Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe because the Fraser Institute is here in BC we hear more about them, and their obvious bias.
Their school rankings constantly come under question. All levels of schools.
Their agenda is against public schools, and for private schools, however " Even leaders from private schools that rank top of the Fraser Institute’s report card think the right-wing think tank’s methodology is bogus."
I used to work in the public school system in BC. The Fraser rankings always made my colleagues and I laugh and roll our eyes. There was a direct correlation between the school's socio-economic ranking and the supposed quality ranking. Those of us who worked with the kids knew that the outcomes for the kids did not vary as much as the supposed scores said they would.
This is quite an interesting insight! Generally in the US, well-known private schools are considered advantageous for college admissions. There are a few reasons for this, but I think mostly:
1) The admissions folks at the well-known private school are often on a "texting" relationship with the high end college admissions folks
2) There are more, and more qualified admissions folks at the private school than most any public system
3) Many well-known private schools have "feeder" relationships with certain colleges, and a track record with them
4) The kids are "well groomed" to show well for the specific colleges they wish to enter
5) Extra-curriculars are a serious consideration, and many private schools bake this into their program for all kids
6) The schools have the resources to coach kids through AP- and IB-level materials
7) There are major alumni networks in the well-known private schools that tend to "grease the skids" for admissions. Milton Academy, and it's peers around New England are famous for this
I do agree that it seems really difficult to compare between the countries. I thought it would have been easier! I think an important point at large is that wealthier US districts are almost acting like private education. I look for example at some of the towns in MA and they are spending >$20k per student annually, and that's obviously in a zero-profit model for the towns.
This is quite an interesting insight! Generally in the US, well-known private schools are considered advantageous for college admissions. There are a few reasons for this, but I think mostly:
1) The admissions folks at the well-known private school are often on a "texting" relationship with the high end college admissions folks
2) There are more, and more qualified admissions folks at the private school than most any public system
3) Many well-known private schools have "feeder" relationships with certain colleges, and a track record with them
4) The kids are "well groomed" to show well for the specific colleges they wish to enter
5) Extra-curriculars are a serious consideration, and many private schools bake this into their program for all kids
6) The schools have the resources to coach kids through AP- and IB-level materials
7) There are major alumni networks in the well-known private schools that tend to "grease the skids" for admissions. Milton Academy, and it's peers around New England are famous for this
I do agree that it seems really difficult to compare between the countries. I thought it would have been easier! I think an important point at large is that wealthier US districts are almost acting like private education. I look for example at some of the towns in MA and they are spending >$20k per student annually, and that's obviously in a zero-profit model for the towns.
We both live in New England, which has its own unique educational heritage, so it might be hard to say if the rest of the US follows our example. I strongly agree your points above, especially points 3 and 7 when it comes to New England private schools. Phillips Andover, Milton Academy, Noble and Greenough, Governor Dummer Academy, etc. all boast graduates who have gone on to Ivy League schools and/or illustrious careers including that of the highest political office in our country. Heck even some public schools are feeder schools to certain universities. My public high school, Boston Latin School, was founded by the Puritans as a feeder school to Harvard for instance, and the name Boston Latin is pretty known around the entire region, boasting many famous graduates including several signers of the Declaration of Independence. I don't think you'll find a similar situation in Canada. Current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's alma mater, College Jean de Brebeuf, has reportedly produced the most Canadian prime ministers but it was founded as a Jesuit secondary institution and does receive government subsidies, thereby reducing tuition to a low amount. I can't imagine graduates of College Jean de Brebeuf boasting about their alma mater the way some of us New Englanders do with our high schools. Trudeau's predecessor Stephen Harper attended public secondary school and never finished college. I don't know how far back do you have to go to find a US president who did not attend a prestigious private institution and/or did not finish college, maybe Harry Truman. Yeah, the US and Canada are apples to oranges.
Worthless debates…. I think most Canadian and US secondary schools offer similar standard of teaching and learning experiences
Oh, thanks for the insight!!!
The value of an education is the most storied research question in economics because it is the best example of how difficult it is to draw conclusions from data when the data suffers from a severe selection bias. It is extremely difficult to disentangle the effects of socio-economic status, family and other environmental factors from "school quality", especially when some outcome measures (e.g. standardized test scores) are only one dimension of quality. In addition, many public schools have special programs or tracks that cater to a very different clientele from their average student.
I used to work in the public school system in BC. The Fraser rankings always made my colleagues and I laugh and roll our eyes. There was a direct correlation between the school's socio-economic ranking and the supposed quality ranking. Those of us who worked with the kids knew that the outcomes for the kids did not vary as much as the supposed scores said they would.
If you're referring to parents' wealth here, I'd argue their own educational attainment is a bigger determinant of kids' success at school than how much money they have. Though of course there is frequently a correlation between parents' money and parents' education too.
But less well off people who have a decent education and value learning will generally have kids who do better at school than the children of really rich people (who got that money via means X, Y or Z) with little education and who don't value it.
If you're referring to parents' wealth here, I'd argue their own educational attainment is a bigger determinant of kids' success at school than how much money they have. Though of course there is frequently a correlation between parents' money and parents' education too.
But less well off people who have a decent education and value learning will generally have kids who do better at school than the children of really rich people (who got that money via means X, Y or Z) with little education and who don't value it.
I lived in Nanaimo. Compared to bigger places, no actual "rich" people to my knowledge. The top would be mostly professional parents with a degree (doctors the peak, education and income wise) or small business owners who may or may not have much education. At the bottom generations of welfare and serious poverty. Hence I used the term socio-economic, not just "income".
I've been acquainted with some of Canada's 1% crowd, and yeah, they are outliers. Super-achievers to trust fund slackers - you never know!
In what was a great experiment and great idea, the "universality of education" was a concept whose goal was to provide access to all who could cut the mustard, no matter where you were. If your science degree was from the University of Iowa, it's standing was supposed to be the same as Harvard: i.e. if your skill set in Chemistry was all A's, it shouldn't matter for hiring "currency" that you went to UC Riverside or the U. of Manitoba. Notice how almost all structures naturally CENTRALIZE??? BEZOS, Gates, et al.? Harvard or Yale? USC or Stanford? It becomes a selfullfilling prophecy. My son went to a private school, which I basically disagreed with with the wife, but his application automatically gets put into the "other" pile the same way that Harvard question is on their app.: "Have you had a direct relative ATTEND Harvard"? I call bull ****. That wasn't supposed to be a way to GAME the system.A buddy actually went to Iowa, and transferred for his last year to Harvard, graduating with a "Harvard" Degree. They won't let you do that any more.
Last edited by thedwightguy; 06-19-2021 at 09:36 AM..
Reason: spelling
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
