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.
That's exactly the differences in way of thinking that I was talking about.
See, you just made a good point, an excellent example to talk about.
90% of parents who are " educated, informed" would definitely research towns that have good school systems.
While the tendency of a homebuyer who Does Not Put Education as a Top Priority would Put more emphasis on Prices, Sq Feet, age of home, etc.
Do you know that there are THOUSANDS of homeowners who live in towns like Millburn, Chatham, Ridgewood, Tenafly who SETTLE for SMALLER, OLDER HOMES, MUCH LESS LOT, LESS IMPRESSIVE LOOKING HOMES & paid $500K, $700K JUST to live in these towns & get the education for their children
WHEN THEY COULD HAVE VERY EASILY BOUGHT A Much Larger, Newer, More Impressive Looking Homes in many other towns ? Towns that had a Much Weaker school system .
That's the MINDSET of parents who VALUE EDUCATION above else.
That's the MINDSET of a parent who both work their butts off as middle/upper middle class family , and, DECIDE to Spend Tons of Money on a $20k PRIVATE school like Pingry, Delbarton, Oak Knoll, Morristown Beard, Newar Academy. ( While others question/criticize them for " Wasting All that money for Private school)
I'm a CPA. My husband is an Attorney. Our children are now adults.
One daughter is a young attorney. My older son is an investment banker. While my youngest son is in law school.
Our kids would not be who they are today if we did not Invest heavily
in their education. My husband and I came from very humble beginnings.
Neither one of us came from wealthy families. But we both saw very early on that EDUCATION will take us & our kids to Much Higher Levels that we could ever imagine.
Two of them have a young family & own homes. Of course, they 100% looked at towns with Top Public schools as part of their search.
Whatever the rankings are used for is IRRELEVANT compared to the benefits of it.
At the very least,a parent would know that the public school in Chatham, Millburn, Glen Ridge is composed of High Achieving, Competitive kids & your child will be sorrounded by that. That's how your kid strives later in society.
The rest is inconsequential.
P.S. I recently met a Jamaican ist generation immigrant family. College educated. They had a budget of $ 450K -$ 500K & ended up buying in Livingston.
The wife admitted that they were very tempted at the buying a much larger, much newer, much more impressive home in one of the oranges. ( I think it was West Orange). But at the end, they went with the smaller home in Livingston because of the Excellent Livingston school system. She said getting a good education came first for them.
That's a simple example right there.
College educated people are not the only people interested in getting a good education for their kids.
Neither of us were college educated but we certainly know the value of education. I had to work too hard for my money as a contractor and I did not want my kids to have to do the same. I put both of them to work in the summer to give them a taste of doing construction work.
We gave up extravagant vacations and a new car every year so we could invest our money for colleges.
AP courses in our schools along with hard working kids help get them into good schools.
It is not necessary that you send your kids to this years highest rated schools in order for them to get a good education. It is only necessary that your kids understand the value of education.
i'm confused. so is it better to buy in a town that has a "top school" or is it that the parents who care about their kids will succeed?
it sounds like 2 seperate arguments are being made by you Elaine?
to me, i think the most critical thing is parents involvement in their children's education. next, it's critical to ensure your children are being challenged. if the classes at their school aren't challenging them, or if the population of students at the school is fostering a negative environment, then they won't progress. some will make it through fine, but some need that challenge.
If you start looking at the small number of posts that a few people have, combined with the similar verbage of posts, and the construction of them, from the past by others with a small post total, it becomes clear that someone, or maybe two, perhaps three people, have an agenda on the NJ board.
college is over-rated. most of us realize the false value placed on college, and that's why everyone "must" go, but college isn't really valuable except for the partying and the social scene away from the parents. i went to a very good college, and am doing pretty well for myself, but i learned way more outside of class working in part time jobs, being a member in different organizations, managing budgets, etc, than i ever learned from a professor. my wife went to an average school but one that was very good for her health-services oriented degree. her education cost significantly less, and she will probably make much more than me for a pretty significant amount of time - my growth potential is greater, but she's got such a nice head start, it'll take years to surpass her. in the end - it's what the individual makes of it. not what reputation their college had. but - the network you build at one of those fine institutions is always nice to fall back on.
