<p>The USN&WR ranking is totally misleading. I can use Cincinnati as an example.</p>
<p>Walnut Hills is a public, college-prep school. Wonderful school, but you have to test to get in. So I would HOPE they turn out top students. But by another measure, that is, # of NMF’s they turn out, they are no better than two other schools in the area (one public, one Catholic private.) And there are several other very fine but smaller publics in the area. And I have very high standards (all 4 of my kids are “above average” and were in fact NMFs.)</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s possible for an outsider from USNWR to make such judgments, not knowing the schools, and considering the way schools often “game” the numbers.</p>
<p>EDit: One of the high-performing public schools is also noted for its special ed program through age 21. On paper, compared to Walnut Hills, it probably looks like that school is populated with really really poor students. Oh well…they are as proud of that program as of the many AP Scholars they have.</p>
<p>The top schools are not necessarily best schools for given children. I took a tour of the Scarsdale schools and saw immediately that my kids would be the village idiots there. They may get 25% or so of their kids into the top schools, but my kids were NOT going to be anywhere near the top there.The same with Rye, Chappaqua, and Bronxville. </p>
<p>Looking at the pricey indiependent schools the same scenarios unfold. Don’t think for a moment that your kid is necessarily going to be better off in terms of getting into the Ivies just because of impressive stats at a given school. The parents of the kids tend to be legacies, celebrities, development and have other connections at those schools AND their kids are up there in the stats. A “B” average at Super Prep does not an “A” average at Public High equate. Though there is some quarter given, and a top student with high test scores will have a bump up at those schools that are known to the selective colleges, it is very much the case that YMMV.</p>
<p>Ordinarylives I’m not bashing the Midwest. I’d give my right arm to move back there. I’m still mourning the move. And there are schools out there every bit as good as the ones here in NY. I just wasn’t living in one of those school districts when I was there, and was just commenting that by listening to all of the self promotion in MY district by MY neighbors, one would have though the schools were the cream of the crop. It didn’t take any sleuthing to figure out that it was not the case, but there were and are many die hards who are still chanting “Mid West High is Ueber Alles” (and I am not making up the "ueber alles chant part). The school infrastructure there was such that unless you truly had a cream of the crop student who was going to rise to the top no matter what, their chances of getting into a highly selective school were not good. They were not set up for that. Flagship U was the big goal, and they were pretty danged good at getting kids into there. One of the GCs would be waiting at the door of Admissions, hand carrying the apps on the morning of the first day they are accepted because the date that the application was received was a big deal in the admissions equation. More than the pricey Private Academy college counselor was going to do if your kid were applying to State U, I can tell you that. But the I swear to this, many of the high school teachers did not know about SAT2 subject tests. Total blank when you asked about them. Didn’t know about Carlton, Haverford, Middlebury as schools and couldn’t name the ivies or tell you how many there were, those were some college counselors. But that was not the fare offered there not wanted by most of the families. When my son applied to a private school from the public and needed teacher’s references, they just handed the recs to me, not even an envelope and if they had not handed them to me I would have thought my kid wrote one (and he did not write well) and took the other off a website for standard rec letters (which is what the guy did–I asked him right out). They couldn’t correct an essay well, because they couldn’t write one themselves. I still go back to visit, as my dearest friends still live there, and would love to go back there to live, but not to send my kids to that school that most of the residents are convinced is mighty fine and “ueber alles”.</p>
<p>SteveMA, I disagree that immigrant status is a non-factor. We have many new arrivals to Texas that do not have citizenship, are ESL and college bound. They are given MANY scholarship opportunities, and are considered residents - because of average economic status, special groups scholarships, and need based aid at most state schools they often get a lot of aid, even without high test scores. They DO, however, have to at least TAKE the test.</p>
<p>Catria, that actually makes sense. I’m talking about the reverse. A kid makes an A in the class, but makes a 2 on the test.</p>
<p>Unless the kid was ill, has some kind of real disability or anxiety related disorder, or is a TERRIBLE test taker - this tells me that there is grade inflation. </p>
<p>If there is a pattern of such kids from a particular school - that is certainly indicative of a problem.</p>
<p>Terrible test takers are going to have a hard time in college…which is why, scores on ACT/SAT are so important. When you are graded on a couple tests and maybe a couple papers, being a good test taker matters, a lot.</p>
<p>The other thing about 4.0’s with low ACT/SAT scores that claim to be “terrible test takers”–how do you pass your tests in class to keep your 4.0 if you are such a terrible test taker. I just don’t buy that excuse. Now, if you have a 3.0 because of test scores, ok, but to have a 4.0 you can’t possibly be a bad test taker. Sorry, it just doesn’t add up.</p>
<p>Going back to #47 and #48, I agree that in some states or areas of the country, many of the best students don’t even consider going anywhere except their state flagship. They aren’t caught up in the whole “ivy league” mentality. You shouldn’t judge a high school’s competitiveness by the number or percentage of students who go on to attend the best colleges.</p>
<p>“The top schools are not necessarily best schools for given children. I took a tour of the Scarsdale schools and saw immediately that my kids would be the village idiots there. They may get 25% or so of their kids into the top schools, but my kids were NOT going to be anywhere near the top there.The same with Rye, Chappaqua, and Bronxville”</p>
<p>This is so true. Both my nieces are products of Scarsdale schools. The first one went to the high school all four years. Had pretty good grades and around 1450 on her SAT’s (out of 1600.) She was basically told by the GC that she wasn’t worth their time when it came to applying to colleges since she wasn’t Ivy league material. </p>
<p>My sister was furious at how they treated the “unwashed masses” and put her younger D in boarding school. </p>
<p>“Terrible test takers are going to have a hard time in college…which is why, scores on ACT/SAT are so important. When you are graded on a couple tests and maybe a couple papers, being a good test taker matters, a lot.”</p>
<p>Scores on SAT/ACT have very little correlation to college GPA or how successful one is in college. </p>
<p>Bates College study with 20 years of data:</p>
<pre><code>“The difference in Bates graduation rates between submitters and non-submitters is 0.1% (one-tenth of one percent).
