<p>I once read an entire book about Stuy! 
And I’m not even from New York. And for a long time, I thought that Bronx Science was the academic pinnacle there.</p>
<p>“I once read an entire book about Stuy! And I’m not even from New York. And for a long time, I thought that Bronx Science was the academic pinnacle there.”</p>
<p>Bronx Science used to be the pinnacle. Swung over in Stuy’s favor in the mid 70’s. For the longest time Stuy’s old school and location was a detriment but that went away when they built there current location near the WTC.</p>
<p>That anyone was NOT asked where s/he went to high school does not mean that it does not come up, that it never makes any difference. My son was asked where he went to high school, his high school grades, SAT scores, college grades for some of the jobs he sought. How or if, any or all of the info was used, I don’t know. But they did ask and they did verify. Shook him up a bit. </p>
<p>The subject can come up just as a matter of conversation and not make a bit of difference. But then again, it could, depending on who is sitting in that seat that makes the decisions. There are folks out there that will give a bit of extra to anyone from the old alma mater, including elementary school, yes, I’ve met them. </p>
<p>A friend of mine found her perfect job and was truly the perfect and lead candidate for it. She agonized about her masters coming from some correspondence program that is now defunct but was certified and recognized in its day. She was sure that with the slews of candidates all graduating from the college where she was applying, from other local/state schools, from the same schools as the powers to be, from the top schools in country , she would be knocked out of consideration. Nope. They just wanted the masters because the job category required it. Didn’t care where. </p>
<p>My son was sure he would be “outclassed” at the jobs he was seeking when he had to fill out all of the info about where he went to school and how he did. Especially upon meeting the others seeking jobs along with him. He felt there was no way he could compete or have a chance. Well, they did ask for all of that info and he was not a top grade, Ivy leaguer but got one of the prized jobs. But yes, they did ask, and I would not rule out that sometimes the answers might matter to some people. If it’s a positive, hey, put it down.</p>
<p>Re" #162Those aren’t the only reasons…</p>
<p>Until the 1970s, Stuy was all male. Hunter was all female. In fact, Hunter girls were the cheerleaders for the Stuy teams. </p>
<p>Bronx Science has been co-ed since AT LEAST the 1960s. During the 1960s, lots of young people decided they wanted to go to co-ed schools. So, lots of kids opted for Bx S over Stuy and Hunter. Hunter starts in 7th grade and a lot of the girls left for BxS in 9th grade. In the 1960s BxS was the #1 ranked high school.</p>
<p>In 1969, a girl applied to Stuy. She was rejected and sued. She won and the school went co-ed. </p>
<p>In the 1970s, the parents of boys at Hunter College Elementary sued to have their sons continue at Hunter College High School, as girls could. They won. Hunter went co-ed.</p>
<p>During the years BxS was co-ed and the others weren’t, it was generally regarded as the best NYC high school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s simple. An influx of Asians to New York City raises the score needed to get into Stuy, and the higher threshold score causes the greatest fractional decrease in the number of passing scores in the groups with the lowest average scores.</p>
<p>Here is an analogy. Suppose some job has a height requirement of 6 ft. The ratio of men to women above this height is high. If the height threshold were raised to 6 ft 3 in, the ratio of men to women above this height becomes even higher.</p>
<p>While it may be true that Asian kids are smarter, there is a not-insignificant number of kids of other races who won’t go to Stuyvesant, even when they have the test scores, because they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that the Asian families (and I do mean families, not kids) are unfriendly and unwelcoming in Stuyvesant and want no part of that.</p>
<p>
I agree completely. This was a GREAT program. I know there have been other programs, on a much smaller scale, but the loss of this one was a shame.</p>
<p>zoosermom, </p>
<p>Yes and no. There are also a lot of black and white kids who won’t go to Stuy even if they get in because they don’t want to compete with Asian kids they suspect are willing to work a lot harder than they are.</p>
<p>Moreover, when NYC offered the Discovery program, reality is that Asian kids from disadvantaged homes who didn’t make the cut off were more likely to enroll than African-American kids. Part of the reason the program was discontinued was just that–it was not successful in achieving any significant increase in the % of URMs who enrolled in the schools.</p>
<p>
Yes and no. There are X number of kids who are very offput by the parents (not kids) that they came into contact with at open houses, meetings, etc. Some of those kids go to Bard, where they work very hard, some go to other specialized high schools that are perceived (again, rightly or wrongly) to be more welcoming. It is not about working hard in most cases. I am speaking from personal experience as well as observation. During my D’s application time period (she was a “1 percenter” in her year) there was a huge amount of conflict among the parents in Stuyvesant that centered on conflict between different groups of Chinese parents. There was a fair bit of publicity at the time and, unfortunately, it did make some other kids concerned about the feel of the school. Nothing to do with working hard. And not all students at STuyvesant, of any race, work hard. Some cheat hard, as they do at other schools. Stuyvesant is a great school, amazing, really. But there are things about it that make it not the right place for even every hardworking, diligent, motivated, student who attains the required score on the test. I’m sorry if that’s offensive, but it’s true.</p>