college is over-rated. most of us realize the false value placed on college, and that's why everyone "must" go, but college isn't really valuable except for the partying and the social scene away from the parents. i went to a very good college, and am doing pretty well for myself, but i learned way more outside of class working in part time jobs, being a member in different organizations, managing budgets, etc, than i ever learned from a professor. my wife went to an average school but one that was very good for her health-services oriented degree. her education cost significantly less, and she will probably make much more than me for a pretty significant amount of time - my growth potential is greater, but she's got such a nice head start, it'll take years to surpass her. in the end - it's what the individual makes of it. not what reputation their college had. but - the network you build at one of those fine institutions is always nice to fall back on.
i should note that the point i'm making here is kind of irrelevant, because outside forces do value education so therefore, it's valuable. i'm just pointing out that it's ridiculous to spend $40k/yr on memorizing history and text-learning to pass the Bar exam, when you have access to all that information already, but we're all required to go get that degree or we're not "smart". doesn't hold true for all professions, but i feel like a lot of people i've worked with over the years are very "book smart" but fail miserably in business or law. the name on your degree will only get you so far.
I think the problem with this is that the data has inherent flaws in the way it is calculated that can bias the results. My knowledge base does not extend past South Jersey's school systems, particularly Burlington, Camden and Gloucester Counties. The issue I have is that there are many "good" schools that are known commodities that are ranked below schools that people know are not "good" at all.
If you read their methodoly for computing the scores it is easy to see where some data flaws exist.
Quote:
School Environment: The sum of the standardized rank scores for average class size; student-faculty ratio; student-computer ratio; percentage of faculty with advanced degrees; and number of AP tests offered, which was calculated as a ratio of grade 11 and 12 enrollment in order not to penalize smaller schools. (Not all of these factors are shown in the published charts. Senior class size is provided for reference only; it is not part of the ranking calculation.)
Student Performance: The sum of the standardized rank scores for average combined SAT score; percentage of students showing advanced proficiency on HSPA; and students scoring a 3 or higher on AP tests as a percentage of all juniors and seniors.
Student Outcomes: A single combined score of graduation rate multiplied by the percentage of graduates going on to post-secondary education. Those going on to a four-year college were given a weight of 1.5, those going to a two-year college were given a weight of 1, and those going to other colleges or post-secondary schools were given a weight of 0.67.
School Environment is the one I have the least issue with. It is pretty cut and dry and they make an allowance for the size of the school to keep the rankings equal.
Student Performance can leave a lot open to question. By using the sum of all SAT scores without adjusting for all students, they cause a statistical anamoly by penalizing schools where larger percentages of students take the SAT and thus lower the average versus schools that have only a small number take the SAT. The HSPA scores are accounted for correctly by weighing them against all students. The AP test scores again penalize larger schools by making the statistic based on the percentage of total students who scored a 3 or higher.
Student Outcomes is another area where the statistics are heavily weighted and provide for skewed results. In essence they are punishing districts who have large numbers of students that choose to attend county colleges or enter a vocational trade.
What they have essentially done is create a ranking system that heavily favors smaller schools in affluent areas. These are schools where most of the kids are taking the SAT, most likely multiple times and with tutoring to help with the test. Schools where AP classes are more available and a larger percentage of students are in them, giving them the chance to earn a 3 or better. The most heavily weighted area though is the student outcome. Kids who are from more affluent backgrounds are more likely to attend 4 year schools directly out of high school.
All summed up the list amounts to a "duh" moment. Small schools in affluent neighborhoods are generally better than larger schools in less affluent areas. While I wouldn't argue that, it makes the statistics for schools not in the top 50 or so become completely invalid.
My school district is Kingsway Regional in Gloucester County. For all intents and purposes it is ranked as one of the top 20 schools in South Jersey based on other sources. However, it is also a large school and pretty diverse socio-economically. Kids that attend Kingsway may go on to Harvard, or they may go work on the family farm. Kingsway was ranked 216 this year.
