have one child who didn’t need teachers at all; she probably intimidated at least 2/3 of those she had because of her abilities (Hubris 610). The other child learns primarily through listening to his teachers. </p>
<p>The OP may not be in one of the more prestigious on-line programs–I really have no idea.
A simple question was asked and probably answered.</p>