<p>As someone who actually goes to high school right now, and the kind of high school that is being discussed here, I thought I could shed some light on what the situation is like day to day, and how what you are saying should be done is very much out of line with the current reality. No need for condescension and sarcasm. </p>
<p>Also, you seem to be arguing against arguments you have constructed in your head. Nobody said anything about GCs sacrificing more or working longer than any of the other professions you listed. I think all of those (except for maybe nurses) are widely acknowledged as sacrificing more than the average person ever could to do their job at an extremely high level. And as OHMomof2 very astutely pointed out, those people are paid more than GCs. All of this doesn’t mean that GCs don’t work hard in their own right. </p>
<p>And wrt to post #55, I think the parallel you are drawing is not really a parallel at all. In two of your examples (the military officer and the doctor), there are people’s lives on the line. Of course we expect things above and beyond what we would usually expect of people in a situation like that. Micromanaging college admissions? I think that’s a little bit of a different level, to put it mildly. </p>
<p>The approach you are suggesting (having GCs just work “ceaselessly” until they can accomplish what YOU think their job should entail), would probably work, but there are more effective and elegant solutions. It’s like bashing a screw in with a hammer - eventually effective, but kind of silly unless there is no better option. Which, from what I understand, is what the purpose of this thread is, to generate ideas and thoughts. Not to berate GCs.</p>
<p>@OHMomof2 (posts #56 and 58): Your comments – and the attitudes and values you strongly convey – in these two post do more to make my points (in #45, #48 and #55) than I could have ever done without your carping. You obviously believe that a routine 120 hour work week necessarily requires a high level of pay. That’s simply untrue. Kids currently deployed in combat zones in Southwest Asia – most of whom work these sorts of hours – are compensated at a “pittance level” (especially considering what they do, the sacrifices they make, and the physical/mental harm they may incur). Similarly, Mother Theresa was paid zero for terribly arduous, demanding and dangerous work among the most unfortunate and destitute. THAT’S WHY SUCH PROFESSIONS ARE CALLED “SERVICE;” they are focused on helping others, not on remuneration. Further, that’s precisely what teaching (and counseling) is supposed to be.</p>
<p>@butterfreesnd (#60): I won’t squander too much time responding to your post; however, I will highlight one important area you obviously don’t understand (and that’s to be expected, you’re very young, inexperienced, and naive). You indicate: “In two of your examples (the military officer and the doctor) lives are on the line.”</p>
<p>Lives are every bit as much “on the line” for GC, although it may take decades – rather than seconds or minutes – for the adverse ramifications to occur. If a GC, through indolence or for any other reason, provides a kid (just like you) with bad advice, a life can be substantially diminished and possibly even ruined. To illustrate, senior A ardently wants to pursue career X (including considerable education and sacrifice). However, the GC strongly steers him away from X – rather than simply and honestly explaining X’s advantages and disadvantages – and toward occupation Y. The GC may be well-intentioned, but may have likely substituted his opinion for A’s dream. Decades later, A leads a life of quiet desperation, because he is stuck with job Y, and he truly despises every day. Let me tell you that the GC seriously undermined A’s life, even though the magnitude was probably not obvious for years and even though it’s not as dramatic as the life lost or saved by the physician or the combat officer. </p>
<p>@TopTier I don’t think I entirely understand - how are you squandering your time by replying to me? Or am I thinking too self-centeredly - are you making a statement about squandering your time by replying to any post in general? </p>
<p>@OHMomof2 (#64): . . . isn’t realism the adversary of progress? Shouldn’t we strive for perfection rather than remaining content with the status quo? </p>
<p>@TopTier, I respect a lot of what you say, but I don’t think that being a GC is a calling. And lives are not on the line nearly as much when a GC does their job as when military personnel or a doctor do their job. That’s just silly. </p>
<p>Kids are not putty. They may be steered if they want to be. Or they could just grab life by the horns and take the initiative to explore careers. Maybe I just believe more in independent agency.</p>
<p>@butterfreesnd Silence, petty high school student. This is a discussion for the intellectual elite. Peasants like you and I have no place in this eloquent discourse. We clearly are unable to comprehend what is being discussed here because we are far too young. In the trash our thoughts go!</p>
<p>@TopTier </p>
<p>Striving for perfection is poisoned optimism. A process that inherently leads to disappointment quickly becomes stale. There is indeed a gap between the “status quo” and “perfection” that can be achieved through purely rationalist thinking. Unrestrained idealism begets disappointment; innovative realism begets steady progress. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, striving for perfection in itself does not necessarily beget the abolition of capitalism. I do not think abolishing capitalism would go down very well with some people (if not alot), either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve yet to find a teacher’s union that proclaims its precise goal is to abolish capitalism.</p>