<p>It’s not in the least offensive. What you say is true. </p>
<p>I’m only saying that SOME of the kids who get in and go elsewhere do it because they aren’t willing to work hard enough to compete with Asian kids who they suspect are willing to work harder than they are. Their attitude is not much different than that of those a generation ago who avoided Stuy because it was “too Jewish” and those Jewish kids, in their opinion, focused too much on studying. </p>
<p>I hope the board won’t flame me for stating another truth. Not all of the people who feel this way are anti-Semites or racists. There is a lot of truth to the stereotype that Jewish and Asian families stress academic achievement more than other groups do. Some families who think their kids should lead a more balanced life in high school opt for schools where they will experience less academic pressure.</p>
<p>There’s also the “big fish” “little fish” question. I know a young man who is URM and goes to a mostly minority high school. He took the PSAT as a sophomore and got the highest score at his high school. Everyone is calling him “brilliant.” His score would put him about the middle of the class at Stuy. It’s simply reality that he gets a lot more attention and encouragement at his school than he would at a sci high.</p>
<p>I’d also like to explain to those not familiar with NYC schools that there are top school options for kids other than the sci highs. They include Hunter College High School and Townsend Harris. Townsend Harris, BTW, does NOT rely on a single admissions test.
[Townsend</a> Harris High School](<a href=“http://www.thhs.qc.edu/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=93575&type=d&termREC_ID=&pREC_ID=175320&hideMenu=1]Townsend”>http://www.thhs.qc.edu/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=93575&type=d&termREC_ID=&pREC_ID=175320&hideMenu=1) It is as heavily female as the sci highs are male.</p>
<p>The NY Post isn’t the most reputable publication, but all of the schools on this list are places where kids can get an excellent education. <a href=“http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/the_top_YVKLKfI5Mz2p6Gn3S3FLgO[/url]”>http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/the_top_YVKLKfI5Mz2p6Gn3S3FLgO</a></p>
<p>
That is the God’s honest truth. And I didn’t want to imply that it was justified, just that it was happening. Another example is LaGuardia high school. My son is a very serious musician who hangs around with other very serious male musicians. Kids who go to the top music camps and stuff. Not lazy at all, play hours a day. But interestingly, a lot of them auditioned to LaGuardia last year, were admitted, and chose not to go because they perceive it as to be too girl-centric. All of the girls in his wider circle who were admitted chose to attend, but only one of the boys. Interestingly, a bunch of the boys chose Stuyvesant instead because they thought they would be more comfortable there. </p>
<p>
In the big picture he might be doing a very smart thing. My D ended up in a top program in her school and the opportunities and amenities available to her were staggering. One of the little secrets of NYC public high school is that there are partnerships and donations given to a lot of schools which end up going to the achievers in those schools, who are often middle-class kids, rather than underprivileged.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That attitude is not only off-putting because of assumption about “Asian kids”, it’s also not a great attitude to carry through life. </p>
<p>Many college classmates and post-college friends I know with a similar mentality ended up struggling heavily in undergrad, grad school and/or the workforce because they weren’t willing to push to go the extra mile as needed. </p>
<p>A few ended up being laid off during boom times from household name tech/financial corporations they were extremely lucky to get hired into because when evaluated with their colleagues, that attitude meant they ended up being in the bottom 10% or less in terms of productivity and working well with others. </p>
<p>Sometimes, I term it the “If I must exert any effort to get a B or and A, I’m perfectly content with a C” mentality. And yes, that was a direct quote from several upper-middle/middle-class suburbanite college classmates/post-college friends/acquaintances…including Asian-Americans. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve heard similar accounts of rationalizations made for why some families didn’t consider applying to pre-1969 CCNY/CUNY, SHS before the late '80s, or Brandeis because it’s “too Jewish”, Fordham/BC/Manhattan College/Georgetown because it’s “too Catholic”, Berkeley/Oberlin/Antioch because “they’re depraved dens of hedonistic radical lefty activists looking to protest everything”**, etc. </p>
<p>IMHO…the main loss is borne by the small-minded students/families who can’t seem to look beyond the superficial stereotypes or even if true, tune out all that noise for the sake of a good education. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree 100%. A reason why when an uncle inquired about it for a younger cousin and we discussed her academic interests, prior educational environment, personality, etc…we both concluded her needs would be better met at a smaller more nurturing Arts & Humanities oriented private day school. </p>
