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.
Funny, I never needed homework to learn a subject, especially when I had good teachers who could make a subject interesting. I still have a love for history, social studies, anthropology, computer science, to this day though no teacher was every able to make math interesting, and I suck at it to this day(anything beyond fractions anyway) and homework did not help at all with that, it's just how my brain works. anything that sparks my interest my brain retains effortlessly. It's why i had all A's except in math. I was even in "honors Art", still do that as a hobby.
As far as I'm concerned your main grade should only be based on what you do in class, any homework should be "voluntary extra credit".
I agree. In my district we do not use homework to grade academic achievement in the elementary grades (K-6). Academic grades are based solely on what is demonstrated during the school day. Homework can be considered as part of the accompanying effort grade.
Funny, I never needed homework to learn a subject, especially when I had good teachers who could make a subject interesting. I still have a love for history, social studies, anthropology, computer science, to this day though no teacher was every able to make math interesting, and I suck at it to this day(anything beyond fractions anyway) and homework did not help at all with that, it's just how my brain works. anything that sparks my interest my brain retains effortlessly. It's why i had all A's except in math. I was even in "honors Art", still do that as a hobby.
As far as I'm concerned your main grade should only be based on what you do in class, any homework should be "voluntary extra credit".
The old "blame the teacher" meme. Did your history, SS and anthro teachers NEVER require outside reading so you could discuss said reading in class? You loved computer sci but not math?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgbwc
I just want to point out that this is done during the school day. TXRunner addressed it:
If there is practice to be done, I want it done with me there catching students who do problems incorrectly and doing an immediate reteach before a bad habit sets in.
I teach an elementary grade. We do encourage students to read outside of school, but we don’t require them to do so.
"If" there is practice. As I said "There is nothing one can do without practice". I should have said "nothing one can do well" w/o practice. Ironically, while many on this forum dump on sports, the sports coaches require practice, and lots of it. My district's expectation for young elementary students was 20 minutes of reading a day. It was not an absolute requirement. As they got older, they didn't have that expectation so much.
However, I got the clear message from these schools that they are not looking for kids that follow a common formula. They are looking for students with creativity, uniqueness, cross-academic discipline, and leadership skills/experiences, as well as a strong foundation in the liberal arts. They require good writing samples and strong recommendations from liberal arts teachers. This is where many of the “formula-following” STEM competitive parents/students can fall short in the admissions process.
One thing to note: there is sometimes a difference between what admissions offices SAY they want in candidates, and the characteristics of the students they actually admit. Admissions officers receive annual performance reviews and raises just as the rest of us do. Think how the senior admissions officers are evaluated. For many schools, statistics showing selectivity is paramount, as is data regarding the academic and other characteristics of the entering class.
Moreover, OF COURSE they say they admissions do not follow a common formula. If it were mostly formulaic or algorithmic, most of the admissions department could be laid off because they would no longer be necessary. Those admissions department employees do everything in their power to preserve their own jobs and livelihoods. They would never reduce the process to one where their jobs were no longer necessary.
There is a common misconception that gifted high school students who excel at mathematics and science somehow are not stand-outs in English, History, Social Studies, etc. That wasn't true in my daughter's class. The truly exceptional were indeed exceptional in all subject areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
When your child can follow their own unique path that they truly love, and can demonstrate their individualism, passion, expertise, and leadership during the admissions process, I think that will get them far in getting into the right school for them.
I don't disagree at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
p.s. Having recently looked at MIT admission stats, I find the stat that 12% of your high school matriculated to MIT hard to believe...
It was a bit over a decade ago, and the school was quite proud.
As a side note, I recall one of the students in my daughter's class had been admitted to Harvard (no surprise to anyone). He had been working part time at Facebook while he was a senior in high school. Facebook of course knew he was slated to go to Harvard, and made him a full-time employment offer to forego college. $125,000 per year. Not bad for a 17 year old high school grad. He turned down Harvard and never looked back. He's still at Facebook and is an engineering director.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
Also, Asian males from private high schools are at a statistical disadvantage for some of the schools you mentioned. Harvard (and I think also Stanford?) even got sued for this.
Yes, indeed. We'll see how that litigation turns out.
