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.
For one, start with grades and courses taken. It's perfectly clear at the college level that the best predictor of freshman success at any school is a combination of the test result (SAT or ACT for college) and grades/course selection. IMO the same is true for high schools. And please don't tell me all 8th graders in the city have the same curriculum at the same level of rigor. That is just not true and we all know it. The saying among school counselors is that tests measure your smarts, but grades measure your work ethic. Rely on only the test and you're only getting half the picture.
Yes, I would certainly look at outside outside academic honors/awards/competitions, whether science or humanities based. They can be signs of a dedication, hard work, and smarts, though I understand that it could help middle class kids more than poor ones. And remember that the specialized high schools, even Bronx Science and Stuyvesant, have regularly produced a fair number of talented non-science luminaries: Eric Holder and Thelonius Monk went to Stuyvesant, E.L. Doctorow and Richard Price to Bronx Science, Eric Adams and Leonard Riggio (founder Barnes & Noble) went to Tech. And those are just off the top of my head. TI'm sure that there are others. Those schools are far from just science guys and have been for a long time.
Teacher recs. Yep. Teachers know these kids the best, sometimes better than their own parents do. And these recs can be standardized to make them comparable across the city. And each school would track the recs over the years, so it could easily see if some teacher (or entire school) was wildly inaccurate in assessing a kid.
The devil is in the details. How would you weight all these factors? (And maybe others beside) That would make a big difference. Moving away from a single admissions test, one-size-fits-all admissions system would take years and have to be done carefully. (And will probably only be done under a judge's order I'd guess, even though IIRC only the original specialized high schools are under Hecht-Calandra.)
Why do you assume that Holder, Monk, Doctorow and other luminaries did not exhibit superior aptitude in math and science, like there are two distinct disciplines? Adam Smith and Keynes were outstanding philosophers and mathematicians. When these people you talk about applied to the SHSes, they showed they were ready to handle the rigorous science-based curriculum.
You can try to throw in as many criteria as you want but in the end, the admissions executives will boil down the decision to readiness to handle advanced math and science courses. Which demographics are likely to BOTH take advanced elementary/middle school math and science courses and get high grades at the same time, join science olympiads, and more importantly, have parents who can help them with the coursework when they struggle? When you end up with the same outcome, then what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylove101
And while you cannot consider race in admissions to these schools, you can consider socioeconomic status, and should. Should a kid from a poor tough neighborhood and background be granted an edge in admissions if his/her test scores are, for example, 3% lower that what kids from better off parts of the city? I'd argue yes. City of Chicago has an interesting way of determining socioeconomic status by putting every neighborhood in the city into one of four "tiers" according to stuff like parents' education, home ownership, single parenthood, et, etc, they they use that as one of the inputs for admissions.
But see, NYC attracts a lot of destitute Asians as well, as OyCrumbler will confirm with you. And they live in tough neighborhoods, but are very well capable of getting high test scores. Again, same outcome.
There's no way to rig the admissions process without putting a race quota.
Last edited by Forest_Hills_Daddy; 03-24-2017 at 03:43 PM..
That is an interesting study, NYer23. But it's a fail. It simulates admissions with NONE of the variables I mentioned.
I would never use attendance or state test scores as an admissions measure, and didn't mention that I would. Attendance is irrelevant, to my way of thinking, and the state tests are all too simple to indicate an aptitude for advanced level high schools. (In that regard I do favor continuing to use the SHSAT). And I very specifically said grades AND course selection. We all know that every "A" is not created equal. So please read what I wrote and don't create a straw man argument.
You miss the point entirely about Chicago. It is not about how many Asians live there. It is that more African-American and Hispanic students proportionately are in the top schools because of how they are chosen. And even at that, that share is far less than total population of these groups in the city. But it's still better than what we have here.
'...rationalize your racism, and desire to put one race over another.." That is more than ridiculous, and says far more about you than me.
You miss the point entirely about Chicago. It is not about how many Asians live there. It is that more African-American and Hispanic students proportionately are in the top schools because of how they are chosen. And even at that, that share is far less than total population of these groups in the city. But it's still better than what we have here.
The article that started this thread was about ways to change the admissions criteria to benefit students of color. Now that it has become clear that there is no way to change the outcome without creating an explicit quota for race, you want to to get rid of these schools altogether (ie, "we can't compete, let's ban the game")? Look at the different regular public schools outside of SHS that have accelerated math and science programs. In most part the programs are still comprised of majority Asians and Eastern Europeans. Same thing for AP calculus AB/BC, AP Physics, AP Chemistry. Should all these programs including AP be terminated because poor blacks, hispanics and whites do not avail of them?
I graduated from two Ivy League schools, so Ondont know where you get this we can't compete. I compete just fine.
With that said I see no benefit from supporting the specialized public schools, and long before I posted this link my overall attitude towards public schools in NYC and NYS is clear. I hope Trump is able to get a voucher system in place that guts them, and that includes the specialized high schools.
I would be happy if the kids went to religious private schools, and like DeVos Ibwould eliminate the certification process for teachers, the common core, and the standardized tests aside from the SAT.
I would be happy the department of education was abolished both federally and locally.
I graduated from two Ivy League schools, so Ondont know where you get this we can't compete. I compete just fine.
With that said I see no benefit from supporting the specialized public schools, and long before I posted this link my overall attitude towards public schools in NYC and NYS is clear. I hope Trump is able to get a voucher system in place that guts them, and that includes the specialized high schools.
I would be happy if the kids went to religious private schools, and like DeVos Ibwould eliminate the certification process for teachers, the common core, and the standardized tests aside from the SAT.