Now, here is the fun part. Ranked at number 194 was Gloucester City High School. Gloucester City is a virtual ghetto and an Abbot District. Drop outs are a major issue and no one in their right mind would send their kid to Gloucester City High unless they had no other choice. So, if all I did was read the list, I would come to the determination that I would be better off sending my kid to Gloucester City High than I would be sending them to Kingsway.
If I pop over to "greatschools" and take a peak at their 1-10 rankings (5 is considered average for the state), Kingsway is rated a 7 which places Kingsway in the "good" category compared to the NJ state average and South Jersey in general. Gloucester City is ranked a 3 which places them well below average and a step above Camden's public high schools which rank 2.
Why is there such a disparity in rankings? Anyone you speak to will tell you that Kingsway may not be the best, but it is a good school and better than average. They will also tell you that Gloucester City is horrendous and to be avoided at all costs.
The only solution that I can come up with is that the rankings are heavily biased to favor certain schools as I pointed out above. While the ranking for the top 50 or so may have some validity, the rest of the list is a complete mess and not an accurate picture of a school's "rank". Plain and simple, the results are biased and anyone who uses them to make a decision is well advised to consult other sources, because let's face it, most people aren't buying in the top 50 districts.
If you want the best of scenario for your child, its literally a combination of both. The Best Schools combined with a caring parent who values education as a priority.
If you want the best, it is very difficult to separate the two UNLESS, you are an exception & your child is an exception. There will always be a kid who will OVERCOME the system. That's been proven. But that's 5% of the population.
But we are talking about for majority of children.
Have you ever witnessed the communication skills of majority of students from Top wealthy public schools vs. students from regular middle class suburban schools? Lets take it a step further. Have you seen the confidence in Delbarton juniors or seniors or the graduating class of Kushner Academy as they speak with high levels of oratory compared your most boys is surburban high schools.
Thats the product you get when you have a combination of Educated parents combined with strong schools & strong quality of fellow students in that school.
A student or an adult will excel if sorrounded & challenged by like minded people with identical skill levels & backgrounds.
Personally, all my kids were already well versed in the Wall Street Journal & the Business section of the New York Times by the time they were in 6th and 7th grade. Plus, all the family dinners at home that discussed topics like entrepreneurship, stocks, bonds, legal issues of the day. etc
Now don't get me wrong, we talked a lot about fun, happy, crazy stuff too. but there was a healthy balance of deep educational conversations growing up. That was huge for them.
But my point is, there were lots of kids who were also exposed to the Wall Street Journal or the Biz Section of the NY Times in their schools because many had parents who were also Doctors, Lawyers, etc- Professional people.
Now where will you get large numbers of parents who have the habits of reading such publications on investing & exposure to their kids of stuff like that ?
Again, it goes back to the same upper middle class or affluent towns who happen to have a larger percentage of residents who are professionals, business owners, and educated.
Now if you ONLY have one choice. Then, I would pick the Supportive, Committed parent anytime & everytime. But having a high level of quality of the students around your child, the qualify of the school & the quality of the teachers puts your child in the very best position.
yes, i agree mostly. but where does it end? why not send your children to Choate and pay $20,000/yr for high school? I dunno - i guess i've been exposed to way too many "privileged" people who went to these great NJ public schools and now i see them in the professional world and many are in the same spot as others who did not go to such great schools.
the parental element is certainly the strongest. and i think a lot of folks in NJ don't realize how great your public schools are, almost all the way down to the bottom third of your list.
the valedictorian of my public school district growing up that was my class year went on to Boston College and Temple Dental school. she took over for her father's practice. a few of the top students in that class went to pharmacy school and are doing very well.
the valedictorian of my school went to an accelerated pre-med problem at u of chicago. you could go all the way down to the 3rd quartile and find students that got accepted to top 50 universities for various degrees. my public school was really not an option. i live in West Orange now, which isn't in the top 100, but falls just out of it on this list. Yet they're sending graduates to ivy's, top 50s, and more, this coming fall. it's amazing that i could stay in this "not so great" public school district and still be far better off than the public school options where i grew up. i love it!
I think the problem with this is that the data has inherent flaws in the way it is calculated that can bias the results. My knowledge base does not extend past South Jersey's school systems, particularly Burlington, Camden and Gloucester Counties. The issue I have is that there are many "good" schools that are known commodities that are ranked below schools that people know are not "good" at all.