One of the public high schools counsels its students not to apply to a specific college - I think it is Williams, but my memory might be wrong. Apparently in the late 1990s a high school student applied for early decision, was accepted, and of course the student committed. Later that student was admitted to Harvard, and de-committed from Williams. Since that incident, no student from the high school (perhaps even the school district) has ever earned acceptance at Williams.
wow. this is extremely condescending and defensive, even compared to some of the worst teachers in my experience. you could be a great teacher for all i know, but you are passing a great deal of judgment onto a random commenter on a forum who simply disagrees with you on the value of homework-- you talk to him like hes the lowest student that you ever had-- and he isnt even in your class.
you even criticised his ability as a parent-- blaming him for the trouble that teachers have. all based on a different opinion about homework. im not feigning surprise, it is completely sincere.
how does this work, anyway? would you talk to a fellow teacher with the same opinion as the person you said these things to, if he thought there was merit in his experience educating to warrant the opinion? or do you feel that parents who disagree are just as bad as students who do, and thus can be talked down to like they just earned a demerit?
I criticize public education all the time. Read through the archives of my posts here. I also criticize myself. Frequently. I'm not "defending" anything. I am illustrating the ignorance of people outside teaching who really believe, or at least say they believe, that teachers give homework just for the sake of giving homework.
And, yes, I am judgmental about such things and people. Did you imagine that I would find that to be a bad thing? You guessed wrong. How would you prefer that I point out that they don't know what they're talking about?
The poster to whom I believe you're referring stated that he can teach better than others. That's actual arrogance. I pointed out my "lived experiences," which have consistently shown me that folks who brag about being better than their colleagues or teammates or opponents rarely are. This apparently offended you. Did you also imagine that I would think myself responsible for how you might choose to react to a comment on an Internet forum not even directed at you? You guessed wrong again.
If a fellow teacher was bragging about being better than her/our colleagues, yes, I would confront her on that and perhaps without the kid gloves I used in this thread. Do you imagine that this would also be a bad thing? You guessed wrong once again.
Did you happen to notice that the poster in question handled it far better than you and quickly acknowledged that he/she perhaps came off wrong? If you get offended by proxy, how offended do you get when it's actually aimed at you?
You've implied that I must be a poor teacher, based upon my post. You may be correct. I don't think so, but you could be. I certainly do not regard myself as a great teacher and regard numerous colleagues as better than I am. I say these things often. Which do you imagine is more arrogant and condescending, to talk of yourself in that manner or to claim that you can teach your students better than your colleagues, "and without assigning any homework?" Furthermore, which do you think to be more arrogant, to tell someone outside the profession that they have no idea how and why decisions are made about homework or to be that person outside the profession telling everyone that you know how and why decisions are made about homework?
This world is filled with people who are very good at doling out criticism and rudeness but those same folks usually cannot take a bit of it when it comes back at them. Don't enter that realm unless you're prepared to give and receive.
One thing to note: there is sometimes a difference between what admissions offices SAY they want in candidates, and the characteristics of the students they actually admit. Admissions officers receive annual performance reviews and raises just as the rest of us do. Think how the senior admissions officers are evaluated. For many schools, statistics showing selectivity is paramount, as is data regarding the academic and other characteristics of the entering class.
Moreover, OF COURSE they say they admissions do not follow a common formula. If it were mostly formulaic or algorithmic, most of the admissions department could be laid off because they would no longer be necessary. Those admissions department employees do everything in their power to preserve their own jobs and livelihoods. They would never reduce the process to one where their jobs were no longer necessary.
There is a common misconception that gifted high school students who excel at mathematics and science somehow are not stand-outs in English, History, Social Studies, etc. That wasn't true in my daughter's class. The truly exceptional were indeed exceptional in all subject areas.
I don't disagree at all.
It was a bit over a decade ago, and the school was quite proud.
As a side note, I recall one of the students in my daughter's class had been admitted to Harvard (no surprise to anyone). He had been working part time at Facebook while he was a senior in high school. Facebook of course knew he was slated to go to Harvard, and made him a full-time employment offer to forego college. $125,000 per year. Not bad for a 17 year old high school grad. He turned down Harvard and never looked back. He's still at Facebook and is an engineering director.
Yes, indeed. We'll see how that litigation turns out.
