Dream Home vs Top Rated Schools....

[SadieMirsade]

Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn

Does the quality of a school district really matter beyond a certain point? Also, is there a danger that a school district filled with nothing but children from upper middle class families (aka "special snowflakes") will result in students being sheltered from important life experiences and socialization that could have employment and career-advancement value later on in life?

Our nation is already producing a gigantic oversupply of college graduates, so what's really going to end up setting people apart is not merely having a degree, but rather social skills. Rather than asking, "What school district will allow my child to best develop his intellect," it might be better to ask, "What school district will better develop my child's job interview and networking skills (while sufficiently developing his intellect)?" Which high school experience will mold my child into someone with Dale Carnegie-like social skills?

I think that's sorta America's problem right now.
All talk, not much substance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_929498.html
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/...Challenged.pdf

There seem to be a lot of college graduates that still can't add and subtract.
But they can all talk alright.

Danger: America Is Losing Its Edge In Innovation - Forbes

The World Economic Forum ranks the U.S. #48 in quality of math and science education.

That's why the US still NEEDS immigrants.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-746.pdf

"America faces many
challenges…but the
enemy I fear most is
complacency. We are
about to be hit by
the full force of global
competition. If we continue to ignore the
obvious task at hand while others beat us at
our own game, our children and grandchildren
will pay the price. We must now establish a
sense of urgency.”
— Charles Vest, Former President
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[Bhaalspawn]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

Isn't competition what makes people excel? In the high performing districts (the ones typically with upper middle class families) there is a lot of competition for grades, especially where class rank is concerned. In a school where things are less competitive wouldn't children do less?

Yeah, that's a good point that I hadn't considered.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

Isn't competition what makes people excel? In the high performing districts (the ones typically with upper middle class families) there is a lot of competition for grades, especially where class rank is concerned. In a school where things are less competitive wouldn't children do less?

Not always. Competition makes some people excel while it makes others give up. Some people will perform better in a supportive cooperative environment, others in a super competitive environment, others in a semi-competitive environment. Some kids will strive harder where they have a realistic likilihood of landing in the top ranks of whatever they are attempting (grades, sports, academic competition, creativetivity, etcetera), but will not bother to try hard where they do nto have that much liklihood of getting to the top, or where the effort is simply too overwhelming. Other kids will be challeneged by intense competition and work all that much harder to "win"

Not all parent feel that kids should drive themselves to get the best grades or be the best athelete to the exclusion of all else in their lives.

In some schools it is the parents who are competing. They do the homework and the projects and take pride in "winning" agaisnt the othr parent's homework and prjects. Meanwhile the kids learn only how to be insanley competitive and cut throat. Some districts are high performing becuase the parents push their kids as part of this competition. They force them to eschew anything that does not advance their competitive position. They take outside classes n how to take tests, spend their free time with tutors, play time is basically not allowed excpet to the extent it is hardcore training for sports acocmplishments. Those kids miss out on childhood, they never get to be silly, to do something just because it is fun or to do nothing at all. Their parents teach them to believe that competition is what is fun and rewardinging and everything they do should advance them competitively. Those kids are usually unhappy their entire lives (just like their parents). Competetition can never satisfy someone, there is always someone better, or equaly or challenging. Some parents want that atmosphere and they can find it. Some parents want a different atmosphere and they can find that too.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

Not always. Competition makes some people excel while it makes others give up. Some people will perform better in a supportive cooperative environment, others in a super competitive environment, others in a semi-competitive environment. Some kids will strive harder where they have a realistic likilihood of landing in the top ranks of whatever they are attempting (grades, sports, academic competition, creativetivity, etcetera), but will not bother to try hard where they do nto have that much liklihood of getting to the top, or where the effort is simply too overwhelming. Other kids will be challeneged by intense competition and work all that much harder to "win"

I am not proposing a unified theory of how every child learns. However, if one lowers the bar there will be lower achievement. I would like my children to learn and get good grades because they are actually proficient in the material, not because an artificially low standard is the norm.

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

Not all parent feel that kids should drive themselves to get the best grades or be the best athelete to the exclusion of all else in their lives.

I think if you do want to do well at something it does require sacrifice. That level of sacrifice can be debated, but if you want to be good at something it doesn't just happen by luck.

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

In some schools it is the parents who are competing. They do the homework and the projects and take pride in "winning" agaisnt the othr parent's homework and prjects. Meanwhile the kids learn only how to be insanley competitive and cut throat. Some districts are high performing becuase the parents push their kids as part of this competition. They force them to eschew anything that does not advance their competitive position. They take outside classes n how to take tests, spend their free time with tutors, play time is basically not allowed excpet to the extent it is hardcore training for sports acocmplishments. Those kids miss out on childhood, they never get to be silly, to do something just because it is fun or to do nothing at all. Their parents teach them to believe that competition is what is fun and rewardinging and everything they do should advance them competitively. Those kids are usually unhappy their entire lives (just like their parents). Competetition can never satisfy someone, there is always someone better, or equaly or challenging. Some parents want that atmosphere and they can find it. Some parents want a different atmosphere and they can find that too.

I don't think anyone thinks that parents doing their children's work is a good thing. However, what is wrong with hard work? If I knew that my children did they best than that is good enough for me. On the other hand if they were lazy and didn't try, they would hear about it.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

I am not proposing a unified theory of how every child learns. However, if one lowers the bar there will be lower achievement. I would like my children to learn and get good grades because they are actually proficient in the material, not because an artificially low standard is the norm.


I think if you do want to do well at something it does require sacrifice. That level of sacrifice can be debated, but if you want to be good at something it doesn't just happen by luck.



I don't think anyone thinks that parents doing their children's work is a good thing. However, what is wrong with hard work? If I knew that my children did they best than that is good enough for me. On the other hand if they were lazy and didn't try, they would hear about it.

You missed the point. I am nt talking about lowering a bar, I am talking about the circumstances where various kids will achieve their highest level of performance. You are assuming that all kids must be in a super competitive atmosphere to rise to the highest levels and/or that kids will rise only to the minimum level of what is expected of them. I know this to be incorrect. Some of my kids perform best where the expectations and pressure are less. They still excell and can easily do as well as kids from hypercompetitive schools, but when they were in hyper competitive schools they were stressed out and did not do as well. When not pressured, they will exceed lower level of expectations, but when pressured to achieve the higest level, they will not even get to the level they woudl by exceeding a lower level. If they can easily rise to the top 10, they will strive to be number one. If it is extremely difficult to get into the top ten, they may not even try and woudl not even consider pursuing number 1. Another of my kids does best with competition. He is driven to always strive to be the best, period. The more competetive situation he is in, the better he does. Another one woudl simply quit altogether if she was expeccted and pressured to be in the top of her class. She would probably get Ds and Es instead of B - B+

Nothing is wrong wiht hard work. However a lot is wrong with promoting hard work to the exclusion of all else. A lot is wrong with stressing out kids or setting expectations at levels they can never reasonably hope to achieve. A lot is wrong with throwing a bunch of kids together and telling all of them that only besting all of the others is acceptable and nothing less will do.