If you read their methodoly for computing the scores it is easy to see where some data flaws exist.
School Environment is the one I have the least issue with. It is pretty cut and dry and they make an allowance for the size of the school to keep the rankings equal.
Student Performance can leave a lot open to question. By using the sum of all SAT scores without adjusting for all students, they cause a statistical anamoly by penalizing schools where larger percentages of students take the SAT and thus lower the average versus schools that have only a small number take the SAT. The HSPA scores are accounted for correctly by weighing them against all students. The AP test scores again penalize larger schools by making the statistic based on the percentage of total students who scored a 3 or higher.
Student Outcomes is another area where the statistics are heavily weighted and provide for skewed results. In essence they are punishing districts who have large numbers of students that choose to attend county colleges or enter a vocational trade.
What they have essentially done is create a ranking system that heavily favors smaller schools in affluent areas. These are schools where most of the kids are taking the SAT, most likely multiple times and with tutoring to help with the test. Schools where AP classes are more available and a larger percentage of students are in them, giving them the chance to earn a 3 or better. The most heavily weighted area though is the student outcome. Kids who are from more affluent backgrounds are more likely to attend 4 year schools directly out of high school.
All summed up the list amounts to a "duh" moment. Small schools in affluent neighborhoods are generally better than larger schools in less affluent areas. While I wouldn't argue that, it makes the statistics for schools not in the top 50 or so become completely invalid.
My school district is Kingsway Regional in Gloucester County. For all intents and purposes it is ranked as one of the top 20 schools in South Jersey based on other sources. However, it is also a large school and pretty diverse socio-economically. Kids that attend Kingsway may go on to Harvard, or they may go work on the family farm. Kingsway was ranked 216 this year.
Now, here is the fun part. Ranked at number 194 was Gloucester City High School. Gloucester City is a virtual ghetto and an Abbot District. Drop outs are a major issue and no one in their right mind would send their kid to Gloucester City High unless they had no other choice. So, if all I did was read the list, I would come to the determination that I would be better off sending my kid to Gloucester City High than I would be sending them to Kingsway.
If I pop over to "greatschools" and take a peak at their 1-10 rankings (5 is considered average for the state), Kingsway is rated a 7 which places Kingsway in the "good" category compared to the NJ state average and South Jersey in general. Gloucester City is ranked a 3 which places them well below average and a step above Camden's public high schools which rank 2.
Why is there such a disparity in rankings? Anyone you speak to will tell you that Kingsway may not be the best, but it is a good school and better than average. They will also tell you that Gloucester City is horrendous and to be avoided at all costs.
The only solution that I can come up with is that the rankings are heavily biased to favor certain schools as I pointed out above. While the ranking for the top 50 or so may have some validity, the rest of the list is a complete mess and not an accurate picture of a school's "rank". Plain and simple, the results are biased and anyone who uses them to make a decision is well advised to consult other sources, because let's face it, most people aren't buying in the top 50 districts.
ok - but there's also a slight flaw in your logic. i completely understand the point you're making, but the simple truth is, one of the measures of success is how many students go on to college. the better the college that a student goes on to, the "more successful" can be assumed.
now - you point out true exceptions. maybe you live in an area where a child is planning on staying home, taking over the farm. why count that against the school you say? well - i grew up in an areas exactly like that. because so many children were "just going to work on the farm" (not a bad thing, they work hard and make great money as well) - the parents had no desire to fund AP programs. so for a student like me, that had no farm to work on, that school was horrible for me to advance myself. so i had to go to private school.
AP availability is certainly a plus. why wouldn't it be?
good SAT/ACT scores should definitely be a plus.
i understand not everyone is cut out for college, and not everyone has to go to college. but these are the metrics we use for "success" in education. public school isn't tasked with readying the future plumbers, electricians, construction workers, etc. although they are all great trades with hard workers, you don't need to "educate" them, so yes, they do count as dings against the system. it's sad, because they shouldn't be viewed that way, but the system isn't perfect and never will be.
you have to pick measures that make a system "successful". as long as those measures are applied across the board - the list is relevant.
maybe you want them to take safety into account as well.
the drop out rate should certainly be part of the score though.