One of the public high schools counsels its students not to apply to a specific college - I think it is Williams, but my memory might be wrong. Apparently in the late 1990s a high school student applied for early decision, was accepted, and of course the student committed. Later that student was admitted to Harvard, and de-committed from Williams. Since that incident, no student from the high school (perhaps even the school district) has ever earned acceptance at Williams.
I agree with what you are saying, however I made my points because I do think there are misconceptions on this from parents/kids. I know students attending these particular selective schools from our HS and other programs my kids are involved in. The highest GPA, 1600 SAT, #1 state violin chair, child of prominent Chicago surgeons did not get into these particular schools, and she applied to all of them. And there are many others very similar to her (perfect on paper with the skills you described in your posts) who do not get in. These “rejected” students received A’s in every AP course out there, and spent their summers doing medical research at Northwestern/UChicago (some with publishing credit) or working as interns at some of the top companies around, or volunteered in operating rooms, or lead student non-profit boards....
However, my kids’ friends who did get into Harvard, for example, are the student beat poet/rapper, the musical vocalist, the composer, the rowing champion, and the state soccer champion. And every single one of these kids had lower GPA/SAT/class difficulty levels than the aforementioned students. Btw, they are all caucasian, non-legacy, non-first generation, and they come with unique talent advantage - not numbers/personality that fit a formula.
I still find it hard to believe that one high school sent 12% of their kids to MIT, when the MIT admission rate is 6%, but I guess maybe if it’s a really small gifted high school. I am mainly familiar with the top G&T programs in the midwest.
I agree. In my district we do not use homework to grade academic achievement in the elementary grades (K-6). Academic grades are based solely on what is demonstrated during the school day. Homework can be considered as part of the accompanying effort grade.
Someday, I've resolved that I'm going to chronicle every fad, every bad idea devoid of legitimate evidence foisted upon teachers and, by extension, students. For those outside education, what's being described is either "standards-based grading" or "grading for learning." They involve doing away with grades for what the salesmen of this fad demeaningly label "practice." "Practice," in their minds, essentially means homework. Like all these educational fads, it rests on various false premises and logical fallacies. The first false premise that is claimed by the architects of this usually goes like this, "Do you judge your athletes by their performance in practice when they're learning?" This is a rhetorical question, meant to convey that we do not. Of course, anyone with any experience in sports, in band, or anything else should recognize that we do. That we have to. If I give a crap effort in practice, I don't start or I don't even play in the game. Effort is either variable 1A or 1B in how we learn. Next, they imagine that if we stop "grading practice," grades will no longer reflect effort instead of what they like to call "mastery." If anything, eliminating grades for "practice" places an even greater premium on effort, which is in turn disproportionately reflected in the grade. Why? When you attach grades to homework, it meters out efforts gradually over the course of a unit. When it comes time for that unit test or project which is "summative," and counts as a grade, the student has built up to that point with gradual efforts and the final test isn't an extraordinary effort. A couple things happen when you stop assigning points to homework:
1. The students who need homework the most, the mid-level and lower students, stop doing it. Our math department started going with no points for homework a few years ago. They finally walked it back because, ser-prise, ser-prise, students weren't doing it. I know, I know. Those of you outside education are going "Duh!" but you must understand that within education, when one of these new gurus who has found an angle is paid thousands of dollars to come in and tell us what we're doing wrong, the new dogma he dispenses is consumed without question by administrators.
2. Students conclude that homework isn't important. They grow up and are socialized in a culture that teaches them that when you do work, you receive some sort of extrinsic reward. You receive payment. With this system, we live by the fantastical notion that we can somehow change all this socialization and basic understanding about human motivation, and produce teenagers who will do all this work for no "payment," in the academic sense. The lesson they take is that the work must not be important if we as teachers will not even offer points on it.
Who are the ones who will consistently do it, even without points? The exceptional students who already do well and who do even better for doing the "practice." Their effort is rewarded and reflected in even higher scores on their "summative assessments" which do count for points.
You really have to carefully teach adults not to believe their lyin' eyes when it comes to this sort of stuff.
Last edited by chiociolliscalves; 02-24-2019 at 09:52 AM..