I would be happy the department of education was abolished both federally and locally.
Did you graduate from a science high school? How were your college grades in optimization, stochastic processes, linear programming, and game theory?
Did you graduate from a science high school? How were your college grades in optimization, stochastic processes, linear programming, and game theory?
I had little interest in science, I'm much more into the humanities. And I believe education should be controlled by communities, not by bureaucracies. I think that would be to the benefit of children of all races. By the way, the testing regime? As a former teacher I can tell you teachers hate having to teach according to tests as it makes the curriculum boring for both teacher and student. And they hate the insane bureaucracy that is quite to get a job in what is basically a low paying profession.
So yes gut teacher certification, these common core lead tests, and education departments.
I had little interest in science, I'm much more into the humanities. And I believe education should be controlled by communities, not by bureaucracies. I think that would be to the benefit of children of all races. By the way, the testing regime? As a former teacher I can tell you teachers hate having to teach according to tests as it makes the curriculum boring for both teacher and student. And they hate the insane bureaucracy that is quite to get a job in what is basically a low paying profession.
So yes gut teacher certification, these common core lead tests, and education departments.
The specialized high schools follow a math and science based curriculum. As such, it is inherently heavy on exams/tests and graded projects. There is no other way to make it less boring. The purpose is to prepare its graduates for science and engineering studies in college (albeit not all go on to major in STEM disciplines) where the curricula is structured the same way. In the suburbs, kids who want to major in engineering in college take accelerated math and science tracks beginning 7th grade and culminating in AP calculus AB/BC, AP Physics, AP chemistry etc. In both cases the selection processes use criteria that answers the same simple question - Is this student prepared to take rigorous math and science courses? However one tries to restructure the selection criteria in any objective way, the same final outcome will be reached.
The specialized high schools follow a math and science based curriculum. As such, it is inherently heavy on exams/tests and graded projects. There is no other way to make it less boring. The purpose is to prepare its graduates for science and engineering studies in college (albeit not all go on to major in STEM disciplines) where the curricula is structured the same way. In the suburbs, kids who want to major in engineering in college take accelerated math and science tracks beginning 7th grade and culminating in AP calculus AB/BC, AP Physics, AP chemistry etc. In both cases the selection processes use criteria that answers the same simple question - Is this student prepared to take rigorous math and science courses? However one tries to restructure the selection criteria in any objective way, the same final outcome will be reached.
Agree! STEM majors are very very hard. Even those have aptitude in math and science. Most of them will not survive the extreme intensity of college level engineering, physic, chemistry, biology and math courses in college. Even they study 24 hours a day in college.
These specialized high schools are here for a reason. It prepares kids to take STEM majors in college. So they can survive. I won't imagine if the city cancel those specialized high schools. Probably none of the NYC public high school kids will major in STEM anymore when they attend college because they simply can't survive the intensities in college. Even they pass the courses probably due to grade curves. Most likely their grade is very low like GPA 2.0. No ones will hire them.
I heard 90% of John Hopkins University pre-med students can't survive the intensities and fail in their junior year. They have to change their major to English or other liberal arts.
STEM are not like English or sociology or other liberal arts. It requires enormous amount of time to study and understand when they are young. If kids don't do it in elementary, junior high school and high school, they will be living in hell if they suddenly decide to major it in college.
The specialized high schools follow a math and science based curriculum. As such, it is inherently heavy on exams/tests and graded projects. There is no other way to make it less boring. The purpose is to prepare its graduates for science and engineering studies in college (albeit not all go on to major in STEM disciplines) where the curricula is structured the same way. In the suburbs, kids who want to major in engineering in college take accelerated math and science tracks beginning 7th grade and culminating in AP calculus AB/BC, AP Physics, AP chemistry etc. In both cases the selection processes use criteria that answers the same simple question - Is this student prepared to take rigorous math and science courses? However one tries to restructure the selection criteria in any objective way, the same final outcome will be reached.
You do realize the NAACP and I am talking about two different things. They'd rather reform the admissions practices of these schools. I'd rather abolish them altogether.
I have no problem with people getting basic level of education, but you're wanting public schools to become defacing trade schools for certain companies. Fine. Get rid of all taxpayer involvement and let the companies pay for these schools. No one who actually works in a class room thinks this is a good system, and we all know it's garbage. K-12 isn't a technical training institute.
Life would go on after these schools are shut down, and there are plenty of people across the country who have become engineering and science majors without attending these schools. Keep in mind though I am a fan of dismantling public education as we know it.
Agree! STEM majors are very very hard. Even those have aptitude in math and science. Most of them will not survive the extreme intensity of college level engineering, physic, chemistry, biology and math courses in college. Even they study 24 hours a day in college.
These specialized high schools are here for a reason. It prepares kids to take STEM majors in college. So they can survive. I won't imagine if the city cancel those specialized high schools. Probably none of the NYC public high school kids will major in STEM anymore when they attend college because they simply can't survive the intensities in college. Even they pass the courses probably due to grade curves. Most likely their grade is very low like GPA 2.0. No ones will hire them.
I heard 90% of John Hopkins University pre-med students can't survive the intensities and fail in their junior year. They have to change their major to English or other liberal arts.
STEM are not like English or sociology or other liberal arts. It requires enormous amount of time to study and understand when they are young. If kids don't do it in elementary, junior high school and high school, they will be living in hell if they suddenly decide to major it in college.
None of this is really the problem or concern of the rest of the society. One reason why so many kids drop out is working class people often don't know that many professions beyond doctor or nurse. As students become more aware of the options to them, they explore other fields suited to them. Not everyone can work in a STEM field or wants to.
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.