Do you know that there are THOUSANDS of homeowners who live in towns like Millburn, Chatham, Ridgewood, Tenafly who SETTLE for SMALLER, OLDER HOMES, MUCH LESS LOT, LESS IMPRESSIVE LOOKING HOMES & paid $500K, $700K JUST to live in these towns & get the education for their children
WHEN THEY COULD HAVE VERY EASILY BOUGHT A Much Larger, Newer, More Impressive Looking Homes in many other towns ? Towns that had a Much Weaker school system .
That's the MINDSET of parents who VALUE EDUCATION above else.
I know all this. And it's insanely stupid on their part. The bottom line is that, if you took a group of children from a town with a "good, not great" high school in these rankings - say Toms River or Manasquan or Wall Twp. - and only focused only on the scores of those children whose parents have college degrees and/or grad degrees and compared this group of students to the overall student body in Millburn, the scores/results would probably be nearly identical.
My point? It's silly to buy the crappiest house in Millburn for "the education" when your child will probably perform just as well in ANY school district (save places like Newark, Trenton, etc.). It's about the parents, the family and the emphasis on education FAR more than any school district. The thing with Millburn and most other wealthy communities is that nearly ALL of the children UNIFORMLY fit into this category. The education is hardly different - the student body is! When there are no "working class" people in your ENTIRE town, the school will reflect this. My advice to people is to pick where you want to live - North Jersey, South Jersey, Shore Area, Skylands region, and live your life. Your child will do as well in school (and in life) as you and they want.
As for me, I went to a private high school where one of the requirements to graduate was to be accepted into at least one accredited 4-year college. I went to college and now am on the hair of finishing my first masters degree in Public Policy (no wonder I love these political threads so much!). Would I have an issue sending my future child someday to an "average" high school like Toms River, Southern Regional, Manasquan, Wall, etc.? Nope, not one bit. Because they'll be over-educated and prepared for life in this messed-up-priorities world just like I am!
Elaine - I can answer that I went to Boston College (which last I checked was "New Ivy League" or at least Top 50) and I am one of the people who will tell you that the AVERAGE college education is overrated. My school has opened up many doors for me. When I lost my job do to the economy (worked for a small "green economy" startup that fell on hard times) it was my network of business colleagues and fellow graduates that I fell back on to get a job.
However, that level of education is rapidly being priced out of reach for the vast majority outside of receiving scholarships. In my case, even though my three children all receive some "legacy" points on their application (and some tuition allowance) they will simply not be able to attend BC without assistance. The education that cost me about $130k will cost them about $300k+ by the time they will attend.
Barring attending a top 50 school or a top 10 school for your field, the rest are rather...generic. You will get a degree and you will pay $30k, $40k, $50k, $100k for it. It will qualify you to get an entry level job. While I don't feel that a college education is a waste, it can be depending on what you ultimately want to do with your life.
I think this is Brady's angle and the one that I take as well. We are constantly pushing kids to go on to a four year school where many will spend tens of thousands of dollars on an education that qualifies them for nothing. Our education system and even now many employers are embracing the college degree as the only path to success. I strongly disagree with that belief, despite having received a very good education. If anything we should be encouraging kids to explore all their options including trade schools and not make parents feel like failures if they don't mortgage their homes to send their kid to college.
Like you've said, barring a top tier school, you will end up with a rather plain degree. However, we continually encourage kids to go on to college despite that it is not ideal for all or a definitive means to a better life. At one point we considered home ownership to be a necessity and we see where that got us recently. We are now forcing a "higher education bubble" as far as I can tell.
So, yes, education is valuable and parents are well informed to put their kids in the best situation they can to succeed. However, the vast majority are not going to be attending a top 50 school and in that case you really need to think hard about the field you are going into and what you need to do to prepare for it. Look at the rankings formula NJ Monthly used and you can see that they emphasis is placed on a 4 year school. I would argue that our education system needs to take a real hard look at what it is pushing for before we end up with a society that requires a 4 year degree to be a cashier at Wal*Mart.
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.
but there was a healthy balance of deep educational conversations growing up. That was huge for them.