<p>Different strokes for different folks…or something like that. </p>
<ul>
<li>I.e. Campus cultures like Oberlin’s where being heavily competitive academically as opposed to collaborative…especially to the degree at BTech, BxSci, or Stuy would not have been tolerated. In this respect, I went from one extreme to another upon leaving HS to enter college.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>** Paraphrased quote taken from several people…including an interviewer who made an issue of it upon reading off the Education section of my resume.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What specifically are they put off by?</p>
<p>
Is it really small-mindedness to prefer diversity? And responding to one’s own personal experience with specific people in a specific place isn’t the same thing as playing into a stereotype. Although that does exist, it’s not what I’m talking about.</p>
<p>
The parents can be very, very cliquey (as they can be pretty much anywhere) and do/arrange all sorts of things to benefit the kids of their own clique. The difference is that in a school that is very heavily anything, the people who are not that can sometimes feel that they are unwelcome. Not specific to Stuyvesant, but that is the topic at hand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are cliquey people of all races, ethnicities, and religious groups…including your own along with mine. </p>
<p>Moreover, speaking as a Chinese-American in the NYC area and a student of history…some of that cliquishness is the same type various previous immigrant groups throughout US history practiced to protect themselves/their group from prejudice/being taken advantage of by the larger mainstream majorities with more political clout. </p>
<p>Not too surprising considering some of the aspersions cast against Asians/Asian-Americans I’ve seen in US mass media and sometimes…even here on CC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I heard from Stuy alums and old teachers still teaching there was that the DOE was attempting to change the eligibility criteria so that students qualified if they were within 60 points of the cutoff of the lowest score HS…rather than within 60 points of the particular SHS a given student hoped to enroll in. </p>
<p>That policy change, if implemented, would have ended up resulting in the top 2-3 score schools having similar issues with having large numbers of students in remediation that TJSST has been having after they changed their admissions criteria to be “more holistic”. Worse…TJSST is still going to be sued for similar reasons as Stuy and other SHS.</p>
<p>
I know you saw that I posted “as they can be pretty much anywhere” because you quoted it. As I said, anyone can be cliquey, but we happen to be talking about Stuyvesant, which is heavily Asian. We can talk about cliquey at Tottenville, too, and the same problems would arise with people who are other than the prevalent ethnic group, there, as well. And I know a lot of kids who would have to be dragged there kicking and screaming, despite its academic and spectacular athletic success and the racial variance that was operative there for decades.</p>
<p>^ ^</p>
<p>I would have some concerns about how students who encounter cliqueyness by avoidance will deal once they find they need to attend colleges where the majority aren’t of their race, ethicity, religious group, etc. </p>
<p>For instance, how would they deal with the fact that many colleges…including mine when I attended have a substantial White majority(74% when I started college) or that certain workplaces may similarly have majorities where most aren’t of one’s race, ethnicity, religion, etc?</p>
<p>Many of my workplaces…especially in the Boston area were majority White or sometimes South Asian. Even in majority East Asian-American situations, I don’t always fit in because I’m not of the “right” ethnicity, family coming from the “right province”/speaking the “right dialect” of Chinese, political leanings/family experiences, degree of assimilation, SES status, etc. </p>
<p>Heh…sometimes, I encounter issues even within my own extended family. </p>
<p>What’s more ironic is that due to my background/life experiences, I’m much more likely to have similar reactions as you did with such cliquey families at Stuy. </p>
<p>However, when I did experience them, I didn’t let that stop me from going to the school or surviving to graduate…despite the best efforts of some Stuy teachers/admins. 
:D</p>
<p>
That is just silly. Making a different choice for reasons of fit is completely reasonable. Stuyvesant, as wonderful as it is, is not so epic that there aren’t other excellent schools which make more sense for individual students.</p>
<p>And, again, we are talking about kids as yount as 14 year. These are very important years.</p>
<p>^ ^</p>
<p>I was speaking much more generally as opposed to specifically about Stuy. Granted, part of this is my view that “fit” is more of a “nice to have” that should be secondary if push comes to shove with other considerations such as academic quality, financial considerations, etc. </p>
<p>Granted, “fit” back when I was in HS was only mentioned by the well-off upper-east sider set so I’ve tended to associate such discussions with the upper/upper-middle class classmates and their families. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Contrary to popular belief within the last decade, adolescents and teens can be quite resourceful and adaptable if given the opportunity and some encouragement. </p>
<p>I do agree the limits are different for each individual…but I tend to lean towards believing those age groups are much more capable than most adults give them credit for.</p>