Having toured MIT, Harvard, CalTech, Chicago, Northwestern, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, and other top engineering programs in the last 6 months, the admissions tours are filled with kids as you describe. However, that does not mean these kids always stand out as the most desirable applicants. At the MIT tour last week, many of the other parents/students touring looked/acted similarly. For example, they wore a State Robotics team, Chess club, or Math league T-shirt and asked alot of questions about test scores, rather than about the programs. I’m sure many of these students graduated through all the Kumon math and Suzuki music books.
However, I got the clear message from these schools that they are not looking for kids that follow a common formula. They are looking for students with creativity, uniqueness, cross-academic discipline, and leadership skills/experiences, as well as a strong foundation in the liberal arts. They require good writing samples and strong recommendations from liberal arts teachers. This is where many of the “formula-following” STEM competitive parents/students can fall short in the admissions process.
When your child can follow their own unique path that they truly love, and can demonstrate their individualism, passion, expertise, and leadership during the admissions process, I think that will get them far in getting into the right school for them.
p.s. Having recently looked at MIT admission stats, I find the stat that 12% of your high school matriculated to MIT hard to believe... but I guess I don’t know the specifics of your high school. Also, Asian males from private high schools are at a statistical disadvantage for some of the schools you mentioned. Harvard (and I think also Stanford?) even got sued for this.
This is actually what a friend said, who used to be an interviewer for an Ivy. She and her brother played the piano, and she was a high-achiever, involved in a school club, did great on tests, but wasn't groomed for Ivy. Actually, she had her sights on UCLA and Berkeley, but her counselor said she wasn't aiming high enough. She wasn't a super genius or anything. "Just" a high-achiever, but not overboard. She got into every school she applied to. Her brother is the super genius, skipped a couple grades, dual enrolled in college, graduated early. Neither are STEM. She majored in Eng Lit and went on to become a lawyer and her super genius brother...a screenwriter.
As she said, they're not looking for the stereotypical nerd who is hyper-focused on one thing, where that thing is their whole life. They also can tell when kids are rehearsed, groomed, and only put on the appearance of being well-rounded for college admissions.
My older two are not groomed for STEM. They excel in these fields, yes, but it is not their life. I could never be a tiger parent. That is not the kind of life or dynamic we want for our kids.
This is actually what a friend said, who used to be an interviewer for an Ivy. She and her brother played the piano, and she was a high-achiever, involved in a school club, did great on tests, but wasn't groomed for Ivy. Actually, she had her sights on UCLA and Berkeley, but her counselor said she wasn't aiming high enough. She wasn't a super genius or anything. "Just" a high-achiever, but not overboard. She got into every school she applied to. Her brother is the super genius, skipped a couple grades, dual enrolled in college, graduated early. Neither are STEM. She majored in Eng Lit and went on to become a lawyer and her super genius brother...a screenwriter.
As she said, they're not looking for the stereotypical nerd who is hyper-focused on one thing, where that thing is their whole life. They also can tell when kids are rehearsed, groomed, and only put on the appearance of being well-rounded for college admissions.
My older two are not groomed for STEM. They excel in these fields, yes, but it is not their life. I could never be a tiger parent. That is not the kind of life or dynamic we want for our kids.
I totally agree with you. My daughter also excels in STEM and she has the prerequisites to qualify for the top programs. However, we are not trying to groom her for STEM either, just expose her to the opportunities in it (e.g. a summer engineering camp, a job at an engineering co.). This year she has been doing a lot of writing and her English teacher sent us an email expressing she’s one of the best student writers she’s taught. So now my daughter says she wants to study engineering and also English, along with music performance. This is making us rethink the kind of school she needs.
Previously we were mainly looking at the top engineering schools (e.g. MIT, Illinois), but after looking at a few smaller liberal arts schools with engineering programs, we’re wondering if that’s a better fit for her.
E.g. We also looked at Dartmouth last week. She told me it was her favorite school so far based on everything she saw/read. However, their engineering school is very small, and ranked lower than the others. They require an extensive liberal arts core for the engineering degree, so the engineering degree takes 5 years. They also have a strong music program/professors in her instrument and also a particular club sport program she wants to join. She loves this sport but does not want to play at Division 1/3 level, so was excited that Dartmouth has a good club team.
Anyhow, sorry to go on and on about my D. This thread is just making me think a lot about all the possibilities.