The difference in overall GPAs at Bates is .05 (five-hundredths of a GPA point); the exact difference is 3.06 for non-submitters and 3.11 for submitters.”
</code></pre>
<p>Don’t many H.S. create a brand for themselves that becomes self-fulfilling the same way the Ivies have done?</p>
<p>When the demand of the best students applying exceeds the supply the school has, it creates a level of exclusivity and fierce competition that feeds on itself. Is the school the best because its the best or is it the best because people think its the best so all the best do whatever it takes to get in. I guess it doesn’t ultimately matter.</p>
<p>I live in a town where folks have the money to choose private school and often do over a very good public school.</p>
<p>I have trouble believing that a Scarsdale guidance counselor would tell any of the kids that they are not “worth their time”. It was not the right school district for my kids, but it is an excellent one, and I daresay nearly all of the kids go directly to college It wasn’t the college situation that made me step back from the district but how my kids fit into the total environment. I think they would have done about the same, college wise had they gone there. But the school district in the midwest, nope. I’d love to live there for many reasons, but absolutely not to put my kids in that public school. They would NOT have gone to the colleges they looked at, much less gone, had the gone there, and they would not have likely been accepted (most of them anyways) to Flagship U either. The other critical number to get in is class rank and my knucklehead, the bottom feeders they are when it comes to grades couldn’t get in the top half which is critical for admissions to there, They like to stay right above C level and the average gpa at that school is a 3.5, no kidding, that’s why it’s supposed to be so great, and some get a 5.0 on a 4.0 scale with all the weighing you can get.</p>
<p>"I have trouble believing that a Scarsdale guidance counselor would tell any of the kids that they are not “worth their time”</p>
<p>You are free to believe it but that was my sister’s and her D’s experience. The kids they know are likely Ivy acceptances are given a lot more assistance than the non ivy bound kids. After all, Scarsdale needs to make sure they get in so the district can keep bragging about it. </p>
<p>Her kids were not dummies either - both got into top 25 LAC’s.</p>
<p>emilybee–that study shows one college’s date that supports their test-optional policy–it doesn’t show the difference in GPA’s from a kid that gets a 24 vs a 34 on an ACT. Kids that submit scores may submit a 28 where as a kid that chooses not to submit might have a 29, this study doesn’t clarify that and isn’t what we are talking about.</p>
<p>That’s why I don’t believe it. For your sister’s kids to get into top LACs, they are not anywhere near the bottom of the barrel of Scarsdale students. Yes, they do have an impressive number of Ivy and other selective college acceptances, but that isn’t their norm, and getting those kids into those schools is shoot fish in a barrel most of the time. To give them credit, they tend to work very hard for those kids that are the next strata down. I have no love of GCs as any of my posts will show, and I’m not a Scarsdale school district fan as I deliberately avoided living in the district, but they do a good job with the kids in counseling, far better than most schools, and there isn’t any list or award that gives kudos for getting kids into the most selective schools. Many of the kids there get outside counseling help, and have parents that are alums of colleges where they are applying and have other such connections, so they don’t tend to need the GC help. </p>
<p>Any counselor that would say something like that should be severely reprimanded. That is a rude and unacceptable statement for any school employee to make, and I think the school principal, superintendent and all associated with the school would not tolerate that kind of an attitude at that school.</p>
<p>“For your sister’s kids to get into top LACs, they are not anywhere near the bottom of the barrel of Scarsdale students.”</p>
<p>But that is my point. They were not anywhere near the bottom of the barrel - just not ivy league material and so not given the time of day by the GC’s. It’s all about getting those they deem Ivy league material accepted. </p>
<p>“To give them credit, they tend to work very hard for those kids that are the next strata down.”</p>
<p>No they don’t - which is why my sister pulled her D2 from Scarsdale and sent her to boarding school.</p>
<p>A high school (or college) course may emphasize projects, term papers, and other things in the grading, so mediocre to poor test taking may be less of a factor there than on standardized tests. Also, test format may be a factor with some students. “Gaming” the standardized tests can be a factor in raising some students’ scores (it would not be surprising if some high school teachers “gamed” the tests by using SAT-format multiple choice questions on their own tests so that their students do better on the SAT and subject tests).</p>
<p>“emilybee–that study shows one college’s date that supports their test-optional policy–it doesn’t show the difference in GPA’s from a kid that gets a 24 vs a 34 on an ACT. Kids that submit scores may submit a 28 where as a kid that chooses not to submit might have a 29, this study doesn’t clarify that and isn’t what we are talking about.”</p>
<p>From the study:</p>
<p>"In comparing five years of enrollees who submitted SAT scores with those who didn’t, Bates found that while “non-submitters” averaged 160 points lower on the SAT, their freshman grade point average - which is what SAT scores are supposed to predict - was only five one-hundredths of a point lower than that of “submitters.”</p>
<p>The academic survival rate of non-submitters was found to be nearly flawless and better than that of submitters: in five years only one of the 14 students dismissed from Bates for academic reasons was an SAT non-submitter: 93% of those dismissed were SAT submitters. Those who didn’t submit their SAT scores had an academic survival rate of 99.8%. Hiss states, "These results seem to us, to put it mildly, very good. "</p>