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.
I have a son that has two more years of high school. Right now he is out of district and it takes 45 minutes each way. With him being a teenager, I'm thinking that he should be in the school district. I was going to wait until he finished high school to move, but feel that it may be best now for different reasons. So, where would you recommend? I currently own a home in Roslindale. I would like for him to be in a school district that has 1-2 high schools. I am looking for someplace that is academically challenging, has a great sports reputation (he plays lacrosse), and that has a neighborhood that offers real community opportunities. I want him to be well-prepared for college. In terms of costs, I can afford something that costs under $600,000, but would need 4 bd, 2+ bathroom.
Not sure what you mean exactly, but southwest of Boston Westwood and Sharon both have well-regarded school systems and might (just) fit your budget. Norfolk and Medfield are possible options, as well. Dover and Sherborn both have top school but are probably out of your budget.
He has 2 years left of high school- so you will be moving him as a junior? That is a really tough call. How are his grades now? Is he a good student? Do you feel his current school is not preparing him for college? What is his level of play in lacrosse- are you thinking he will play at the college level?
Junior year is THE most important for a college bound student. Not knowing anything about your son, it could prove very difficult for him socially, academically and athletically. If the school district he is in now is not as competitive academically and athletically as where you move, he could be far behind his peers and could make for a very tough transition.
I don't know which communities have multiple high schools but here are some rankings which will at least help you to see if it is somewhere your son could and would enjoy playing.
Quite a few kids who play lax that I know opted to attend a private boarding school- some went after junior year of high school and repeated junior year. Is that an option for you? Many have also done a PG year if they felt they needed that extra year academically and physically. Just thinking outside the box. I have kids in this same age range and there are so many things to consider- sports kept them motivated and on the straight and narrow. I understand why lacrosse is important to you and your son.
Junior year is THE most important for a college bound student. Not knowing anything about your son, it could prove very difficult for him socially, academically and athletically. If the school district he is in now is not as competitive academically and athletically as where you move, he could be far behind his peers and could make for a very tough transition.
Quite a few kids who play lax that I know opted to attend a private boarding school- some went after junior year of high school and repeated junior year. Is that an option for you?
Um...no. I didn't do well in Jr. year and frankly I moved onto higher ed and even grad school fine. High school is fine don't get me wrong but it isn't exactly as indicative these days with performance in higher education.
I have several teachers licenses and have worked in one of the top five school districts in the state. It is not a indicative factor towards higher education. With all of the resources that exist these days with education it is a weak argument to suggest that Jr. year being the "most" important.Don't create a pressure cooker environment otherwise you might turn them off from everything. Heck I know a Harvard grad that hasn't had work in three years now and I doubt he'd find something now that it has been three years.
Sports are fine as well but frankly using them to get into college on the cheap is not going to be an option in the future. It's a crutch. If someone is a good athlete maybe they'll go professional but the problem is many in professional sports do not graduate period and have relatively short careers. The average NFL career is 3.5 years. You might not see this because many are cut before the season is even a quarter over.
Buying a house to send a child to school for just two years frankly makes little logical sense. Why not just invest the funds into starting up a business for him to run after he graduates?
Um...no. I didn't do well in Jr. year and frankly I moved onto higher ed and even grad school fine. High school is fine don't get me wrong but it isn't exactly as indicative these days with performance in higher education.
I have several teachers licenses and have worked in one of the top five school districts in the state. It is not a indicative factor towards higher education. With all of the resources that exist these days with education it is a weak argument to suggest that Jr. year being the "most" important.Don't create a pressure cooker environment otherwise you might turn them off from everything. Heck I know a Harvard grad that hasn't had work in three years now and I doubt he'd find something now that it has been three years.
Sports are fine as well but frankly using them to get into college on the cheap is not going to be an option in the future. It's a crutch. If someone is a good athlete maybe they'll go professional but the problem is many in professional sports do not graduate period and have relatively short careers. The average NFL career is 3.5 years. You might not see this because many are cut before the season is even a quarter over.
Buying a house to send a child to school for just two years frankly makes little logical sense. Why not just invest the funds into starting up a business for him to run after he graduates?
You misunderstand my comments or I wasn't clear.
On a students transcript, junior year is most closely scrutinized when applying for college. I agree, once in college high school performance is quickly forgotten as it should be.
My comments on sports was about his son and having a sense of belonging and motivation not about going pro. Pro lax does not pay career $. My children are athletes and sports have given them important life skills. They learned about perseverance, commitment, sportsmanship, teamwork/collaboration and time management. The reason I posted the rankings was so he could decide where or if his some could play. Honestly, my son was recruited to play college lax but he would have been the water boy on the Duxbury lax team.
The one thing I take exception to is NCAA athletics being a crutch- maybe but for most, it's an anchor. I understand some sports and colleges notoriously push through athletes through, that is not the case for the majority of colleges that are not in the spotlight. Being the fastest growing sport in the country - 26 men's lacrosse teams and 40 women's were added in colleges between 2012-2013 translates to a good deal of opportunity for a student who wants to play in college. My son puts in 60 hours a week during the season and 30+ in the fall- not to mention his off season training regimen that he fits in around his full time summer job. He will also be held to a higher academic standard and required to volunteer as part of his college team. Without athletics, lax specifically, he would have had too much idle time and he is not a kid that would have handled that well. So I understand a parent who feels athletics are important. It's not about $, fame and glory all the time and certainly isn't our focus- I got the feeling from the OP it isn't his either.
I 100% agree with you a move for 2 years of high school is not a logical choice. There are other options.
Why not move to the district where he is currently attending school then? At his age, making that move will help him socially and emotionally since he will be closer to his friends. It makes little sense to enroll him in a new school district if he's almost done with HS.