Having toured MIT, Harvard, CalTech, Chicago, Northwestern, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, and other top engineering programs in the last 6 months, the admissions tours are filled with kids as you describe. However, that does not mean these kids always stand out as the most desirable applicants. At the MIT tour last week, many of the other parents/students touring looked/acted similarly. For example, they wore a State Robotics team, Chess club, or Math league T-shirt and asked alot of questions about test scores, rather than about the programs. I’m sure many of these students graduated through all the Kumon math and Suzuki music books.
However, I got the clear message from these schools that they are not looking for kids that follow a common formula. They are looking for students with creativity, uniqueness, cross-academic discipline, and leadership skills/experiences, as well as a strong foundation in the liberal arts. They require good writing samples and strong recommendations from liberal arts teachers. This is where many of the “formula-following” STEM competitive parents/students can fall short in the admissions process.
When your child can follow their own unique path that they truly love, and can demonstrate their individualism, passion, expertise, and leadership during the admissions process, I think that will get them far in getting into the right school for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphysique
This is actually what a friend said, who used to be an interviewer for an Ivy. She and her brother played the piano, and she was a high-achiever, involved in a school club, did great on tests, but wasn't groomed for Ivy. Actually, she had her sights on UCLA and Berkeley, but her counselor said she wasn't aiming high enough. She wasn't a super genius or anything. "Just" a high-achiever, but not overboard. She got into every school she applied to. Her brother is the super genius, skipped a couple grades, dual enrolled in college, graduated early. Neither are STEM. She majored in Eng Lit and went on to become a lawyer and her super genius brother...a screenwriter.
As she said, they're not looking for the stereotypical nerd who is hyper-focused on one thing, where that thing is their whole life. They also can tell when kids are rehearsed, groomed, and only put on the appearance of being well-rounded for college admissions.
My son and his wife both went to an Ivy League school. They were both accepted at a couple Ivies. Neither fit the description above. My son had no evidence of, "creativity, uniqueness, cross-academic discipline, and leadership skills/experiences, as well as a strong foundation in the liberal arts." He took the most advance math and science classes that were available. His only extracurricular activity was being a member of the soccer team.
The comment about an interviewer for an Ivy really caught my attention. He did not interview with anyone at either Ivy League school where he was accepted. In fact, he never visited either school until he went for an orientation at the end of his senior year in HS. His only interview was with an alumnus from Yale, who did an informal interview in Pittsburgh. It was the only Ivy where he was not accepted.
My son and his wife both went to an Ivy League school. They were both accepted at a couple Ivies. Neither fit the description above. My son had no evidence of, "creativity, uniqueness, cross-academic discipline, and leadership skills/experiences, as well as a strong foundation in the liberal arts." He took the most advance math and science classes that were available. His only extracurricular activity was being a member of the soccer team.
The comment about an interviewer for an Ivy really caught my attention. He did not interview with anyone at either Ivy League school where he was accepted. In fact, he never visited either school until he went for an orientation at the end of his senior year in HS. His only interview was with an alumnus from Yale, who did an informal interview in Pittsburgh. It was the only Ivy where he was not accepted.
Interesting... How long ago did he attend? Did he play college soccer? I guess the take away is that it is hard to predict and varies by year, program, interviewer, geographic preference, yearly recruitment goals, etc. I was relating exactly what I heard from Harvard, MIT admissions reps last week and what I see from recently admitted students in my area. If the main criteria is taking the most advanced math/science, then that is reassuring.
I’m sure the essay is also extremely important at these schools. The interview percentage at Harvard was also pretty high (can’t remember the exact stat) but they can’t get to all students. I’m hoping we get interviews and live auditions (rather than video submission) at some of these schools because that’s where my daughter shines. Harvard and MIT said they only do a video supplement, while Stanford will come to our city to audition.
We are looking at Yale too. I liked Princeton engineering but my D did not like the vibe there for some reason. I’m hoping she gets past pre-conceived notions. Harvard is constructing a new engineering building so will be transporting students to temporary classrooms the next few years - not sure how disruptive that will be... IMO MIT deserves every bit of it’s great reputation - what a phenomenal environment there. Even their admissions tour video was incredibly creative and funny - not at all like the others. She’ll probably apply to 20 schools and see what happens...
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.
