<p>I also wouldn't use the grad rate as a yardstick for lack of support. I know for a fact that many of the branches here in PA have great support--if kids are willing to use it. Most students at these schools now are what they call "nontraditional"--not your typical elite school 18-21 year old. The fact that it takes 6 years to graduate is not necessarily due to poor support systems.</p>
<p>I'm from CT and my children are in the public school system. There is room for LOTS of improvement but they do have some good programs if you are motivated and take the right classes. Many honor students take classes at Yale or Southern or if the student has lesser scores, the CC. I know one black student that was at the worst high school in our area, but he was smart and his Mom made sure he took advantage of every opportunity available. He went to Yale with almost 3/4 of his freshman year done. He might not be the norm, but it's a start. Our state puts all it's $ in UConn and after a while, that will not be available for a lot of students. They are slowly admitting less and less, raising the SAT scores, and taking more from out of state.
So many fall through the cracks.</p>
<p>Some perspective for those who are bemoaning Mr. Jack's 1200 test scores as being substandard or a reason why Amherst should not have admitted him.</p>
<p>Last year, the national medians for male African American's taking the SAT were: 430 critical reading and 438 in math.</p>
<p>Mr. Jack's scores, when viewed in proper perspective, were just as impressive as a white male getting a 1400+ on the SAT. Thus, I see no problem with Amherst admitting him even though his SAT scores were below Amherst's median scores (which are made up mainly from scores from white students). </p>
<p>They obviously made an excellent choice.</p>
<p>I knew dozens of kids from my high school and surrounding ones who went to Southern, Central, Quinnipiac, (which is not what is is today), UConn branch campuses, etc. There was no shame in this at the time; in fact, many quite bright kids went there for monetary reasons. These kids went on to contribute to the community and earn decent salaries--as teachers, secretaries, technicians, city workers, nurses, librarians, etc. etc. etc. I have a hard time understanding why now there seems to be some kind of shame attached to attending these schools. One's education is what one makes of it. The mind-set that all or even most of these kids should be attending elite LACS or flagship state u's or else society is somehow failing them is ridiculous, imho.</p>
<p>Kids who come from Poor families do not take the spots of rich kids. The rich kids with connections, travel opportunities and Foundation/legacy potential are in a class by themselves and remain untouched. The kids who get bumped are hard working lower middle class kids who also get ignored when it comes to financial help. Please someone address the fairness of that issue.</p>
<p>Define lower middle class in terms of salary.</p>
<p>Re: post 83: where does one stop the creation of a fictional record to justify admitting applicants with lower stats? If Amherst has decided to admit those with lesser qualifications, then just say so. It is the bizzare rationalization (that this student would have had a 1500 SAT had he been raised in CT) that is beyond ludicrous. And why belittle all of those Greenwich kids who studied hard to earn that 1500 score? Maybe Amherst will recruit me for its tennis team, scholarship included, based on how competitively I could have played had my parents been able to send me to a Florida academy for summer instruction. I mean, I could have been one heck of a player! Unfortunately, I know that I will have to compete on what I accomplished; not on what I could have done under different, more favorable circumstances. That's called life.</p>
<p>Amherst doesn't offer tennis scholarships. Sorry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I'd like to see some precision of definition about that issue too.</p>
<p>QUOTE:
"Public education is absolutely the problem, but not too many are interested here on cc in discussing its shortcomings, I've noticed."</p>
<p>Then may I suggest that either you have not paid careful enough attention, have concentrated on thread titles, or have forgotten.</p>
<p>Education of all sorts, both public & private (& mostly public) has been discussed extensively on CC over the last 2.5 yrs. Usually brought up by a parent, almost as often by a student. Occasionally a teacher brings it up, but when not, teachers often contribute vigorously to the discussion. Shortcomings of the various systems in many States is a major theme & source of angst among those participating in those systems & discussions.</p>
<p>It's unfortunate that you have not noticed that.</p>
<p>Pattyl,</p>
<p>Great post, irrelevant error on athletic scholarship not withstanding.</p>
<p>The recent "How to Fix No Child Left Behind" thread had one response, for example. Most k-12 education threads result in teachers becoming very defensive. Perhaps I've missed many (I've been here shortly over a year), but I have not seen many spirited discussion of k-12 ed on a par with the AA at elite college discussions.</p>
<p>I have seen endless conversations on K-12 education, many of them very spirited.</p>
<p>(insert scratchy head icon...can't remember how to make it....[confused/]?</p>
<p>Post 88: Based on my superior, albeit fictionally enhanced, tennis skills, I am assuming that an educational full-ride would be offered. Since my athletic contribution would be so valuable, any academic or testing shortfall would surely be recalibrated upward as well.</p>
<p>Okay I'm wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since my athletic contribution would be so valuable, any academic or testing shortfall would surely be recalibrated upward as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you get one of the 66 athletic tips, your academic and testing shortfalls would be no problem. Amherst will go down to about 1200 SATs for an affluent white boarding school hockey or football player.</p>
<p>HeresHoping:
Maybe you're not totally wrong. Maybe your timing is wrong. Maybe many others here are so ready to be done with k-12 education and are focusing on the next steps.
Or maybe everyone here has already cussed and discussed it, knows where each other stands and doesn't think they'll gain any knowledge or emotional fulfillment from more discussion.
Let's hope it's just that, and not a national trend to give up on public k-12 education.
But personally, I'm very ready to be done caring about my local public school system, beyond tax and bond considerations.</p>
<p>Regarding post 92, I have not seen teachers "get very defensive" unless overt, gratuitious, and/or over-generalized insults & criticisms occur of teachers as an entire group. I would expect, similarly, that if lawyers, doctors, accountants, psychologists were similarly spoken of with ignorance & disrespect, those people would similarly respond with an attempt to dispel the ignorance & clarify distinctions between professional & unprofessional behavior within the occupation vilified.</p>
<p>Do you know my occupation? Don't assume.
If there are presently problems with various aspects of one's own profession, I should hope any one person in that profession would be big enough to acknowledge them without getting defensive. As long as I've been here, I have seen very, very few "overt, gratuitious, (sic) and/or over-generalized insults and criticisms of teachers as an entire group." That is my perception in the year or so I've been here. Of course, we are entitled to our own perceptions.</p>
<p>Let's hope we don't give up, purplexed: agreed, although I can understand why people may want to do so.</p>
<p>^^ merely affirming my belief that you have not indeed read extensively on many of the extremely long threads covering education, both in the last 12 months, & prior to that.</p>
<p>Did I ever say that I knew what your occupation was? No, of course not. Never said such a thing. And the nature of your profession has nothing to do either with your initial statement about how supposedly defensive (all) responding teachers are on CC, nor with my reply to that inflammatory post of yours. I said that widely targeted criticism based clearly on ignorance & partial information is asking for a swift response by those with greater knowledge of the particulars, & of the differences within the profession, any profession. Personally, I have been "big enough" not only to acknowledge weaknesses & incompetencies as reported & as I myself witness them. That bigness does not require me to affirm ignorant statements & overgeneralizations, of which there are dozens on CC, as well as at least a couple on this very thread.</p>