"On a students transcript, junior year is most closely scrutinized when applying for college. I agree, once in college high school performance is quickly forgotten as it should be."
I think it tends to depend around that age. JROTC can certainly stand out but most of the places I know of frankly couldn't care that much about it.
"My comments on sports was about his son and having a sense of belonging and motivation not about going pro. Pro lax does not pay career $. My children are athletes and sports have given them important life skills. They learned about perseverance, commitment, sportsmanship, teamwork/collaboration and time management. The reason I posted the rankings was so he could decide where or if his some could play. Honestly, my son was recruited to play college lax but he would have been the water boy on the Duxbury lax team."
That's fine I'm right by Duxbury myself. Sports are nice and all for general health and team building but I don't always think it translates.
"The one thing I take exception to is NCAA athletics being a crutch- maybe but for most, it's an anchor. I understand some sports and colleges notoriously push through athletes through, that is not the case for the majority of colleges that are not in the spotlight. Being the fastest growing sport in the country - 26 men's lacrosse teams and 40 women's were added in colleges between 2012-2013 translates to a good deal of opportunity for a student who wants to play in college. My son puts in 60 hours a week during the season and 30+ in the fall- not to mention his off season training regimen that he fits in around his full time summer job. He will also be held to a higher academic standard and required to volunteer as part of his college team. Without athletics, lax specifically, he would have had too much idle time and he is not a kid that would have handled that well. So I understand a parent who feels athletics are important. It's not about $, fame and glory all the time and certainly isn't our focus- I got the feeling from the OP it isn't his either."
Eh there's always something to do these days. There's countless organizations that look for volunteers and many projects when you look at some of the new technologies out there. Again don't get me wrong sports are nice but since academia is moving more towards the virtual it is going away from the physical. There's complete schools that don't have any sporting teams. I can't picture a lawschool or a dentistry one for that matter.
I live in a town with one of the top track teams in the state but I would rather look at the 100% graduate rate of the seniors as a better barometer. I think clubs might be more of a focus because it can create more of a deliverable. Robotic club, science club even DECA.
Sports are nice and all for general health and team building but I don't always think it translates.
Yes they do. Despite being an extracurricular, a good athlete will be recruited by college coaches. My oldest daughter was a top track athlete in the state. We had coaches calling the house every day after her junior year (when they are allowed to contact prospects), with some kind of offer. They flew her to one of the elite southern schools to meet with the coaches there and she was flown to Cornell. She was recruited by Dartmouth and they paid for us to spend the weekend at the Inn, there. Yes, she was a straight A student, but so are thousands of other applicants. You need something to stand out over the others.
That's nice don't get me wrong but I wouldn't use one example to define all others. Just as there's some high school athletes that act as if they can fail a ton of classes and somehow graduate. Most schools have policies that prevent that.
Sometimes what stands out is simply doing work yourself. Being a athlete is fine but knowing how to play a sport and doing it well isn't exactly something that develops into a good employee. I've heard of some talk of universities mandating some form of sports for all students (i.e. a gym class for adults). I have mixed feelings on this as frankly although I think it might help fight obesity a tad at the same point it would raise prices a bit more.
The reason why sports exists for the most part with schools is they are revenue generating. They could care less about who does it. I'm in the northeast and Boston sports teams have had championships for over a decade now. In other parts of the country however they don't have major league teams. They have college/university teams.
"But what about the effect on academics? As the Times notes, a recent study at the University of Oregon found that men's grades dropped when the school's football team had a winning season. But that's just one (as-of-yet unpublished) study. There is also evidence that a successful college sports team can help boost graduation rates by fostering a stronger campus community and that winning on the field might increase the number and quality of applications a school receives from high school students. In the end, we simply need more data. We don't know for sure what the effect of sport's on a school's core educational mission is.
Assume all of those findings are true, though. Ask yourself: If you were Ohio State's president, would you take millions of extra dollars, more applications, and maybe a better graduation rate in return for lower GPAs? Considering that we live in an age of shrinking state budgets, I bet you would."
Mind you that there's nothing wrong with the sports themselves but why not simply just spin off these teams for their own private league. Heck there's even some tv channels now dedicated to just college sports (pac 10 network comes to mind). Unless of course they aren't making a profit...
"When it comes to the have-nots, the calculus changes. According to the NCAA, one university lost $10.5 million on its football program in 2010. That's two-and-a-half times Urban Meyer's full salary. A total of 51 football programs were in the red, with a median loss of $2.8 million. The 53 money-losing basketball programs cost their schools a median of $975,000.
These schools are the real financial crisis in college sports. They're taking resources from academics to pay for football, and the taxpayer is often getting stuck with the bill. Perhaps when you factor in the benefits to school spirit, donations from alums, and the like the benefits outweigh the costs. But it seems doubtful."
I think that's pretty much it. Public universities gain nothing if these are running at a loss. Rather than put finance towards actual empirical research and development. I'm not even talking about the chances of going pro here.
Heck I know of schools where the coaches for the sports are sometimes the head coordinator. So if they coach basketball where do all the funds go to? Basketball. You can rig a whole high school up with this if the coordinator plays their cards right. You could have a football coach say the best grades get in...well it's a fall sport so of course they'd get first dibs on everything! Let's not also forget in some areas a student could technically enroll for a 13th year or transfer to some private school to make varsity if talent is high.
Lastly the birth order largely determines much of it or at least with ice hockey.
Malcom Gladwell found this out when he wrote Outliers Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers and making theNHL - Arctic Ice Hockey
Being born earlier means starting earlier and thus more time on the ice. That compounds with time especially when making teams.
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.