<p>I think teacher’s unions operate in the reality of people being paid for their work, commensurate with education and experience. You can argue (elsewhere, hopefully) that they are paid too much or too little, but I’m aware of few jobs that require 120 hours a week and pay $53K a year that anyone with the credentials required of a GC would take.</p>
<p>In any case, it is colleges using ED/EA/SCEA for their benefit and so I believe it should be colleges’ job to police any abuses of their system.</p>
<p>@OHMomof2
I agree. In such a case, a GC signature should not be required on an ED agreement, as to not bring infamy about the school because a single student did not abide to his commitment.</p>
<p>Regardless of whether you or anyone here strives for perfection, or wish for someone else (like the GC at the high school) to strive for perfection, the reality that many have to work with is that the GC that they are assigned to at the high school may not be striving for perfection.</p>
<p>In any case, if you believe that the GC has the primary responsibility of policing students to keep them from cheating on ED and the various permutations of EA rules, then you should not want the colleges to quietly maintain auto-reject lists of high schools, which imposes the penalty on non-cheaters while imposing no penalty or deterrent on ED cheater and complicit or careless GCs who may enable them. Better for the colleges that want to penalize ED cheating to publicly state which GCs they will not admit ED students from if they want to penalize and deter GCs from enabling ED cheating. (Of course, other methods, like requiring and saving the NPC run before the application is submitted, and requiring the enrollment deposit on ED application, and having an ED clearinghouse, could also be done.)</p>
<p>At my kids’ high school (2000 kids) it’s common knowledge among the staff that the two people most likely to be found working on a Saturday morning are the treasurer and the college advisor (yes, there’s only one).</p>
<p>Most people who work obscene hours and drive themselves far too hard, do it for either the money or the prestige. What’s a GC’s career promotion path?</p>
<p>As for military service people, they damn well ought to be compensated more highly. </p>
<p>There are a lot of reasons why the lives of kids who grow up disadvantaged culturally or socioeconomically are likely to be harder than those of privileged kids. But I don’t think I’d pick on the fact that their GC gave them bad advice as a primary factor. </p>
<p>When you apply ED or SCEA etc. what are the requirements? It seems to me that it should be pretty simple and if people aren’t honoring a commitment they make that’s on them. The GC can only do so much-is there software for example that can help them? I can see the GC catching some things at the point of the application being submitted but how is a GC going to police kids getting accepted ED and not pulling their other applications? It seems to me most of what I am reading are people not keeping their end of the bargain. I don’t think a GC could police this kind of behavior if they worked 169 hours a week.</p>
<p>Do we have any people here who have gone the ED route and have been accepted who could explain their responsibilities once they receive the acceptance?</p>
<p>People who are committing “ED/SCEA fraud” are incredibly selfish. They don’t think about the consequences and how it will affect other people. 6 years ago someone at my school didn’t go to a school she applied to after getting in ED and my school has been blacklisted ever since. We’ve had many qualified applicants who are getting into schools of a much higher rigor that are getting rejected. It’s a shame because I have a few friends who would love to apply to this school but the guidance counselors say it’s not even worth the money or time. It’s wrong for a college to punish the high school and guidance counselors, and clearly the people who do this are greedy enough not to even care. When you apply ED you are saying you are ready to make the commitment, and if you can’t make that commitment don’t apply. People who are this snakey is not going to get these people far in life by cheating and playing by their own rules. </p>
<p>My D’s ED acceptance letter contained a reminder of her obligations under the agreement: to withdraw any pending applications and initiate no new ones. We waited a few days for the hard copy letter and financial aid offer to come in the mail. Then D accepted (on the portal), and paid her deposit. Then she emailed the schools where she had apps pending and notified them of her withdrawal. Those schools have sent acknowledgement emails. I do have to say that her GC was very helpful about her rec letter etcetera but never once asked us if we understood the ED process. Fortunately we did but it makes me wonder.</p>
<p>Unethical people tend to have no qualms about doing something that causes other people to be punished while they escape any consequences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A college that applies punishment to innocent third parties (subsequent students from your high school) because of ED cheating in the past says something (not good) about its values. If it really cared about deterring and punishing the actual ED cheaters, it would do something on its own, like requiring ED applicants to include the enrollment deposit on application (refunded if the applicant is not admitted ED, or if the financial aid offer does not match the saved net price calculator result using the same financial parameters).</p>